Three arrests over cyclist death

AndyManc

A warning to us all but in particular Manchester bikers.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7740727.stm

I believe there was an incident a few months ago in the same area where a cyclist was deliberately driven at and knocked off, suffering serious injuries.

mrchrispy

feck me, my neck of the woods.

drivers round here are all pretty sh1te, i'll put money on them not having a license/insurance. the sooner the roll out more ANPR the better.

fonty1978

I don't actually commute into town i go from Failsworth towards Oldham every day, but a colleague of mine who used to commute down that very road said it gets very narrow and is a fast road.
Even on my commute you have to have eyes in the back of your head to anticipate some drivers actions [not all though!!]

spen666

Interesting quote from the link in the OP

Three men were arrested at the scene on suspicion of failing to stop at the scene of a collision.

Makes one wonder how they were arrested at the scene if they had failed to stop there?

Had they left and then returned?

Or could it be just lazy journalism

sturmey

.They left the scene then returned, np doubt with some c*ck and bull story about who was driving.
The car was apparently 'going very fast' according to witnesses.

AndyManc

This is because I really, very sincerely, do not want to be killed in a traffic accident. Such a banal way to go, so tediously modern. Better to die at your desk. Better to fall off a cliff. Better to be lost at sea. Better, even, to be slaughtered, like the machine-gunner, in a hail of bullets on some foreign field. I would also like, while I'm alive, to be free to enjoy my harmless, pollution-free, environmentally responsible means of transport in safety. I would like to be free to breathe air unfouled by exhaust, to gaze at the city's many beautiful statues. And free not to have to irritate you, dear motorist, by repeatedly pointing out these self-evident truths.



(John Ryle - Surviving Autogeddon)

sturmey

Hopefully the family can now have some peace:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manc ... 459802.stm

il_principe

sturmey wrote:

My brother lives nearby.They left the scene then returned, np doubt with some c*ck and bull story about who was driving.
The car was apparently 'going very fast' according to witnesses.

2.5 years for killing someone as a result of dangerous driving, and he fled the scene. 2.5 Years! It's disgraceful... he's driving ban is double that of his prison sentence. Sickening.

dilemna

Il Principe wrote:

sturmey wrote:

My brother lives nearby.They left the scene then returned, np doubt with some c*ck and bull story about who was driving.
The car was apparently 'going very fast' according to witnesses.

2.5 years for killing someone as a result of dangerous driving, and he fled the scene. 2.5 Years! It's disgraceful... he's driving ban is double that of his prison sentence. Sickening.

Yep. A bad week indeed, in which the RR sport driver who killed a cyclist and seriously injured another succeeded in her fainting defence and appears to have kept her driving license.

Wallace1492

dilemna wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

sturmey wrote:

My brother lives nearby.They left the scene then returned, np doubt with some c*ck and bull story about who was driving.
The car was apparently 'going very fast' according to witnesses.

2.5 years for killing someone as a result of dangerous driving, and he fled the scene. 2.5 Years! It's disgraceful... he's driving ban is double that of his prison sentence. Sickening.

Yep. A bad week indeed, in which the RR sport driver who killed a cyclist and seriously injured another succeeded in her fainting defence and appears to have kept her driving license.

2.5 years is terrible for deliberate dangerous driving. Should be life ban and longer sentence.

Perhaps the RR driver did faint....

shouldbeinbed

Il Principe wrote:

sturmey wrote:

My brother lives nearby.They left the scene then returned, np doubt with some c*ck and bull story about who was driving.
The car was apparently 'going very fast' according to witnesses.

2.5 years for killing someone as a result of dangerous driving, and he fled the scene. 2.5 Years! It's disgraceful... he's driving ban is double that of his prison sentence. Sickening.

I wonder if it's concurrent or if he'll serve a portion of his ban sat in his cell unable to drive anyway.

I don't understand why killing someone in this way doesn't automatically revoke your licence for life.


I guess they'd argue it will only increase the illegals on the road with no tax or insurance and be more liable to drive off.

sturmey

Let's step aside from the question of race if possible.

The fact remains that his sentence was par for the course probably made more lenient by the fact that he pleaded guilty.
Dangerous drivers,it is argued, do not set out with the intention of killing someone- that is merely the consequence of their actions. And this has always been reflected in short, seemingly inadequate, prison sentences.

BUT the law changed in 2003 and now the maximum sentence has been increased to 14 years.
Quite what you have to do to go away for that length of time I'm not sure.

But this guy was disqualified and fled the scene. I think there is a good case for saying he could have gone away for a lot longer.

shouldbeinbed

sturmey wrote:

Let's step aside from the question of race if possible.

?????????????????????? what question of race, you're the only one thats mentioned it.

Edit: or have I just bitten on a Troll?

antfly

It looks like some serious censorship has just occurred without any explanation. It`s probably just as well. He`s not a troll anyway.

il_principe

sturmey wrote:

Let's step aside from the question of race if possible.

The fact remains that his sentence was par for the course probably made more lenient by the fact that he pleaded guilty.
Dangerous drivers,it is argued, do not set out with the intention of killing someone- that is merely the consequence of their actions. And this has always been reflected in short, seemingly inadequate, prison sentences.

BUT the law changed in 2003 and now the maximum sentence has been increased to 14 years.
Quite what you have to do to go away for that length of time I'm not sure.

But this guy was disqualified and fled the scene. I think there is a good case for saying he could have gone away for a lot longer.

The law is an ass here.

Dangerous drivers,it is argued, do not set out with the intention of killing someone- that is merely the consequence of their actions.

There was a news report from the States (I think) the other day. A child was killed by a stray bullet from an AK, they think someone had fired it in to the air at a wedding and it ended up killing this kid. The gunman wasn't trying to kill him but he did - in my eyes you fire the gun, you accept the consequences, you wilfully drive dangerously and kill someone - well that's manslaughter and should result in a stiffer punishment...

Edit: News Story: http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Marquel-Peters-Stray-Bullet-Kills-Boy-Three-Miles-Away-In-Decatur-Church-Near-Atlanta-Georgia/Article/201001115513798

If I ever want to kill someone* then I'll just run them over and take the short prison term. If I shot them in the face I'd end up with a far longer sentence it seems...

*not that I would of course, ahem.

Wallace1492

shouldbeinbed wrote:

sturmey wrote:

Let's step aside from the question of race if possible.

?????????????????????? what question of race, you're the only one thats mentioned it.

Edit: or have I just bitten on a Troll?

The offending posts have been removed. Only race is the race home on the bike

bails87

shouldbeinbed wrote:

sturmey wrote:

Let's step aside from the question of race if possible.

?????????????????????? what question of race, you're the only one thats mentioned it.

Edit: or have I just bitten on a Troll?

Several posts have vanished. One of which where someone said something like "Why is it always *a certain group*". And then a couple asking for some kind of evidence. They were all before Sturmey's post.

Wallace1492

Il Principe wrote:

sturmey wrote:

Let's step aside from the question of race if possible.

The fact remains that his sentence was par for the course probably made more lenient by the fact that he pleaded guilty.
Dangerous drivers,it is argued, do not set out with the intention of killing someone- that is merely the consequence of their actions. And this has always been reflected in short, seemingly inadequate, prison sentences.

BUT the law changed in 2003 and now the maximum sentence has been increased to 14 years.
Quite what you have to do to go away for that length of time I'm not sure.

But this guy was disqualified and fled the scene. I think there is a good case for saying he could have gone away for a lot longer.

The law is an ass here.

Dangerous drivers,it is argued, do not set out with the intention of killing someone- that is merely the consequence of their actions.

There was a news report from the States (I think) the other day. A child was killed by a stray bullet from an AK, they think someone had fired it in to the air at a wedding and it ended up killing this kid. The gunman wasn't trying to kill him but he did - in my eyes you fire the gun, you accept the consequences, you wilfully drive dangerously and kill someone - well that's manslaughter and should result in a stiffer punishment...

Edit: News Story: http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Marquel-Peters-Stray-Bullet-Kills-Boy-Three-Miles-Away-In-Decatur-Church-Near-Atlanta-Georgia/Article/201001115513798

If I ever want to kill someone* then I'll just run them over and take the short prison term. If I shot them in the face I'd end up with a far longer sentence it seems...

*not that I would of course, ahem.

Driving dangerously can cause death, that is a given. Therefore if you are driving dangerously then you should be sentenced stiffer. There is a school of thought that the sentence should reflect the potenial outcome rather than the actual outcome. Therefore sentences for dangerous driving should reflect the potential for killing and be increased, not as in this case it is reduced as the death was a consequence of the offence.

shouldbeinbed

bails87 wrote:

shouldbeinbed wrote:

sturmey wrote:

Let's step aside from the question of race if possible.

?????????????????????? what question of race, you're the only one thats mentioned it.

Edit: or have I just bitten on a Troll?

Several posts have vanished. One of which where someone said something like "Why is it always *a certain group*". And then a couple asking for some kind of evidence. They were all before Sturmey's post.

fair do's. Apologies sturmey.

quick modding I've been dipping in and out regularly.

Specialized Needs

Wallace1492 wrote:

dilemna wrote:

Yep. A bad week indeed, in which the RR sport driver who killed a cyclist and seriously injured another succeeded in her fainting defence and appears to have kept her driving license.

2.5 years is terrible for deliberate dangerous driving. Should be life ban and longer sentence.

Perhaps the RR driver did faint....

Sorry to drift away from the original incident of the thread, but in respect of the Range Rover incident, as I understand it, the case was dropped. As a result it was never put to a jury to decide whether she (the RR driver) did faint due to a previously unknown-to-her medical condition just before driving into the deceased and her husband.

If it was dropped before it could be tested before a jury, then I am somewhat shocked.

The Chingford Skinhead

dilemna wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

sturmey wrote:

My brother lives nearby.They left the scene then returned, np doubt with some c*ck and bull story about who was driving.
The car was apparently 'going very fast' according to witnesses.

2.5 years for killing someone as a result of dangerous driving, and he fled the scene. 2.5 Years! It's disgraceful... he's driving ban is double that of his prison sentence. Sickening.

Yep. A bad week indeed, in which the RR sport driver who killed a cyclist and seriously injured another succeeded in her fainting defence and appears to have kept her driving license.

If the RR driver did "faint" then keeping her licence is bizarre. If you have an fit/siesure you are banned from driving for two years. If you have more than one fit then you cannot drive. If you are prone to fainting then surely the same rule should apply?