Fatal crash trucker on dating sites
Discussion
One wonders what sort of idiotic behaviour one has to do behind the wheel and how many innocents one has to kill to get the max sentence for death by dangerous driving.
Less than 9 years, out in 4 or 5 no doubt, for driving flat out, 58mph, in a fully laden HGV, into stationary traffic whilst having spent last 50 miles on two dating sites including updating his own profile.
What a scumbag.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-5995171...
Less than 9 years, out in 4 or 5 no doubt, for driving flat out, 58mph, in a fully laden HGV, into stationary traffic whilst having spent last 50 miles on two dating sites including updating his own profile.
What a scumbag.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tyne-5995171...
Edited by poo at Paul's on Tuesday 11th January 19:23
Skyedriver said:
Disgracefully low sentence, not an accident where someone inadvertantly loses control but an act of gross stupidity and arrogance.
I too am in horror when I see folk on a phone while driving.
And not just a momentary lapse, or one text, or call, a sustained period of use, including paying 50quid for ‘interactions’ and averaging 50mph whilst doing so….I too am in horror when I see folk on a phone while driving.
Unbelievable.
t. I hope he gets dry shafted everyday of his sentence and then deported afterwards. Absolutely ridiculous. The sentence is far too short for the damage he has done. The amount of lives he has affected is huge and his sentence should reflect that. It is sad that a trucker can be with such little care for the others around him and tarnishes the image the average public has of other drivers.
It seems incredible to think that for such egregious and flagrantly negligent behaviour resulting in the death of 3 people, that a such a paltry sentence was handed down. The judge has valued the lives of those dead at less than 3 years of jail time apiece, or even less when you consider the others that were injured as a result.
poo at Paul's said:
NoddyonNitrous said:
His wife and daughter are also victims in this. Awful for them.
Not really, the rest of us will be looking after them for the next 5 years at least. The only victims are the dead and injured.
You want to punish an innocent woman and child for his actions.
andyA700 said:
Your comments are disgusting.
You want to punish an innocent woman and child for his actions.
"Sorry I murdered him m'laud, but I have a wife and daughter".You want to punish an innocent woman and child for his actions.
"Oh, OK, I sentence you to 12 months community service".
No? Well, frankly, this should have been a manslaughter charge.
Isn't it a third off for pleading guilty? That would suggest he was sentenced to 13 years 4 months but jailed for 8 years 10 months. Usually mentioned in the judges remarks, couldn't find them online.
ETA: And probably been on remand since July which I think is taken off the sentence so prety close to the 14 year maximum?
ETA: And probably been on remand since July which I think is taken off the sentence so prety close to the 14 year maximum?
Edited by QuartzDad on Wednesday 12th January 09:04
Ouroboros said:
Imagine all trucks had phone blockers in cabs as standard, disabled when stopped. Seems common sense really.
Question from outside the industry - how would this work from a technical perspective? Is it even feasible?There are camera solutions which could at least ensure that driver behaviour is monitored and punished.
So what goes through a judge's mind to be so lenient on people who on clear evidence of absolute stupidity, for a person who has zero care for basic safety of other people, in which they've abandoned pretty much the fundamental aspect of their primary responsibility in gaining an HGV license, and importantly whereby the phone records show extensive use prior to the collision, what is in a judge's mind for them to take all that with a "pinch of salt" so to speak and only give such a small sentence when lives were lost to this utter fool?
Some will argue such cases as not being an 'accident', because if it is common knowledge that if you choose not to pay attention to the road ahead then you are choosing to play with people's lives when you crash.
I've seen comments on other social media whereby people say judge's are only making themselves out to be a similar level of fool when they don't act as a deterrent for future similar events. Some saying that future lives lost as a result should bear weight (and legal recourse) on the judges who make such decisions today. Maybe that would jolt judges in to acting responsible?
I know someone who lost a family member on a "smart" motorway due to an HGV driver not paying attention ahead, they are furious with this lenient decision.
Some will argue such cases as not being an 'accident', because if it is common knowledge that if you choose not to pay attention to the road ahead then you are choosing to play with people's lives when you crash.
I've seen comments on other social media whereby people say judge's are only making themselves out to be a similar level of fool when they don't act as a deterrent for future similar events. Some saying that future lives lost as a result should bear weight (and legal recourse) on the judges who make such decisions today. Maybe that would jolt judges in to acting responsible?
I know someone who lost a family member on a "smart" motorway due to an HGV driver not paying attention ahead, they are furious with this lenient decision.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff