Kill a cyclist when [censored]- serve 9 months.

spindrift said:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3174653.ece

Mr Doughty was not killed, my mistake, just left at the side of the
road by a drunk uninsure driver and suffering debilitating injuries.

What, exactly, does a driver have to do to face a proper punishment
after smashing into a cyclist and driving off?

spindrift said:

spindrift said:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3174653.ece

Mr Doughty was not killed, my mistake, just left at the side of the
road by a drunk uninsure driver and suffering debilitating injuries.

What, exactly, does a driver have to do to face a proper punishment
after smashing into a cyclist and driving off?

There can be no proper punishment. If you take the biblical view, the
man should be maimed and brain-damaged and have his life ruined as is
his victim's. If you take the view that the man knowingly used a lethal
weapon in public while alcohol-impaired, that has to be murder and the
current sentence is life imprisonment in one of our already apparently
overcrowded prisons.

In my view the man must make reparation to his victim, either by nursing
him (or providing a surrogate nurse from his own income) or by carrying
out appropriate community service for a very considerable period of
time. Given the scant information on the criminal (e.g., broken ASBO,
failing to stop at scene, 8 cans of lager...) it seems unlikely that he
would undertake any such reparations without constant and expensive
supervision.

It therefore seems that a fairly token period of prison time, as
determined by the judge, is the best we can do at the moment (and
piously hope it may have a sobering influence). More importantly, we
must try to ensure he never acts in the same way again, by imposing a
life driving ban.

--
Brian G
www.wetwo.co.uk

Quoted message said:

If you take the biblical view, the
man should be maimed and brain-damaged and have his life ruined as is
his victim's.

<pedant mode> Old Testament view </>

Mark T said:

Quoted message said:

If you take the biblical view, the
man should be maimed and brain-damaged and have his life ruined as is
his victim's.

<pedant mode> Old Testament view </>

I thank you for the sermon. My biblical knowledge is no less shaky than
my knowledge of the Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam or the complete works of
Liam Gallagher :-)

--
Brian G
www.wetwo.co.uk

spindrift said:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3174653.ece

As accurate as ever in your summary, I see ;-)

It does though, make one wonder whether compulsory insurance is such a
good thing. Those who don't have it have a big disincentive to hanging
about after a collision to help - they will be prosecuted whether it was
their fault or not. Those with it will succumb to "risk compensation",
and drive a bit less carefully, happy that they will be covered,
whatever the consequences of their actions. I wonder if any studies
have been done into the effects on road safety of compulsory insurance.

--
Matt B

spindrift said:

spindrift said:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3174653.ece

Mr Doughty was not killed, my mistake,

Preconception, wishful thinking, or what?

Quoted message said:

just left at the side of the
road by a drunk uninsure driver and suffering debilitating injuries.

Disgraceful. One of the downsides of requiring compulsory insurance though.

Quoted message said:

What, exactly, does a driver have to do to face a proper punishment
after smashing into a cyclist and driving off?

1) To have actually done it deliberately.
2) To have killed the victim.

Here, again, we see one of the consequences of providing special
low-culpability, low-proof-requirement offences especially to convict
motorists, the penalties must be low.

Justice would be better served by removing the huge raft of "special
laws", created to make it easy to convict motorists of /something/, and
revert to the time-tested common law, the laws that are used
satisfactorily day-in, day-out for all non-motoring offences.

We will see even more outcries soon, as the new low-proof,
low-culpability, "technicality" "death by" laws are used, which will
also necessitate low penalties.

--
Matt B

spindrift said:

spindrift said:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3174653.ece

Mr Doughty was not killed, my mistake, just left at the side of the
road by a drunk uninsure driver and suffering debilitating injuries.

From which it seems he is never going to recover ...

spindrift said:

Quoted message said:

What, exactly, does a driver have to do to face a proper punishment

after smashing into a cyclist and driving off?

OTH the cyclist in Cornwall who killed a pedestrian was given a
suspended sentence

Sir Jeremy said:

spindrift <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What, exactly, does a driver have to do to face a proper punishment

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

after smashing into a cyclist and driving off?

Quoted message said:

OTH the cyclist in Cornwall who killed a pedestrian was given a
suspended sentence

By what and how high?

Quoted message said:

In my view the man must make reparation to his victim, either by nursing
him (or providing a surrogate nurse from his own income) or by carrying
out appropriate community service for a very considerable period of time.
Given the scant information on the criminal (e.g., broken ASBO, failing to
stop at scene, 8 cans of lager...) it seems unlikely that he would
undertake any such reparations without constant and expensive supervision.

It therefore seems that a fairly token period of prison time, as
determined by the judge, is the best we can do at the moment (and piously
hope it may have a sobering influence). More importantly, we must try to
ensure he never acts in the same way again, by imposing a life driving
ban.

Brian G

A life driving ban in these circumstances is necessary. Sadly creeps like
this will drive and drive again.
We need more imagination in punishment, we need our government to consider
fairly preventable crimes like this instead of the vain, press conscious
empty posturing we've had for years now.

John

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:03:26 -0000 someone who may be "John Clayton"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

A life driving ban in these circumstances is necessary. Sadly creeps like
this will drive and drive again.

The Westminster government's "identity" card scheme could cover this
easily. However, they will not do so due to the motoring lobby being
against it.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

"David Hansen" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:03:26 -0000 someone who may be "John Clayton"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

A life driving ban in these circumstances is necessary. Sadly creeps
like
this will drive and drive again.

The Westminster government's "identity" card scheme could cover this
easily. However, they will not do so due to the motoring lobby being
against it.

Surely that would just increase then numbers of unregistered drivers?

pk

On 15 Jan, 20:03, "John Clayton" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In my view the man must make reparation to his victim, either by nursing
him (or providing a surrogate nurse from his own income) or by carrying
out appropriate community service for a very considerable period of time..
Given the scant information on the criminal (e.g., broken ASBO, failing to
stop at scene, 8 cans of lager...) it seems unlikely that he would
undertake any such reparations without constant and expensive supervision.

Quoted message said:

It therefore seems that a fairly token period of prison time, as
determined by the judge, is the best we can do at the moment (and piously
hope it may have a sobering influence).  More importantly, we must tryto
ensure he never acts in the same way again, by imposing a life driving
ban.

Quoted message said:

Brian G

A life driving ban in these circumstances is necessary.   Sadly creeps like
this will drive and drive again.
We need more imagination in punishment, we need our government to consider
fairly preventable crimes like this instead of the vain, press conscious
empty posturing we've had for years now.

John

In July 2003 James Foster was tragically killed in a road traffic
accident. He was on a bicycle, an experienced cyclist, killed by
coincidence outside the bike shop that he worked on Essex Road, London
N1.

The driver, Sabrina Harman (24 of Apprentice Way, Clarence Road,
London E5), when breathalised was found to be over the legal limit.

Later examination of the skid asseses a speed of approximately 47 -
55mph (in an area with a 30mph limit). Sabrina has a previous
conviction for drink driving,On 21 June 2001, she was in court for
drink driving, fined £190 and disqualified for one year.

She was given 21 months' gaol sentence and disqualified from driving
for three years. She will serve half the sentence and be on license
for the remainder of the time. She appeared to smile as the sentence
was passed.

Sabrina was speeding, drunk, unlicensed, uninsured and driving with a
previous drink driving conviction just two years earlier for which she
was fined and disqualified from driving for one year.

This time she had a learner driver passenger and she ran down and
killed an innocent cyclist through her criminal negligence.

In these circumstances, a car is a dangerous weapon.

For all these simultaneous offences, she received 21 months custodial
sentence and merely a three-year driving ban - almost spent by the
time her sentence is over.

Family and friends now ask: * After so much time and effort was put
into collecting evidence for the prosecution, why was so little effort
made to present it? *

Why was James- life not acknowledged in the court? *

What more could Sabrina have done to be disqualified from ever
legally driving again?

http://www.deter.org.uk/consequence.php

On 14 Jan, 23:36, JNugent <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Sir Jeremy said:

spindrift said:

>What, exactly, does a driver have to do to face a proper punishment
after smashing into a cyclist and driving off?

OTH the cyclist in Cornwall who killed a pedestrian was given a
suspended sentence

By what and how high?

For instance the woman speeding in an unfamiliar who killed a cyclist
walked free from court:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23397488-details/Former+model+killed+cyclist+while+test+driving+sports+car+in+high+heels/article.do

This woman had been done for speeding twice in recent years, she was
driving at 20mph over the maximum speed limit in a car she was unfit
to drive with her limited driving skills and she was wearing
ridiculous 2.5 inch heel shoes. Drivers have to realise they have an
enormous responsibility to the safety of others, but this woman
obviously didn't care about anybody else. Only severe jail terms will
make such road users realise that driving a car is not something that
can be taken lightly.

This sentence is a joke, a lovely girl is dead and this woman walks
off in her high heels.

David Hansen said:

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:03:26 -0000 someone who may be "John Clayton"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

A life driving ban in these circumstances is necessary. Sadly creeps like
this will drive and drive again.

The Westminster government's "identity" card scheme could cover this
easily.

how????

However, they will not do so due to the motoring lobby being

Quoted message said:

against it.

And anyone that doesn't trust the government to get it right.

David Hansen said:

On Tue, 15 Jan 2008 20:03:26 -0000 someone who may be "John Clayton"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

A life driving ban in these circumstances is necessary. Sadly creeps like
this will drive and drive again.

The Westminster government's "identity" card scheme could cover this
easily.

How? Would it continuously monitor each driver of each vehicle at all
times, to ensure they weren't banned? If drivers were more rigorously
checked for validity at the roadside, it would simply create a market
for forged id cards with the "clean driving licence" bit set to true.
Any banned motorist would then become "legitimate", and untouchable.

Quoted message said:

However, they will not do so due to the motoring lobby being
against it.

Can you cite evidence to support that. Don't you think that we should
/all/ oppose anything, and everything to do with the "identity" card scheme?

--
Matt B

spindrift said:

For instance the woman speeding in an unfamiliar who killed a cyclist
walked free from court:

It wasn't the "speeding" though that led to the collision was it. Do
you think that she could have pulled-off that manoeuvre safely, in the
same circumstances, at the same speed, if the speed limit had been 20
mph higher?

No, it was inappropriate speed for the circumstances that caused the
problem. The result would have been exactly the same whether the speed
limit there had been 5, 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 or 70 mph.

Quoted message said:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23397488-details/Former+model+killed+cyclist+while+test+driving+sports+car+in+high+heels/article.do

--
Matt B

Matt B said the following on 16/01/2008 09:39:

Quoted message said:

Can you cite evidence to support that. Don't you think that we should
/all/ oppose anything, and everything to do with the "identity" card
scheme?

[censored] - there's something I agree with you about :-)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 08:52:51 -0000 someone who may be "PK"
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The Westminster government's "identity" card scheme could cover this
easily. However, they will not do so due to the motoring lobby being
against it.

Surely that would just increase then numbers of unregistered drivers?

They wouldn't be able to start a car.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54