BTCC's Frank Wrathall in court after cyclist collision
Discussion
IMHO The fact that someone was killed was bad enough, Wrathall being on the phone (which everyone knows is illegal for this exact reason) just made it worse.
No-one really knows if the cyclist would have survived if Wrathall hadn't been on the phone, maybe there wouldn't be an accident at all but "what ifs" are pointless - the facts can't be undone.
No-one really knows if the cyclist would have survived if Wrathall hadn't been on the phone, maybe there wouldn't be an accident at all but "what ifs" are pointless - the facts can't be undone.
I'm not defending anyone here - just trying understand the facts and sentence.
From what I read the biggest factor of the sad case is the cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet. The driver (again from only what I read) overtook the cyclist, and pulled back in and clipped the guys handlebars. that threw him off - smacked his head and the rest is history.
It's not like he drove straight at him.
In saying all of this, I've ordered a proper bluetooth kit for my car.
From what I read the biggest factor of the sad case is the cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet. The driver (again from only what I read) overtook the cyclist, and pulled back in and clipped the guys handlebars. that threw him off - smacked his head and the rest is history.
It's not like he drove straight at him.
In saying all of this, I've ordered a proper bluetooth kit for my car.
woof said:
I'm not defending anyone here - just trying understand the facts and sentence.
From what I read the biggest factor of the sad case is the cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet. The driver (again from only what I read) overtook the cyclist, and pulled back in and clipped the guys handlebars. that threw him off - smacked his head and the rest is history.
It's not like he drove straight at him.
In saying all of this, I've ordered a proper bluetooth kit for my car.
The biggest factor was that the driver was on the phone. Absent that, the presence or absence of a helmet would have been irrelevant. In any event, a helmet is not a cast iron guarantee that the wearer will not be injured or die. From what I read the biggest factor of the sad case is the cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet. The driver (again from only what I read) overtook the cyclist, and pulled back in and clipped the guys handlebars. that threw him off - smacked his head and the rest is history.
It's not like he drove straight at him.
In saying all of this, I've ordered a proper bluetooth kit for my car.
woof said:
Hypothetical - and accidents happen without people using a mobile.
woof said:
Hypothetical - and accidents happen without people using a mobile.
Yes they do but in the judges opinion, and he probably has much more info than you or I do, this one wouldn't have if he'd not been on the phone. Yes but the issue is the case has been brought forward with the actual facts of the events that took place (that none of us really know) along with witness statements (I assume) and he's been found guilty of causing a death through carelessness so I find it hard to sympathise really.
MitchT said:
Funny, when I posted on here some time ago about whether I should report someone in a large van who'd been driving a few feet off my back bumper while visibly using their phone, I was pretty much lambasted and it was suggested that I'd be a 'grass' or a 'snitch' if I were to do so. I wonder, if any of said complainants were to lose a loved one to a phone-using careless driver, they'd change their tune and wish that a 'grass' or 'snitch' had reported them some time prior, thus circumventing said loss. Perhaps with this as a reminder of what happens when selfish twunts use their phones while driving, equally selfish twunts who think you shouldn't 'grass' or 'snitch' on them might change their tune.
If you reported the driver little would have been done but it would be the right thing to do.Edited by Janesy B on Friday 7th February 20:33
Edited by Janesy B on Friday 7th February 20:34
I think he got away very lightly, 21 months is very low, he could be out before next Christmas.
Interesting the chav who knocked down the copper operating the speed trap (rightly) got 8 years. Aggravating circumstances and other offences, yes, but over 6 years more sentence?? Does make wrathall look very fortunate at 21 months.
My sympathies to the victims family.
Interesting the chav who knocked down the copper operating the speed trap (rightly) got 8 years. Aggravating circumstances and other offences, yes, but over 6 years more sentence?? Does make wrathall look very fortunate at 21 months.
My sympathies to the victims family.
s3fella said:
I think he got away very lightly, 21 months is very low, he could be out before next Christmas.
Interesting the chav who knocked down the copper operating the speed trap (rightly) got 8 years. Aggravating circumstances and other offences, yes, but over 6 years more sentence?? Does make wrathall look very fortunate at 21 months.
My sympathies to the victims family.
I don't know the ins and outs of either case but it sounds like there was some intent in the one where the cop was ran over, which would explain the 8 years.Interesting the chav who knocked down the copper operating the speed trap (rightly) got 8 years. Aggravating circumstances and other offences, yes, but over 6 years more sentence?? Does make wrathall look very fortunate at 21 months.
My sympathies to the victims family.
Wrathall didn't intend to go out and kill someone that day. From my experience his punishment isn't miles off a manslaughter sentence.
End of the day Wrathall should've known better. The cyclist should've had a helmet on.
Sad waste of a promising career for Wrathall.
woof said:
I'm not defending anyone here - just trying understand the facts and sentence.
From what I read the biggest factor of the sad case is the cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet. The driver (again from only what I read) overtook the cyclist, and pulled back in and clipped the guys handlebars. that threw him off - smacked his head and the rest is history.
It's not like he drove straight at him.
In saying all of this, I've ordered a proper bluetooth kit for my car.
From what I read the biggest factor of the sad case is the cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet. The driver (again from only what I read) overtook the cyclist, and pulled back in and clipped the guys handlebars. that threw him off - smacked his head and the rest is history.
It's not like he drove straight at him.
In saying all of this, I've ordered a proper bluetooth kit for my car.
intricateweb said:
I was in court to hear sentencing and the judge mentioned the hospital report by the surgeon who examined Mr Fingleton. He stated that due to the severity of his injuries he would not have survived had he been wearing a helmet.
It would appear your understanding is incorrect.LiamM45 said:
s3fella said:
I think he got away very lightly, 21 months is very low, he could be out before next Christmas.
Interesting the chav who knocked down the copper operating the speed trap (rightly) got 8 years. Aggravating circumstances and other offences, yes, but over 6 years more sentence?? Does make wrathall look very fortunate at 21 months.
My sympathies to the victims family.
I don't know the ins and outs of either case but it sounds like there was some intent in the one where the cop was ran over, which would explain the 8 years.Interesting the chav who knocked down the copper operating the speed trap (rightly) got 8 years. Aggravating circumstances and other offences, yes, but over 6 years more sentence?? Does make wrathall look very fortunate at 21 months.
My sympathies to the victims family.
Wrathall didn't intend to go out and kill someone that day. From my experience his punishment isn't miles off a manslaughter sentence.
End of the day Wrathall should've known better. The cyclist should've had a helmet on.
Sad waste of a promising career for Wrathall.
As for the cyclist not wearing a helmet, that is irrelevant. Drivers should not drive less carefully in the vicinity of a cyclist without a helmet, that one with one on, and the surgeon stated he would have died regardless.
As for your comment about it sad to end a promising career for Wrathall, I'd suggest your sympathies and sadness should squarely lie elsewhere. But it is interesting that you take such a view, as in these cases involving 'celebrities' many do focus squarely on said celebrity, when in reality tenor fate should be of less relevance to that of their every day joe victim.
BTW, I'm not having a go or even criticising you for your opinion just pointing out that if it wasn't Wrathall driving, but a regular MOP, you'd likely not say, a sad end to a promising career as a quantity surveyor, and ignore the guy who died.
And I think this is maybe why Wrathall got off so lightly. He is a very lucky man indeed IMHO
s3fella said:
I don't agree at all. Any discern able 'intent' in the other case and they guy would be up for murder. I agree there were aggravating factors though, but more than 4 times the sentence?? Or perhaps because it is a policeman killed, the sentence is stiffer? Who knows.
As for the cyclist not wearing a helmet, that is irrelevant. Drivers should not drive less carefully in the vicinity of a cyclist without a helmet, that one with one on, and the surgeon stated he would have died regardless.
As for your comment about it sad to end a promising career for Wrathall, I'd suggest your sympathies and sadness should squarely lie elsewhere. But it is interesting that you take such a view, as in these cases involving 'celebrities' many do focus squarely on said celebrity, when in reality tenor fate should be of less relevance to that of their every day joe victim.
BTW, I'm not having a go or even criticising you for your opinion just pointing out that if it wasn't Wrathall driving, but a regular MOP, you'd likely not say, a sad end to a promising career as a quantity surveyor, and ignore the guy who died.
And I think this is maybe why Wrathall got off so lightly. He is a very lucky man indeed IMHO
After reading about the cop one, 8 years was not enough... double the speed limit, no license, insurance, etc. Even sounds like he must have aimed for the the cop. Comparing the two is completely unfair.As for the cyclist not wearing a helmet, that is irrelevant. Drivers should not drive less carefully in the vicinity of a cyclist without a helmet, that one with one on, and the surgeon stated he would have died regardless.
As for your comment about it sad to end a promising career for Wrathall, I'd suggest your sympathies and sadness should squarely lie elsewhere. But it is interesting that you take such a view, as in these cases involving 'celebrities' many do focus squarely on said celebrity, when in reality tenor fate should be of less relevance to that of their every day joe victim.
BTW, I'm not having a go or even criticising you for your opinion just pointing out that if it wasn't Wrathall driving, but a regular MOP, you'd likely not say, a sad end to a promising career as a quantity surveyor, and ignore the guy who died.
And I think this is maybe why Wrathall got off so lightly. He is a very lucky man indeed IMHO
Just because I said it was a sad end to his career doesn't mean I have any sympathy for him, quite the opposite. I don't think anyone would welcome him back in a race seat.
As for cyclists and wearing helmets, it's not irrelevant. Cyclists wearing a helmet should be the law, like wearing a seatbelt is the law in a car. It may not always save your life but it will go a long way to helping save your life. I say this from having a friend killed while riding a bike with no helmet, he would've walked away from his accident if he had a helmet on.
I agree with s3fella.
As far as is sentence being "not far off manslaughter" - I don't think the offence was either imho.
I'm sure breadvan or agtlaw will be able to give more detail but from a laymans point of view (i.e. mine) manslaughter is being found responsible for an unintentional death - hardly a world away from this.
Not wearing a helmet whilst cycling is legal, being on the phone whilst driving isn't.
In other words a cyclist shouldn't expect to be knocked off their bike and killed.
A driver using their mobile should expect to be convicted.
As far as is sentence being "not far off manslaughter" - I don't think the offence was either imho.
I'm sure breadvan or agtlaw will be able to give more detail but from a laymans point of view (i.e. mine) manslaughter is being found responsible for an unintentional death - hardly a world away from this.
Not wearing a helmet whilst cycling is legal, being on the phone whilst driving isn't.
In other words a cyclist shouldn't expect to be knocked off their bike and killed.
A driver using their mobile should expect to be convicted.
What a load of complete crap. Comparing these two incidents show how completely brain dead most of you lot are. One involves a convicted criminal who deliberately and blatantly ran down a police officer with intent, the other was essentially an accident that became a criminal case because the driver was on the phone. Jesus sometimes I can't believe what I read on here.
pistolp said:
essentially an accident that became a criminal case because the driver was on the phone. Jesus sometimes I can't believe what I read on here.
So had he been drinking would you draw the same conclusion? Just an accident and the driver just happened to be drunk so we should go easy on him?LiamM45 said:
After reading about the cop one, 8 years was not enough... double the speed limit, no license, insurance, etc. Even sounds like he must have aimed for the the cop. Comparing the two is completely unfair.
Just because I said it was a sad end to his career doesn't mean I have any sympathy for him, quite the opposite. I don't think anyone would welcome him back in a race seat.
As for cyclists and wearing helmets, it's not irrelevant. Cyclists wearing a helmet should be the law, like wearing a seatbelt is the law in a car. It may not always save your life but it will go a long way to helping save your life. I say this from having a friend killed while riding a bike with no helmet, he would've walked away from his accident if he had a helmet on.
Oh for fJust because I said it was a sad end to his career doesn't mean I have any sympathy for him, quite the opposite. I don't think anyone would welcome him back in a race seat.
As for cyclists and wearing helmets, it's not irrelevant. Cyclists wearing a helmet should be the law, like wearing a seatbelt is the law in a car. It may not always save your life but it will go a long way to helping save your life. I say this from having a friend killed while riding a bike with no helmet, he would've walked away from his accident if he had a helmet on.
king crying out loud! The evidence is that the cyclist had massive head and spinal injuries and that a cycle helmet would have made no difference! What on earth magical pieces of polystyrene are these cycle helmets that they can operate wildly beyond their design parameters and can protect against *everything*?If these cycle helmets are *so* effective, against *everything*, why aren't all of us wearing them all of the time? Some 700,000 to a million people go to hospital every year in the UK having suffered a head injury and 98%+ are not cyclists. If cycle helmets have such magical powers why aren't we all wearing them, all of the time?
It is just so depressing how every time a cyclist accident is debated, such stupid, stupid people come out and ignore *all* evidence and spout their nonsense about bloody helmets!
pistolp said:
Drinking and being on the phone aren't the same thing. If you don't see a difference between the two then really we are going to struggle to enter into a sensible discussion. Just like if you can't see the difference between the two aforementioned
The point is the guy killed someone through his own negligence whilst breaking the law.This means a bit more than a slap on the wrist.
Just to say I was only aware of a head injury - nothing else.
I do wonder though if the state could do more in education. Wouldn't the public be better served by a hard hitting campaign using the racing driver Frank Wrathall as the example of driving whilst distracted will kill someone eventually. But i guess that's not what we're discussing.
I do wonder though if the state could do more in education. Wouldn't the public be better served by a hard hitting campaign using the racing driver Frank Wrathall as the example of driving whilst distracted will kill someone eventually. But i guess that's not what we're discussing.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff