Using mobile, kills cyclist - sentenced to 5 years.

[julianm]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wale...

I hope he has to see out all 5 years, but might you know how long he`ll end up doing?

[BGarside]

I'm surprised he even got 5 years. I'm sure the lying scum will be out in 2.

The standard sentence for killing a cyclist seems to be a slap on the wrist & back behaind the wheel as though nothing had happened with some pathetic argument about how banning them from driving will cause 'hardship'...

Life is cheap in the UK, as long as you kill a cyclist or pedestrian and use a car to do it...

[singlecoil]

I expect he will serve at least half of the sentence.

[mdavids]

10 year driving ban - good start but not enough.

Lifetime ban for anyone who kills or maims on our roads please. A simple and effective punishment and deterrent for those proven too irresponsible and selfish to be allowed behind the wheel.

[Mk3Spitfire]

And yet there are several on here who will vehemently argue that using a mobile phone whilst driving is harmless, and does not have any impact on driving ability?

[agtlaw]

julianm said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-east-wale...

I hope he has to see out all 5 years, but might you know how long he`ll end up doing?

If you get 5 years then you serve 5 years. The first half in a prison, the second half on licence.

The home detention provisions (tag / curfew) are not supposed to apply to homicide offences, although I've heard anecdotally that "death by driving" offences are not dealt with as such by the prison authorities.

And before anyone says it, he will NOT be released early for good behaviour.

[Mk3Spitfire]

"Serving" any amount of a sentence at home, drinking beer in front of a plasma screen tv with the justification that you are on tag/licence is farcical.

[agtlaw]

Mk3Spitfire said:

"Serving" any amount of a sentence at home, drinking beer in front of a plasma screen tv with the justification that you are on tag/licence is farcical.

Not much different to the prison part then.

[Mk3Spitfire]

agtlaw said:

Not much different to the prison part then.

Sadly, not.

[Willy Nilly]

Personally I would rather that people gave me a little more room and respect on my bike than killing me and receiving a harsh prison sentence

[accident]

mdavids said:

10 year driving ban - good start but not enough.

Lifetime ban for anyone who kills or maims on our roads please. A simple and effective punishment and deterrent for those proven too irresponsible and selfish to be allowed behind the wheel.

but what about blame?
eg guy driving along minding his own on a 40mph road when 13 year old kid on a bike does a 90 deg right turn giving driver almost no time to react.
driver brakes but kid goes flying.
option 1 kid hits head on landing and is seriously hurt. according to you driver is banned forever
option 2 kid gets up has a cry and is fine,driver has no penalty.
driver isnt at fault in either case.
reason for this example is that i was the kid who went flying.
each case has to be judged on merit.
now i agree that if death or life changing injury is caused by provable negligence then penalties should be more fitting with the damage done.

[Nigel Worc's]

Mk3Spitfire said:

And yet there are several on here who will vehemently argue that using a mobile phone whilst driving is harmless, and does not have any impact on driving ability?

I'm against the mobile phone law, I think it is stupid, but I don't think killing anyone is clever.

[4rephill]

mdavids said:

10 year driving ban - good start but not enough.

Lifetime ban for anyone who kills or maims on our roads please. A simple and effective punishment and deterrent for those proven too irresponsible and selfish to be allowed behind the wheel.

So if it's the middle of the night, pitch black everywhere and a cyclist wearing dark clothing with no lights on their bike and no reflective safety clothing on, launches off a pavement unexpectedly into a drivers path, leaving the driver no chance to avoid a collision and the cyclist gets killed, you think that the driver of the car deserves a lifetime driving ban?

Sorry but your idea is far too simple in it's concept!

When it comes to road deaths and injuries, you can't just blame the car driver and have done with it! - Sometimes a road death or injury simply isn't the drivers fault.

[Mk3Spitfire]

Nigel Worc's said:

I'm against the mobile phone law, I think it is stupid,

And yet if this man had abided by this "stupid law", someone somewhere would still have a father/son/brother.

[Nigel Worc's]

Mk3Spitfire said:

Nigel Worc's said:

I'm against the mobile phone law, I think it is stupid,

And yet if this man had abided by this "stupid law", someone somewhere would still have a father/son/brother.

Did you read the article sir ?

[Mk3Spitfire]

Nigel Worc's said:

Did you read the article sir ?

I did. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the main contributing factor to the collision was down to the mini bus driver using his phone?

[Ray Luxury-Yacht]

Nigel Worc's said:

I'm against the mobile phone law, I think it is stupid, but I don't think killing anyone is clever.

Really? How come? I think I can confidently say that, on most occasions of horrendous driving I come across, it is then evident that the driver is on / pissing about with a phone. They're a horrendous distraction in a vehicle.

And why do people deem it necessary to fiddle with a phone whilst driving anyway? There really is just no bloody need whatsoever!

[Nigel Worc's]

Mk3Spitfire said:

Nigel Worc's said:

Did you read the article sir ?

I did. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the main contributing factor to the collision was down to the mini bus driver using his phone?

He was using it as a camera, taking and viewing pictures.

Very silly indeed, but he wasn't using it as a fooking phone was he ?

The result would have been the same if he'd be using a camera, so why all the ste in your comment about phones and those of us who don't agree/like the current law ?

[Mk3Spitfire]

He was "using a mobile phone whilst driving". This is the offence I'm referring to. The judge made reference to his actions being as bad as txting. Do you condemn txting whilst driving or is this acceptable to you too?
If he hadn't "used a mobile phone whilst driving", the cyclist wouldn't have died.

[Nigel Worc's]

Mk3Spitfire said:

He was "using a mobile phone whilst driving". This is the offence I'm referring to. The judge made reference to his actions being as bad as txting. Do you condemn txting whilst driving or is this acceptable to you too?

Don't be obtuse !

I disagree with the law on mobile phones because I've used them (as a phone, for nothing else) for about 25 years now.

Originally phones only did phone calls.

It is my experience that done sensibly it isn't an issue, I also manage to smoke, change gear, open and close the windows, adjust the climate control, use the car/van entertainment system etc etc etc.

What data there is suggests that any distraction caused by using a mobile phone is about the same if you're holding it or hands free.

If this data is correct, why is the latter legal ?