# Persistent offender killed cyclist while driving & texting



## glasgowcyclist (5 Sep 2016)

This cyclist's killer had eight previous convictions, all for using a phone while driving yet was allowed to keep his licence. Only six weeks after pleading that loss of his licence would be an exceptional hardship, he did it again and killed Lee Martin.

http://www.itv.com/news/meridian/up...g-driver-jailed-after-causing-cyclists-death/

I have every sympathy with the family's view that the justice system has to partly answer for this.

GC


----------



## r04DiE (5 Sep 2016)

Completely agree with you. How terribly sad.


----------



## RoubaixCube (6 Sep 2016)

Too bad the forces have seen upto 40% cuts over the years. pursuing a driver for using a mobile phone while driving isnt very high on the list of priorities these days....Seems the only way to get anything done is to be that person who loses his or her life as it seems the police wont do anything if youre clinging to life by a thread.


----------



## flake99please (6 Sep 2016)

RoubaixCube said:


> Too bad the forces have seen upto 40% cuts over the years. pursuing a driver for using a mobile phone while driving isnt very high on the list of priorities these days....Seems the only way to get anything done is to be that person who loses his or her life as it seems the police wont do anything if youre clinging to life by a thread.



Completely irrelevant in this instance. The judicial system let the cyclist & his family down. A terrible and avoidable tragedy. Im only encouraged by the quote from the PC in the article. The sentence handed out was harsher than I expected compared with other incidents of similar magnitude, so some credit must also go to the judge in question.


----------



## summerdays (6 Sep 2016)

To have been caught so many times must mean he used it a great deal as most motorists don't seem to get caught unfortunately! There does need to be a change in how it's dealt with as if you think you can plead that loosing your licience will have too big a hardship, so you can carry on repeating the same habit.


----------



## ufkacbln (6 Sep 2016)

RoubaixCube said:


> Too bad the forces have seen upto 40% cuts over the years. pursuing a driver for using a mobile phone while driving isnt very high on the list of priorities these days....Seems the only way to get anything done is to be that person who loses his or her life as it seems the police wont do anything if youre clinging to life by a thread.



They caught him numerous times!

Part of the issue is the motoring lobby itself


There are numerous ways of dealing with these issues, but as soon as they are used there is the usual bleating of "Jihad against motorists", "Persecution", a taxation on otherwise law abiding citizens"

The classic was Manchester who used video to prosecute phone users, traffic offences, and antisocial or aggressive driving. The bleating included the AA who declared that such prosecutions were unacceptable as they showed a "lack of engagement"

So long as you have a major lobby that considers any infringement if their right to drive as they wish without censure these incidents will continue to happen


----------



## Drago (6 Sep 2016)

They should bin this 'hardship' mitigation malarkey. If they're so worried about hardship then they could simply not commit the nefarious deed in then first place.


----------



## raleighnut (6 Sep 2016)

It was a sad day they let that twonk keep his driving licence, at least 6 times he'd been caught using a phone whilst driving.


----------



## rugby bloke (6 Sep 2016)

I just don't get the hardship defense. I had to surrender my licence for 4 years until my epilepsy was controlled. As it came out of the blue there was no notice - one day I could drive, next day I couldn't. I at least could use a bike to get to work, so that was not a problem, but there were children to get to school, plus their other activities and I needed lifts to places when I could not reach by bike. My wife had to pick up the role as family taxi driver for the whole time. It was a hard four years but we got through it. These serial offenders simply have no respect for the law and see themselves as above it.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (6 Sep 2016)

Drago said:


> They should bin this 'hardship' mitigation malarkey. If they're so worried about hardship then they could simply not commit the nefarious deed in then first place.




Agree wholeheartedly.

If anything, you should _expect_ some hardship when you break the law, not use it as an excuse to avoid what you deserve.

GC


----------



## EnPassant (6 Sep 2016)

How on Earth does anyone get to keep their licence after being "convicted of using his phone at least 6 times prior to the event"? 

Given, as @summerdays points out, you are not exactly in danger of being caught on every occurrence in the first place this guy had to have been pretty much using his phone every time he was driving. And still doing so despite having been to convicted of it on at least 6 previous occasions (I wonder if this is a record?).

I have this awful vision of the magistrate.
"Mr Gard, I have never before had anyone in front of the bench on six occasions for the same offence. You are a serial offender who has learned nothing from your previous appearances here. You leave me no choice other than to impose the most severe penalty it is within my powers so to do. 
3 points, 50 quid and on you go son".

SIX times? SIX? I'm flabbergasted.

This isn't somebody who answered a call when they shouldn't have and was caught by a momentary lapse of reasoning. This is a person to whom the safety of others means absolutely nothing.

It's time they started, and perhaps more importantly *we *as a society started to view this as we now do drink driving.


----------



## Firestorm (6 Sep 2016)

I believe the "hardship" defence is primarily used on totting up bans.
mobile phone ise is a 3 point . 100 pound fixed penalty notice . So i guess the first ban was avoided because it was an accumulation of points rather than an outright ban for using his phone.
Not that makes it any more palatable or justified

Phone use whilst driving is a bit like drink driving was in the 70s, where you were considered unlucky if you got caught unless it involved a crash
The sooner it gets treated more seriously the better, by phone and car manufacturers as well as users


----------



## Drago (6 Sep 2016)

Should make it an obligatory disqualification.


----------



## uphillstruggler (6 Sep 2016)

these are the sort of people are above the law in their own eyes but hide behind it if anything goes wrong, including the hardship claim.

the hardship now is that he will be locked up for years, away from his kid, who will no doubt grow up saying that it wasn't dads fault and aren't the police bad for locking him up. I would hope that this isn't the case but hold no hope.

the fact that he tried to cover it all up with no tangible remorse is a worry, even when the poor guy was dying in the road/ambulance.

I hope the family of the deceased can take some solace in the sentence although it wont bring the chap back.


----------



## EnPassant (6 Sep 2016)

There is evidence that even hands free use is as distracting as holding the phone.

Is there any distinction in law between speaking on a phone and texting?* If not, why not? From personal experience (not whilst driving...:P) texting requires prolonged periods staring at tiny screen and attempting to "type" on titchy parts of it, this takes your eyes off the road as well as your attention. It must be more dangerous that talking surely?

*Some years ago I was a passenger in a car of 4 being driven back from Norfolk to London from of all things a pool competition, the driver was using his mobile to text, I actually asked him to please stop doing it, to which he replied "I'm not texting, I'm sending an email". Which is funny, until it's not.
To my eternal chagrin I should have demanded that he stop and let me out if he was going to continue, but I didn't. So despite becoming more considerate as I age (lord I was a twit at 20), I still allow social pressure to influence decisions I take that afterwards I'm not necessarily proud of.
Apocryphal tale stated here only to reinforce the point that as a society we simply still do not take it seriously enough.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (6 Sep 2016)

EnPassant said:


> There is evidence that even hands free use is as distracting as holding the phone.



And it has an even greater effect on reaction times than drunk driving.





GC


----------



## EnPassant (6 Sep 2016)

glasgowcyclist said:


> And it has an even greater effect on reaction times than drunk driving.
> 
> View attachment 142895
> 
> ...


The only surprising thing to me is that texting is somehow less distracting than "hand held phone". Not really surprised by the rest of that table though. 
Well past time this was enshrined in law and peoples conscience.


----------



## raleighnut (6 Sep 2016)

EnPassant said:


> There is evidence that even hands free use is as distracting as holding the phone.
> 
> Is there any distinction in law between speaking on a phone and texting?* If not, why not? From personal experience (not whilst driving...:P) texting requires prolonged periods staring at tiny screen and attempting to "type" on titchy parts of it, this takes your eyes off the road as well as your attention. It must be more dangerous that talking surely?
> 
> ...


Similar here regarding the (lord I was a twit at 20), we regularly used to pile into cars to get to an out of the way pub that served late (very late actually as I've come out of it when the sun has risen) then someone would drive home. Utter stupidity.


----------



## Tin Pot (6 Sep 2016)

EnPassant said:


> The only surprising thing to me is that texting is somehow less distracting than "hand held phone". Not really surprised by the rest of that table though.
> Well past time this was enshrined in law and peoples conscience.



Only because the graph is worthless.

The graph should be showing reaction time, not this guff and spin. And as a range, not an average.

Plus, reaction is only part of the story.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (6 Sep 2016)

I've posted this in another thread but the comment at the end of the article is worth noting in relation to this thread. Perhaps our courts could follow this example:

_"I do not have to wait for him to kill or injure someone before I can exercise my powers to disqualify indefinitely."_
Traffic Commissioner for Scotland, Joan Aitken​http://www.eveningtimes.co.uk/news/...er_handed_20_year_ban_over_dangerous_driving/

GC


----------



## EnPassant (6 Sep 2016)

User said:


> It isn't a driving ban, it is an HGV driving ban.


I believe Reg is referring to the original not the immediately preceding post.


----------



## mjr (6 Sep 2016)

EnPassant said:


> There is evidence that even hands free use is as distracting as holding the phone.
> 
> Is there any distinction in law between speaking on a phone and texting?* If not, why not? From personal experience (not whilst driving...:P) texting requires prolonged periods staring at tiny screen and attempting to "type" on titchy parts of it, this takes your eyes off the road as well as your attention. It must be more dangerous that talking surely?


Not as far as I'm aware. RTA 1988 section 41D and searching the Road Safety Bill 2006 (which added that section) proceedings on www.TheyWorkForYou.com didn't find any consideration of distinguishing them.

I did find that Lord Hanningfield attempted to add pedal cycles to the ban, the bike-bashing nobber, along with Lords Simon, Berekeley (a cyclist himself) and especially Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen and RoSPA. Whip Lord Davies of Oldham opposed it because existing offences already cover it sufficiently well, rather than being friendly to cyclists or recognising the role of the smartphone as a cycling navigation and data collection aid.


----------



## ufkacbln (6 Sep 2016)

Drago said:


> Should make it an obligatory disqualification.



I believe that at the moment there is a driver still driving with 51 points, is still a learner and escaped adriving ban in January this year

There are 2 others with over 49 

25plus points and still driving counts another 30 or so and over 7,500 others driving with more than 12 points

The points system is a laughing stock


----------



## glasgowcyclist (6 Sep 2016)

User said:


> That's a fairly crap graphic (something the TRL seems to specialise in).,,



Aesthetically or otherwise?

GC


----------



## glasgowcyclist (6 Sep 2016)

User said:


> Both.
> 
> It's a bit of a nonsense graphic as the 'measures' are so vague as to be worthless.



Do you know of a better representation I could use?

GC


----------



## EnPassant (6 Sep 2016)

User said:


> Nope - because it's actually something that's too complex to encapsulate in such a basic graphic.



Complex or not, surely if the data is there and can be suitably interpreted by those with the skills it cannot be beyond the wit of them make it available to the powers that be in a comprehensible format and for them in turn to increase the penalties commensurate with the level of danger presented by the offence? If it is indeed more dangerous to third parties than drink driving it's frankly criminal (both figuratively and literally) that I could probably stand on any street in the country and count half a dozen phone users in an hour.
Either that, or that graphic is not only simple but completely wrong?


----------



## summerdays (6 Sep 2016)

EnPassant said:


> Complex or not, surely if the data is there and can be suitably interpreted by those with the skills it cannot be beyond the wit of them make it available to the powers that be in a comprehensible format and for them in turn to increase the penalties commensurate with the level of danger presented by the offence? If it is indeed more dangerous to 3rd parties than drink driving it's frankly criminal (pun intentional) that I could probably stand on any street in the country and count half a dozen phone users in an hour.
> Either that, or that graphic is not only simple but completely wrong?


Half a dozen in an hour?.... I passed a queue of drivers and counted how many between each car with a driver looking at a mobile today.... I never got above 7 before having to restart counting and would have passed 8 or 10 in that one queue for a junction!


----------



## EnPassant (6 Sep 2016)

summerdays said:


> Half a dozen in an hour?.... I passed a queue of drivers and counted how many between each car with a driver looking at a mobile today.... I never got above 7 before having to restart counting and would have passed 8 or 10 in that one queue for a junction!


Well, I was considering moving cars as opposed to stationary ones and in any location, but yes indeed I was also erring on the side of a cautious (under)estimate.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (7 Sep 2016)

Radio 4 Today did a fairly long discussion of this case this morning with Lee Martin's brother along with the father of a boy racer death. It started at about 8:10 and covered why there's a separate group of driving offences and not simple criminal cases, such as manslaughter or murder. 

Actually, it's continuing now (from about 8:35)

EDIT: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07syyrf 02:10:00 and returned to around 20 minutes later


----------



## Phaeton (7 Sep 2016)

[QUOTE 4454173, member: 259"]Yes, me too, the pubs in Derbyshire opened half an hour later than the pubs in Notts, necessitating last hour dashed through country lanes and over the brook.[/QUOTE]
Back in the 70's we used to do the same from South Yorks back to Notts, on Friday & Saturday nights


----------



## benb (7 Sep 2016)

EnPassant said:


> Either that, or that graphic is not only simple but completely wrong?



To quote HL Mencken: There is always a well-known solution to every human problem — neat, plausible, and wrong.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Sep 2016)

We need a charge of "causing death whilst operating a motor vehicle" which can be judged on the objective facts:

a) were you driving
b) did somebody die

without all the subjective bollox of determining dangerous or careless.


----------



## Scoosh (7 Sep 2016)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> Radio 4 Today did a fairly long discussion of this case this morning with Lee Martin's brother along with the father of a boy racer death. It started at about 8:10 and covered why there's a separate group of driving offences and not simple criminal cases, such as manslaughter or murder.
> 
> Actually, it's continuing now (from about 8:35)
> 
> EDIT: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b07syyrf 02:10:00 and returned to around 20 minutes later


Yes, I caught this too. It was an interesting discussion, without any hysteria and the legal side being well explained.


----------



## Drago (7 Sep 2016)

GrumpyGregry said:


> We need a charge of "causing death whilst operating a motor vehicle" which can be judged on the objective facts:
> 
> a) were you driving
> b) did somebody die
> ...


, or a simple offence of 'causing death while committing a moving traffic offence'. If you choose to break the law, and someone dies as a consequence of you breaking that law, you should be dropped on from a great height without recourse to a relatively subjective view of what might be careless or dangerous. That simplifies the points to prove to be were they driving, committing an offence at the time, and did someone die?


----------



## Incontinentia Buttocks (7 Sep 2016)

I really like the idea of a ban for using a mobile phone while in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle.


----------



## EnPassant (7 Sep 2016)

AIUI the difference between careless and dangerous (and perhaps reckless) as far as the law is concerned is to do with intent.

As an example of what I believe it to mean: If you lost control on a patch of water, skidded and killed somebody on the pavement, depending on the exact circumstance this would be careless. If however you mounted the pavement whilst massively exceeding the speed limit and swerving around the inside of somebody turning right and then lost control hitting the same pedestrian this would be dangerous (reckless?).
Would you be happy that exactly the same penalty were applied in both cases? I'm not sure I would.

Those may be badly worded examples of course and I'm no police officer (or ex officer @Drago) or lawyer but I think that's what its about. No system is perfect but I'd not be happy with everyone getting the same penalty because it caused a death.
Mowing people down a la deathrace 2000 shouldn't in my view attract the same penalty as skidding on black ice whilst not speeding. And only partly because the second case calls to mind the phrase "There but for the grace of god, go I".
YMMV.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Sep 2016)

Drago said:


> , or a simple offence of 'causing death while committing a moving traffic offence'. If you choose to break the law, and someone dies as a consequence of you breaking that law, you should be dropped on from a great height without recourse to a relatively subjective view of what might be careless or dangerous. That simplifies the points to prove to be were they driving, committing an offence at the time, and did someone die?


but what if you arent committing any other offence?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Sep 2016)

EnPassant said:


> AIUI the difference between careless and dangerous (and perhaps reckless) as far as the law is concerned is to do with intent.
> 
> As an example of what I believe it to mean: If you lost control on a patch of water, skidded and killed somebody on the pavement, depending on the exact circumstance this would be careless. If however you mounted the pavement whilst massively exceeding the speed limit and swerving around the inside of somebody turning right and then lost control hitting the same pedestrian this would be dangerous (reckless?).
> Would you be happy that exactly the same penalty were applied in both cases? I'm not sure I would.
> ...


If you skid on black ice whilst not speeding you are driving too fast for the conditions surely?

It is a speed limit not a target, after all.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (7 Sep 2016)

EnPassant said:


> AIUI the difference between careless and dangerous (and perhaps reckless) as far as the law is concerned is to do with intent.
> 
> As an example of what I believe it to mean: If you lost control on a patch of water, skidded and killed somebody on the pavement, depending on the exact circumstance this would be careless. If however you mounted the pavement whilst massively exceeding the speed limit and swerving around the inside of somebody turning right and then lost control hitting the same pedestrian this would be dangerous (reckless?).
> Would you be happy that exactly the same penalty were applied in both cases? I'm not sure I would.
> ...



Take a read at http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/...guidance_on_prosecuting_cases_of_bad_driving/ which should prove useful. There are guidelines regarding dangerous and careless driving.

GC


----------



## EnPassant (7 Sep 2016)

GrumpyGregry said:


> If you skid on black ice whilst not speeding you are driving too fast for the conditions surely?
> 
> It is a speed limit not a target, after all.


This may well be the case, but without stretching a point, it's not impossible to skid at 10mph and conceivably kill somebody as a consequence. 
There is if I remember correctly quite a lot of the use of the word 'reasonable' in legal cases. Is it reasonable to expect everyone to drive at 5mph when the weather is below 0 degrees Celcius? 
I did say my examples may not be that well worded or the best you could imagine. I'm sure you or someone else could do a better job probably.

The thing is, the 'intent' is different, simply blanketing everyone who has an accident that kills somebody else, then locking them up forever, is too broad for me, and it seems the current laws. I don't like deaths, nobody does, but short of banning motorised transport altogether you are not going to stop them, and not in every case is the answer finding somebody to blame and lock up indefinitely. Again, ymmv.


----------



## Drago (7 Sep 2016)

Then the Drago Act 2016 would not apply.


----------



## dellzeqq (7 Sep 2016)

Drago said:


> , or a simple offence of 'causing death while committing a moving traffic offence'. If you choose to break the law, and someone dies as a consequence of you breaking that law, you should be dropped on from a great height without recourse to a relatively subjective view of what might be careless or dangerous. That simplifies the points to prove to be were they driving, committing an offence at the time, and did someone die?


this is a very good point. The argument against is that, in some warped sense, the driver who offends and kills somebody is, somehow, unlucky. That stems from the law's obsession with intent and an inbuilt bias in favour of those who can conjure up an eloquent defence (or pay somebody to conjure up an eloquent defence) along the lines of 'people do this all the time, this was just a sad mischance'.

'Drago's Way' (if I understand it correctly) is the better way - if you speed, or use your phone, or drive when drunk or tired and you kill somebody, then, yes you are 'unlucky'. And, yes, you should pay for your bad luck.

I'm reminded of the Abergavenny case. A driver skidded on black ice and killed four cyclists. He was fined £180, that is to say £45 per cyclist. His defence was that he couldn't see the ice - well, that's the point about ice, and, if there is heavy frost around it's sensible to drive slowly (or, even better, ask yourself whether the journey is necessary) - but my view is that he was driving badly, four people died, and he should have gone to jail for a long time. He was, in one sense, 'unlucky' but, hey, that's what happens.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Sep 2016)

User said:


> Causing?


Not enough words for me to comprehend the meaning of the question.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Sep 2016)

EnPassant said:


> This may well be the case, but without stretching a point, it's not impossible to skid at 10mph and conceivably kill somebody as a consequence.
> There is if I remember correctly quite a lot of the use of the word 'reasonable' in legal cases. Is it reasonable to expect everyone to drive at 5mph when the weather is below 0 degrees Celcius?
> I did say my examples may not be that well worded or the best you could imagine. I'm sure you or someone else could do a better job probably.
> 
> The thing is, the 'intent' is different, simply blanketing everyone who has an accident that kills somebody else, then locking them up forever, is too broad for me, and it seems the current laws. I don't like deaths, nobody does, but short of banning motorised transport altogether you are not going to stop them, and not in every case is the answer finding somebody to blame and lock up indefinitely. Again, ymmv.


My mileage does vary.

If the road conditions are such that driving at 5mph is the only safe option, drive at 5mph, or, better still, don't drive at all.

I cycled to work a few winters back on a morning when the police were saying "essential journeys only". Awful lot of folk don't know what essential means, including the driver of the German 4WD running road tyres who slid past me backwards on a 20+% hill.

She missed me by inches. What offence did she commit other than that of being a lousy judge of the conditions, and her and her vehicle's abilities?

I am not suggesting all who kill with a motor vehicle should get life sentences, regardless of circumstances. I am suggesting that killing someone with a motor vehicle is an easily established objective fact and should be a criminal offence in its own right. The judge, on conviction of the accused can decide the sentence.


----------



## EnPassant (7 Sep 2016)

GrumpyGregry said:


> My mileage does vary.
> 
> If the road conditions are such that driving at 5mph is the only safe option, drive at 5mph, or, better still, don't drive at all.


Agree. And I'd choose the latter. But I don't like driving anyway, so any excuse not to is good enough.



GrumpyGregry said:


> I cycled to work a few winters back on a morning when the police were saying "essential journeys only". Awful lot of folk don't know what essential means, including the driver of the German 4WD running road tyres who slid past me backwards on a 20+% hill.
> 
> She missed me by inches. What offence did she commit other than that of being a lousy judge of the conditions, and her and her vehicle's abilities?


Agree. And yes, there's a lot of daft idiots about.



GrumpyGregry said:


> I am not suggesting all who kill with a motor vehicle should get life sentences, regardless of circumstances. I am suggesting that killing someone with a motor vehicle is an easily established objective fact and should be a criminal offence in its own right. The judge, on conviction of the accused can decide the sentence.


My mileage varies here . Disagree. I cannot see the rationale behind making the consequence of an accident an offence in and of itself.


----------



## ufkacbln (7 Sep 2016)

We attended thecToB a few years ago and found a point on the embankment

One side of the road was closed and the other was open

There were a couple of Police Officers "keeping order"

Cue 4x4 driver on his phone so he is pointed out to the Constable who reprimanded him

That set the tone

You have to do something whilst waiting for the race

Every few minutes a chant went up with 30 or 40 people pointing at a car and chanting

"He's on his phone, he's on his phone"

Credit to the Constables as they responded each time to a huge cheer


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Sep 2016)

User said:


> How do you show that the two points in this post
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Are sufficient to state that the driver caused the death?
From where did the kinetic energy originate, the transfer of which into the vulnerable human body of another shared-space road user, caused the extinction of life therein?

If you operate a kinetic energy weapon in a way that people die you have caused their death. That mode of operation ought, in my view, to be a criminal offence, regardless of subjective tests of carelessness or recklessness or dangerousness relating to the mode operation. An offence with the same sentencing guidelines as manslaughter.

If I 'accidentally' kill a passerby whilst operating my chainsaw et cetera.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Sep 2016)

EnPassant said:


> My mileage varies here . Disagree. I cannot see the rationale behind making the consequence of an accident an offence in and of itself.


How are you defining 'accident'.

Many instances of manslaughter are 'accidents' no?


----------



## EnPassant (7 Sep 2016)

GrumpyGregry said:


> How are you defining 'accident'.
> 
> Many instances of manslaughter are 'accidents' no?



For the purposes of discussion, lets say the woman in the Chelsea tractor above hits you and kills you rather than misses. Better yet say it's somebody else, we are always a bit biased when it's ourselves we are considering.

What you appear to be positing is that if she misses that person, yes, she was a bit daft to think she could drive in those conditions and really didn't understand the capabilities of a 4x4 or the road conditions but had committed no actual offence. However, if she had hit them, she did commit an offence?
I can't get my head around that is all I'm saying. Her actions were the same in both circumstances, it is pure chance whether there is somebody down the hill behind her.
I wouldn't drive like that, you wouldn't, but we know better, she apparently doesn't. Regardless I can't see a law for ignorance alone working in practice.

For the manslaughter part, I'd need to look at further links of @glasgowcyclist 's nature to be sure on this, but for now I understand it as where somebody commits an offence the consequence of which is somebody dying, but that death was not the intention (the distinction between manslaughter and murder). There would still have to be an offence committed (or perhaps a lower standard of willful negligence), but I am still not a lawyer and would need to check the specifics.

This is all however in my mind getting a bit off the topic of the original post. My opinion on him, is that he should have been locked up far before he actually did, anyone who has been convicted 6 or more times for using a phone is a total menace who cares nothing for anyone but themselves and one could say it was only a matter of time before he did kill somebody.
My distinction for what it is worth is that he deserves longer behind bars than the woman in the 4x4, but as has been pointed out already, we don't always get what we deserve and 'luck' has a part to play.

TLDR. 100 quid and 3 points for a 6th offence of phone use whilst driving is ridiculous. The tragic consequences of the 7th (or greater) offence were an 'accident' waiting to happen. It wouldn't have occurred had his licence been revoked on the second (or any subsequent) offence.

ETA: Reg posted his shorter reply before I finished waffling on manslaughter.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Sep 2016)

User said:


> No. Manslaughter is not accidental. In UK law you can have manslaughter three ways: deliberate but with mitigation, through recklessness or through criminal negligence. None of these is 'accidental'.


Define 'accidental'?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (7 Sep 2016)

EnPassant said:


> For the purposes of discussion, lets say the woman in the Chelsea tractor above hits you and kills you rather than misses. Better yet say it's somebody else, we are always a bit biased when it's ourselves we are considering.
> 
> What you appear to be positing is that if she misses that person, yes, she was a bit daft to think she could drive in those conditions and really didn't understand the capabilities of a 4x4 or the road conditions but had committed no actual offence. However, if she had hit them, she did commit an offence?
> I can't get my head around that is all I'm saying. Her actions were the same in both circumstances, it is pure chance whether there is somebody down the hill behind her.
> I wouldn't drive like that, you wouldn't, but we know better, she apparently doesn't. Regardless I can't see a law for ignorance alone working in practice.


As it stand she could be charged with causing death through careless driving.

But the jury would think EXACTLY as you do. She didn't understand. She didn't mean too. She misjudged it. It's pure chance. It could happen to anyone. She's not guilty.

Motor-centric thinking at its finest. You can kill someone with a motor vehicle but somehow you aren't really responsible for the outcome. It was just bad luck and folk will bend over backwards to defend you.


----------



## EnPassant (8 Sep 2016)

That may well be so, but doesn't make the case that a law is needed where careless (or above) doesn't have to be proven. Pick an example of your own which does.

I personally wouldn't presume to know what 12 other people might think.

Not motor centric in my case, I cycle more than I drive (in fact I rather resent the implication). Pick an example that isn't anything to do with driving if you like. I don't see why a law is needed that doesn't have some onus of careless or worse in any field not just motorised vehicles. You want the change, you make the case, you provide the example.


----------



## mjr (8 Sep 2016)

EnPassant said:


> Mowing people down a la deathrace 2000 shouldn't in my view attract the same penalty as skidding on black ice whilst not speeding. And only partly because the second case calls to mind the phrase "There but for the grace of god, go I".


People are judged by a jury of their peers, so you have motorists deciding the fate of motorists. The long-term way to change this is for all of us to get as many motorists as possible back on their bikes, which has two major benefits: firstly, fewer people motoring for cyclists to deal with on every trip; secondly, when there is a case like this, we'll have cyclist-motorists among the jury. So please, everyone, help with newcomers' rides as much as you can and support things likely to get more people back on their bikes.


----------



## doog (8 Sep 2016)

Clearly the problem in this case wasn't the Jury (he pleaded guilty) it was the decision of the Magistrates in the previous mobile phone cases when he avoided disqualification .. I know they are often directed by the clerk but this is an appalling case of sentencing incompetence that led to this tragedy.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (8 Sep 2016)

dellzeqq said:


> I'm reminded of the Abergavenny case. A driver skidded on black ice and killed four cyclists. He was fined £180, that is to say £45 per cyclist. His defence was that he couldn't see the ice - well, that's the point about ice, and, if there is heavy frost around it's sensible to drive slowly (or, even better, ask yourself whether the journey is necessary)



IIRC he was fined 3 x £60 for each bald tyre on his car and suffered no penalty for killing four people (because he was never charged in relation to that).



dellzeqq said:


> but my view is that he was driving badly, four people died, and he should have gone to jail for a long time.



Agreed. Taking to the road in a car that has three bald tyres in any weather is, to me, dangerous driving and he should have been charged accordingly. I think at the time the coroner too was incredulous that police ignored this aspect.

GC


----------



## GrumpyGregry (8 Sep 2016)

EnPassant said:


> That may well be so, but doesn't make the case that a law is needed where careless (or above) doesn't have to be proven. Pick an example of your own which does.
> 
> I personally wouldn't presume to know what 12 other people might think.
> 
> Not motor centric in my case, I cycle more than I drive (in fact I rather resent the implication). Pick an example that isn't anything to do with driving if you like. I don't see why a law is needed that doesn't have some onus of careless or worse in any field not just motorised vehicles. You want the change, you make the case, you provide the example.


Pick a situation outside of driving where hundreds of people get maimed and killed each month?

I can't. Nothing that happens in our motor-centric society compares with the annual cull of road users. If something similar arose the activity would be banned immediately.

A person can ride 1000s of km a year and still have a motor-centric mindset. Sorry if that raises negative emotions but it is just how it is.

It is ridiculous that the authorities must persuade 12 motor-centrists, and motor-centric judges, to convict and sentence on absurd, and badly understood, criteria relating to what constitutes dangerous, careless or reckless driving.

Did your operation of a motor vehicle, even if done to a so-called "reasonable" standard, lead directly to the death of a more vulnerable road user. Yes? Then you are guilty and now we will listen to your claims in mitigation of a stiff sentence. No proving you drove dangerously, just proving you killed someone. Causing death whilst operating a motor vehicle.

But we won't get there because being a lousy driver around vulnerable road users is perfectly reasonable in the UK today.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (8 Sep 2016)

glasgowcyclist said:


> IIRC he was fined 3 x £60 for each bald tyre on his car and suffered no penalty for killing four people (because he was never charged in relation to that).
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Dangerous to you. And to me. But perfectly normal to Mister Toad.


----------



## EnPassant (8 Sep 2016)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Pick a situation outside of driving where hundreds of people get maimed and killed each month?
> 
> I can't. Nothing that happens in our motor-centric society compares with the annual cull of road users. If something similar arose the activity would be banned immediately.
> 
> ...



We agree on most things. 
The motor centric society in which we live is likely foremost amongst these. There is barely a day passes where I don't encounter some situation on the road where I consider that it is far too car centric. From crap cycle lanes that invite you to be doored or worse, to traffic light phasing that takes no account of cyclists (or those ones that stay red forever until a car pitches up behind you because they don't sense a cycle) to... well I could go on but it's all been said before. 
The fact is that I don't agree on only one point and that one appears to be mostly semantics in any case. I've stated this, you disagree, that's fine by me, it would be an odd world if everyone agreed all the time.


----------



## Roxy641 (12 Sep 2016)

That isn't a good example because no one decides to lose control due to a patch of water, or black ice etc (that is beyond any 
driver's control). But, the driver can choose NOT to use a mobile phone (or anything else that might take away their concentration). 
We do know what things that we can avoid to minimize harm while driving. The choice is with the driver. Many choose to abuse 
that choice. But I do agree what we have to be sensible about this. If it is proven that the driver didn't do anything to cause the 
accident, then she/he shouldn't be given as harsh a sentence as someone that was guilty of doing something likely to increase
the chances of an injury/death.



EnPassant said:


> AIUI the difference between careless and dangerous (and perhaps reckless)
> as far as the law is concerned is to do with intent.
> 
> As an example of what I believe it to mean: If you lost control on a patch of water, skidded and killed somebody on the pavement, depending
> ...


----------



## ufkacbln (12 Sep 2016)

Two of the problems as I understand it are that the consequence of an action are not necessarily the offence. 

You can be in a situation where the driver is found guilty of speeding, careless driving, but the injuries caused are simply not taken into account

Secondly the full story is not available. A colleague of mine was in the Jury for a motoring case and it was withheld that the driver had several other offences under his belt as this may be prejudicial. They were only judging the case itself not his history


----------



## jarlrmai (12 Sep 2016)

Losing control on a patch of water means you were going too fast for the road conditions, a choice.


----------



## EnPassant (12 Sep 2016)

Roxy641 said:


> *That isn't a good example because no one decides to lose control due to a patch of water, or black ice etc (that is beyond any
> driver's control)*. But, the driver can choose NOT to use a mobile phone (or anything else that might take away their concentration).
> We do know what things that we can avoid to minimize harm while driving. The choice is with the driver. Many choose to abuse
> that choice. But I do agree what we have to be sensible about this. If it is proven that the driver didn't do anything to cause the
> ...



Lack of imagination on my part. I'm sure you could come up with a better one. 
And yes, that's what I'm getting at.



jarlrmai said:


> Losing control on a patch of water means you were going too fast for the road conditions, a choice.


As above.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (12 Sep 2016)

Roxy641 said:


> That isn't a good example because no one decides to lose control due to a patch of water, or black ice etc (that is beyond any
> driver's control).



In the example above where four people were killed while cycling, that driver chose to go out in poor conditions in a car which had three bald tyres on it.

Despite the bizarre view of the magistrates that the tyres had no bearing on the collision, it shows that the driver was someone who gave no thought to the dangers he posed in a car that wasn't fit to be on the road. He still chose to use it.

GC


----------



## hatler (12 Sep 2016)

I recall (dimly, I admit) that the magistrates in the Rhyl case were advised by the police that the condition of the tyres had no bearing on whether or not the driver lost control on the black ice, it would have happened even with legal tyres. I imagine magistrates typically take police information as gospel.


----------



## Pale Rider (12 Sep 2016)

hatler said:


> I recall (dimly, I admit) that the magistrates in the Rhyl case were advised by the police that the condition of the tyres had no bearing on whether or not the driver lost control on the black ice, it would have happened even with legal tyres. I imagine magistrates typically take police information as gospel.



The condition of the vehicle will have been outlined to the magistrates as a matter of fact - the tyres were bald.

The relevance of that will have been outlined to the magistrates as a matter of comment - the bald tyres didn't contribute to the collision - which the magistrates can make of what they will, although they very likely accepted it.

One might ask why collision investigator mentions the tyres at all if they were not relevant, but it does give the magistrates an indication of the general attitude of the defendant to his motoring.

It also robs him of any mitigation along the lines of: "I am always very careful to keep my car maintained to the proper standard."

Clean windows is another one, I've heard investigation reports that cite the windows were dirty.

Again it might not be relevant, but it's another little dent in the defendant's armour.

The ever present possibility of a crash is one of the reasons why I keep my car well up together.

If I am involved in an incident, the investigation into me at least starts on the right foot.


----------



## Buddfox (12 Sep 2016)

And another:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-37337793

Previously convicted of speeding and drink driving, but still allowed behind the wheel of a 13.5 tonne HGV


----------



## ufkacbln (12 Sep 2016)

User said:


> How is this relevant?
> 
> As it is, previous history *can* be introduced to the jury* in certain circumstances*. And it is the judge, not the jury, that decides on the sentence - and they will the defendants full history.



Because it means that in some cases it isn't


----------



## summerdays (12 Sep 2016)

Buddfox said:


> And another:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-37337793
> 
> Previously convicted of speeding and drink driving, but still allowed behind the wheel of a 13.5 tonne HGV




Why is it not a requirement that you need a clean driving licence to get behind the wheel as your occupation?


----------



## ufkacbln (12 Sep 2016)

summerdays said:


> Why is it not a requirement that you need a clean driving licence to get behind the wheel as your occupation?



Unfortunately there is so much competition and pressure that the targets can often only be met by "bending" the rules

The drivers who are willing to bend these rules will not have clean licenses


----------



## glasgowcyclist (12 Sep 2016)

Buddfox said:


> And another:
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshire-37337793
> 
> Previously convicted of speeding and drink driving, but still allowed behind the wheel of a 13.5 tonne HGV




That's disgusting. Why the fark should he ever be considered suitable to be in control of any vehicle ever again?
I'm truly baffled by this.

GC


----------



## Pale Rider (13 Sep 2016)

summerdays said:


> Why is it not a requirement that you need a clean driving licence to get behind the wheel as your occupation?



At the other end of the scale, a barrister acquaintance of mine was due to be appointed as a circuit judge - the type that sits in the crown court.

Her appointment was delayed after it emerged she had six points on her driving licence - two three-point speeding camera offences.

The appointment of judges is not the most open of books, but the impression I got was she might have been appointed with, say, three points of some age about to come off, but six fairly fresh ones was a no-no.

She was appointed after all the points expired.


----------



## mjr (14 Nov 2016)

Driver in OP case to appeal against the sentence http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-37975561


----------



## glasgowcyclist (14 Nov 2016)

mjr said:


> Driver in OP case to appeal against the sentence http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-37975561



Sentences can go up as well as down.
Fingers crossed, eh?


----------



## Buddfox (17 Jan 2017)

His appeal was refused today, though the sentence was not increased.


----------



## Drago (19 Jan 2017)

Someone simply behaves dangerously with a shotgun, or even gets convicted of a violence offence that doesn't involve their firearm, they'd have their certificate revoked and would never get it back.

Actually kill someone behind the wheel and at worst you can have your driving ticket back in a few years. Insanity.

Driving a motor vehicle is a privilege and society should treat it more as such, and demand that people exercise the utmost of diligence and respect in order to maintain that privilege.


----------

