Lord Ahmed Jailed
Discussion
I haven't kept up with this, so forgive me for missing details ...
-He wasn't speeding
-The Audi was stationary in the fast lane facing the wrong way
-It was dark
So he was texting (Pretty dangerous!), but allegedly before the accident. What were his chances of missing the Audi and driver if he wasn't texting?
-He wasn't speeding
-The Audi was stationary in the fast lane facing the wrong way
-It was dark
So he was texting (Pretty dangerous!), but allegedly before the accident. What were his chances of missing the Audi and driver if he wasn't texting?
Ikemi said:
I haven't kept up with this, so forgive me for missing details ...
-He wasn't speeding
-The Audi was stationary in the fast lane facing the wrong way
-It was dark
So he was texting (Pretty dangerous!), but allegedly before the accident. What were his chances of missing the Audi and driver if he wasn't texting?
Those are the facts, but most PHers will ignore them.-He wasn't speeding
-The Audi was stationary in the fast lane facing the wrong way
-It was dark
So he was texting (Pretty dangerous!), but allegedly before the accident. What were his chances of missing the Audi and driver if he wasn't texting?
SOunds like the sort of bloke that people would have been talking about for a while doesnt it?Maxf said:
Am i missing something? He finished texting almost 2 miles before the impact, which, unless he was doing several hundred miles an hour, means that it would have had nothing to do with the accident?
It may be that he was composing his next text, but, after the accident, forgot to press send, or maybe he cancelled/deleted it.Ikemi said:
I haven't kept up with this, so forgive me for missing details ...
-He wasn't speeding
-The Audi was stationary in the fast lane facing the wrong way
-It was dark
So he was texting (Pretty dangerous!), but allegedly before the accident. What were his chances of missing the Audi and driver if he wasn't texting?
Well if he was driving to the conditions, so that he could stop in the distance he could see to be clear then the chances were pretty good.-He wasn't speeding
-The Audi was stationary in the fast lane facing the wrong way
-It was dark
So he was texting (Pretty dangerous!), but allegedly before the accident. What were his chances of missing the Audi and driver if he wasn't texting?
zcacogp said:
Certain people seem more prone to texting/telephoning while driving.
One such person crashes and kills someone while doing so (debatable, but I'm sure we'll hear more of that). Where's the surprise?
The surprise is prison for 6 weeks. Sounds enormously lenient to me.
Oli.
What an incredibly tedious comment?One such person crashes and kills someone while doing so (debatable, but I'm sure we'll hear more of that). Where's the surprise?
The surprise is prison for 6 weeks. Sounds enormously lenient to me.
Oli.
Its like a typical troll comment but more boring.
Maxf said:
Am i missing something? He finished texting almost 2 miles before the impact, which, unless he was doing several hundred miles an hour, means that it would have had nothing to do with the accident?
Yes, you are missing something. So he sent a text 2 miles before. Lets estimate his speed at 60 miles per hour (although it was probably higher). He had sent and recieved multiple texts. SO its safe to assume he was in a text conversation. If he had sent a text 2 minutes before the incedent (I wont say accident) would it not be safe to assume he was either reading a reply, or composing a reply of his own, when the accident occurred? I think it would be. Bu there wont be any proof of this of course.
other vehicles had the abiltiy to miss the stranded car before Ahmed hit it. So there should have been enough time for him to react. But he didnt, he smashed it and killed the driver.
I'm not sure how he can be defended. He wasnt concentrating on driving. To only get a year ban is an insult.
Tony*T3 said:
[ SO its safe to assume he was in a text conversation. If he had sent a text 2 minutes before the incedent (I wont say accident) would it not be safe to assume he was either reading a reply, or composing a reply of his own, when the accident occurred? I think it would be. Bu there wont be any proof of this of course.
other vehicles had the abiltiy to miss the stranded car before Ahmed hit it. So there should have been enough time for him to react. But he didnt, he smashed it and killed the driver.
I'm not sure how he can be defended. He wasnt concentrating on driving. To only get a year ban is an insult.
Terrible argument.other vehicles had the abiltiy to miss the stranded car before Ahmed hit it. So there should have been enough time for him to react. But he didnt, he smashed it and killed the driver.
I'm not sure how he can be defended. He wasnt concentrating on driving. To only get a year ban is an insult.
So you think we should completely reverse the law and that someone should be considered guilty until proven innocent?
The sentence is based on the judge saying that texts categorically did not cause the crash.
THus a prison sentence for mere texting is think is horrific.
I believe that pretty much everyone here has sent a text while driving at some stage in our lives.
blindswelledrat said:
Chris Type R said:
blindswelledrat said:
I believe that pretty much everyone here has sent a text while driving at some stage in our lives.
I haven't. blindswelledrat said:
Tony*T3 said:
[ SO its safe to assume he was in a text conversation. If he had sent a text 2 minutes before the incedent (I wont say accident) would it not be safe to assume he was either reading a reply, or composing a reply of his own, when the accident occurred? I think it would be. Bu there wont be any proof of this of course.
other vehicles had the abiltiy to miss the stranded car before Ahmed hit it. So there should have been enough time for him to react. But he didnt, he smashed it and killed the driver.
I'm not sure how he can be defended. He wasnt concentrating on driving. To only get a year ban is an insult.
Terrible argument.other vehicles had the abiltiy to miss the stranded car before Ahmed hit it. So there should have been enough time for him to react. But he didnt, he smashed it and killed the driver.
I'm not sure how he can be defended. He wasnt concentrating on driving. To only get a year ban is an insult.
So you think we should completely reverse the law and that someone should be considered guilty until proven innocent?
The sentence is based on the judge saying that texts categorically did not cause the crash.
THus a prison sentence for mere texting is think is horrific.
I believe that pretty much everyone here has sent a text while driving at some stage in our lives.
DO you NOT think the PROOF that he WASNT texting at the time (as shown by the phone records) wasn't manipulated by his defence to PROOVE that he wasnt texting? The records in this case are a red herring. They PROOVE nothing, other than he sent texts at some time before the accidents. They neither PROOVE nor DISPROOVE what he was actually doing when he crashed the car. Only Ahmed knows the truth. However, a jury, given the evidence of his activities immidiatly before the accident, would have been able to convict him if they believed he was still in the process of sending texts whilst the accdient occurred.
But it wasnt put to them because that charge was never brought by the CPS.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff