Is this a little unfair?

[collateral]

Davi said:

collateral said:

The cyclist ran a light; but she was speeding in a built up area whilst writing a sodding text!

Just to note, this is not what I would term a "built up" area - unless you count the road as being built up... It's a triple carriage way both directions separated by a very large central reservation, with another triple carriage intersecting it at an fairly acute angle. There is absolutely bugger all around the junction for 300 yards + in any direction, entering from one side is a 50 going into a 40 (one of those 50's we all come on here and say WTF are they doing making it a 50...) , there are 30 mph limits a couple of hundred yards further down in 2 directions where it starts to enter a commercial area.

Fair play, there can't be many triple carriage ways with traffic lights on em

[glazbagun]

Evil Edna said:

Yep, all seems fair to me. Sorry that cyclist was killed but, people need to take responsibility for their actions.

He jumped the lights. He could have caused the death of another road user or pedestrian by his own actions. He paid a high price for his actions.

I thinks she got what was coming to her, as well. The sentence was wholly in keeping with the selfishness, stupidity and recklessness of her actions.

When any of us are in charge of a car (from the most humble to the most exotic), we have a responsibility to ourselves, and to other road users, to give 100% of our attention to our driving and surroundings.

On a daily basis, I see people driving appallingly and forcing other road users to take avoiding action cos they are using their hand-held phones (talking or texting). Obviously, their text or call is worth more than the safety of the other road users around them. Selfish, self-important and inconsiderate c***ts.

Pretty much my view. I dont know all the circumstances, so cant *really* judge, but if you're doing 45MPH while going past, say, a crossroads- thats just asking for trouble. To do it whilst on your phone is blatant disregard for the safety of everyone else.

[Blue Meanie]

glazbagun said:

Evil Edna said:

Yep, all seems fair to me. Sorry that cyclist was killed but, people need to take responsibility for their actions.

He jumped the lights. He could have caused the death of another road user or pedestrian by his own actions. He paid a high price for his actions.

I thinks she got what was coming to her, as well. The sentence was wholly in keeping with the selfishness, stupidity and recklessness of her actions.

When any of us are in charge of a car (from the most humble to the most exotic), we have a responsibility to ourselves, and to other road users, to give 100% of our attention to our driving and surroundings.

On a daily basis, I see people driving appallingly and forcing other road users to take avoiding action cos they are using their hand-held phones (talking or texting). Obviously, their text or call is worth more than the safety of the other road users around them. Selfish, self-important and inconsiderate c***ts.

Pretty much my view. I dont know all the circumstances, so cant *really* judge, but if you're doing 45MPH while going past, say, a crossroads- thats just asking for trouble. To do it whilst on your phone is blatant disregard for the safety of everyone else.

And no-one is arguing against that. I think people have issue with the fact that she is also being punished for the cyclists behaviour, (yes, I know he died, but you get the point)

[carbonjunkie]

H_Kan said:

But I really don't think it can be argued that she would have had a much better chance of avoiding a fatality at 30mph and concentrating.

i'm sorry, that's one of the most ridiculous things i've ever read. it is precisely the whole point that she could have avoided him had she been doing 30 and concentrating. that's why she was sent to prison...

[Blue Meanie]

I wonder what the outcome would have been had it been another motorised vehicle she hit? Prison? Automatically the other vehicles fault?

[lordlee]

Seems rather harsh when you look at this case -

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/2022/2022081/driv...

She seems rather angelic in comparison. All road death is bad though and there is simply no excuse for texting while driving.

[fluffnik]

carbonjunkie said:

H_Kan said:

But I really don't think it can be argued that she would have had a much better chance of avoiding a fatality at 30mph and concentrating.

i'm sorry, that's one of the most ridiculous things i've ever read. it is precisely the whole point that she could have avoided him had she been doing 30 and concentrating. that's why she was sent to prison...

There is a greater chance that had she been fully attentive and within the speed limit that the collision would have been survived or even avoided; the cyclist might still have died.

If the cyclist had stopped at the red it is certain that the collision would have been avoided even if she'd been giving her passeenger a BJ while texting at 145mph...

Her driving was utterly shoite but it's not what killed the cyclist.

[Blue Meanie]

If I go onto some train tracks, it is not the driver, listeneing to his Ipod that killed, me, it was me, where I shouldn't be... She deserves punishment, but the cyclist has a HUGE part to play in his own demise.

[fluffnik]

will_ said:

'Aggravated its realisation' really means cause, in part. Bearing that in mind, for his part in causing his own death he was punished by losing his life. Her part in causing his death (because were she paying attention she may have avoided him) is reflected by a four year term (out in two). Does this reflect their apparent blame? I think it does.

Nope.

She could have been on the ball and still provided the instrument of his death:

• Without the cyclist's error there is no death.

Her error increases the chance of the cyclist's lethal gambit playing out, but his play could have been as well completed by Mrs Miggins and her moribund Micra...

will_ said:

fluffnik said:

Gary Hart was very hard done by IMO, he was not hugely culpable just hugely unlucky.

I agree - but it is not the victims fault that he was unlucky, and without punishing him appropriately that would effectively be a failure to re-balance the scales between victim and offender. I accept that courts rarely do this, but it should be suitably attempted.

Why are we trying to "re-balance the scales"? - it's silly to try.

st happens.

What is wicked is to take it out on someone who has been no worse than slightly foolhardy.

will_ said:

fluffnik said:

Failure to apply the lessons of experience increases culpability as there can be no mitigating failure of foresight.

If foresight increases culpability then I would submit that it was perfectly foreseeable that texting whilst driving would potentially lead to a crash.

Her previous experience probably led her to believe texting while driving to be entirely safe - now she knows it's not.

will_ said:

fluffnik said:

We should not assume malice in the absence of evidence.

It's almost impossible to prove intention. The law is often forced to imply intention from the action. Without being able to do so there would be little chance of any successful prosecutions.

...or fewer trumped up charges?

will_ said:

fluffnik said:

I would regard all foreseeably lethal deliberate assaults as attempted murder. If one initiates an attack with lethal force what purpose could there be but to kill?

Who is to determine what level of force the attacker thought they were using? Almost impossible to do. Very few muggers intend to kill someone, but sometimes it happens and they should be held responsible.

Knives and cudgels are lethal weapons.

[H_Kan]

carbonjunkie said:

H_Kan said:

But I really don't think it can be argued that she would have had a much better chance of avoiding a fatality at 30mph and concentrating.

i'm sorry, that's one of the most ridiculous things i've ever read. it is precisely the whole point that she could have avoided him had she been doing 30 and concentrating. that's why she was sent to prison...

Carbon Junkie, I totally agree, just wrote it wrong and gave the opposite impression. Should have read that is can't be argued that she wouldn't have had a better chance if she had been paying attention and doing 30mph.

If you see my earlier post, I was arguing that point, sorry my wording got muddled up.

[sniff petrol]

I think that the cyclist pretty much killed himself - if she didn't hit him riding like that then the next car would have done anyway.

[will_]

Blue Meanie said:

I wonder what the outcome would have been had it been another motorised vehicle she hit? Prison? Automatically the other vehicles fault?

I would suggest that the punishment would be divided up on a similar basis to this case - the RLJing car would be more severely punished than the texting driver. But they both could have had the opportunity of avoiding the accident had they not been driving like tools, therefore they are both to blame in part.

[will_]

fluffnik said:

will_ said:

'Aggravated its realisation' really means cause, in part. Bearing that in mind, for his part in causing his own death he was punished by losing his life. Her part in causing his death (because were she paying attention she may have avoided him) is reflected by a four year term (out in two). Does this reflect their apparent blame? I think it does.

Nope.

She could have been on the ball and still provided the instrument of his death:

• Without the cyclist's error there is no death.

Without her texting, speeding and crossing a junction when it wasn't clear there would have had a much higher chance of avoiding the accident. She failed in her responsibility to drive with her full concentration, and therefore was in part to blame for the crash. Equally had she 'been on the ball and provided the instrument of his death' she would be likely to face no punishment.

Once again, had it been an ambulance with a legitimate reason for crossing that red, would you still blame the ambulance 100%?

fluffnik said:

will_ said:

fluffnik said:

Gary Hart was very hard done by IMO, he was not hugely culpable just hugely unlucky.

I agree - but it is not the victims fault that he was unlucky, and without punishing him appropriately that would effectively be a failure to re-balance the scales between victim and offender. I accept that courts rarely do this, but it should be suitably attempted.

Why are we trying to "re-balance the scales"? - it's silly to try.

st happens.

What is wicked is to take it out on someone who has been no worse than slightly foolhardy.

There are a multitude or arguments as to what sentencing and punishment is supposed to achieve. Academics have not managed to come to agreement on this yet, so I doubt much would be achieved in arguing it here. It is my opinion that a part of the reason for punishment is to 'redress the balance' so the victim feels that they have got some justice.

st happens - just like when the 'innocent' punch you throw kills someone by accident. You are still responsible for that death.

Slightly foolhardy - is that really what you think texting, speeding and not paying attention whilst driving is? I'd love to have an example of extreme unacceptable recklessness then.

fluffnik said:

will_ said:

fluffnik said:

Failure to apply the lessons of experience increases culpability as there can be no mitigating failure of foresight.

If foresight increases culpability then I would submit that it was perfectly foreseeable that texting whilst driving would potentially lead to a crash.

Her previous experience probably led her to believe texting while driving to be entirely safe - now she knows it's not.

It's clearly not safe to a reasonable person. She would have known it was dangerous. She could have foreseen that she could have caused an accident which may have been fatal.

fluffnik said:

will_ said:

fluffnik said:

I would regard all foreseeably lethal deliberate assaults as attempted murder. If one initiates an attack with lethal force what purpose could there be but to kill?

Who is to determine what level of force the attacker thought they were using? Almost impossible to do. Very few muggers intend to kill someone, but sometimes it happens and they should be held responsible.

Knives and cudgels are lethal weapons.

As are cars.

[fluffnik]

will_ said:

fluffnik said:

• Without the cyclist's error there is no death.

Without her texting, speeding and crossing a junction when it wasn't clear there would have had a much higher chance of avoiding the accident. She failed in her responsibility to drive with her full concentration, and therefore was in part to blame for the crash. Equally had she 'been on the ball and provided the instrument of his death' she would be likely to face no punishment.

No argument with any of that, however the fact remains that the cyclist's error were causative, hers potentially aggravating.

will_ said:

Once again, had it been an ambulance with a legitimate reason for crossing that red, would you still blame the ambulance 100%?

I'm not blaming anyone 100%, I'm looking at causation.

It's unlikely to have bowled on through without checking it was clear and its blues and twos are designed to grab attention...

...but still there cannot be a collision unless the light is passed on red.

will_ said:

fluffnik said:

Gary Hart was very hard done by IMO, he was not hugely culpable just hugely unlucky.

There are a multitude or arguments as to what sentencing and punishment is supposed to achieve. Academics have not managed to come to agreement on this yet, so I doubt much would be achieved in arguing it here. It is my opinion that a part of the reason for punishment is to 'redress the balance' so the victim feels that they have got some justice.

I think it's wrong to punish someone for the ill fortune of others...

will_ said:

Slightly foolhardy - is that really what you think texting, speeding and not paying attention whilst driving is? I'd love to have an example of extreme unacceptable recklessness then.

I think Gary Hart was slightly foolhardy, at worst, yet he received an even more severe sentence.

The driver in this case was unacceptably reckless in the extreme but I don't accept she caused the death in the way she would have if she'd run into a bus queue at a bus-stop for example.

will_ said:

fluffnik said:

Her previous experience probably led her to believe texting while driving to be entirely safe - now she knows it's not.

It's clearly not safe to a reasonable person. She would have known it was dangerous. She could have foreseen that she could have caused an accident which may have been fatal.

Ahhh, but we are reasonable people with schooled intellects...

I think it shocking that anyone can leave school without the faintest grasp of logic or risk management - but that's another thread entirely.

[lordlee]

[quote=lordlee]Seems rather harsh when you look at this case -

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/2022/2022081/driv...


Nobody has yet commented on the above article which I feel is a fair benchmark as to British justice and the differences in sentencing - surely the seriousness of this article highlights the harshness of this sentence. Comments please....

Edited by lordlee on Monday 3rd March 21:50

[thirteen-o-two]

lordlee said:

lordlee said:

Seems rather harsh when you look at this case -

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/2022/2022081/driv...


Nobody has yet commented on the above article which I feel is a fair benchmark as to British justice and the differences in sentencing - surely the seriousness of this article highlights the harshness of this sentence. Comments please....

Edited by lordlee on Monday 3rd March 21:50

Murdering b@st@rd.

[grumbledoak]

lordlee said:

Seems rather harsh when you look at this case -

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/2022/2022081/driv...


Nobody has yet commented on the above article which I feel is a fair benchmark as to British justice and the differences in sentencing - surely the seriousness of this article highlights the harshness of this sentence. Comments please....

This is Causing Death By Dangerous Driving. And four years doesn't seem enough.

Edited by grumbledoak on Monday 3rd March 22:17

[Vipers]

Lots of interesting comments, some seem slanted to the sentence she received.

Yet on other threads, those of us unfortunately caught for speeding, are for ever going on about (And with just cause), that all the others prats on the roads dont get caught, middle morons, undertakers, etc etc.

When a woman who gets caught exceeding the speed limit on a JUNCTION by 50%, not content with that, but texting at the same time, so whoever she hit would almost certainly sustain severe injuries gets sentenced to 4 years, some of us moan about it. Lets face it, she a) wouldnt be able to stop in a reasonable distance, and b) seems not to have seen anything anyway.

What do you suggest, a slap wrist? She wont do 4 years anyway, generally I think our legal system sucks, most seem to receive lenient sentences, and of course depends on which part of the country you seem to be in determines what you get, and/or the judge, or whatever they are called.

Harsh sentence, I think not. Remember, it wasnt her first offence either.

[grumbledoak]

Vipers said:

What do you suggest, a slap wrist? She wont do 4 years anyway

That is just a bunch of mealy-mouthed excuses! The debate, much misunderstood, is about her culpability. Not a suggestion that she should be let off, or the fact that she won't serve the full sentence. Compare her case to the 'getreading' one linked by lordlee. Can you not see the difference?

We could argue that 2 years max for Dangerous Driving is not enough. Or the usefulness of time inside when a ban would safeguard the public, and cost us less. Start a new thread if you want.

But this is about her culpability, and the futility of our politicians' attempts to use legislation as 'sending a message'. And, seemingly, the court's willingness to 'make an example'.

She should be punished for what she did. i.e. pretend that the cyclist had obeyed his red light. Even if the sentence turns out the same, they are not the same crime.

[carl_w]

I don't really understand the texting part. Surely if the mobile phone network knew she was texting, then the text had been sent so attention now back on the road? If she was composing a text when she hit the cyclist then the network would never see it so no-one would've been any the wiser. If she received a text message before hitting the cyclist, how can anyone prove she was reading it?