Kill a cyclist and get a £145 fine and community service

SpainSte

Don't know if anyone else noticed this today.

Pretty shocking stuff.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... v-off.html

simonhead

I hadnt seen it (tend not to read the Mail). Its a sad story and unfortunately something that we are seeing all too often. The good thing is the guy seemed to feal remorse and was actually sorry for what he had done.

Bobbinogs

Unfortunately it is not shocking, more like par for the course nowadays. Whenever I read "cyclist killed", I also expect to see some lenient judge has handed down a joke sentence.

monkimark

The sat nav failed to register the junction?! What kind of an excuse is that?

cougie

Just looking on Google maps and unless they've been placed there since - he's missed three STOP or Stop sign ahead signs, and a diagram of the road layout showing he didn't have priority. Plus a STOP sign printed on the road and a block white line. Very poor driving.

monkimark

^ and a 30m wide road running straight across the one he was driving down

mick_cornick

Still I don't want poor drivers in prison but banned from driving for life. It won't cost the tax payer, will remove poor drivers from the road and will be a much greater deterrent than the very slim chance of a prison sentence.

Grill

Am I the only one who read the title and immediately thought "well, they're finally starting to throw the book at these criminals".

Perhaps I've become a bit jaded towards this country's attitude towards those who kill cyclists...

Barbarossa

If he had killed a pedestrian, or someone in another car would he have received a harsher sentence? Probably not. Anti-cycling paranoia only confuses the real issue, that courts are too lenient on bad driving.

MountainMonster

Barbarossa wrote:

If he had killed a pedestrian, or someone in another car would he have received a harsher sentence? Probably not. Anti-cycling paranoia only confuses the real issue, that courts are too lenient on bad driving.

Exactly this.

I also think people need to relax with wanting huge harsh sentences for people who have committed manslaughter due to lapses of concentration or other reasons, except in certain cases. The person who killed the victim has to deal with that fact for the rest of their life, which is not an easy thing to do. If things weren't done maliciously, and they didn't leave with the intent to do it, then why make their lives even more miserable than they are?

peat

^Exactly. He's hardly gonna be rubbing his hands together saying "hehehe, got away with that one!". That'll haunt him for the rest of his life.

Horrible for all involved.

top_bhoy

MountainMonster wrote:

Barbarossa wrote:

If he had killed a pedestrian, or someone in another car would he have received a harsher sentence? Probably not. Anti-cycling paranoia only confuses the real issue, that courts are too lenient on bad driving.

Exactly this.

I also think people need to relax with wanting huge harsh sentences for people who have committed manslaughter due to lapses of concentration or other reasons, except in certain cases. The person who killed the victim has to deal with that fact for the rest of their life, which is not an easy thing to do. If things weren't done maliciously, and they didn't leave with the intent to do it, then why make their lives even more miserable than they are?

I'm fed up with such attitudes. Where is the deterrent to make people realise that driving a car isn't something to be taken lightly. I see no real well publicised deterrent to make drivers change their ways. The lenient approach hasn't worked, time for firmer action for those who drive and seriously injure/kill others (irrespective of their mode of transport). I'm sure some accidents do happen due to genuine unfortunate circumstances but many of the reasons being heard at times for mitigation are unacceptable and are simply excuses. Manslaughter charges should be the least to be brought in and then allow genuine mitigation to be applied in order to reduce the punishment if merited. Frivolous mitigation claims are awarded additional punishment and fines.

Maybe those who make the laws and hand out sentences need to be hit by a car to give them better perspective on the matter.

djm501

^^^ This

Overly lenient sentences send out the wrong message to those in powerful vehicles. They have very heavy fines and presumed liability in Europe which has stopped it - along with a different attitude of course - but from what I've read, Dutch drivers had similar attitudes to the British with regards to cyclists until a massive pubic campaign coupled with severe punishments for bad driving began to change things in the 1970s.

MountainMonster

Top_Bhoy wrote:

MountainMonster wrote:

Barbarossa wrote:

If he had killed a pedestrian, or someone in another car would he have received a harsher sentence? Probably not. Anti-cycling paranoia only confuses the real issue, that courts are too lenient on bad driving.

Exactly this.

I also think people need to relax with wanting huge harsh sentences for people who have committed manslaughter due to lapses of concentration or other reasons, except in certain cases. The person who killed the victim has to deal with that fact for the rest of their life, which is not an easy thing to do. If things weren't done maliciously, and they didn't leave with the intent to do it, then why make their lives even more miserable than they are?

I'm fed up with such attitudes. Where is the deterrent to make people realise that driving a car isn't something to be taken lightly. I see no real well publicised deterrent to make drivers change their ways. The lenient approach hasn't worked, time for firmer action for those who drive and seriously injure/kill others (irrespective of their mode of transport). I'm sure some accidents do happen due to genuine unfortunate circumstances but many of the reasons being heard at times for mitigation are unacceptable and are simply excuses. Manslaughter charges should be the least to be brought in and then allow genuine mitigation to be applied in order to reduce the punishment if merited. Frivolous mitigation claims are awarded additional punishment and fines.

Maybe those who make the laws and hand out sentences need to be hit by a car to give them better perspective on the matter.

Have you ever been driving your car, and realise you spaced out for half a second? Or possibly something caught your attention which distracted you and you ran on the white line of the road? It can easily happen to anyone and punishing people for a mistake, and not a criminal intention, is not how you go about using the law. I'm a very courteous driver. I don't use my phone while driving, or mess around with the stereo, or do anything that could cause distraction and even I have had momentary lapses of concentration which had a cyclist been in that spot I could have killed them. Almost everyone will have had a similar experience. Does that mean that I should be thrown in jail, or have severe sentences imposed on me. What if it was you?

Regarding deterrents: there will always be people who regardless what the deterrent is will cause problems, but punishing the "innocent" people is not a good way to be a deterrent.

Also, there is a HUGE difference between someone who is generally a bad driver, and ones who simply were in the wrong place at the wrong time and accidentely got distracted.

slowbike

Just to ensure those who haven't checked know the full sentence ...

240 hrs unpaid work.
£145 fine
2 years driving ban

What would putting the guy in prison resolve?
240hrs work is over 4.5hrs per week - every week for 1 year. Or 30 full days.
£145 fine is neither here nor there, some ppl could find that hard to pay, others would have it in their wallet.
2 years driving ban will be inconvenient - and assuming he has a full time job that is not at home it'll make getting to/from that a bit more difficult & could be more difficult to attend the community service requirements.

What's the cost to the taxpayer? Supervising the unpaid community service.
For me - this sort of sentence - where the "crime" has been unintentional and admitted - is acceptable - the weight of the punishment is debatable - was the fine big enough, is there enough unpaid work, should the ban be for longer? But all-in-all my feeling is that it's the right sort of punishment - putting this sort of person in prison for a crime they didn't intend to commit would be unproductive. At least he can continue to be a benefit to society.

Does anyone know if he has to retake his driving test after the ban?

It seems to me that (probably) most ppl take driving for granted - it's relatively easy to pass a test, cars are cheap and whilst fuel isn't cheap, it can still be cheaper than taking public transport. In my youth, 2 cars in the family was a big deal (we had 1) - but now 2 cars is the norm and quite often there are 3 or 4 ... People are driving further/faster and more reliant on gadgets to direct them.... Perhaps it's time we were all slowed down and taught to have a bit more respect for our fellow road users and understand that it's a privilege to drive - not a right ...

MountainMonster

Slowbike wrote:

Just to ensure those who haven't checked know the full sentence ...

240 hrs unpaid work.
£145 fine
2 years driving ban

What would putting the guy in prison resolve?
240hrs work is over 4.5hrs per week - every week for 1 year. Or 30 full days.
£145 fine is neither here nor there, some ppl could find that hard to pay, others would have it in their wallet.
2 years driving ban will be inconvenient - and assuming he has a full time job that is not at home it'll make getting to/from that a bit more difficult & could be more difficult to attend the community service requirements.

What's the cost to the taxpayer? Supervising the unpaid community service.
For me - this sort of sentence - where the "crime" has been unintentional and admitted - is acceptable - the weight of the punishment is debatable - was the fine big enough, is there enough unpaid work, should the ban be for longer? But all-in-all my feeling is that it's the right sort of punishment - putting this sort of person in prison for a crime they didn't intend to commit would be unproductive. At least he can continue to be a benefit to society.

Does anyone know if he has to retake his driving test after the ban?

It seems to me that (probably) most ppl take driving for granted - it's relatively easy to pass a test, cars are cheap and whilst fuel isn't cheap, it can still be cheaper than taking public transport. In my youth, 2 cars in the family was a big deal (we had 1) - but now 2 cars is the norm and quite often there are 3 or 4 ... People are driving further/faster and more reliant on gadgets to direct them.... Perhaps it's time we were all slowed down and taught to have a bit more respect for our fellow road users and understand that it's a privilege to drive - not a right ...

I agree whole heartedly with the last point made regarding slowing down. Are people genuinely in such a hurry to get everywhere that they feel the need to drive disrespectfully to other users? This seems to be a very UK thing, and you find it in large cities around the world, but it happens in the rural areas and small towns in the UK as well.

slowbike

MountainMonster wrote:

Are people genuinely in such a hurry to get everywhere that they feel the need to drive disrespectfully to other users? This seems to be a very UK thing, and you find it in large cities around the world, but it happens in the rural areas and small towns in the UK as well.

Time is precious ... and with the availability of motorised transport we tend to spread ourselves out a bit further. Journeying between places is usually just wasted time so ppl want to complete it as quickly as possible.

Couple that with the increased HP, better braking & traction plus all the safety measures (seatbelts, airbags etc) ppl often hurtle around roads at speeds that the roads not designed for.

But - who would buy a 50hp car with no airbags or ABS? Perhaps we need a system where passing a driving test only entitles you to a lower HP vehicle (or the vehicle is restricted when you insert your driving licence into a device in the car). But the guy who knocked the cyclist off was probably usually a safe driver - and a change of HP wouldn't have altered that scenario - he just needed to pay more attention to the road.

Btw - is anyone on here perfect? Never made a mistake in the car on the road - lucky enough to "get away" with it ... ? I doubt it! I've made a few mistakes - I try not too, but sometimes the road or sign is confusing at the time - or you just don't see it - fortunately I've not hurt anyone with my mistakes - I just hope I never do.

cynicalrider

djm501 wrote:

^^^ This

Overly lenient sentences send out the wrong message to those in powerful vehicles. They have very heavy fines and presumed liability in Europe which has stopped it - along with a different attitude of course - but from what I've read, Dutch drivers had similar attitudes to the British with regards to cyclists until a massive pubic campaign coupled with severe punishments for bad driving began to change things in the 1970s.

Presumed liability is a concept in tort, not criminal law.

Mikey23

Can there be more of a life sentence than knowing that your actions have killed another human being and probably destroyed a family. I think not...

cynicalrider

Top_Bhoy wrote:

MountainMonster wrote:

Barbarossa wrote:

If he had killed a pedestrian, or someone in another car would he have received a harsher sentence? Probably not. Anti-cycling paranoia only confuses the real issue, that courts are too lenient on bad driving.

Exactly this.

I also think people need to relax with wanting huge harsh sentences for people who have committed manslaughter due to lapses of concentration or other reasons, except in certain cases. The person who killed the victim has to deal with that fact for the rest of their life, which is not an easy thing to do. If things weren't done maliciously, and they didn't leave with the intent to do it, then why make their lives even more miserable than they are?

I'm fed up with such attitudes. Where is the deterrent to make people realise that driving a car isn't something to be taken lightly. I see no real well publicised deterrent to make drivers change their ways. The lenient approach hasn't worked, time for firmer action for those who drive and seriously injure/kill others (irrespective of their mode of transport). I'm sure some accidents do happen due to genuine unfortunate circumstances but many of the reasons being heard at times for mitigation are unacceptable and are simply excuses. Manslaughter charges should be the least to be brought in and then allow genuine mitigation to be applied in order to reduce the punishment if merited. Frivolous mitigation claims are awarded additional punishment and fines.

Maybe those who make the laws and hand out sentences need to be hit by a car to give them better perspective on the matter.

1. Manslaughter carries a mandatory life sentence - this is why the crime of causing death by dangerous (and subsequently careless) driving was introduced, as juries were unwilling to convict drivers of manslaughter where inattention or mistake resulted in death. There is no reason to think that this view would have changed - if anything it will have increased.

2. The response to frivolous mitigatory arguments is to not reduce the sentence - you increase someone's sentence on this basis - the implications in law would be massive.

3. Those who make the laws and those who hand out sentences are different bodies. Its a concept called separation of powers, and one of the key aspects of western democracy. Perhaps you should look it up.

4. The concept of deterrent doesn't work for offences where there is a lack of intent. For someone to be deterred from something, there must be a degree of malice aforethought.

5. It may interest you to know that keeping someone in prison for a year costs a minimum of £45k.

slowbike

cynicalrider wrote:

4. The concept of deterrent doesn't work for offences where there is a lack of intent. For someone to be deterred from something, there must be a degree of malice aforethought.

To a degree ... but there will be a point at which it'll make ppl think ...

eg - if the act was killing someone by dangerous driving carrying a penalty of death then I'm pretty sure most ppl would concentrate a bit more on the road.
So, how far down would the penalty need to come before ppl don't worry about it too much? 240hrs community service, £145 fine and 2 years ban on driving? All because he had to drive the sat nav rather than concentrate on the road?

djm501

Mikey23 wrote:

Can there be more of a life sentence than knowing that your actions have killed another human being and probably destroyed a family. I think not...

Believe it or not, some people lack empathy and are not as nice as you are. Also, having a court essentially corroborate your theory that you 'did nothing wrong' won't help.

cynicalrider

I personally advocate very severe non-custodial penalties for road traffic offences. An evaluation of what these could be is required before it could be implemented. There are practical concerns in the case of fines (most defendants are relatively poor and their consequent ability to pay fines is limited, if they have dependents the impact on them must also be considered), community service (relative cost of supervision) and lengthy bans (impact on employment and dependents) but essentially any penalty will be a combination of these.

Its inadvisable to speculate on the details of cases without having been in the courtroom, as reporters will exaggerate to create a story. In most cases, the judge will give a penalty based on the degree to which the defendant has breach the law, rather than the effect of their breach - this is an important legal principle although it is already slightly damaged by the discrepancy in penalty for pure dangerous/careless driving, and the same where a death results. The legal difficulty of this has been extensively discussed in journals. If a sentence is seen as unduly harsh or lenient, both prosecution and defence have routes of appeal. This is how our legal system functions, and I am yet to see a fairer one in existence today.

djm501

This is all very defeatist. In several european contries (Spain and The Netherlands spring to mind) there are 200 Euro fines for doing things like overtaking a cyclist too closely or driving in a bike lane. These levels of penalty work - presumably because they are also enforced.
It *is* possible to change the behaviour of people in more powerful vehicles so that they behave courteously - yet we seem bereft of any clue how to do it here. Look how europe did it and we should push for similar change here.

Cynicalrider, I am not a law expert, perhaps you can expand on what you meant by tort and criminal law and presumed liability. As I understand it, in several continental countries an accident whether car/bike, car/pedestrian, bike/pedestrian is presumed to be the fault of the person in control of the more powerful form of transport and liability is given thus unless proven otherwise. Is there a substantive reason why the UK should not adapt a similar policy in law?

tiglon84

The way to get people to drive more safely is education, not deterrant. How many people actually believe they drive unsafely?

What deterrant is the prospect of 20 years in prison for careless driving, if you are convinced you never drive carelessly?

djm501

I suspect you need both.

dilemna

tiglon84 wrote:

The way to get people to drive more safely is education, not deterrant. How many people actually believe they drive safely?

What deterrant is the prospect of 20 years in prison for careless driving, if you are convinced you never drive carelessly?

You might, but I certainly do .

tiglon84

dilemna wrote:

tiglon84 wrote:

The way to get people to drive more safely is education, not deterrant. How many people actually believe they drive unsafely?

What deterrant is the prospect of 20 years in prison for careless driving, if you are convinced you never drive carelessly?

You might, but I certainly don't

That's my point.

dilemna

Best punishment would be 600 hours of cleaning and sweeping cycle lanes and paths of sh1t, glass and rubbish .......... with a toothbrush (Last bit only kidding).

cynicalrider

djm501

No problem

Criminal Law is principally concerned with the relationship between the citizen and the state. The state makes laws; if a citizen breaks them then they will be punish. The trial/judicial process works on the basis of 'innocent until proven guilty, where proof goes beyond all reasonable doubt.'

Tort Law relates to the relationship between citizen and citizen, and determines whether there is tortious liability, this being where one person has wronged/injured another and owes them remedy as a result. The concept of presumed liability arises where, in the case of a collision between a motorist and cyclist, the motorist is presumed to be at fault and the burden of proof (in this case on the balance of probabilities) lies with them, to demonstrate that they were not to blame.

In respect of European countries, there are a number of factors such as lower population density, a more ingrained cycling culture, wider/newer roads, greater availability of cycle paths, which contribute to the difference in attitudes among drivers. It is absolutely not because of greater enforcement of traffic laws. The UK has experienced a recent, enormous boom in cycling over a short period, and it is taking a while for attitudes and infrastructure to adapt. Its not really as bad as it seems - I lived in Germany last year and drivers there are much less tolerant of drivers than here. They drive very fast, close to cyclists on the road, and shout at you just for being there.

djm501

Cheers, thanks for that. That's not my experience of being in Germany a few weeks ago - polar opposite in fact. It may depend upon where you are though - my guess was you were in a city? I was not.