Is this really worthy of death by dangerous driving?

[mjb1]

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/religious-ma...

Maybe there's more to this case than the newspaper report suggests, but being charged with death by dangerous driving seems a bit harsh. Death by careless, definitely, but I'm surprised there would have been sufficient evidence to prove dangerous. He wasn't drunk, on his phone, speeding, hadn't been driving for hours without a break, and it wasn't that late at night. Conditions weren't favourable either by the sound of it, and I'd have felt pretty vulnerable riding a motorbike on that road in the dark, wet, foggy conditions.

[TooMany2cvs]

mjb1 said:

http://www.exeterexpressandecho.co.uk/religious-ma...

Maybe there's more to this case than the newspaper report suggests, but being charged with death by dangerous driving seems a bit harsh. Death by careless, definitely, but I'm surprised there would have been sufficient evidence to prove dangerous. He wasn't drunk, on his phone, speeding, hadn't been driving for hours without a break, and it wasn't that late at night. Conditions weren't favourable either by the sound of it, and I'd have felt pretty vulnerable riding a motorbike on that road in the dark, wet, foggy conditions.

He went into the back of a motorcycle travelling in the same direction as he was, and which would have been visible to him from 400m - 1/4 mile, roughly - away.
The people following him were so concerned about his swerving around, including onto the verge, that they "alerted" the vehicle behind them.
He was an inexperienced driver, in a large and unfamiliar borrowed vehicle, in poor weather conditions - yet he was quite probably as knackered as his sleeping passengers after a weekend away.

And, at the end of the day, he admitted he was driving dangerously when he caused the death.

Sentencing guidelines...
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/up...

[bunglesprout]

I have absolutely no idea why that newspaper article makes such a point of him being religious.

[HustleRussell]

You'd think he'd be out in not much more than a year. The jail time pales in comparison to the lifetime of guilt and remorse you'd feel knowing that because of your carelessness a wife doesn't have a husband and a child doesn't have a father.

[TooMany2cvs]

bunglesprout said:

I have absolutely no idea why that newspaper article makes such a point of him being religious.

Because his defence shouted it loudly in an attempt to talk the sentence down?

[mjb1]

HustleRussell said:

You'd think he'd be out in not much more than a year. The jail time pales in comparison to the lifetime of guilt and remorse you'd feel knowing that because of your carelessness a wife doesn't have a husband and a child doesn't have a father.

Not that it lessens the fact that he killed someone, but it's the perpetrator with a wife and child, not the victim. My point is that they could have charged him with death by careless and still given him the same custodial sentence.

[vonhosen]

mjb1 said:

HustleRussell said:

You'd think he'd be out in not much more than a year. The jail time pales in comparison to the lifetime of guilt and remorse you'd feel knowing that because of your carelessness a wife doesn't have a husband and a child doesn't have a father.

Not that it lessens the fact that he killed someone, but it's the perpetrator with a wife and child, not the victim. My point is that they could have charged him with death by careless and still given him the same custodial sentence.

The same is true for a burglar who receives a sentence that was possible for theft.
The charging decision/criteria is separate to & before a sentencing decision.
It isn't only about jail time.

[speedking31]

mjb1 said:

... I'm surprised there would have been sufficient evidence to prove dangerous.

His previously witnessed poor driving is the evidence. The authorities thought DD could be proved. He pleaded guilty so no need to prove it and no need to go for a lesser charge. As a religious man he did the right thing to prevent a long drawn out harrowing experience for the victim's family.

[Tom_C76]

mjb1 said:

Not that it lessens the fact that he killed someone, but it's the perpetrator with a wife and child, not the victim. My point is that they could have charged him with death by careless and still given him the same custodial sentence.

From the fact that he's already given up his license it would appear the perp had accepted his driving wasn't safe and therefore by definition was dangerous. Plus if the bike was visible 400m away, even if it was stationary he had over 12 secs to see it at 70mph, assuming it was moving he had significantly longer. Which is hardly a momentary lapse of concentration is it?

[TooMany2cvs]

Tom_C76 said:

Plus if the bike was visible 400m away, even if it was stationary he had over 12 secs to see it at 70mph, assuming it was moving he had significantly longer. Which is hardly a momentary lapse of concentration is it?

The foster-father of the dead biker is quoted as saying he never went above 40mph. Assuming that's accurate (and I'm not going near whether it's a sign of competence or not, since that's irrelevant), then at a closing speed of 30mph, he had nearly 30 seconds to spot the bike.

[superlightr]

Tom_C76 said:

From the fact that he's already given up his license it would appear the perp had accepted his driving wasn't safe and therefore by definition was dangerous. Plus if the bike was visible 400m away, even if it was stationary he had over 12 secs to see it at 70mph, assuming it was moving he had significantly longer. Which is hardly a momentary lapse of concentration is it?

Not saying the sentance was correct or not just looking at the mechnics and tying to understand why he did not see the biker.

did he fall asleep? mind went blank and just drove without seeing?

just curious if the quoted 12 seconds to see the biker is in perfect visability? The report mentions It was dark 10pm foggy and raining on the A30 nr jamaca inn which I recall is on an uphill slight bend.

What happened to that lorry driver that killed was it 9 people the other Christmas?

Edited by superlightr on Friday 18th November 14:11

[TooMany2cvs]

superlightr said:

tying to understand why he did not see the biker.

did he fall asleep? mind went blank and just drove without seeing?

He was returning home from a "convention". It was late on a Sunday evening. His passengers were asleep. The car following him reported him swerving onto the verge and back.

Yeh, I think he probably fell asleep or was otherwise just totally zoned out.

superlightr said:

just curious if the quoted 12 seconds to see the biker is in perfect visability?

The report says that, in the conditions at the time of the collision, the bike would have been visible from 400m away.

12sec assumes the bike was stationary.
70mph = 113km/h = 31.4m/sec. 400m = 12.7sec

30sec assumes the bike was travelling at 40mph.
70mph - 40mph = 30mph = 50km/h = 13.8m/sec = 28.9sec

Are you suggesting that somebody driving a 4wd pickup couldn't possibly be expected to see a motorcycle travelling along ahead of him in time to not hit it?

[superlightr]

TooMany2cvs said:

The report says that, in the conditions at the time of the collision, the bike would have been visible from 400m away.

12sec assumes the bike was stationary.
70mph = 113km/h = 31.4m/sec. 400m = 12.7sec

30sec assumes the bike was travelling at 40mph.
70mph - 40mph = 30mph = 50km/h = 13.8m/sec = 28.9sec

Are you suggesting that somebody driving a 4wd pickup couldn't possibly be expected to see a motorcycle travelling along ahead of him in time to not hit it?

nothing as complicated as that - was simply asking about how the 12 seconds was arrived at? - if it was in perfect conditions or estimated for the conditions at the time of the crash. I must have misread/zoned out if it said that in the article.

clearly weather affects visability as does road layout - dont think being in a 4wd pickup adds to the variable as would imagin its the same spotting in any car. If your asleep/zooned out then few other factors matter as your going to crash.

[Elroy Blue]

As somebody who has investigated far too many fatal RTCs, it is incredibly difficult to get CPS to authorise a death by dangerous charge. The case file must have contained some pretty damning evidence.