16 months in prison...

[heebeegeetee]

jith said:

1. There is no evidence whatever, and there never has been, that imposing huge, brutal sentences, and make no mistake, that's what this is, on ordinary motorists who make a genuine mistake, regardless of the outcome, is an effective deterrent to dangerous driving.


2. Your remark about bikers and cyclists is beyond contempt.

1. The driver had six seconds to see the truck; that's too long. Not seeing it in six seconds is not a genuine mistake, not in my book and nor should it be in anyone else's, and it's negligence not accidental. I accept that the driver did not set out to kill that morning, but the deceased did not set out to be killed either, and his family didn't do anything wrong either.

2. No it isn't, it's based on what I've consistently seen for 30 years. I'm neither a cyclist nor a biker but I've been shocked at the lax 'sentences' handed out to those who kill. Some 30 years ago (mid-eighties) I used to read a colleague's Motorcycling News and found myself genuinely shocked at the sentences being handed out to smidsy's etc. Come 2016 nothing has changed.

Here's a similar case (in that a driver has inexplicably failed to see another road user and killed him) yet the driver wasn't even charged, and the victim's family has had to crowdfund proceedings. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/13/driver-...

I don't buy the 'dazzled' bit, but if you have a google you'll find many cases where drivers claim to have been dazzled, found they couldn't see, elected to carry on driving anyway, killed a cyclist and then get let off. There's many like this. https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-ins...

[rgf100]

Just on a very quick Google of that case, so do correct me if I'm wrong:

https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=89181.0

From the Met:
CCTV showed Mr MASON cycling between 1.5 to 2 metres from the kerb line. No CCTV exists depicting Mr MASON moving from his line of travel, i.e. moving out to his right. This is something he must have done in order for the collision to have taken place.
CCTV, physical evidence and Ms PURCELL’S own account prove that she had always maintained her position in the road, adjacent to the central white line.
We were unable to show the point at which Mr MASON moved over to his right. All we could conclude was that during a distance of 25 to 30 metres, Mr MASON at some point changed his position in the road.

So there's no way of knowing if he didn't see her and pulled out right in front, and she had no chance to avoid him; or if he pulled out well ahead, she should have seen him, but didn't?

[croyde]

I was on the M6 the other day, traffic at a standstill due to an accident. Must of been bad as the emergency helicopter turned up.

We hadn't moved for about only 10 minutes when people started flying down the hard shoulder. Cars and lorries and really shifting.

If someone had been pulled over, they would not have stood a chance.

[R8Steve]

heebeegeetee said:

I don't buy the 'dazzled' bit, but if you have a google you'll find many cases where drivers claim to have been dazzled, found they couldn't see, elected to carry on driving anyway, killed a cyclist and then get let off. There's many like this. https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?sourceid=chrome-ins...

What do you do when you're dazzled while driving?

[croyde]

R8Steve said:

What do you do when you're dazzled while driving?

Slow down, drive within the environmental limits. One wouldn't still career along at 70 if it was snowing. Yeah! Ok! some do

[R8Steve]

croyde said:

R8Steve said:

What do you do when you're dazzled while driving?

Slow down, drive within the environmental limits. One wouldn't still career along at 70 if it was snowing. Yeah! Ok! some do

Which is fine and i agree that is the correct thing to do but if we assume that the sun was to get in your eyes do you think that you would have slowed down enough within six seconds of that happening to a speed where you would be in a position to take evasive action to avoid a stationary vehicle in your lane (which by then would be a matter of feet away from you)?

[croyde]

R8Steve said:

croyde said:

R8Steve said:

What do you do when you're dazzled while driving?

Slow down, drive within the environmental limits. One wouldn't still career along at 70 if it was snowing. Yeah! Ok! some do

Which is fine and i agree that is the correct thing to do but if we assume that the sun was to get in your eyes do you think that you would have slowed down enough within six seconds of that happening to a speed where you would be in a position to take evasive action to avoid a stationary vehicle in your lane (which by then would be a matter of feet away from you)?

You are right. In that situation, not a lot you can do if only just dazzled.

[heebeegeetee]

R8Steve said:

Which is fine and i agree that is the correct thing to do but if we assume that the sun was to get in your eyes do you think that you would have slowed down enough within six seconds of that happening to a speed where you would be in a position to take evasive action to avoid a stationary vehicle in your lane (which by then would be a matter of feet away from you)?

The evidence was that there was ample room to pass the truck within the lane.

[heebeegeetee]

rgf100 said:

Just on a very quick Google of that case, so do correct me if I'm wrong:

https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=89181.0

From the Met:
CCTV showed Mr MASON cycling between 1.5 to 2 metres from the kerb line. No CCTV exists depicting Mr MASON moving from his line of travel, i.e. moving out to his right. This is something he must have done in order for the collision to have taken place.
CCTV, physical evidence and Ms PURCELL’S own account prove that she had always maintained her position in the road, adjacent to the central white line.
We were unable to show the point at which Mr MASON moved over to his right. All we could conclude was that during a distance of 25 to 30 metres, Mr MASON at some point changed his position in the road.

