Using mobile, kills cyclist - sentenced to 5 years.
Discussion
turbobloke said:
Also there is indeed such evidence, it's been indicated at numerous points in this thread. The research as cited does exist, the findings are as stated, and your unwillingness to accept it has no basis.
But think for a moment what this 'research', as you call it, is supposed to be about. The reasons why people behave in a certain way. Unless that research has been carried out using mind-reading equipment then it's just a bunch of opinions, and your unwillingness to accept that is based on the fact that it plays to your agenda (which we are still waiting to hear about).
You haven't found the research, according to what you've said so far, so you know nothing about it. If you did, you could have avoided posting more baseless rhetoric.
My agenda, if it can be called such, is to post sources of research evidence, including the conclusions from it, related to the topic being discussed (mobiles) then when you took the thread over to speed and limits, research about speed and speed limits.
).singlecoil said:
I admire (but not in a good way) your determination to have the last word on this particular subject. I will simply point out that it was not I who introduced the subject of speed enforcement...
Well there have been many speed mentions on PH and its threads but in this tread and in the context of our little discussion and my contributions on speed, the exchange began following your comment (below).Yesterday afternoon I said:
singlecoil said:
supermono said:
singlecoil said:
Yes, really.
There was massive b
hing about the drink driving laws when they came it too.
Erm, I'm not against the using mobiles when driving law just that it's a bit black and white, blunt and ineffective. Drink driving laws are at least scientifically measurable. But in any case, I support the mobile phone ban.There was massive b
hing about the drink driving laws when they came it too.However, it's true to say that this billing people for speeding at some time in the future is bonkers from an effectiveness point of view yet the scale of technology deployed to make sure as many invoices are raised as possible is amazing. Accident figures prove my point beyond doubt.
Mobile Phone legislation hasn't made a dent either.
Training and attitude is expensive and difficult but effective. Yet because of the bozos in charge none of it happens.
So don't try to tell me "we're" trying because we're not. We're failing because the underlying issues aren't being tackled
Also, speed cameras are very effective in keeping speeds down, I for one avoid exceeding the limit by anything more than a couple of mph simply because I don't want to receive speeding penalties, and I've no reason to believe that I'm the only one.
Mave said:
Johnnytheboy said:
I understand your point but it's a slightly flawed analogy, unless the machete wielder inadvertently decapitates a toddler, in which case I don't know why they should be punished more.
Because in wandering around with a machete they were risking people's lives, so it is only fair they also risk a heavier punishment if that risk is realisedPut me on the list of those who are deeply concerned about the judging on the basis of outcomes that we are seeing more and more of. It's even in the title of this thread. Use a mobile and don't kill a cyclist, if you are caught it will be a fine (and points?). Use a mobile and kill a cyclist, get a stiff prison sentence.
I understand why it is happening, but I'm by no means happy about it. I had previously understood that what was in the mind of the perpetrator at the time of the crime was the most important consideration in deciding the punishment, but now it's starting to look as if luck has taken the place of mens rea.
In the case of those who use hand held mobiles while driving, I think there needs to be more enforcement and harsher penalties, even in no-one gets killed or injured.
I understand why it is happening, but I'm by no means happy about it. I had previously understood that what was in the mind of the perpetrator at the time of the crime was the most important consideration in deciding the punishment, but now it's starting to look as if luck has taken the place of mens rea.
In the case of those who use hand held mobiles while driving, I think there needs to be more enforcement and harsher penalties, even in no-one gets killed or injured.
singlecoil said:
Put me on the list of those who are deeply concerned about the judging on the basis of outcomes that we are seeing more and more of. It's even in the title of this thread. Use a mobile and don't kill a cyclist, if you are caught it will be a fine (and points?). Use a mobile and kill a cyclist, get a stiff prison sentence.
I understand why it is happening, but I'm by no means happy about it. I had previously understood that what was in the mind of the perpetrator at the time of the crime was the most important consideration in deciding the punishment, but now it's starting to look as if luck has taken the place of mens rea.
I understand why it is happening, but I'm by no means happy about it. I had previously understood that what was in the mind of the perpetrator at the time of the crime was the most important consideration in deciding the punishment, but now it's starting to look as if luck has taken the place of mens rea.
Johnnytheboy said:
Heavens above, I agree with Singlecoil on something!
Snap! And there's a strong sense of déja vu in the air.On Thursday in this thread I said:
The outcome may not be related to the seriousness of the bad driving i.e. the extent to which it fell short of the expected standard, and the resulting degree of wilful neglect of the safety of other road users involved. A rare and momentary minor lapse in attention could have no serious consequences, or fatal consequences, to treat them differently as a result is a bit odd. On the other hand, treating DCA and DD differently is logical and right.
The outcome of DCA may - and often does - turn on events of chance, taking the example of a cyclist impact the outcome will depend on which bit of a motorised vehicle hits the cyclist, how they land, and so on. It makes justice more like a game of chance and less like something which retains proportionality to the degree of blameworthy behaviour involved.
Seeing singlecoil agree with something I posted a couple of days ago is welcome but curious, something must be wrong The outcome of DCA may - and often does - turn on events of chance, taking the example of a cyclist impact the outcome will depend on which bit of a motorised vehicle hits the cyclist, how they land, and so on. It makes justice more like a game of chance and less like something which retains proportionality to the degree of blameworthy behaviour involved.
singlecoil said:
Still no links then 
When I posted countless (and I mean literally countless because there were so many) links supporting evidence on cycle helmets you rejected them all and IIRC it was you how dismissed it all as 'internet evidence'.Why do you want internet evidence now?
singlecoil said:
Put me on the list of those who are deeply concerned about the judging on the basis of outcomes that we are seeing more and more of. It's even in the title of this thread. Use a mobile and don't kill a cyclist, if you are caught it will be a fine (and points?). Use a mobile and kill a cyclist, get a stiff prison sentence.
I understand why it is happening, but I'm by no means happy about it. I had previously understood that what was in the mind of the perpetrator at the time of the crime was the most important consideration in deciding the punishment, but now it's starting to look as if luck has taken the place of mens rea.
In the case of those who use hand held mobiles while driving, I think there needs to be more enforcement and harsher penalties, even in no-one gets killed or injured.
Loads of crimes are punished differently according to the consequences, why is this so wrong?I understand why it is happening, but I'm by no means happy about it. I had previously understood that what was in the mind of the perpetrator at the time of the crime was the most important consideration in deciding the punishment, but now it's starting to look as if luck has taken the place of mens rea.
In the case of those who use hand held mobiles while driving, I think there needs to be more enforcement and harsher penalties, even in no-one gets killed or injured.
turbobloke said:
Seeing singlecoil agree with something I posted a couple of days ago is welcome but curious, something must be wrong
This is not the first time I have commented on this subject on this forum. I daresay it's not your first either. Which of us was the first to mention it I don't know.wolves_wanderer said:
Loads of crimes are punished differently according to the consequences, why is this so wrong?
On the assumption that the consequences are different for two people that behaved in exactly the same way, why should the more serious outcome be punished more harshly?Should we punish intent or results?
Johnnytheboy said:
wolves_wanderer said:
Loads of crimes are punished differently according to the consequences, why is this so wrong?
On the assumption that the consequences are different for two people that behaved in exactly the same way, why should the more serious outcome be punished more harshly?Obviously that's carp. Any process that has outcomes mattering more than culpable intent has lost sight of what justice should be about.
The arena of motoring offences is becoming steadily less just, with forced self-incrimination or confession and now pure chance determining the charge and sentencing options e.g. causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving.
A minor lapse that's not in the league of dangerous driving will have outcomes determined by pure chance, making a mockery of justice for all involved.
turbobloke said:
I've been a cyclist in circumstance A some time back. A car towing a caravan and travelling at my estmate of approx 40mph on a rural single carriageway road, took a sweeping left hander as it overtook me, and the trajectory of the caravan ment that it struck me. I was cycling at approc 15mph and the impact sent me over the handlebars at an angle, onto a soft grass verge. No injury arose from the landing but the side of the caravan had bruised taken the skin off my elbow, a minor injury.
I've been a witness in circumstance B more recently, in that a cyclist was emerging slowly from a side road in town and was (in my view) hidden from and unsighted by parked cars from the view of the driver of the car that braked but still had an impact with the cyclist who cycled into the side of the car. The cyclist fell sideways and hit their head on the kerb. Assisting at the scene and realising the cyclist was in a bad way I looked for follow-up news in local media and it turns out they died from their injury.
Neither of us (cyclists) were wearing safety helmets at the time.
In terms of the driving involved, both were DCA in my view and following a change in law introducing the offence of causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving, the second driver could well have faced a serious charge leading to stripey daylight but their lapse in driving standard was in essence no worse than the higher speed impact that skinned my elbow.
It was and is pure chance as to whether a DCA impact will lead to death or not as the same degree of lapse can have markedly different outcomes depending on peripheral but decisive other factors. Bad law.
My point was that a sentence involving immediate custody was most unlikely.I've been a witness in circumstance B more recently, in that a cyclist was emerging slowly from a side road in town and was (in my view) hidden from and unsighted by parked cars from the view of the driver of the car that braked but still had an impact with the cyclist who cycled into the side of the car. The cyclist fell sideways and hit their head on the kerb. Assisting at the scene and realising the cyclist was in a bad way I looked for follow-up news in local media and it turns out they died from their injury.
Neither of us (cyclists) were wearing safety helmets at the time.
In terms of the driving involved, both were DCA in my view and following a change in law introducing the offence of causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving, the second driver could well have faced a serious charge leading to stripey daylight but their lapse in driving standard was in essence no worse than the higher speed impact that skinned my elbow.
It was and is pure chance as to whether a DCA impact will lead to death or not as the same degree of lapse can have markedly different outcomes depending on peripheral but decisive other factors. Bad law.
I think i have the figures somewhere. Will post later if i find them.
Edited by agtlaw on Sunday 31st August 09:53
Johnnytheboy said:
On the assumption that the consequences are different for two people that behaved in exactly the same way, why should the more serious outcome be punished more harshly?
Should we punish intent or results?
Both should be considered (why should they be mutually exclusive?).Should we punish intent or results?
Society places a great deal of importance on a life. We have seen the law develop according to society's wishes; in motoring this means greater emphasis is being placed on accountability when there is death or serious injury (see the relatively recent and distinct offences of death by careless and serious injury by dangerous driving, for example).
When a person is killed it causes serious damage to the fabric of society; society therefore demands greater scrutiny when a person is killed rather than merely involved in an accident.
If an employer allows malpractice that causes a barely injurious accident, should he be punished to the same degree as if it had caused a death?
turbobloke said:
Johnnytheboy said:
wolves_wanderer said:
Loads of crimes are punished differently according to the consequences, why is this so wrong?
On the assumption that the consequences are different for two people that behaved in exactly the same way, why should the more serious outcome be punished more harshly?Obviously that's carp. Any process that has outcomes mattering more than culpable intent has lost sight of what justice should be about.
The arena of motoring offences is becoming steadily less just, with forced self-incrimination or confession and now pure chance determining the charge and sentencing options e.g. causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving.
A minor lapse that's not in the league of dangerous driving will have outcomes determined by pure chance, making a mockery of justice for all involved.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff