Lorry driver killed cyclist, threw bike into undergrowth.

Zachariah

Well I don't know about any legal issues, but one upshot of this thread is that from now on I will always, always wait far behind lorries at any junction.

spen666

number9 wrote:

Remember the Rhyl Cycling Club, four of whose members were mown down by Robert Harris on the A457 in January 2006?

Harris skidded on black ice while travelling at 50mph, causing what can only be described as carnage: three men, includ ing the club's chairman and a 14-year-old boy, were declared dead at the scene. Harris was fined £180 for having bald tyres, and given six penalty points on his licence. That's one and a half penalty points per person killed - not a sign of a legal system that takes innocent deaths on the road terribly seriously.

I have two proposals.


First, every motorist who kills should receive a lifetime driving ban, with no exceptions under any circumstances.

In the example you gave, the accident was not held to be thr drivers fault. You are therefore proposing to punish an innocent ( in the eyes of the law) person. Surely we should be looking at convicting people before punishing them or are you in favour of punishing people unless they can prove themselves innocent

I should express a personal interest here, both as a cyclist and asa motrist. Many years ago driving a car, I was involved in an accident when a child ran into the road and into the side of my car. He hit me, not the other way round. Fortunately he was relatively unhurt, but if he had fallen differently, he could have died. Under your proposal I would be banned from driving for life.

This despite the fact the child and his parents ( for failing to supervise) were to blame and indeed paid compensdation for the damage to the car.

That would neither be fair nor would it do anything to improve road safety

It would also be illegal and contrary to the Geneva Convention on Human rights to have punishment without guilt

The right to life must take precedence over the right to drive. That Robert Harris was free to walk out of the magistrates' court and get straight back into his car after killing four people is an insult to the memory of his victims. Lifetime driving bans would force motorists to be more careful, as well as take the most dangerous drivers off the road.

Second.

British law - which currently favours motorists - should be altered in line with the Continental system, where a driver who hits a cyclist is presumed guilty unless proven innocent.

Once again you are confusing civil and criminal law.

Your previous point dealt with criminal law. This must be a civil law point . Do you understand the difference?

We must lift the culture of impunity, and force motorists to acknowledge that possession of a dangerous weapon requires extreme caution and diligence

No, we are talking re punishmwents and criminal offences again.

You are making no sense in trying to merge two different sytems with different foundations, purposes and rules.

Can you decide if you want to discuss civil or ciminal matters? It is impossible to have adebate with you when you keep changing the grounds of the debate

. Once the terror of the car recedes, people might again begin to venture on to our streets on foot and by bike. The reality of car culture promoted by the likes of Top Gear is not high-performance thrills in glamorous cars, but a wilting bunch of flowers by a busy roadside.


http://www.newstatesman.com/environment ... erous-road

number9

Changing theinnocent untuil proven guilty in criminal proceedings is a retrograde step for us all, except the powers that be.

Once again, the move relates only to civil claims. For the umpteenth time, it has NOTHING to do with criminal law.

You are confusing both in your post here

If I had mentioned Criminal Law you'd be right. I didn't, you aren't.

In western Europe only Cyprus, Malta, Ireland and Great Britain have not adopted this law change. How the presumption works varies from country to country, e.g. in some places, the entitlement to compensation is automatic if the person injured is a child, or an older person. However in most cases the pedestrian or cyclist forfeits their entitlement to compensation if it is clear that they did something irresponsible or illegal. Yet the coverage of the proposal in the press was complete rubbish and stated that a suicidal drunk drugged cyclist could smash into your car and then sue you.

number9

In the example you gave, the accident was not held to be thr drivers fault.

Nope, the cops mucked up the investigation from beginning to end, declared the motorist innocent before the investigation had even begun and delayed the legal process so that justice was denied.

. Under your proposal I would be banned from driving for life.

No, you would not. Straw man.

Once again you are confusing civil and criminal law.

Once again, it has nothing to do with criminal law. Straw man.

BikingBernie

Since the fundamental necessity on the roads is to restore respect for human life, the laws must be strengthened in this direction. In all other directions, a broad yet clear distinction is drawn between acts causing fatal and non-fatal injuries, and this principle, necessary not only in itself in establishing the sanctity of human life but in inducing the necessary degree of care or restraint, must be restored in relation to the motor slaughter. So far, the motor propagandists have obscured the issue through the argument that the severity of the injuries in a road accident is itself largely accidental and that it is therefore unfair to judge the driver by this standard. Of course, except to a slight and uncertain degree, this is untrue, but, in any sense, the principle is not affected by exceptional cases. The aim of the motor propagandists has been not to emphasize the seriousness of all road smashes but merely to minimise those with fatal results and in this way to create an alibi for the more dangerous types of drivers. Especially, fatal accidents resulting from infractions of the speed limit must involve the charge of manslaughter.

...The "less" offence of "careless driving"- introduced On the insistence of the motor interests to provide a part-escape for offenders- should be abolished: in the existing circumstances careless driving is of course always also dangerous driving...

From Murder Most Foul: a study of the road deaths problem by J.S. Dean (1947).

spen666

number9 wrote:

. Under your proposal I would be banned from driving for life.

No, you would not. Straw man.

Erm yes I would as you said anyone who killed and if child had died I would have killed.
Or is this anyone, no exceptions etc not actually that at all?

number9

When the Governent took the crime of killing with your car out of "Criminal Law" and put it into a "Special Category of its own". It intitiated the beginning of the end for Justice for the innocent victims who are kiiled on our roads.

There are 3,500 deaths on our roads each year.

That equates to a 9/11 every year or 12 plane loads of holdiay makers. Yet fewer than 300 of the drivers responsible for the deaths are charged with more than "Careless Driving" and so their cases are not heard in Crown Court where the sentence can be as high as 14 years imprisonment.

yoohoo999

Spen, I would do yourself a favour and save your fingers the exercise.

I established about 8 pages ago that those with the grand ideas of changing the legal system have absolutely no legal background whatsoever.

It's wasted breath, you can't argue with someone that doesn't have even a basic understanding of law.

Come to the darkside Spen (commerical law ), I promise you you'll never have to talk law to another member of the public again!

spen666

number9 wrote:

Once again you are confusing civil and criminal law.

Once again, it has nothing to do with criminal law. Straw man.

Banning people fromdriving for life is a punishment of thecriminal courts, so how can you suggest it is not criminal law.

The civil courts cannot punish and cannot ban you from driving for life.

Do you understand the difference between criminal and civil law? It seems you don't and as a result any good points you make are lost in the confusion and contradictions surrounding your contradictions over whether you are talking about a criminal law or civil law issue.

number9

The Magistrates must not take it into account that the driver has caused a death and the details of the victim are not even recorded in the Courts records. It is as if the victim never existed. In the case of Robert Harris. Not one penalty point or £1 of his fine was for the killing of those innocent people. In the eyes of the Law they were of no consequence. (see legal guidelines for the CPS http//cps.gov.uk/legal/section9/chapter_b.html)

spen666

number9 wrote:

When the Governent took the crime of killing with your car out of "Criminal Law" and put it into a "Special Category of its own". It intitiated the beginning of the end for Justice for the innocent victims who are kiiled on our roads.

There are 3,500 deaths on our roads each year.

That equates to a 9/11 every year or 12 plane loads of holdiay makers. Yet fewer than 300 of the drivers responsible for the deaths are charged with more than "Careless Driving" and so their cases are not heard in Crown Court where the sentence can be as high as 14 years imprisonment.

Would that be the special category that is tried in the criminal courts and upon conviction is given a punishment by the criminal courts.

That wouldbe thecategory of offences that are investigated by the police, unlike say criminal cases which are not investigated however badly by the police

spen666

number9 wrote:

When the Governent took the crime of killing with your car out of "Criminal Law" and put it into a "Special Category of its own". It intitiated the beginning of the end for Justice for the innocent victims who are kiiled on our roads.

There are 3,500 deaths on our roads each year.

That equates to a 9/11 every year or 12 plane loads of holdiay makers. Yet fewer than 300 of the drivers responsible for the deaths are charged with more than "Careless Driving" and so their cases are not heard in Crown Court where the sentence can be as high as 14 years imprisonment.

Would that be the special category that is tried in the criminal courts and upon conviction is given a punishment by the criminal courts.

That wouldbe thecategory of offences that are investigated by the police, unlike say criminal cases which are not investigated however badly by the police

yoohoo999

number9 wrote:

The Magistrates must not take it into account that the driver has caused a death and the details of the victim are not even recorded in the Courts records. It is as if the victim never existed. In the case of Robert Harris. Not one penalty point or £1 of his fine was for the killing of those innocent people. In the eyes of the Law they were of no consequence. (see legal guidelines for the CPS http//cps.gov.uk/legal/section9/chapter_b.html)

what bearing does a victims identity have on criminal justice?

If living, the victim is nothing more than witness.

You are confusing justice with a memorial service.

number9

spen666 wrote:

number9 wrote:

Once again you are confusing civil and criminal law.

Once again, it has nothing to do with criminal law. Straw man.

Banning people fromdriving for life is a punishment of thecriminal courts, so how can you suggest it is not criminal law.

The civil courts cannot punish and cannot ban you from driving for life.

Do you understand the difference between criminal and civil law? It seems you don't and as a result any good points you make are lost in the confusion and contradictions surrounding your contradictions over whether you are talking about a criminal law or civil law issue.

1/

The proposal has nothing to do with criminal law.

2/

Banning people from driving is not a civil matter.

3/

The proposal (that deals with CIVIL law, remember) is divorced from and seperate to my own idea of mandatory bans for killer drivers.

4/

Supporting a change in liability effecting civil cases AND life bans for killer drivers are not mutually exclusive.

5/

Try to think of it like this: I support a change in the liability laws in civil cases AND life bans for killer drivers. To understand my position you have to rememeber these two things at the same time, two seperate, unconnected concepts.

spen666

number9 wrote:

The Magistrates must not take it into account that the driver has caused a death and the details of the victim are not even recorded in the Courts records. It is as if the victim never existed. In the case of Robert Harris. Not one penalty point or £1 of his fine was for the killing of those innocent people. In the eyes of the Law they were of no consequence. (see legal guidelines for the CPS http//cps.gov.uk/legal/section9/chapter_b.html)

FFS Robert Harris was not convicted of any offence in relation to the death of the 4 cyclists.

Strangely enough, you have to be convicted of causing the death of someone before you can be punished for it.

Its this rather strange principle of being innocent unttil proven guilty




You may dislike the police investigation, but you can't say that despite the fact the driver has not been charged with an offence relating to the death of those 4 people, we will punish him for it anyway.

number9

you can't say that despite the fact the driver has not been charged with an offence relating to the death of those 4 people, we will punish him for it anyway.

You're right. I can't. What's more, I haven't. Straw man.

Harris was declared innocent at the scene, before the wreckage had even been cleared or the vehicle examined.


The jury ruled out accidental death and returned a narrative verdict.

Marking the end of an emotional and dramatic three-week hearing at Abergele, north-east Wales coroner John Hughes said:

"The evidence shows classic signs that Robert Harris was driving without due care and attention and to his credit he admitted his responsibility in going too fast.

"I fail to understand why no proceedings were brought against him."




http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/north_east/6246140.stm



RoadPeace agreed and said Harris could have been charged with driving
without due care and attention in relation to the bald tyres.


"Such charges, however, must be laid down within six months of an
accident but the police failed to announce the tyres were defective
until 26 weeks after the crash, by which time it was too late, Miss
Aeron-Thomas said. "

gabriel959

yoohoo999 wrote:

Spen, I would do yourself a favour and save your fingers the exercise.

I established about 8 pages ago that those with the grand ideas of changing the legal system have absolutely no legal background whatsoever.

It's wasted breath, you can't argue with someone that doesn't have even a basic understanding of law.

Come to the darkside Spen (commerical law ), I promise you you'll never have to talk law to another member of the public again!

:roll:

Wallace1492

Confused. Are we discussing civil or crimnal law? Seems to be a bit of both....

Anyway, I think you two are argueing both sides of the same coin. Just how to move forward.

1. It is obvious that breaking the law in a car is not punished heavily enough.
2. Where faulty driving has been shown to be cause of the accident, again the punishments are paltry.
3. Where a driver has been proved to have been responsible for a death, yes, they should have a lifetime ban from driving in addition to any other sentence (but note, they must be responsible)
4. Driving bans are not nearly given out as much as they should.

gabriel959

Wallace1492 wrote:

Confused. Are we discussing civil or crimnal law? Seems to be a bit of both....

Anyway, I think you two are argueing both sides of the same coin. Just how to move forward.

1. It is obvious that breaking the law in a car is not punished heavily enough.
2. Where faulty driving has been shown to be cause of the accident, again the punishments are paltry.
3. Where a driver has been proved to have been responsible for a death, yes, they should have a lifetime ban from driving in addition to any other sentence (but note, they must be responsible)
4. Driving bans are not nearly given out as much as they should.

+1

PBo

The right to life must take precedence over the right to drive.

Now that is a great statement that all debate should start from. I would imagine that despite all the arguing on this thread, that underlying sentiment would unite most....driving is a right, not a privilege

....but clearly we all have very different ideas about how that is implemented!

Now, i'm actually more incensed by this case, than by stubbs, really.

with stubbs - from the limited evidence we have on this forum - it's his behaviour after the incident which is really appalling - we honestly can't say what happened or what he knew just before the collision.

but in the above case there was a key difference - the deliberate act of driving on bald tyres. i don't know what the weather forecast was, whether the black ice was expeced, or whether 50 was appropriate for the conditions. however, the drivers deliberate act of being on those tyres contributed to the accident and is unforgiveable.

as for no exceptions to a driving ban, i'm uncomfortable. I see where you are coming from, if you mean those found guilty (you weren't explicit) - but given that your stance is that basically the legal system doesn't find enough drivers guilty I'm assuming you mean all cases - can you clarify? If not ignore the next bit.....because i can imagine that in a small number of instances, external factors would be the cause - a blow out, a mechanical failure in a car serviced/moted to schedule. These could be proved by expert examination of the car, so couldn't just be used as a get out for all comers.

spen666

Wallace1492 wrote:

Confused. Are we discussing civil or crimnal law? Seems to be a bit of both....

Anyway, I think you two are argueing both sides of the same coin. Just how to move forward.

1. It is obvious that breaking the law in a car is not punished heavily enough.
2. Where faulty driving has been shown to be cause of the accident, again the punishments are paltry.
3. Where a driver has been proved to have been responsible for a death, yes, they should have a lifetime ban from driving in addition to any other sentence (but note, they must be responsible)
4. Driving bans are not nearly given out as much as they should.

i'd agree apart from 3.

This is nota sensible approach at all. A minor bump that results in someone falling to ground and hitting head and dying- would result in a lifetime ban, but driving at 100mph in a residential area and leaving10 people paralysed and brain damaged wouldn't.

The ban must reflect the action of the driver, not the consequences.

We GENERALLY punish people for their actions not the consequences

number9

Blow outs and mechanical failures account for a tiny proportion of road fatalities. Yes, I would say a life ban for any driver involved in a road fatality where culpability is established.

The lorry driver that killed Emma Foa did not even get a ban despite admitting shuffling paperwork at the wheel. As far as I know, he's still trundling around London. Chilling.

gabriel959

spen666 wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

Confused. Are we discussing civil or crimnal law? Seems to be a bit of both....

Anyway, I think you two are argueing both sides of the same coin. Just how to move forward.

1. It is obvious that breaking the law in a car is not punished heavily enough.
2. Where faulty driving has been shown to be cause of the accident, again the punishments are paltry.
3. Where a driver has been proved to have been responsible for a death, yes, they should have a lifetime ban from driving in addition to any other sentence (but note, they must be responsible)
4. Driving bans are not nearly given out as much as they should.

i'd agree apart from 3.

This is nota sensible approach at all. A minor bump that results in someone falling to ground and hitting head and dying- would result in a lifetime ban, but driving at 100mph in a residential area and leaving10 people paralysed and brain damaged wouldn't.

The ban must reflect the action of the driver, not the consequences.

We GENERALLY punish people for their actions not the consequences

The thing is that seeing who things go in this country with the law and all the driver of the second case will probably get 2 years driving band and 1 year in prison probably reduced because that's the way things work over here.

greg66_tri_v2.0

spen, chapeau for weathering this. I'd have gone bonkers long ago.

A tip though: you (or indeed anyone else) will never change the mind of a foaming-at-the-mouth fanatic. Even through the dizzyingly persuasive medium of an internet forum.

As I once read, a long time ago: Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, and then they beat you with experience.

number9

gabriel959 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

Confused. Are we discussing civil or crimnal law? Seems to be a bit of both....

Anyway, I think you two are argueing both sides of the same coin. Just how to move forward.

1. It is obvious that breaking the law in a car is not punished heavily enough.
2. Where faulty driving has been shown to be cause of the accident, again the punishments are paltry.
3. Where a driver has been proved to have been responsible for a death, yes, they should have a lifetime ban from driving in addition to any other sentence (but note, they must be responsible)
4. Driving bans are not nearly given out as much as they should.

i'd agree apart from 3.

This is nota sensible approach at all. A minor bump that results in someone falling to ground and hitting head and dying- would result in a lifetime ban, but driving at 100mph in a residential area and leaving10 people paralysed and brain damaged wouldn't.

The ban must reflect the action of the driver, not the consequences.

We GENERALLY punish people for their actions not the consequences

The thing is that seeing who things go in this country with the law and all the driver of the second case will probably get 2 years driving band and 1 year in prison probably reduced because that's the way things work over here.

A driver sideswiped a cyclist and killed him. In court, she argued that a driving ban would cause hardship and was not banned. I thought imposing hardship was the whole point of driving bans?

Generally the law deals ineffectively with dangerous drivers. When a pair of joyriding killers can walk free laughingly from court because each has declared that the other had been driving then the law is an ass.

bails87

number9 wrote:

gabriel959 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

Confused. Are we discussing civil or crimnal law? Seems to be a bit of both....

Anyway, I think you two are argueing both sides of the same coin. Just how to move forward.

1. It is obvious that breaking the law in a car is not punished heavily enough.
2. Where faulty driving has been shown to be cause of the accident, again the punishments are paltry.
3. Where a driver has been proved to have been responsible for a death, yes, they should have a lifetime ban from driving in addition to any other sentence (but note, they must be responsible)
4. Driving bans are not nearly given out as much as they should.

i'd agree apart from 3.

This is nota sensible approach at all. A minor bump that results in someone falling to ground and hitting head and dying- would result in a lifetime ban, but driving at 100mph in a residential area and leaving10 people paralysed and brain damaged wouldn't.

The ban must reflect the action of the driver, not the consequences.

We GENERALLY punish people for their actions not the consequences

The thing is that seeing who things go in this country with the law and all the driver of the second case will probably get 2 years driving band and 1 year in prison probably reduced because that's the way things work over here.

A driver sideswiped a cyclist and killed him. In court, she argued that a driving ban would cause hardship and was not banned. I thought imposing hardship was the whole point of driving bans?

Generally the law deals ineffectively with dangerous drivers. When a pair of joyriding killers can walk free laughingly from court because each has declared that the other had been driving then the law is an ass.

But only one was driving, so only one commited the offence. You can't punish the innocent one, and as you can't prove which one was guilty, they both get treated as innocent. Beyond reasonable doubt......innocent until proven guilty......yada yada...

yoohoo999

Greg66 wrote:

spen, chapeau for weathering this. I'd have gone bonkers long ago.

A tip though: you (or indeed anyone else) will never change the mind of a foaming-at-the-mouth fanatic. Even through the dizzyingly persuasive medium of an internet forum.

As I once read, a long time ago: Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level, and then they beat you with experience.

+1

although sanity appears to be gathering momentum now as less emotional people are joining the debate.

number9

bails87 wrote:

number9 wrote:

gabriel959 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

Confused. Are we discussing civil or crimnal law? Seems to be a bit of both....

Anyway, I think you two are argueing both sides of the same coin. Just how to move forward.

1. It is obvious that breaking the law in a car is not punished heavily enough.
2. Where faulty driving has been shown to be cause of the accident, again the punishments are paltry.
3. Where a driver has been proved to have been responsible for a death, yes, they should have a lifetime ban from driving in addition to any other sentence (but note, they must be responsible)
4. Driving bans are not nearly given out as much as they should.

i'd agree apart from 3.

This is nota sensible approach at all. A minor bump that results in someone falling to ground and hitting head and dying- would result in a lifetime ban, but driving at 100mph in a residential area and leaving10 people paralysed and brain damaged wouldn't.

The ban must reflect the action of the driver, not the consequences.

We GENERALLY punish people for their actions not the consequences

The thing is that seeing who things go in this country with the law and all the driver of the second case will probably get 2 years driving band and 1 year in prison probably reduced because that's the way things work over here.

A driver sideswiped a cyclist and killed him. In court, she argued that a driving ban would cause hardship and was not banned. I thought imposing hardship was the whole point of driving bans?

Generally the law deals ineffectively with dangerous drivers. When a pair of joyriding killers can walk free laughingly from court because each has declared that the other had been driving then the law is an ass.

But only one was driving, so only one commited the offence. You can't punish the innocent one, and as you can't prove which one was guilty, they both get treated as innocent. Beyond reasonable doubt......innocent until proven guilty......yada yada...

One other proposal is adopting the French crime of, I think, "Failing to render assistance" so hit-and-runs are treated far more seriously.

Since a tenth of the cars on the roads in East London are uninsured, hit-and-runs are becoming more common.

Wallace1492

spen666 wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

Confused. Are we discussing civil or crimnal law? Seems to be a bit of both....

Anyway, I think you two are argueing both sides of the same coin. Just how to move forward.

1. It is obvious that breaking the law in a car is not punished heavily enough.
2. Where faulty driving has been shown to be cause of the accident, again the punishments are paltry.
3. Where a driver has been proved to have been responsible for a death, yes, they should have a lifetime ban from driving in addition to any other sentence (but note, they must be responsible)
4. Driving bans are not nearly given out as much as they should.

i'd agree apart from 3.

This is nota sensible approach at all. A minor bump that results in someone falling to ground and hitting head and dying- would result in a lifetime ban, but driving at 100mph in a residential area and leaving10 people paralysed and brain damaged wouldn't.

The ban must reflect the action of the driver, not the consequences.

We GENERALLY punish people for their actions not the consequences

Aye.... Agree that it is maybe not sensible, and a bit knee jerk, but what should be in place are harsher sentences where the consequences are more serious. For example, in the cases of other taking of life, the consequences are taken into account. If a punch in the face just smashes someones nose, then it is assault, if it causes a heommorage that leads to death then it is manslaughter or murder. Why is this not reflected in motoring cases.

number9

Why is this not reflected in motoring cases.



Drivers using their vehicles as weapons is not uncommon. They should be treated like this, guilty of Assault With A Deadly Weapon:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me ... 1131.story

Dr. Christopher Thompson, 60, slumped forward and held his face in his hands after the verdicts were announced in a courtroom packed mostly with supporters and cyclists.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Mary Stone, who prosecuted the case, asked for Thompson to be jailed immediately, calling him a flight risk and a safety threat to cyclists.

"There's not a cyclist in Los Angeles who would feel comfortable with this defendant out on the road after this verdict," Stone told the court.

[/quote]