Price for a cylist's life = £295

Tony666

How utterly ridiculous is this. The law in this country is a total ass. You kill some through careless driving and get a £295 fine and six points – not even a ban! Morons like this should be banned from driving for life! So Julie Martin, how does it feel to have killed someone and got off so lightly! How would you have felt if a careless driver had collided with your daughter and killed her. Would you think £295 and six points was justice? It’s about time the punishment fitted the crime.

A DRIVER involved in a collision that killed a cyclist has been ordered to pay £295 and was given six points on her licence.

Julie Martin, 50, of Manor Road, Benfleet, had been driving along Rawreth Lane, Rayleigh, with her 12-year-old daughter on October 27 last year, when she collided with cyclist Roger Beckley after turning right on to Priory Chase.

Mr Beckley, 56, of High Road, Hockley, had been cycling on the opposite side of the road. He died at the scene of the crash from head injuries.

Martin pleaded guilty to careless driving at Southend Magistrates' Court.

Full story: http://www.echo-news.co.uk/display.var. ... utag=43525

wastelander

Time to change the law to create some kind of specific 'death caused while driving' offence. methinks, or perhaps use the existing laws and introduce a mandatory manslaughter charge when acts of driving cause death?

ash68

Shocking,absolutly shocking!!!! Having said that, doesn't surprise me one bit.About time the law realised that motor vehicles are as dangerous as a loaded gun if not used properly.If she had stood in the road and shot Mr Beckley she would be looking at a long prison sentence,because she was in a car, oh well it's all right then. BOLLOCKS.Totally agree with Tony 666, make the punishment fit the crime,then motorists might concentrate on the road. Had same thing happen to me last year,but luckily I hit the front wing of the car and slid over the bonnet. Totally recked my bike etc . but I walked away with bruises and aches and pain.Car driver admitted it was his fault but no other motorists stopped to help or offer assistance. Police didn't want to know as no witnesses came forward.Managed to claim for new bike etc from drivers' insurance,but that is hardly the point is it. As a second point how many people are still using moblile phones when driving?Large percentage I would say. Can't remembner last time saw someone fined for doing so though.Thoughts go out to MR Beckley's family.

The BIG GT

I lived in Rayleigh for years and that stretch of road has a 30mph limit and is straight and open, so there seems to be even less excuse for her actions.

I think that the rest of the article reveals some interesting facts too...

She was "a former hospital staff nurse, had been unable to work since separating from her partner in 2004 and suffers from depression, anxiety and paranoia" so she was hardly the most stable person to be in charge of a vehicle.


"Deputy District Judge Roy Brown said: 'No one drives perfectly all the time, but the important point is endeavouring to do so. I have to sentence you for your culpability, for what you did wrong. A momentary lapse in concentration resulted in this dreadful accident. However, it's certainly not the worst case of careless driving I have seen.' "

This is a case of relativity, as 'really bad' driving is so weakly punished he had to give a lesser sentence. Those he regards as seriously careless should be banned for life and/or imprisoned so that these 'lesser' offences can be properly stamped on.


"Her licence was endorsed with six points, and as she had six penalty points, she was disqualified from driving for six months."

So she was already proven to be, at best, a sub-standard driver and at worst a killer-in-waiting.


I also agree with ASH68 about the mobile phone thing too. It seems more frequently professional drivers who are at fault here, usually driving larger vans and lorries, i.e. those vehicles that are more likely to cause death and damage when they do go out of control.
I can't see how any driver has an excuse when 99% of mobile phones are now hands-free compatible and the ear-pieces cost as little as £20.
It's just more vehicle driver arrogance and laziness.
.
.
.

richardjallen

What ever happened to 'man slaughter'? I understand there is even 'vehicular man slaughter'.

smeggy

I realise I’m about to get flamed for this:

I think it reasonable to conclude the driver had safely passed many cyclists going in the right direction, so what’s the difference in this case? The cyclist was on the wrong side of the road, going towards the oncoming car (how fast we don’t know), so significantly reducing the expected time and distance to impact. The lapse of concentration, or a pre-meditated diversion of attention (?), could have been planned on the basis that traffic isn’t oncoming on the wrong side of the road, which isn’t an unreasonable explanation. This may be the reason why she was found guilty only of careless driving, which of course carries a far lesser sentence than death by dangerous driving.

Dick Thomas should have said: “This demonstrates all drivers and cyclists must drive and ride with the utmost care and concentration at all times.”

ddraver

I agree with you smeggy - I don't think this is a fair example of cyclists v drivers (there are plenty others with similar outcomes when it was entirely the drivers fault!)

same as RLJing IMO

JustRidecp

considering what Big GT said about the road and the fact that the wifey was very remorsefull and admitted her guilt at the scene I think she must've been gassing it a bit and serenely breezed across the right turn without looking or paying attention. Even though the cyclist was on the wrong side of the road, which fair enough he shouldn't have been, you should still slow down and take a good look down the road when turning right. At the end of the day the boy's dead. To me it sounds that if there was a parked car where the cyclist was she probably would've ploughed into that too.

Mind you, this is just has I've interpreted the story and dont know the roads so could be completely wrong!!

Even so, she wouldn't be in court being prosecuted if she wasn't to blame.

smeggy

JustRidecp wrote:

and admitted her guilt at the scene

I don't think that's what the article said. She was remorseful and admitted to turning into the junction.

JustRidecp wrote:

To me it sounds that if there was a parked car where the cyclist was she probably would've ploughed into that too.

Considering the likely number of times she would have encountered such a situation, yet has come through unscathed, I would say that's stretching reason.

The driver was probably careless in that she acted (without checking) on what most would consider to be reasonable assumptions: that the cyclist wouldn't have put himself in such a very precarious position, certainly one where he couldn't take evasive action (for whatever reason). Unfortunately he paid the ultimate price for that error.

JustRidecp

smeggy wrote:

Considering the likely number of times she would have encountered such a situation, yet has come through unscathed, I would say that's stretching reason.

Aye fair enough smeggy. But could've been anything on the road. If it was a ped crossing the road, he'd have got nailed.

I think its luck that the driver had come unscathed through similar incidents. She already had 6 points on her license. You dont get that for nothing. The lassie sounds like a total liability behind the wheel. At least she's off the road for 6 months.

dsmiff

Where does it say in the article he was riding in the wrong direction? The article said he was on the opposite side of the road (as opposed to the side the woman coming from) – at least that is how I read it.

I think if he was travelling in the wrong direction it would have been clearly stated in the article.

top_bhoy

This may indeed have been a tragic incident, not accident, as it was avoidable but I tend to agree with Big GT in that her suffering from depression, anxiety and paranoia she was hardly the most stable person to be in charge of a vehicle. Given the huge increase in depression and stress related illnesses around today, giving a licence to such people is only asking for trouble IMO. Why can't temporary driving bans be put in place.until the illness is rectified?

JustRidecp

dsmiff wrote:

Where does it say in the article he was riding in the wrong direction? The article said he was on the opposite side of the road (as opposed to the side the woman coming from) – at least that is how I read it.

I think if he was travelling in the wrong direction it would have been clearly stated in the article.

I was thinking this. Only thing I can think of is that he might have been turning right and sitting to the right of the left lane and the driver cut the corner and hit him. I see cars doing this all the time.

smeggy

JustRidecp wrote:

Aye fair enough smeggy. But could've been anything on the road. If it was a ped crossing the road, he'd have got nailed.

That's my point, the ped would have been slow or stationary, conversely the cyclist could well have been oncoming at a fair rate of knots.

JustRidecp wrote:

She already had 6 points on her license. You dont get that for nothing.

I would disagree but we'll leave that for another thread

dsmiff wrote:

Where does it say in the article he was riding in the wrong direction? The article said he was on the opposite side of the road (as opposed to the side the woman coming from) – at least that is how I read it.

I think if he was travelling in the wrong direction it would have been clearly stated in the article.

I see your point, I could well have read it wrong; however, it should also have been clearly stated if the driver was on the wrong side of the road (as justride also described); also, would such a scenario result with a fatal? Not many would succeed taking a corner at 30.
I think we need more info before anyone can pass further comment (unfortunately I can't find any).

formerlyknownasbonj

If the cyclist was cycling on the wrong side of the road, then I think the sentence is unfair.
If the cyclist was cycling on the correct side of the road, then I think the sentence is unfair.

Anonymous

dsmiff wrote:

Where does it say in the article he was riding in the wrong direction? The article said he was on the opposite side of the road (as opposed to the side the woman coming from) – at least that is how I read it.

I think if he was travelling in the wrong direction it would have been clearly stated in the article.

That's how I read it too.

starseven

big jan ulle wrote:

dsmiff wrote:

Where does it say in the article he was riding in the wrong direction? The article said he was on the opposite side of the road (as opposed to the side the woman coming from) – at least that is how I read it.

I think if he was travelling in the wrong direction it would have been clearly stated in the article.

That's how I read it too.

Thats IS what the article said, the cyclist was on the opposite side of the road, the derranged women cut the corner and killed a bloke going about his business cycling correctly.
Those a bit too keen to blame him would probably do the same in their 4x4's with mtbs on the back.

Im also sure the poor lady is now recieving lots of sympathy and councilling.

Even if you accept that accidents happen, at the very least take here licence away for good!!!

Ferkin divorcees are a menace!, " Its Ms not Miss ollocks" theres usually a good reason the fella ran!!.

ddraver

well you re obviously a fine one to judge - given that i went for a ride on the MTB am i allowed to comment?!

Or shall i wait till i commute in tomorrow on the roadie

Obviuosly it makes a massive difference - prick!

JustRidecp

smeggy wrote:

JustRidecp wrote:

She already had 6 points on her license. You dont get that for nothing.

I would disagree but we'll leave that for another thread

Sorry mate but do you drive? What are you on about? If you get penalty points its your fault. Speeding - your fault. Bald tyres - your fault. Driving on the hard shoulder -your fault. Driving with a mobile - your fault.

If you drive responsibly there's no reason you should get endorsements on your license.

starseven

ddraver wrote:

well you re obviously a fine one to judge - given that i went for a ride on the MTB am i allowed to comment?!

Or shall i wait till i commute in tomorrow on the roadie

Obviuosly it makes a massive difference - prick!

So you cant read the article are ignorant and have jumped to conclusions. You go out of your way to blame a dead cyclists and a defend murdering car driver, but Im the prick!!!.

Proof if it was needed you are a 4x4 driver deluding yourself, is the Grand Cherokee forum a bit boring or are you just here for the Lycra??!

ddraver

rofl - mmmyes my nissan micra is definitly 4 wheel drive

i ve gone miles out of my way havent I really - writing on a forum and all, if you read my post properly you will see that i have taken issue at your assertion that becuase i own an MTB i am unfit to drive and thus am a murderer - yes that makes you a prick i'm afraid - grow up and get a life (bet you love Condor Cycles don't you :P )

for those with their heads slightly less far up their arses - if i read the article wrong and the cyclist was doing nothing wrong but was ploughed into by an over emotional woman who though she was too important to check both ways then my bad - maybe it was the power of sugestion reading smeggers' post that filled in the blank

i'm sure you ve also read my other post and realise that I am fully aware of the lack of fairness in all driving related punishments both cyclist and pedestrian - i only hope this woman feels like death and will never be the same again...there not much more i ca say on the subject, if i could i would have done my best to ensure the poor bloke had never died - MTBer or not

mea00csf

starseven wrote:

Those a bit too keen to blame him would probably do the same in their 4x4's with mtbs on the back.

I think it's that line that he has the problem with, as I do.

I ride road, i commute and i mountain bike and simply don't see what mtb's have got to do with anything. Are you saying that all mtb's would be on the side of the driver? erm, where the hell has that come from :?:

It makes it no less excusable that this was an undeliberate fatal incident. But if the driver in question was unfit to drive for reasons of mental health, is she really in a position to recognise she is unfit to drive? The choice probably should have been taken away from her indicating failings in the system or other people.

dsmiff

I didn't write that!!!! I think it was starseven, the quotey thing has gone a bit wrong!!!

The courts need to be setting an example here, I for one do not feel protected at all on my daily run to work, drivers attitudes need to change and this sentence just stinks.

mea00csf

No, it's prob just me, i didn't want to quote the entire post so hit quote then hacked it down so prob made a mess of the coding :roll: SORRY! I'll change it so you don't get falmed by mtb'ers :?

Sorted

starseven

mea00csf wrote:

starseven wrote:

Those a bit too keen to blame him would probably do the same in their 4x4's with mtbs on the back.

I think it's that line that he has the problem with, as I do.

I ride road, i commute and i mountain bike and simply don't see what mtb's have got to do with anything. Are you saying that all mtb's would be on the side of the driver? erm, where the hell has that come from :?:

The 4x4 with mtb's on the back reference was perfectly valid, 4x4 drivers are notoriously careless towards others , especially cyclists.

And why else would someone be both viewing this site and supporting a motorist who had killed a cyclist.

To clarify, 4x4 link to dangerous drivers, MTB link to this forum not the other way around , some are a little too defensive me thinks.

ddraver

because the line "Those a bit too keen to blame him would probably do the same in their 4x4's with mtbs on the back" really seperates the two doesnt it

Methinks someone is backpedalling furiously

(ha ha backpedalling on a cycling forum, ha ha)

Big Red S

starseven wrote:

And why else would someone be both viewing this site and supporting a motorist who had killed a cyclist.

Why would he neccesarily not support the motorist? Should the fact I'm on a forum about bikes mean that I can see no fault in anything cycling related? Or should I just have a seething hatred for all things motorised?

starseven

Big Red S wrote:

starseven wrote:

And why else would someone be both viewing this site and supporting a motorist who had killed a cyclist.

Why would he neccesarily not support the motorist? Should the fact I'm on a forum about bikes mean that I can see no fault in anything cycling related? Or should I just have a seething hatred for all things motorised?

Please don’t misquote me so you can attach some lame response.

As anyone can see from my quote I said " and supporting a motorist who had killed a cyclist" and you respond "why would he necessarily not support a motorist", omitting the "who killed a cyclist" from your response changes the context somewhat.

I have no problem with motorist per say, just those who kill cyclists or anyone else for that matter.

Interesting to see if anybody who can actually read is willing to support this cyclist murderer.

Big Red S

starseven wrote:

Big Red S wrote:

starseven wrote:

And why else would someone be both viewing this site and supporting a motorist who had killed a cyclist.

Why would he neccesarily not support the motorist? Should the fact I'm on a forum about bikes mean that I can see no fault in anything cycling related? Or should I just have a seething hatred for all things motorised?

Please don’t misquote me so you can attach some lame response.

The quote was verbatim. It's the entirety of a paragraph - it has, so far as I can see, no attached sentences to clarify what you meant. I don't really see that it is misquoted or even taken out of context. Especially given that anyone reading that post should really have already read the one I was quoting.

As anyone can see from my quote I said " and supporting a motorist who had killed a cyclist" and you respond "why would he necessarily not support a motorist", omitting the "who killed a cyclist" from your response changes the context somewhat.

OK. Why would he neccesarily not think there might have been reasons out of her control for this motorist to have killed the cyclist? I don't think he's supporting her, or her actions, just mentioning that this might not be all her fault, and she probably didn't set out to flatten a cyclist.
It's already been pointed out that she wasn't in the best position to decide for herself whether she should be allowed to drive. And I'm not sure it's unfair for her to have figured that since she's still allowed to drive, she probably could.

ddraver

starseven wrote:

Big Red S wrote:

starseven wrote:

And why else would someone be both viewing this site and supporting a motorist who had killed a cyclist.

Why would he neccesarily not support the motorist? Should the fact I'm on a forum about bikes mean that I can see no fault in anything cycling related? Or should I just have a seething hatred for all things motorised?

Please don’t misquote me so you can attach some lame response.

As anyone can see from my quote I said " and supporting a motorist who had killed a cyclist" and you respond "why would he necessarily not support a motorist", omitting the "who killed a cyclist" from your response changes the context somewhat.

I have no problem with motorist per say, just those who kill cyclists or anyone else for that matter.

Interesting to see if anybody who can actually read is willing to support this cyclist murderer.

Woah - smoke flying from starsevens BB as he backpedals for his life......

starseven

ddraver wrote:

starseven wrote:

Big Red S wrote:

starseven wrote:

And why else would someone be both viewing this site and supporting a motorist who had killed a cyclist.

Why would he neccesarily not support the motorist? Should the fact I'm on a forum about bikes mean that I can see no fault in anything cycling related? Or should I just have a seething hatred for all things motorised?

Please don’t misquote me so you can attach some lame response.

As anyone can see from my quote I said " and supporting a motorist who had killed a cyclist" and you respond "why would he necessarily not support a motorist", omitting the "who killed a cyclist" from your response changes the context somewhat.

I have no problem with motorist per say, just those who kill cyclists or anyone else for that matter.

Interesting to see if anybody who can actually read is willing to support this cyclist murderer.

Woah - smoke flying from starsevens BB as he backpedals for his life......

are still here. fool