cyclist deaths & the law 30 June 2012 at 8:44PM edited 30 November -1 at 12:00AM in Motoring 500 replies 25.1K views

Mark_Mark

custardy wrote: »

and as has been covered before.
if ithe sentencing guidelines dont work,they need changed.
or are people to die with no consequence?
Or is the real world you live in fine with your mate just being rebanned?

Don't stress about it as it will never happen, as to do that they would have to admit the criminal justice system doesn't work.


But if the vote goes the right way for you maybe you can change things in Scotland.







And for the record, I haven't got any mates who are banned.

Cornucopia

custardy wrote: »

or are people to die with no consequence?

This isn't the issue - people die without consequence all the time.

The issue is whether they are being killed with/without consequence.

It's a critical difference.

Trebor16

custardy wrote: »

So ban for life,then go with jail terms.
seems easy enough

If a person is given a life ban they can apply to a court after 5 years to get their licence back.

custardy

Mark_Mark wrote: »

And for the record, I haven't got any mates

Okay Mark,understood.

Retrogamer

custardy wrote: »

qualifications?

You don't need a list of qualifications to know when i stamp on the brakes, they don't have ample power to cause the tyres to break traction.

They are not faulty either, just older vehicles with modern good tyres.

custardy

Retrogamer wrote: »

You don't need a list of qualifications to know when i stamp on the brakes, they don't have ample power to cause the tyres to break traction.

They are not faulty either, just older vehicles with modern good tyres.

You do according to Mark.unless you agree with him of course

custardy

http://road.cc/content/news/111362-suspended-sentence-lorry-driver-who-killed-cyclist-and-claimed-he-was-unable

She said: "Witnesses said he did not brake or deviate, even after the collision. Some witnesses feared he was not going to stop, although he did do so.

She rejected claims made by Reed when he was interviewed by police that although he had seen Mr Ruff, traffic in the lane outside him meant he could not pull out, while vehicles behind meant he was unable to stop.

"Witness accounts do not support that, they say lane two was empty,” she said. "In any case, there was room for Mr Reed to pass safely while remaining in lane one."

So you decided to drive through him without braking?

but its fine
Have a suspended sentence and tootle off home

six month prison sentence, suspended for two and a half years.

Retrogamer

That's a disgrace.

Idiophreak

custardy wrote: »

So you decided to drive through him without braking?

If he'd have braked, the car behind may have hit him...

!!!!!!!?

I mean, seriously, !!!!!!.

Who brings "I couldn't stop...there was stuff behind me" into court with a straight face...

And *how* do they walk out of the courtroom having killed someone. This country's just insane.

Retrogamer

Not to mention the witness statements contradicted the drivers.

It's no wonder people often taken the law into their own hands when judgments like this are given.