Harsh sentence?

[speedking31]

Warrington GuardianTLDR: Driver doing 80 on the motorway in lane 3 hits standing water and loses control. Visits the verge where trees smash the front of his car and bounce him back to lane 2 facing the wrong direction with no headlights. Lady crashes into the stationary vehicle in the dark and dies. Man gets 6 month suspended sentence and 15 month ban.

Seems harsh to me. Lots of holes in cheese had to align to cause that outcome. I bet if he'd ended up on the hard shoulder and there was no collision he would probably not have been prosecuted. Almost got prosecuted for dangerous driving which seems particularly harsh.

I thought people driving into unlit things on the motorway was their fault?

[NMNeil]

What were you expecting from the judge?
"You were doing 80 in the pissing rain and killed someone. Hold out your hand so we can slap it and be more careful in future"

[DanL]

80-90mph in a “torrential” downpour?

Doesn’t sound safe, and evidently wasn’t. He’s avoided jail - I wouldn’t say that was a harsh sentence by any stretch, surely?

[E63eeeeee...]

Your negligence led to someone's death, and all that happens to you is a 15 month ban from the thing you were doing at the time? Doesn't seem that harsh to me.

[bitchstewie]

Doing 80mph in "torrential" rain certainly sounds like it could be judged as "careless" if it unravels.

[Hugo Stiglitz]

Overly lenient. He should have been jailed.

Many many a time over Saddleworth on the M62 I see drivers of big 4x4s doing 70+ in absolutely appalling rain, torrential rain. I meanwhile drive at 50 in such weather.

[MitchT]

Not driving to the conditions. Never ceases to amaze me the number of halfwits that hammer past at the usual 90+ in torrential rain with standing water and a level spray that would make Spa-Francorchamps proud while I tread my way carefully in Lane 1 at 40-50 feeling uneasy enough.

[Canon_Fodder]

After examining his car and airbags, it was initially thought that he had been travelling at 90mph, but it was now thought to have been 80mph.

Sounds a bit random... Doesn't give his version of what speed he was doing

[Roger Irrelevant]

speedking31 said:

I bet if he'd ended up on the hard shoulder and there was no collision he would probably not have been prosecuted. Almost got prosecuted for dangerous driving which seems particularly harsh.

I thought people driving into unlit things on the motorway was their fault?

Possibly. But he didn't end up on the hard shoulder did he, he ended up stationary in the middle lane with no lights on in low visibility conditions having first slewed across from lane 3 to the hard shoulder and back out again. Which seems pretty dangerous to me, so I'm not sure that a dangerous driving charge would have been all that 'harsh'. And yes, it may well be that the victim's driving did also fall below the standards expected, but A) I'm not sure what you'd want done about that given she's dead, and B) that doesn't mean the bloke doing 80 in torrential rain wasn't guilty too. Just imagine if I were to place a line of concrete blocks across the carriageway in similar conditions. When the inevitable serious crash occurs going by your logic I should only be charged with littering.

[anonymous-user]

Canon_Fodder said:

After examining his car and airbags, it was initially thought that he had been travelling at 90mph, but it was now thought to have been 80mph.

Sounds a bit random... Doesn't give his version of what speed he was doing

That is a tad concerning; how have they arrived at that figure? It does sound worryingly close to guesswork based on that snippet alone. Some very clever techniques out there these days of course, but how does “examining airbags” determine the speed the car was travelling at I wonder? Especially after the vehicle has had a second high speed shunt after coming to a stop. Doubtless there’ll be some media babble in there, but adjusting the end figure downwards certainly doesn’t imply that they had access to any definite data. If they’d arrived at 70 as the figure, would he have been in the clear? Was the victim who sadly died considered to have been driving entirely safely, and if so at what speed? Etc etc.

[Drawweight]

I’m pretty sure the relatives of the woman who died don’t consider the sentence too harsh.

[Gweeds]

Username name of OP checks out.

Imagine thinking that your driving like a prick ends up with someone dead and you think that ban is harsh.

[NMNeil]

Gweeds said:

Username name of OP checks out.

Imagine thinking that your driving like a prick ends up with someone dead and you think that ban is harsh.

Probation and a bit of building work instead?
https://www.lcsun-news.com/story/news/local/courts...

[popeyewhite]

DanL said:

80-90mph in a “torrential” downpour?

I've just returned home on the M6, average speed in the fast lane about 82/4. Pissing down.

[SlimJim16v]

Even 70 is stupid in torrential rain.

[popeyewhite]

SlimJim16v said:

Even 70 is stupid in torrential rain.

Very possible you might think so, but you try doing that on a Friday afternoon on a jam-packed M6. I'll go the same speed as everyone else, with a view to expediency rather than dawdling on a rain soaked m'way with traffic thundering by

[Vasco]

speedking31 said:

Warrington GuardianTLDR: Driver doing 80 on the motorway in lane 3 hits standing water and loses control. Visits the verge where trees smash the front of his car and bounce him back to lane 2 facing the wrong direction with no headlights. Lady crashes into the stationary vehicle in the dark and dies. Man gets 6 month suspended sentence and 15 month ban.

Seems harsh to me. Lots of holes in cheese had to align to cause that outcome. I bet if he'd ended up on the hard shoulder and there was no collision he would probably not have been prosecuted. Almost got prosecuted for dangerous driving which seems particularly harsh.

I thought people driving into unlit things on the motorway was their fault?

Eh?

An idiot driving too fast, in poor weather, can't control his vehicle and results in an innocent lady being killed.

Would your view be the same if it was your mother, sister or girlfriend ?

Should have been jailed for 6-12mths at least.

[popeyewhite]

Vasco said:

Should have been jailed for 6-12mths at least.

As above, so should the entire fast lane of the M6 this afternoon then. I sometimes wonder whether some posters actually think before hitting submit.

[Dingu]

Should have been custodial. His piss poor driving killed someone. Ban should be a lot longer too.

Sentences for causing death while driving are pitiful in general.

[speedking31]

Where I'm coming from is that prosecuting/sentencing is based on the action not the consequences. Therefore everyone doing 80 in heavy rain should get a prison sentence.