5 Years - When will the Judges get serious.
Discussion
I live in Newark and this particular junction is notorious for accidents but when an idiot does this then there must be more severe punishment.
On the phone for 97% of the time he was driving his LGV. I’m at a loss as to what the answer is but something has to be done.
https://www.facebook.com/NewarkPoliceUK/posts/7329...
On the phone for 97% of the time he was driving his LGV. I’m at a loss as to what the answer is but something has to be done.
https://www.facebook.com/NewarkPoliceUK/posts/7329...
AgentZ said:
Am I reading that right? He continued his call for a further 2 minutes after he ploughed into the vehicles? Unbelievable.
Apart from the obvious ridiculous sentence he should be banned from driving for life and also from ever owning a mobile phone.
Yep it appears he was on the phone for two mins after the accident. I’m assuming sApart from the obvious ridiculous sentence he should be banned from driving for life and also from ever owning a mobile phone.
tting himself to whoever he was on the phone to during the accident as to what he should do. Alucidnation said:
Indeed, but apparently our mobile phone laws are stupid according to some.
No I think the punishment is about right if you don’t cause an accident. I commented on a previous thread that my only problem is that a lone police officer can say you were on the phone (no video evidence, no additional officer with the same opinion), you will end up in court and it’s well known that a coppers word is pretty much always considered to be correct so will be convicted with little or no chance to fight it. There is only one explanation that is wholly viable for this situation. These phones are highly addictive. You see it everywhere; people can't even sit in a restaurant now in company without having a phone glued to their ear or flicking away at the screen with thumbs.
When you apply that kind of habit to driving a vehicle you have a serious problem that even the threat of severe prosecution won't deter. It's the only explanation that fits.
J
When you apply that kind of habit to driving a vehicle you have a serious problem that even the threat of severe prosecution won't deter. It's the only explanation that fits.
J
eldar said:
Alucidnation said:
Indeed, but apparently our mobile phone laws are stupid according to some.
Stupid, possibly. Certainly not effective, judging by the number of people ignoring it.There was a thread recently about a proposed life sentence for death by dangerous driving.
Some, including me weren't altogether sure how to feel about that.
However, in this case I feel 5 years (out in 2.5) should be upped considerably. But, presumably the judge could have gone for 10 years, but didn't?
So even if life was an option, the judge felt 5 was enough. Doesn't send a strong enough message imo.
Totally get the detection issue.
We need a roadside camera to capture phone use, or, some state sponsored bounty hunter types, who can roam the highways collecting video evidence of phone use, and keep 20% of any successful fine for their trouble.
This would have the added advantage of avoiding 10 page long threads on ph about people getting pulled over and being wrongly accused of phone use on very shaky evidence, causing grumpy people to post long rants when they should be asleep.
Not that i'd know about that of course.
Ian
Some, including me weren't altogether sure how to feel about that.
However, in this case I feel 5 years (out in 2.5) should be upped considerably. But, presumably the judge could have gone for 10 years, but didn't?
So even if life was an option, the judge felt 5 was enough. Doesn't send a strong enough message imo.
Totally get the detection issue.
We need a roadside camera to capture phone use, or, some state sponsored bounty hunter types, who can roam the highways collecting video evidence of phone use, and keep 20% of any successful fine for their trouble.
This would have the added advantage of avoiding 10 page long threads on ph about people getting pulled over and being wrongly accused of phone use on very shaky evidence, causing grumpy people to post long rants when they should be asleep.
Not that i'd know about that of course.
Ian
jith said:
There is only one explanation that is wholly viable for this situation. These phones are highly addictive. You see it everywhere; people can't even sit in a restaurant now in company without having a phone glued to their ear or flicking away at the screen with thumbs.
^This^^I was in that exact situation recently and one of the group of six began scrolling away in the middle of a conversation.
At a convenient pause in the flow I asked if the speaker (not me) was boring him. He was totally unabashed by his boorishness.
Indeed he seemed miffed that I had interrupted his busy fingers. I can't abide bad manners: he won't be invited again.
The judge will be working within the parameters for death by dangerous driving sentences. Maximum is 14 years. A guilty plea will see the sentence cut (by a third I think it is). If drink and/or drugs weren’t involved that would reduce the sentence too.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/publications/...
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/publications/...
jith said:
There is only one explanation that is wholly viable for this situation. These phones are highly addictive. You see it everywhere; people can't even sit in a restaurant now in company without having a phone glued to their ear or flicking away at the screen with thumbs.
When you apply that kind of habit to driving a vehicle you have a serious problem that even the threat of severe prosecution won't deter. It's the only explanation that fits.
J
Exactly. Utterly habitual behaviour. And most of the time, people aren't doing anything that's even vaguely important.When you apply that kind of habit to driving a vehicle you have a serious problem that even the threat of severe prosecution won't deter. It's the only explanation that fits.
J
Markbarry1977 said:
AgentZ said:
Am I reading that right? He continued his call for a further 2 minutes after he ploughed into the vehicles? Unbelievable.
Apart from the obvious ridiculous sentence he should be banned from driving for life and also from ever owning a mobile phone.
Yep it appears he was on the phone for two mins after the accident. I’m assuming sApart from the obvious ridiculous sentence he should be banned from driving for life and also from ever owning a mobile phone.
tting himself to whoever he was on the phone to during the accident as to what he should do. Also, nowhere does it say "hand held". If he was hands free, all perfectly legal.
It seems to me that the lack of rest periods is far more likely to be the cause.
La Liga said:
You can take lots of offence types and argue the sentencing should be harsher.
The problem is there isn't space to sentence people more harshly.
We're at 98.6% of our prison capacity as of the 27th of October.
This. The problem is there isn't space to sentence people more harshly.
We're at 98.6% of our prison capacity as of the 27th of October.
There has been a steady increase in severity of sentences coupled with a persistent under resourcing of prisons. Thus we have a crisis.
chunder27 said:
In this guys case
Stopping him from driving would just mean he would more than likely return from whence he came and contribute further to the horrendous road accident phenomenon in Eastern Europe!
As I don’t drive in Eastern Europe and being a bit selfish. I would say good. Let them sort out thier own driving standards. Sorry that sounds harsh reading it back but if it keeps idiots like this off uk roads then it sounds like a good solution to ban them for life for driving on uk roads. Stopping him from driving would just mean he would more than likely return from whence he came and contribute further to the horrendous road accident phenomenon in Eastern Europe!
Ian Geary said:
There was a thread recently about a proposed life sentence for death by dangerous driving.
Some, including me weren't altogether sure how to feel about that.
However, in this case I feel 5 years (out in 2.5) should be upped considerably. But, presumably the judge could have gone for 10 years, but didn't?
So even if life was an option, the judge felt 5 was enough. Doesn't send a strong enough message imo.
Ian
Increasing the maximum sentence from 14 years custody to life would have made absolutely no difference to the sentence passed in this case.Some, including me weren't altogether sure how to feel about that.
However, in this case I feel 5 years (out in 2.5) should be upped considerably. But, presumably the judge could have gone for 10 years, but didn't?
So even if life was an option, the judge felt 5 was enough. Doesn't send a strong enough message imo.
Ian
The proposal for a discretionary life sentence applies to approximately 0.01% of death by dangerous driving cases, but it’s a good headline for the Daily Mail.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff