Another day, another dead cyclist, another pathetic sentence

Drysuitdiver

PresumingEd wrote:

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

Agreed , in the DD case you may unwittingly be over the limit from alcohol added to food in the cooking stage ( christmas pudding is a prime example - some are fairly potent without you being to taste it and not all restaurants are good enough to tell you) or may have been drinking a spiked drink.

its not always as black and white as we would like it to be.

Wallace1492

W1 wrote:

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?

In the same way that if a person lands a blow on another, although not intending to kill them, if death is the outcome they will be sentenced more harshly although that was not the intention.

Why should the consequences not be taken into consideration?

W1

Wallace1492 wrote:

W1 wrote:

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?

In the same way that if a person lands a blow on another, although not intending to kill them, if death is the outcome they will be sentenced more harshly although that was not the intention.

Why should the consequences not be taken into consideration?

I think they should be - but if a dangerous driver should receive a lifetime ban because they are dangerous, why should they have to kill someone before they receive one? A very safe driver can make a minor mistake that results in a death - under your proposal, they would receive a lifetime ban. Yet a poor or dangerous driver can make a catlaogue of errors that doesn't result in a death and they are allowed to keep driving. That's the problem with extreme punishments for drivers who kill - just because you kill someone doesn't actually mean you are a terrible driver by default, because the error that lead to the death could be a very minor one - the sort we all make all the time.

Wallace1492

W1 wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

W1 wrote:

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?

In the same way that if a person lands a blow on another, although not intending to kill them, if death is the outcome they will be sentenced more harshly although that was not the intention.

Why should the consequences not be taken into consideration?

I think they should be - but if a dangerous driver should receive a lifetime ban because they are dangerous, why should they have to kill someone before they receive one? A very safe driver can make a minor mistake that results in a death - under your proposal, they would receive a lifetime ban. Yet a poor or dangerous driver can make a catlaogue of errors that doesn't result in a death and they are allowed to keep driving. That's the problem with extreme punishments for drivers who kill - just because you kill someone doesn't actually mean you are a terrible driver by default, because the error that lead to the death could be a very minor one - the sort we all make all the time.

Nowhere did I say that other drivers should be let off with mistakes, there are far too many people who drive that should not have a licence. My point here is in respect to drivers that are responsible for deaths by their actions.

Firstly drivers have to realise that a minor error or mistake may result in a death, they are in charge of a very dangerous vehicle if not handled properly and within their capabilities. If they cannot drive properly and safely they should not be on the road.

Poor or dangerous drivers should never get a license in the first place, the test shoul be far stricter.

There was a case recenty of a driver that had killed 3 people from his "mistakes" (3 seperate incidents, and he was driving ligitamitely AFAIK) how about we give him another chance?

W1

Wallace1492 wrote:

W1 wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

W1 wrote:

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?

In the same way that if a person lands a blow on another, although not intending to kill them, if death is the outcome they will be sentenced more harshly although that was not the intention.

Why should the consequences not be taken into consideration?

I think they should be - but if a dangerous driver should receive a lifetime ban because they are dangerous, why should they have to kill someone before they receive one? A very safe driver can make a minor mistake that results in a death - under your proposal, they would receive a lifetime ban. Yet a poor or dangerous driver can make a catlaogue of errors that doesn't result in a death and they are allowed to keep driving. That's the problem with extreme punishments for drivers who kill - just because you kill someone doesn't actually mean you are a terrible driver by default, because the error that lead to the death could be a very minor one - the sort we all make all the time.

Nowhere did I say that other drivers should be let off with mistakes, there are far too many people who drive that should not have a licence. My point here is in respect to drivers that are responsible for deaths by their actions.

Firstly drivers have to realise that a minor error or mistake may result in a death, they are in charge of a very dangerous vehicle if not handled properly and within their capabilities. If they cannot drive properly and safely they should not be on the road.

Poor or dangerous drivers should never get a license in the first place, the test shoul be far stricter.

There was a case recenty of a driver that had killed 3 people from his "mistakes" (3 seperate incidents, and he was driving ligitamitely AFAIK) how about we give him another chance?

I'm not disagreeing with you - just merely pointing out that it's not necessary to kill someone to be dangerous, and that if lifetime bans are to be implemented they should perhaps be done before someone is killed.

Maybe the way to do that is to do as you suggest and make the driving test far harder. Or, my preference, regular re-tests.

bails87

Has anyone seen the comment on the story by "coogaruk" at 3.40pm today. it's almost as if the real victim in all of this is the driver. I'm internetting on my phone, so if someone can copy and paste it here we can all see the stupidity...

neiltb

I'll start off by saying that I agree that the standard of driving today is much worse than just a few years ago. When I'm in charge, you'll need to resit your test every 10 years.

However, nothing will be done about this as too much of our economy relies on people driving around in their own car. 2nd most expensive purchase you make car, after house. Car use is increasing and houses now seem to need more than one. How do mst get to work from the suburbs.

If the test was as hard as it should be and we disqualified people for life for major infraction (which I would have no issue with), an increasing number of people would drive illegally, people just don't care. Jailing them just costs a fortune and they don't necessarily think they did anything wrong so what's the point.

If you're doing 35 in a 30 and someone steps out in front of you without looking, you hit them and kill them, do we ban you for life? by exceeding the maximum safe speed on the stretch of road are you driving dangerously?

It's not so cut and dried and governments would be far too scared if it was without support.

thecrofter

bails87 wrote:

Has anyone seen the comment on the story by "coogaruk" at 3.40pm today. it's almost as if the real victim in all of this is the driver. I'm internetting on my phone, so if someone can copy and paste it here we can all see the stupidity...

Here you go

CoogarUK.com, Dorchester says...
3:40pm Thu 10 Feb 11

I can't help feeling that the outcome in this case might so easily have been reversed, with the car driver killed as a result of the cyclist's drinking/actions. Of course, I know that's not what actually happened but it could have.

I wonder how many cases there are of car drivers being killed by drunk cyclists each year.
Presumably his other newspaper is the Daily Mail

mybreakfastconsisted

I've cycled drunk and I've only killed seven drivers.

Wallace1492

thecrofter wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Has anyone seen the comment on the story by "coogaruk" at 3.40pm today. it's almost as if the real victim in all of this is the driver. I'm internetting on my phone, so if someone can copy and paste it here we can all see the stupidity...

Here you go

CoogarUK.com, Dorchester says...
3:40pm Thu 10 Feb 11

I can't help feeling that the outcome in this case might so easily have been reversed, with the car driver killed as a result of the cyclist's drinking/actions. Of course, I know that's not what actually happened but it could have.

I wonder how many cases there are of car drivers being killed by drunk cyclists each year.
Presumably his other newspaper is the Daily Mail

Unbelievable. How many drunk cyclists, or even sober cyclist mow down and kill drivers? Or indeed cause injury to drivers in any shape or form. Probably are afew but so minute...

dilemna

W1 wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

W1 wrote:

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?

In the same way that if a person lands a blow on another, although not intending to kill them, if death is the outcome they will be sentenced more harshly although that was not the intention.

Why should the consequences not be taken into consideration?

I think they should be - but if a dangerous driver should receive a lifetime ban because they are dangerous, why should they have to kill someone before they receive one? A very safe driver can make a minor mistake that results in a death - under your proposal, they would receive a lifetime ban. Yet a poor or dangerous driver can make a catlaogue of errors that doesn't result in a death and they are allowed to keep driving. That's the problem with extreme punishments for drivers who kill - just because you kill someone doesn't actually mean you are a terrible driver by default, because the error that lead to the death could be a very minor one - the sort we all make all the time.

Speak for yourself ............

dilemna

Wallace1492 wrote:

W1 wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

W1 wrote:

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?

In the same way that if a person lands a blow on another, although not intending to kill them, if death is the outcome they will be sentenced more harshly although that was not the intention.

Why should the consequences not be taken into consideration?

I think they should be - but if a dangerous driver should receive a lifetime ban because they are dangerous, why should they have to kill someone before they receive one? A very safe driver can make a minor mistake that results in a death - under your proposal, they would receive a lifetime ban. Yet a poor or dangerous driver can make a catlaogue of errors that doesn't result in a death and they are allowed to keep driving. That's the problem with extreme punishments for drivers who kill - just because you kill someone doesn't actually mean you are a terrible driver by default, because the error that lead to the death could be a very minor one - the sort we all make all the time.

Nowhere did I say that other drivers should be let off with mistakes, there are far too many people who drive that should not have a licence. My point here is in respect to drivers that are responsible for deaths by their actions.

Firstly drivers have to realise that a minor error or mistake may result in a death, they are in charge of a very dangerous vehicle if not handled properly and within their capabilities. If they cannot drive properly and safely they should not be on the road.

Poor or dangerous drivers should never get a license in the first place, the test shoul be far stricter.

There was a case recenty of a driver that had killed 3 people from his "mistakes" (3 seperate incidents, and he was driving ligitamitely AFAIK) how about we give him another chance?

Indeed, they don't bother with trivialties such as a drving license or insurance, they just get in a car and drive.

tailwindhome

dilemna wrote:

W1 wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

W1 wrote:

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?

In the same way that if a person lands a blow on another, although not intending to kill them, if death is the outcome they will be sentenced more harshly although that was not the intention.

Why should the consequences not be taken into consideration?

I think they should be - but if a dangerous driver should receive a lifetime ban because they are dangerous, why should they have to kill someone before they receive one? A very safe driver can make a minor mistake that results in a death - under your proposal, they would receive a lifetime ban. Yet a poor or dangerous driver can make a catlaogue of errors that doesn't result in a death and they are allowed to keep driving. That's the problem with extreme punishments for drivers who kill - just because you kill someone doesn't actually mean you are a terrible driver by default, because the error that lead to the death could be a very minor one - the sort we all make all the time.

Speak for yourself ............

Hang on.

The reality is that car are driven by humans who can make mistakes.

You think you don't make mistakes when you drive?

shouldbeinbed

thecrofter wrote:

bails87 wrote:

Has anyone seen the comment on the story by "coogaruk" at 3.40pm today. it's almost as if the real victim in all of this is the driver. I'm internetting on my phone, so if someone can copy and paste it here we can all see the stupidity...

Here you go

CoogarUK.com, Dorchester says...
3:40pm Thu 10 Feb 11

I can't help feeling that the outcome in this case might so easily have been reversed, with the car driver killed as a result of the cyclist's drinking/actions. Of course, I know that's not what actually happened but it could have.

I wonder how many cases there are of car drivers being killed by drunk cyclists each year.
Presumably his other newspaper is the Daily Mail

:shock: how does 13 stone of squishy in a polystyrene hat kill someone insulated in a ton and a half of solid metal crumple zones and heavily laminated concave safety glass?

I'd guess at none, unless the driver loses control as a mangled cyclist and bike clogs up the wheel arch after they've been run over!

from the same strand of logic that sees the Rottweiler owner complaining that next doors cat has killed his dog, when asked how, he says the dog choked to death whilst eating the cat.

W1

TailWindHome wrote:

dilemna wrote:

W1 wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

W1 wrote:

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?

In the same way that if a person lands a blow on another, although not intending to kill them, if death is the outcome they will be sentenced more harshly although that was not the intention.

Why should the consequences not be taken into consideration?

I think they should be - but if a dangerous driver should receive a lifetime ban because they are dangerous, why should they have to kill someone before they receive one? A very safe driver can make a minor mistake that results in a death - under your proposal, they would receive a lifetime ban. Yet a poor or dangerous driver can make a catlaogue of errors that doesn't result in a death and they are allowed to keep driving. That's the problem with extreme punishments for drivers who kill - just because you kill someone doesn't actually mean you are a terrible driver by default, because the error that lead to the death could be a very minor one - the sort we all make all the time.

Speak for yourself ............

Hang on.

The reality is that car are driven by humans who can make mistakes.

You think you don't make mistakes when you drive?

Precisely. Stop being an arse. If you drive (and perhaps you don't, in which case I wasn't including you) then I guarantee you have made a mistake which in other circumstances may have lead to someone's death. A second of distration; a missed mirror check; a missed blindspot check; driving slightly too close; driving so that you can't stop in the space which you know to be clear. I can go on....

il_principe

You get in a car drunk - you deserve a lifetime ban. End of.

3 years is crazy.

tailwindhome

^
+1

I'm not sure that anyone on here is/would disagree with that.

DonDaddyD

What if you are 'just' over the limit and have miscalculated? Should you be banned then?

Surely if yes, then the law should reflect this and simply state its illegal to drink any amount of alcohol then its illegal to drive. But it doesn't there is a legal limit and so (IMO) punnishment should be in part relevant to the amount the persons is over the limit by.

Why?

Its never been clear how much I can legally drink and still get behind the wheel.

Yes the advice is DON'T drink any alcohol when driving but the fact that there is a limit means you can and it's not clear what that limit is across the vast selection of alcoholic drinks.

il_principe

DonDaddyD wrote:

What if you are 'just' over the limit and have miscalculated? Should you be banned then?

2 things.

1: If you're over the limit then you're over the limit. You want to drive, don't drink!

DonDaddyD wrote:

Its never been clear how much I can legally drink and still get behind the wheel.

2: Seriously? I really hope you don't ever drink and drive then.

CiB

TailWindHome wrote:

^
+1

I'm not sure that anyone on here is/would disagree with that.

Oh go on then. I would. Like any other form of motoring error, it's a mistake. You can make most mistakes in a car and probably get away with it 100 times out of 100. That's the reality of driving. But then it goes wrong and you're in bother. The difference with DD is that alcohol distorts the decision-making process making it more not less likely (for some people at least) to drive when they shouldn't. Like the copper said in the comments, it's easier not to drink at all on a night out than stop after two. It's part of the reason why the punishment is that much harsher for DD - without draconian punishments it would be very prevalent, like it used to be.

It's a bit of a circular argument, that when you've had a few the confidence levels rise and the sensible hold-back part of the brain is subdued, making it more likely that someone would drive when drunk and not less, not without the v harsh punishments. In the end, it's quite reasonable for someone caught behind the wheel when completely blottoed to claim to have been so ratted that they did something - drive a car - that they'd never normally consider when sober.

The current punishment regime is pretty close to right as it stands, notwithstanding examples like the case in this thread where the concensus is that the punishment was on the lenient side.

Just a viewpoint.

DonDaddyD

Il Principe wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

What if you are 'just' over the limit and have miscalculated? Should you be banned then?

2 things.

1: If you're over the limit then you're over the limit. You want to drive, don't drink!

But that avoids the point I'm making, it's not as clear cut as you are over the limit. There are measured levels and its possible for a person to have miscalculated which puts them a few milligrams over.

Prince wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Its never been clear how much I can legally drink and still get behind the wheel.

2: Seriously? I really hope you don't ever drink and drive then.

As a rule I don't but I wasn't raising the point to defend my personal actions. I was raising it as a viable point within the context of the conversation.

Sewinman

There are a few people pontificating on here who I have seen drink numerous pints then cycle home...they could easily have made an error on the bike due to drink causing an accident/death of another road user.

Those in glass houses etc....

il_principe

DonDaddyD wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

What if you are 'just' over the limit and have miscalculated? Should you be banned then?

2 things.

1: If you're over the limit then you're over the limit. You want to drive, don't drink!

But that avoids the point I'm making, it's not as clear cut as you are over the limit. There are measured levels and its possible for a person to have miscalculated which puts them a few milligrams over.

That kind of is my point. There's no clear cut way of knowing as we all differ:

In the UK the drink driving limit is:

35 micrograms of alcohol in 100 millilitres of breath; or
80 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood; or
107 milligrams of alcohol per 100 millilitres of urine.


The legal drink drive limit cannot be safely converted into a certain number of units, as it depends on a number of factors to include gender, body mass and how quickly your body absorbs alcohol into the blood stream.

So easiest thing is to either not drink at all, or stop after 1 pint. But we all no how hard stopping after just 1 can be...

DonDaddyD

Sewinman wrote:

There are a few people pontificating on here who I have seen drink numerous pints then cycle home...they could easily have made an error on the bike due to drink causing an accident/death of another road user.

Those in glass houses etc....

"Hello Ms Kettle, my name is Mr Pot I see you're black...."

That kind of is my point. There's no clear cut way of knowing as we all differ:

So easiest thing is to either not drink at all, or stop after 1 pint. But we all no how hard stopping after just 1 can be...

The point isn't that you simply shouldn't drink when driving. Legally we can and judgement is relied on to trust that people stay below the legal limit should they choose to drink alcohol and drive. However, no matter how wise and good their judgement can be they could miscalulate the amount and find themsleves just over the limit. In the event of that should they lose their license permanently?

I honestly don't think their should, even the law works on the basis of judgement and rationalising situation and circumstance to enact an appropriate sentence.

Sewinman

DonDaddyD wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

There are a few people pontificating on here who I have seen drink numerous pints then cycle home...they could easily have made an error on the bike due to drink causing an accident/death of another road user.

Those in glass houses etc....

"Hello Ms Kettle, my name is Mr Pot I see you're black...."

That would be a fair shout if I was pontificating on banning people for life for drink driving, but I am not.

DonDaddyD

I wasn't really aiming that at you. Just trying to be funning, something I traditionally struggle with.

il_principe

Sewinman wrote:

There are a few people pontificating on here who I have seen drink numerous pints then cycle home...they could easily have made an error on the bike due to drink causing an accident/death of another road user.

Those in glass houses etc....

Big big difference between a car and a bicycle though.

In law a bicycle is defined as a carriage for use on the highway but cyclists are not in charge of 'mechanically propelled' vehicles so, in law, do not have to adhere to exactly the same 'drink drive' rules as motorists.

Section 30 Road Traffic Act 1988 says: "It is an offence for a person to ride a cycle on a road or other public place when unfit to ride through drink or drugs - that is to say - is under the influence of a drink or a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the cycle.

Edit - how many serious accidents/deaths/prosecutions have you read about involving drunk cyclists?

sfichele

A 3 year ban to start with is probably proportionate - BUT - in cases like these the driver should have to go back to court to prove they are ready to drive again.

And thereafter, if they are ever caught drink-driving, then a life-ban and long sentence should be unavoidable.

Drysuitdiver

Il Principe wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

What if you are 'just' over the limit and have miscalculated? Should you be banned then?

2 things.

1: If you're over the limit then you're over the limit. You want to drive, don't drink!

DonDaddyD wrote:

Its never been clear how much I can legally drink and still get behind the wheel.

2: Seriously? I really hope you don't ever drink and drive then.

quite right.


however, how many of you can hand on heart say they know all the ingredients in a restarauant meal. there may be the odd time you could be on the limit and not know it.


as for the OP though thats a lock up throw away the key sort of case.

W1

If you lifetime-ban anyone for a drink driving offence, you'll just increase the number of uninsured and unlicensed drivers around.

And the problem with having an arbitrary limit is that 34milligrams could have some-one really quite drunk (but legally able to drive) yet 50milligrams may have little effect on someone else, who could be perfectly safe yet liable for a lifetime ban.

What about the morning after, when you feel fine but may not be? Lifetime ban for that too?