Nigel Bedford

[Just Zis Guy]

From BBC News. Note comments of Judge:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/3390577.stm

"This was an isolated momentary aberration but one of a grave nature and of
grave consequence. No amount of sentence imposed upon one can ever be seen
to be appropriate or proportionate in relation to the loss of a precious
young man,"

Which raises two questions for me: first, if no sentence can adequately
reflect the gravity of the offence, is a 3-year ban a close enough
approximation?

Second, do we believe that this was "an isolated momentary aberration" - how
likely is it that this would happen the first time a driver ever experienced
the twin joys of speeding and dangerous overtaking?

Man jailed for moped death crash
================================

An architect and talented sportsman has been jailed for causing the death of
a teenage moped rider in a crash in Somerset.

Nigel Bedford, 27, from Bath, was speeding and trying to overtake other
vehicles on the B3090 near Frome on 21 March 2003 when he struck 17-year-old
Lee Westlake head-on. The teenager died at the scene.

Bedford, who had represented England in the modern pentathlon, pleaded
guilty at an earlier hearing to causing death by dangerous driving.
On Monday at Bristol Crown Court he was jailed for eight months and banned
from driving for three years.

'Sudden manoeuvre'
The court heard Bedford had been driving at more than 40mph on the
single-carriageway road, which had a 30mph speed limit, when he hit Mr
Westlake's moped with such force that the helmet he was wearing came off.

Witnesses described seeing Bedford, who was on his way to meet friends in
Bath, make a "sudden manoeuvre" on to the wrong side of the road to
overtake.

Defence barrister Ray Tully described Bedford as an "exceptional young man"
who was described in references as hard-working, honest and reliable.

Bedford, who worked as an architect in a Bath practice, was said to be
"racked with guilt".
Sentencing him, Judge Tom Crowther said: "This was an isolated momentary
aberration but one of a grave nature and of grave consequence.

"No amount of sentence imposed upon one can ever be seen to be appropriate
or proportionate in relation to the loss of a precious young man," he added.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

 

[Pete Barrett]

On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 17:44:49 -0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>From BBC News. Note comments of Judge:
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/3390577.stm
>
>"This was an isolated momentary aberration but one of a grave nature and of grave consequence. No
>amount of sentence imposed upon one can ever be seen to be appropriate or proportionate in relation
>to the loss of a precious young man,"
>
>Which raises two questions for me: first, if no sentence can adequately reflect the gravity of the
>offence, is a 3-year ban a close enough approximation?
>
And an 8 month jail sentence. I suppose the real question is, will it stop him doing it again? and
will it stop others doing it?

>Second, do we believe that this was "an isolated momentary aberration" - how likely is it that this
>would happen the first time a driver ever experienced the twin joys of speeding and dangerous
>overtaking?
>
Probably not, but it is possible, and I suppose he ought to have the benefit of the doubt, since he
didn't have any previous convictions for speeding (or the judge would have said so).

What worries me is that this is so much greater than the sentence he'd have got for speeding. Why is
it that we have to wait for someone to actually kill someone before they're stopped from putting
other people's lives at risk?

Pete Barrett

 

[Johnb]

Pete Barrett wrote:

> On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 17:44:49 -0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >From BBC News. Note comments of Judge:
> >
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/3390577.stm
> >
> >"This was an isolated momentary aberration but one of a grave nature and of grave consequence. No
> >amount of sentence imposed upon one can ever be seen to be appropriate or proportionate in
> >relation to the loss of a precious young man,"
> >
> >Which raises two questions for me: first, if no sentence can adequately reflect the gravity of
> >the offence, is a 3-year ban a close enough approximation?
> >
> And an 8 month jail sentence. I suppose the real question is, will it stop him doing it again? and
> will it stop others doing it?

No.

> Why is it that we have to wait for someone to actually kill someone before they're stopped from
> putting other people's lives at risk?

Unfortunately even where innocent people _have_ been killed the drivers are too often still allowed
to continue as if nothing had happened.

John B

 

[Richard Goodman]

"Pete Barrett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> And an 8 month jail sentence. I suppose the real question is, will it stop him doing it again? and
> will it stop others doing it?

It won't stop others. It will stop him, at least for the time he's banged up and for as long as he
observes the ban. It's also possible to think that he will regard it as a sad and salutary lesson
and reform his manner of driving when he finally does get back behind the wheel.

