Cyclist likely to be convicted of manslaughter..

[darreni]

irocfan said:

the fact is he killed someone - and then worse showed absolutely no remorse. The guy is a 24 carat . If through my actions I'd caused someone to be hurt I'd be devastated, if I'd killed someone I suspect I'd be inconsolable - he was victim blaming all the way. Loathsome creature. With that last being said I do hope that the YOI will educate as well as punish since, IMO, prison should do both.

With the exception of the last sentence, I agree completely.

[Frank7]

irocfan said:

Willy Nilly said:

What would have happened if yer man had an interface with an 8 wheel tipper and due to his lack of brakes went under it, would the driver have been prosecuted?

I would certainly hope so!

Maybe I'm missing something here, the berk is illegally riding a bike with no front brakes, he kills someone, and quite rightly gets jailed.
Yet irocfan says that if he was unable to stop, because he had the same inefficient brakes, and because of that, got creamed by a truck, the truck driver should be prosecuted?

zarjaz1991 said:

I'm not sure if this sentence is really the right way to go.

The lad is a bit of an imbecile frankly, but he's basically just a kid and now they will completely destroy his life by dumping him in a Borstal for a while.

How about the life of the woman who died at his hands, how about the lives of her family?

[jmorgan]

Sa Calobra said:

rambo19 said:

A sad case for all involved, but................

This could have gone the other way,
The woman steps into the road when she should not have, cyclist swerves to avoid her and hits a lamp post/kerb/parked car and hits his head a dies, and the woman walks off.

From what I have read, the woman walks out without looking, she was less than 20 meters from a crossing and was playing with her phone.

Yes, as road users we must be aware of what is going on around us, but people MUST take responseabilty for their actions as well.

I think you need to read the judges summing up and news graphics. She was a good distance infront of him and he shouted get out of the fking way twice.

That doesn't sit with what you describe.

Pretty much how I read it (summing up). It was a series of events where he could have done something at a few key points to prevent this and he did not.

[anonymous-user]

darreni said:

irocfan said:

the fact is he killed someone - and then worse showed absolutely no remorse. The guy is a 24 carat . If through my actions I'd caused someone to be hurt I'd be devastated, if I'd killed someone I suspect I'd be inconsolable - he was victim blaming all the way. Loathsome creature. With that last being said I do hope that the YOI will educate as well as punish since, IMO, prison should do both.

With the exception of the last sentence, I agree completely.

Why do you think that prison should not educate? Are you not interested in the idea of persuading people who do bad stuff not to do bad stuff again? If you had a child and the child did something wrong, would you just make the child go to bed early, or take away his or her mobile phone, or whatever (this being NPE, I suppose that most here would favour hitting a naughty child, but NPE isn't the real world), and not try to educate the child about behaving better in future?

[Digga]

Breadvan72 said:

darreni said:

irocfan said:

the fact is he killed someone - and then worse showed absolutely no remorse. The guy is a 24 carat . If through my actions I'd caused someone to be hurt I'd be devastated, if I'd killed someone I suspect I'd be inconsolable - he was victim blaming all the way. Loathsome creature. With that last being said I do hope that the YOI will educate as well as punish since, IMO, prison should do both.

With the exception of the last sentence, I agree completely.

Why do you think that prison should not educate? Are you not interested in the idea of persuading people who do bad stuff not to do bad stuff again? If you had a child and the child did something wrong, would you just make the child go to bed early, or take away his or her mobile phone, or whatever (this being NPE, I suppose that most here would favour hitting a naughty child, but NPE isn't the real world), and not try to educate the child about behaving better in future?

It's not only about educating prisoners about their behaviour, but also giving them an opportunity to correct gaps in their academic education - which themselves might have been instrumental in their ending up in custody in the first place - and hopefully be better suited to life once released. YOIs in particular, have a very good potential to achieve this.

[turbobloke]

Breadvan72 said:

darreni said:

irocfan said:

the fact is he killed someone - and then worse showed absolutely no remorse. The guy is a 24 carat . If through my actions I'd caused someone to be hurt I'd be devastated, if I'd killed someone I suspect I'd be inconsolable - he was victim blaming all the way. Loathsome creature. With that last being said I do hope that the YOI will educate as well as punish since, IMO, prison should do both.

With the exception of the last sentence, I agree completely.

Why do you think that prison should not educate? Are you not interested in the idea of persuading people who do bad stuff not to do bad stuff again? If you had a child and the child did something wrong, would you just make the child go to bed early, or take away his or her mobile phone, or whatever (this being NPE, I suppose that most here would favour hitting a naughty child, but NPE isn't the real world), and not try to educate the child about behaving better in future?

The child stuff as a failed group smear against NP&E is rambling and off-topic, but apart from that, what irocfan said was referring to a hope that the YOI "will educate", not whether YOIs should educate "people who do bad stuff". Regarding the taking way of a mobile phone, irony strikes again.

[anonymous-user]

I am sorry for your hurt NPE feelz, turbobloke. Through your tears of sadness, you were perhaps unable to see that the comment I was responding to was by darreni, who appears not to wish to have prisons educate people. Irocfan, sensibly, does want prisons to educate people. I agree with Irocfan. I wonder why darreni does not.

As for educating people who do bad stuff, do people who do good stuff go to prison? Is that how it works?

Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 19th September 08:08

[eliot]

J4CKO said:

This could happen with any vehicle if you step out in front, people make mistakes, this has happened to me, a lady outside our local stepped back off the kerb as I think she was a bit drunk, I avoided her, but only just, would that have been my fault, I had working brakes but I only just managed to apply them once past her, well as well as road bikes work in the wet, I was well within the speed limit but still moving fairly quickly, 250 pounds of me and bike at 15 to 20 mph.

It seems like the speed of cyclists has increased hugely over the last decade, presumably down to the technology of the bikes.

Given that motorists pull out in front of motorbikes because they didn't see them, it's not unreasonable to expect that pedestrians will step out in front of a silent bike traveling fast as well.

So whilst it's the pedestrian's fault, just like bikers - cyclists need to assume that in built up areas that people are likely to not see you and therefore they should slow down a bit and be ready to stop. My observation is that they rarely slow down and almost do the opposite and seek to punish people who dare to cause them to have to back off a tiny bit in a built up area.

[anonymous-user]

Digga said:

It's not only about educating prisoners about their behaviour, but also giving them an opportunity to correct gaps in their academic education - which themselves might have been instrumental in their ending up in custody in the first place - and hopefully be better suited to life once released. YOIs in particular, have a very good potential to achieve this.

I agree, although in reality the resources available for education in YOIs and prisons are often a bit thin. General education might in some cases (not all) help to reduce re-offending. Of course, educated people commit crimes as well as uneducated ones, but the fact that people of low educational attainment tend to be heavily represented in the prison population may say something about the power of education to keep some but not all out of the slammer.

Edited by anonymous-user on Tuesday 19th September 08:46

[gazza285]

What happens when a pedestrian walks out in front of a cyclist and as a consequence the cyclist dies? Will there be a prosecution here?

http://road.cc/content/news/228969-reading-cyclist...

[turbobloke]

Breadvan72 said:

I am sorry for your hurt NPE feelz, turbobloke.

No hurt feelz on my side after pointing out a rambling off-topic fail on your side.

Breadvan72 said:

As for educating people who do bad stuff, do people who do good stuff go to prison? Is that how it works?

It can happen; people who do good stuff get sent to prison when they add some bad stuff to the mix.

Then there are miscarriages of justice.

Above all, however, that wasn't the point. Obvious diversion is obvious.

[heebeegeetee]

eliot said:

It seems like the speed of cyclists has increased hugely over the last decade, presumably down to the technology of the bikes.

Given that motorists pull out in front of motorbikes because they didn't see them, it's not unreasonable to expect that pedestrians will step out in front of a silent bike traveling fast as well.

So whilst it's the pedestrian's fault, just like bikers - cyclists need to assume that in built up areas that people are likely to not see you and therefore they should slow down a bit and be ready to stop. My observation is that they rarely slow down and almost do the opposite and seek to punish people who dare to cause them to have to back off a tiny bit in a built up area.

I think this problem is going to get worse with the proliferation of near-silent electric vehicles.

So if electric cars have to travel at a speed that they can stop in if someone steps out in front, so does everyone behind. As slow as average speeds are now in cities, looks like they're going to get a whole lot slower.

Maybe it'll lead to widespread and wholesale pedestrianisation/cycle laning of cities?

It'll certainly address the air quality issue but not sure how it'll fit in with the British obsession with shopping.

[turbobloke]

Digga said:

It's not only about educating prisoners about their behaviour, but also giving them an opportunity to correct gaps in their academic education - which themselves might have been instrumental in their ending up in custody in the first place - and hopefully be better suited to life once released. YOIs in particular, have a very good potential to achieve this.

They do, but there have been significant barriers in the past - I doubt all of these have been addressed. Moving young offenders to and from an Ed Wing is seen as a security risk so 'lessons' can be few but very long (to meet time targets) e.g. 3 hours at a time for youths many of whom found standard lessons in school too long to cope with. Young offenders can be moved frequently e.g. on remand, back to Court, sentenced, taken somewhere else, released before completing any qualifications...and for short sentences, before they've been assessed fully never mind getting a qualification. Then there's the understandable point that it takes a particular breed of good teacher / lecturer to want to stick at it in a YOI context. And so on.

[anonymous-user]

turbobloke said:

Breadvan72 said:

I am sorry for your hurt NPE feelz, turbobloke.

No hurt feelz on my side after pointing out a rambling off-topic fail on your side.

Breadvan72 said:

As for educating people who do bad stuff, do people who do good stuff go to prison? Is that how it works?

It can happen; people who do good stuff get sent to prison when they add some bad stuff to the mix.

Then there are miscarriages of justice.

Above all, however, that wasn't the point. Obvious diversion is obvious.

So, you misread a post, get all upset because someone doesn't post according to your rules, and then accuse me of making a diversion . Hang on, I've guessed - you're turbobloke! I claim my five pounds.

Meanwhile, is educating people in prison a good idea or not? I hope that it might be safe to assume that amidst all the frightful miscarriages of justice at least one or two of people who go to prison did bad stuff. This cyclist, for example - he seems to be a bit bad.

[turbobloke]

Breadvan72 said:

turbobloke said:

Breadvan72 said:

I am sorry for your hurt NPE feelz, turbobloke.

No hurt feelz on my side after pointing out a rambling off-topic fail on your side.

Breadvan72 said:

As for educating people who do bad stuff, do people who do good stuff go to prison? Is that how it works?

It can happen; people who do good stuff get sent to prison when they add some bad stuff to the mix.

Then there are miscarriages of justice.

Above all, however, that wasn't the point. Obvious diversion is obvious.

So, you misread a post, get all upset because someone doesn't post according to your rules, and then accuse me of making a diversion . Hang on, I've guessed - you're turbobloke! I claim my five pounds.

Meanwhile, is educating people in prison a good idea or not? I hope that it might be safe to assume that amidst all the frightful miscarriages of justice at least one or two of people who go to prison did bad stuff. This cyclist, for example - he seems to be a bit bad.

Not upset, your continued fiction is a continued transparent fail.

As to your rhetorical question on education in YOI/prisons, the real question is how to make sure it's more effective for more young offenders more often.

In the case of the furious cyclist, very basic road safety education may help, though as happens there may be an issue with reception regardless of the quality of transmission.

[irocfan]

Frank7 said:

irocfan said:

Willy Nilly said:

What would have happened if yer man had an interface with an 8 wheel tipper and due to his lack of brakes went under it, would the driver have been prosecuted?

I would certainly hope so!

Maybe I'm missing something here, the berk is illegally riding a bike with no front brakes, he kills someone, and quite rightly gets jailed.
Yet irocfan says that if he was unable to stop, because he had the same inefficient brakes, and because of that, got creamed by a truck, the truck driver should be prosecuted?

zarjaz1991 said:

I'm not sure if this sentence is really the right way to go.

The lad is a bit of an imbecile frankly, but he's basically just a kid and now they will completely destroy his life by dumping him in a Borstal for a while.

How about the life of the woman who died at his hands, how about the lives of her family?

@ Frank7 - apols there I kinda mis-read I'd managed to read it as ttfeatures was driving said tipper not being hit by it! That not-withstanding I'd expect the tipper/bus/van/car driver to be thoroughly investigated and if necessary prosecuted

[yellowjack]

Angrybiker said:

18 months for reckless taking a human life. Travesty.

Yes. I wholeheartedly agree.

Although the number of pedestrians and cyclists killed by motor vehicle drivers where there is no punishment of the driver whatsoever would seem to be a greater travesty, and far more worthy of your concern.

This case is very unusual, and a case of poor luck. I'm alive today despite being hit by a Mercedes Sprinter van while riding my bicycle on a roundabout. This was a case of good luck. The woman killed in this case suffered a head injury. That's the element of poor luck. I was knocked from my bicycle breaking my shoulder blade and being thrown 10 or 20 feet (vertically) through the air (two separate witness estimates). I was lying 16 feet from the impact point according to the police officer who measured it. There are two possible reasons I'm able to type this reply - 1) My extreme skill as a stuntman, or 2) Pure good luck. I'm going with 2). Yet the van driver who hit me faced "No Further Action". This despite the fact that only the actions of his passenger prevented him from leaving the scene (another witness made that claim).

To me, the test is easy. One question. "Did you see the person/vehicle with which you collided?" Answer "Yes" and it ought to be Dangerous Driving", answer "No" (SMIDSY) and it's clearly Careless Driving. Apply this to ALL collisions, no matter how minor, and have a sliding scale of punishments, and if we applied a zero-tolerance approach for a short while then I think we'd see everyone on the roads paying a whole lot more attention pretty swiftly.

As for it being "a travesty"? Maybe so. But the sentence passed could easily have been similar in the case of a driver causing death by dangerous driving. No option for a judge to jail even the most aggressively dangerous drivers for anywhere near "Life Imprisonment"...





...so even if a new offence of "Death by Careless/Dangerous Cycling" were to be created (and what a waste of Parliament's time that would be) it's unlikely that the custodial sentencing options available to a judge would be any greater than those for the Manslaughter charge that the cyclist was found Not Guilty of.

Personally, I think that all the frothy-mouthed kneejerkers out there would be better off spending their time and effort campaigning for an increase to the maximum sentence available to a judge where a driver is found guilty of...

Sentencing Council Guidelines said:

Causing death by driving: unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured drivers
Road Traffic Act 1988 (section 3ZB)
Maximum penalty: 2 years imprisonment
minimum disqualification of 12 months, discretionary re-test

Nature of offence	Starting point	Sentencing range
The offender was disqualified from driving OR The offender was unlicensed or uninsured plus 2 or more aggravating factors from the list below	12 months custody	36 weeks–2 years custody
The offender was unlicensed or uninsured plus at least 1 aggravating factor from the list below	26 weeks custody	Community order (HIGH) – 36 weeks custody
The offender was unlicensed or uninsured – no aggravating factors	Community order (MEDIUM)	Community order (LOW) – Community order (HIGH)

...which I find entirely shocking. An idiot without a driving licence could, if I'm reading this right, go out and kill some poor unsuspecting pedestrian who walked out into the road in front of them, and come away from court having been found "Guilty" to face a Community Service Order as their only punishment. The maximum sentence available is 2 years in prison,FFS? That's only six months more than the cyclist in this case. That is a REAL and worrying "travesty"...

The full and definitive Sentencing Council Guidelines for "death by..." driving offences here - https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/up...

[_dobbo_]

There was so much focus on whether he could have stopped if he'd had a front brake, but in the summing up it appears by his own admission he didn't even try to stop.

So why the focus on stopping distances at all? He could have had a brake installed but the evidence he gave indicates he wouldn't have used it anyway.

[FiF]

yellowjack said:

Sentencing Council Guidelines said:

Causing death by driving: unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured drivers
Road Traffic Act 1988 (section 3ZB)
Maximum penalty: 2 years imprisonment
minimum disqualification of 12 months, discretionary re-test

Nature of offence	Starting point	Sentencing range
The offender was disqualified from driving OR The offender was unlicensed or uninsured plus 2 or more aggravating factors from the list below	12 months custody	36 weeks–2 years custody
The offender was unlicensed or uninsured plus at least 1 aggravating factor from the list below	26 weeks custody	Community order (HIGH) – 36 weeks custody
The offender was unlicensed or uninsured – no aggravating factors	Community order (MEDIUM)	Community order (LOW) – Community order (HIGH)

...which I find entirely shocking. An idiot without a driving licence could, if I'm reading this right, go out and kill some poor unsuspecting pedestrian who walked out into the road in front of them, and come away from court having been found "Guilty" to face a Community Service Order as their only punishment. The maximum sentence available is 2 years in prison,FFS? That's only six months more than the cyclist in this case. That is a REAL and worrying "travesty"...

The full and definitive Sentencing Council Guidelines for "death by..." driving offences here - https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/up...

..

So picking up on that small part, you appear to be claiming that you believe someone involved in a death while unlicensed or uninsured, with no aggravating factors, those listed including no previous convictions, no irresponsible behaviour amongst others, and with mitigating circumstances that they, for example genuinely believed they had a valid licence or insurance, again specifically listed in the sentencing guidelines should receive a custodial sentence and that a community sentence within the defined range is not sufficient. Is that what you believe to be a travesty and find shocking? All the information is in the link you provided but clipped out of the cut and paste.

[Angrybiker]

yellowjack said:

Angrybiker said:

18 months for reckless taking a human life. Travesty.

Yes. I wholeheartedly agree.

Although the number of pedestrians and cyclists killed by motor vehicle drivers where there is no punishment of the driver whatsoever would seem to be a greater travesty, and far more worthy of your concern.

This case is very unusual, and a case of poor luck. I'm alive today despite being hit by a Mercedes Sprinter van while riding my bicycle on a roundabout. This was a case of good luck. The woman killed in this case suffered a head injury. That's the element of poor luck. I was knocked from my bicycle breaking my shoulder blade and being thrown 10 or 20 feet (vertically) through the air (two separate witness estimates). I was lying 16 feet from the impact point according to the police officer who measured it. There are two possible reasons I'm able to type this reply - 1) My extreme skill as a stuntman, or 2) Pure good luck. I'm going with 2). Yet the van driver who hit me faced "No Further Action". This despite the fact that only the actions of his passenger prevented him from leaving the scene (another witness made that claim).

To me, the test is easy. One question. "Did you see the person/vehicle with which you collided?" Answer "Yes" and it ought to be Dangerous Driving", answer "No" (SMIDSY) and it's clearly Careless Driving. Apply this to ALL collisions, no matter how minor, and have a sliding scale of punishments, and if we applied a zero-tolerance approach for a short while then I think we'd see everyone on the roads paying a whole lot more attention pretty swiftly.

As for it being "a travesty"? Maybe so. But the sentence passed could easily have been similar in the case of a driver causing death by dangerous driving. No option for a judge to jail even the most aggressively dangerous drivers for anywhere near "Life Imprisonment"...





...so even if a new offence of "Death by Careless/Dangerous Cycling" were to be created (and what a waste of Parliament's time that would be) it's unlikely that the custodial sentencing options available to a judge would be any greater than those for the Manslaughter charge that the cyclist was found Not Guilty of.

Personally, I think that all the frothy-mouthed kneejerkers out there would be better off spending their time and effort campaigning for an increase to the maximum sentence available to a judge where a driver is found guilty of...

Sentencing Council Guidelines said:

Causing death by driving: unlicensed, disqualified or uninsured drivers
Road Traffic Act 1988 (section 3ZB)
Maximum penalty: 2 years imprisonment
minimum disqualification of 12 months, discretionary re-test

Nature of offence	Starting point	Sentencing range
The offender was disqualified from driving OR The offender was unlicensed or uninsured plus 2 or more aggravating factors from the list below	12 months custody	36 weeks–2 years custody
The offender was unlicensed or uninsured plus at least 1 aggravating factor from the list below	26 weeks custody	Community order (HIGH) – 36 weeks custody
The offender was unlicensed or uninsured – no aggravating factors	Community order (MEDIUM)	Community order (LOW) – Community order (HIGH)

...which I find entirely shocking. An idiot without a driving licence could, if I'm reading this right, go out and kill some poor unsuspecting pedestrian who walked out into the road in front of them, and come away from court having been found "Guilty" to face a Community Service Order as their only punishment. The maximum sentence available is 2 years in prison,FFS? That's only six months more than the cyclist in this case. That is a REAL and worrying "travesty"...

The full and definitive Sentencing Council Guidelines for "death by..." driving offences here - https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/up...

I agree. Cause doesn't matter, any reckless taking of a life should be met with stern punishment. The travesty I was talking about was how trivial the consequences are, but what I didn't express was comparative sentences. 7 years for money laundering for example.. Over 4 times the penalty than for robbing someone of a life and destroying who knows how many other lives. We have some weird priorities, for a species that has apparently outgrown the need for God.