-
Police experts described it as a refined engine and a cab with the same level of sound and vibration transmission as a small car – they could clearly feel cat’s eyes, never mind a 90kg object
Interesting... very interesting is that fact or findings? If it was used as evidence on the case then this is a huge plus.
I am a little torn here, but I’ll be straight.
Two sides to every story, this was a terrible accident that caused a whole host of terrible decisions, resulting in the portrayal of defensive? aggressive? Stupid? behaviour of this Lorry driver.
The Yorkshire evening post story got my back up.. then reading the outdoor magic blog (one of my favourites i have to add) i re-addressed it.He is guilty of not taking a break, but there is no detail of the actual collision; who fell in to who? Where was the cyclist positioned? What was the lay out of the junction etc etc
The rest is terrible decision making in response to an accident.. but the fact the brother has written it like a fking 5 page Kate Winslet oscar acceptance speech, like a Hollywood dramatisation of a historic event.
It get’s my back up, I appreciate it’s a huge emotional load, and his actions are a direct result of his grieving process, but it is packed full of assumptions and drama that tell a tale not give the facts. That’s dangerous IMOYeah the Lorry driver is a cunt, and he probably made those inept decisions because of where he is in life; maybe desperate for the job? Trying to prove himself etc etc. but I wouldn’t go out and say he did it for kicks, giggles and hatred which is how it comes over
-
Source?
Did he pull it out or did it drop?
-
so what if you kill someone with your car you wil only get a coupple of years but if you do it without a car you will get many more, that seems to be the norm i keep seeing. Careless driving? BS!! I think manslaughter should apply whether you are in a vehicle or not.
I think a serious petition is needed to combat this continual crap.
Mmmm is two years tax free a fair price for the satisfaction of running over James Martin...
-
Mmmm is two years tax free a fair price for the satisfaction of running over James Martin...
I tend not to see it like that. Should have been longer IMO. Ok we can say that he drove into/over him by accident and maybe he didnt see the cyclist or what ever but then comes the aftermath, he drove for however many miles, pulled over, and got rid of the bike. This shows some serious intent for which he should have been properly puinished. Its like disposing of a murder weapon or hiding the loot from an armed robbery. Oh but its ok, its just the cyclist belongings bla bla bla.
But yes 2 years tax free sounds like a good deal for getting James martin (the chef?) off our sxcreens :D
-
Mr Stubbs said the trial cost £250,00 as though we should be outraged; I say that's a bargain. There are plenty of things that are a complete waste of taxpayer's money, but this is not even close to being one of them. Yes, it's only a two-year sentence, but it's at least some form of justice.
What an incredibly sad story. All I can think of are the people waiting for him to arrive on the ferry. I have a cycling trip coming up, and to think of all that excitement and build-up turning into something like this is heart-breaking.
-
http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/2-years-for-trucker-after-cyclists-death-oturaged
More details there, including an account from someone who received a delivery from Stubbs after he'd killed the cyclist.
Delivery driver Stubbs had previously been found guilty of careless driving and perverting the course of justice.
A court had previously heard how Stubbs drove an extra 30 miles on his route to dispose of Mr Spink's mangled bicycle in a lay-by on the Ossett bypass. -
heres an interesting read, the last paragraph is very interesting.
MANSLAUGHTER - The unlawful killing of a human being without malice or premeditation, either express or implied; distinguished from murder, which requires malicious intent.
The distinctions between manslaughter and murder, consists in the following: In the former, though the act which occasions the death be unlawful, or likely to be attended with bodily mischief, yet the malice, either express or implied, which is the very essence of murder, is presumed to be wanting in manslaughter.
It also differs from murder in this, that there can be no accessaries before the fact, there having been no time for premeditation. Manslaugbter is voluntary, when it happens upon a sudden heat; or involuntary, when it takes place in the commission of some unlawful act.
The cases of manslaughter may be classed as follows those which take place in consequence of: 1. Provocation. 2. Mutual combat. 3. Resistance to public officers, etc. 4. Killing in the prosecution of an unlawful or wanton act. 5. Killing in the prosecution of a lawful act, improperly performed, or performed without lawful authority.
The provocation which reduces the killing from murder to manslaughter is an answer to the presumption of malice which the law raises in every case of homicide; it is therefore no answer when express malice is proved and to be available the provocation must have been reasonable and recent, for no words or slight provocation will be sufficient, and if the party has had time to cool, malice will be inferred.
In cases of mutual combat, it is generally manslaughter only when one of the parties is killed. When death ensues from duelling the rule is different, and such killing is murder.
The killing of an officer by resistance to him while acting under lawful authority is murder; but if the officer be acting under a void or illegal authority, or out of his jurisdiction, the killing is manslaughter, or excusable homicide, according to the circumstances of the case.
Killing a person while doing an act of mere wantonness, is manslaughter as, if a person throws down stones in a coal-pit, by which a man is killed, although the offender was only a trespasser.
When death ensues from the performance of a lawful act, it may, in consequence of the negligence of the offender, amount to manslaughter. For instance, if the death has been occasioned by negligent driving. Again, when death ensues, from the gross negligence of a medical or surgical practitioner, it is manslaughter.
-
what a prick....
-
terrible, shocking, appalling
it just made my blood boil reading the ignorant fathers defence for his son - its as if by not paying any attention, and thus not knowing what he had done the driver should now be considered innocent
WAC
-
he looks like thumb man!
am sure such a devastating put down will rock his world
-
what get's me, even if (and this is a HUGE if, i don't believe him myself) he knew nothing of the accident, he still shows no remorse whatsoever. HE KILLED A MAN. what kind of person can not be overwhelmingly sorry for that, and not feel an ounce of guilt?
Some people build up their own version of events in their mind if they can't cope with the truth. You don't know if he would feel guilt, as what happened may not have got through to him yet. People repress traumatic experiences and they can only come to the surface many years later, or never. It is well known that train drivers often suffer shock and are traumatised by the experience of killing people on the tracks, but as train drivers are generally not at fault in such cases, there is obviously no incentive for them to cover up what happened.
However, this is pure speculation in this case. No psychiatric assessment of the driver has been carried out, and by the looks of it none was called for/indicated under the circumstances. Merely denying all awareness of the incident isn't sufficient.
-
I think cases like this make a strong argument for the presumption of guilt on the part of the driver. The driver should have to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did not see a cyclist that was right in front of him, and who then clung to the front of his cab, banging on it. And I find it hard to believe that this particular cyclist could have behaved in a way that was 'stupid and suicidal'. He was an experienced tourer in his 40s. And if the driver saw enough of the cyclist to conclude that he was 'stupid and suicidal', how come he didn't see enough of him to see that he was running him over? And if, as a driver, you see a road user who *is *behaving erratically, do you not keep a close eye on them and make sure you try to avoid an accident?
-
I tend not to see it like that. Should have been longer IMO. Ok we can say that he drove into/over him by accident and maybe he didnt see the cyclist or what ever but then comes the aftermath, he drove for however many miles, pulled over, and got rid of the bike. This shows some serious intent for which he should have been properly puinished. Its like disposing of a murder weapon or hiding the loot from an armed robbery. Oh but its ok, its just the cyclist belongings bla bla bla.
But yes 2 years tax free sounds like a good deal for getting James martin (the chef?) off our sxcreens :D
I didn't see evidence he threw away the bike, but the fact he failed to even acknowledge the noise and disturbance is a massive neglect of his duty as a road user. Pure ignorance!
If he did do it deliberately and knowingly then he should be shot! but I would hate to think someone would do that.. I’d prefer to believe he panicked. It’s really hard to put yourself in that situation.. what would you do??? -
http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/2-years-for-trucker-after-cyclists-death-oturaged
More details there, including an account from someone who received a delivery from Stubbs after he'd killed the cyclist.
Delivery driver Stubbs had previously been found guilty of careless driving and perverting the course of justice.
A court had previously heard how Stubbs drove an extra 30 miles on his route to dispose of Mr Spink's mangled bicycle in a lay-by on the Ossett bypass.That is distressing. why the fuck! ok the guy is a cunt..an utter cunt
braker
Greasy_Slag
sshopeful
Sparky
somebody
Ivandaterrible
dancing james
jemjah
fitzy369
Oliver Schick
James1822-
Post a reply
About
Kill a cyclist, hide the evidence, get two years
Posted by
@spindrift
Really, it should be much more common knowledge how badly the judicial system works in these cases. If you're concerned about the injustice accorded to victims of road traffic collisions, support RoadPeace:
http://www.roadpeace.org/
They're a tiny charity doing great work.