Uninsured, sleeping driver who hit 3 cyclists - term reduced

[funkyrobot]

Wow.

Original sentencing was too tough?

He had no insurance, was asleep at the wheel and ploughed into three cyclists. Then drove off.

https://www.spaldingtoday.co.uk/news/driver-who-fe...

What the f**k.

[budgie smuggler]

funkyrobot said:

Wow.

Original sentencing was too tough?

He had no insurance, was asleep at the wheel and ploughed into three cyclists. Then drove off.

https://www.spaldingtoday.co.uk/news/driver-who-fe...

What the f**k.

Standard mate.

How about this one?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-46070...

Drives into the back of a cyclist, knocked him 45m up the road, killing him. He stopped, then drove off despite have a completely caved in windscreen. Got caught when later an officer saw his vehicle on a recovery truck and put two and two together.

Pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving.

Sentence: one year community order, 240 hours unpaid work, 18 month driving ban

Edited by budgie smuggler on Tuesday 6th November 13:58

[mac96]

funkyrobot said:

Wow.

Original sentencing was too tough?

He had no insurance, was asleep at the wheel and ploughed into three cyclists. Then drove off.

https://www.spaldingtoday.co.uk/news/driver-who-fe...

What the f**k.

Well, if the sentence was outside guidelines it probably needed to be reduced. If you feel guidelines are wrong that is a whole different argument.

The headline is perhaps a bit emotive- seems from the article that there was no proof that he knew his insurance had been cancelled, and equally it is only an assumption that he was asleep.
Neither of which are the least excuse for running into the bikes or not stopping.

Let's not turn this into another cyclist v driver thread. There are two running at the moment and as usual getting nowhere.

[Reciprocating mass]

British justice in shower of st shocker

[Usget]

What is the sentencing uplift from the fact that he buggered off? Is it considered the same as any other aggravating factor, or is it (as it should be) considered to be something that elevates the offence from a "there but for the grace of God" to "should be publicly flogged"?

I don't think it's inconceivable, God forbid, that I might one day run someone over or knock someone off their bike.
I do think it's inconceivable that I, or any other reasonable person, wouldn't stop, help, and call a bloody ambiwlans ambulance.

[funkyrobot]

mac96 said:

Well, if the sentence was outside guidelines it probably needed to be reduced. If you feel guidelines are wrong that is a whole different argument.

The headline is perhaps a bit emotive- seems from the article that there was no proof that he knew his insurance had been cancelled, and equally it is only an assumption that he was asleep.
Neither of which are the least excuse for running into the bikes or not stopping.

Let's not turn this into another cyclist v driver thread. There are two running at the moment and as usual getting nowhere.

I'm not blaming all drivers. I'm referring to the story in the OP.

I do feel he got off quite lightly. It seems that when it comes to vehicle drivers, killing and hurting people ends up with a soft sentence. Think of what people get when they get caught speeding and don't hurt or hit anyone.

It's the fact that he hit them and buggered off that is the main point (without even considering driving when tired and no insurance). If he had been in a genuine accident and stopped to help, fair enough. Not his fault. However, he hit them, carried on home and then said to his missus he would ring the police in the morning. Crazy behaviour. People like that should never be allowed on the road.

[tigger1]

mac96 said:

The headline is perhaps a bit emotive- seems from the article that there was no proof that he knew his insurance had been cancelled

https://thelincolnite.co.uk/2018/09/man-drove-away-after-ploughing-into-three-cyclists/

He was literally in the insurance business...he should have bloody known. It's his responsibility to know if he was insured or not.

He ought to have stopped and checked what that bloody loud THUMP was too as he hit three well lit cyclists and drove off leaving them potentially for dead (one is paralysed). There was sizeable damage to the front of his car.

Oh, and he'd been drinking before the accident too (although did pass a breath-test a few hours after the accident). Utter fking scumbag. This isn't a "there but for the grace of God" scenario, this is somebody who made a series of selfish choices that willfully put others at risk. The sentencing guidelines are not harsh enough.

[CzechItOut]

Realistically how long will he serve? Someone local to me was sentenced to 11 months for dangerous driving and appears to be out after less than 3.

[mac96]

funkyrobot said:

mac96 said:

Well, if the sentence was outside guidelines it probably needed to be reduced. If you feel guidelines are wrong that is a whole different argument.

The headline is perhaps a bit emotive- seems from the article that there was no proof that he knew his insurance had been cancelled, and equally it is only an assumption that he was asleep.
Neither of which are the least excuse for running into the bikes or not stopping.

Let's not turn this into another cyclist v driver thread. There are two running at the moment and as usual getting nowhere.

I'm not blaming all drivers. I'm referring to the story in the OP.

I do feel he got off quite lightly. It seems that when it comes to vehicle drivers, killing and hurting people ends up with a soft sentence. Think of what people get when they get caught speeding and don't hurt or hit anyone.

It's the fact that he hit them and buggered off that is the main point (without even considering driving when tired and no insurance). If he had been in a genuine accident and stopped to help, fair enough. Not his fault. However, he hit them, carried on home and then said to his missus he would ring the police in the morning. Crazy behaviour. People like that should never be allowed on the road.

My comment about cyclists v drivers wasn't aimed at you in particular- it's just that any thread of this sort seems to descend into pointless argument.
And I agree with you entirely that not stopping is the main issue. He didn't know how badly hurt they were -stopping might have been the difference between life and death.

[mac96]

tigger1 said:

mac96 said:

The headline is perhaps a bit emotive- seems from the article that there was no proof that he knew his insurance had been cancelled

https://thelincolnite.co.uk/2018/09/man-drove-away-after-ploughing-into-three-cyclists/

He was literally in the insurance business...he should have bloody known. It's his responsibility to know if he was insured or not.

He ought to have stopped and checked what that bloody loud THUMP was too as he hit three well lit cyclists and drove off leaving them potentially for dead (one is paralysed). There was sizeable damage to the front of his car.

Oh, and he'd been drinking before the accident too (although did pass a breath-test a few hours after the accident). Utter fking scumbag. This isn't a "there but for the grace of God" scenario, this is somebody who made a series of selfish choices that willfully put others at risk. The sentencing guidelines are not harsh enough.

Look , I am not defending him. It was the judge who, according to the article, accepted that the might not have known about the insurance having been cancelled. Of course he should have stopped. No excuse for that.

[tigger1]

mac96 said:

tigger1 said:

mac96 said:

The headline is perhaps a bit emotive- seems from the article that there was no proof that he knew his insurance had been cancelled

https://thelincolnite.co.uk/2018/09/man-drove-away-after-ploughing-into-three-cyclists/

He was literally in the insurance business...he should have bloody known. It's his responsibility to know if he was insured or not.

He ought to have stopped and checked what that bloody loud THUMP was too as he hit three well lit cyclists and drove off leaving them potentially for dead (one is paralysed). There was sizeable damage to the front of his car.

Oh, and he'd been drinking before the accident too (although did pass a breath-test a few hours after the accident). Utter fking scumbag. This isn't a "there but for the grace of God" scenario, this is somebody who made a series of selfish choices that willfully put others at risk. The sentencing guidelines are not harsh enough.

Look , I am not defending him. It was the judge who, according to the article, accepted that the might not have known about the insurance having been cancelled. Of course he should have stopped. No excuse for that.

Sorry Mac - I didn't mean to sound like I was having a go. It's an emotive subject. I know the judges hands are tied by the guidelines. We need to sort sentencing guidelines - it's bonkers that this eejit will be out of jail in, what, 12-18 months?

No insurance.
Driving whilst (apparently unfit) very tired + having had a (small) drink.
Hit a group of road users (see what I did there?).
Left them for dead.

VBRJ is too good for him.

[mac96]

tigger1 said:

mac96 said:

tigger1 said:

mac96 said:

The headline is perhaps a bit emotive- seems from the article that there was no proof that he knew his insurance had been cancelled

https://thelincolnite.co.uk/2018/09/man-drove-away-after-ploughing-into-three-cyclists/

He was literally in the insurance business...he should have bloody known. It's his responsibility to know if he was insured or not.

He ought to have stopped and checked what that bloody loud THUMP was too as he hit three well lit cyclists and drove off leaving them potentially for dead (one is paralysed). There was sizeable damage to the front of his car.

Oh, and he'd been drinking before the accident too (although did pass a breath-test a few hours after the accident). Utter fking scumbag. This isn't a "there but for the grace of God" scenario, this is somebody who made a series of selfish choices that willfully put others at risk. The sentencing guidelines are not harsh enough.

Look , I am not defending him. It was the judge who, according to the article, accepted that the might not have known about the insurance having been cancelled. Of course he should have stopped. No excuse for that.

Sorry Mac - I didn't mean to sound like I was having a go. It's an emotive subject. I know the judges hands are tied by the guidelines. We need to sort sentencing guidelines - it's bonkers that this eejit will be out of jail in, what, 12-18 months?

No insurance.
Driving whilst (apparently unfit) very tired + having had a (small) drink.
Hit a group of road users (see what I did there?).
Left them for dead.

VBRJ is too good for him.

No worries- as you say it's an emotive subject. As a cyclist you can protect yourself against many risks by use of common sense but simply being ploughed into by a much faster vehicle that isn't paying attention- not much you can do about that. It's the one thing that worries me most on a bike and, looking at it the other way around, as a driver.

[poo at Paul's]

It's ok though, we have the cardboard box burners off the streets, all is fine.

The first case does sound on the harsh side, but I don't buy the I did not know I had no insurance crap.

but compared to the 2nd case, it seems harsh.

[Red Devil]

This reminds me of Settled Out of Court by the inimitable Henry Cecil.
If you're going to murder someone use a vehicle as your weapon of choice.

I don't think those drivers mentioned in this thread deliberately set out to kill those they crashed into though.

That said , there are some seriously deranged individuals out and about on the roads.
https://metro.co.uk/2018/08/04/man-charged-killing...

[mrfunex]

budgie smuggler said:

Standard mate.

How about this one?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-46070...

Drives into the back of a cyclist, knocked him 45m up the road, killing him. He stopped, then drove off despite have a completely caved in windscreen. Got caught when later an officer saw his vehicle on a recovery truck and put two and two together.

Pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving.

Sentence: one year community order, 240 hours unpaid work, 18 month driving ban

Edited by budgie smuggler on Tuesday 6th November 13:58

Now, I’m not defending the van driver here, not at all. However, at some point the cyclist might have been prudent to take some responsibility for his safety, himself;

Riding a pushbike along a fast dual carriageway, at night, with no high-vis gear on is nothing short of lunacy. Apparently some drivers could see his lights from a fair distance away, others only caught sight at the last moment.

Not quite a Darwin Awards candidate, but I’d suggest the cyclist may have unfortunately been on borrowed time.

[Usget]

mrfunex said:

Now, I’m not defending the van driver here, not at all. However, at some point the cyclist might have been prudent to take some responsibility for his safety, himself;

Riding a pushbike along a fast dual carriageway, at night, with no high-vis gear on is nothing short of lunacy. Apparently some drivers could see his lights from a fair distance away, others only caught sight at the last moment.

Not quite a Darwin Awards candidate, but I’d suggest the cyclist may have unfortunately been on borrowed time.

Go and have a read through the coroner's report of the death of Mike Hall

[mrfunex]

Usget said:

Go and have a read through the coroner's report of the death of Mike Hall

... dark, huge questions over the amount of reflective clothing and poor lighting. Driver travellling within speed limit and unfortunately hit a very difficult to see cyclist.

I’m sympathetic, I really, genuinely am - it’s a terrible accident, but I’m not sure what point you’re (not) making...

Edited by mrfunex on Wednesday 7th November 22:32

[cj2013]

mrfunex said:

budgie smuggler said:

Standard mate.

How about this one?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-46070...

Drives into the back of a cyclist, knocked him 45m up the road, killing him. He stopped, then drove off despite have a completely caved in windscreen. Got caught when later an officer saw his vehicle on a recovery truck and put two and two together.

Pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving.

Sentence: one year community order, 240 hours unpaid work, 18 month driving ban

Edited by budgie smuggler on Tuesday 6th November 13:58

Now, I’m not defending the van driver here, not at all. However, at some point the cyclist might have been prudent to take some responsibility for his safety, himself;

Riding a pushbike along a fast dual carriageway, at night, with no high-vis gear on is nothing short of lunacy. Apparently some drivers could see his lights from a fair distance away, others only caught sight at the last moment.

Not quite a Darwin Awards candidate, but I’d suggest the cyclist may have unfortunately been on borrowed time.

I agree. It sounds worse until you read the full story, where it seems like the unfortunate victim was well aware he was taking a huge risk.

It sounds like it could have plausibly been a genuine accident, with his lack of awareness of what he hit being related to how far away the cyclist ended up.

As we've seen on threads on here, though, having half decent night driving vision is not seen as a minimum requirement for driving.

[dirkgently]

mrfunex said:

Now, I’m not defending the van driver here, not at all. However, at some point the cyclist might have been prudent to take some responsibility for his safety, himself;

Riding a pushbike along a fast dual carriageway, at night, with no high-vis gear on is nothing short of lunacy. Apparently some drivers could see his lights from a fair distance away, others only caught sight at the last moment.

Not quite a Darwin Awards candidate, but I’d suggest the cyclist may have unfortunately been on borrowed time.

Chris was no Darwin Awards candidate, he was a bright articulate thirty year old who had just found his way. He was cycling the 12 miles home after a shift as a care assistant. Unfortunately the only practical rout from Verwood to Poole is down the spur road.

Now accidents happen, his mother accepts this , she thinks " there but for the grace god go I"

What she cant accept is the fact that the man that killed her son left the site of the accident then did not come forward when given plenty of opportunity and eventually only pleaded guilty at his fourth court appearance when it was apparent that his goose was cooked, gets 240 hours community service.

[Red Devil]

This reminds me of Settled Out of Court by the inimitable Henry Cecil.
If you're going to murder someone use a vehicle as your weapon of choice.

I don't think those drivers mentioned in this thread deliberately set out to kill those they crashed into though.

That said , there are some seriously deranged individuals out and about on the roads.
https://metro.co.uk/2018/08/04/man-charged-killing...