A f***ING disgrace!
redvision
Posts: 2,958
I honestly can't believe this.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-33188074
The law has to change.
Kill someone with a gun & get 20 years, kill someone with a vehicle & get a suspended sentence (which essentially means nothing)!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-33188074
The law has to change.
Kill someone with a gun & get 20 years, kill someone with a vehicle & get a suspended sentence (which essentially means nothing)!
0
Comments
-
So I understand he didn't set out to kill the guy. But he carried on having hit him and then lied about the damage until he realised he wouldn't get away with it. That's cold and shows a distinct lack of remorse. Do time and never drive again.0
-
I know it isn't the best analogy. But then taking a life is taking a life. You see shop lifters getting a harsher sentence than this!
This bloke has taken a life through his careless driving, then drove off & only admitted what he had done to get a softer sentence.
I think the law has to be changed. When you kill someone through careless driving there should be a prison sentence imposed.0 -
Lets be real here. There are TONS of variables. In the US we often here about things like this. A "cyclist" got hit by a car and killed where I live recently. The fact is that the "cyclist" had a 49cc engine on his bike and was going the wrong way on a one way (that obviously is not the case in this matter). He also was a well known drunk who got this "bicycle" to avoid his total lack of a drivers license and throwing his fingers at the drunk driving laws. But, as a cyclist that averages of 10,000 miles a year - and a safe driver...put the sun in the wrong spot and all kinds of things can happen. I also know that a typical cyclist in the US is VERY fast with the middle finger and spitting at cars.
We only know in this case what a biased report says. We dont know anything more than there was no premeditation (presumably) and why put a non-violent tax paying accidental offender in jail for two decades? What is accomplished?0 -
Accidents can happen.Lets be real here. There are TONS of variables. In the US we often here about things like this. A "cyclist" got hit by a car and killed where I live recently. The fact is that the "cyclist" had a 49cc engine on his bike and was going the wrong way on a one way (that obviously is not the case in this matter). He also was a well known drunk who got this "bicycle" to avoid his total lack of a drivers license and throwing his fingers at the drunk driving laws. But, as a cyclist that averages of 10,000 miles a year - and a safe driver...put the sun in the wrong spot and all kinds of things can happen. I also know that a typical cyclist in the US is VERY fast with the middle finger and spitting at cars.
We only know in this case what a biased report says. We dont know anything more than there was no premeditation (presumably) and why put a non-violent tax paying accidental offender in jail for two decades? What is accomplished?
Covering them up is a major issue. Which should be punished.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Accidents can happen.
Covering them up is a major issue. Which should be punished.
But...if he was listening to his lawyers...no sense in throwing yourself (physically) and your mental capacity away. I know that in the US it is your obligation to lie in court until the bitter end.0 -
Problem is cyclists are seen as the scum of the earth by most of the world's population. If you get a judge who feels that way too then you get sentences like this.0
-
Well done in summing up why the U.S. is so messed up.Accidents can happen.
Covering them up is a major issue. Which should be punished.
But...if he was listening to his lawyers...no sense in throwing yourself (physically) and your mental capacity away. I know that in the US it is your obligation to lie in court until the bitter end.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I honestly can't believe this.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-33188074
The law has to change.
Kill someone with a gun & get 20 years, kill someone with a vehicle & get a suspended sentence (which essentially means nothing)!
People who use guns and knives use them with the goal of killing. Not sure many motorists do this so I can understand the lesser sentences. Assuming you can drive, you could make one mistake and hit a cyclist, would you deserved 20 years in jail?0 -
My problem, as I wrote on Road.cc in relation to the same story, is from the perspective of the plea.
He accepted his guilt despite the claim that he had no knowledge of it and, "must have been blinded" aside, does not appear, in any story I've seen, to have been driving carelessly.
On that basis, why did he plead if he had indeed done nothing wrong? And why was he advised to?My blog: http://www.roubaixcycling.cc (kit reviews and other musings)
https://twitter.com/roubaixcc
Facebook? No. Just say no.0 -
Your right it is a disgrace, the whole justice system in UK is a disgrace. One of the main reasons you don't see criminals put away is lack of space in prisons. FACT. Plead guilty, show remorse etc etc at any point (first time offence) and they think the criminal is a half way decent human being and are given some B.S. non custodial sentence.0
-
Let's see what happens on this one then: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-33214865
Sure the cyclist's relatives were heartened to see that Kerry Dixon was sentenced to 9 months for punching someone in a pub... Justice seen to be done again, then.Job: Job, n,. A frustratingly long period of time separating two shorter than usual training rides0 -
I honestly can't believe this.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-shropshire-33188074
The law has to change.
Kill someone with a gun & get 20 years, kill someone with a vehicle & get a suspended sentence (which essentially means nothing)!
People who use guns and knives use them with the goal of killing. Not sure many motorists do this so I can understand the lesser sentences. Assuming you can drive, you could make one mistake and hit a cyclist, would you deserved 20 years in jail?
thats the problem though isnt it? "its an accident, there but the grace of God etc etc" but this drivers actions have led to a family not having Granddad, a father, perhaps a son ? whatever.
today i was very nearly hit by a van driver who cut back on me because of an on coming car (which unless he is blind would have been fully aware off, the rear panel brushed my shoulder, if he d killed me, my kid would be an orphan and so he pleads "smidsy" and gets a mere slap on the wrist?
In your example of a 20year sentence, the driver would actually serve 10, so not so bad is it?
would you be happy with that if it were your close relatively was run down by a someone who went out of his way to avoid being caught?
until deterrent sentences are handing out, then the rise in non vehicle road deaths will continue.0 -
I fear you are correct... there is no real fear of losing the licence fully for life and without recourse to appeal by any driver in the UK.... losing your driving licence is some kind of infringement of the Human Rights Act, is it not..? There is a specific paragraph and sub para pertaining to this.... I mean there has to be ...until deterrent sentences are handing out, then the rise in non vehicle road deaths will continue.
kill someone.... why why why why are you allowed ever to take control of a vehicle ever again...?0 -
Aren't all road deaths non vehicle?until deterrent sentences are handing out, then the rise in non vehicle road deaths will continue.
Then again, I did kill a car once by driving it into a tree.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I fear you are correct... there is no real fear of losing the licence fully for life and without recourse to appeal by any driver in the UK.... losing your driving licence is some kind of infringement of the Human Rights Act, is it not..? There is a specific paragraph and sub para pertaining to this.... I mean there has to be ...until deterrent sentences are handing out, then the rise in non vehicle road deaths will continue.
kill someone.... why why why why are you allowed ever to take control of a vehicle ever again...?
Note: Deaths happen. A father hit his son in the head with a rock ejected from a lawm mower. Should this father not have known to not mow over a rock? Not had a helmet on his kid who could have fallen on the rock?
Far more deaths are car -vs- car as opposed to car against cyclists.
And, the criminal defense laws are one of the many things that make the US better. We are innocent until PROVEN guilty, have a right to remain silent (and thus let you assume anything until a judgement). No one said this driver was lieing, just that he was not telling a story they wanted to hear.0 -
until PROVEN guilty,
fair does and when you guys over there get that.. you shoot 'em up with volts or drugs or hand 999 years in darkness.. its a certain style.
my point was simply to point out if a driver kills with his car... more than likely back drving within a short space of time.... if you mistreat a pug ugly pug, the RSPCA will demand and get a lifetime ban of owning another pug ugly pug.0 -
Note: Deaths happen. A father hit his son in the head with a rock ejected from a lawm mower. Should this father not have known to not mow over a rock? Not had a helmet on his kid who could have fallen on the rock?
Far more deaths are car -vs- car as opposed to car against cyclists.
And, the criminal defense laws are one of the many things that make the US better. We are innocent until PROVEN guilty, have a right to remain silent (and thus let you assume anything until a judgement). No one said this driver was lieing, just that he was not telling a story they wanted to hear.
Deaths do happen yes, BUT, when you are driving any vehicle you have a responsibility to drive with care. This accident happened on a road i know well, a road which is wide and has excellent visibility. There is no excuse for not seeing the cyclist, and there is definitely no excuse for leaving the scene and showing no remorse when found out!JGSI wrote:kill someone.... why why why why are you allowed ever to take control of a vehicle ever again...?
This isn't a bad idea, but i still think a mandatory prison sentence should be law.0 -
I can see it both ways. Plus, remember that I ride over 10k miles a year.
But - many (most) cyclists I see do not know how to ride in the road. In the US I have a right to "take my lane" on any road but a freeway. Oddly in the US in most places the thing that has the most rights of the roads is horses (seriously).
When I ride on a road, ANY road I stay about 2 feet to the left of the white line indicating the side of the lane. This lets cars SEE me and know that I am in their way. They know that they have to take proactive steps to avoid me. It was proven a few decades ago that if a driver thinks that they can squeeze by they will try (and maybe just give you a side view mirror up the fanny). Do I hear or horn or two? Sure. Have I been hit from the rear by a mirror? Sure. But, I know I am safer taking my lane (and moving over once I know a car has slowed down or started to pass me like another car).0 -
I can see it both ways. Plus, remember that I ride over 10k miles a year.
But - many (most) cyclists I see do not know how to ride in the road. In the US I have a right to "take my lane" on any road but a freeway. Oddly in the US in most places the thing that has the most rights of the roads is horses (seriously).
When I ride on a road, ANY road I stay about 2 feet to the left of the white line indicating the side of the lane. This lets cars SEE me and know that I am in their way. They know that they have to take proactive steps to avoid me. It was proven a few decades ago that if a driver thinks that they can squeeze by they will try (and maybe just give you a side view mirror up the fanny). Do I hear or horn or two? Sure. Have I been hit from the rear by a mirror? Sure. But, I know I am safer taking my lane (and moving over once I know a car has slowed down or started to pass me like another car).
Good for you! and long may your luck last because thats what it is, it not your road positioning or jack else, some drivers either dont care or do not see cyclists as any other than fair game.
the debate is about deterrent and changing behaviour and a lenient sentence like this sends out the message that the car/lorry is king and xxxx anyone who gets in my way they deserve whats coming.0 -
I can see it both ways. Plus, remember that I ride over 10k miles a year.
But - many (most) cyclists I see do not know how to ride in the road. In the US I have a right to "take my lane" on any road but a freeway. Oddly in the US in most places the thing that has the most rights of the roads is horses (seriously).
When I ride on a road, ANY road I stay about 2 feet to the left of the white line indicating the side of the lane. This lets cars SEE me and know that I am in their way. They know that they have to take proactive steps to avoid me. It was proven a few decades ago that if a driver thinks that they can squeeze by they will try (and maybe just give you a side view mirror up the fanny). Do I hear or horn or two? Sure. Have I been hit from the rear by a mirror? Sure. But, I know I am safer taking my lane (and moving over once I know a car has slowed down or started to pass me like another car).
Good for you! and long may your luck last because thats what it is, it not your road positioning or jack else, some drivers either dont care or do not see cyclists as any other than fair game.
the debate is about deterrent and changing behaviour and a lenient sentence like this sends out the message that the car/lorry is king and xxxx anyone who gets in my way they deserve whats coming.
There is no "deterrent" for an accident until it happened. Best reports do not state that the guy was intoxicated by anything, on his cell phone or anything. For all we know he had a crying toddler in the back seat and he was sticking a pacifier in the kids mouth. We just dont know. But, to want the legal system to effectively and TWO lives over an accident is simply short sighted and arrogant as a cyclist. I bet far more drivers die in "accidents" and I dont see people going to prison for life (or often at all). But, the cycling forum feels no need to cry out about those now do we?0 -
But did the father carry on mowing the lawn not checking on the kid, and when challenged claim the rock came from elsewhere? Because that's what this guy did. He didn't stop and when asked about damage he lied about it claiming it happened elsewhere.Note: Deaths happen. A father hit his son in the head with a rock ejected from a lawm mower. Should this father not have known to not mow over a rock? Not had a helmet on his kid who could have fallen on the rock?
Had he stopped and done all he could to help it may have just been a terrible accident, but driving on and then lying about it changes things quite substantially.0 -
But did the father carry on mowing the lawn not checking on the kid, and when challenged claim the rock came from elsewhere? Because that's what this guy did. He didn't stop and when asked about damage he lied about it claiming it happened elsewhere.Note: Deaths happen. A father hit his son in the head with a rock ejected from a lawm mower. Should this father not have known to not mow over a rock? Not had a helmet on his kid who could have fallen on the rock?
Had he stopped and done all he could to help it may have just been a terrible accident, but driving on and then lying about it changes things quite substantially.
In a court of law - YES. Let them prove it. In Europe you are not innocent until proven guilty in most countries. Lieing outweighed the risk of telling the truth...and when he got the right deal, he told the truth. That is simple human nature. If YOU were risking 20 years in prison for an "accident", I have a feeling you may listen to your lawyer (barrister) as well.0 -
You are innocent until proven guilty in Britain. Remember where your Country originates from.
But did the father carry on mowing the lawn not checking on the kid, and when challenged claim the rock came from elsewhere? Because that's what this guy did. He didn't stop and when asked about damage he lied about it claiming it happened elsewhere.Note: Deaths happen. A father hit his son in the head with a rock ejected from a lawm mower. Should this father not have known to not mow over a rock? Not had a helmet on his kid who could have fallen on the rock?
Had he stopped and done all he could to help it may have just been a terrible accident, but driving on and then lying about it changes things quite substantially.
In a court of law - YES. Let them prove it. In Europe you are not innocent until proven guilty in most countries. Lieing outweighed the risk of telling the truth...and when he got the right deal, he told the truth. That is simple human nature. If YOU were risking 20 years in prison for an "accident", I have a feeling you may listen to your lawyer (barrister) as well.
It was proven. He was guilty. Then he folded.
Selfish is as selfish does.
I couldn't sleep at night if I was him, but then I have a conscience.
Forgetting for a moment the harm done, he broke a lot of laws, admitted to deliberately breaking a lot of laws, and effectively got off with it. Wrong.
PS:- Innocent until proven guilty in the U.S.? There are families of a few black American youths that would like to have that discussion with you. Never mind, the policemen's attorneys are only doing what is best. :roll:The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Lieing to hide your guilt is NOT "innocent until proven guilty" or using your right to remain silent - it's peverting the course of justice.
This man illegally killed someone, illegally lied about killing someone but doesn't get any time behind bars? Joke.0 -
I can see it both ways. Plus, remember that I ride over 10k miles a year.
But - many (most) cyclists I see do not know how to ride in the road. In the US I have a right to "take my lane" on any road but a freeway. Oddly in the US in most places the thing that has the most rights of the roads is horses (seriously).
When I ride on a road, ANY road I stay about 2 feet to the left of the white line indicating the side of the lane. This lets cars SEE me and know that I am in their way. They know that they have to take proactive steps to avoid me. It was proven a few decades ago that if a driver thinks that they can squeeze by they will try (and maybe just give you a side view mirror up the fanny). Do I hear or horn or two? Sure. Have I been hit from the rear by a mirror? Sure. But, I know I am safer taking my lane (and moving over once I know a car has slowed down or started to pass me like another car).
Good for you! and long may your luck last because thats what it is, it not your road positioning or jack else, some drivers either dont care or do not see cyclists as any other than fair game.
the debate is about deterrent and changing behaviour and a lenient sentence like this sends out the message that the car/lorry is king and xxxx anyone who gets in my way they deserve whats coming.
There is no "deterrent" for an accident until it happened. Best reports do not state that the guy was intoxicated by anything, on his cell phone or anything. For all we know he had a crying toddler in the back seat and he was sticking a pacifier in the kids mouth. We just dont know. But, to want the legal system to effectively and TWO lives over an accident is simply short sighted and arrogant as a cyclist. I bet far more drivers die in "accidents" and I dont see people going to prison for life (or often at all). But, the cycling forum feels no need to cry out about those now do we?
What you are missing is - If he had stopped, done all he could to assist and given a full and frank account of what happened, then yes a more lenient sentence but still custodial (assume his account matched the facts and the Police prosecute) but he did none of those things, for all we know, had he stopped dialled 999 the cyclist might have lived.
Would your family be happy if it were you under his wheels and your killer got off with a slap?0 -
I didn't read anything in the above to suggest criminal attempts to cover up the accident. The sentence will reflect the charge and the charge will reflect the evidence. He was found guilty of causing the death by careless driving. It is possible that a lorry driver can hit a cyclist without knowing. A careful driver would have seen him, this driver wasn't driving carefully.
Accidents sometimes happen. People sometimes die as a result. Its terrible for all involved, but what goal is achieved in society by locking people up who accidentally kill. The sentence wont act as a deterrent for others, locking the driver up doesn't protect society from a dangerous person and there doesn't appear to be have been any criminal intent to do wrong.
What we want is normal people who accidentally hit cyclists to be motivated to stop and help, not drive off fearing 10 years in jail.0 -
I didn't read anything in the above to suggest criminal attempts to cover up the accident. The sentence will reflect the charge and the charge will reflect the evidence. He was found guilty of causing the death by careless driving. It is possible that a lorry driver can hit a cyclist without knowing. A careful driver would have seen him, this driver wasn't driving carefully.
Accidents sometimes happen. People sometimes die as a result. Its terrible for all involved, but what goal is achieved in society by locking people up who accidentally kill. The sentence wont act as a deterrent for others, locking the driver up doesn't protect society from a dangerous person and there doesn't appear to be have been any criminal intent to do wrong.
We want is for normal people who accidentally hit cyclists to be motivated to stop and help, not drive off fearing 10 years in jail.
normal people would stop and need no motivation to do so, but If he is such a lousy lorry driver that he can hit a cyclist on an empty open road, killing him, he shouldn't be allowed to drive at all.
Unfortunately DIY, many drivers would, if we followed your thinking, use an "accident" to cover up wilful neglect and the plea of Smidsy, would even more than it is now, be an instant get off.
And as i said, jail has a deterrent effect, many motorists at present see cyclists as fair game, a menace to be driven off the roads and their mindset is that even if the xxxx hits the fan, they ll get off with nothing more than a slap on the wrist.0 -
firstly you can't rely on news papers to report the facts accurately. If it was as per the news paper article, the CPS would have appealed the sentence as unduly lenient. See:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/causing_death_by_careless_or_inconsiderate_driving/
In reality an accident investigator will have looked very carefully at the damage, taco and markings on the road to see if it was plausible that the driver was unaware. If they could establish any likelihood they would also have gone for failure to stop/report as this would be classed as an aggravating factor.
I'm not someone who has blind faith in police officers, I've worked with enough to know many are complete idiots. However, IME AI's are normally highly experienced and very good at their job. If they could have proved hit and run, they would have gone with it.0 -
firstly you can't rely on news papers to report the facts accurately. If it was as per the news paper article, the CPS would have appealed the sentence as unduly lenient. See:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/causing_death_by_careless_or_inconsiderate_driving/
In reality an accident investigator will have looked very carefully at the damage, taco and markings on the road to see if it was plausible that the driver was unaware. If they could establish any likelihood they would also have gone for failure to stop/report as this would be classed as an aggravating factor.
I'm not someone who has blind faith in police officers, I've worked with enough to know many are complete idiots. However, IME AI's are normally highly experienced and very good at their job. If they could have proved hit and run, they would have gone with it.
Exactly!
The bloke admitted causing death by careless driving in court due to 'overwhelming evidence against him'.
The argument here is that the penalties are ridiculous. He admitted causing death by dangerous driving and yet gets a suspended sentence! How can that be just?!!
I understand that the CPS are considering an appeal to get the sentence increased, but the fact of the matter is the judge sentenced him according to the law, which clearly shows that as it stands, the law on causing death by careless driving is unjust and not adequate.
Simply put, the law needs changing.0 -
Historically at least in criminal law the guilty mind was more culpable than the guilty act. In other words... Someone who attempts but fails to murder another person is more culpable than a person who accidentally kills another person.
If you imagine 3 scenarios of a person pulling out from a side road without looking. Depending on the luck of the draw he could face himself with an angry cyclist, an injured cyclist or a dead cyclist. But in all scenarios his guilty act was the same. How therefore can it be right, that the punishment should be different according to the bad luck of the draw?0
This discussion has been closed.