So there's no way of knowing if he didn't see her and pulled out right in front, and she had no chance to avoid him; or if he pulled out well ahead, she should have seen him, but didn't?

This might help. http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2014/12/inque...

[R8Steve]

croyde said:

R8Steve said:

croyde said:

R8Steve said:

What do you do when you're dazzled while driving?

Slow down, drive within the environmental limits. One wouldn't still career along at 70 if it was snowing. Yeah! Ok! some do

Which is fine and i agree that is the correct thing to do but if we assume that the sun was to get in your eyes do you think that you would have slowed down enough within six seconds of that happening to a speed where you would be in a position to take evasive action to avoid a stationary vehicle in your lane (which by then would be a matter of feet away from you)?

You are right. In that situation, not a lot you can do if only just dazzled.

Which is why i find the sentencing harsh.

It's a tragedy that someone has died as a result of it but at the same time this could happen to anyone.

[R8Steve]

heebeegeetee said:

R8Steve said:

Which is fine and i agree that is the correct thing to do but if we assume that the sun was to get in your eyes do you think that you would have slowed down enough within six seconds of that happening to a speed where you would be in a position to take evasive action to avoid a stationary vehicle in your lane (which by then would be a matter of feet away from you)?

The evidence was that there was ample room to pass the truck within the lane.

Which would be fine if he could actually see the truck.

Have you never been blinded by the sun while driving before?

[deltashad]

I'm thinking this is pretty horific.
The guy had an exemplary driving record. No criminal record. Wasnt using his mobile. Was driving to work. He wasnt doing anything out of the ordinary. He was even driving in the correct lane. It was an accident and he has to live with this for the rest of his life.
What a sad sad affair. Now he will lose his job, finances which may effect his family. Yeah it was a dreadful thing to happen but as others have said. I wouldn't have changed the tyre there in that situation, if I was stupid enough to do it I would have watched every approaching car coming and feeling a bit of poop coming out of my bum.

[Pachydermus]

R8Steve said:

Which would be fine if he could actually see the truck.

Have you never been blinded by the sun while driving before?

Surely you should be looking more than 6 seconds ahead when driving normally? Regardless, your speed should be no greater than what allows you to stop in the distance you can see to be clear. If not then you're driving dangerously fast whether that's 100mph or 10mph.

[R8Steve]

Pachydermus said:

R8Steve said:

Which would be fine if he could actually see the truck.

Have you never been blinded by the sun while driving before?

Surely you should be looking more than 6 seconds ahead when driving normally? Regardless, your speed should be no greater than what allows you to stop in the distance you can see to be clear. If not then you're driving dangerously fast whether that's 100mph or 10mph.

Yes, but if you are suddenly blinded by something there's not exactly much you can do about it.

As a very rough example - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgngSP4Hm3A

[herewego]

Is the sun up at 4 am in December?

[R8Steve]

herewego said:

Is the sun up at 4 am in December?

I used the sun as an example, it could quite as easily be an oncoming cars headlights or anything else. The principle remains the same.

[herewego]

R8Steve said:

herewego said:

Is the sun up at 4 am in December?

I used the sun as an example, it could quite as easily be an oncoming cars headlights or anything else. The principle remains the same.

I agree, I get upset by people using unnecessary head, spot, fog lights because it reduces visibility for me, but in this case they were on a motorway slip road.

[Ken Figenus]

From what I gather the accident was around here, Eastbound on the M4 prior to J28 left hand side slip road. https://goo.gl/maps/J6iJKHfrSY72 Video: http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/drive...

The talk of being dazzled is perplexing as it was about 4am when the accident happened - someone could have had main beams on in the Westbound carriageway but still....

Just trying to work out what happened in this double tragedy - there for the grace of God etc

[Pachydermus]

R8Steve said:

Pachydermus said:

R8Steve said:

Which would be fine if he could actually see the truck.

Have you never been blinded by the sun while driving before?

Surely you should be looking more than 6 seconds ahead when driving normally? Regardless, your speed should be no greater than what allows you to stop in the distance you can see to be clear. If not then you're driving dangerously fast whether that's 100mph or 10mph.

Yes, but if you are suddenly blinded by something there's not exactly much you can do about it.

As a very rough example - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgngSP4Hm3A

hardly - that trailer was visible before the sun came into view. Presuming you're looking x seconds ahead and can see it's clear then if you're "suddenly blinded" you have x seconds to slow down and/or stop. Clearly beyond a lot of people, including the idiot in your clip.

[Hugo a Gogo]

sounds like very poor advice to plead guilty to dangerous driving