We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Driver hits cyclist, left for dead. Let off in court.
Comments
-
It was too lenientIt's absolutely not anything close to attempted murder, those are a very different scale of charges primarily because of the intent - there has been no evidence shown that the offender had the intent to injure the cyclist.
But the driver very intentionally, deliberately and maliciously left him for dead! You can't unintentionally drive a car away from a crime scene.I doubt the driver weighed up the potential risks of drunk driving and still chose to drive, even if nothing had happened and he'd been caught he would have still been facing a length ban. Therefore a more serious sentence isn't likely to make any difference in terms to future decisions...I still don't think longer sentences are going to help because in this case and too many others despite a serious minimum penalty for drink driving/failure to provide, people still do it...
Exactly! And in 20 months, he'll be able to maim or kill others on the road. If a serious sentence isn't going to make any difference to his future decisions, then he needs to be kept off the road for a much longer time to protect decent members of society.... and a longer sentence doesn't change the fact the person who was hit is still injured.
No sentence can undo injuries! That's not how sentencing works! Are you saying that, since the injuries can't be undone, the driver shouldn't be charged with anything?!... although I don't agree in writing off the penalty as too minor with no effect, I suspect as others have mentioned above it's likely to have serious implications on the offender's life.
The implications can't be anything like as bad for him as for the victim who was airlifted to hospital with serious injuries. By the sound of it, he might never walk again.
The driver CHOSE to risk these implications. And the injuries were made worse by the fact that the driver DELIBERATELY and maliciously refused to stop and help. This is absolutely callous behaviour!Death by dangerous or careless driving also prompts similar topics, there was a lady who was jailed for a couple of years or possibly a bit less as she was distracted while on her phone and tragically killed someone. She was sentenced within the guidelines but many online thought she should be in jail for longer. She showed genuine remorse and was never going to drive again after that, I struggle to see how a long jail sentence would really make any difference particularly when most in her position if caught on their phones would have only received a paltry three points on her license.
Sure. It sounds like that lady had suffered a lot as a result of her actions. And presumably, she didn't deliberately kill the person she hit and went to his aid immediately... unlike the driver in this case, who tried to save his own skin, risking (and probably causing) greater harm, and risking someone's life through intentional neglect.
To me, that level of cold-bloodedness is more concerning that someone who kills by accident. How can anyone leave a seriously injured person to just die alone by the side of the road?I doubt it will ever happen but I think more detection is key with the hope that some of these offences would have never happened in the first place.
I agree. I think there ought to be "black boxes" fitted to all cars, with CCTV so that there will be conclusive evidence in almost every crime committed on the roads.
But the idea that you think that a 20 month ban is too harsh seems crazy to me. What sentence do you think would be appropriate? Should he not have been banned at all, and just let off? Is it right to tell the public that it's perfectly fine if you hit someone and leave them for dead?0 -
It was too lenientI just saw a clip of a TV programme following the work of the police on the roads.
A man was pulled over and found to be drunk. He refused a breath test. He was arrested and subsequently given a 3 year ban, a 12-month community order and had to pay £145 in costs.
"All" he did was fail to provide a specimen for analysis. The driver I referred to in the OP did this, also hit someone leaving them with serious injuries, AND left the scene of an accident, leaving the cyclist for dead AND failed to report the accident.
I just seems disproportionate to other sentences.0 -
It was too harshI just saw a clip of a TV programme following the work of the police on the roads.
A man was pulled over and found to be drunk. He refused a breath test. He was arrested and subsequently given a 3 year ban, a 12-month community order and had to pay £145 in costs.
Sounds like another case of not getting the full story.0 -
-
It was too lenientA 3 year ban and 12 month Community Order for a simple failure to provide, I don't think so. Sounds like he/she is a repeat offender or there were other offences.
A three year ban is usually the start point for a repeat drink drive/ftp offence.
Judges and magistrates can (rightly) be influenced in their sentencing provision if good mitigation/remorse/guilty plea/previous god character is offered by the defence. Each case does need to be assessed individually.
Usually, our frustration at the level of sentencing is a product of either lack of knowledge of the detail of the case, or a bias in favour of the victim.
In the case of cyclists I do think that bias should become the norm. In other words I believe that those responsible for charging and sentencing need to fully appreciate the risks facing cyclists from inconsiderate, careless or dangerous driving. Driving that may be considered 'careless' around other motorists could quite easily be 'dangerous' in the vicinity of cyclists or other vulnerable road users, and this should more consistently be a consideration in deciding an appropriate charge.Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.0 -
I read all the research about helmets for cycling and decided they were probably of very little benefit (and could potentially be detrimental) so I didn't wear one for a few years. People with no knowledge of the subject often told me I should. I then read that lawyers in court would try to blame a cyclist for their own injuries and some had even succeeded in having claims reduced for cyclists that didn't wear helmets. So now I wear a helmet just so no-one could ever try to blame me in an accident. You don't want to be hit by a stupid motorist and then get told that you were somehow to blame for your injuries.0
-
It was too lenientI hadn't considered the fact that previous convictions would be taken into account, so maybe that explains the different sentences in different cases.
But I still think a 20-month ban and a trivial fine is way too light a sentence for someone who seriously injured someone and left them for dead.0 -
It was too lenientBut I still think a 20-month ban and a trivial fine is way too light a sentence for someone who seriously injured someone and left them for dead.
^^ There is a protest outside parliament today because a motorist who killed another driver "only" received a 6-year prison sentence.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36761849Gary Rae, director of campaigns for Brake, said: "Drivers who kill while taking illegal risks are too often labelled 'careless' in the eyes of the law, and then given insultingly low sentences when their actions can only be described as dangerous and destructive."
http://www.brake.org.uk/top-level/18-campaigns/1594-roads-to-justice-real-life-cases- 91% of people think drivers on drink or drugs who kill should be charged with manslaughter
- 66% of people believe drivers who kill should be jailed for a minimum of 10 years
- 84% of people think drivers who kill while breaking laws should be charged with dangerous and not careless driving
I can't see much difference in leaving someone for dead at the side of the road and actually killing them. I know these were different incidents and the driver in the news report above deserves a harsher sentence because it's harder to kill someone in a car than on a bike, but still...
People are almost literally getting away with murder.0 -
Anyone who hits a cyclist and leaves them for dead deserves prison but murder requires intent in their actions - it would be manslaughter if they are getting away with it - killing with a car seems to be an odd legal situation as, unless they can prove you were drunk or tired or aimed at the victim, you don't seem to get as serious jail time as other types of killing
Sam Vimes' Boots Theory of Socioeconomic Unfairness:
People are rich because they spend less money. A poor man buys $10 boots that last a season or two before he's walking in wet shoes and has to buy another pair. A rich man buys $50 boots that are made better and give him 10 years of dry feet. The poor man has spent $100 over those 10 years and still has wet feet.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.5K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.9K Spending & Discounts
- 244.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.2K Life & Family
- 258.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards