'Street racer' jailed because somebody else crashed.

[ModernAndy]

I also get the feeling that what you're seeing in the news articles is the tip of the iceberg. I'd imagine that had he not plead guilty, a lot more of the story would come out in the wash as it was heard in court. From unverified sources, it appears he blocked the Fiat 500 from returning to the left hand lane on a country road. If that's true, 12 years isn't nearly enough.

[SturdyHSV]

ash73 said:

What was up with her car? It looks like a brand new Fiat 500 in the pics.

According to the other article linked (Guardian I think? Or Telegraph?) it was previously written off and had 'some faults'

[sidekickdmr]

[quote=ModernAndy it appears he blocked the Fiat 500 from returning to the left hand lane on a country road. If that's true, 12 years isn't nearly enough.
[/quote]

If that is the case then he deserves nothing less than a slow painful death.

But if they know/have any proof that was the case surely they would plaster this information everywhere?

[ModernAndy]

sidekickdmr said:

If that is the case then he deserves nothing less than a slow painful death.

But if they know/have any proof that was the case surely they would plaster this information everywhere?

If you look at the BBC news article, it really doesn't give any detail apart from the basics like the speed they were going. Maybe it would be libelous for the mainstream media to put more info up in this case before a court case.

At any rate, my spidey-sense is telling me it wasn't as straight as a simple overtake.

[toppstuff]

Sentence is entirely correct it seems to me.

He has form. He has done it before. He encouraged the race that led to innocent people dying. It was a joint endeavour.

He deserves every day of the sentence given to him. He's also been made an example of - if just one other retard driver like this one thinks twice about things because of this sentence then it would be worth it.

[chonok]

Forget about 'Form' and his past. Surely the sentencing for this case can only be made on this case alone.

This got me thinking though.

Say you were out drinking with a group of mates and you were all playing drinking games. One of you was really 'egging' someone else on to down them as quick as possible etc and the outcome of this was that this person died from alcohol poisoning, would he go to prison for 12 years for encouraging him to drink to much as to risk his life?

What is the difference?

[juansolo]

chonok said:

Forget about 'Form' and his past. Surely the sentencing for this case can only be made on this case alone.

This got me thinking though.

Say you were out drinking with a group of mates and you were all playing drinking games. One of you was really 'egging' someone else on to down them as quick as possible etc and the outcome of this was that this person died from alcohol poisoning, would he go to prison for 12 years for encouraging him to drink to much as to risk his life?

What is the difference?

The woman who was killed wasn't taking part in the drinking game for a start. Neither was the other person crossing the road in the previous incident.

Imagine if one of your family was killed as part of someone elses drinking game. Would you think, ah well, they were just having a drinking game that got my mum killed, they weren't really at fault.

People died and were injured as a direct consequence of his actions on two separate occasions. If that's not a danger to the public, I don't know what is!

Edited by juansolo on Thursday 2nd October 17:31

[trashbat]

^ I don't know but it probably has something to do with the foreseeable outcome and the obvious wrongness of the behaviour.

If we take your drinking example and substitute in 'climb a pylon' or 'play chicken with a train' does it change your view? Why?

[thelawnet]

chonok said:

Forget about 'Form' and his past. Surely the sentencing for this case can only be made on this case alone.

This got me thinking though.

Say you were out drinking with a group of mates and you were all playing drinking games. One of you was really 'egging' someone else on to down them as quick as possible etc and the outcome of this was that this person died from alcohol poisoning, would he go to prison for 12 years for encouraging him to drink to much as to risk his life?

What is the difference?

Er, the sentencing guidelines? Plus more people outraged at s killing other people on the road than they are about people drinking themselves to death.

Lots of drivers who kill people avoid any sort of punishment by saying there was a wasp in the car or whatever else. They get away with killing.

BUT, if the death by dangerous driving charge can stick - which for the vast majority of road deaths they don't - then you will get hammered with a relatively long sentence.

Here are some others recent d by dd convictions:

http://www.thelawpages.com/criminal-offence/Causin... - six years for doing 50 in a 30, wrong side of the road, dodgy brakes and tyres

http://www.thelawpages.com/court-cases/Tracy-Ann-C... - 6 years for drunk driving while disqualified and ending up on the pavement through being stfaced basically

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news... - hired R8 doing 70 in a 30 braked to avoid hitting a Fiesta, still killed them

http://www.westerndailypress.co.uk/Driver-Raymond-... - 2 years 8 months for killing cyclist while ejecting CD from laptop

http://www.rtitb.co.uk/news/001421.htmlhttp://www.thelawpages.com/court-cases/Robert-Wayn... - 7.5 years for HGV driving killing 2 cyclists while driving while exhausted, also texting. Subsequent dangerous driving in an HGV a month later

http://www.thelawpages.com/court-cases/Andrzej-Woj... - 5 years for killing a cyclist usin a minibus while playing with phone.



Basically in the scheme of things choosing to race on the road, which is clear it is what he did, he didn't just get up someone's arse, he set out to race is more serious than fiddling with your phone. And hence the higher sentence range.

[T0MMY]

This is an interesting thread...

What about this scenario:

Tractor on an NSL country road doing 20mph for several miles and refusing to pull over to let the growing line of cars pass. Someone goes for a misjudged overtake and ends up crashing into someone and killing them; should the tractor driver be charged with that death?

He has incited someone to do the overtake. That person didn't have to do a dodgy overtake but then that girl didn't have to start racing in a 30mph speed limit at 70mph. Any parallel?

How about this one:

Police try to pull someone who pinged up on their ANPR camera. Said scallywag tries to leg it and ends up plowing into a bus queue. Should the police driver be charged with inciting death by dangerous driving?

[Leins]

"Parker was jailed for 10 years after he admitted three counts of causing death by dangerous driving"

Without wanting to get into the rights and wrongs of what was done, anyone know why you would admit to this under such circumstances? I take it the sentencing would have been harsher if he hadn't?

Not a legal eagle, so apologies if I've misunderstood the terminology

Edited by Leins on Thursday 2nd October 17:43

[thelawnet]

Leins said:

"Parker was jailed for 10 years after he admitted three counts of causing death by dangerous driving"

Without wanting to get into the rights and wrongs of what was done, anyone know why you would admit to this under such circumstances? I take it the sentencing would have been harsher if he hadn't?

Not a legal eagle, so apologies if I've misunderstood the terminology

Edited by Leins on Thursday 2nd October 17:43

Remorse?

[thelawnet]

T0MMY said:

This is an interesting thread...

What about this scenario:

Tractor on an NSL country road doing 20mph for several miles and refusing to pull over to let the growing line of cars pass. Someone goes for a misjudged overtake and ends up crashing into someone and killing them; should the tractor driver be charged with that death?

He has incited someone to do the overtake. That person didn't have to do a dodgy overtake but then that girl didn't have to start racing in a 30mph speed limit at 70mph. Any parallel?

'Dangerous driving' is if:

' the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver,' AND
' it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.'

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/sectio...

Not pulling over does not satisfy that definition. Driving at 70mph in a 30 and goading people into racing (exact details of this unclear from stty reporting) does.

Death by 'Careless or Inconsiderate driving' is another thing:

(2) A person is to be regarded as driving without due care and attention if (and only if) the way he drives falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver.
(3)In determining for the purposes of subsection (2) above what would be expected of a careful and competent driver in a particular case, regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused.
(4)A person is to be regarded as driving without reasonable consideration for other persons only if those persons are inconvenienced by his driving


The sentencing for death by careless driving is much lower than dangerous.

Also you have to consider 'causing'. A reasonable person would anticipate that if you drive a tractor along a road, people would attempt to overtake. However it is not reasonable to assume that the overtake would be a reckless one. In this case the cause of the death is the reckless overtake - overtaking itself is not dangerous - it's perfectly lawful.

T0MMY said:

Police try to pull someone who pinged up on their ANPR camera. Said scallywag tries to leg it and ends up plowing into a bus queue. Should the police driver be charged with inciting death by dangerous driving?

No, because the police didn't drive dangerously.

Sheesh.

[greygoose]

thelawnet said:

Leins said:

"Parker was jailed for 10 years after he admitted three counts of causing death by dangerous driving"

Without wanting to get into the rights and wrongs of what was done, anyone know why you would admit to this under such circumstances? I take it the sentencing would have been harsher if he hadn't?

Not a legal eagle, so apologies if I've misunderstood the terminology

Edited by Leins on Thursday 2nd October 17:43

Remorse?

Perhaps there was loads of evidence proving he did it and he gets a shorter sentence for pleading early on.

[Leins]

thelawnet said:

Leins said:

"Parker was jailed for 10 years after he admitted three counts of causing death by dangerous driving"

Without wanting to get into the rights and wrongs of what was done, anyone know why you would admit to this under such circumstances? I take it the sentencing would have been harsher if he hadn't?

Not a legal eagle, so apologies if I've misunderstood the terminology

Edited by Leins on Thursday 2nd October 17:43

Remorse?

Very probably

Maybe this isn't the place to ask the question, as I'm aware a number of people have died in all this, but I was wondering more that if he hadn't admitted to it, would that have made it more difficult to bring a sentence against him? Or could the sentence have then been much harsher?

[T0MMY]

thelawnet said:

No, because the police didn't drive dangerously.

Sheesh.

Yes but the point is that it wasn't this guy's dangerous driving that killed someone, it was his incitement to make someone else drive dangerously that killed someone.

I'm not really defending the guy by the way, sort of devil's advocate really...it just interests me that you can be held responsible for someone else's actions just by encouraging them (not even forcing them) to do it.

Edited by T0MMY on Thursday 2nd October 18:14

[toppstuff]

T0MMY said:

Yes but the point is that it wasn't this guy's dangerous driving that killed someone, it was his incitement to make someone else drive dangerously that killed someone.

I'm not really defending the guy by the way, sort of devil's advocate really...it just interests me that you can be held responsible for someone else's actions just by encouraging them (not even forcing them) to do it.

Edited by T0MMY on Thursday 2nd October 18:14

You can't compare a tractor driver simply doing what a tractor driver does ( in your scenario the tractor driver did nothing wrong ) with someone who is actively street racing.

The street racer deserves the punishment.

[T0MMY]

toppstuff said:

You can't compare a tractor driver simply doing what a tractor driver does ( in your scenario the tractor driver did nothing wrong ) with someone who is actively street racing.

The street racer deserves the punishment.

No I agree, not a good parallel really.

What about the other one though? I mean what are we saying killed these people? The way the guy himself drove or the way he encouraged the girl to drive? If the latter then I don't see much difference.

What if you incited someone to race but then didn't yourself drive dangerously? Are you responsible for everything they do after that point?

[Vipers]

northandy said:

The reporting on the radio up here today seemed to suggest a lot more than you can glean from the bbc wordage there, I'm sure it was suggesting he wasn't just racing another car his driving was extremely dangerous and it was only luck that he hadn't actually hit anything himself.

And it said

A County Durham street racer involved in two serious crashes in the space of weeks, including one in which three women died, has been jailed.

Some posts seem to have overlooked this bit.

[KingNothing]

I don't think I've ever seen anyone try and incite a teenage girl driven Fiat 500 into a race, I wouldn't think this particular type of car would be the typical target of this particular knuckledragger, and so I'm a bit dubious on this whole "incite to race" situation, I and alot of us on here would need to know very specific details of the case, which I don't think we are ever going to get.