Is this a little unfair?
Discussion
carl_w said:
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?
I would imagine that was sufficiently proved in the trial, if there was doubt you can be sure it would have been argued.I think this idea of removing the cyclist and then punishing on that basis is short sighted. When you drive you have a responsibility to concentrate fully, if you are doing this and somebody skips a red light then you have a defence. However if you don't fulfil your lawful obligations then you have got to accept the consequences of your actions.
eg. If I was in a public park with a gun and was shooting in an area that was cordoned of from the public for work. If I just shoot then I am liable for firearms offences etc. If I shoot and hit some kid who is playing around where they shouldn't then it would be manslaughter. I had no intention of shooting the kid, but can't use the justification of he shouldn't have been there.
You have got to deal with the consequences of your actions. It's the notion in criminal law that you take your victim as you find them. ie. it's your bad luck if you t
t a haemophiliac who then dies of a relatively minor wound as their blood won't clot.H_Kan said:
I would imagine that was sufficiently proved in the trial, if there was doubt you can be sure it would have been argued.
It may well have been argued, however I always make the assumption that juries are stupid and easily led by competent prosecution barristers, particularly when faced with scientific or technical evidence.10 Pence Short said:
From reports I've read there was evidence of a message being sent less than 1 minute before she dialled 999.
which at 45mph could be up to 3/4 of a mile away.Or stationary in one of the 4 car parks within a couple of hundred yards off the roads leading to the junction.
Or in one of the 3 layby's within 1/2 a mile of the junction (and that's before you take into account the increased speed limit from that heading)
Unlikely, yes, but it's hardly conclusive proof?
Davi said:
10 Pence Short said:
From reports I've read there was evidence of a message being sent less than 1 minute before she dialled 999.
which at 45mph could be up to 3/4 of a mile away.Or stationary in one of the 4 car parks within a couple of hundred yards off the roads leading to the junction.
Or in one of the 3 layby's within 1/2 a mile of the junction (and that's before you take into account the increased speed limit from that heading)
Unlikely, yes, but it's hardly conclusive proof?
carl_w said:
H_Kan said:
I would imagine that was sufficiently proved in the trial, if there was doubt you can be sure it would have been argued.
It may well have been argued, however I always make the assumption that juries are stupid and easily led by competent prosecution barristers, particularly when faced with scientific or technical evidence.On the evidence that was presented, it was found that she was texting at the time, so why not accept it as that. At the moment non of us are really privy to all the knowledge the court must have considered when deciding if she had been texting or not.
Afterall the chances are the issue was most likely examined in depth if she contested it.
Way too one sided this one. We have no actaul proof that she was texting at time of accident ( the Police report said there was evidence that the phone had been in use close to the time of the accident ) .
As I see it, if she broke the law, so did the cyclist. He didn't even have a helmet on. If he was stupid enough to think he could run a red light and avoid being hit by a larger moving vehicle, then more fool him I say.
Surely if a motorcyclist has to wear a crash helmet, then a cyclist should be required to wear some kind of protection to the head, and perhaps also pay a small sum of money in the way of road tax, as most cyclist's seem to believe they are kings of the road!!
Oh, and by the way, I am a keen mountainbiker, where I go, I have no danger whatso-ever of being hit by a car!!(I'm not that stupid
)
The lady driver should have recieved some form of punishment....but prison.......come on, aren't they overcrowded enough without putting drivers in there as well??
Just one more scenario...................lady driver with infant in bcak, approaching traffic lights, cyclist with no lights etc, jumps red light, lady breaks very sharply to avoid him/her, wagon driver behind can't stop quick enough, hits car, causing death of infant in back of car.........who's responsible then, becuase you could bet your bottom dollar ,that the cyclist has long gone!!
As I see it, if she broke the law, so did the cyclist. He didn't even have a helmet on. If he was stupid enough to think he could run a red light and avoid being hit by a larger moving vehicle, then more fool him I say.
Surely if a motorcyclist has to wear a crash helmet, then a cyclist should be required to wear some kind of protection to the head, and perhaps also pay a small sum of money in the way of road tax, as most cyclist's seem to believe they are kings of the road!!
Oh, and by the way, I am a keen mountainbiker, where I go, I have no danger whatso-ever of being hit by a car!!(I'm not that stupid
)The lady driver should have recieved some form of punishment....but prison.......come on, aren't they overcrowded enough without putting drivers in there as well??
Just one more scenario...................lady driver with infant in bcak, approaching traffic lights, cyclist with no lights etc, jumps red light, lady breaks very sharply to avoid him/her, wagon driver behind can't stop quick enough, hits car, causing death of infant in back of car.........who's responsible then, becuase you could bet your bottom dollar ,that the cyclist has long gone!!
delboy735 said:
Just one more scenario...................lady driver with infant in bcak, approaching traffic lights, cyclist with no lights etc, jumps red light, lady breaks very sharply to avoid him/her, wagon driver behind can't stop quick enough, hits car, causing death of infant in back of car.........who's responsible then, becuase you could bet your bottom dollar ,that the cyclist has long gone!!
Must be the car who hit her, should have left sufficient room. I think in any incident when a car hits the one in front is always to blame.As a cyclist, totally agree with the helmet thingy, when I fell off on ice, my head hit the road, and the helmet cracked in 4 places, wheras I said "Oh bugger", got up and carried on my way.
P.S. I hope no more cyclists gets zapped on crossing, this thread has worn my keys out on my lappy.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff