16 months in prison...
Discussion
R8Steve said:
Which would be fine if he could actually see the truck.
Have you never been blinded by the sun while driving before?
Yes, countless times. I've never traveled blind for a number of seconds.Have you never been blinded by the sun while driving before?
I agree with this:
http://beyondthekerb.org.uk/2014/01/31/at-the-goin...
The weather is there, deal with it or don't drive.
jith said:
I'm really struggling with this on several points. This sentence is much, much harsher than a great many drug dealers would get for utterly ruining lives on a daily basis with extreme criminal intent.
Read that article and tell me where there is even the slightest sign of criminal intent on the part of the accused.
The police arrived at the scene and tested the accused. He had no trace of alcohol or drugs, and was not using a phone.
The judge stated, and I quote, "Mr. Norman is a decent, law-abiding member of the community with an unblemished driving record": and then promptly sentenced him to jail and banned him for 5 years!!!!
Are these people within the criminal justice system aware of the fact that there is such a thing as a genuine accident? Can they conceive that they could just as easily be the one standing in the dock? Do they fully understand what this man is going through right now dealing with the fact that he killed another human being? And most importantly, do they fully understand that he is not, I repeat NOT a criminal?
The article states that the horse box he hit was sticking 2 metres into the carriageway, but that there was plenty of room to pass. No there wasn't: 2 metres would have almost filled the inside lane.
Harsh though it may sound, the driver of the truck has to take some responsibility for this. Had he limped on to the hard shoulder further along the road he would still be alive today. Does anyone else not see the appalling injustice here?
J
I just want to add; why do I get the impression that the Welsh hate motorists?
There is no consistency in sentences - a different judge on a different day would probably have delivered a different verdict and sentence (for the better of for worse).Read that article and tell me where there is even the slightest sign of criminal intent on the part of the accused.
The police arrived at the scene and tested the accused. He had no trace of alcohol or drugs, and was not using a phone.
The judge stated, and I quote, "Mr. Norman is a decent, law-abiding member of the community with an unblemished driving record": and then promptly sentenced him to jail and banned him for 5 years!!!!
Are these people within the criminal justice system aware of the fact that there is such a thing as a genuine accident? Can they conceive that they could just as easily be the one standing in the dock? Do they fully understand what this man is going through right now dealing with the fact that he killed another human being? And most importantly, do they fully understand that he is not, I repeat NOT a criminal?
The article states that the horse box he hit was sticking 2 metres into the carriageway, but that there was plenty of room to pass. No there wasn't: 2 metres would have almost filled the inside lane.
Harsh though it may sound, the driver of the truck has to take some responsibility for this. Had he limped on to the hard shoulder further along the road he would still be alive today. Does anyone else not see the appalling injustice here?
J
I just want to add; why do I get the impression that the Welsh hate motorists?
giger said:
There is no consistency in sentences - a different judge on a different day would probably have delivered a different verdict and sentence (for the better of for worse).
Watching one of those police chase programmes with my son last night. Guy was driving at 80mph down busy residential roads until they eventually got him when he lost control. He still ran off before they captured him.How do cops keep control as I'd be giving him a big hiding.
So dangerous driving whilst disqualified and running from the police. He gets a suspended sentence and a further ban with a £200 fine.
heebeegeetee said:
R8Steve said:
Which would be fine if he could actually see the truck.
Have you never been blinded by the sun while driving before?
Yes, countless times. I've never traveled blind for a number of seconds.Have you never been blinded by the sun while driving before?
I agree with this:
http://beyondthekerb.org.uk/2014/01/31/at-the-goin...
The weather is there, deal with it or don't drive.
You say you don't travel blind for a number of seconds so what do you do in a second to either regain visibility or stop travelling that everyone else can't?
I struggle to see how you are exempt from being blinded by someone's full beam on a country road for example?
croyde said:
Watching one of those police chase programmes with my son last night. Guy was driving at 80mph down busy residential roads until they eventually got him when he lost control. He still ran off before they captured him.
How do cops keep control as I'd be giving him a big hiding.
Cameras.How do cops keep control as I'd be giving him a big hiding.
croyde said:
So dangerous driving whilst disqualified and running from the police. He gets a suspended sentence and a further ban with a £200 fine.
I can't watch those programs - it seems that 9 out of 10 times the sentence (and that's if they do actually proceed) is breathtakingly lenient.
R8Steve said:
I'll ask the question again then, what do you do if you are blinded by the sun or something else while driving?
You say you don't travel blind for a number of seconds so what do you do in a second to either regain visibility or stop travelling that everyone else can't?
I struggle to see how you are exempt from being blinded by someone's full beam on a country road for example?
I shield my eyes or do whatever I can, and if need be I pull over and stop. I don't continue to drive blind.You say you don't travel blind for a number of seconds so what do you do in a second to either regain visibility or stop travelling that everyone else can't?
I struggle to see how you are exempt from being blinded by someone's full beam on a country road for example?
You can opt to continue if you want, but you might kill somebody and might end up in court. You might go to prison as a result, though if it's a cyclist or biker you kill then you most certainly won't.
It's your choice, but I myself won't drive blind for several seconds.
As an aside, while we don't know all the details, there's no report of anyone else being blinded at the scene of this collision, other drivers had already passed the scene. We all know that normally a guilty party wants to blame someone or something else.
