# Suspended sentence for lorry driver who reached for phone and killed cyclist



## andyfraser (16 Oct 2015)

http://road.cc/content/news/169124-...y-driver-who-reached-phone-and-killed-cyclist

I haven't seen this posted anywhere else so I put it here.

It makes my blood boil! I've emailed my MP for all the good that that will do. I don't know what else to do. This is disgusting.


----------



## andyfraser (16 Oct 2015)

[QUOTE 3957622, member: 9609"]it does mine too.

the law is a joke in this country[/QUOTE]
That's what I said to my MP. It's no wonder we get treated like crap on the roads if there's no deterrent.


----------



## glenn forger (16 Oct 2015)

Manslaughter.


----------



## mustang1 (16 Oct 2015)

In other news, the pilot of a boeing 747 on final approach, carrying 400 passengers, reached over to get his phone. 

The ensuing crash killed everyone on board plus an extra 200 on the ground. 

He got a suspended sentence due to a momentary lapse of concentration. 

600 people too many? Ok what if only 300 were killed? Or 100? Or 5? Or 1?


----------



## User32269 (16 Oct 2015)

I'm e-maiing a reply to Jeremy Corbyn in response to his requests for questions to put from the public at PMQs.
Would suggest others do the same. 

Will be interesting to see if a significant number of people did this, would there be a response?


----------



## Mo1959 (16 Oct 2015)

The judge said it was a moment of carelessness........................eh no, he broke the law!


----------



## Tin Pot (16 Oct 2015)

Why the leader of the opposition?


----------



## ColinJ (16 Oct 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> Why the leader of the opposition?


Because he is a cyclist and he is asking questions put forward by the public!


----------



## DaveReading (16 Oct 2015)

[QUOTE 3957889, member: 9609"]The Recorder (is that the judge?)[/QUOTE]

A Recorder appears to be the judicial equivalent to a PCSO: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recorder_(judge)


----------



## Drago (16 Oct 2015)

Its utterly unacceptable. If someone dies as a result of an unlawful act it should be murder II like in some other countries and sentenced accordingly.


----------



## snorri (16 Oct 2015)

[QUOTE 3957889, member: 9609"]The Recorder (is that the judge?) said “I hope this case will send a message to other road users, who we see day in and day out using mobile phones or other devices."
presumably that message is - kill a cyclist whilst playing with your phone and you will get a bit of unpaid community service work to do.[/QUOTE]
It seemed so wrong to "LIKE" your post, but I'm sure you know I was just agreeing with you.


----------



## Justinslow (17 Oct 2015)

I'm still seeing a lot of people out in Suffolk on phones whilst driving both speaking and texting, the message doesn't seem to be getting through. 
I'm not seeing many police officers.


----------



## Drago (17 Oct 2015)

And you're going to see less and less, and the ones you may catch a glimpse of will increasingly be poorly trained, less experienced and effective.


----------



## Venod (17 Oct 2015)

"The court heard that both men were committed churchgoers, reports the Plymouth Herald, as Recorder Donald Tait sentenced Noble"

WTF relevance has that got to the case, the lorry driver was in the wrong & got off very lightly, disgusting outcome.


----------



## hopless500 (17 Oct 2015)

Justinslow said:


> I'm still seeing a lot of people out in Suffolk on phones whilst driving both speaking and texting, the message doesn't seem to be getting through.
> I'm not seeing many police officers.


Ditto for Norfolk


----------



## Tin Pot (17 Oct 2015)

Are judges explaining their thinking?

I'm guessing that they see the action itself wasn't heinous, but the impact was due to bad luck. Hence a light penalty.

If that's the case then it strengthens the argument for segregating road use, and automating trucks.

Without the law to protect cyclists and enforce safe driving, it's becoming a folly.


----------



## jefmcg (17 Oct 2015)

http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Lor...ist-A38-near/story-27991629-detail/story.html



> banned from driving for 18 months.



So he is back driving before his suspended sentence is over?


----------



## winjim (17 Oct 2015)

Afnug said:


> "The court heard that both men were committed churchgoers, reports the Plymouth Herald, as Recorder Donald Tait sentenced Noble"
> 
> WTF relevance has that got to the case, the lorry driver was in the wrong & got off very lightly, disgusting outcome.


It appears to have been mentioned by the judge when sentencing. So working as a bit of an old boys network.


----------



## jefmcg (17 Oct 2015)

also this bit .... 


> While Noble did not himself testify to the court, one of his work colleagues said that he had confided that immediately before the collision he had reached for his mobile phone to play a sermon.



I wonder why he didn't testify? I suspect because he's a "Christian" he is superstitious about lying under oath, so got a friend to do it for him. He probably rightly believed that wanting to listen to a sermon would play well with this judge.


----------



## numbnuts (17 Oct 2015)

Afnug said:


> "The court heard that both men were committed churchgoers, reports the Plymouth Herald, as Recorder Donald Tait sentenced Noble"
> 
> WTF relevance has that got to the case, the lorry driver was in the wrong & got off very lightly, disgusting outcome.


I'm a churchgoer do I get an "out of jail free card" then


----------



## oldstrath (17 Oct 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> Are judges explaining their thinking?
> 
> I'm guessing that they see the action itself wasn't heinous, but the impact was due to bad luck. Hence a light penalty.
> 
> ...


The action itself was an accident precursor, which is exactly why it is illegal.
Until lawyers and judges understand risks properly there is no possibility of useful protection.


----------



## Pale Rider (17 Oct 2015)

The judge was following the national sentencing guidelines for death by careless.

Quoting:

*Nature of offence: Careless or inconsiderate driving arising from momentary inattention with no aggravating factors *
*Starting Point:* Community order (MEDIUM)
*Sentencing range:* Community order (LOW) - Community order (HIGH)

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/...g_death_by_careless_or_inconsiderate_driving/

In court speak, the sentence passed was a high level community order.


----------



## andyfraser (17 Oct 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> The judge was following the national sentencing guidelines for death by careless.
> 
> Quoting:
> 
> ...


Careless driving is hitting a lamppost. If the outcome of "careless" driving is the death of someone then it should be manslaughter.


----------



## numbnuts (17 Oct 2015)

andyfraser said:


> Careless driving is hitting a lamppost. If the outcome of "careless" driving is the death of someone then it should be manslaughter.


Constructive manslaughter


> For example, a person who runs a red light driving a vehicle and hits someone crossing the street could be found to intend or be reckless as to assault or criminal damage.
> There is no intent to kill, and a resulting death would not be considered murder, but would be considered involuntary manslaughter.


----------



## machew (17 Oct 2015)

And if you hit a car with a bike lock you get the same sentence
http://road.cc/content/news/169121-cyclist-who-hit-driver-bike-lock-sentenced-community-service


----------



## jefmcg (17 Oct 2015)

machew said:


> And if you hit a car with a bike lock you get the same sentence
> http://road.cc/content/news/169121-cyclist-who-hit-driver-bike-lock-sentenced-community-service


He hit a person with a bike lock. It's even in the link. 

If you hit someone with something as heavy as a bike lock, you should go to jail.

Edit: read the link, he was fending him off with the lock, rather than attacking him. But still, the punishment was for hitting a person as well as a car.


----------



## machew (17 Oct 2015)

jefmcg said:


> He hit a person with a bike lock. It's even in the link.
> 
> If you hit someone with something as heavy as a bike lock, you should go to jail.


Sorry I missed that bit, but hitting someone with a lock and killing someone gets the same jail term. WTF


----------



## oldstrath (17 Oct 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> The judge was following the national sentencing guidelines for death by careless.
> 
> Quoting:
> 
> ...


I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of your comment. But, leaving aside the legalisms, can you not see why many of us are angry that this man did something illegal, killed someone as a consequence, and essentially got let off?

At the very least he should never be allowed to drive again.

Mind, if he is such a devout believer maybe he'll be so overcome with remorse he'll stop driving and devote his life to telling others of his errors. Well, we can all hope.


----------



## theclaud (17 Oct 2015)

oldstrath said:


> I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of your comment. But, leaving aside the legalisms, *can you not see why many of us are angry that this man did something illegal, killed someone as a consequence, and essentially got let off?*
> 
> At the very least he should never be allowed to drive again.
> 
> Mind, if he is such a devout believer maybe he'll be so overcome with remorse he'll stop driving and devote his life to telling others of his errors. Well, we can all hope.



You're wasting your time - Pale Rider is a legal absolutist and the forum's principle apologist for the courts' failure to take dangerous driving seriously.


----------



## Pale Rider (17 Oct 2015)

oldstrath said:


> I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of your comment. But, leaving aside the legalisms, can you not see why many of us are angry that this man did something illegal, killed someone as a consequence, and essentially got let off?
> 
> At the very least he should never be allowed to drive again.
> 
> Mind, if he is such a devout believer maybe he'll be so overcome with remorse he'll stop driving and devote his life to telling others of his errors. Well, we can all hope.



The judge followed the sentencing guidelines, so the correct sentence was passed - that's a matter of fact.

The anger is understandable, although in this case I don't share it - that's a matter of comment.

Sentencing has always been based on a mixture of the level of criminality and consequences.

The criminality of the driver in this case was he allowed himself to be momentarily distracted while driving, the consequences were he killed someone.

It's not easy to balance a sentence when the two factors - criminality and consequences - are at opposite ends of their scales.

Your remarks about remorse may have been sarcastic, but you may accept a law abiding working family man will be severely troubled by having the death on his conscience.

That is what the judge was on about in his sentencing remarks:

Recorder Donald Tait said: “I hope this case will send a message to other road users, who we see day in and day out using mobile phones or other devices.

“It perhaps takes the tragic circumstances of this case to bring home the seriousness of doing this and I just hope other people will learn the lesson.”
Read more: http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/Lor...tory-27991629-detail/story.html#ixzz3oqIH5pue 
Follow us: @heraldnewslive on Twitter | theplymouthherald on Facebook


----------



## oldstrath (17 Oct 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> The judge followed the sentencing guidelines, so the correct sentence was passed - that's a matter of fact.
> 
> The anger is understandable, although in this case I don't share it - that's a matter of comment.
> 
> ...



Well, time will tell whether this particular killer actually feels enough remorse to do something about it. Perhaps eventually it will occur to regulators and lawyers that the continual parroting of 'Tragic events' and 'deeply remorseful', accompanied by letting off offenders is achieving exactly nothing to stop the killing.


----------



## Pale Rider (17 Oct 2015)

[QUOTE 3958779, member: 9609"]using a mobile phone whilst driving is illegal - surly that is an aggravating factor ?

if for instance the driver had come round a corner, found himself momentarily blinded by a low sun and hit a well camouflaged cyclist, then may be I could understand leniency, but killing someone whilst playing with a mobile phone or drink driving then it is time for long custodial sentence.[/QUOTE]

The guidelines grade the offence, it's already careless, but in your example of the momentarily blinded driver that might be a low level community order.

This driver has been given a high level community order to reflect the 'reaching across' for the mobile.

Actively playing with a mobile, or killing another road user while drunk, would attract more serious charges or a higher penalty for the same charge.

The maximum for death by careless, if tried at the crown court, is five years.


----------



## mjr (17 Oct 2015)

User32269 said:


> I'm e-maiing a reply to Jeremy Corbyn in response to his requests for questions to put from the public at PMQs.
> Would suggest others do the same.
> 
> Will be interesting to see if a significant number of people did this, would there be a response?


What tack are you taking?


----------



## Origamist (17 Oct 2015)

The judge called Noble a "decent man". This is a man who was convicted of exposing himself to children and killing a cyclist whilst reaching for a mobile phone. The judge's comments are a sick joke.


----------



## User32269 (17 Oct 2015)

mjray said:


> What tack are you taking?


I am going to compose e-mail when I've got kids to bed! Need some peace!
Will mention this case in email, but purely as a major point of anger and concern amongst cycling community. PMQs cannot be used as a form of judicial review, so I'm fairly certain the question would have to be more general?

Cyclists need to be sure government take their safety seriously to encourage healthy and environmentally sound transport.
Plans for funding infrastructure.
Government plans to promote a change of aggressive car culture, through tougher enforcement and sentencing?
Need bit of time to collate some figures etc. My thinking is that if enough people send (their own) questions, but quoting concerns over this (and similar) cases, given that JC is a cyclist it may strike a chord.
My inbox is full of requests for my question, so I'm gonna use it.


----------



## Origamist (17 Oct 2015)

The judge said:

"I hope this case will send a message to other road users, who we see day in and day out using mobile phones or other devices...It perhaps takes the tragic circumstances of this case to bring home the seriousness of doing this and I just hope other people will learn the lesson."

Another lesson they might take away from this tragic case is that they can escape jail time if they are distracted by their phone and kill someone in the process. Not much of a deterrent...


----------



## Dan B (17 Oct 2015)

Surely if he was as remorseful as he claims to be he'd have pled guilty to death by dangerous?


----------



## Drago (17 Oct 2015)

The driver allowed himself to become "distracted" as a consequence o making a conscious decision to commit an unlawful act. He didn't sneeze, get the sun in his eyes or was even eyeing up a pretty lady - he was behaving unlawfully and chose to do so. That nota distraction, that's a deliberate act of criminality which caused him not to be in proper control of his vehicle and he killed someone. Distraction doesn't come into it.

Both legislation and sentencing guidelines are far too lenient for people who perhaps didn't intend to kill someone, but nevertheless chose to commit an unlawful act and someone died as a consequence. There a yawning chasm in terms of both mens rea and actus rea between murder and manslaughter, which is why a murder II/second degree murder (call it what you will) type law is so common in other societies to cover that ground.


----------



## Venod (17 Oct 2015)

I was intigrued by @Origamist remark, is this the same person.

http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk...rial-flasher/story-11749186-detail/story.html

Edit, User9609 beat me to it,


----------



## Origamist (17 Oct 2015)

Afnug said:


> I was intigrued by @Origamist remark, is this the same person.
> 
> http://www.westernmorningnews.co.uk...rial-flasher/story-11749186-detail/story.html
> 
> Edit, User9609 beat me to it,



Yes.


----------



## glenn forger (19 Oct 2015)

So, a church-goer who likes to wave his meat and two veg at schoolgirls.


----------