>
> What worries me is that this is so much greater than the sentence he'd have got for speeding. Why
> is it that we have to wait for someone to actually kill someone before they're stopped from
> putting other people's lives at risk?
>

The problem here was more in the dangerous overtaking than in the speeding but I, and I suspect most
people's, sense of justice suggests that sentences for potentially harmful activity should be lower
than sentences for actually harmful activity. The severity of the sentence has to reflect the scale
of the wrongdoing, and actually killing someone has to be worse than doing something that 'only'
risked it.

Rich

 

[Simon Brooke]

Pete Barrett <[email protected]> writes:

> On Mon, 12 Jan 2004 17:44:49 -0000, "Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >From BBC News. Note comments of Judge:
> >
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/somerset/3390577.stm
> >
> >"This was an isolated momentary aberration but one of a grave nature and of grave consequence. No
> >amount of sentence imposed upon one can ever be seen to be appropriate or proportionate in
> >relation to the loss of a precious young man,"
> >
> >Which raises two questions for me: first, if no sentence can adequately reflect the gravity of
> >the offence, is a 3-year ban a close enough approximation?
> >
> And an 8 month jail sentence. I suppose the real question is, will it stop him doing it again? and
> will it stop others doing it?

Deterrance generally doesn't work like that. People would not take these risks if they had a
balanced judgement of the consequences. The human mind does not compute probabilities well, and most
people (probably including myself) assume that if they've got away with something nine times,
they'll get away with it again the tenth.

If the thought that 'if I overtake here, I might kill someone' doesn't inhibit you from overtaking
the thought that 'if I overtake here I might go to jail for eight months commuted to five on good
behaviour' probably won't either.

What's needed is not a change in sentencing policy, and certainly isn't longer sentences - which
benefit no-one - it's a change in social attitudes. One of the attitudes which needs to change, of
course, is the attitude that people have a right to hold a drivers license. An attitude of one
strike and you're out, no license to drive for the rest of your life, no ifs, no buts, no appeal
might not make people safer drivers but would ensure the people who weren't safer drivers didn't
ever have a second crash.

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

;; Want to know what SCO stands for? ;; http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20030605

 

[Just Zis Guy]

"Richard Goodman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

> The problem here was more in the dangerous overtaking than in the speeding

My view is that both speeding and unsafe overtaking have the same root cause.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk

 

[Dave Larrington]

Pete Barrett wrote:

> What worries me is that this is so much greater than the sentence he'd have got for speeding. Why
> is it that we have to wait for someone to actually kill someone before they're stopped from
> putting other people's lives at risk?

Yes, but once he starts driving again, the chances are he'll be killed by a rogue speed camera
before too lo er, hang on...

--

Dave Larrington - http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk/
===========================================================
Editor - British Human Power Club Newsletter
http://www.bhpc.org.uk/
===========================================================

 

[Pete Barrett]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 00:07:18 -0000, "Richard Goodman"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>The problem here was more in the dangerous overtaking than in the speeding but I, and I suspect
>most people's, sense of justice suggests that sentences for potentially harmful activity should be
>lower than sentences for actually harmful activity. The severity of the sentence has to reflect the
>scale of the wrongdoing, and actually killing someone has to be worse than doing something that
>'only' risked it.

Not my sense of justice. As I see it, people should be punished (if they do something that deserves
punishment) for what they actually do, not for the (often unintended) consequences of it. In the
case of these sort of traffic offences it would be for risking someone else's life, and the degree
of punishment should reflect the degree of risk. If two people equally risk the lives of others why
should the one who gets caught by the police before he kills someone get off lighter?

Pete Barrett

 

[Just Zis Guy]

On Tue, 13 Jan 2004 19:08:01 +0000, Pete Barrett
<[email protected]> wrote:

>As I see it, people should be punished (if they do something that deserves punishment) for what
>they actually do, not for the (often unintended) consequences of it. In the case of these sort of
>traffic offences it would be for risking someone else's life, and the degree of punishment should
>reflect the degree of risk. If two people equally risk the lives of others why should the one who
>gets caught by the police before he kills someone get off lighter?

One difficulty is that it is hard to measure risk objectively. An action which does result in a
serious crash is not necessarily more dangerous than one which, by luck, does not - but it is
reasonable to suppose that the actions which cause serious crashes are, by and large, more dangerous
than those that do not.

I don't necessarily agree with that point of view, but I am very firmly of the opinion that trivial
penalties for negligence which causes death and serious injury are against the puublic good; I am
equally of the opinion that serious penalties for non-injury infractions are unlikely to be
politically feasible. It's bad enough at the moment trying to get people to accept that when they
break the law they should pay a fine and shut up.

Guy
===
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://chapmancentral.demon.co.uk