Another Killer let off

AndyManc

http://menmedia.co.uk/manchestereveningnews/news/crime/s/1461986_spared-jail-illegal-driver-who-knocked-down-killed-cancer-cure-scientist-in-eccles


We haven't got a chance.


.[/url]

dhope

Did you read the article? She wasn't let off, there were mitigating circumstances that spared her prison.

Mr Allen’s grieving mother Mary said she accepted Humphreys did not set out to kill her son but stopped short of forgiving her.

Mrs Allen, who lived with her son on Gresford Close, Chorlton, said: "No sentence is going to bring John back.

"I think the judge was as harsh as he could have been. It wouldn’t have served any purpose sending her to prison.

Killer implies intent, there doesn't appear to be any. Go troll elsewhere.

It's tragic and I have no sympathy for the driver but you really need to begin with an unbiased stance and work from there.

Wallace1492

No intent maybe, however person still ended up a killer.

She intentionaly drove a car with no insurance and without a full driving license.
Full lifetime ban from the roads should be the least.

Probably prison would not help.

bails87

She killed someone. She is a killer.

However the things she was prosecuted for (no insurance, no license) wouldn't have prevented the death. She had passed her test, just not sent off for the full license.

If she'd been insured and had a license would she have been prosecuted at all? If so, why was there no death by dangerous driving conviction here too?

Rich158

This is a tragic case, but unfortunately the roads are full of uninsured, unlicensed drivers. That doesn't mean we haven't got a chance though, there are plenty of licensed and insured drivers who cause accidents as well. I know I've been hit by them.

Unfortunately a lifetime ban from the roads makes little difference to people who show such a casual disregard for the law. My ex brother-in-law being a case in point, despite numerous convictions for drink driving and driving without a license or insurance it took the threat of a prison sentence to stop him driving and he's not an isolated case amongst his social group. Hopefully the suspended sentence and therefore threat of imprisonment for future transgressions will have a similar effect in this case

Mr Plum

bails87 wrote:

If she'd been insured and had a license would she have been prosecuted at all? If so, why was there no death by dangerous driving conviction here too?

There's very little information about the accident itself in that article.

Wallace1492

Mr Plum wrote:

bails87 wrote:

If she'd been insured and had a license would she have been prosecuted at all? If so, why was there no death by dangerous driving conviction here too?

There's very little information about the accident itself in that article.

Exactly. However I am still in favour of lifetime driving bans for people driving without insurance/license. Hard to police though.

Nothing to suggest who was at fault in the incident.

dabbleonabike

Someone should smash her from behind with a car, see how she likes it.

bails87

Mr Plum wrote:

bails87 wrote:

If she'd been insured and had a license would she have been prosecuted at all? If so, why was there no death by dangerous driving conviction here too?

There's very little information about the accident itself in that article.

I know, that was kind of my point. She may not have been driving 'dangerously' or not provably so.

A lifetime ban means nothing to someone who'll happily drive without a license anyway.....

bails87

dabbleonabike wrote:

Someone should smash her from behind

Yeah......you first. And no sloppy seconds.

Rich158

Wallace1492 wrote:

Mr Plum wrote:

bails87 wrote:

If she'd been insured and had a license would she have been prosecuted at all? If so, why was there no death by dangerous driving conviction here too?

There's very little information about the accident itself in that article.

Exactly. However I am still in favour of lifetime driving bans for people driving without insurance/license. Hard to police though.

Nothing to suggest who was at fault in the incident.

My point exactly, there's a large underclass in this country for whom minor issues like a driving license, road tax and insurance prove no obstacle to them getting behind the wheel. Unfortunately it's almost impossible to police as most of the cars used fall outside the normal checks, having no MOT or road tax and probably haven't even shown up at DVLA for years. They pass through a number of owners for no more than a few hundred quid with the change of owners never being registered. If they ever need any documents they're freely available for very little cash if you know where to look

Wallace1492

Rich158 wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

Mr Plum wrote:

bails87 wrote:

If she'd been insured and had a license would she have been prosecuted at all? If so, why was there no death by dangerous driving conviction here too?

There's very little information about the accident itself in that article.

Exactly. However I am still in favour of lifetime driving bans for people driving without insurance/license. Hard to police though.

Nothing to suggest who was at fault in the incident.

My point exactly, there's a large underclass in this country for whom minor issues like a driving license, road tax and insurance prove no obstacle to them getting behind the wheel. Unfortunately it's almost impossible to police as most of the cars used fall outside the normal checks, having no MOT or road tax and probably haven't even shown up at DVLA for years. They pass through a number of owners for no more than a few hundred quid with the change of owners never being registered. If they ever need any documents they're freely available for very little cash if you know where to look

So what do we do as society when they get caught? What is suitable punishment.

bails87

Prison? Community sentences. Something more than just a fine and a ban.

Kieran_Burns

I want bright orange jumpsuits for people on Community Service.

With huge letters on the back which say COMMUNITY SERVICE and make the buggers walk to and from the pick up point wearing 'em.

Make it so there is NO WAY they're going to want to do it again. Make it public, make 'em visible - make people SEE punishment in action.

richk

I got mown down by an unlicenced, uninsured (motor scooter) rider (bike had no MOT). He got a "youth rehabilitation order" (so basically nothing) and that was for having no licence, no insurance, no MOT, driving without due care & attention (watered down from dangerous driving - thanks CPS), failure to stop/report. Social services are also letting him off having to meet me ("can he write to you & say sorry?"). No fine, no ban no nothing.

and relax...

mybreakfastconsisted

She is a killer and she has been let off. Nothing wrong with the thread title. Want to kill someone, use a car, any sanctions that apply are risible. She KNEW she wasn't insured and deliberately drove.

Mr Plum

So are people pissed off that she killed someone, or that she was driving without a license or insurance? :?

IMHO the two should be treated separately - the fact she was driving without a license or insurance was not a contributory factor in killing the cyclist. Unless I've missed something...?

dhope

Mr Plum wrote:

So are people pissed off that she killed someone, or that she was driving without a license or insurance? :?

IMHO the two should be treated separately - the fact she was driving without a license or insurance was not a contributory factor in killing the cyclist. Unless I've missed something...?

+1
We get pissed off when a cyclist gets hit and the paper says, "And they were not wearing a helmet".

Driving without insurance did not contribute to any injuries, and the driver had passed her test so we should assume that she knew how to drive.

AndyManc

dhope wrote:

Did you read the article? She wasn't let off, there were mitigating circumstances that spared her prison.

Mr Allen’s grieving mother Mary said she accepted Humphreys did not set out to kill her son but stopped short of forgiving her.

Mrs Allen, who lived with her son on Gresford Close, Chorlton, said: "No sentence is going to bring John back.

"I think the judge was as harsh as he could have been. It wouldn’t have served any purpose sending her to prison.

Killer implies intent, there doesn't appear to be any. Go troll elsewhere.

It's tragic and I have no sympathy for the driver but you really need to begin with an unbiased stance and work from there.

You've always talked sh*t on this forum, don't give me your patronising shite.


Change your name to no hope, it's more suitable.


.

rick_chasey

Kieran_Burns wrote:

I want bright orange jumpsuits for people on Community Service.

With huge letters on the back which say COMMUNITY SERVICE and make the buggers walk to and from the pick up point wearing 'em.

Make it so there is NO WAY they're going to want to do it again. Make it public, make 'em visible - make people SEE punishment in action.

F*ck that.

Why not have KILLER DRIVER by law put above the numberplate on any car they drive.

AndyManc

Mr Plum wrote:

So are people pissed off that she killed someone, or that she was driving without a license or insurance? :?

IMHO the two should be treated separately - the fact she was driving without a license or insurance was not a contributory factor in killing the cyclist. Unless I've missed something...?

So, the fact that she intentionally drove a vehicle illegally bares no connection that she ended up killing someone.

If she had complied with the law she wouldn't have been on the road.

The two can't and should not be treated separately.

Should individuals that have never taken a driving lesson ( and have no idea about traffic laws and safe driving ) be considered safe, clearly not knowing how to drive safely and being on the road is a contributory factor.


.

Pru

She was driving illegally, so they made it illegal for her to drive. That'll stop her!

bails87

AndyManc
She had passed her driving test.

People are saying that if she had sent off the paperwork and had a little pink bit of plastic instead of a little green bit of plastic she wouldn't have been driving any differently. Also, if she'd taken out insurance she wouldn't necessarily have been driving any differently.

She shouldn't have been driving. But having no insurance didn't cause the crash. Not having sent off the paperwork to upgrade her license from provisional to full didn't cause the crash.

If she was drunk, or on the phone then yeah, those things could contribute to/cause a crash.

bails87

From the articel

Humphreys passed her driving test 13 years ago but had never bothered to apply for a full licence

Wallace1492

AndyManc wrote:

Mr Plum wrote:

So are people pissed off that she killed someone, or that she was driving without a license or insurance? :?

IMHO the two should be treated separately - the fact she was driving without a license or insurance was not a contributory factor in killing the cyclist. Unless I've missed something...?

So, the fact that she intentionally drove a vehicle illegally bares no connection that she ended up killing someone.

If she had complied with the law she wouldn't have been on the road.

The two can't and should not be treated separately.

Should individuals that have never taken a driving lesson ( and have no idea about traffic laws and safe driving ) be considered safe, clearly not knowing how to drive safely and being on the road is a contributory factor.


.

1. Thousands probably drive illegally every day, bares no connection to being in accident. This person had in fact passed their test, and presumably had lessons.
2. Agreed. If she complied with law she would not be on the road, and incident would not have happened.
3. Who was to blame for the incident? I do not know so cannot automatically blame driver.
4. Not sure what you are getting at re safety in relation to this case.

Mr Plum

AndyManc wrote:

Mr Plum wrote:

So are people pissed off that she killed someone, or that she was driving without a license or insurance? :?

IMHO the two should be treated separately - the fact she was driving without a license or insurance was not a contributory factor in killing the cyclist. Unless I've missed something...?

So, the fact that she intentionally drove a vehicle illegally bares no connection that she ended up killing someone.

If she had complied with the law she wouldn't have been on the road.

The two can't and should not be treated separately.

Should individuals that have never taken a driving lesson ( and have no idea about traffic laws and safe driving ) be considered safe, clearly not knowing how to drive safely and being on the road is a contributory factor.

.

The point I'm making is that she was driving illegally on a technicality; she had passed her test but didn't hold a valid license. The fact she had no license would invalidate any insurance. Both of these are a technicality and nothing to do with any motoring convictions or not being a trained driver in the first place.

Imagine for a second that she did have a valid license and insurance - would it have made any difference to the cyclist?

mybreakfastconsisted

From what we know we have an exceptionally intelligent person on a bike carrying out a straightforward lane change that would pose no problem to a competent driver. We know drivers in cyclist RTCs are usually at fault far more often than the cyclist, and we know the driver took a relaxed view with regard to the legal requirements of taking a car on the roads. We know uninsured drivers are involved in a disproportionate number of RTCs. It seems likely to me that the driver was at fault.

tailwindhome

Killing someone and being 'a killer' are not necessarily the same.

At least not in the eyes of normal rational people.....



There are also a wide spectrum of reasons which would render a driver to be driving illegally, they cannot be lumped together however shouty your agenda is.



The drivers behaviour the road, her legal status as a driver and the reason for her legal status are 3 different factors and should be judged seperately. That said, her legal status may (depending on the reason for it) be a factor in sentencing for her actions.......

optimisticbiker

TailWindHome wrote:

Killing someone and being 'a killer' are not necessarily the same.

At least not in the eyes of normal rational people.....



There are also a wide spectrum of reasons which would render a driver to be driving illegally, they cannot be lumped together however shouty your agenda is.



The drivers behaviour the road, her legal status as a driver and the reason for her legal status are 3 different factors and should be judged seperately. That said, her legal status may (depending on the reason for it) be a factor in sentencing for her actions.......

That said, the fact she knowingly broke the law shows a certain disregard for it and, arguably, indicates an attiitude that might translate to lack of care for others - and that might have been a contributing factor to the accident.

Certainly my (fortunately limited) experience of drivers that dont insure/tax their vehicles is an attitude that says 'I don't care'...

tailwindhome

Wallace1492 wrote:

AndyManc wrote:

Mr Plum wrote:

So are people pissed off that she killed someone, or that she was driving without a license or insurance? :?

IMHO the two should be treated separately - the fact she was driving without a license or insurance was not a contributory factor in killing the cyclist. Unless I've missed something...?

So, the fact that she intentionally drove a vehicle illegally bares no connection that she ended up killing someone.

If she had complied with the law she wouldn't have been on the road.

2. Agreed. If she complied with law she would not be on the road, and incident would not have happened.

Not to be overly pedantic but if she complied with the law she would still be on the road but with a full license instead of provisional and her insurance would have been valid

clarkey cat

the fact she knowingly broke the law shows a certain disregard for it and, arguably, indicates an attiitude that might translate to lack of care for others - and that might have been a contributing factor to the accident.

an 'arguably', two 'mights' and a 'contributing'

hard to send someone to jail on that basis, no?