Suspended sentence for 95 year old driver who killed a man.

[surveyor_101]

vonhosen said:

I don't see them as analogous.
Sleep driving is more like drunk driving.
She also purposely mounted the kerb onto the grass where people were & did it in to a crowd, so there was always likely to be somebody in her path (in fact seven were) & lucky she didn't hit more, as opposed to somebody who wasn't trying to mount the kerb towards pedestrians & was unlucky to hit the single worker down a bank.
We also don't know if there was anything else different about this person relevant for sentencing (ie previous offending etc).

Begs the question is it safe to drive whilst fasting?

Shame these people suffered because one person chooses to follow some bizarre custom, which has been proven bad for your health.

Edited by surveyor_101 on Tuesday 23 January 10:55

[CABC]

surveyor_101 said:

Begs the question is it safe to drive whilst fasting?

Shame these people suffered because one person chooses to follow some bizarre custom, which has been proven bad for your health.

Edited by surveyor_101 on Tuesday 23 January 10:55

fasting is non-trivial, especially if you were well fed beforehand as opposed to ill-nourished. That's because you're body clears out the toxins while scavenging its own body for nutrients. I went to the Mayr clinic (original 'you are what you eat' Austrian Dr) and people were vomiting and hallucinating every night. They explicitly took your car keys from you at check in. Quite a vacation.

[RDMcG]

No problem with older folks driving but in Canada there is a mandatory retest at 75 and periodic tests after. This seems quite sensible to me.

Further in the event of certain illnesses doctors are required to report and license is suspended. A stroke for instance. Can be reinstated after doctor signs off.

[The Surveyor]

vonhosen said:

I don't see them as analogous.
Sleep driving is more like drunk driving.
She also purposely mounted the kerb onto the grass where people were & did it in to a crowd, so there was always likely to be somebody in her path (in fact seven were) & lucky she didn't hit more, as opposed to somebody who wasn't trying to mount the kerb towards pedestrians & was unlucky to hit the single worker down a bank.
We also don't know if there was anything else different about this person relevant for sentencing (ie previous offending etc).

Of course there were differences, cases are very rarely the same.

I'm looking at the similarities, both drivers making the same error of judgement mistaking the accelerator for the brake during low-speed manoeuvres, both drivers being impaired one through age and one through fasting (neither being medically proven or measurable), and both colliding with innocent bystanders.

The driver who's actions resulted in a death gets a lighter non-custodial sentence to the one who caused serious injury. Very unfair.

[heebeegeetee]

The Surveyor said:

Of course there were differences, cases are very rarely the same.

I'm looking at the similarities, both drivers making the same error of judgement mistaking the accelerator for the brake during low-speed manoeuvres, both drivers being impaired one through age and one through fasting (neither being medically proven or measurable), and both colliding with innocent bystanders.

The driver who's actions resulted in a death gets a lighter non-custodial sentence to the one who caused serious injury. Very unfair.

There's a case reported today: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5301575/Sh...

An unlicenced and uninsured driver with a string of convictions behind her, knocks a pedestrian over and while still unaware of what has happened, drives over the pedestrian and kills her.

She has not been sent to jail.

I think this just shows that sentencing is a lottery, irrespective of age.

[The Surveyor]

heebeegeetee said:

........

I think this just shows that sentencing is a lottery, irrespective of age.

This one looks much more like a 'normal' pedestrian impact, albeit with tragic consequences, a lack of observation at low speed whilst parking rather than loosing control of the car like the original incidents. Still, I'm starting to think you're right, it's just a pure lottery underlined by the remorse of the driver.

As soon as the court decides it's a 'sad and tragic case', the perpetrator gets to walk free.

[vonhosen]

It's not a lottery, great steps are taken to ensure some consistency, it's just we have snippets of information not the full information that those imposing the sentences have at their disposal.
They have detailed guidelines that they have to adhere to or it opens up the courts to endless appeal hearings.
As a safeguard though we have the appeals system where there is reason to suspect the sentence is outside the guidance in it's leniency/harshness & people can appeal where they consider it so.

[heebeegeetee]

The Surveyor said:

heebeegeetee said:

........

I think this just shows that sentencing is a lottery, irrespective of age.

This one looks much more like a 'normal' pedestrian impact, albeit with tragic consequences, a lack of observation at low speed whilst parking rather than loosing control of the car like the original incidents. Still, I'm starting to think you're right, it's just a pure lottery underlined by the remorse of the driver.

As soon as the court decides it's a 'sad and tragic case', the perpetrator gets to walk free.

This one involves someone who had no right to be at the wheel of a car though. There's nothing accidental here, the act was surely criminal form the moment she got behind the wheel (before she got to the supermarket). Sounds like her daughter was involved in the criminality too, with no action reported of being taken against her.