Also, it's reported that the guilty driver made this journey on a regular basis, so he'll know where the sun can catch him out. I have a similar problem on my commute, so I'm ready for it. We shouldn't really be able to blame something like the sun, should we?
heebeegeetee said:
R8Steve said:
I'll ask the question again then, what do you do if you are blinded by the sun or something else while driving?
You say you don't travel blind for a number of seconds so what do you do in a second to either regain visibility or stop travelling that everyone else can't?
I struggle to see how you are exempt from being blinded by someone's full beam on a country road for example?
I shield my eyes or do whatever I can, and if need be I pull over and stop. I don't continue to drive blind.You say you don't travel blind for a number of seconds so what do you do in a second to either regain visibility or stop travelling that everyone else can't?
I struggle to see how you are exempt from being blinded by someone's full beam on a country road for example?
You can opt to continue if you want, but you might kill somebody and might end up in court. You might go to prison as a result, though if it's a cyclist or biker you kill then you most certainly won't.
It's your choice, but I myself won't drive blind for several seconds.
As an aside, while we don't know all the details, there's no report of anyone else being blinded at the scene of this collision, other drivers had already passed the scene. We all know that normally a guilty party wants to blame someone or something else.
Also, it's reported that the guilty driver made this journey on a regular basis, so he'll know where the sun can catch him out. I have a similar problem on my commute, so I'm ready for it. We shouldn't really be able to blame something like the sun, should we?
If you are blinded by a full beam it takes several seconds for your eyes to adjust.
I am not saying the guy isn't to blame for the accident, my personal opinion however is that the sentencing is harsh given the circumstances.
R8Steve said:
If you can shield your eyes and pull over and stop all within a second I'm impressed.
If you are blinded by a full beam it takes several seconds for your eyes to adjust.
I am not saying the guy isn't to blame for the accident, my personal opinion however is that the sentencing is harsh given the circumstances.
Christ, it only takes a moment to pull a sun visor down, and I don't think I've ever been fully blinded - you don't look straight into the sun, do you? I don't think I've ever had to wait for my eyes to adjust, in nigh on 40 years of driving.If you are blinded by a full beam it takes several seconds for your eyes to adjust.
I am not saying the guy isn't to blame for the accident, my personal opinion however is that the sentencing is harsh given the circumstances.
I think the sentence is spot-on, but the mystery is why it is so rarely applied. Here's another case in the similar area, a worse case in my view, much lighter sentence. http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/neath...
Besides the fact that this particular accident happened at night, so the sun wasn't involved, there's a number of things which could help to explain things.
For instance, we are not told whether there were other vehicles which might have obscured his view.
Also, there are plausible reasons for the SMIDSY phenomenon, for example: http://acrs.org.au/files/arsrpe/RS060062.pdf
For instance, we are not told whether there were other vehicles which might have obscured his view.
Also, there are plausible reasons for the SMIDSY phenomenon, for example: http://acrs.org.au/files/arsrpe/RS060062.pdf
Pete317 said:
Also, there are plausible reasons for the SMIDSY phenomenon, for example: http://acrs.org.au/files/arsrpe/RS060062.pdf
And this - http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-cyc...Pachydermus said:
R8Steve said:
If you can shield your eyes and pull over and stop all within a second I'm impressed.
where do you keep getting this second from? Are you really only aware of what's a second in front of you? Irrespective of the blinding issue and whether you think it is an issue i still don't think this case constitutes dangerous driving therefore think the sentencing is harsh. That is my personal opinion.
R8Steve said:
He said that he'd never traveled blind for a number of seconds so i took from that that whatever corrective action he took, including shielding his eyes, pulling over and stopping if necessary was done within a second.
Irrespective of the blinding issue and whether you think it is an issue i still don't think this case constitutes dangerous driving therefore think the sentencing is harsh. That is my personal opinion.
I'll clarify and say I'm often dazzled, but I doubt ever blinded, and I suspect its the same for most.Irrespective of the blinding issue and whether you think it is an issue i still don't think this case constitutes dangerous driving therefore think the sentencing is harsh. That is my personal opinion.
I think it is dangerous to not look where you are going. I think if drivers don't look where they are going, aren't able to drive around clearly visible hazards, I think that is dangerous because sheer logic and common sense dictates that people will get hurt. How can you think otherwise?
Red Devil said:
Pete317 said:
Also, there are plausible reasons for the SMIDSY phenomenon, for example: http://acrs.org.au/files/arsrpe/RS060062.pdf
And this - http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-cyc...R8Steve said:
heebeegeetee said:
R8Steve said:
Which is fine and i agree that is the correct thing to do but if we assume that the sun was to get in your eyes do you think that you would have slowed down enough within six seconds of that happening to a speed where you would be in a position to take evasive action to avoid a stationary vehicle in your lane (which by then would be a matter of feet away from you)?
The evidence was that there was ample room to pass the truck within the lane.Have you never been blinded by the sun while driving before?
Red Devil said:
Some of the information concerning saccades in that report is incorrect. Probably a mistake by the reporter from Londoncyclist.popeyewhite said:
Red Devil said:
Some of the information concerning saccades in that report is incorrect. Probably a mistake by the reporter from Londoncyclist.Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff