cyclist death HGV driver sentenced

[goldenecitrone]

So goldencitrone has now been promoted to the rank of known 'motor driven vehicle' hater? Blimey, good work dude

The difference is that I just get pissed off with the motor vehicle drivers who don't give a fuck for other road users safety wheras Dr.Death seems happy for all cyclists to get crushed for having the temerity to ride on the road.

 

[detective-boy]

See, that's the big issue really isn't it. It is their opinion at the end of the day, and opinions can be a very moveable feast if you like. And if in their opinion, the case isn't really worth 'giving it a run' as you put it, the existing precedent doesn't really stand a chance of shifting in reality.

At the margins, that may be true. But where the legislation is clear (as here) or the case law is settled, they will not proceed - it is not so much as an "opinion" in such cases as an assessment of the evidence and simple comparison with what is required.

The difference between careless and dangerous driving is clear and settled. The evidence in this case sounds like it fitted clearly into careless and missed dangerous by a mile.

They are only too well aware that the Courts will not extend the law in huge leaps and bounds (such as would be needed here) and where the case is at the margin they will take cases to test the limits of the law.

The answer in this type of case is not in the hands of the police, CPS or Courts. It is in the hands of the government. The gap between careless driving and causing death by dangerous driving is one of the most gaping in the criminal law (with only the death by careless driving whilst drunk / with excess alcohol in the middle, something which is irrelevant where drink is not a factor).

 

[Dr_Herbz]

Perhaps we could make it an ongoing competition, he stands a pretty fair chance of winning it every week, I would have thought.

Perhaps you could explain why you think this is the case or perhaps you just like to be seen with your tongue buried up Ed's arse?

The difference is that I just get pissed off with the motor vehicle drivers who don't give a fuck for other road users safety wheras Dr.Death seems happy for all cyclists to get crushed for having the temerity to ride on the road.

Where did I say that or what did I say that makes you think I would wish that on anyone... or are you just lying and hoping people will believe you?

I wouldn't wish anyone to be crushed by a motor vehicle but if someone is stupid enough put themself in a position where it is more likely than not that they will get run over, then don't expect me to have any sympathy for them either. If they want to play Russian roulette with HGVs, don't try to make me feel a cunt for not feeling sorry for them. THEY put themself in the situation, I don't force them to do it.

 

[detective-boy]

If justice is to be fair, it must surely aim to be seen to be fair and I really don't think that has happened in this case tbf.

Part of the problem is that peole tend to see justice from one side - the one they identify or sympathise with. Frequently "They didn't get justice" could be translated as "They didn't get revenge".

It would be equally unjust for the driver to be excessively sentenced for a minor act of carelessness just because the outcome was tragic ... and it is the seriousness of the unlawful action, not the seriousness of the outcome, which is relevant here and in much other law (e.g. assault - if you have a row with someone and punch them you are likely to get convicted of common assault or ABH even if they ended up cracking their head on the kerb and dying).

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

The difference between careless and dangerous driving is clear and settled. The evidence in this case sounds like it fitted clearly into careless and missed dangerous by a mile.

Sorry but I disagree again. My old chums at the CPS have the following on their site on the charge of dangerous driving:

Dangerous driving can therefore cover a range of behaviours from a single error of judgement to a prolonged and deliberate course of driving with disregard for the safety of other road users. It is important to recognise that a single inadvertent act or omission may possibly fall so far below the standard of driving of a competent and careful driver that it constitutes dangerous driving.

It is not necessary to consider what the driver thought about the possible consequences of his actions: simply whether or not a competent and careful driver would have observed, appreciated and guarded against obvious and material dangers.

I think it is certainly arguable that the driver has fallen foul of the highlighted sections i.e. the single act of driving away from traffic lights in a 2-tonne lorry whilst not actually looking at the road does, imo, constitute falling so far below the standard of a competent and careful driver as to be dangerous. Thus, I would like to have seen the counter-argument that this wasn't the case properly tested in court.

And is it the case that, once the CPS decide to press a charge of careless driving only, it then becomes a decided advantage for the driver in question to confess to the nature of his incompetence, and thus also end up with a reduced sentence for his seeming co-operation and contrition? So the CPS effectively decide to take the 'safe' option as far as prosecution goes and the defence then take the 'best' option as far as sentencing goes.

Meanwhile, cyclists feel as unprotected as ever and a residual anger will inevitably be played out in encounters of this kind. Makes me sad and it makes me angry. Point taken on the government, can't really see that its going to be a big vote winner though so plus ca change, plus ca meme chose eh?

Just seen your point on justice/revenge - revenge isn't expecting someone to be banned from driving who has killed another through an act of (my words) self-admitted gross negligence whilst driving, I'd call expecting him to be banned from driving as justice. He's licensed to drive in a certain way, he has failed to drive in any way relating to the standard expected, he should therefore lose his license until such time as DVLA are satisfied that he won't be pulling away from road junctions without looking at the road. Simple as.

 

[detective-boy]

Sorry but I disagree again.

And again you fall into the trap of believing that the law can be accurately and completely summarised in a couple of sentences - the CPS comment about a single act being enough to substantiate a charge of dangerous driving in some cases is right ... but that is at the extreme and the act needs to be something very significantly more than here.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

The only trap i have fallen into is in expecting our 'justice' system to give a shit about yet another cyclist dying on our roads. Ho hum.

 

[Geri]

Perhaps you could explain why you think this is the case or perhaps you just like to be seen with your tongue buried up Ed's arse?

It's a general observation based on your idiotic postings.

 

[Dr_Herbz]

Paulie, let me ask you a question and please try to answer it honestly...

If, instead of a cyclist, a woman had pushed her child's pram into the space between the HGV and the railings, would (in your opinion) this be a safe practice or would it be a reckless act?

 

[Dr_Herbz]

It's a general observation based on your idiotic postings.

Show me some of these posts you refer to, show me the error of my ways and maybe I can learn from my mistakes.
Or just fuck off and stop being an arse licking prick!

 

[detective-boy]

The only trap i have fallen into is in expecting our 'justice' system to give a shit about yet another cyclist dying on our roads.

You do your (perfectly justifiable) cause no favours by portraying this as some sort of discrimination against cyclists. It isn't. Exactly the same issue has arisen in the past, and will arise again in the future, in relation to drivers of motor vehicles and pedestrians.

 

[Buffalo Bill]

Sorry but I disagree again. My old chums at the CPS have the following on their site on the charge of dangerous driving:

Dangerous driving can therefore cover a range of behaviours from a single error of judgement to a prolonged and deliberate course of driving with disregard for the safety of other road users. It is important to recognise that a single inadvertent act or omission may possibly fall so far below the standard of driving of a competent and careful driver that it constitutes dangerous driving.

It is not necessary to consider what the driver thought about the possible consequences of his actions: simply whether or not a competent and careful driver would have observed, appreciated and guarded against obvious and material dangers.

I think it is certainly arguable that the driver has fallen foul of the highlighted sections i.e. the single act of driving away from traffic lights in a 2-tonne lorry whilst not actually looking at the road does, imo, constitute falling so far below the standard of a competent and careful driver as to be dangerous. Thus, I would like to have seen the counter-argument that this wasn't the case properly tested in court.

And is it the case that, once the CPS decide to press a charge of careless driving only, it then becomes a decided advantage for the driver in question to confess to the nature of his incompetence, and thus also end up with a reduced sentence for his seeming co-operation and contrition? So the CPS effectively decide to take the 'safe' option as far as prosecution goes and the defence then take the 'best' option as far as sentencing goes.

Thanks, Pauli, this is one of the best reasoned posts on why the CPS went for careless instead of something more serious.

 

[Buffalo Bill]

You do your (perfectly justifiable) cause no favours by portraying this as some sort of discrimination against cyclists. It isn't. Exactly the same issue has arisen in the past, and will arise again in the future, in relation to drivers of motor vehicles and pedestrians.

That's a fair point. Road crime is not treated with sufficient gravity in general.

 

[Dr_Herbz]

Ok, here's a scenario... a builder on a scaffold leaves his hammer down for a minute and accidentally kicks it over the edge. The hammer lands on someone's head and kills them. Should the builder be charged with manslaughter?

 

[editor]

Ok, here's a scenario... a builder on a scaffold leaves his hammer down for a minute and accidentally kicks it over the edge. The hammer lands on someone's head and kills them. Should the builder be charged with manslaughter?

Wow. That's waaaay out there.

 

[goldenecitrone]

Ok, here's a scenario... a builder on a scaffold leaves his hammer down for a minute and accidentally kicks it over the edge. The hammer lands on someone's head and kills them. Should the builder be charged with manslaughter?

If it falls on your head then no, he's done the world a great service. Tit!