Another day, another dead cyclist, another pathetic sentence

PresumingEd

http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/localn ... b_regular/

It's not so much the 18 month prison sentence that gets me - it's the fact that in 3 years she will be allowed to drive again despite having shown such reckless disregard for the lives of others

W1

PresumingEd wrote:

http://www.dorsetecho.co.uk/news/localnews/8841458.Death_driver_jailed__Barmaid_caused_death_of_pub_regular/

It's not so much the 18 month prison sentence that gets me - it's the fact that in 3 years she will be allowed to drive again despite having shown such reckless disregard for the lives of others

I have no idea why being over the drink drive limit doesn't immediately push the crime into "dangerous" rather than "careless" driving, with the sentencing powers that that provides.

I also agree that the driving ban is far too short.

CyclingBantam

Nice to see it has taken around 4 comments for somone to ask, "Did the bike have lights?"

Wallace1492

Lifetime ban should be mandatory.

I am not sure that prison will do her any good, but it is a punishment tarrif, not keeping us from danger.

DonDaddyD

If she was over the limit while driving then that is a crime in and of itself and irrespetive of whether the cyclist had lights.

I agree with this:

I have no idea why being over the drink drive limit doesn't immediately push the crime into "dangerous" rather than "careless" driving, with the sentencing powers that that provides.

I also agree that the driving ban is far too short.

W1

BenBlyth wrote:

Nice to see it has taken around 4 comments for somone to ask, "Did the bike have lights?"

And misses the point that there is no "limit" for drinking and cycling (not that there is any inference that the cyclist was drunk or at fault anyway).

Are comments sections on newspapers exclusively reserved for the nations thickos?

graeme_s-2

I'm not sure I see the point in prison sentences in most of these cases, but I would certainly like to see much harsher driving bans, preferably life bans for drivers convicted of causing death by ... driving.

waddlie

W1 wrote:

Are comments sections on newspapers exclusively reserved for the nations thickos?

Yes, yes they are. Further reading on this subject available here:

http://ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere.com/

CyclingBantam

W1 wrote:

Are comments sections on newspapers exclusively reserved for the nations thickos?

Yes, yes, yes.

W1

Waddlie wrote:

W1 wrote:

Are comments sections on newspapers exclusively reserved for the nations thickos?

Yes, yes they are. Further reading on this subject available here:

http://ifyoulikeitsomuchwhydontyougolivethere.com/

Spectacular, many thanks.

Headhuunter

“Miss Roberts struck Mr Manicom’s bike from behind, Mr Manicom came from his bike, hit the windscreen and roof of the car and went over the car before landing in the road behind.”

When she was interviewed by police Roberts said she had not realised what she had hit and it was only when she stopped to check she was aware she had struck Mr Manicom on his bike.

She's either a liar or she was too drunk to notice she had hit him but seriously how can you miss someone boucning off your windscreen and roof?!

dennisn

Headhuunter wrote:

“Miss Roberts struck Mr Manicom’s bike from behind, Mr Manicom came from his bike, hit the windscreen and roof of the car and went over the car before landing in the road behind.”

When she was interviewed by police Roberts said she had not realised what she had hit and it was only when she stopped to check she was aware she had struck Mr Manicom on his bike.

She's either a liar or she was too drunk to notice she had hit him but seriously how can you miss someone boucning off your windscreen and roof?!

I was in a passenger in a car that hit a deer. It happened so fast that everyone in the car, including the driver, was asking what the hell happened. That's how that kind of thing happens "seriously".

Drysuitdiver

Headhuunter wrote:

“Miss Roberts struck Mr Manicom’s bike from behind, Mr Manicom came from his bike, hit the windscreen and roof of the car and went over the car before landing in the road behind.”

When she was interviewed by police Roberts said she had not realised what she had hit and it was only when she stopped to check she was aware she had struck Mr Manicom on his bike.

She's either a liar or she was too drunk to notice she had hit him but seriously how can you miss someone boucning off your windscreen and roof?!

ever been so drunk you don't remember how you got home.

sadly there are people who think that thisd is an acceptable state for them to get behind the wheel of a motor vehicle and drive it.

no doubt had she run over a dog the sentence would be higher.

stinks

_Brun_

dennisn wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

“Miss Roberts struck Mr Manicom’s bike from behind, Mr Manicom came from his bike, hit the windscreen and roof of the car and went over the car before landing in the road behind.”

When she was interviewed by police Roberts said she had not realised what she had hit and it was only when she stopped to check she was aware she had struck Mr Manicom on his bike.

She's either a liar or she was too drunk to notice she had hit him but seriously how can you miss someone boucning off your windscreen and roof?!

I was in a passenger in a car that hit a deer. It happened so fast that everyone in the car, including the driver, was asking what the hell happened. That's how that kind of thing happens "seriously".

Don't deer have a habit of suddenly leaping out of hedgerows into the path of moving vehicles? It seems perfectly plausible that could happen without anyone actually seeing it, the comparison to someone cycling along a road is pretty tenuous.

dilemna

_Brun_ wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

“Miss Roberts struck Mr Manicom’s bike from behind, Mr Manicom came from his bike, hit the windscreen and roof of the car and went over the car before landing in the road behind.”

When she was interviewed by police Roberts said she had not realised what she had hit and it was only when she stopped to check she was aware she had struck Mr Manicom on his bike.

She's either a liar or she was too drunk to notice she had hit him but seriously how can you miss someone boucning off your windscreen and roof?!

I was in a passenger in a car that hit a deer. It happened so fast that everyone in the car, including the driver, was asking what the hell happened. That's how that kind of thing happens "seriously".

Don't deer have a habit of suddenly leaping out of hedgerows into the path of moving vehicles? It seems perfectly plausible that could happen without anyone actually seeing it, the comparison to someone cycling along a road is pretty tenuous.

It could be an old deer on a bike?

Shockingly short sentence and ban for some one dic of a vehicle and driving dangerously. Another injustice toward a cyclist and their family. The justice system stinks.

Red Rider

Graeme_S wrote:

I'm not sure I see the point in prison sentences in most of these cases, but I would certainly like to see much harsher driving bans, preferably life bans for drivers convicted of causing death by ... driving.

Can't really agree with that.

I'm not in the "lock them up and throw away the key" camp, but prison is the strongest punishment we have. It is the final way that as a society we say to people "what you did was unnaceptable and you deserve to be punished for it."

The lack of intent (presumably) in the majority of car v cyclist incidents shouldn't necessarily mean no prison sentence. Even if the events themselves are likely to be the most significant factor in changing the drivers behaviour, it's sometimes necessary for society to show how seriously it takes the issue.

On the other hand, lifetime driving bans would rarely seem appropriate to me. One mistake, even if you've been drinking, and you can't ever drive again? Is that really what we want? Bear in mind that for a lot of people not driving could seriously limit the ability to work or look after a family.

For first time offenders, a combination of medium-long term bans + short-to-medium term prison sentences is, IMO, the right way to go.

It must be horrible to be the family of a cyclist killed in this way. But the drivers are humans too. We all make mistakes. Thankfully they rarely result in killing anyone else. But ruining the life of the driver doesn't bring anyone back.

W1

Red Rider wrote:

...interesting stuff....

Imprisoning someone in cases such as this is far less about "punishment" and much more about retribution. Speaking for myself, having someone else's blood on my hands (and the guilt of that) would be far more "punishing" than prison. So prison is perhaps used in these cases to show "justice" being done, even though the risk of reoffending is small and the requirement for protecting the public is probably non-existant.

As to lifetime bans, I'm in two camps - it seems harsh for what can sometimes be a simple mistake that we've all done (and got away with). On the other hand, drinking and driving shows such reckless disregard for others that I'm not sure that sort of person should be given the responsibility to drive again. However, being practical, a lifetime ban might just mean more unlicenced (and therefore uninsured) drivers on the road.

mybreakfastconsisted

Getting pissed, then getting in your car and killing someone isn't a "mistake".

W1

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Getting pissed, then getting in your car and killing someone isn't a "mistake".

Ah, so she killed him on purpose and it was therefore murder was it? Better tell the CPS.

Wallace1492

Red Rider wrote:

Graeme_S wrote:

I'm not sure I see the point in prison sentences in most of these cases, but I would certainly like to see much harsher driving bans, preferably life bans for drivers convicted of causing death by ... driving.

Can't really agree with that.

I'm not in the "lock them up and throw away the key" camp, but prison is the strongest punishment we have. It is the final way that as a society we say to people "what you did was unnaceptable and you deserve to be punished for it."

The lack of intent (presumably) in the majority of car v cyclist incidents shouldn't necessarily mean no prison sentence. Even if the events themselves are likely to be the most significant factor in changing the drivers behaviour, it's sometimes necessary for society to show how seriously it takes the issue.

On the other hand, lifetime driving bans would rarely seem appropriate to me. One mistake, even if you've been drinking, and you can't ever drive again? Is that really what we want? Bear in mind that for a lot of people not driving could seriously limit the ability to work or look after a family.

For first time offenders, a combination of medium-long term bans + short-to-medium term prison sentences is, IMO, the right way to go.

It must be horrible to be the family of a cyclist killed in this way. But the drivers are humans too. We all make mistakes. Thankfully they rarely result in killing anyone else. But ruining the life of the driver doesn't bring anyone back.

Driving is a privilidge, not a right. If someone's driving is bad enough to have been responsible for taking someones life (be it through carelessness, drink or drugs) they should never drive again. There are enough idiots on the roads without allowing killers to drive.What about the person that died, their ability to look after their family has been slightly more harmed than not being able to drive!

we are not tough enough on the real dangerous people on the road.

People have to realise that mistakes on roads cause death, so caution must be taken.

If a driver is not fully responsible, but partly, then a lesser ban could be imposed.

Dgh

W1 wrote:

PresumingEd wrote:

I have no idea why being over the drink drive limit doesn't immediately push the crime into "dangerous" rather than "careless" driving, with the sentencing powers that that provides.

Because we have juries, who tend to be sympathetic with motorists. The "there but for the grace of god go I" line of thought.

Perhaps the answer would be to have an offence of causing death whilst drunk driving, with proper sentencing powers? The causation issue would have to go before a jury even then, though.

W1

Wallace1492 wrote:

People have to realise that mistakes on roads cause death, so caution must be taken.

But using that argument, would you suggest banning (for life) anyone who makes a mistake behind the wheel, regardless of the consequences? The accident/death is a completely unintended result of the mistake. Why should it only be the killers who are banned for life?

W1

Dgh wrote:

W1 wrote:

I have no idea why being over the drink drive limit doesn't immediately push the crime into "dangerous" rather than "careless" driving, with the sentencing powers that that provides.

Because we have juries, who tend to be sympathetic with motorists. The "there but for the grace of god go I" line of thought.

Perhaps the answer would be to have an offence of causing death whilst drunk driving, with proper sentencing powers? The causation issue would have to go before a jury even then, though.

I would suggest that being drunk behind the wheel should automatically make someone be considered to be "dangerous" i.e. far below the standard of the ordinary and reasonable driver.

mybreakfastconsisted

W1 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Getting pissed, then getting in your car and killing someone isn't a "mistake".

Ah, so she killed him on purpose and it was therefore murder was it? Better tell the CPS.

Straw man and sarcasm in the same post, sterling effort.

The driver did not accidently drink the wine then get in her car and plough into a cyclist.

She has demonstrated she is not responsible enough to drive.

dilemna

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

W1 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Getting pissed, then getting in your car and killing someone isn't a "mistake".

Ah, so she killed him on purpose and it was therefore murder was it? Better tell the CPS.

Straw man and sarcasm in the same post, sterling effort.

The driver did not accidently drink the wine then get in her car and plough into a cyclist.

She has demonstrated she is not responsible enough to drive.

+1. Life time ban.

spen666

Headhuunter wrote:

“Miss Roberts struck Mr Manicom’s bike from behind, Mr Manicom came from his bike, hit the windscreen and roof of the car and went over the car before landing in the road behind.”

When she was interviewed by police Roberts said she had not realised what she had hit and it was only when she stopped to check she was aware she had struck Mr Manicom on his bike.

She's either a liar or she was too drunk to notice she had hit him but seriously how can you miss someone boucning off your windscreen and roof?!

HH, I'm not sure you have read that passage correctly.

She seems to be saying she didn't realise what hit her windscreen and roof rather than not realising she had hit something.


That is not to condone or excuse her behaviour

graeme_s-2

Wallace1492 wrote:

Driving is a privilidge, not a right. If someone's driving is bad enough to have been responsible for taking someones life (be it through carelessness, drink or drugs) they should never drive again. There are enough idiots on the roads without allowing killers to drive.What about the person that died, their ability to look after their family has been slightly more harmed than not being able to drive!

I'm with Wallace on this one. If you're so bad at doing something that you can't do it without killing someone, then I think it's right that as a society we should say you're not allowed to do that thing anymore.

For me prison should be for rehabilitation and prevention.

W1

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

W1 wrote:

mybreakfastconsisted wrote:

Getting pissed, then getting in your car and killing someone isn't a "mistake".

Ah, so she killed him on purpose and it was therefore murder was it? Better tell the CPS.

Straw man and sarcasm in the same post, sterling effort.

The driver did not accidently drink the wine then get in her car and plough into a cyclist.

She has demonstrated she is not responsible enough to drive.

You make it sound as if they are all one action. Which of course, they are not.

Still, I've never once thought you had the ability to use reason, logic and argument. And you never cease to let me down.

PresumingEd

IMO whenever there is a conviction for careless driving or drink driving there should be a presumption that the offender will receive a lifetime ban. As others have noted, driving is a privilige and not a right and those who abuse that privilige should lose it.

I do, however, think the courts should have the power to reduce the ban from lifetime based upon individual circumstances - a reduction to 3 years should never be acceptable, however

snailracer

From CPS website, sentencing guidelines for "death by careless driving under the influence":
"Imprisonment
* No aggravating circumstances. Immediate custodial sentence will generally be necessary unless there are exceptional circumstances. Starting point: 12 months to 2 years for adult offenders, even where a guilty plea, although such plea should justify the appropriate reduction in length.
* Intermediate culpability - momentary dangerous driving/error of judgement/short period of bad driving. Starting point 2 to 4.5 years.
* Higher culpability - standard of offender's driving is more highly dangerous (one or two aggravating factors). Starting point 4 to 7.5 years.
* Most serious culpability.Starting point 7 to 14 years.

Disqualification
* Where the offender had a good driving record before the offence and the offence was a momentary error of judgement, guideline disqualification in the order of 2 years.
* Where the offence and offender's record show the offender tends to disregard the rules of the road or drive carelessly or inappropriately, guideline disqualification 3-5 years.
* Where the offence and offender's record show the offender represents a real and continuing danger to other road users, guideline disqualification 5-10 years."

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sent ... index.html

White Horse

This is why we have the laws and sentencing that we do:

Exactly the question I was going to ask. She should be imprisoned no doubt about that and sympathy for the bereaved family and friends. However, it could have been you or I, sober, driving along that road.

The majority of citizens are drivers and the majority believe that they have a basic human right to drive and that it isn't a priviliege. Therefore, there is very little pressure from the public to increase sentencing for driving offences. Most noise about the inadequacy of enforcement and punishment comes from either vulnerable minority groups or people who have been the victim of a serious incident (either through being seriously injured or having a relative killed). There are simply not enough people championing proper road safety. So we get pathetic sentences like this one. A 3 year driving ban! It's an insult.