Texting driver kills red-running cyclist, gets 4 yrs prison
Discussion
Regardless of the fact that the cyclist ran the red light, she might well have been able to stop had she not been texting. The law says quite clearly that not only does red not mean go, neither does green. It means go if the road is clear and in this case it quite clearly was not. The only person at risk in this scenario is the cyclist.
FishFace said:
Wow. As I have posted in the other topic it seems like they've really hammered the 'public interest' AKA 'let's make an example' angle hard.
On the face of it it does seem excessive given the mitigating factor of the cyclist going through the red light. On the other hand the attention this case will get will send a very clear message, so is that worth it?
I would agree with you. Running a red light is a serious matter, if as a previous poster asks it had been an ambulance or Bib running on blues then they would be in smelly stuff for running the light. Further, I would be interested to understand how they proved beyond reasonable doubt that texting caused the accident. The reports indicated that phone records were used, implying that they show a text was sense. But how long was this before the actually impact (and how accurately can you show this) and how long would it take to "re-acquire" your forward observation after texting. Not saying she should got of free as green doesn't mean go but definetly hung out to dry.On the face of it it does seem excessive given the mitigating factor of the cyclist going through the red light. On the other hand the attention this case will get will send a very clear message, so is that worth it?
As for your last question, no it is not worth it. Justice and taking of personal liberty should not be comprimised to "send a message". She should receive the same sentenance as anyone else and any subsquent and prior case.
vonhosen said:
GKP said:
It wasn't proven beyond all reasonable doubt that she was texting at the time of the accident.
It was proved beyond all reasonable doubt that she was guilty of dangerous driving.Had the cyclist survived without serious injury, would the driver still have faced a DD charge?
Should a competent driver have been able to stop despite the cyclists offence?
I am glad I was not involved in this case, it is all tricky and murky.
Incidentally when I read the BBC report earlier I thought she had run the red light. I did just have a quick look after i had stopped working.
Think I shall go for a swig of gin, it seems to help one come to a clear view on such things.
Should a competent driver have been able to stop despite the cyclists offence?
I am glad I was not involved in this case, it is all tricky and murky.
Incidentally when I read the BBC report earlier I thought she had run the red light. I did just have a quick look after i had stopped working.
Think I shall go for a swig of gin, it seems to help one come to a clear view on such things.
vonhosen said:
GKP said:
It wasn't proven beyond all reasonable doubt that she was texting at the time of the accident.
It was proved beyond all reasonable doubt that she was guilty of dangerous driving.To think it to have been "proved", in the most conventional understandings of the word, is akin to thinking that the law is right because it is the law.
I'm not taking sides on the result, as I am not smart enough to have a straightforward opinion. This is a difficult and fascinating case, with no obvious "right" answer, which is why I was looking forward to some thoughtful discussion here on SP&L, which we have got.
Cheers.
flemke said:
vonhosen said:
GKP said:
It wasn't proven beyond all reasonable doubt that she was texting at the time of the accident.
It was proved beyond all reasonable doubt that she was guilty of dangerous driving.To think it to have been "proved", in the most conventional understandings of the word, is akin to thinking that the law is right because it is the law.
I'm not taking sides on the result, as I am not smart enough to have a straightforward opinion. This is a difficult and fascinating case, with no obvious "right" answer, which is why I was looking forward to some thoughtful discussion here on SP&L, which we have got.
Cheers.
When you are on trial in a court, proven beyond reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the court is what you are concerned with.
vonhosen said:
flemke said:
vonhosen said:
GKP said:
It wasn't proven beyond all reasonable doubt that she was texting at the time of the accident.
It was proved beyond all reasonable doubt that she was guilty of dangerous driving.To think it to have been "proved", in the most conventional understandings of the word, is akin to thinking that the law is right because it is the law.
I'm not taking sides on the result, as I am not smart enough to have a straightforward opinion. This is a difficult and fascinating case, with no obvious "right" answer, which is why I was looking forward to some thoughtful discussion here on SP&L, which we have got.
Cheers.
When you are on trial in a court, proven beyond reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the court is what you are concerned with.
Just as a human erred in cycling through a red light, and a human erred in texting whilst driving, humans can and do err in making judgments about whether something has been "proved beyond a reasonable doubt".
Mojocvh said:
vonhosen said:
GKP said:
It wasn't proven beyond all reasonable doubt that she was texting at the time of the accident.
It was proved beyond all reasonable doubt that she was guilty of dangerous driving.flemke said:
vonhosen said:
flemke said:
vonhosen said:
GKP said:
It wasn't proven beyond all reasonable doubt that she was texting at the time of the accident.
It was proved beyond all reasonable doubt that she was guilty of dangerous driving.To think it to have been "proved", in the most conventional understandings of the word, is akin to thinking that the law is right because it is the law.
I'm not taking sides on the result, as I am not smart enough to have a straightforward opinion. This is a difficult and fascinating case, with no obvious "right" answer, which is why I was looking forward to some thoughtful discussion here on SP&L, which we have got.
Cheers.
When you are on trial in a court, proven beyond reasonable doubt to the satisfaction of the court is what you are concerned with.
Just as a human erred in cycling through a red light, and a human erred in texting whilst driving, humans can and do err in making judgments about whether something has been "proved beyond a reasonable doubt".
Mojocvh said:
Mojocvh said:
vonhosen said:
GKP said:
It wasn't proven beyond all reasonable doubt that she was texting at the time of the accident.
It was proved beyond all reasonable doubt that she was guilty of dangerous driving.Sorry but I must, to retain the sense of balance to the SP&L forum, press you for an answer.
flemke said:
I'd disagree, von. Rather, it was considered to be beyond all reasonable doubt that she was guilty of dangerous driving. That is not the same thing as "proved", which implies a timeless reality that transcends human limitations.
To think it to have been "proved", in the most conventional understandings of the word, is akin to thinking that the law is right because it is the law.
I disagree with your disagreement, and necessarily the philosophising.To think it to have been "proved", in the most conventional understandings of the word, is akin to thinking that the law is right because it is the law.
The evidence given in court in the main was documentary (the phone records for instance), what a witness saw, heard or other sensory experience and real evidence. There would be some opinion, such as what the doctor concludes from his examination, but even there, the evidence is mainly real, “The skull was fractured in fifteen places and parts of the brain were exposed.” Is real enough. The opinion: I concluded that the person was dead. is about as factual as opinion can get. These facts and the barest of opinion is what can be termed proof. So the fact that the phone records show [whatever] is proof of what the phone was doing and this is therefore proven.
It is up to the jury to come to a conclusion on the facts, ie what has been proven, and such conclusion can only merit a guilty verdict if to interpret the facts otherwise would, in the opinion of the 12 good [wo]men and true, be unreasonable. So the facts are proven, the conclusion of the jury is opinion, or actually I believe the term is belief. So it is perhaps more precise to say that the person’s guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt in the opinion of the dozen or so members of the jury. Which can be, and normally is, shortened, as Von did, into proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
The only argument, and one which is also down to opinion, is whether the correct word to use is proved or proven. Many say proven should be used only as an adjective and proved as part of the verb. I reckon that proven sounds a bit posher and more poncey so should be used in legal matters where so many of the inmates are posh and poncey.
Mojocvh said:
Mojocvh said:
Mojocvh said:
vonhosen said:
GKP said:
It wasn't proven beyond all reasonable doubt that she was texting at the time of the accident.
It was proved beyond all reasonable doubt that she was guilty of dangerous driving.Sorry but I must, to retain the sense of balance to the SP&L forum, press you for an answer.
http://www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?h=0&a...
But I don't represent my employer, views expressed are my own, blah de blah de blah.
Edited by vonhosen on Friday 29th February 22:32
flemke said:
Just as a human erred in cycling through a red light, and a human erred in texting whilst driving, humans can and do err in making judgments about whether something has been "proved beyond a reasonable doubt".
A small point but an important one: the driver of the car also erred by driving through a green light. Whilst there is no statutory offence of failing to comply with a green ATS, it means you may proceed if the road is clear. I.e. it is conditional and if those conditions do not apply then you should not procede. The evidence of the dead cyclist goes a long way to proving that the conditions for moving forward were not met.Just my 2d. It strikes me as too harsh. If the cyclist had taken reasonable precautions he would have either avoided the accident or suffered minor injuries. The woman is being punished for his errors as much as her own, had he worn a helmet he would have survivived and the penalty would have been much smaller. Probably not even a jail sentence.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff