Another time trialer killed, has justice prevailed?

[pigman]

having known someone killed on the A1 in a TT, i have strong opinions. In short, timetrialling needs to get away from standard distances and fast courses and get onto "normal" roads, results being based on placings, and points awarded so that one can judge consistency (like road races).

I had the misfortune to come back from Hull last year when there was a 10 happening. It was pissing it down too. With all the spray it was hard to see riders (some had back light flashers, which should be compulsory). There aint room on that road for a cyclist. an overtaking lorry and a car. Inevitably its the cyclist who gets squeezed and heavens help him if he swerves. Utter madness, but my mates ride that course cos its the fastest around.

I remember reading the comic of 20 yrs plus ago when TTers regularly boasted of riding in the middle of the A1 to get as close to trucks as poss and get sucked along. Feccenell, what were they thinking?

 

[Easy_Rider]

Sad news and I really feel for the family. At the risk of being flamed, I am of the personal opinion that the sentence shouldn't be needlessly heavy. The money spent keeping her in jail could be spent educating the motorists in that area. Her life is destroyed anyway, whether she spends 1 year or 5 years in jail makes no difference, to live with the soul of another on your conscience must be a horrible thing. I'm sure she never meant to harm anyone and she was only driving as most young people do. If the aim is to achieve a wider awareness and better safety for cyclists then giving this young girl a 5 year sentence won't achieve that. Better to give her community service educating young drivers. When I look back and think what a tit I was at times and how things could have gone quite quickly wrong (not with cyclists though because I came from road cycling I always gave respect). Just driving too fast everywhere.

I'm sure that the young lad in that second story will not do anything so silly again, to take the licence of a young 18year old is punishment in my opinion. I'm sure he's been lectured on the the points that cyclists have the right to be on the road and the dangers. What more would anyone want? Everyone needs a second chance in life. Where we've gone wrong is a wider problem, violence and confrontation in our society, we can't keep going round putting out little fames here and there and punishing people when the problem is huge.

I give all road users plenty of room now, but I can see the impatience of other drivers behind me if i'm not glued to the guys bumper in front, (what difference does it make, we're all driving at the same speed so why so close?) I give cyclists a wide berth and only overtake if it's safe to do so, so many just follow the car in front. I don't dawdle, but i refuse to drive so fast through built up residential areas as some do. I watch these same pillocks who will speed all the way through a 30 and then sit at 45mph through a national speed limit, these idiots wind me up just pure ignorants, if you were in such a rush before and all that.... :evil:

 

[South Bound]

There is an element of deterrent that needs to be applied to sentencing. Yes the girl has to live with what she has done, but people do not consider that when they use their mobiles (soooo many younger girls/women seem to be texting when they are driving...) as noone can know what it feels like. The realistic threat of time inside will wake people up.

Maybe phones should carry health warnings or mobile companies should be forced to text warnings to people. Maybe the fine for using a mobile should be increased - it is after all dangerous driving in itself. Maybe 6 points and £500 fine would be more of a deterrent to using mobiles than on the spot fines.

I am not saying that this incident was caused by mobile usage.

 

[channa]

There is an element of deterrent that needs to be applied to sentencing. Yes the girl has to live with what she has done, but people do not consider that when they use their mobiles (soooo many younger girls/women seem to be texting when they are driving...) as noone can know what it feels like. The realistic threat of time inside will wake people up.

Maybe phones should carry health warnings or mobile companies should be forced to text warnings to people. Maybe the fine for using a mobile should be increased - it is after all dangerous driving in itself. Maybe 6 points and £500 fine would be more of a deterrent to using mobiles than on the spot fines.

I am not saying that this incident was caused by mobile usage.

I agree with you sentencing needs to be a balance of punishment,deterrent and rehabilitation.

In terms of increasing points, It wouldnt surprise me if that doesnt happen.

You wont see an increase in a mandatory fine though. remember the £60 is the maximum discounted tarriff for pleading guilty at the earliest opportunity.

Electing a trial at Mags no doubtedly will cost more in costs alone, but fines are always issued in relation to what an offender can afford to pay.

Has things stand, use of a phone could result in failure to have proper control of a vehicle which carries potentially more points.( and was the charge prior to using a mobile becoming an endorsable offence)

What I do find interesting and yet to remain convinced isnt as dangerous is using hand held cb radios is still legal.

Channa

 

[crud]

After the guy who slid across a road with bald tyres and killed 3 cyclists at Abergele, was fined £350, I tend to think that a severe sentence is necessary.

You cant compare that case with this one.

not quite Abergele, this accident happened a few hundred yards from my house.

The tyres were not bald, only accounts ive heard are 'defective', i have heard locally that one was just below the legal limit, and the front two did not have full tread accoss the whole tyre. the driver was driving well below the posted speed limit.

The fine etc was for the tyres, the driver slid on black ice. so the low tread tyres didnt contribute to the accident.

here is an extract

In the early hours there had been an unpredicted sharp fall in the local temperature. The police were aware of a number of skidding incidents in the locality, including two off-duty officers and officers on duty who had slid on ice, yet failed to communicate this information to the relevant Council.

he was given six points for the tyres.

Still very sad indeed but mitigating circumstances such as other road uses losing traction had found not guilty of dangerous or carelss driving.

He didnt hire any fancy lawyer or try and to fight the case, i think he had been quoted at saying he wish he was dead and that he took full blame. It was the CPS that found him not guilty.

The press sensationalise these kind of stories, but I think in this case, as sad as it was, justice had been done.

 

[crud]

opps

 

[channa]

.

It was the CPS that found him not guilty.

Forgive a pedant moment, but the CPS dont proceed with a case because they dont see a successful conviction.

The result being no charges are layed.

or they proceed with a charge ( or couple of charges) in the belief they will gain a successful conviction.

The only people that can return a NG verdict is magistrates or if commited to trial a jury.

Sorry but to intimate that the CPS are judge and jury is simply not the case.

Channa

 

[Neil]

Did you see this?

http://road.cc/content/news/13795-teena ... -bargained

See that's where I have a problem with imprisoning some offenders.

This case involved some ne-er-do-well, actively doing something bad, to somebody else, and thought he could get away with it.

Now true enough, driving a car on a public road carries with it responsibilities, but sometimes people make mistakes - not actively out to do harm, but just make mistakes. Sure, the consequences can be very bad, but when you've got people actively trying to do harm and wrong, being given a slap on the wrist and a fine (I'll accept, nobody died in that instance, but the intent wasn't good), something is very wrong.

Intent (mens rea) has always mattered in law, and I just can't fathom people who are actively intended to do bad things getting fines, whilst negligent people (who didn't intend to do any harm, albeit with bad results) get banged up.

 

[channa]

[

This case involved some ne-er-do-well, actively doing something bad, to somebody else, and thought he could get away with it.

Now true enough, driving a car on a public road carries with it responsibilities, but sometimes people make mistakes - not actively out to do harm, but just make mistakes. Sure, the consequences can be very bad, but when you've got people actively trying to do harm and wrong, being given a slap on the wrist and a fine (I'll accept, nobody died in that instance, but the intent wasn't good), something is very wrong.

Intent (mens rea) has always mattered in law, and I just can't fathom people who are actively intended to do bad things getting fines, whilst negligent people (who didn't intend to do any harm, albeit with bad results) get banged up.

Courts are often reluctant to convict on Intent alone, It needs to be accompanied by sufficient actions (actus reus)

On this occasion there were sufficient actions that a conviction was successful, The bone of contention is perhaps the sentence, without knowing the history of the defendant it may well be he was of previous good character and because of his age it was'nt deemed necessary for a custodial.

In respect of the 'negligent' people who have no intent as such to cause harm. There is IMHO a point to remember and why often they are convicted.
In motoring cases,

Did their driving fall below the standard expected of a competent driver ?

If it is deemed that it did , then they are guilty.

The problem then is unless there are mitigating circumstances the fines can be heavy and are set down in magistrate sentencing guidelines.

An obvious example is someone decelerating from a 40 mph zone to a 30 mph zone and not being spot on 30 at the threshold.

They can demonstrate that they were decelerating, displaying the intent that they were aiming to achieve a speed of 30 mph...But the offence is still complete.

Minimum 3 points £60 at best attend court, at least another £ 15 on top for victim surcharges and then probably another £40 costs.

Channa

 

[Neil]

[

This case involved some ne-er-do-well, actively doing something bad, to somebody else, and thought he could get away with it.

Now true enough, driving a car on a public road carries with it responsibilities, but sometimes people make mistakes - not actively out to do harm, but just make mistakes. Sure, the consequences can be very bad, but when you've got people actively trying to do harm and wrong, being given a slap on the wrist and a fine (I'll accept, nobody died in that instance, but the intent wasn't good), something is very wrong.

Intent (mens rea) has always mattered in law, and I just can't fathom people who are actively intended to do bad things getting fines, whilst negligent people (who didn't intend to do any harm, albeit with bad results) get banged up.

Courts are often reluctant to convict on Intent alone, It needs to be accompanied by sufficient actions (actus reus)

It was, though - that's the thing. It was just a matter of luck that the results weren't a lot more serious or life threatening for the police cyclist chappie, but there was certainly plenty of actions involved - it wasn't for the lack of trying that it wasn't a tragedy, more simply blind luck.

And this isn't just about reluctance, it's about image and ease. If somebody makes a mistake - albeit a bad one - it's very easy to say (and do) justice must be done. But when some scrote means bad, does bad, and is just lucky that he didn't actually seriously harm anybody, society almost sorta says "No harm, no foul..." or "He's just a kid... slap his wrist and send him on his way".

All I'm saying is that the young 19 girl maybe was negligent or careless, but I very much doubt she intended it, or had any mean spirit about her. Contrast that with the scrote trying to repeatedly drive the police cyclist off the road, shouting:-

“Get off the road. I will run you off the road. I will kill you. Get off the road,"

to a police officer, a DI no less, who's already a more credible witness that a regular Joe, gets a suspended sentence, and a fine. Something is very wrong, somewhere.

It's all about ease, these days.

On this occasion there were sufficient actions that a conviction was successful, The bone of contention is perhaps the sentence, without knowing the history of the defendant it may well be he was of previous good character and because of his age it was'nt deemed necessary for a custodial.

Yet it's doubtful the young girl will get the same consideration...

As I said, something is very wrong, somewhere.

In respect of the 'negligent' people who have no intent as such to cause harm. There is IMHO a point to remember and why often they are convicted.
In motoring cases,

Did their driving fall below the standard expected of a competent driver ?

If it is deemed that it did , then they are guilty.

Oh I wouldn't argue with that - what I would argue, though, is that I'm far from convinced that most of the cases should result in a custodial sentence.

I get that somebody dying as a result is a serious thing - true enough - a serious thing, that warrants various forms of action - I'm just far from convinced that prison should form part of that, when there is no apparent intent.

To my mind, it's the people that truly mean harm that should be removed from society, not those that just made a very bad mistake, and are already probably very damaged about it.

The scrote attacking the police cyclist guy only probably wishes he hadn't done it because he got caught bang to rights. Otherwise, I wonder whether he'd be bragging to his mates about it.