Texting driver kills red-running cyclist, gets 4 yrs prison
Discussion
flemke said:
Sure, but the point is that "proved" in a court is usually a matter of opinion - which is why many appeals are successful.
The law has a very peculiar take on proof - maths understands proof, science has a good grasp, the law is frankly clueless.The law seems also to lack any grasp of logic.
flemke said:
Apart from procedural errors, how can something that has been "proved" be overturned? As I understand it, you are saying that, because the defendant was found quilty, then the case against her was "proved", per se.
Von is very uncritical when it comes to the law. 
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".
The travesty continues beyond the verdict:In this case whilst removing the cyclist's error would have kept him alive, removing the drivers might well not.
That suggests to me that the driver's culpability is marginal to the cyclists.
Hence the driver is being punished for the cyclist's error.
Not justice, nowhere close.
...and we've not even considered who inappropriate prison is in such cases, yet.
FishFace said:
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?
No.Persecuting a person for propaganda purposes is frankly fascist.
s2art said:
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.
Do you not think that paying attention and not texting is a reasonable precaution to take when approaching a junction? The cyclist is a victim of culpable homicide. One would assume that the cyclist's contribution would have been taken into consideration when deciding the penalty. Whilst much is made of the cyclist not wearing a helmet there is little to suggest that they save lives, just minor injuries. Most cyclists, at least in my experience, die from internal injuries when struck by a car/lorry/4x4. You would not expect a person who stabbed another to be less culpable merely because the victim did not wear a stab-proof vest despite the fact that he was in a 'hard' neighbourhood.fluffnik said:
FishFace said:
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?
No.Persecuting a person for propaganda purposes is frankly fascist.
Judges do not sentance on a whim. Their decisions have to be justified. They are given a normal tariff and any variation to this must be justified. For instance, a guilty plea must be taken into consideration and also how early the plea was submitted is another factor. A judge has a certain flexibility but it can't be misused. If four years is as inappropriate as it seems from the information we have then the woman will be successful in an appeal against her sentance.
Derek Smith] said:
Do you not think that paying attention and not texting is a reasonable precaution to take when approaching a junction? The cyclist is a victim of culpable homicide. One would assume that the cyclist's contribution would have been taken into consideration when deciding the penalty.
The driver's conduct was woeful but the cyclist had the power to entirely avoid harm by stopping at the red light.It is entirely possible that an attentive driver, traveling within the limit and with a reasonable expectation that the junction would remain clear while the lights remained in his favour, could have collided fatally with the cyclist.
On this basis I would say that culpability rests mainly with the cyclist.
The driver is being punished more for the cyclists error than her own, and that's not justice.
Derek Smith said:
fluffnik said:
FishFace said:
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?
No.Persecuting a person for propaganda purposes is frankly fascist.
...even if it worked it would be unjust, but evidence suggests it does not.
Derek Smith said:
Judges do not sentance on a whim.
No, but the whole sentencing framework within which they operate is ill considered.Imprisoning this driver will not protect the public, it will just add to the tax bill.
Derek Smith said:
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.Without trying to defend the texting, which is indefensible, it seems to me that, in the real world, it is not a dereliction of one's driving responsibilities to fail to anticipate a vulnerable road user suicidally shooting from the side directly into one's path.
Roadcraft asserts that the average driver's reaction time is 0.7 seconds. That would leave a driver with 0.3 seconds of time to get his car's speed down sufficiently to avoid hitting the cyclist who's foolishly tried to run the light at 15 mph. I don't know what is the max speed at which to come to a stop within 0.3 sec, but I'd guess it's about 10 mph. If you're saying that every driver should be prepared to go through a "normal" - not heavily compromised - junction at no more than 10 mph, then that's an opinion, but that certainly is not how the world operates now, even for the many Class 1s with whom I have ridden.
The cyclist gambled with his life by jumping the lights and paid the ultimate price.
The driver gambled with other people's lives by texting and exceeding the speed limit by 50% at the same time as negotiating a busy junction. I would say this was clearly dangerous driving, she was unlucky to kill someone but that was the chance she took. The sentence reflects the not guilty plee.
The driver gambled with other people's lives by texting and exceeding the speed limit by 50% at the same time as negotiating a busy junction. I would say this was clearly dangerous driving, she was unlucky to kill someone but that was the chance she took. The sentence reflects the not guilty plee.
Edited by Sheriff JWPepper on Friday 29th February 23:27
fluffnik said:
The driver's conduct was woeful but the cyclist had the power to entirely avoid harm by stopping at the red light.
It is entirely possible that an attentive driver, traveling within the limit and with a reasonable expectation that the junction would remain clear while the lights remained in his favour, could have collided fatally with the cyclist.
Ah, there's that word reasonable again. There is no allowable anticipation, reasonable or otherwise, allowed at road junctions. A cross roads is a cross roads and a set of traffic lights does not change this, but only adds a safety feature. A stop line, and to a lesser extent give way lines, modify a cross roads to a much greater extent as there is no obligation to stop or even slow. Such markings modify the junction as the roads are divided into major and minor ones with different sets of priorities.It is entirely possible that an attentive driver, traveling within the limit and with a reasonable expectation that the junction would remain clear while the lights remained in his favour, could have collided fatally with the cyclist.
fluffnik said:
On this basis I would say that culpability rests mainly with the cyclist.
There was a collision where both parties were at fault as neither should have proceeded. However, the woman's culpability is compounded because a/ she had a much more dangerous vehicle and it was travelling at speed, and b/ she had deliberately acted in a manner which made her incapable of controlling it. The offence had been committed by the woman when she drove across the junction despite it not being clear. However, the fact that she was not in control of the vehicle was an agravating factor, as was the fact that much publicity has been given recently to the dangers of using a mobile phone, let alone texting, and she had deliberately chosen to ignore it. fluffnik said:
The driver is being punished more for the cyclists error than her own, and that's not justice.
Courts are not, and never have been, about justice. They are about enquiring into circumstances, deciding whether a crime has been committed and, if so, has it been comitted by the defendant, and if so, the level of punishment. That is all.Further, one accepts that the cyclist was at fault in not complying with red ATS. The punishment for this is a minor fine. Where is the justice in being taken out by a vehicle driven by a person who has contempt for the safety of others?
I think the cyclist has been punished enough for a minor transgression. If the woman had been paying proper attention it would have been he who was in the dock, not her, and he who would be punished.
Sheriff JWPepper said:
The cyclist gambled with this life by jumping the lights and paid the ultimate price.
The driver gambled with other people's lives by texting and exceeding the speed limit by 50% at the same time as negotiating a busy junction. I would say this was clearly dangerous driving, she was unlucky to kill someone but that was the chance she took. The sentence reflects the not guilty plee.
It also reflects the unjust overloading for consequence, being double the max for DD...The driver gambled with other people's lives by texting and exceeding the speed limit by 50% at the same time as negotiating a busy junction. I would say this was clearly dangerous driving, she was unlucky to kill someone but that was the chance she took. The sentence reflects the not guilty plee.
She should be culpable for her own errors, not those of a cyclist who runs a red.
Nothing is gained by jailing her, except a bigger tax bill.
Derek Smith said:
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.
If you are saying that the formal definition of "Causing Death by Dangerous Driving" comprises a set of actions which were incontrovertibly included in this case, then you must be right. I had not seen anywhere in the public domain the evidence of that; perhaps you have done.
If that is correct, then it is not a matter of opinion. ISTM that the notion of complete proof anteceding an opinion (as opposed to individual proved facts, which may not necessarily prove a conclusion) is an oxymoron; if something has been "proved", it is not opinion, it is (accepted as) fact, and not susceptible to challenge except if you are a lunatic millionaire who owns a large department store and has an attitude.
I was referring to what I thought senor vonhosen meant:
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.I'm sorry to hear that you don't prefer "proved". I should think that its lack of pretentiousness would recommend it, but perhaps I have not gotten your point.
Derek Smith said:
Courts are not, and never have been, about justice...
Her Majesty's Courts Service 29 February 2008Her Majesty's Courts Service (HMCS) is an executive agency of the Ministry of Justice (MoJ). Our remit is to deliver justice effectively and efficiently to the public. We are responsible for managing the magistrates' courts, the Crown Court, county courts, the High Court and Court of Appeal in England and Wales.
(http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/)
fluffnik said:
It also reflects the unjust overloading for consequence, being double the max for DD...
She should be culpable for her own errors, not those of a cyclist who runs a red.
Nothing is gained by jailing her, except a bigger tax bill.
What sentence do you believe is appropriate? She should be culpable for her own errors, not those of a cyclist who runs a red.
Nothing is gained by jailing her, except a bigger tax bill.
Sheriff JWPepper said:
fluffnik said:
It also reflects the unjust overloading for consequence, being double the max for DD...
She should be culpable for her own errors, not those of a cyclist who runs a red.
Nothing is gained by jailing her, except a bigger tax bill.
What sentence do you believe is appropriate? She should be culpable for her own errors, not those of a cyclist who runs a red.
Nothing is gained by jailing her, except a bigger tax bill.
I'd ban her and require an extended re-test including all the physics that's missing from the current one.
I'd give her a community service order designed to increase her understanding of the consequences of traumatic injury.
I'd stick her with a nice chunky fine too.
Derek Smith said:
fluffnik said:
The driver's conduct was woeful but the cyclist had the power to entirely avoid harm by stopping at the red light.
It is entirely possible that an attentive driver, traveling within the limit and with a reasonable expectation that the junction would remain clear while the lights remained in his favour, could have collided fatally with the cyclist.
Ah, there's that word reasonable again. There is no allowable anticipation, reasonable or otherwise, allowed at road junctions.[...]It is entirely possible that an attentive driver, traveling within the limit and with a reasonable expectation that the junction would remain clear while the lights remained in his favour, could have collided fatally with the cyclist.
Strict compliance with the law as you state it in our enhanced/modified junctions would lead to gridlock...
Unprioritised junctions do work well in some places though.
Derek Smith said:
fluffnik said:
On this basis I would say that culpability rests mainly with the cyclist.
There was a collision where both parties were at fault as neither should have proceeded. However, the woman's culpability is compounded because a/ she had a much more dangerous vehicle and it was travelling at speed, and b/ she had deliberately acted in a manner which made her incapable of controlling it. The offence had been committed by the woman when she drove across the junction despite it not being clear. However, the fact that she was not in control of the vehicle was an agravating factor, as was the fact that much publicity has been given recently to the dangers of using a mobile phone, let alone texting, and she had deliberately chosen to ignore it.I do have a problem with her being punished more harshly due to an outcome largely attributable to the foolish error of another.
Derek Smith said:
fluffnik said:
The driver is being punished more for the cyclists error than her own, and that's not justice.
Courts are not, and never have been, about justice. They are about enquiring into circumstances, deciding whether a crime has been committed and, if so, has it been comitted by the defendant, and if so, the level of punishment. That is all.
Derek Smith said:
Further, one accepts that the cyclist was at fault in not complying with red ATS. The punishment for this is a minor fine. Where is the justice in being taken out by a vehicle driven by a person who has contempt for the safety of others?
The punishment for running a red light can be death - nature is cruel - but we should try to be just all the same.Derek Smith said:
I think the cyclist has been punished enough for a minor transgression. If the woman had been paying proper attention it would have been he who was in the dock, not her, and he who would be punished.
Just because the cyclist has been too severely punished there is no reason to hammer the driver...One issue raised hear I agree with fully is that of punishment to raise awareness for others.
Why should a mistake or crime be punished in a more severe manner in order to publicise the law?
We have people stating that those caught with any amount of drugs in Dubai deserve punishment as that is the law.
In that case we should expect to be punished here in accordance with the law and not in excess due to the legal system wanting to advertise to the populous.
Make laws clear and concise in the first place.
Why should a mistake or crime be punished in a more severe manner in order to publicise the law?
We have people stating that those caught with any amount of drugs in Dubai deserve punishment as that is the law.
In that case we should expect to be punished here in accordance with the law and not in excess due to the legal system wanting to advertise to the populous.
Make laws clear and concise in the first place.
Sheriff JWPepper said:
The cyclist gambled with his life by jumping the lights and paid the ultimate price.
The driver gambled with other people's lives by texting and exceeding the speed limit by 50% at the same time as negotiating a busy junction. I would say this was clearly dangerous driving, she was unlucky to kill someone but that was the chance she took. The sentence reflects the not guilty plee.
That's a pretty good summary of the position. It would be nice though if the courts would make a statement saying that the driver is being punished for driving at an inappropriate speed and texting while at the same time crossing a busy junction, rather than the perception that they are being punished by an idiot commiting suicide by car.The driver gambled with other people's lives by texting and exceeding the speed limit by 50% at the same time as negotiating a busy junction. I would say this was clearly dangerous driving, she was unlucky to kill someone but that was the chance she took. The sentence reflects the not guilty plee.
Edited by Sheriff JWPepper on Friday 29th February 23:27
Rob_J said:
grumbledoak said:
Lady Ginswigger said:
She should have got life in prison, the family of the person she killed will have to live with it for their life.... and the poor sod she killed hasn't got a life anymore, so f
k her
I was waiting for a well reasoned analysis of the situation from someone who might know a little about this sort of thing. k herThat wasn't it.
Were you actually foaming at the mouth and screaming as you typed that rabid, reactionary rubbish?
But back to the topic..
Now both me and my wife are on record as loathing mobile phone use when driving with a vengeance.
She should not have even picked up the phone. Apparently, just to even move from coat pocket and chuck on the seat or dash can earn three points and the parting with sixty crisp shiny "oncers" as one hapless lorry driver discovered per the Whine show last week
She apparently admitted reading the message
and did not know her speed .. but was daft enough to admit it "might have been 45 mph" - going purely off a newspaper report which may or may not be 100% accurate However, the other equally dim road user chose to go through a light on a red signal. Green does mean you may proceed if it is safe to do so but RED MEANS
STOP and this applies just as much to a cyclist as a driver. I have seen a photo of this on safespeed's site. It looks a wide crossing to me. He was three quarters of the way across - and was thus at a fair rate of pedal powered speed himself given the distance travelled.Was her driving dangerous? If actually texting - yes.
If she had glanced at the message and left on seat - then the driving was careless since she hit the person - even though he had also broken the law.
Was his cycling dangerous or reckless? Yes - because he had made a delibate choice to go through those lights and to get three quarters of the way across before a car travelling at an alleged 45 mph at a rate of 22 yards per second on approach to these lights suggests he was not looking out for traffic despite taking such a serious risk but more on his honking accelration technique.
Should she have been given 4 years jail? No. A punitive ban, extended re-test before licence re-issued - and fine would have been enough, given he had also broken the law.
I agree that the reporting/sentencing should try to get a message out as to the serious dangers of using a mobile phone or engaging in texting whilst driving - but in this case - I have not seen a message over red light jump dangers, given the cyclist was a fool to take that risk.
Contrast with a French newspaper report in which two cyclists died in separate incidents..not with a texting driver though.
My wife posted the tales on the safespeed cycling forum. From a French newspaper. The cyclists died. The press and reader comments were scathing over the fact they jumped the red light and failed to wear protective clothing. The drivers were fined and sent on an improvement course.
What a a tale of two cities between Southampton and Toulouse..
http://www.ladepeche.fr/article/2006/06/05/33007-D...
Two phrases stick out in this French ac
of fatals involving cyclists - from a very pro-cycling land Admittedly I have pasted up from my wife's post to a different forum - but I think valid.
French article said:
Le cycliste ne se serait pas arrêté au feu rouge.
Deux accidents mortels survenus à quelques minutes d'intervalle et directement liés, au moins pour le premier, à l'imprudence du cycliste.
Deux accidents mortels survenus à quelques minutes d'intervalle et directement liés, au moins pour le premier, à l'imprudence du cycliste.
which remark on going through red lights and the fatal accidents being linked to the imprudence of the cyclist
How refreshing to read a report without the hand wringing.
I am sure Lady Gin spinner is the first to oomplain when drivers ignore red lights. And since I have seen cyclists texting and wobbling around - I do happen to think the law should include cyclists - as does the law concerning cycling whilst drugged or drunk.
