Anatomy of a Crash

spen666

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8344025.stm

A sobering read

bigmat

Interesting, I'd just been looking at that myself. Goes to show it is n't a case of "us and them" with cyclists against the world.

Spen, do you reckon you could have got him off?!

Aguila

I've just read this too, a very good article. It's enough to make you not want to go on the road again but what can you do? That's no way to live is it. Besides there's also a story on our local news about a teenage girl who's had her leg amputated after being hit on the pavement by a van who then drove off without stopping.

In fact the stats for pedestrians on that map of road deaths was areal eye opener for me. They consistently way exceeded the cycling deaths for my area, how often do I worry about walking down the pavement?

navt

A poignant reminder to live everyday to its fullest without regret.

spen666

MatHammond wrote:

Interesting, I'd just been looking at that myself. Goes to show it is n't a case of "us and them" with cyclists against the world.

Spen, do you reckon you could have got him off?!

I get everyone off :evil:


Seriously, he was in difficulty as hewas over alcohol limit, that alone would prejudice jury against driver. I think it was on the face of it a strong case. Only possible defence I could see was to suggest motorcyclist was going too fast for conditions, but forensics would probably repel that- ie how far bike har travelled from impact etc

Was suprised to see driver got what is said to be maximum sentence.

bigmat

spen666 wrote:

MatHammond wrote:

Interesting, I'd just been looking at that myself. Goes to show it is n't a case of "us and them" with cyclists against the world.

Spen, do you reckon you could have got him off?!

I get everyone off :evil:


Seriously, he was in difficulty as hewas over alcohol limit, that alone would prejudice jury against driver. I think it was on the face of it a strong case. Only possible defence I could see was to suggest motorcyclist was going too fast for conditions, but forensics would probably repel that- ie how far bike har travelled from impact etc

Was suprised to see driver got what is said to be maximum sentence.

Hopefully they took into account how lenient the maximum sentence is / likelihood of him not even serving the whole sentence.

Its a worrying problem re the drink driving test - if you have 1 out of 3 tests at under 50mg, you can then presumably fanny around about the blood test for as long as possible and there'll be a good chance of you being under the limit by the time they get round to it. Not that you would be advising anybody of that option, I'm sure!

cjcp

God, that is sobering.

spen666

MatHammond wrote:

Hopefully they took into account how lenient the maximum sentence is / likelihood of him not even serving the whole sentence.

Its a worrying problem re the drink driving test - if you have 1 out of 3 tests at under 50mg, you can then presumably fanny around about the blood test for as long as possible and there'll be a good chance of you being under the limit by the time they get round to it. Not that you would be advising anybody of that option, I'm sure!

re sentence- they can't take into account what you suggest as parliament set the max penalties- to do as you suggest would be to challenge parliament. You normally get upto 1/3 off sentence for G plea. Clearly he fought the caseand got no discount.

The judge obviously thought case was at top end of seriousness. I think judge probably thought it was dangerous driving

Re the breath test procedure- police have this offto a fine art and don't allow delay. You are not even allowed to take legal advice before breath test to prevent delay

Seppy

What an awful and unnecessary tragedy , and two years is the maximum sentence?!?! My god we get things so wrong in this country!

lost_in_thought

Very sobering indeed.

My father was killed in a car accident about 20 years ago, and my mother maintains that one of the hardest parts was phoning around his family and hers (but especially his) to tell them what had happened.

Another of the hardest parts was the subsequent civil trial, 7 years of it no less, after it had been established that the other driver was at fault. He also died in the accident, which I suppose (although I recognise it's an awful, awful thing to say) was a comfort, as no sentence would ever have seemed harsh enough.

Poacher

@Aquila
The Nottingham case was a bit more complex than you stated. The white van hit a taxi, which mounted the pavement and hit the girl. You're right about the van driver leaving the scene of the collision, though - last seen heading for St Anns. Another life wrecked and no decent justice dispensed.

Aguila

Poacher wrote:

@Aquila
The Nottingham case was a bit more complex than you stated. The white van hit a taxi, which mounted the pavement and hit the girl. You're right about the van driver leaving the scene of the collision, though - last seen heading for St Anns. Another life wrecked and no decent justice dispensed.

I did know that but the additional detail of the taxi seemed of little relevance to the overall hit and run responsibility of the van.

The point I was trying to make was that few of us worry about getting killed or seriously injured whilst walking on the pavement, though statistically this is more likely than cycling apparently.

wgwarburton

Aguila wrote:

The point I was trying to make was that few of us worry about getting killed or seriously injured whilst walking on the pavement, though statistically this is more likely than cycling apparently.

Both are very unlikely. One of the great luxuries of living in the UK is that you are far more likely to die of "natural causes" than in an "accident" or as a result of violence.

Cheers,
W.

gabriel959

Absolutely awful.

I can’t work this afternoon after reading that. Be safe out there

OldSkoolKona

Excellent article, very hard hitting - puts the everyday trials and tribulations into context..

There was a similar article on Radio 4 several months ago, giving the human cost that the statistics and headlines don't..

spen666

WGWarburton wrote:

Aguila wrote:

The point I was trying to make was that few of us worry about getting killed or seriously injured whilst walking on the pavement, though statistically this is more likely than cycling apparently.

Both are very unlikely. One of the great luxuries of living in the UK is that you are far more likely to die of "natural causes" than in an "accident" or as a result of violence.

Cheers,
W.

unless you live in Hackney :twisted:

greg66_tri_v2.0

Sobering indeed.

Perhaps morbidly, I sometimes wonder to myself whether leaving the house in the morning will be the last anyone sees of me, or that I don't make it home one evening. It's a simple truth that we have no idea what's just around the corner. I sometimes have a similar thought when we're on a plane en famille, usually as we're about to head down the runway - if something happened, would we get out? Would some of us? If I had to choose which daughter to help, could I?

But as WGW points out, statistically, it's greatly more probable that something catastrophic won't happen, and that's usually how I shake myself out of these thoughts.

A similar, but more graphic and shorter incident is here. Put yourself in the seat of the driver of either of the two cars in the overtaking lane on the right hand carriageway.

MadammeMarie

I had just finished reading it before logging on here. It is a very sobering read. This kind of stuff should be read evet at schools, and at driving lessons.

As for the sentence, we need to have the law changed. Manslaughter for drivers who kill, minimum sentence 5 years, 10 if they were drunk and never ever to drive again. We have to start lobbying for that.

Aguila

MadammeMarie wrote:

I had just finished reading it before logging on here. It is a very sobering read. This kind of stuff should be read evet at schools, and at driving lessons.

As for the sentence, we need to have the law changed. Manslaughter for drivers who kill, minimum sentence 5 years, 10 if they were drunk and never ever to drive again. We have to start lobbying for that.

+1, totally agree, esp with the never drive again bit. I think that would actually be more of a deterrent to really terrible drivers than the prison time.

spen666

MadammeMarie wrote:

I had just finished reading it before logging on here. It is a very sobering read. This kind of stuff should be read evet at schools, and at driving lessons.

As for the sentence, we need to have the law changed. Manslaughter for drivers who kill, minimum sentence 5 years, 10 if they were drunk and never ever to drive again. We have to start lobbying for that.

Manslaughter is appropriate if the evidence supports it- it doesn't in 99.99999999999% of cases. Simply because someone dies does not make it manslaughter.

Where is the intent to kill or cause serious harm that is necessary for manslaughter?

Minimum sentences are not appropriate either as they do not take account of the circumstances of the case. Higher sentences and increased maximum sentences maybe, but minimum sentences are wrong in principle and end up being a waste oftime- like with the firearms cases where they are simply ignored by the courts

lost_in_thought

spen666 wrote:

Manslaughter is appropriate if the evidence supports it- it doesn't in 99.99999999999% of cases. Simply because someone dies does not make it manslaughter.

Where is the intent to kill or cause serious harm that is necessary for manslaughter?

Minimum sentences are not appropriate either as they do not take account of the circumstances of the case. Higher sentences and increased maximum sentences maybe, but minimum sentences are wrong in principle and end up being a waste oftime- like with the firearms cases where they are simply ignored by the courts

Agreed. The truth is that no sentence awarded to the guilty party is ever going to seem enough to compensate you for the loss of a loved one, so the sentence should be proportionate. I'd like to say proportionate to the intent, but that's probably a bit vague.

I also know someone who has killed a pedestrian while driving, the pedestrian in question was drunk as a skunk and stumbled onto a motorway sliproad, where my friend had no chance to avoid him.

Should my friend have been locked up for 5 years? I don't think so. Maybe you disagree.

greg66_tri_v2.0

lost_in_thought wrote:

Should my friend have been locked up for 5 years? I don't think so. Maybe you disagree.

Not even the teeniest bit from me.

OldSkoolKona

OldSkoolKona wrote:

There was a similar article on Radio 4 several months ago, giving the human cost that the statistics and headlines don't..

This was the broadcast Radio 4 did on the Anatomy of a Car Crash (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00f4ryn) - sadly no longer available on line.

Not sure if anyone heard it at the time, it was very similar (as I'm sure many of these cases are) and makes you feel for not only the families affected, but the professionals who deal with these incidents on a daily basis, some of them must be quite harrowing.

Stay safe out there.

Specialized Needs

Aguila wrote:

MadammeMarie wrote:

<snip>As for the sentence, we need to have the law changed. Manslaughter for drivers who kill, minimum sentence 5 years, 10 if they were drunk and never ever to drive again. We have to start lobbying for that.

+1, totally agree, esp with the never drive again bit. I think that would actually be more of a deterrent to really terrible drivers than the prison time.

I don't mean to sound flippant, but do you really think not having a licence will stop a lot of the 'really terrible drivers'? What is the current estimate for unlicenced drivers?

I don't know what the answer to this problem is, and my heart agrees with the sentiment of a permanent ban, but my head questions how realistic it is to expect any extreme sanction to work. If you remove person's chance of ever doing something again, like driving, then I think they will try to find (probably riskier) ways around it.

spen666

OldSkoolKona wrote:

OldSkoolKona wrote:

There was a similar article on Radio 4 several months ago, giving the human cost that the statistics and headlines don't..

This was the broadcast Radio 4 did on the Anatomy of a Car Crash (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00f4ryn) - sadly no longer available on line.

Not sure if anyone heard it at the time, it was very similar (as I'm sure many of these cases are) and makes you feel for not only the families affected, but the professionals who deal with these incidents on a daily basis, some of them must be quite harrowing.

Stay safe out there.

It isonline at the link I gave in opening post or here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8414665.stm

W1

Specialized Needs wrote:

Aguila wrote:

MadammeMarie wrote:

<snip>As for the sentence, we need to have the law changed. Manslaughter for drivers who kill, minimum sentence 5 years, 10 if they were drunk and never ever to drive again. We have to start lobbying for that.

+1, totally agree, esp with the never drive again bit. I think that would actually be more of a deterrent to really terrible drivers than the prison time.

I don't mean to sound flippant, but do you really think not having a licence will stop a lot of the 'really terrible drivers'? What is the current estimate for unlicenced drivers?

I don't know what the answer to this problem is, and my heart agrees with the sentiment of a permanent ban, but my head questions how realistic it is to expect any extreme sanction to work. If you remove person's chance of ever doing something again, like driving, then I think they will try to find (probably riskier) ways around it.

And, on another point, I'm not sure that many driving "accidents" could be deterred by much stiffer penalties. Very few drivers intend to have accidents or deliberately use their cars to harm others (and, on a seperate note, those who do should be much more harshly punished in my opinon). The "deterrent" for me is much less the prison time or driving ban (however long that might be) and much more the thought of having someone's death on your concious for the rest of your life. The criminal penalty would, in my opinion, pale into insignificance compared to that life-long punishment.

I would hope - though obviously this isn't the case for everyone - that a driver will take care not because they might go to prison, but because they might kill someone. Increasing the prison time would (should?) therefore be irrelevant. Perhaps that is the message to get accross, and will be a much much more effective deterrant than jail time, which is not only expensive but serves little benefit except to avenge the death or injury of the victim (i.e. locking someone up who isn't likely to re-offend has no "protecting the public" justification) and re-balance the scales of justice.

phil s

The article has made me very sad, and subsequently very angry. Justice is a sick joke in this country. No family should ever have to be put through this because of some pi$sed-up @rsehole's recklessness. I sincerely hope Shaun's death weighs heavily on his soul.

MadammeMarie

spen666 wrote:

Manslaughter is appropriate if the evidence supports it- it doesn't in 99.99999999999% of cases. Simply because someone dies does not make it manslaughter.

Where is the intent to kill or cause serious harm that is necessary for manslaughter?

Isn't manslaughter killing w/o intent?

OldSkoolKona

spen666 wrote:

OldSkoolKona wrote:

OldSkoolKona wrote:

There was a similar article on Radio 4 several months ago, giving the human cost that the statistics and headlines don't..

This was the broadcast Radio 4 did on the Anatomy of a Car Crash (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00f4ryn) - sadly no longer available on line.

Not sure if anyone heard it at the time, it was very similar (as I'm sure many of these cases are) and makes you feel for not only the families affected, but the professionals who deal with these incidents on a daily basis, some of them must be quite harrowing.

Stay safe out there.

It isonline at the link I gave in opening post or here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8414665.stm

The Radio 4 program was on a different incident - in that case it was a young female driver, inexperienced, who crashed into another car after overtaking on a blind summit. It was a sobering program, particularly from the perspective of the driver and I think if more young drivers heard her story as well as that of the victims, they might think twice about driving the way they do.

prawny

I was thinking about this last night. What amazes me that the van driver was stopped to make a phone call, obviously didn't want to break the law/risk a crash but quite happy to have a fair few bevvies before driving. I though drink driving was meant to be socially unnaceptable.

So sad, I don't think I'll pester the wife for a motorbike for a while

CiB

prawny wrote:

I was thinking about this last night. What amazes me that the van driver was stopped to make a phone call, obviously didn't want to break the law/risk a crash but quite happy to have a fair few bevvies before driving. I though drink driving was meant to be socially unnaceptable.(

If you're driving when you suspect [or know] that you are over the limit, the last thing you want to do is to give the law a reason to pull you in, so pulling in to make the call is entirely logical. Sadly if the WVM had been true to stereotype the accident wouldn't have happened, not there anyway.