£200 fine for killing

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,1271,-2735544,00.html

 

Hopefully the little prick wrap his skull round a lampost.

"Xpamh" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,1271,-2735544,00.html

 

On 31 May 2003 05:09:47 -0700, [email protected] (Xpamh) wrote:

>http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,1271,-2735544,00.html

How much longer can this sort of thing be allowed to go on for?

--
Dave...

 

Dave Kahn wrote:

> On 31 May 2003 05:09:47 -0700, [email protected] (Xpamh) wrote:
>
> >http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,1271,-2735544,00.html
>
> How much longer can this sort of thing be allowed to go on for?

As cyclists I think we need to start taking a much more aggressive stance than in the past. For far
too long we have been subjected to the relatively petty issues of riding on footpaths, wearing
helmets and not having bells, while the motoring fraternity rides roughshod over our society.

Who can fail to be disgusted at items such as this. Following the Baxter case we need to start being
much more pro-active in our campaigning - but not in the way that Reclaim the Streets and other
militant groups act.

Ordinary people, ordinary cyclists need to wake up to the fact that sentencing being handed out to
those who kill and maim on the roads is derogatory. It is a disgusting reflection on our society
that it has been allowed to become the norm. Even my youngest sees the damage such sentencing does
and recognises the damage inappropriate and dangerous car use has.

In another thread I have suggested that the risk to our rights on the road is potentially at serious
risk and I hope at last the CTC may be waking up to this.

Well, I want to cycle - I enjoy it. My whole family regularly rides bikes - they enjoy it and it is
good for their health and independence. It is our pastime and our main mode of transport.

It sounds cliched, but if we are not to lose our rights on the roads we need to take action NOW. As
the CTC is now admitting, working behind the scenes doesn't work. We need to start staging publicity
stunts and to reach the national and local media. Write to your MPs, councillors, newspapers, radio
stations. Use shock tactics if you like.

Let the abhorrence of these sentences be made known and let the disgust at how this reflects on our
society be publicised.

You ask "How much longer can this sort of thing go on for?"

It will be as long as we let it.

John B

 

"Xpamh" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]sting.google.com...
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,1271,-2735544,00.html

Words are inadequate to express the outrage I feel at sentences like this, in this sort of case.
Causing death by careless driving should at least be dealt with as manslaughter.

Rich

 

In article <[email protected]>, John B <[email protected]> writes

[snip]
>Who can fail to be disgusted at items such as this. Following the Baxter case we need to start
>being much more pro-active in our campaigning - but not in the way that Reclaim the Streets and
>other militant groups act.
[snip]
>It sounds cliched, but if we are not to lose our rights on the roads we need to take action NOW. As
>the CTC is now admitting, working behind the scenes doesn't work. We need to start staging
>publicity stunts and to reach the national and local media. Write to your MPs, councillors,
>newspapers, radio stations. Use shock tactics if you like.

I take it you mean that 'Reclaim the Streets and other militant groups' aren't militant enough?

--
congokid Eating out in London? Read my tips... http://congokid.com

 

congokid wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, John B <[email protected]> writes
>
> [snip]
> >Who can fail to be disgusted at items such as this. Following the Baxter case we need to start
> >being much more pro-active in our campaigning - but not in the way that Reclaim the Streets and
> >other militant groups act.
> [snip]
> >It sounds cliched, but if we are not to lose our rights on the roads we need to take action NOW.
> >As the CTC is now admitting, working behind the scenes doesn't work. We need to start staging
> >publicity stunts and to reach the national and local media. Write to your MPs, councillors,
> >newspapers, radio stations. Use shock tactics if you like.
>
> I take it you mean that 'Reclaim the Streets and other militant groups' aren't militant enough?

Um not really.

RTS too often aligns itself with violent protest and in a manner that does not attract reasonable
discussion of the issues. As a result their arguments are not taken too seriously. They also seems
to be infiltrated by other groups or individuals who have other agendas of a more political nature.

IMO they tend to do more harm than good to the image of cycling.

John B

 

On Sat, 31 May 2003 21:46:19 +0100, John B <[email protected]> wrote:

>Write to your MPs, councillors, newspapers, radio stations

Yes indeed. And write to Alistair Darling and Shagger Norris and anybody else you can think of.

Guy
===
** WARNING ** This posting may contain traces of irony. http://www.chapmancentral.com (BT ADSL and
dynamic DNS permitting)
NOTE: BT Openworld have now blocked port 25 (without notice), so old mail addresses may no longer
work. Apologies.

 

On Sun, 1 Jun 2003 00:03:40 +0100, "Richard Goodman" <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Xpamh" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,1271,-2735544,00.html
>
>Words are inadequate to express the outrage I feel at sentences like this, in this sort of case.
>Causing death by careless driving should at least be dealt with as manslaughter.
>
AIUI the driver wasn't/couldn't be charged with causing death by dangerous driving as the victim was
wearing dark clothing, was not using lights and got hit after dark.

Tim
--
I understand very little of what's being discussed but for some reason it's fascinating.

(Jon Thompson, urs)

 

On 31 May 2003 05:09:47 -0700, [email protected] (Xpamh) wrote:

>http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,1271,-2735544,00.html

There are two offences here; killing the cyclist and driving whilst banned.

The first one I don't know the details of. There's a huge range of possible scenarios here, from a
blameless cyclist and an evil driver, to an innocent driver and a lemming-like cyclist. I don't know
what this case was, but I do know how easy it is to mis-represent it either way for an easy
newspaper headline. We've all seen cyclists who do their damnedest to make themselves hard to see,
especially in October.

Until I see some evidence otherise, I'm inclined to trust the court in their judgement on the fine
imposed for careless driving. Maybe he should have been charged with other offences too, but that
sounds more of an issue for the CPS.

Secondly, he wasn't let off the charge of driving whilst banned because it hadn't happened yet !
Maybe he now needs dragging off to the Tower in chains, but using this _later_ misdemeanour as an
excuse for a "our courts are too soft" story is pure Daily Mail hysteria.

 

On Mon, 02 Jun 2003 13:42:11 +0100, Andy Dingley <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 31 May 2003 05:09:47 -0700, [email protected] (Xpamh) wrote:
>
>>http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,1271,-2735544,00.html
>
> There are two offences here; killing the cyclist and driving whilst banned.
>
<snip>
>
> Until I see some evidence otherise, I'm inclined to trust the court in their judgement on the fine
> imposed for careless driving. Maybe he should have been charged with other offences too, but that
> sounds more of an issue for the CPS.
>
> Secondly, he wasn't let off the charge of driving whilst banned because it hadn't happened yet !
> Maybe he now needs dragging off to the Tower in chains, but using this _later_ misdemeanour as an
> excuse for a "our courts are too soft" story is pure Daily Mail hysteria.
>

I don't know about driving while banned but according to the Gruaniad article, he had never passed
his test and had a string of driving convictions. So in one way he couldn't be banned anyway. He was
never entitled to drive on the road in the first place.

Regards,

Tim.

--
God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = - @B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.

http://tjw.hn.org/ http://www.locofungus.btinternet.co.uk/

 

"Tim Hall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Sun, 1 Jun 2003 00:03:40 +0100, "Richard Goodman" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >"Xpamh" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> >> http://www.guardian.co.uk/uklatest/story/0,1271,-2735544,00.html
> >
> >Words are inadequate to express the outrage I feel at sentences like
this,
> >in this sort of case. Causing death by careless driving should at least
be
> >dealt with as manslaughter.
> >
> AIUI the driver wasn't/couldn't be charged with causing death by dangerous driving as the victim
> was wearing dark clothing, was not using lights and got hit after dark.
>

Correct.

A while ago a friend of mine was traumatised when he pulled out in his car across a T-junction in
the dark and hit a cyclist.

Said cyclist had no lights and was wearing black/very dark clothing. None the less my friend was
upset and concerned but the police recommended he make a claim against the cyclist for damage to his
car as the cyclist was in the wrong.

I cycle and I drive - and I see just as many irresponsible lunatics on two wheels as on four!
Regularly at night I see unlit cycles with virtually invisible riders.

 

On Mon, 2 Jun 2003 13:00:42 +0000 (UTC), Tim Woodall <[email protected]> wrote:

>So in one way he couldn't be banned anyway.

You can be issued a licence, just to standardise the paperwork of having it banned.

Friend of mine had one at age 14, having been arrested whilst blind drunk in the back seat of a
stolen Escort (the others had legged it). Seems a bit unfair really - his defence that he'd been
unconscious when placed in it was _entirely_ in character.

 

Paul Kelly wrote:
>
> Correct.
>
> A while ago a friend of mine was traumatised when he pulled out in his car across a T-junction in
> the dark and hit a cyclist.
>
> Said cyclist had no lights and was wearing black/very dark clothing. None the less my friend was
> upset and concerned but the police recommended he make a claim against the cyclist for damage to
> his car as the cyclist was in the wrong.
>
> I cycle and I drive - and I see just as many irresponsible lunatics on two wheels as on four!
> Regularly at night I see unlit cycles with virtually invisible riders.
>

It's funny but as far as I can tell the fact that he was unlit was a major issue and the fact that
the driver was speeding a relative non-issue. The fact that you regularly see unlit cyclists
suggests that perhaps they are not really much more difficult to spot than unlit pedestrians at
sensible speeds?

The cyclist in your anecdotal story was clearly at fault but when all is said and done I'd rather be
traumatised by a bike than terminated by a car. YMMV.

Daniel.

 

"Tim Hall" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> AIUI the driver wasn't/couldn't be charged with causing death by dangerous driving as the victim
> was wearing dark clothing, was not using lights and got hit after dark.
>

I know the charge was 'only' careless driving and not causing death by dangerous driving, and it may
be that the cyclist was unlit - that wasn't reported in the Guardian article - but the point to my
mind is that death was caused and this driver was held largely responsible as the conviction shows,
even if only for the lesser offence of careless driving. Not only that but this driver was an
unlicensed driver with a string of other offences behind him. Even leaving aside all the previous,
the fact that this driver's carelessness resulted in death surely merits more than a £200 fine.

Rich

 

On Sun, 1 Jun 2003 00:03:40 +0100, "Richard Goodman" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Words are inadequate to express the outrage I feel at sentences like this, in this sort of case.
>Causing death by careless driving should at least be dealt with as manslaughter.
>

Unfortunately, Rich, one cannot be jailed for careless driving. The offence has to be dangerous
driving at the very least before a custodial sensence can be handed down.

The problem in this case, IMO, lies with the CPS who elected not to bring the charge of
dangerous driving.

I heard today that the driver was travelling at 60mph in a 30mph limit and was overtaking a van
which had stopped to let the boy cross the road when the crash happened. The driver's actions were
far more than careless to my mind. Carelessness implies to me a momentary lack of attention, whereas
dangerousness implies acting with deliberate intent. His [the driver's) action fell into the latter
category as far as I'm concerned.

The incident happened at dusk, I understand, and I doubt whether the car would have been able to
miss the young lad even if he'd been wearing light-coloured clothing and had been lit up like a
football stadium.

Surely the driver's attitude in flouting his many bans could be treated as contempt of court, which
is worth four years if you're Jeffery Archer.

James

--
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/c.butty/Dscf0632.jpg

 

"James Hodson" <[email protected]> wrote in message

> Unfortunately, Rich, one cannot be jailed for careless driving. The offence has to be dangerous
> driving at the very least before a custodial sensence can be handed down.
>

Yes, it is unfortunate. You can, however, be jailed for manslaughter. The CPS, the Courts etc,
always seem to pussyfoot around when it comes to dealing with death by seriously negligent motoring
offences. In other areas of life manslaughter probably is the normal charge for causing death by a
seriously negligent act. Why not in motoring?

> The problem in this case, IMO, lies with the CPS who elected not to bring the charge of dangerous
> driving.
>
> I heard today that the driver was travelling at 60mph in a 30mph limit and was overtaking a van
> which had stopped to let the boy cross the road when the crash happened. The driver's actions were
> far more than careless to my mind. Carelessness implies to me a momentary lack of attention,
> whereas dangerousness implies acting with deliberate intent. His [the driver's) action fell into
> the latter category as far as I'm concerned.
>
> The incident happened at dusk, I understand, and I doubt whether the car would have been able to
> miss the young lad even if he'd been wearing light-coloured clothing and had been lit up like a
> football stadium.
>

If that's the case then it is far worse than others suggested and I would surely agree that the
wrong charge was brought. Just that pussyfooting around in dealing with serious motoring
offenders again....

Rich

 

Richard Goodman wrote:
> "James Hodson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>I heard today that the driver was travelling at 60mph in a 30mph limit and was overtaking a van
>>which had stopped to let the boy cross the road when the crash happened. The driver's actions were
>>far more than careless to my mind. Carelessness implies to me a momentary lack of attention,
>>whereas dangerousness implies acting with deliberate intent. His [the driver's) action fell into
>>the latter category as far as I'm concerned.
>>
>>The incident happened at dusk, I understand, and I doubt whether the car would have been able to
>>miss the young lad even if he'd been wearing light-coloured clothing and had been lit up like a
>>football stadium.
>
> If that's the case then it is far worse than others suggested and I would surely agree that the
> wrong charge was brought. Just that pussyfooting around in dealing with serious motoring offenders
> again....

Really? To me, it sounds a more reasonable (in as much as they ever are) accident than it
did before.

A van stops in the road to let the boy cross, without consideration for how this might be
interpreted by the boy and other road users. Well, a stopping van's not unusual, so the vehicle
behind overtakes, without wondering why the van's stopped. A cyclist/pedestrian (as he's crossing
the road, it's unclear whether he's riding or pushing) assumes that because one vehicle's stopped,
it's safe, and continues out into the path of the overtaking vehicle, without checking to see if
it's as safe as the van driver implied. Classic case of all parties making minor errors of
judgement, with a horrible cumulative effect. FWIW, this kind of scenario is why I very rarely stop
to let other road users (of any kind) do anything unless I'm 100% sure that I'm not inviting them to
do anything that any other visible users may not expect.

Having said that, I'd say that the defendant did deserve to have the book thrown at him, as imo,
it's pretty dangerous driving by not being demonstrably in control of a vehicle (no licence), and to
be 100% over the speed limit is reckless, not careless.

w

 

William Turner wrote:
> Richard Goodman wrote:
>
>> "James Hodson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>
>>> I heard today that the driver was travelling at 60mph in a 30mph limit and was overtaking a van
>>> which had stopped to let the boy cross the road when the crash happened. The driver's actions
>>> were far more than careless to my mind. Carelessness implies to me a momentary lack of
>>> attention, whereas dangerousness implies acting with deliberate intent. His [the driver's)
>>> action fell into the latter category as far as I'm concerned.
>>>
>>> The incident happened at dusk, I understand, and I doubt whether the car would have been able to
>>> miss the young lad even if he'd been wearing light-coloured clothing and had been lit up like a
>>> football stadium.
>>
>>
>> If that's the case then it is far worse than others suggested and I would surely agree that the
>> wrong charge was brought. Just that pussyfooting around in dealing with serious motoring
>> offenders again....
>
>
> Really? To me, it sounds a more reasonable (in as much as they ever are) accident than it
> did before.
>

You must be a magistrate.

 

Daniel Wilcox wrote:
> William Turner wrote:
>> Really? To me, it sounds a more reasonable (in as much as they ever are) accident than it did
>> before.
>>
>
> You must be a magistrate.
>

I'm not sure whether you think that's good or bad...

To put it simply, as a driver/cyclist/pedestrian, I'm aware that the class of transport is
irrelevant to the competence level of the controller, and as such, assume everyone to be in the
least level of control of their charge unless otherwise proved. Just because I like class X of
transport does not automatically make them "in the right" or exonerate them from being stupid.

w