Driver who killed cyclist told to expect jail.



On 1 Feb, 16:54, "Simon Mason" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Case of a texting speeding driver killing a red light jumping cyclist.
>
> http://qurl.com/3sczj
>
> --
> Simon Masonhttp://www.simonmason.karoo.net/



OK, I'll bite. It is the sort of accident of which I have been
expecting to see more. Some cyclists may learn something from it, but
as the outcomes are so unequal, I doubt that motorists will. Motorists
are likely to just note that the initial cause of the accident was the
action of the cyclist.

To me it shows that Darwinism is running in reverse.
 

> as the outcomes are so unequal, I doubt that motorists will. Motorists
> are likely to just note that the initial cause of the accident was the
> action of the cyclist.


But as a motorist, and a cyclist....that must be most of us
surely???.....they would be correct in blaming the
cyclist IMHO.

When I saw it on the news last night, I was amazed the girl had been treated
so harshly...her
crime was using a mobile whilst driving....3 points and 60 quid fine.

She may not have hit the
cyclist had she not been texting, but surely you cant ignore, completely,
the law breaking cyclist....had he stopped, as he
should, he's still alive.

Lessons for me as a cycling/driver !
 
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008, boulder <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> She may not have hit the cyclist had she not been texting, but
> surely you cant ignore, completely, the law breaking cyclist....had
> he stopped, as he should, he's still alive.


Yeah! I vote we lock his body up for 6 months - that's what these
people need, a taste of prison, that'll learn him.

And repeat offenders - string em up. Anyone killed twice going
through a red light, automatic death penalty I reckon.

Twit.


--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
 
boulder wrote:

>
>> as the outcomes are so unequal, I doubt that motorists will. Motorists
>> are likely to just note that the initial cause of the accident was the
>> action of the cyclist.

>
> But as a motorist, and a cyclist....that must be most of us
> surely???.....they would be correct in blaming the
> cyclist IMHO.
>
> When I saw it on the news last night, I was amazed the girl had been
> treated so harshly...her
> crime was using a mobile whilst driving....3 points and 60 quid fine.


Look, I agree that hitting the cyclist was unintended, and that the cyclist
was breaking the law. The sentence should not be harsher just because a
cyclist was where he should not have been and got himself killed. That's a
side issue.

But texting while driving should mean a severe sentence, whether you hit
anyone or not. So should doing 45mph in a 30mph zone. Doing 45mph in a
30mph while texting certainly ought to mean prison.

> She may not have hit the
> cyclist had she not been texting, but surely you cant ignore, completely,
> the law breaking cyclist....had he stopped, as he
> should, he's still alive.


Absolutely. But had she lost control of the car while texting and ploughed
through a bus queue at 45mph, there would have been a lot of deaths and
they would have been innocent ones. You simply can't have people texting -
or phoning - while driving.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

;; I'll have a proper rant later, when I get the time.
 
"boulder" <[email protected]> writes:

>> as the outcomes are so unequal, I doubt that motorists will. Motorists
>> are likely to just note that the initial cause of the accident was the
>> action of the cyclist.

>
> But as a motorist, and a cyclist....that must be most of us
> surely???.....they would be correct in blaming the
> cyclist IMHO.
>
> When I saw it on the news last night, I was amazed the girl had been treated
> so harshly...her
> crime was using a mobile whilst driving....3 points and 60 quid fine.
>
> She may not have hit the
> cyclist had she not been texting, but surely you cant ignore, completely,
> the law breaking cyclist....had he stopped, as he
> should, he's still alive.
>
> Lessons for me as a cycling/driver !


If you kill someone when you're doing something potentially dangerous
then that has consequences. Road traffic law is hardly unique in this
respect.
 
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 06:46:14 -0000, boulder <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> as the outcomes are so unequal, I doubt that motorists will. Motorists
>> are likely to just note that the initial cause of the accident was the
>> action of the cyclist.

>
> But as a motorist, and a cyclist....that must be most of us
> surely???.....they would be correct in blaming the
> cyclist IMHO.
>
> When I saw it on the news last night, I was amazed the girl had been treated
> so harshly...her
> crime was using a mobile whilst driving....3 points and 60 quid fine.


Well she was speeding as well. She has also received 3 FPNs for
speeding, two of them on the road leading up to the junction. I think
that because it was a text message the judge is treating the whole thing
more seriously than a phone call as well.

> She may not have hit the
> cyclist had she not been texting, but surely you cant ignore, completely,
> the law breaking cyclist....had he stopped, as he should, he's still alive.


Actually he did stop before going through the red - presumably because
the junction and approach roads were clear. Still wrong but not quite
as reckless as you paint.


I also find it disappointing that the Times article on this mentioned
the fact that the cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet.

--
Andy Leighton => [email protected]
"The Lord is my shepherd, but we still lost the sheep dog trials"
- Robert Rankin, _They Came And Ate Us_
 
boulder said the following on 02/02/2008 06:46:

> She may not have hit the
> cyclist had she not been texting, but surely you cant ignore, completely,
> the law breaking cyclist....had he stopped, as he
> should, he's still alive.


She was doing 45mph in a 30mph limit, through a junction, whilst texting
on her phone. She should have been imprisoned regardless of whether or
not she'd actually had a collision. At the very least she should have
been banned from driving - for ever.

I'm certainly not going to defend the law-breaking cyclist, but this
woman was an accident waiting to happen. It happened.

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

> I also find it disappointing that the Times article on this mentioned
> the fact that the cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet.


no, he died of head injuries..
 

>
> Yeah! I vote we lock his body up for 6 months - that's what these
> people need, a taste of prison, that'll learn him.
>
> And repeat offenders - string em up. Anyone killed twice going
> through a red light, automatic death penalty I reckon.
>
> Twit.


do be so ridiculous. It would have been enough just to tie his body up for
a few days on the traffic lights he ignored.
Some people have to try to make light of everything

Twit ? Ouch
 
boulder wrote:
>> I also find it disappointing that the Times article on this mentioned
>> the fact that the cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet.

>
> no, he died of head injuries..
>
>

Fair enough, but being T-boned at 45mph is pretty lethal even if you're
sitting in a car.
 
"boulder" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>>
>> Yeah! I vote we lock his body up for 6 months - that's what these
>> people need, a taste of prison, that'll learn him.
>>
>> And repeat offenders - string em up. Anyone killed twice going
>> through a red light, automatic death penalty I reckon.
>>
>> Twit.

>
> do be so ridiculous. It would have been enough just to tie his body up
> for a few days on the traffic lights he ignored.
> Some people have to try to make light of everything
>
> Twit ? Ouch

You make the mistake of confusing the offence of using a hand-held mobile
whilst driving with that of causing death by dangerous driving. The woman is
not being imprisoned for using the mobile, but for not looking where she was
going. All other contributory factors, the mobile use , the red-light
jumping, are secondary to this.
 
In article <[email protected]>, boulder
[email protected] says...
>
> > I also find it disappointing that the Times article on this mentioned
> > the fact that the cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet.

>
> no, he died of head injuries..
>

A helmet is designed to provide protection if you fall off a bike, not
if you're hit with a ton of metal doing 45mph.
 
On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 10:11:32 +0000 someone who may be Paul Boyd
<usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote this:-

>She was doing 45mph in a 30mph limit, through a junction, whilst texting
>on her phone.


Apparently she also had a long criminal career before this crash,
involving several cases of exceeding the speed limit.



--
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
 
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 10:30:22 -0000 someone who may be "boulder"
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>> I also find it disappointing that the Times article on this mentioned
>> the fact that the cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet.

>
>no, he died of head injuries..


Cycle helmets might provide some protection at speeds up to around
12mph. At roughly four times that speed they are immaterial. "The
Times" was victim blaming in mentioning what clothes the cyclist was
not wearing.



--
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 wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 10:30:22 -0000 someone who may be "boulder"
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>
>>>I also find it disappointing that the Times article on this mentioned
>>>the fact that the cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet.

>>
>>no, he died of head injuries..

>
>
> Cycle helmets might provide some protection at speeds up to around
> 12mph. At roughly four times that speed they are immaterial. "The
> Times" was victim blaming in mentioning what clothes the cyclist was
> not wearing.


He was his own victim. Had he waited at the red lights, the outcome
would have been completely different. But he knew better than to wait
at red lights.
 
On 3 Feb, 11:05, JNugent <[email protected]>
wrote:
> David Hansen wrote:
> > On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 10:30:22 -0000 someone who may be "boulder"
> > <[email protected]> wrote this:-

>
> >>>I also find it disappointing that the Times article on this mentioned
> >>>the fact that the cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet.

>
> >>no, he died of head injuries..

>
> > Cycle helmets might provide some protection at speeds up to around
> > 12mph. At roughly four times that speed they are immaterial. "The
> > Times" was victim blaming in mentioning what clothes the cyclist was
> > not wearing.

>
> He was his own victim. Had he waited at the red lights, the outcome
> would have been completely different. But he knew better than to wait
> at red lights.



Thats true, but not the full story though. The driver was an accident
waiting to happen. Texting while driving is lunacy and getting 9
points on your licence by speeding on the same stretch of road shows a
complete lack of awareness of one's surroundings.

However by jumping the red light the cyclist was partly to blame and
will give her a discount on her sentence
 
Sir Jeremy wrote:

> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>David Hansen wrote:
>>>"boulder" <[email protected]> wrote:


>>>>>I also find it disappointing that the Times article on this mentioned
>>>>>the fact that the cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet.


>>>>no, he died of head injuries..


>>>Cycle helmets might provide some protection at speeds up to around
>>>12mph. At roughly four times that speed they are immaterial. "The
>>>Times" was victim blaming in mentioning what clothes the cyclist was
>>>not wearing.


>>He was his own victim. Had he waited at the red lights, the outcome
>>would have been completely different. But he knew better than to wait
>>at red lights.


> Thats true, but not the full story though. The driver was an accident
> waiting to happen. Texting while driving is lunacy and getting 9
> points on your licence by speeding on the same stretch of road shows a
> complete lack of awareness of one's surroundings.


Absolutely.

> However by jumping the red light the cyclist was partly to blame and
> will give her a discount on her sentence.


Quite. As someone else has said, there wouldn't have been a collision
(on that occasion, at least) if the unfortunate cyclist had not gone
through the red light.
 
On Feb 3, 9:43 am, David Hansen <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Feb 2008 10:11:32 +0000 someone who may be Paul Boyd
> <usenet.is.worse@plusnet> wrote this:-
>
> >She was doing 45mph in a 30mph limit, through a junction, whilst texting
> >on her phone.

>
> Apparently she also had a long criminal career before this crash,
> involving several cases of exceeding the speed limit.


The fact she had been caught 3 times on that stretch of road before
indicates she wasn't aware of her surroundings, I doubt she even knew
what the speed limit was, or what speed she was traveling at.

Had it been a pedestrian just walking, across the road, the same thing
would have happened, but there would be no blame for crossing without
a green man, and no complaints about a pedestrian not wearing a helmet
(which pedestrians should do when crossing, or walking near, the road
IMO)
 
> Had it been a pedestrian just walking, across the road, the same thing
> would have happened, but there would be no blame for crossing without
> a green man, and no complaints about a pedestrian not wearing a helmet
> (which pedestrians should do when crossing, or walking near, the road
> IMO)


if there was a usenet group uk.rec.pedestrian, full of militant people who
like
to cross a road now and again, maybe things would be different
 

Similar threads