Using mobile, kills cyclist - sentenced to 5 years.
Discussion
turbobloke said:
Presumably justice in this form of road safety poker matters more than justice applying to all parties.
The whole reason the new category of "death by careless driving" was introduced.If you were the father of the cyclist killed by a driver's inattention you would be happy to say "let's just shake hands be on your way and try to pay more attention next time"?
To be honest - I do find it slightly odd that one action and intention is punished one way yet the exact same action and intention can be punished very differently owing to something completely beyond the control of the protagonist i.e. chance or whatever.
But since this is absolutely standard in every developed form of justice system - I figured I just had to deal with it.
Say speeding. Doing 40 in a 30 and kill someone? Again if you were their Dad would you be happy with 3 points and a £60 fine?
The example that caused me an issue was the chap who fell asleep at the wheel and ended up derailing a train. Sheer bad luck on the timing. But he want to prison and I understand why.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Heck_rail_crash
walm said:
turbobloke said:
Presumably justice in this form of road safety poker matters more than justice applying to all parties.
To be honest - I do find it slightly odd that one action and intention is punished one way yet the exact same action and intention can be punished very differently owing to something completely beyond the control of the protagonist i.e. chance or whatever.But since this is absolutely standard in every developed form of justice system - I figured I just had to deal with it.
That is what the "scale of justice" represent - the balance between offender and victim.
If you only punished on the basis of the action, and ignored the consequence, you would rarely reflect the true damage done by the offender (which is what penalties are supposed to do).
I don't see a problem with people being held responsible for the consequences of their actions, provided that consequence is not too remote. Sure, it might come down to luck, but that equally affects the victim too.
tenpenceshort said:
The rules may have changed since, but it certainly used to be that home detention did not apply to sentences of more than four years.
Also worth noting that, if I recall correctly, a five year sentence will never be spent, so it will always have to be declared if asked for employment purposes etc.
You're quite right and this is still the case;Also worth noting that, if I recall correctly, a five year sentence will never be spent, so it will always have to be declared if asked for employment purposes etc.
"From 3 December 2012, all releases on HDC will be governed by section 246 of the Criminal Justice Act 2003 as amended by the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012. Under the amended section 246(4) – amendments in bold - the following are not eligible for HDC:
(i)?prisoners serving a sentence for a term of 4 years or more (determined by the aggregate of the terms with consecutive sentences, and by the period from the start of the first to the end of the last term with concurrent sentences); "
In any event, he's disqualified from HDC because it's an example of a homicide offence included in annex B of PSI 41/2012;
... Causing death by reckless/dangerous driving
Edited by agtlaw on Friday 29th August 09:47
4 year + sentences are never spent.
Edited by agtlaw on Friday 29th August 09:48
walm said:
The whole reason the new category of "death by careless driving" was introduced.
If you were the father of the cyclist killed by a driver's inattention you would be happy to say "let's just shake hands be on your way and try to pay more attention next time"?
To be honest - I do find it slightly odd that one action and intention is punished one way yet the exact same action and intention can be punished very differently owing to something completely beyond the control of the protagonist i.e. chance or whatever.
But since this is absolutely standard in every developed form of justice system - I figured I just had to deal with it.
Say speeding. Doing 40 in a 30 and kill someone? Again if you were their Dad would you be happy with 3 points and a £60 fine?
The example that caused me an issue was the chap who fell asleep at the wheel and ended up derailing a train. Sheer bad luck on the timing. But he want to prison and I understand why.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Heck_rail_crash
The legal system in this country should take into consideration the linkage between the initial illegal act and the outcome. If you were the father of the cyclist killed by a driver's inattention you would be happy to say "let's just shake hands be on your way and try to pay more attention next time"?
To be honest - I do find it slightly odd that one action and intention is punished one way yet the exact same action and intention can be punished very differently owing to something completely beyond the control of the protagonist i.e. chance or whatever.
But since this is absolutely standard in every developed form of justice system - I figured I just had to deal with it.
Say speeding. Doing 40 in a 30 and kill someone? Again if you were their Dad would you be happy with 3 points and a £60 fine?
The example that caused me an issue was the chap who fell asleep at the wheel and ended up derailing a train. Sheer bad luck on the timing. But he want to prison and I understand why.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Heck_rail_crash
In the case you quoted there was some argument that the initial accident might not have resulted in any deaths and it was only the subsequent collision with an oncoming train that made it so serious. However, there were aggravating factors. I seem to remember that the driver had been awake all night, so falling asleep at the wheel was forseeable. Further, there was evidence of dangerous condition, with regards the brakes. So pluses and minuses.
The addition of 'causing death by' is in effect nothing more than an aggravating factor, and these have been in existence for years.
There was a case in Brighton where a male entered the rear of a taxi to remonstrate with the occupants. The bloke was big and someone in the cab punched him. He fell backwards, hitting his head on the ground.
It was crimed as a murder yet, as every officer on it knew, there was little or no likelihood of the offender being found guilty of murder, manslaughter or even assault unless he didn't speak with a brief before the police. Or even me: I could come up with the perfect statement for a defence to the charge.
So is that good or bad?
Derek Smith said:
So is that good or bad?
Highly o/t but it sure sounds like manslaughter to me not murder. Certainly an assault that led to a death, no?Like this one: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-2893574...
turbobloke said:
wsurfa said:
Data on texting is not as broad, but falls into line with data that dialling a phone is higher risk than talking, and also that performing cogitative tasks is much higher risk. One study had an extreme increase for texting vs calling
http://www.vtnews.vt.edu/articles/2009/07/2009-571...
http://www.vtnews.vt.edu/articles/2009/07/2009-571...
Link said:
In the institute’s studies that included light vehicle drivers and truck drivers, manual manipulation of phones such as dialing and texting of the cell phone lead to a substantial increase in the risk of being involved in a safety-critical event such as a crash or near-crash
It seems unlikely that this study looked at the safety impact of texting in a stationary queue of traffic. See Derek's post, the bit about about enforcement.Nigel Worc's said:
It would be relatively easy to render phones unable to surf, text, whatever, whilst they were moving (via gps), it would be easy to stop people exceeding the speed limit electronically, but "authority" won't bite the bullet and do it.
Actually, it's not. I looked into this a while back and spoke with a few different App companies in relation to an app that would disable the phone at the tap of a button, only allowing emergency calls. It would also register info and send to a server the time/date of it being effectively 'locked down' so if you were questioned about using the phone by the police/courts you could effectively provide evidence that the phone was unable to be used at that point other than making emergency calls.
Was a total no go
ikarl said:
Actually, it's not.
I looked into this a while back and spoke with a few different App companies in relation to an app that would disable the phone at the tap of a button, only allowing emergency calls. It would also register info and send to a server the time/date of it being effectively 'locked down' so if you were questioned about using the phone by the police/courts you could effectively provide evidence that the phone was unable to be used at that point other than making emergency calls.
Was a total no go
From a legal standpoint it wouldn't have helped, anyway. You might be handling the phone to switch it on or off, or to re-enable it. Also, just because you're dialling an emergency number doesn't mean you're satisfying the requirements for an emergency as stated by the regulations.I looked into this a while back and spoke with a few different App companies in relation to an app that would disable the phone at the tap of a button, only allowing emergency calls. It would also register info and send to a server the time/date of it being effectively 'locked down' so if you were questioned about using the phone by the police/courts you could effectively provide evidence that the phone was unable to be used at that point other than making emergency calls.
Was a total no go
The saleable app in these circumstances is for the corporate market, where employees are driving on company business and the they wish to reduce their exposure to vicarious liability in the event an employee using the the phone whilst driving causes an accident. You would want the app to detect whether the phone was moving at the tine of a call, email or text and to alert the employer in some way if it were. The company could then discipline the employee as and when necessary.
Mk3Spitfire said:
And yet there are several on here who will vehemently argue that using a mobile phone whilst driving is harmless, and does not have any impact on driving ability?
People are on mobile phones all the time driving if you look, and hardly anyone is killed. People get killed by morons like the subject of this story not concentrating on what they're doing.Once more we're trying to make a set of binary rules to make accidents impossible. It's attitude and training that's the problem not using a mobile phone or speeding or whatever.
Having said that, phones are really distracting and honestly it doesn't seem like one needs to have one available because the temptation to read that text message or see who's calling is great. I've taken to locking mine in the glovebox or leaving it in the boot these days just to make sure I'm not tempted.
supermono said:
Mk3Spitfire said:
And yet there are several on here who will vehemently argue that using a mobile phone whilst driving is harmless, and does not have any impact on driving ability?
People are on mobile phones all the time driving if you look, and hardly anyone is killed. People get killed by morons like the subject of this story not concentrating on what they're doing.Once more we're trying to make a set of binary rules to make accidents impossible. It's attitude and training that's the problem not using a mobile phone or speeding or whatever.
Having said that, phones are really distracting and honestly it doesn't seem like one needs to have one available because the temptation to read that text message or see who's calling is great. I've taken to locking mine in the glovebox or leaving it in the boot these days just to make sure I'm not tempted.
walm said:
Derek Smith said:
So is that good or bad?
Highly o/t but it sure sounds like manslaughter to me not murder. Certainly an assault that led to a death, no?Like this one: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-2893574...
"Your honour, I was terrified. I thought the man was going to attack me. He was ever so big [6'5" is seem to remember] and seemed threatening even before he said anything. I could see he was angry. I told him to get out, one of my friends screamed, but he still came forward so I used the minimum force that I could. I didn't expect him to fall to the ground and hit his head, not being such a big bloke. I thought in fact that I would not be able to stop him attacking. Once he left the cab I told the driver to drive off. I didn't want any aggravation."
I doubt it would get past the CPS let alone a pre-trial hearing.
It was an argument over a cab, the sort of thing that happens time and again in party towns once people have a few drinks. This was just another one at first.
With the current climate of not prosecuting those defending themselves, this one would go nowhere. Despite this it was at one time, and probably still, the most expensive enquiry in the force's history.
As ever good anecdotes Derek - I am not 100% sure about the point though - sorry!
I think in your case it is arguable that the actions were innocent enough.
But in the case of someone falling asleep at the wheel or being distracted enough to wipe out a cyclist on a straight bit of road - the culpability is less questionable.
And in any of these cases the fact that a death is the result makes them all that much more serious.
As it should be.
I think in your case it is arguable that the actions were innocent enough.
But in the case of someone falling asleep at the wheel or being distracted enough to wipe out a cyclist on a straight bit of road - the culpability is less questionable.
And in any of these cases the fact that a death is the result makes them all that much more serious.
As it should be.
singlecoil said:
No, we're not. We are trying to reduce the frequency of accidents.
Really? I've seen nothing training wise in recent years. And since seatbelt law everything has been concentrating on sending people bills who were spotted displaying the wrong number on their speedos which they receive up to two weeks later whilst safely home. Mobile phone law is ok though massively ignored but I suppose it made a change from speed cameras.Might I suggest (looking at the flat figures for last decade) that 'we' are failing miserably?
walm said:
As ever good anecdotes Derek - I am not 100% sure about the point though - sorry!
I think in your case it is arguable that the actions were innocent enough.
But in the case of someone falling asleep at the wheel or being distracted enough to wipe out a cyclist on a straight bit of road - the culpability is less questionable.
And in any of these cases the fact that a death is the result makes them all that much more serious.
As it should be.
Yes, you are right about the person falling asleep. I didn't mean to contradict that. I think in your case it is arguable that the actions were innocent enough.
But in the case of someone falling asleep at the wheel or being distracted enough to wipe out a cyclist on a straight bit of road - the culpability is less questionable.
And in any of these cases the fact that a death is the result makes them all that much more serious.
As it should be.
Mind you, if I remember rightly, didn't the Selby crash try and adduce evidence of the driver being up all night partying but it being blocked from evidence by the court? I might be making that up. I know there was a lot of argument over dangerous road conditions contributing to the accident. I think the railway companies had to check all such locations where a vehicle could leave a motorway/dual carriageway and cross a railway line without any obstruction.
tenpenceshort said:
Did the driving fall below the required standard? Was the driving a cause of death? In the Selby accident, the answer to both was yes.
His defence was mechanical defect. I've just read a bit online and I see that the party was in fact being online the night before.
There was no evidence that the chap fell asleep at the wheel. He had an explanation for the sudden swerve. We obviously discussed this at work and felt that the evidence of the defective trailer might have been sufficient for the defence. We felt that had there been just the one death and fewer injuries . . .
There's an amusing aside to this case:
Judge reprimands lawyer for dressing like something out of Harry Potter.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-ord...
Judge reprimands lawyer for dressing like something out of Harry Potter.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-ord...
agtlaw said:
There's an amusing aside to this case:
Judge reprimands lawyer for dressing like something out of Harry Potter.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-ord...
Those St John Ambulance badges are a medal of honour don't ya know.Judge reprimands lawyer for dressing like something out of Harry Potter.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-ord...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff