Catriona Patel ruling

ndru

I guess it's very good news.

http://road.cc/node/27511

DonDaddyD

So seven years and a permanent ban from driving a lorry.

Seven years is half the maximum sentence. 3.5years on good behaviour. I'd be curiousto know the judges reasoning behind the sentencing.

Main thing is though, I hope her husband and family can begin to rebuild their lives.

UndercoverElephant

Perhaps the maximum is for the kind of drunk-drivers you see on the likes of , "Police! Stop the bloody car!". You know, the ones who are doing 70 in a pedestrian precinct whilst pissed as farts and don't have valid licences.

Actually, they usually seem to get off with a fine. I'm slightly edified by the sentence, it seems to have taken this awful thing seriously. I hope the family find peace.

hfidgen

TBH that's probably his life ruined for the medium term too. Not that I don't think he should have got the punishment, I just think that it's actually proportionate for once.

Main thing is though, I hope her husband and family can begin to rebuild their lives.

And yeah, can't say more than that really.

OldSkoolKona

My thoughts go out to Catriona's husband and family. As someone who's wife cycles through central London everyday I can't begin to think how devastating this must have been. I hope this ruling can give a small bit of consolation.

RIP Catriona

TheStone

A very sad case.
Why only "suspicions that he had been drinking". Didn't he get tested at the time.

DonDaddyD

TheStone wrote:

A very sad case.
Why only "suspicions that he had been drinking". Didn't he get tested at the time.

He either rufused at the time. Or gave it at the time but refused the blood test. I foget, I know he refused something though.

ooermissus

Verdict is being used to up the pressure to ban lorries from city centres.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b ... t-cyclists

ooermissus

TheStone wrote:

A very sad case.
Why only "suspicions that he had been drinking". Didn't he get tested at the time.

I think it was accepted that he was over the limit - just slightly by the time he was tested, but by implication, more so when the accident occurred. He said it was from a bender the previous evening - but the prosecution argued that he must have been drinking that day to still have had the alcohol in his blood.

greg66_tri_v2.0

ooermissus wrote:

Verdict is being used to up the pressure to ban lorries from city centres.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b ... t-cyclists

I haven't really looked at this idea much, but how (for example) are we going to build in city centres without industrial volumes of cement delivered by cement lorries?

lost_in_thought

Greg66 wrote:

ooermissus wrote:

Verdict is being used to up the pressure to ban lorries from city centres.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b ... t-cyclists

I haven't really looked at this idea much, but how (for example) are we going to build in city centres without industrial volumes of cement delivered by cement lorries?

Indeed... or, y'know, get cranes, stock petrol stations...

rick_chasey

lost_in_thought wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

ooermissus wrote:

Verdict is being used to up the pressure to ban lorries from city centres.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b ... t-cyclists

I haven't really looked at this idea much, but how (for example) are we going to build in city centres without industrial volumes of cement delivered by cement lorries?

Indeed... or, y'know, get cranes, stock petrol stations...

S'what the middle of the night is for.

rjsterry

I assume the suggestion is to ban at certain times - maybe rush hour. Working on a fairly modest construction project on a main road in zone 2, I know that it is something that local authorities are already fairly hot on. The contractor in question had to submit a plan showing that he wouldn't need to have several lorries queued up waiting to load/offload during peak traffic hours.

ooermissus

lost_in_thought wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

ooermissus wrote:

Verdict is being used to up the pressure to ban lorries from city centres.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b ... t-cyclists

I haven't really looked at this idea much, but how (for example) are we going to build in city centres without industrial volumes of cement delivered by cement lorries?

Indeed... or, y'know, get cranes, stock petrol stations...

The idea would be to use consolidation centres on the outskirts of town. Onward deliveries for shops etc would be made in smaller vehicles.

Construction stuff would, I guess, still be delivered in larger lorries, but they'd be equipped with cameras etc, have better trained drivers, and there would be many fewer journeys.

London already piloted a consolidation centre for construction traffic - not sure how successful it was. Major airports - Heathrow in particular - use consolidation centres to cut traffic, control costs, and improve security.

It wouldn't be that difficult for big cities.

lost_in_thought

Rick Chasey wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

ooermissus wrote:

Verdict is being used to up the pressure to ban lorries from city centres.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b ... t-cyclists

I haven't really looked at this idea much, but how (for example) are we going to build in city centres without industrial volumes of cement delivered by cement lorries?

Indeed... or, y'know, get cranes, stock petrol stations...

S'what the middle of the night is for.

Are lorries not banned from London in the middle of the night? Surely lifting that ban would be more helpful than putting a new one in place? I'm sure massive lorries don't drive around central london in rush hour because they like it.

hfidgen

Dare I say it in a thread like this...

But people who cycle up the inside of lorries/buses at junctions are asking for trouble...

I appreciate that if the driver is pissed, on his phone and didn't indicate his turn you might consider yourself pretty darn unlucky but you still need to look out for yourself.

*cue arguments*

ooermissus

hfidgen wrote:

Dare I say it in a thread like this...

But people who cycle up the inside of lorries/buses at junctions are asking for trouble...

I appreciate that if the driver is pissed, on his phone and didn't indicate his turn you might consider yourself pretty darn unlucky but you still need to look out for yourself.

*cue arguments*

I leave it to the Prosecutor: “There's no doubt Mrs Patel clearly would have been visible in the mirrors. If Mr Putz had looked once in the 29 seconds they were both stationary, he would have seen Mrs Patel.”

ooermissus

lost_in_thought wrote:

Are lorries not banned from London in the middle of the night? Surely lifting that ban would be more helpful than putting a new one in place? I'm sure massive lorries don't drive around central london in rush hour because they like it.

So you'd prefer to create noise pollution for the 7.5m residents of greater London than ban lorries and use consolidation centres in a way that could cut journeys, increase safety, and probably also cut costs?

W1

ooermissus wrote:

hfidgen wrote:

Dare I say it in a thread like this...

But people who cycle up the inside of lorries/buses at junctions are asking for trouble...

I appreciate that if the driver is pissed, on his phone and didn't indicate his turn you might consider yourself pretty darn unlucky but you still need to look out for yourself.

*cue arguments*

I leave it to the Prosecutor: “There's no doubt Mrs Patel clearly would have been visible in the mirrors. If Mr Putz had looked once in the 29 seconds they were both stationary, he would have seen Mrs Patel.”

In this case, I think you're spot on. With respect I don't think hfidgen was necessarily meaning Ms Patel. But how many other of the cyclist/truck fatalities were due to the cyclist putting themselves in a dangerous place? It's all well and good banning lorries to cut these deaths completely - you could make an argument to ban cyclists instead....

deptfordmarmoset

Greg66 wrote:

ooermissus wrote:

Verdict is being used to up the pressure to ban lorries from city centres.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/b ... t-cyclists

I haven't really looked at this idea much, but how (for example) are we going to build in city centres without industrial volumes of cement delivered by cement lorries?

I suppose the aim is to force industrial transport design to produce ''city fit'' vehicles. The trade has not exactly gone out of its way to make lorries suitable for city roads and, in London in particular, cyclist fatalities seem to be accepted by the industry as collateral damage. The threat of a ban, or obligatory design improvements to get city permits, might go some way to forcing some improvements to be made.

In the Guardian bike blog, Dr Andrei Morgan is quoted as saying:

All in all, lower cabs with large windows, like buses or the newer dustbin trucks, are the solution in built-up areas."

Perhaps that would suggest some necessary minimum requirements. A truck whose driver can see more of the road around them isn't all that radical a requirement.

RIP Catriona Patel.

ooermissus

The driver had:

20 previous disqualifications, three drink drive convictions and three previous convictions for reckless driving.

http://bit.ly/aYAhdV

hfidgen

ooermissus wrote:

The driver had:

20 previous disqualifications, three drink drive convictions and three previous convictions for reckless driving.

http://bit.ly/aYAhdV

That's pretty damning all round, can't argue with that. But sit at a junction at rush hour and count how many people on bikes undertake lorries as they are moving off from a red light.

One of my family friends is a HGV driver and he's told me in the past (whilst discussing bike commuting in London) that he HATES being asked to drive a load into London because he's shit scared of all the "****s on bikes weaving up both sides". .

greg66_tri_v2.0

ooermissus wrote:

The driver had:

20 previous disqualifications, three drink drive convictions and three previous convictions for reckless driving.

http://bit.ly/aYAhdV

Jesus!

If that is accurately reported, then he should never have been on the road in the first place. WTF was his (or any) employer doing offering him a job behind a wheel?

On a different note, but one related to one of today's other threads, it would be a bloody good idea if the various cycling Sheriffs of the Road bore in mind that these sorts of people are out there, driving around next to them. Dicking them whilst you're sharing the road with them off is most certainly not a good idea, IMO.

mybreakfastconsisted

ooermissus wrote:

The driver had:

20 previous disqualifications, three drink drive convictions and three previous convictions for reckless driving.

http://bit.ly/aYAhdV

FFS.

W1

ooermissus wrote:

The driver had:

20 previous disqualifications, three drink drive convictions and three previous convictions for reckless driving.

http://bit.ly/aYAhdV

That is truly incredible - how anyone thought fit to employ him to drive a truck is beyond me.

bigmat

W1 wrote:

ooermissus wrote:

The driver had:

20 previous disqualifications, three drink drive convictions and three previous convictions for reckless driving.

http://bit.ly/aYAhdV

That is truly incredible - how anyone thought fit to employ him to drive a truck is beyond me.

Would be nice if they could slap a massive fine on the employer, might make people think twice in future. Although, how the guy could be allowed to legally drive after all that I don't know. I mean, you fiddle with a kid once, you aren't gonna teach again. You get pissed and go driving, you shouldn't be getting behind the wheel again. Its a privilege not a right.

spen666

DonDaddyD wrote:

So seven years and a permanent ban from driving a lorry.

Seven years is half the maximum sentence. 3.5years on good behaviour. I'd be curiousto know the judges reasoning behind the sentencing.

Main thing is though, I hope her husband and family can begin to rebuild their lives.

Read the Sentencing Counsel Guidelines which are binding on the Judges.

Sentencing Counsel is appointed by the government, so sentencing controlled by Parliament indirectly

dilemna

ooermissus wrote:

The driver had:

20 previous disqualifications, three drink drive convictions and three previous convictions for reckless driving.

http://bit.ly/aYAhdV

F- r - i - c - k - i - n ' ___ U - n - b - e - l - i - e - v - a - b - l - e.

A whole barrel of bad judges failed to get him permanently off the road. As much as Putz is to blame for Mrs Patel's death the judges that heard his previous cases should hold their heads in shame in not banning him for life from driving any vehicle on the public roads. When he is out of prison he can presumably still drive a vehicle other than an HGV? God help us!

ooermissus

spen666 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

So seven years and a permanent ban from driving a lorry.

Seven years is half the maximum sentence. 3.5years on good behaviour. I'd be curiousto know the judges reasoning behind the sentencing.

Main thing is though, I hope her husband and family can begin to rebuild their lives.

Read the Sentencing Counsel Guidelines which are binding on the Judges.

Sentencing Counsel is appointed by the government, so sentencing controlled by Parliament indirectly

I read the sentencing guidelines earlier - he got the maximum sentence for the second tier of seriousness - so the judge thought his crime was bad, but not that bad.

spen666

I am not sure the driver had 20 seperate previous convictions. That sounds too many given length of time each ban usually is

ooermissus

spen666 wrote:

I am not sure the driver had 20 seperate previous convictions. That sounds too many given length of time each ban usually is

The Guardian:

Putz has a series of criminal convictions for offences including drink-driving and has been caught 20 times driving an HGV while disqualified. He said the night before the accident he had drunk almost a gallon of Guinness...

Sentencing him today, judge Roger Chapple told Putz: "Since your first disqualification 34 years ago you have shown a consistent disregard for road traffic legislation and the law.

"Prison sentences in the past have not persuaded you to mend your ways. Plainly you should never be allowed behind the wheel of an HGV again. The risk to the public is just too great."

The judge said Putz had made an "extraordinarily irresponsible decision to climb into to the cab of a heavy goods vehicle with, let's be frank, the most godawful hangover, knowing full well he should not have been driving at all."

http://bit.ly/dzd1sI