Yes they really convicted the driver
Discussion
vonhosen said:
But the fact you don't feel you've done anything wrong doesn't mean that you haven't in fact in law.
He might not think he was careless in the eyes of the law. He might not feel like gambling it when he's already been told he won't be locked up if he pleads guilty today.If he's in that position... why risk it? Nothing he does from this point is going to bring the person back. He needs to do whats right for his own family now, and that should be staying out of jail at all costs.
Andehh said:
Devil2575 said:
telecat said:
TooMany2cvs said:
He pleaded guilty of Causing Death by Careless Driving.
Was he driving carelessly? There's a very strong case to say yes.
Did a death result? Undeniably.
What's the problem?
Was the cyclist also guilty of contributory wuckfittery? Yes. But there's not really a lot of point in putting a puddle of jam on trial, is there?
I would say no. And Personally I would feel that the Cyclist greatly contributed to his own death and that should be taken into account. Was he driving carelessly? There's a very strong case to say yes.
Did a death result? Undeniably.
What's the problem?
Was the cyclist also guilty of contributory wuckfittery? Yes. But there's not really a lot of point in putting a puddle of jam on trial, is there?
''He attempted to walk his bike between the lorries, but while the gap he entered was 81cm, he found he couldn't exit a 36cm gap at the other end.''
That is just insane, squeezing between two lorries at 81cm...let alone continuing to walk to the point where that distance is halved...WITH a bike. That's gotta be less then the width of a standard door, with all those wheels only a few cm away from you.....
That's just crazy
No matter what the paper has printed there is no way you know all the information available to the judge, the defence and the prosecution. As such opinions on this are meaningless. At best you have to accept the judgement of those involved because you are not in a position to challenge their views.
WatchfulEye said:
It sounds like the sentence in this case was very light, probably reflecting the contributory negligence of the cyclist. Convictions for causing death by careless driving usually result in a custodial sentence. There is also a mandatory driving ban of 12 months on conviction
Wrong. In 2014, the custody rate for causing death by careless driving was 30%. Slightly up from 28% the previous year.Also, the driver wasn't disqualified but his licence was endorsed with 11 penalty points. There must have been 'Special Reasons' to avoid the ban. I.e. something 'special' pertaining to the offence which would allow the judge not to disqualify.
Edited by agtlaw on Thursday 28th May 17:29
agtlaw said:
Wrong. In 2014, the custody rate for causing death by careless driving was 30%. Slightly up from 28% the previous year.
Also, the driver wasn't disqualified but his licence was endorsed with 11 penalty points. There must have been 'Special Reasons' to avoid the ban. I.e. something 'special' pertaining to the offence which would allow the judge not to disqualify.
Could the fact that he's a professional driver who could lose his livelihood due to a driving ban be the special reason?Also, the driver wasn't disqualified but his licence was endorsed with 11 penalty points. There must have been 'Special Reasons' to avoid the ban. I.e. something 'special' pertaining to the offence which would allow the judge not to disqualify.
Edited by agtlaw on Thursday 28th May 17:29
maurauth said:
Could the fact that he's a professional driver who could lose his livelihood due to a driving ban be the special reason?
No, because special reasons must pertain to the offence, not the offender. The judge would disregard personal mitigation when considering special reasons not to disqualify.maurauth said:
velocefica said:
Why plead guilty to something you didn't do. Your setting yourself up for a conviction.
Guilt, not wanting a month long bitter trial, the promise of a non-custodial sentence for a guilty plea?It encourages innocent people to accept a conviction simply because they know they will be locked up if found guilty via trial. It doesn't provide true justice, just makes for a quicker judicial system.
PurpleMoonlight said:
It encourages innocent people to accept a conviction simply because they know they will be locked up if found guilty via trial.
Except, of course, they'll only be found guilty if the jury believe that the defence has failed to inject even reasonable doubt into the prosecution's case.PurpleMoonlight said:
TooMany2cvs said:
Except, of course, they'll only be found guilty if the jury believe that the defence has failed to inject even reasonable doubt into the prosecution's case.
Yeah, like innocent people are never found guilty.
Hugo a Gogo said:
going close to a lorry doesn't cause death, no
having a lorry drive over you does
Going so close to a lorry that your clothing hooks up to is not likely to lead to harm, including possibly death? I think it would and so there's not a cats chance I would ever consider it. It's madness. having a lorry drive over you does
heebeegeetee said:
Hugo a Gogo said:
what did he not do?
he did cause the death, and he knows if he was careless or not
You don't think that going so close to a lorry that clothing caught on the lorry was a cause of the death? he did cause the death, and he knows if he was careless or not
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff