Forum home Commuter cycling forum Commuting chat

Pregnant woman spared jail for killing cyclist

«1

Posts

  • PorgyPorgy Posts: 4,558
    Funny - no mention of helmets. the Daily Hate is slipping.
  • bigmatbigmat Posts: 5,111
    That's disgraceful. Sounds like she was probably p***ed. Oh well, at least we won't have to worry about her behind the wheel for a whole 18 months.
  • zaneszanes Posts: 563
    The judge said the only sentence he could pass was a custodial one with guidelines indicating the appropriate term of 24 weeks for a guilty plea.

    :shock:
  • asprillaasprilla Posts: 8,440
    24 weeks for killing somone and fleeing the scene of the accident?

    :shock:
    Mud - Genesis Vapour CCX
    Race - Fuji Norcom Straight
    Sun - Cervelo R3
    Winter / Commute - Dolan ADX
  • dilemnadilemna Posts: 2,187
    asprilla wrote:
    24 weeks for killing somone and fleeing the scene of the accident?

    :shock:

    It's pathetic isn't it. The Law IS an ar$e.

    She was pi55ed and she knew it, leaving the scene of an accident where she knew she likely killed some one. What a f*cking b1tch. She should rot in jail for a long time, sprog or no sprog. The sentence is a disgrace. Sorry for the intemperate rant but I am so angry reading this. The Government on the one hand is promoting cycling, but on the other doesn't give a censored about the safety of cyclists by not making the penalties for drivers who bully, intimdate or run down cyclists much more strict. The cyclist's family must be furious with the verdict.
    Life is like a roll of toilet paper; long and useful, but always ends at the wrong moment. Anon.
    Think how stupid the average person is.......
    half of them are even more stupid than you first thought.
  • Eau RougeEau Rouge Posts: 1,118
    dilemna wrote:
    The Government on the one hand is promoting cycling, but on the other doesn't give a censored about the safety of cyclists by not making the penalties for drivers who bully, intimdate or run down cyclists much more strict. The cyclist's family must be furious with the verdict.

    Lets be very clear here. This is NOTHING to do with the fact she hit a cyclist. This level of sentencing is run-of-the-mill for any driver convicted of death by careless driving, no matter if the person who dies was a cyclist, a pedestrian, a passenger in a car or another driver. There is no "it's only a cyclist" agenda
  • dilemnadilemna Posts: 2,187
    Eau Rouge wrote:
    dilemna wrote:
    The Government on the one hand is promoting cycling, but on the other doesn't give a censored about the safety of cyclists by not making the penalties for drivers who bully, intimdate or run down cyclists much more strict. The cyclist's family must be furious with the verdict.

    Lets be very clear here. This is NOTHING to do with the fact she hit a cyclist. This level of sentencing is run-of-the-mill for any driver convicted of death by careless driving, no matter if the person who dies was a cyclist, a pedestrian, a passenger in a car or another driver. There is no "it's only a cyclist" agenda

    You sure about that?
    Life is like a roll of toilet paper; long and useful, but always ends at the wrong moment. Anon.
    Think how stupid the average person is.......
    half of them are even more stupid than you first thought.
  • PorgyPorgy Posts: 4,558
    If the police ever try to stop me for being drunk on a bicycle, I now know what my strategy will be... run off and hide for a couple of days.
  • PorgyPorgy Posts: 4,558
    Eau Rouge wrote:
    dilemna wrote:
    The Government on the one hand is promoting cycling, but on the other doesn't give a censored about the safety of cyclists by not making the penalties for drivers who bully, intimdate or run down cyclists much more strict. The cyclist's family must be furious with the verdict.

    Lets be very clear here. This is NOTHING to do with the fact she hit a cyclist. This level of sentencing is run-of-the-mill for any driver convicted of death by careless driving, no matter if the person who dies was a cyclist, a pedestrian, a passenger in a car or another driver. There is no "it's only a cyclist" agenda

    I agree - it's more a "better not upset the motorists" agenda. :evil:
  • dilemnadilemna Posts: 2,187
    The sentence indirectly discriminates against male hit and run drivers who as we know can never get pregnant.
    Life is like a roll of toilet paper; long and useful, but always ends at the wrong moment. Anon.
    Think how stupid the average person is.......
    half of them are even more stupid than you first thought.
  • londonbairnlondonbairn Posts: 316
    The law is funny, you get way more punishment for sharing pirated stuff, but killing someone on the road gets you next to nothing.
  • dilemna wrote:
    The sentence indirectly discriminates against male hit and run drivers who as we know can never get pregnant.

    Sounds like you've been trying a while. Have you considered adoption?
  • Horrible thought: she wasn't pregnant when she killed Kevin Lush, that was in May last year. Did she get pregnant to avoid a custodial sentence?
  • ProssPross Posts: 24,233
    If someone flees the scene of an accident they should automatically be assumed to have been over the alcohol level at the time of the accident unless it can be medically proven otherwise and then be done for causing death by dangerous driving with its higher sentencing. This sentencing has left the way open for any woman wishing to get off a prison sentence in similar circumstances to just flee the scene, give themselves up later and then get pregnant while waiting for the court case. If she had been feeling the kind of guilt and remorse she should have been I'm amazed that she was at any point in the mood for sex in any case. It really is time to look at our bizarre sentencing system in this country.
  • shouldbeinbedshouldbeinbed Posts: 2,732
    pass me the bucket.

    sparing the baby the indignity of being born in prison.

    FFS, utterly pathetic cop out, the child won't care and its not as if it'll still be fresh news by the time the wee beastie is out into the world is it.

    I'd have the child off her anyway on safeguarding grounds, shes heavily pregnant yet drinking and driving in such a manner and with such a cavalier disregard for the unborns life that she can flip the car 3 times and land it on its side.

    the poor kids got far more to contend with that the non existent indignity of a birth in a secure maternity ward.
  • I'd have the child off her anyway on safeguarding grounds, shes heavily pregnant yet drinking and driving in such a manner and with such a cavalier disregard for the unborns life that she can flip the car 3 times and land it on its side.

    Accident happened last May, these things take a while to get to court. Seems she would have got pregnant a month or two after the accident.
  • Pross wrote:
    If someone flees the scene of an accident they should automatically be assumed to have been over the alcohol level at the time of the accident unless it can be medically proven otherwise

    Utter bollocks. That's up there with ducking stool logic.
    Swim. Bike. Run. Yeah. That's what I used to do.

    Bike 1
    Bike 2-A
  • shouldbeinbedshouldbeinbed Posts: 2,732
    I'd have the child off her anyway on safeguarding grounds, shes heavily pregnant yet drinking and driving in such a manner and with such a cavalier disregard for the unborns life that she can flip the car 3 times and land it on its side.

    Accident happened last May, these things take a while to get to court. Seems she would have got pregnant a month or two after the accident.

    fair point, well made :oops:
  • WaddlieWaddlie Posts: 569
    Some of the comments on this thread seem as irrational/hysterical/ill-informed as anything you'll find in the Daily Mail...
    Rules are for fools.
  • antflyantfly Posts: 3,448
    If a sportsman avoids a drugs test it`s considered the same as failing, it should be the the same if anyone dodges a breath test after an accident.
    Also, Defence barrister Liam Walker said there was no evidence to suggest Kelly had left the scene to avoid detection. She left the scene of the accident and disappeared, how much more evidence do you need?
    Smarter than the average bear.
  • snookssnooks Posts: 1,521
    Greg66 wrote:
    Pross wrote:
    If someone flees the scene of an accident they should automatically be assumed to have been over the alcohol level at the time of the accident unless it can be medically proven otherwise

    Utter bollocks. That's up there with ducking stool logic.

    If they'd had a drink (with witnesses) I'll be dusting off my ducking stool
    FCN:5, 8 & 9
    If I'm not riding I'm shooting http://grahamsnook.com
    THE Game
    Watch out for HGVs
  • ProssPross Posts: 24,233
    edited March 2010
    Greg66 wrote:
    Pross wrote:
    If someone flees the scene of an accident they should automatically be assumed to have been over the alcohol level at the time of the accident unless it can be medically proven otherwise

    Utter bollocks. That's up there with ducking stool logic.

    In what way? If you have nothing to hide and it was a genuine accident (or driving without due care and attention) why would you flee the scene? In this case she stopped to pick up her handbag before leaving the scene - hardly the actions of someone panicking and not thinking of the consequences. In the event that you have an accident without causing injury and flee the scene I believe the punishment is very similar to that of drink driving. So, maybe not assume that the person had been drinking but make the punishment the same as if they had been. So your ducking stool comparison is utter bollocks to use your refined debating skills. :lol:

    EDIT Forgot to add, refusing to give a sample for alcohol testing is classed as the same offence as failing an attempt IIRC so by fleeing the scene you are failing to provide a specimen.
  • PorgyPorgy Posts: 4,558
    Pross wrote:
    Greg66 wrote:
    Pross wrote:
    If someone flees the scene of an accident they should automatically be assumed to have been over the alcohol level at the time of the accident unless it can be medically proven otherwise

    Utter bollocks. That's up there with ducking stool logic.

    In what way? If you have nothing to hide and it was a genuine accident (or driving without due care and attention) why would you flee the scene? In this case she stopped to pick up her handbag before leaving the scene - hardly the actions of someone panicking and not thinking of the consequences. In the event that you have an accident without causing injury and flee the scene I believe the punishment is very similar to that of drink driving. So, maybe not assume that the person had been drinking but make the punishment the same as if they had been. So your ducking stool comparison is utter bollocks to use your refined debating skills. :lol:

    I'd have thought she could have been done for obstructing justice - which is a very serious charge - wasn't that what Archer went to prison for?
  • PorgyPorgy Posts: 4,558
    antfly wrote:
    If a sportsman avoids a drugs test it`s considered the same as failing, it should be the the same if anyone dodges a breath test after an accident.
    Also, Defence barrister Liam Walker said there was no evidence to suggest Kelly had left the scene to avoid detection. She left the scene of the accident and disappeared, how much more evidence do you need?

    it does leave a rather obvious get out clause now for anyone fast enough on their feet - just hide away for long enough for it to leave your system then turn yourself in, claim a panic attack, and keep your license.
  • WaddlieWaddlie Posts: 569
    The enthusiasm some show for throwing out the principles of natural justice (innocent until proven guilty, anyone?) is alarming.

    This isn't the censored tour de france, it's throwing someone in jail. There are, in fact, many reasons why people flee the scenes of accidents. Being under the influence is only one of them. None of those reasons are acceptable, but applying a blanket "you were pissed" response to all of them is ignorant and short-sighted.
    Rules are for fools.
  • antflyantfly Posts: 3,448
    Porgy wrote:
    antfly wrote:
    If a sportsman avoids a drugs test it`s considered the same as failing, it should be the the same if anyone dodges a breath test after an accident.
    Also, Defence barrister Liam Walker said there was no evidence to suggest Kelly had left the scene to avoid detection. She left the scene of the accident and disappeared, how much more evidence do you need?

    it does leave a rather obvious get out clause now for anyone fast enough on their feet - just hide away for long enough for it to leave your system then turn yourself in, claim a panic attack, and keep your license.
    She still got off ridiculously lightly though even with the law how it is. There was a footballer recently [Lee Hughes} who was involved in a fatal accident with another car and he disappeared for a couple of days and he got a six year sentence.
    Smarter than the average bear.
  • snookssnooks Posts: 1,521
    Porgy wrote:
    wasn't that what Archer went to prison for?

    Naaa, that was for research for a book....I think :D
    FCN:5, 8 & 9
    If I'm not riding I'm shooting http://grahamsnook.com
    THE Game
    Watch out for HGVs
  • PorgyPorgy Posts: 4,558
    Waddlie wrote:
    The enthusiasm some show for throwing out the principles of natural justice (innocent until proven guilty, anyone?) is alarming.

    She avoided the test - and obstructed justice. If this can be proved in court then she should be punished for it.

    I don't see any need for you to get on your high horse just for us saying that.
  • Pross wrote:
    In what way? If you have nothing to hide and it was a genuine accident (or driving without due care and attention) why would you flee the scene? In this case she stopped to pick up her handbag before leaving the scene - hardly the actions of someone panicking and not thinking of the consequences. In the event that you have an accident without causing injury and flee the scene I believe the punishment is very similar to that of drink driving. So, maybe not assume that the person had been drinking but make the punishment the same as if they had been. So your ducking stool comparison is utter bollocks to use your refined debating skills. :lol:

    EDIT Forgot to add, refusing to give a sample for alcohol testing is classed as the same offence as failing an attempt IIRC so by fleeing the scene you are failing to provide a specimen.

    Well, where do we start?

    Maybe they fled the scene because they're a rapist on the run. Yeah, that would be it. So let's sentence them as if they were a rapist. Or a war criminal. Or had no motor insurance. Getting the complete absence of a link between fleeing the scene and being drunk now?

    Second, your presumption that they've been drinking unless they can prove otherwise: how they going to prove other, exactly? They flee the scene, then head straight to the nearest A&E to have a blood test to prove they're under the limit. So you can truncate your presumption to "anyone who flees the scene was drunk". La-la land. This is where the ducking stool comes on. Anyone who floats must be made of wood, and so a witch. Get it now?

    Third, refusing to provide a sample requires that you are asked to provide one. When exactly does the feeling person get asked to provide a sample in your world?

    Fourth, you've backtracked: now it's equate the sentence for fleeing the scene with that of drink driving. Why assume that was the reason for fleeing though - see the first point above.

    Muddled, muddled, muddled. :roll:
    Swim. Bike. Run. Yeah. That's what I used to do.

    Bike 1
    Bike 2-A
  • PorgyPorgy Posts: 4,558
    Greg66 wrote:
    Pross wrote:
    In what way? If you have nothing to hide and it was a genuine accident (or driving without due care and attention) why would you flee the scene? In this case she stopped to pick up her handbag before leaving the scene - hardly the actions of someone panicking and not thinking of the consequences. In the event that you have an accident without causing injury and flee the scene I believe the punishment is very similar to that of drink driving. So, maybe not assume that the person had been drinking but make the punishment the same as if they had been. So your ducking stool comparison is utter bollocks to use your refined debating skills. :lol:

    EDIT Forgot to add, refusing to give a sample for alcohol testing is classed as the same offence as failing an attempt IIRC so by fleeing the scene you are failing to provide a specimen.

    Well, where do we start?

    Maybe they fled the scene because they're a rapist on the run. Yeah, that would be it. So let's sentence them as if they were a rapist. Or a war criminal. Or had no motor insurance. Getting the complete absence of a link between fleeing the scene and being drunk now?

    Second, your presumption that they've been drinking unless they can prove otherwise: how they going to prove other, exactly? They flee the scene, then head straight to the nearest A&E to have a blood test to prove they're under the limit. So you can truncate your presumption to "anyone who flees the scene was drunk". La-la land. This is where the ducking stool comes on. Anyone who floats must be made of wood, and so a witch. Get it now?

    Third, refusing to provide a sample requires that you are asked to provide one. When exactly does the feeling person get asked to provide a sample in your world?

    Fourth, you've backtracked: now it's equate the sentence for fleeing the scene with that of drink driving. Why assume that was the reason for fleeing though - see the first point above.

    Muddled, muddled, muddled. :roll:

    it's such a pity you can't be logical like that when you talk about climate change. :lol:

    we might have had an enjoyable discussion.
Sign In or Register to comment.