[Closed] The CPS actually manage to convict someone of Death by Dangerous Driving

I doubt it Graham. No doubt there will be a big fuss about what a lovely person the driver is, he/she had every right to drive like an utter idiot and how their life will be affected with such a conviction blah blah.

It's the war on motorists gone mad!

Meanwhile a succession of dead people who up until recently rode about on a bike, lie dead on the street.

I sincerely believe that some rigid diligence needs to be applied to pursuing appropriate levels of sentencing for dangerous driving. Some things that happen on the 5roads are after all, actually real accidents. In this case though, 18 SECONDS with your eyes off the road while piloting a ton and a half of metal is an appalling lack of concern and care from the driver and in this case, I wholeheartedly agree with the charge. 18 seconds isn't careless, it's downright negligence.

Samuri - can you give me an example of what you would consider to be an accident?

To be honest I don't think a jail term is all that useful.

Clearly she didn't [i]plan[/i] to kill anyone and I strongly doubt that [i]"I better not fiddle with my satnav because I might kill someone and get sent to jail"[/i] is a more effective deterrent (for a normal functioning person) than just [i]"I better not fiddle with my satnav because I might kill someone"[/i]

But, why oh why is the maximum driving ban only 2 years even for dangerous driving??

She has demonstrated she can't be trusted behind the wheel - so why give her another chance?

Typical [i]"driving is a basic human right"[/i] attitude of our car-obsessed society.

Samuri - can you give me an example of what you would consider to be an accident?

Please don't. It would be a shame for this to turn into a STW Driving Gods bun fight.

lets wait and see what the sentence is.

GrahamS - "minimum"

****aduck. Finally.

But, why oh why is the maximum driving ban only 2 years even for dangerous driving??

In this case though, 18 SECONDS with your eyes off the road while piloting a ton and a half of metal is an appalling lack of concern and care from the driver and in this case, I wholeheartedly agree with the charge. 18 seconds isn't careless, it's downright negligence.

18 seconds was a balls up by the forensic analyst. It assumed the cyclist wasn't travelling at any speed at all. If he'd been doing 20mph, he might have been in sight for over 50 seconds.

But, why oh why is the maximum driving ban only 2 years even for dangerous driving??

But, why oh why is the maximum driving ban only 2 years even for dangerous driving??

I stand corrected 😳 - minimum 2 years makes more sense, though I can't see why she should be allowed to drive again ever.

[i]Samuri - can you give me an example of what you would consider to be an accident? [/i]

Brakes failing, tyre puncturing, having a heart attack. Things that cannot readily be attributed to human error.

So mechanical failure and ill health. Not really accidents are they. 😉

Gluption - putting the murdering bint away for a decent stretch just might make others think harder before monkeying with a mobile or satnav while careering along in a one ton metal box.

dave360 - with any luck yes.

So mechanical failure and ill health. Not really accidents are they.

My definition of an 'accident' is something that happens out of the blue, couldn't have reasonably been predicted, and therefore couldn't have reasonably been prevented.

Anything else is negligence/human error.

If you have a puncture, lose control and then drive over someone, that's an accident isn't it? Likewise your brakes fail or you lose control through health reasons. You must accept that real accidents do happen.

These are just quick examples but there are lots of issues, whether single of a series of unfortunate events that lead up to real accidents.

18 seconds was a balls up by the forensic analyst. It assumed the cyclist wasn't travelling at any speed at all. If he'd been doing 20mph, he might have been in sight for over 50 seconds.

Yeah from [url= http://metro.co.uk/2013/07/23/driver-killed-cyclist-as-she-altered-her-satnav-3895800/ ]the coverage in The Metro[/url] it seems to be based on [url= http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=500m+at+60mph ]500 metres at 60mph = 18.64secs[/url]

But in [url= http://www.getreading.co.uk/incoming/driver-convicted-killing-cyclist-twyford-5324111 ]the Get Reading article[/url] it says she was doing "40 to 50mph".

I would imagine that Mr Hilson, an experienced cyclist, was probably doing at least ~20mph.

So really it is 500 metres at (50mph - 20mph), which is 37 seconds.

That is a ridiculous length of time to not be watching the road ahead!

More from the CTC on this case:
http://www.ctc.org.uk/news/driver-who-killed-anthony-hilson-convicted-of-causing-his-death-dangerous-driving

They seem to agree with me that jail terms aren't really much use as a deterrent.

CTC say that

CTC does not think that imposing custodial sentences on drivers who cause death is the ideal solution, as in most cases they only present a danger to the public when behind the wheel of a car

True, but a jail sentence has a deterrent effect on the bad drivers who have haven't killed anyone yet. If jailing dangerous drivers who kill cyclists saves a handful of other lives it is well worth it.

Taking the logic of the CTC that a long ban is better than jail we wouldn't jail anyone. It also assumes that banned drivers don't drive.

A short jail sentence followed by a very long ban is the way to go.

Not sure if it was on here or road.c.c but someone said the cps have been given new guidelines increasing the likely hood they press for dangerous rather than careless driving.

18 seconds isn't careless, it's downright negligence.

True, but a jail sentence has a deterrent effect on the bad drivers who have haven't killed anyone yet.

I don't agree. I'm not convinced threat of jail is an effective deterrent.

No one thinks "Well I [i]would[/i] go out, drive dangerously and kill someone, but I've heard they are jailing people now so I won't"

Short jail and permanent ban given how serious it was - they must have not looked at the road for ages
In general jail and a very very long ban

This happened just round the corner from me. At the time, I could not understand how the hell it happened. It was an open stretch on the A4 with a slight left hand bend and a slight downhill. It's fast on a bike say 20 mph, top 20's pushing it on a road bike. Cyclists go up and down there *all* the time - she would have known this as she also lives round the corner, and must have driven that route many times? Driving between Maidenhead and Twyford on the A4 (~5 miles), as I do every day, I would normally expect to overtake 5 bikes.

It's so scary to think there's people out there as stupid as this.

Condolences to his family, I understand he leaves two children behind.

[url= https://www.google.co.uk/maps/preview?hl=en#!data=!1m8!1m3!1d3!2d-0.86599!3d51.488916!2m2!1f204.12!2f76!4f75!2m4!1e1!2m2!1sDPyp9JVXQAVczrFXUhR8yA!2e0&fid=5 ]it was here, direction towards the road sign[/url]

Note the slight left hand bend - I don't like those on a bike....

quote - No one thinks "Well I would go out, drive dangerously and kill someone, but I've heard they are jailing people now so I won't" - end quote

what the hell kind of statement is that?

No one thinks "Well I would go out, rob / rape/ mug and kill someone, but I've heard they are jailing people now so I won't"

?

isn't that the whole idea? much more than a punishment, the potential loss of liberty surely acts as a deterrent ...no?

am i being naive?

[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/fatal-distraction-drivers-and-cyclists-need-all-their-attention-for-the-road-8733639.html ]Article from Independent[/url]

This is worth a read. Simon Usborne is a fanny, this much is known. The article is very sympathetic to the driver. The article is quite strangely written, it swivels between sympathising with the driver and pointing out how shocking the driving was. It doesn't seem to really get it. Driving is a serious business, take it seriously or end up like this woman.

I don't agree. I'm not convinced threat of jail is an effective deterrent.

It needs to be made clear that bad driving that causes death is an almost certain jail sentence. Along with a publicity campaign. Stiff punishments combined with publicity drastically reduced drink driving.

I think many people think it isn't people like them that go to jail. And by and large it isn't - most of the jail population are repeat offenders. If Mr and Mrs average were shown people like them using their handheld or satnav, killing someone and then sharing a cell with a typical prisoner it might just make a bit of difference.

probably just an example of how the justice system and the courts treat women who offend more harshly than men?

what the hell kind of statement is that?
No one thinks "Well I would go out, rob / rape/ mug and kill someone, but I've heard they are jailing people now so I won't"

They do, because those are mostly premeditated crimes. The consequences can be considered. The possibility of jail is the main deterrent to those who would otherwise commit them.

Whereas with Death by Dangerous Driving, it's not a premeditated thing. This woman didn't plan to go out and kill someone in her car. She didn't even plan to drive dangerously. She just planned to drive to her mate's baby shower. The crime came from poor awareness, poor driving skills and poor appreciation of how quickly it can go wrong and of her responsibilities on the road. It didn't come from criminal intent.

When I slow down as I pass a school I do it because I'm worried for the safety of schoolchildren, not because I'm worried about going to jail. Isn't that true for most folk?

If Mr and Mrs average were shown people like them using their handheld or satnav, killing someone and then sharing a cell with a typical prisoner it might just make a bit of difference.

It might. Or you could show them the first bit then the resulting fallout: living with constant guilt, facing the other family, losing their license and quite possibly their job, having to explain it to their kids, being ostracised in their community etc

Think of the drink-drive advert with the guy doing the voices of the judge, his boss and his wife. Or the one with the dead children haunting the car drivers.

That's more effective than the possibility of a jail term.

I don't agree. I'm not convinced threat of jail is an effective deterrent.

I'm inclined to agree that it is all a bit unclear whether imprisonment serves as a deterrant generally speaking. But if imprisonment is ever a deterrent, it's more likely to be effective on crimes like careless driving than it is for drug use or something (I think).

Edit: you've posted again and it answers my question, and fair enough, but you also say:

It didn't come from criminal intent.

I don't think that's necessarily relevant. The crime of careless driving is about a lack of (pre)meditation about what the driver is doing, so obviously there's no criminal intent - it hasn't even crossed their mind! Victorian mill owners didn't particularly intend for child weavers' fingers to be snipped off by dangerous machinery either. But at some point there is a degree of carelessness is that is so awful that it's appropriate to imprison someone for it, and that imprisonment should be used to send a message to "the community" along the lines of "hey, dickhead! ffs focus for a second and pay attention to what you're doing or you might end up in prison!".

Edit: as an aside, the CPS guidelines on this are worth reading: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_offences_guidance_on_prosecuting_cases_of_bad_driving/

Do you think that about all crimes or just careless driving?

I think it is effective for most crime, particularly premeditated crime.

I don't think it is effective for what [i]could[/i] perhaps be called [i]accidental crime[/i].

Interesting to read the comments from Brian Dorling's widow on [url= http://road.cc/content/news/89125-updated-driver-who-killed-cyclist-brian-dorling-bow-roundabout-gets-suspended ]this road.cc story[/url] by the way:

...Brian Dorling’s widow Debbie did not want him jailed.

“You can see he’s remorseful and see that he’s haunted. He is a broken man, said Debbie Dorling. “Putting him in prison is not going to achieve anything.”

"I am appalled by the vitriolic tone to many of these comments I cannot believe that so many opinionated people who are not aware of the facts can be quite so nasty. We met Mr Cox yesterday, my 16 year old daughter told him she didn't hate him because he didn't mean to kill her dad, my son made his peace and I do not hate. We are human we have the ability to rise above and see the bigger picture, well some of us do. My family and I have been through hell and back; Mr Cox is living a constant hell and I would like to hold out my hand and ask him to help RoadPeace along with me promote the "See me Save Me" campaign.."

konabunny - Member

But if imprisonment is ever a deterrent, it's more likely to be effective on crimes like careless driving than it is for drug use or something

Got to agree with GrahamS here, people aren't going around knocking down cyclists because they think the sentence will be light. Nobody wants to crash into someone, except in crazily irrational situations and the thing about those is, they're crazily irrational.

STW never ceases to amaze!

anotherstan I don't know if you are being niave, intentionally confrontational or just a bit slow. However I'm hoping I am nowhere near you driving if you need a long custodial sentence to deter you from killing me.

Article from Independent

This is worth a read. Simon Usborne is a fanny, this much is known. The article is very sympathetic to the driver. The article is quite strangely written, it swivels between sympathising with the driver and pointing out how shocking the driving was. It doesn't seem to really get it.

Did you also read the linked article about the woman who knocked of Wiggo? Both are basically articles attempting to legitimise the "could have been me" attitude - getting rid of that attitude is exactly why draconian penalties are needed for motoring offences like this. Apparently it's quite easy to fail to spot a cyclist even if you look properly 🙄 I note that in the Wiggo article he describes himself as "a dedicated road cyclist" - is that the usual anti-cyclist journo shorthand for "I own a bike", or does he actually ride more than once a year?

people aren't going around knocking down cyclists because they think the sentence will be light

If statistics start to prove that long sentences start to reduce the number of fatalities on the road, then I am all for it, but realistically I doubt it will have any impact at all.

Better driving training, better cyclist training, and wearing more high viz stuff etc etc.

Cyclist will always die on the roads, stands to reason when a metal object hits a soft person. If you don't want that to be a risk, then the only answer is to stay off the roads.

You need a strong penalty to pierce their consciousness.

The fact that if you kill someone whilst driving through negligence, that will be the last time you ever drive a car on a public road should be enough. It at least means it can never happen again.

Locking them up (or threatening them with this) really acts as no deterrent IMO. Not least because for most normal, occasionally careless people who dive cars, the thought of causing a collision, never mind a death, abhors them already. They just assume / hope it won't be them.

Relying on their good nature and to consider the guilt that might happen doesn't work. You need a strong penalty to pierce their consciousness.

And to that end I'd rather the money for keeping them in jail for 14 years was instead spent on road safety campaigns, driver/cyclist training and traffic police.

Also worth noting that being disqualified from driving does not actually prevent you from driving at all. It's merely a deterrent.

Better driving training, better cyclist training, and wearing more high viz stuff etc etc.

High quality separated infrastructure on major/fast roads to ensure that when a driver fails to pay proper attention it doesn't result in the death of a cyclist. Slower speed limits on roads where separate infrastructure cannot be provided and cyclists and vehicles do mix. Strict enforcement of speed limits, mobile phone use etc, with increased penalties .

IMO the problem is not so much the law, it's lack of enforcement combined with social acceptance...

'Minor' infringement of the law is an accepted social norm and there's few examples of people being prosecuted, so the majority believe it's acceptable. Only those who hold themselves to a higher standard will behave legally...

The public at large only tend to keep to those traffic laws they think they'll get caught for.

Right now there seem to be so few visible police on the road, the average Joe Public doesn't believe they'll get caught for what they frame as minor misdemeanours e.g. speeding, accelerating through an amber, overtaking into oncoming or across a solid white line, using a mobile.

Some of these things are illegal so if you carry them out, you're a criminal. But as they're believed to be so common (borne out by watching other drivers and media releasing figures showing that the majority of drivers speed, use mobile phones etc) then most drivers would frame themselves as 'a normal citizen' rather than a criminal.

So the solution IMO is a) more police arresting or at least having a stiff word with drivers who break the law, however minor (or compulsory black boxes in cars which send a signal when laws are broken) and b) making minor infringements socially unacceptable (worked for drink driving)...

Then maybe UK drivers at large would grow up...

Yes, an advertising campaign:

We see a cyclist set off from home, waving goodbye to his/her family.
We see a motorist set off from home, waving goodbye to his/her family.
(See? cyclists are people too).

We see the cyclist riding along.
The motorist driving along. (The same road = cyclists do the same things as motorists).

Driver's phone announces a text. S/he looks at it.

Camera looking from back seat into rear view mirror.
Driver smiling down at phone screen.
Driver suddenly reacts. Car jolts. Stops. Driver's face, shocked, horrified, realisation dawns, OH NO NO NO!!!

Cyclist's family at the hospital, waiting in A&E. Surgeon comes out, film goes from colour to mono. Surgeon shakes his head. Family stunned, devastated, clinging to one another in agony - look across at driver.

...

Or something along those lines.

konabunny - Member

No - they're completely oblivious to everything, that's the whole point. Relying on their good nature and to consider the guilt that might happen doesn't work. You need a strong penalty to pierce their consciousness.

Which they'll also be oblivious to. It's nothing to do with "relying on good nature", it's just facing the fact that sentencing isn't a very effective deterrant even for "intentional" crimes like theft etc, let alone ones which people have no intention of committing.

If I thought high sentencing would work I'd say go for it. But there's zero chance. The problem is not punishment or lack of, the answer's not so simple and going down a wrong alley just means not getting any closer to fixing hte problem.

Which they'll also be oblivious to. It's nothing to do with "relying on good nature", it's just facing the fact that sentencing isn't a very effective deterrant even for "intentional" crimes like theft etc, let alone ones which people have no intention of committing.
let alone ones which people have no intention of committing.

Have to disagree with this no intention bit. People have the intention to use handheld mobiles or satnavs while driving knowing full well it is illegal and unsafe. Just like someone who punches somebody without intending to kill them can be convicted of manslaughter if the victim falls and bangs their head.

Leaving aside for the moment the argument about whether jail is a deterrent to others what about some good old fashioned Old Testament style punishment. I think anyone who takes the conscious decision to adjust their satnav or use a hand held mobile while driving and as a result kills someone deserves a couple of months of jail time.

Something needs to be done. I started a new job a couple of years ago where I was driving alongside various other employees at different times. I got odd looks from all of them when I didn't answer my handheld mobile while driving. Everyone else without exception did. As for deterrence the worst offender was cured of both her speeding and handheld texting habits when she was caught by the police twice within a week and a ban was suddenly within sight if she kept on going. What is needed is heftier punishments, publicity, and more traffic police.

irc - Member

Have to disagree with this no intention bit. People have the intention to use handheld mobiles or satnavs while driving knowing full well it is illegal and unsafe.

The former, sure. The latter... How many people think "Oh, I know it's not safe but I'll do it anyway"? They think "Oh well it's illegal but I'll do it safely"

Nobody ever thought "I'll answer my phone because I don't care if I hit a cyclist/pedestrian", they just don't think it will happen.

Have to disagree with this no intention bit. People have the intention to use handheld mobiles or satnavs while driving knowing full well it is illegal and unsafe.

Yeah but that is a totally separate crime than Death By Dangerous Driving and one where fear of sentence [i]could[/i] be effective if it were enforced (as your colleague showed) though actually jailing people for answering their mobile is probably a bit heavy-handed!

though actually jailing people for answering their mobile is probably a bit heavy-handed!

True, though I think the greater success was in making drink-driving socially unacceptable with a strong advertising campaign.

true, guess it's going to be tricky to prove which was more effective. No reason why they can't do both publicity and punishment with mobile/satnav/other driver distractions aswell tho. Mobile use at the wheel is pretty rife round here.

I am amazed at some of the attitudes on here, a cycling site - eg cyclists will die, get used to it, etc. We rode for about a mile on Sunday along a country lane and saw cars on the other side of the road carve up two cyclists forcing them to swerve; on Saturday a young girl just drove at me without slowing down and then blared her horn continuously after she passed as I had dared be in the road coming the other way. These attitudes of assumed superiority are utterly unacceptable, in just the same way as Jimmy Savile's crimes were excused by some long ago as he was famous at the time. Such attitudes have been sub-consciously brought in and reinforced in society for decades. High-profile sentencing for killing vulnerable people with dangerous weapons is one way of doing so. I won't be an apologist for such people, let alone blatantly encourage them like that idiot pub owner recently and certain journalists in the past.

However, seeing some of the other deeply irritating posts elsewhere on this site of the "I can drive a really powerful car really fast and not get caught, aren't I a man", I despair, I really do.

Sorry for a quasi-rant but I feel so strongly about this.

Sorry for a quasi-rant but I feel so strongly about this.

So do I but I think you are mis-reading the tone of the posts on this thread if you think anyone here is dismissive of cyclist deaths or thinks we should get used to it.

No - they're completely oblivious to everything, that's the whole point. Relying on their good nature and to consider the guilt that might happen doesn't work. You need a strong penalty to pierce their consciousness.

Yup, such as permanent removal of their driving license.

Most recent comment on [url= http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/fatal-distraction-drivers-and-cyclists-need-all-their-attention-for-the-road-8733639.html ]that Independent article[/url]:

albertcornercrew 1 days ago:

Quite easy to attack the careless driver, however what about the Lycra clad club members who use roads as playgrounds. Their pelatons on country lanes bring on the potential for mayhem. Add this to the ones who don't use cycle lanes when provided and it is a two sided problem.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaargh! 👿

"Yeah, why attack this poor driver who drove illegally and killed someone when there are cyclists out there wearing lycra and riding entirely legally? Clearly it is two-sided problem."

What a tit.

Graham S - a quote from above from funkydunc (sorry to pick on you):

"Cyclist will always die on the roads, stands to reason when a metal object hits a soft person. If you don't want that to be a risk, then the only answer is to stay off the roads."

PS - yes fully agree with your post immediately above this!

b) making minor infringements socially unacceptable (worked for drink driving)...

I see what you mean but I wouldn't class drink driving as a minor infringement and neither is death by dangerous driving. Personally, I hope she gets the full 14 years custodial sentence to send a message out to other drivers.

ononeorange: yeah I saw FunkDunc's post but I think you are misreading the tone (or maybe I am).

I don't think he is being dismissive of cyclist deaths - just acknowledging that there will always be risk to cyclists, even in utopia's like the Netherlands. The only way to truly remove yourself from that risk is to not cycle.

(Which of course increases your risk of far more common sedentary-lifestyle issues).

Personally, I hope she gets the full 14 years custodial sentence to send a message out to other drivers.

But I don't think that would send a message out - other than perhaps [i]"Our justice system is severely screwed up"[/i] and [i]"It's better to be dishonest if you hit someone"[/i] (as she did, to her credit, cop to the the blame and the sat-nav fiddling).

I really don't think putting her in jail would make any difference to the thoughts of any drivers and it would be seem incredibly harsh compared to the drivers that have killed multiple times, been caught for other offences, tampered with safety equipment, driven without sight correct and still been let off!

I don't think he is being dismissive of cyclist deaths - just acknowledging that there will always be risk to cyclists, even in utopia's like the Netherlands. The only way to truly remove yourself from that risk is to not cycle.

If you look at the CPS guidelines for dangerous driving then [i]anything[/i] involving a cyclist should be classed as dangerous rather than careless driving.

Dangerous driving includes situations where the driver has of his or her own free will adopted a particular way of driving, and also where there is a substantial error of judgement, that, even if only for a short time, amounts to driving falling far below the required standard

The following examples of circumstances that are likely to be characterised as dangerous driving are derived from decided cases and the SGC Definitive Guideline:
-failing to have a proper and safe regard for vulnerable road users such as cyclists
-overtaking which could not have been carried out safely

It is not necessary to consider what the driver thought about the possible consequences of his actions: simply whether or not a competent and careful driver would have observed, appreciated and guarded against obvious and material dangers.

I'd be interested in any statistics regarding deaths/injuries of cyclists and in fact motorcyclists (particularly mopeds, scooters etc.) since the advent of (affordable) SatNav and smartphones. Still seems to be the root cause (or the blamed root cause) in so many of these tragedies, and one of the reasons my phone stays in the bag, I won't use a hands free, and don't use a satnav, as I've caught myself making the same mistake. I just got lucky and didn't kill anyone.

I see what you mean but I wouldn't class drink driving as a minor infringement and neither is death by dangerous driving.

Drink driving [i]was[/i] seen as a minor infringement though - that's the point.

If you look at the CPS guidelines for dangerous driving then anything involving a cyclist should be classed as dangerous rather than careless driving.

I think those have changed very recently - the CTC was at the table and I believe got most of what they wanted. The trouble is the previous guidelines didn't even appear to be applied correctly - any incident of careless driving involving a cyclist (or other vulnerable road user) should have got the highest range of tariff, yet all too often the judges in such cases used the lowest range. We shall wait and see if things improve.

They've been like that for a while, at least 3 years. There may be changes in the pipeline though.

Until cars are fitted with devices to jam mobile phones things are going to get worse. [url= http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/120965-more-us-teens-killed-texting-while-driving-than-drinking ]How many of you text while driving?[/url]

Until cars are fitted with devices to jam mobile phones

How would that practically work though? Would it only jam when it detects you are moving and there are no passengers? And how would you prevent it from jamming random phones it drives past (which I believe may be illegal)?

Even if it got implemented I think people would just find a way around it: mobiles are too useful to too many people.

It was meant as an "if, then, else" comment in which the condition that would stop things getting worse wasn't going to happen, Graham. I know jamming the things isn't going to happen for the reasons you state, so things will get worse and I'd like to bet the majority of people on this forum are part of the problem. Some posters here have stated they are stuck in jams/slow moving traffic in their posts or posted things that make it clear they are on the move.

I did some counting as I rode past the cars in traffic in my local town and found about one in five drivers was using a mobile device.

She's been sentenced. 18 months, so below the sentencing guidelines for level 3 CDBDD which states a 3 year minimum prison term.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10293094/It-took-satnav-18-seconds-to-tear-two-families-apart.html

Judge Wood added: “Your mitigation reduces the sentence below the sentencing range but it cannot enable me to suspend the sentence. Your driving created a serious risk of danger.

👿

Jesus, as a dad of two girls myself that's a hard article to read. Brings a lump to my throat just thinking about it. Poor family. 😥

Judge Wood added: "Your mitigation reduces the sentence below the sentencing range

WHAT MITIGATION?????

She didn't look where she was going for (at least) 18 BLOODY SECONDS whilst travelling at, at least, 40 miles an hour.

Another neighbour, Ronnie Mendoza, 47, said of the sentence: “I think it’s all a bit harsh. I know it should never have happened, but anyone could make that mistake.”

Such people make up juries in these cases...

Yeah. That's a pretty hard read and to be honest is the kind of thing that if often in my head while I am cycling on the road.
I try to wear bright clothes, I generally use my lights unless it's a really bright day, my bike is white etc. but none of this matters if the person coming up behind is looking for a CD, changing a destination on the sat nav, trying to send a text message.

This comment from one of the woman's neighbours amazes me:

Another neighbour, Ronnie Mendoza, 47, said of the sentence: “I think it’s all a bit harsh. I know it should never have happened, but anyone could make that mistake.”

Bleurgh...... 🙁

Satnavs are a bloody liability. I was behind someone at the weekend driving erratically whilst they fiddled about with their satnav. FFS just pull over, sort it out and drive off.

That was a tough read. 🙁

How did the polis/prosection know she'd been fiddling with the satnav for 18 seconds?

(I didn't read the details of the original prosecution.)

Better article:
[url= http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/micwright/100010363/we-should-waste-no-sympathy-on-the-driver-who-killed-a-cyclist-while-she-fiddled-with-her-satnav/ ]http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/micwright/100010363/we-should-waste-no-sympathy-on-the-driver-who-killed-a-cyclist-while-she-fiddled-with-her-satnav/[/url]

I just cannot comprehend how someone can drive for 18secs without looking at the road, not from the stupidity point of view sadly, but how could you possibly resist the urge to look up? Genuinely baffled.

I drove past a car the other day with not a sat nav stuck slap bang in the middle of the windscreen, but an iPad. One hopes it was being used as a satnav.

Entirely safe I'm sure...

[img] [/img]
[img] [/img]

(If I ever see one of these in use in a moving car then it won't be moving for very long!)