cyclist deaths & the law

custardy

Mark_Mark wrote: »

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.

A cyclist? Is it again one speaking/being representative for all?
Maybe it is but this person could be back on the roads in a year.
So where's the punishment to worry others?
If you hit a cyclist and dont have a record.
just say you didnt see them.
back driving in a year

Mark_Mark

custardy wrote: »

A cyclist? Is it again one speaking/being representative for all?
Maybe it is but this person could be back on the roads in a year.
So where's the punishment to worry others?
If you hit a cyclist and dont have a record.
just say you didnt see them.
back driving in a year

Is in your view the criminal justice system about punishment or rehabilitation?

custardy

Mark_Mark wrote: »

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

common that cyclists being killed results in on or little punishment.
okay,given i have had communication with the family(and you seem determined facts are missed)


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-22397918


driving ban and community service.

Sheriff James Scott spared McCourt a prison because there were no aggravating factors, such as drink or drug abuse.

He said the collision between McCourt and Mrs Fyfe was caused because he had "momentarily" lost concentration, adding: "I take into account that the accused has repeatedly expressed genuine remorse for causing the death of Mrs Fyfe.

So be sobre,say sorry and it was a mistake.
Still time to clock up death number 3

custardy

Mark_Mark wrote: »

Is in your view the criminal justice system about punishment or rehabilitation?

Well what is the rehabilitation in killing someone with a car?
forced retest? or what.
The punishment is there to show what happens if you kill someone.
jailing someone for murder doesnt bring someone back,so why bother?

Mark_Mark

custardy wrote: »

common that cyclists being killed results in on or little punishment.
okay,given i have had communication with the family(and you seem determined facts are missed)


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-22397918


driving ban and community service.



So be sobre,say sorry and it was a mistake.
Still time to clock up death number 3

I've shown you facts are missed with the Birmingham case. It simply doesn't add up as reported.

custardy

Mark_Mark wrote: »

I've shown you facts are missed with the Birmingham case. It simply doesn't add up as reported.

well thats an assumption.
looking over past cases it would seem facts are missed in most,or it could just be that realistic sentences arent handed out.
thees one theory that in most cases the judge/sheriff can empathise with the driver and the momentary lapse in concentration' (as above)and treats the case accordingly

Mark_Mark

custardy wrote: »

common that cyclists being killed results in on or little punishment.
okay,given i have had communication with the family(and you seem determined facts are missed)


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-22397918


driving ban and community service.



So be sobre,say sorry and it was a mistake.
Still time to clock up death number 3

What was this one, careless driving?

I didn't see what he was convicted of.

Mark_Mark

custardy wrote: »

well thats an assumption.
looking over past cases it would seem facts are missed in most,or it could just be that realistic sentences arent handed out.
thees one theory that in most cases the judge/sheriff can empathise with the driver and the momentary lapse in concentration' (as above)and treats the case accordingly

What's an assumption?

I explained how it works, so either someone's !!!!ed up of the press are being selective in what they report.

Either way the public aren't getting the fully story.

Cornucopia

The key comment from the Birmingham case is this:-

Judge Andrew Menary, QC, said Foster was not to blame for Hope’s death because he could not have seen her as she moved on to the road.

The implication being that she moved out into traffic after the truck began moving and in such a position that the driver could not see her.

It's tragic, but I honestly don't see the argument for punishing drivers for things that are beyond their reasonable control.

Oh, and they don't just throw these cases together, they have forensic accident investigations. They know the facts of the accidents in significantly greater detail than will ever get reported in the press.

custardy

Mark_Mark wrote: »

What was this one, careless driving?

I didn't see what he was convicted of.

Careless driving,same as the 1st cyclist he killed