Kill a cyclist, get community punishment

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/10636753.Judge_blames_sat_nav_for_cyclist_s_death/?ref=nt

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oXV2F5Ts8Ok0ky6928v3OUygeJ4TqG7Drc5axA1lKlE/edit?pli=1

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/causing_death_by_careless_or_inconsiderate_driving/

that is a pretty dreadful sentence

So as long as you feel bad about it, it's OK to kill a cyclist who was 100% in the right. Great.

Compare and contrast:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-23876320

M62 crash deaths caused by lorry driver as he read text
Ethan Roberts
Lorry driver Ethen Roberts was jailed for five years and three months after admitting causing the deaths
Continue reading the main story
Related Stories

Motorway crash couple identified
Two die in crash on M62 motorway
A man who killed a couple when his lorry toppled on to their car as he read a text message has been jailed for five years and three months.

If you can go to prison for touting Man U tickets how come this driver gets let off?

^ this is particularly disgusting. The value of lives of car drivers appears to be much more than that of a cyclist.

Until this changes, other road users wont have any reasons to be cautious when driving near cyclists.

The difference between five years in prison and not one day in prison for extremely similar cases is difficult to understand.

^this

Bullshit sentence. What did that woman get who had her eyes off the road for almost a minute and killed a rider on the A4?

LBC presenter and Sunday Express columnist Nick Ferrari did a campaign a couple years back to complain about a judge and his sentencing and the judge ended up getting some kind of rebuke and the previous light sentence was made stronger. I'm going to find out how he went about it. In both cases both drivers paid undue care and attention. I don't care if it's a cyclist or a motorist that got killed. Both drivers equally wrong so should have equal sentences.

The difference between five years in prison and not one day in prison for extremely similar cases is difficult to understand.

Charges are different - causing death by dangerous driving vs. causing death by careless driving. Dangerous carries much heavier sentences.

Charges are different - causing death by dangerous driving vs. causing death by careless driving. Dangerous carries much heavier sentences.

Then the charges are difficult to understand. For instance, getting into a powerful sports car when pissed out of your head, driving at speed and slamming into a house strikes me as dangerous. Careless is dropping an egg or forgetting to lock your door:

http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/polopoly_fs/jb_house_audi_crash_lowestoft_2_1_2355934!image/1649894146.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_630/1649894146.jpg

http://www.eveningnews24.co.uk/news/pakefield_man_charged_with_drink_driving_after_car_crashed_into_carlton_colville_house_1_2355935

...bloody hell!

I wonder if the police have spokespeople with appropriate names for every type of offence?

Anne-Marie Breach, a spokesman [sic] for Suffolk police, said:

I wonder if the police have spokespeople with appropriate names for every type of offence?

I looked after a patient called De'Ath once. She died.

In other news;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-23944993

In other news;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-23944993

Also...

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/10650266.Driver_who_killed_cyclist_given_community_order/

Disgraceful sentencing. There are no excuses for not seeing the cyclist. A completely straight road before sunset in late May, the cyclist had lights and forensic evidence suggests that they were on at the time.

It's a road I cycle along often http://goo.gl/maps/hqAWS, it's inconceivable that an attentive driver would just drive into the back of a cyclist at 60mph along there.

That is ridiculous.

We need a massive change in this country. IMHO driving is a privilege, not a right, or if it is a right it comes with massive responsibilities. Mandatory satellite tracking and cameras / black box recorders with massive punishments for drivers who hit cyclists unless proven without dout that the cyclist was at fault.

Don't disagree but you are missing the perspective of the countries problems, by a lot.

Please could someone of a legal persuasion explain why is an activity that occupies the driver's attention and/or interferes with operation of a vehicle not classed as dangerous driving?

Surely the decision to undertake such an activity (e.g. speeding, eating, operation of mobile equipment, applying makeup, reading, etc.) is a conscious one? So with the driver being consciously aware their action will hinder their ability to drive safely, does this not make it 'dangerous' rather than 'careless'?

So is it the interpretation of the law in these cases, rather than the law itself, that is at fault?

In principle eating while driving is perfectly legal, providing of course that doing so does not compromise your ability to safely operate the vehicle in question. Policy of the courts i.e. interpretation of the law, rather than the law itself, has set precedent that failing to comply (extreme negligence aside) should generally be considered careless as oppose to dangerous driving :(

Can we just change the title of this thread to 'Kill a cyclist, get fuck all punishment worth talking about'?

These people have taken a life. A couple of hours litter picking is not punishment, it's barely more than an inconvenience.

One of the key points that is being overlooked in this discussion is the jury.

If one can obtain a trial by jury, one automatically has a better chance.

They perceive drivers not as "criminals" but as people like them. They drive. They could make a "mistake". Juries are more likely to convict of a lesser offence which carries a lesser punishment.

This is human nature and juries are an important aspect of our constitution.

The answer is therefore to educate those who would be on juries, ie the general populace about driver safety. In so doing, one would hope, drivers would drive more safely and not condone those that do not.

I hear you... Just find it very hard to accept. I'm sure the dude didn't mean to kill, but sentenced to community service for taking someones life, duly noted in an accident, is an absolute joke bearing in mind that in some cases we keep shoplifters behind bars.

I served as a juror when I was 18, the guy clearly did it- two (at the time) friends, both howling drunk at Christmas, one glassed the other.

The glasser was an old boy- and the rest of the jury was extremely reluctant to find him guilty due to his age.

The point had to be made that it wasn't our job to set his punishment - that's for the judge.

According to CPS charging and prosecution guidance 'driving whilst avoidably and dangerously distracted such as whilst reading a newspaper/map, talking to and looking at a passenger, selecting and lighting a cigarette or by adjusting the controls of electronic equipment' is considered dangerous driving.

The Highway Code also states that 'there is a danger of driver distraction being caused by in-vehicle systems such as satellite navigation systems, congestion warning systems, PCs, multi-media, etc. You MUST exercise proper control of your vehicle at all times.'

But they don't get charged with Dangerous Driving.