Blimey the CPS have actually charged and convicted someone for Death by Dangerous Driving after they killed a cyclist.

According to the BikeRadar article the CPS actively pushed for the dangerous driving charge, rather than their usual approach of accepting the lesser Careless Driving charge.

One off or are they finally getting the message that killing people with cars is bad, even if they are just cyclists?

http://www.bikeradar.com/road/news/article/distracted-driver-who-killed-cyclist-convicted–37981/

I doubt it Graham. No doubt there will be a big fuss about what a lovely person the driver is, he/she had every right to drive like an utter idiot and how their life will be affected with such a conviction blah blah.

It’s the war on motorists gone mad!

Meanwhile a succession of dead people who up until recently rode about on a bike, lie dead on the street.

I sincerely believe that some rigid diligence needs to be applied to pursuing appropriate levels of sentencing for dangerous driving. Some things that happen on the 5roads are after all, actually real accidents. In this case though, 18 SECONDS with your eyes off the road while piloting a ton and a half of metal is an appalling lack of concern and care from the driver and in this case, I wholeheartedly agree with the charge. 18 seconds isn’t careless, it’s downright negligence.

Samuri – can you give me an example of what you would consider to be an accident?

To be honest I don’t think a jail term is all that useful.

Clearly she didn’t plan to kill anyone and I strongly doubt that “I better not fiddle with my satnav because I might kill someone and get sent to jail” is a more effective deterrent (for a normal functioning person) than just “I better not fiddle with my satnav because I might kill someone”

But, why oh why is the maximum driving ban only 2 years even for dangerous driving??

She has demonstrated she can’t be trusted behind the wheel – so why give her another chance?

Typical “driving is a basic human right” attitude of our car-obsessed society.

Samuri – can you give me an example of what you would consider to be an accident?

Please don’t. It would be a shame for this to turn into a STW Driving Gods bun fight.

lets wait and see what the sentence is.

GrahamS – “minimum”

****aduck. Finally.

But, why oh why is the maximum driving ban only 2 years even for dangerous driving??

says minimum on the link at the moment.

In this case though, 18 SECONDS with your eyes off the road while piloting a ton and a half of metal is an appalling lack of concern and care from the driver and in this case, I wholeheartedly agree with the charge. 18 seconds isn’t careless, it’s downright negligence.

18 seconds was a balls up by the forensic analyst. It assumed the cyclist wasn’t travelling at any speed at all. If he’d been doing 20mph, he might have been in sight for over 50 seconds.

But, why oh why is the maximum driving ban only 2 years even for dangerous driving??

Its not the maximum. It is the minimum. There is actually no maximum period for a ban for any driving offence where disqualification can apply.

But, why oh why is the maximum driving ban only 2 years even for dangerous driving??

On the bikeradar article it says minimum ban 2 years.. which sounds more like it

I stand corrected 😳 – minimum 2 years makes more sense, though I can’t see why she should be allowed to drive again ever.

Samuri – can you give me an example of what you would consider to be an accident?

Brakes failing, tyre puncturing, having a heart attack. Things that cannot readily be attributed to human error.

So mechanical failure and ill health. Not really accidents are they. 😉

Gluption – putting the murdering bint away for a decent stretch just might make others think harder before monkeying with a mobile or satnav while careering along in a one ton metal box.

dave360 – with any luck yes.

So mechanical failure and ill health. Not really accidents are they.

My definition of an ‘accident’ is something that happens out of the blue, couldn’t have reasonably been predicted, and therefore couldn’t have reasonably been prevented.

Anything else is negligence/human error.

If you have a puncture, lose control and then drive over someone, that’s an accident isn’t it? Likewise your brakes fail or you lose control through health reasons. You must accept that real accidents do happen.

These are just quick examples but there are lots of issues, whether single of a series of unfortunate events that lead up to real accidents.

18 seconds was a balls up by the forensic analyst. It assumed the cyclist wasn’t travelling at any speed at all. If he’d been doing 20mph, he might have been in sight for over 50 seconds.

Yeah from the coverage in The Metro it seems to be based on 500 metres at 60mph = 18.64secs

But in the Get Reading article it says she was doing “40 to 50mph”.

I would imagine that Mr Hilson, an experienced cyclist, was probably doing at least ~20mph.

So really it is 500 metres at (50mph – 20mph), which is 37 seconds.

That is a ridiculous length of time to not be watching the road ahead!

More from the CTC on this case:
http://www.ctc.org.uk/news/driver-who-killed-anthony-hilson-convicted-of-causing-his-death-dangerous-driving

They seem to agree with me that jail terms aren’t really much use as a deterrent.

CTC say that

CTC does not think that imposing custodial sentences on drivers who cause death is the ideal solution, as in most cases they only present a danger to the public when behind the wheel of a car

True, but a jail sentence has a deterrent effect on the bad drivers who have haven’t killed anyone yet. If jailing dangerous drivers who kill cyclists saves a handful of other lives it is well worth it.

Taking the logic of the CTC that a long ban is better than jail we wouldn’t jail anyone. It also assumes that banned drivers don’t drive.

A short jail sentence followed by a very long ban is the way to go.

Not sure if it was on here or road.c.c but someone said the cps have been given new guidelines increasing the likely hood they press for dangerous rather than careless driving.

18 seconds isn’t careless, it’s downright negligence.

It’s the other way around in law – careless driving is worse than negligent driving, which is why it has a criminal penalty.

True, but a jail sentence has a deterrent effect on the bad drivers who have haven’t killed anyone yet.

I don’t agree. I’m not convinced threat of jail is an effective deterrent.

No one thinks “Well I would go out, drive dangerously and kill someone, but I’ve heard they are jailing people now so I won’t”

Short jail and permanent ban given how serious it was – they must have not looked at the road for ages
In general jail and a very very long ban

This happened just round the corner from me. At the time, I could not understand how the hell it happened. It was an open stretch on the A4 with a slight left hand bend and a slight downhill. It’s fast on a bike say 20 mph, top 20’s pushing it on a road bike. Cyclists go up and down there *all* the time – she would have known this as she also lives round the corner, and must have driven that route many times? Driving between Maidenhead and Twyford on the A4 (~5 miles), as I do every day, I would normally expect to overtake 5 bikes.

It’s so scary to think there’s people out there as stupid as this.

Condolences to his family, I understand he leaves two children behind.

it was here, direction towards the road sign

Note the slight left hand bend – I don’t like those on a bike….

quote – No one thinks “Well I would go out, drive dangerously and kill someone, but I’ve heard they are jailing people now so I won’t” – end quote

what the hell kind of statement is that?

No one thinks “Well I would go out, rob / rape/ mug and kill someone, but I’ve heard they are jailing people now so I won’t”

?

isn’t that the whole idea? much more than a punishment, the potential loss of liberty surely acts as a deterrent …no?

am i being naive?

Article from Independent

This is worth a read. Simon Usborne is a fanny, this much is known. The article is very sympathetic to the driver. The article is quite strangely written, it swivels between sympathising with the driver and pointing out how shocking the driving was. It doesn’t seem to really get it. Driving is a serious business, take it seriously or end up like this woman.

I don’t agree. I’m not convinced threat of jail is an effective deterrent.

It needs to be made clear that bad driving that causes death is an almost certain jail sentence. Along with a publicity campaign. Stiff punishments combined with publicity drastically reduced drink driving.

I think many people think it isn’t people like them that go to jail. And by and large it isn’t – most of the jail population are repeat offenders. If Mr and Mrs average were shown people like them using their handheld or satnav, killing someone and then sharing a cell with a typical prisoner it might just make a bit of difference.

probably just an example of how the justice system and the courts treat women who offend more harshly than men?

what the hell kind of statement is that?
No one thinks “Well I would go out, rob / rape/ mug and kill someone, but I’ve heard they are jailing people now so I won’t”

They do, because those are mostly premeditated crimes. The consequences can be considered. The possibility of jail is the main deterrent to those who would otherwise commit them.

Whereas with Death by Dangerous Driving, it’s not a premeditated thing. This woman didn’t plan to go out and kill someone in her car. She didn’t even plan to drive dangerously. She just planned to drive to her mate’s baby shower. The crime came from poor awareness, poor driving skills and poor appreciation of how quickly it can go wrong and of her responsibilities on the road. It didn’t come from criminal intent.

When I slow down as I pass a school I do it because I’m worried for the safety of schoolchildren, not because I’m worried about going to jail. Isn’t that true for most folk?

If Mr and Mrs average were shown people like them using their handheld or satnav, killing someone and then sharing a cell with a typical prisoner it might just make a bit of difference.

It might. Or you could show them the first bit then the resulting fallout: living with constant guilt, facing the other family, losing their license and quite possibly their job, having to explain it to their kids, being ostracised in their community etc

Think of the drink-drive advert with the guy doing the voices of the judge, his boss and his wife. Or the one with the dead children haunting the car drivers.

That’s more effective than the possibility of a jail term.

I don’t agree. I’m not convinced threat of jail is an effective deterrent.

Do you think that about all crimes or just careless driving?

I’m inclined to agree that it is all a bit unclear whether imprisonment serves as a deterrant generally speaking. But if imprisonment is ever a deterrent, it’s more likely to be effective on crimes like careless driving than it is for drug use or something (I think).

Edit: you’ve posted again and it answers my question, and fair enough, but you also say:

It didn’t come from criminal intent.

I don’t think that’s necessarily relevant. The crime of careless driving is about a lack of (pre)meditation about what the driver is doing, so obviously there’s no criminal intent – it hasn’t even crossed their mind! Victorian mill owners didn’t particularly intend for child weavers’ fingers to be snipped off by dangerous machinery either. But at some point there is a degree of carelessness is that is so awful that it’s appropriate to imprison someone for it, and that imprisonment should be used to send a message to “the community” along the lines of “hey, dickhead! ffs focus for a second and pay attention to what you’re doing or you might end up in prison!”.

Edit: as an aside, the CPS guidelines on this are worth reading: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_offences_guidance_on_prosecuting_cases_of_bad_driving/

Do you think that about all crimes or just careless driving?

I think it is effective for most crime, particularly premeditated crime.

I don’t think it is effective for what could perhaps be called accidental crime.

Interesting to read the comments from Brian Dorling’s widow on this road.cc story by the way:

…Brian Dorling’s widow Debbie did not want him jailed.

“You can see he’s remorseful and see that he’s haunted. He is a broken man, said Debbie Dorling. “Putting him in prison is not going to achieve anything.”

“I am appalled by the vitriolic tone to many of these comments I cannot believe that so many opinionated people who are not aware of the facts can be quite so nasty. We met Mr Cox yesterday, my 16 year old daughter told him she didn’t hate him because he didn’t mean to kill her dad, my son made his peace and I do not hate. We are human we have the ability to rise above and see the bigger picture, well some of us do. My family and I have been through hell and back; Mr Cox is living a constant hell and I would like to hold out my hand and ask him to help RoadPeace along with me promote the “See me Save Me” campaign..”

konabunny – Member

But if imprisonment is ever a deterrent, it’s more likely to be effective on crimes like careless driving than it is for drug use or something

Got to agree with GrahamS here, people aren’t going around knocking down cyclists because they think the sentence will be light. Nobody wants to crash into someone, except in crazily irrational situations and the thing about those is, they’re crazily irrational.

STW never ceases to amaze!

anotherstan I don’t know if you are being niave, intentionally confrontational or just a bit slow. However I’m hoping I am nowhere near you driving if you need a long custodial sentence to deter you from killing me.

Article from Independent

This is worth a read. Simon Usborne is a fanny, this much is known. The article is very sympathetic to the driver. The article is quite strangely written, it swivels between sympathising with the driver and pointing out how shocking the driving was. It doesn’t seem to really get it.

Did you also read the linked article about the woman who knocked of Wiggo? Both are basically articles attempting to legitimise the “could have been me” attitude – getting rid of that attitude is exactly why draconian penalties are needed for motoring offences like this. Apparently it’s quite easy to fail to spot a cyclist even if you look properly 🙄 I note that in the Wiggo article he describes himself as “a dedicated road cyclist” – is that the usual anti-cyclist journo shorthand for “I own a bike”, or does he actually ride more than once a year?