Two wrongs do not make a right.. but had he obeyed the red light - he'd still be alive and she might have been copped for texting and lost her licence on tot-up given she was already on 6 flash cam points per the story - which would have been a far better outcome really.
And the fact of two pings may mean copped by two scams on the same journey and more or less provides more proof that they do not make drivers reflect on driving standards. A chat with a police officer? Now funnily enough. that carries far more weight and a stronge learning curve.
Mad Moggie2 said:
Rob_J said:
grumbledoak said:
Lady Ginswigger said:
She should have got life in prison, the family of the person she killed will have to live with it for their life.... and the poor sod she killed hasn't got a life anymore, so fk her
I was waiting for a well reasoned analysis of the situation from someone who might know a little about this sort of thing. k herThat wasn't it.
Were you actually foaming at the mouth and screaming as you typed that rabid, reactionary rubbish?
But back to the topic..
Now both me and my wife are on record as loathing mobile phone use when driving with a vengeance.
She should not have even picked up the phone. Apparently, just to even move from coat pocket and chuck on the seat or dash can earn three points and the parting with sixty crisp shiny "oncers" as one hapless lorry driver discovered per the Whine show last week
She apparently admitted reading the message
and did not know her speed .. but was daft enough to admit it "might have been 45 mph" - going purely off a newspaper report which may or may not be 100% accurate However, the other equally dim road user chose to go through a light on a red signal. Green does mean you may proceed if it is safe to do so but RED MEANS
STOP and this applies just as much to a cyclist as a driver. I have seen a photo of this on safespeed's site. It looks a wide crossing to me. He was three quarters of the way across - and was thus at a fair rate of pedal powered speed himself given the distance travelled.Was her driving dangerous? If actually texting - yes.
If she had glanced at the message and left on seat - then the driving was careless since she hit the person - even though he had also broken the law.
Was his cycling dangerous or reckless? Yes - because he had made a delibate choice to go through those lights and to get three quarters of the way across before a car travelling at an alleged 45 mph at a rate of 22 yards per second on approach to these lights suggests he was not looking out for traffic despite taking such a serious risk but more on his honking accelration technique.
Should she have been given 4 years jail? No. A punitive ban, extended re-test before licence re-issued - and fine would have been enough, given he had also broken the law.
I agree that the reporting/sentencing should try to get a message out as to the serious dangers of using a mobile phone or engaging in texting whilst driving - but in this case - I have not seen a message over red light jump dangers, given the cyclist was a fool to take that risk.
Contrast with a French newspaper report in which two cyclists died in separate incidents..not with a texting driver though.
My wife posted the tales on the safespeed cycling forum. From a French newspaper. The cyclists died. The press and reader comments were scathing over the fact they jumped the red light and failed to wear protective clothing. The drivers were fined and sent on an improvement course.
What a a tale of two cities between Southampton and Toulouse..
http://www.ladepeche.fr/article/2006/06/05/33007-D...
Two phrases stick out in this French ac
of fatals involving cyclists - from a very pro-cycling land Admittedly I have pasted up from my wife's post to a different forum - but I think valid.
French article said:
Le cycliste ne se serait pas arrêté au feu rouge.
Deux accidents mortels survenus à quelques minutes d'intervalle et directement liés, au moins pour le premier, à l'imprudence du cycliste.
Deux accidents mortels survenus à quelques minutes d'intervalle et directement liés, au moins pour le premier, à l'imprudence du cycliste.
which remark on going through red lights and the fatal accidents being linked to the imprudence of the cyclist
How refreshing to read a report without the hand wringing.
I am sure Lady Gin spinner is the first to oomplain when drivers ignore red lights. And since I have seen cyclists texting and wobbling around - I do happen to think the law should include cyclists - as does the law concerning cycling whilst drugged or drunk.
Two wrongs do not make a right.. but had he obeyed the red light - he'd still be alive and she might have been copped for texting and lost her licence on tot-up given she was already on 6 flash cam points per the story - which would have been a far better outcome really.
And the fact of two pings may mean copped by two scams on the same journey and more or less provides more proof that they do not make drivers reflect on driving standards. A chat with a police officer? Now funnily enough. that carries far more weight and a stronge learning curve.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff