CPS actually trying to go for dangerous driving shock!

jedster

The Times today reports a trial of a woman who managed to drive into the back of a cyclist at 60mph on a straight road in broad daylight.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cy ... .ece#tab-4

Apparently she was messing with her sat nav.

Sounds like the sort of case that usually goes for careless driving but it seems that the CPS worked out that she had 18 secs at 60 mph to spot the poor bloke - i.e., she didn't look at the road properly for 18 secs - and they are arguing that this is dangerous not careless. Now I'm sure we all agree with that. Let's hope we get a sensible jury who also agree rather think of all the stupid things they've done behind a wheel and let her off...

jonny_trousers

jedster wrote:

The Times today reports a trial of a woman who managed to drive into the back of a cyclist at 60mph on a straight road in broad daylight.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cy ... .ece#tab-4

Apparently she was messing with her sat nav.

Sounds like the sort of case that usually goes for careless driving but it seems that the CPS worked out that she had 18 secs at 60 mph to spot the poor bloke - i.e., she didn't look at the road properly for 18 secs - and they are arguing that this is dangerous not careless. Now I'm sure we all agree with that. Let's hope we get a sensible jury who also agree rather think of all the stupid things they've done behind a wheel and let her off...

Good news! Let's hope she get's the six month driving ban and the 3 week suspended sentence she deserves like all those other people found guilty of killing cyclists due to their stupidity.

jedster

You know - if it is simple stupidity I can tolerate it to an extent - some people really are born stupid (obviously they shouldnt be able to get a driving license but that's a different discussion). What really make my blood boil is the "can't be bothered to give a toss about other poeple's safety" aspect

greg66_tri_v2.0

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

jedster wrote:

The Times today reports a trial of a woman who managed to drive into the back of a cyclist at 60mph on a straight road in broad daylight.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cy ... .ece#tab-4

Apparently she was messing with her sat nav.

Sounds like the sort of case that usually goes for careless driving but it seems that the CPS worked out that she had 18 secs at 60 mph to spot the poor bloke - i.e., she didn't look at the road properly for 18 secs - and they are arguing that this is dangerous not careless. Now I'm sure we all agree with that. Let's hope we get a sensible jury who also agree rather think of all the stupid things they've done behind a wheel and let her off...

Good news! Let's hope she get's the six month driving ban and the 3 week suspended sentence she deserves like all those other people found guilty of killing cyclists due to their stupidity.

I realise this is sarcastic, but you do know that the sentencing guidelines for death by DD are

i) No aggravating circumstances – twelve months to two years' imprisonment;
ii) Intermediate culpability - two to four and a half years' imprisonment;
iii) Higher culpability – four and a half to seven years' imprisonment;
iv) Most serious culpability – seven to fourteen years' imprisonment;
plus a minimum of 2 years' disqualification?

SpainSte

Jonny_Trousers wrote:

jedster wrote:

The Times today reports a trial of a woman who managed to drive into the back of a cyclist at 60mph on a straight road in broad daylight.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cy ... .ece#tab-4

Apparently she was messing with her sat nav.

Sounds like the sort of case that usually goes for careless driving but it seems that the CPS worked out that she had 18 secs at 60 mph to spot the poor bloke - i.e., she didn't look at the road properly for 18 secs - and they are arguing that this is dangerous not careless. Now I'm sure we all agree with that. Let's hope we get a sensible jury who also agree rather think of all the stupid things they've done behind a wheel and let her off...

Good news! Let's hope she get's the six month driving ban and the 3 week suspended sentence she deserves like all those other people found guilty of killing cyclists due to their stupidity.

I long for the day when killers on the roads are actually sentenced fairly in accordance with the crime they have commited. The sentence for this crime is a joke.

If you want to kill someone in the UK get in your car.

SpainSte

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

I realise this is sarcastic, but you do know that the sentencing guidelines for death by DD are

i) No aggravating circumstances – twelve months to two years' imprisonment;
ii) Intermediate culpability - two to four and a half years' imprisonment;
iii) Higher culpability – four and a half to seven years' imprisonment;
iv) Most serious culpability – seven to fourteen years' imprisonment;
plus a minimum of 2 years' disqualification?

Even these arent enough.

gbsahne001

the incident happened 5 mins from my house

dee4life2005

For sat navs, they really should be locked down when they detect that the vehicle is moving - with only simple gestures for interaction e.g. single tap zoom in, double-tap zoom out. Swipe right for next instruction etc. That's about all you need when you're moving and following a route and having simple actions like this means you can probably manage it without even having to look at the device - probably partly the reason why most cars now come with radio controls on the indicator stalk / steering wheel.

All of these tiny icons they use for similar functions, or having to navigate settings, or allowing people to change routes on the move is just asking for trouble like this ... it's as bad a folk using mobiles behind the wheel, and unfortunately it sometimes results in innocent folk like that poor cyclist getting injured or worse.

Having caused an accident, whether involving a fatality or not, if the person is found to have been using a `device` behind the wheel then they should automatically be charged with dangerous driving - with the ban / custodial sentence that that entails - as how can taking your eyes off the road be deemed anything other than dangerous !?

gbsahne001

Found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving; to be sentenced Aug 30.

http://www.getreading.co.uk/incoming/driver-convicted-killing-cyclist-twyford-5324111

Edit; link added

Koncordski

gbsahne wrote:

Found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving; to be sentenced Aug 30.

Wow, the correct result for once. I hope it's custodial rather than suspended, the guy she killed was just out for a sunday morning ride, not to be morbid but it could have happened to any of us. :evil:

vermin

Great result. I feel sad for her family, almost as much as for the victim's, but this is a bit of a landmark. I just hope the story goes viral and the message spreads so that some good can come of such a sorry mess.

jedster

"It should act as a warning to others that any distraction while driving can have very serious consequences," he said.

McClure had pleaded gulty to a lesser charge of death by careless driving which was not accepted by the CPS who pursued the higher charge which McClure denied.

From the article^

Credit to the CPS for doing their job here.
McClure could be a generally good person and her behaviour here may have been totally out of character. I don't know. But the law needed to take a stand here and demonstrate to drivers what is required of them.
It's regretable that she didn't acknowledge her fault fully and plead to dangerous driving. Given that, while it will be hard on her family, she has to have a custodial sentance I think.

Team4Luke

why is it illegal to use a moby
why is it not illegal to use and have a sat nav stuck on your windscreen not in direct frontal sight
I beleive DVD video screens must not be made usesable in the front of a car when ignition is on

Kieran_Burns

There are only ever victims in these tragic circumstances, but I agree that people need to understand the link between actions and consequences; freedom and responsibility.

I think the right decision was made and the correct outcome achieved.

Headhuunter

I've just come from yet another RLJ thread where people are debating how cyclists should be whiter than white as motorists are going to think so badly of us if they see us going through reds and riding on the pavement... Then this, stupid, stupid woman fiddling with a sat nav whilst driving at around 60mph and in a blink of an eye she's killed someone and ruined a family... RLJing and riding on the pavement pales into insignificance...

jedster

yes I agree*
doesn't mean people should jump reds or cycle on te pavement though

*although "blink of an eye" - key point here was she had 18 fecking seconds to look up and avoid killing him

Koncordski

Headhuunter wrote:

I've just come from yet another RLJ thread where people are debating how cyclists should be whiter than white as motorists are going to think so badly of us if they see us going through reds and riding on the pavement... Then this, stupid, stupid woman fiddling with a sat nav whilst driving at around 60mph and in a blink of an eye she's killed someone and ruined a family... RLJing and riding on the pavement pales into insignificance...

It wasn't the blink of an eye, it was basically ignoring the road ahead of her for close to a minute (just lane checking with peripheral vision i suspect). They don't know how fast she was going so assumed she was doing the limit and that he was effectively stationary. In reality he was probably doing 15-20 (fit regular cyclist, flat road) and she was doing around 50-60, as he was travelling the same direction the closing speed was much lower than 60 meaning he was probably visible ahead for around double the 20 odd seconds quoted.

This is why the argument from the daily mail crowd is so annoying, i don't pay attention on my bike (for this try replacing with jumping a red, pavement cycling, zebra crossing jumping etc etc.) the likely outcome is nothing or i hurt myself. You don't pay attention in a car and you're hurtling towards somebody or something in a ton and a half of unforgiving metal. She didn't treat the fact that when driving a car you can so easily kill someone with the respect it deserves, and now someone is dead. I'm not picking fault with your comments, we're on the same side of the fence, but blink of the eye and accident are too easily used to let people off. In this instance the CPS did it right, as did the Jury.

Headhuunter

Koncordski wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

I've just come from yet another RLJ thread where people are debating how cyclists should be whiter than white as motorists are going to think so badly of us if they see us going through reds and riding on the pavement... Then this, stupid, stupid woman fiddling with a sat nav whilst driving at around 60mph and in a blink of an eye she's killed someone and ruined a family... RLJing and riding on the pavement pales into insignificance...

It wasn't the blink of an eye, it was basically ignoring the road ahead of her for close to a minute (just lane checking with peripheral vision i suspect). They don't know how fast she was going so assumed she was doing the limit and that he was effectively stationary. In reality he was probably doing 15-20 (fit regular cyclist, flat road) and she was doing around 50-60, as he was travelling the same direction the closing speed was much lower than 60 meaning he was probably visible ahead for around double the 20 odd seconds quoted.

This is why the argument from the daily mail crowd is so annoying, i don't pay attention on my bike (for this try replacing with jumping a red, pavement cycling, zebra crossing jumping etc etc.) the likely outcome is nothing or i hurt myself. You don't pay attention in a car and you're hurtling towards somebody or something in a ton and a half of unforgiving metal. She didn't treat the fact that when driving a car you can so easily kill someone with the respect it deserves, and now someone is dead. I'm not picking fault with your comments, we're on the same side of the fence, but blink of the eye and accident are too easily used to let people off. In this instance the CPS did it right, as did the Jury.

Don't completely understand what you said there but I think we're on the same side!

Koncordski

Bad friday forum skills, but yeah. Was agreeing with your sentiment whilst being pedantic at the same time, my bad. Staring at a clock waiting for the pub right now. 8)

gabriel959

Koncordski wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

I've just come from yet another RLJ thread where people are debating how cyclists should be whiter than white as motorists are going to think so badly of us if they see us going through reds and riding on the pavement... Then this, stupid, stupid woman fiddling with a sat nav whilst driving at around 60mph and in a blink of an eye she's killed someone and ruined a family... RLJing and riding on the pavement pales into insignificance...

It wasn't the blink of an eye, it was basically ignoring the road ahead of her for close to a minute (just lane checking with peripheral vision i suspect). They don't know how fast she was going so assumed she was doing the limit and that he was effectively stationary. In reality he was probably doing 15-20 (fit regular cyclist, flat road) and she was doing around 50-60, as he was travelling the same direction the closing speed was much lower than 60 meaning he was probably visible ahead for around double the 20 odd seconds quoted.

This is why the argument from the daily mail crowd is so annoying, i don't pay attention on my bike (for this try replacing with jumping a red, pavement cycling, zebra crossing jumping etc etc.) the likely outcome is nothing or i hurt myself. You don't pay attention in a car and you're hurtling towards somebody or something in a ton and a half of unforgiving metal. She didn't treat the fact that when driving a car you can so easily kill someone with the respect it deserves, and now someone is dead. I'm not picking fault with your comments, we're on the same side of the fence, but blink of the eye and accident are too easily used to let people off. In this instance the CPS did it right, as did the Jury.

hear hear!

jedster

yes "blink of the eye" brings to mind SMIDSY.
Of course we know SMIDSY really means "sorry I couldnt be bothered to look properly because I really dont give a rats arse for your safety"