cyclist deaths & the law

custardy

Mark_Mark wrote: »

First of all he was jailed for dangerous driving. Please explain how you think the charge was down graded. It the most serious offence for driving in the uk.

He's confirmed in prison so had his sentence reduced. Just like every other prisoner can. Another non story from the daily mail.

Once again you miss the point. If this is all the law can give out then its no fit for purpose.
6 months for killing someone and perverting the course of justice.
When the maximum available is 2 years without the perverting the course of justice charge.
You see it as a non story despite a kid being killed?

once more I draw your attention to this law

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

I would say this case comes under

Nature of offence: Other cases of careless or inconsiderate driving

Starting Point: 36 weeks custody
Sentencing range: Community order (HIGH) - 2 years custody

So given the evidence of texting,not seeing someone on a pedestrian crossing and driving over them.
You feel the sentence reflects that?

sinbad182

custardy wrote: »

Ah the usual little shot over the bows.
You will note unlike yourself I seem to have the ability to control my temper and reflect it in my posting style.
Your temprament however is what I would expect

Now now Custardy, you wouldn't be trying to devalue my argument by making cheap, erroneous claims that I'm a bad tempered and beligerent poster would you? Because that is barrel scraping stuff and only shows your flawed non points up even more.

Mark_Mark

custardy wrote: »

Once again you miss the point. If this is all the law can give out then its no fit for purpose.
6 months for killing someone and perverting the course of justice.
When the maximum available is 2 years without the perverting the course of justice charge.
You see it as a non story despite a kid being killed?

once more I draw your attention to this law

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

I would say this case comes under



So given the evidence of texting,not seeing someone on a pedestrian crossing and driving over them.
You feel the sentence reflects that?

What about this comment?

Had his poor driving caused her death, Foster would be looking at ‘years and not months’, he added.

Obviously something's gone wrong with the prosecution case.

custardy

sinbad182 wrote: »

Now now Custardy, you wouldn't be trying to devalue my argument by making cheap, erroneous claims that I'm a bad tempered and beligerent poster would you? Because that is barrel scraping stuff and only shows your flawed non points up even more.

You havent answered my points in the post? Why not?

The part you cherry picked referred to this part of your own post.

Oh, and as said in the other thread, grow up. You seem to have all the responsibility and reasoning skills of a petulant teenager, which for someone who claims to have been a road user for 20+ years is pretty shocking.

custardy

Mark_Mark wrote: »

What about this comment?

Had his poor driving caused her death, Foster would be looking at ‘years and not months’, he added.

Obviously something's gone wrong with the prosecution case.

and nail on the head.
In my opinion is poor driving did. As an HGV driver he should be ensuring he stops with enough room to allow a full view of a crossing.
Especially on a busy high street at school home time.
The classic didnt see them,sun in my eyes etc is the normal get out that is trotted out,and seems accepted in most cases

look at this one

http://road.cc/content/news/107394-suspended-sentence-and-12-month-ban-driver-who-killed-suffolk-cyclist

simply didnt see them.

I wonder if the DVLA were/are aware

https://www.gov.uk/personality-disorder-and-driving

sinbad182

custardy wrote: »

You havent answered my points in the post? Why not?

The part you cherry picked referred to this part of your own post.

I and other posters have addressed every non point you responded with numerous times before in this thread and the others. It's not my fault that you have absolutely no capability to process this due to your black and white views on the subject, and I certainly wont keep repeating myself.

The passage you referred to from my own post still has no relevance to your accusation that I've somehow lost my temper and/or have a bad temprament. Its a clear statement of fact about your posting style and complete lack of reason when it comes to this subject.

Mark_Mark

custardy wrote: »

and nail on the head.
In my opinion is poor driving did. As an HGV driver he should be ensuring he stops with enough room to allow a full view of a crossing.
Especially on a busy high street at school home time.
The classic didnt see them,sun in my eyes etc is the normal get out that is trotted out,and seems accepted in most cases

look at this one

http://road.cc/content/news/107394-suspended-sentence-and-12-month-ban-driver-who-killed-suffolk-cyclist

simply didnt see them.

I wonder if the DVLA were/are aware

https://www.gov.uk/personality-disorder-and-driving

Your opinion sadly doesn't matter.

The pathology report should give cause of death. It will be along the lines of

Injuries as found
Road Traffic Collision or consistent with.

They proved the dangerous driving as he was convicted of that, however there appears to be a problem with the cause.

This is why the daily mail is such a bad source as this doesn't add up. Now can you understand what I am getting at?

You can quote x y and z as facts, however the papers on reporting true facts.

Mark_Mark

custardy wrote: »

look at this one

http://road.cc/content/news/107394-suspended-sentence-and-12-month-ban-driver-who-killed-suffolk-cyclist

simply didnt see them.

I wonder if the DVLA were/are aware

https://www.gov.uk/personality-disorder-and-driving

CTC campaigner Rhia Weston said: "Again we see far more emphasis in court on the impact of a fatal collision on the perpetrator of the collision than on the victims (i.e. the bereaved’s family).

"It doesn’t matter how charitable a person is, this does not affect their form of driving, therefore, although a suspended sentence is appropriate in this case, it should have been accompanied by a much longer driving ban and possibly a re-test."

A cyclist accepting a suspended sentence is enough surely not? Again a failure to understand the law as I don't think careless has the power to retest.

custardy

Mark_Mark wrote: »

Your opinion sadly doesn't matter.

The pathology report should give cause of death. It will be along the lines of

Injuries as found
Road Traffic Collision or consistent with.

They proved the dangerous driving as he was convicted of that, however there appears to be a problem with the cause.

This is why the daily mail is such a bad source as this doesn't add up. Now can you understand what I am getting at?

You can quote x y and z as facts, however the papers on reporting true facts.

Yes but this is common in many cases.
As i have mentioned before. The bus driver driving through 2 cyclists on a clear road is the one that jars me.
no screen wash and driving beyond the scope of his vision(by his own words)
yet no conviction.

Mark_Mark

custardy wrote: »

Yes but this is common in many cases.
As i have mentioned before. The bus driver driving through 2 cyclists on a clear road is the one that jars me.
no screen wash and driving beyond the scope of his vision(by his own words)
yet no conviction.

What is common, the press not reporting the full facts?