You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
In this case, I think not.
Ten years for causing four deaths by dangerous driving?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-37823457
What are you saying? You think it's too harsh or too lenient? I honestly can't tell.
If only the courts took all road deaths this seriously when administering justice to dangerous drivers.
Naturally, no. However, the courts' hands are tied by the sentencing guidelines. Not sure what the max sentence is for DBDD these days, it was 10 years, may be 14 now but he coughed up immediately and they are allowed a 'discount' for doing so.
He's done what a load of people do every single day, it's endemic.
No amount of jail time will repair the damage to the family, the damage to the family ought to act as a deterrent but we all know it wont.
As for the driver, he will be in a world of shitt for the rest of his life, probably not much of a life left for him I would imagine.
As for the driver, he will be in a world of shitt for the rest of his life, probably not much of a life left for him I would imagine.
depends...didn't seem to affect that glasweegan bin lorry driver
Seems in line with someone local to me - got 2 years for killing someone. Admitted guilt immediately and, as I understand, remains suicidal.
Of course this sort of sentence isn't enough. But the courts aren't wilfully ignorant: they operate within the sentencing rules and guidelines created by politicians.
Driving offences attract notoriously low tariffs - my only assumption is that 2000 deaths a year on the roads are deemed a fair proportion for our ability to move around so freely.
2.5 years per person killed seems pretty feeble to me, especially if you compare that to what someone might get for killing four people with a gun etc.
Motor vehicles are potentially leathal weapons.
I think it's enough tbh, it's an accident, a mistake, it's not intentional murder.
n0b0dy0ftheg0at - Member
2.5 years per person killed seems pretty feeble to me, especially if you compare that to what someone might get for killing four people with a gun etc.
A massive difference in the 2 scenarios though.
He didn't cough up immediately, he initially said his brakes had failed and denied using his phone. It was only after dashcam footage was shown to him that he changed his story.
2.5 years per person killed seems pretty feeble to me, especially if you compare that to what someone might get for killing four people with a gun etc.Motor vehicles are potentially leathal (sic) weapons.
While I might not disagree with the time, the comparison with murder is pointless: murder requires intent to kill.
14 year maximum as mentioned above - probably a discount for guilty plea.
Don't see why this should be any different to manslaughter really - he didn't set out to kill anybody that day, but his gross negligence was directly responsible for the deaths of four people.
On the other hand, the rest of his life (after jail) isn't going to be a picnic.
My gut feel is it's too lenient.
@curto80: 'If only the courts took all road deaths this seriously when administering justice to dangerous drivers.' Agree. Consistency in sentencing is needed.
@geordiemick00: unfortunately he didn't cough up immediately; he claimed brakes were faulty and only pleaded guilty when shown dashcam footage. I hope this will cause more drivers to understand the possible consequences of using a phone when driving - but fear it won't.
@cheekyboy: he may be in a world of shit for the rest of his life but, equally, he may not.
Is legislation the answer? It would be difficult to draft but I believe it would be worth the effort.
What price for the life of a child?
This was undoubtedly horrific and totally avoidable. A family's life is pretty much ruined. Horrible, horrible stuff. I hope it is used as an unpleasant example of how [i]any[/i] distraction when you're driving a big lump of metal at speed can have terrible consequences. This lorry driver could have been rifling through the glove box looking for a CD; this is not just about mobile phones.
What price for the life of a child?
£12,980 maximum.
2.5 years per person killed seems pretty feeble to me, especially if you compare that to what someone might get for killing four people with a gun etc.
If, and it's a big if, you consider it to be four separate charges it would be more correctly referred to as 10 years per person as prison sentences are served concurrently rather than consecutively. Personally I think that it is probably about right.
For the next few days people will pontificate on the above sentance if it was to long or to short, they will look for peeps using a phone, texting etc, then it will all die down till the next idiot kills someone and it starts again what is need is confiscation of a mobile or vehicle for a period of time off drivers caught using a device, and instant ban if caught using one that causes injury.
It needs a cultural change. Drink driving is no longer socially acceptable as it used to be, whether harsh sentences or public safety ads had an impact is a different discussion. Driving home from CX yesterday on the M25 we passed a woman in the middle lane on Facebook FFS (my passenger saw it, I was concentrating on driving, before we go off on a tangent).
Prison sentences can run either concurrently or consecutively .
What's needed is police out on the roads enforcing the law, until this happens (probably never) things like texting while driving and middle lane hogging will continue.
schrickvr6 +1
Until the roads are properly policed, people will do whatever they want.
The punishment in this case might not fit the crime and will never come close to fitting the consequences of the crime. The law takes into account that the driver did not set out to kill 4 people. I don't know what sort of punishment could fit the consequences in this case.
You cannot stop cases like this happening, but you [b]can[/b] minimise them by coming down bloody hard on all mobile phone use by drivers. I'd be happy to see a driving ban for a first offence.
No. Too lenient especially when an entire family has been wiped out.
20 years should be the minimum ...
I have no sympathy for such killings.
+1 cranberry, I don't think long custodial sentences are a deterrent because no one thinks they're going to have an accident that takes someone else's life, and having to live with that fact would be tougher than a custodial sentence.
If people think 1) they risk a driving ban if they get caught and 2) they run a real risk of getting caught, that's the deterrent.
What's needed is police out on the roads enforcing the law, until this happens (probably never) things like texting while driving and middle lane hogging will continue.
This. With proper temporary removal of licenses, and fines linked to income. When someone cannot have a car for a month, with no excuses, they might appreciate what a benefit a licence is and look after it next time. I don't care if you can't get to work, take unpaid leave. I don't care if Auntie Joan can't go and get her shopping, you should have thought of that before breaking the law.
Edit
Fwiw, I think this is an appropriate sentence. It's not premeditated murder, it's a tragic act of carelessness. And anyone on here who claims to have never made a potentially similar mistake, with concentration or speed, is kidding themselves.
I'm a firm believer that sentences should be for the action rather than the consequence, agrivated by how the culprit responds after the event. He responded dreadfully which should be taken into account.
But....what he did was drive for best part of a km without looking ahead. Those who would like to see his sentence increased- can you hand on heart say you have never once driven without full concentration? Fished around for a CD? Sorted out an argument between kids in the back? Or just driven really really tired struggling to stay awake? Maybe not for so long as him, but are you whiter than white? Maybe you are just luckier than him as it didn't lead to a crash....or just only a fraction of his level of stupidity? How about a proportional sentence - 10 years for a 1000m of his imbecility, a year for your (or mine come to that) 100m(3 secs at 70mph)?