# Kill, lie... and get suspended sentence and a fine...



## briantrumpet (9 Jun 2016)

It's obviously only slightly worse to kill a cyclist and lie about the cause to try to get off, than it is not to have a TV licence but watch the TV. That's the message that's being sent out by the courts, it seems.

http://road.cc/content/news/193037-van-driver-claimed-gust-wind-made-him-hit-cyclist

He got off with a suspended sentence, a £2000 fine, and a 12-month driving ban. 'Outrageous' doesn't even come close.


----------



## Tanis8472 (9 Jun 2016)

Very selective gust of wind. Funny how it didnt affect the cyclist.


----------



## Drago (9 Jun 2016)

You could get worse for mistreating a dog.


----------



## Brandane (10 Jun 2016)

Whatever happened to driving in accordance with the weather conditions, FFS?
If it's windy, raining, whatever; SLOW DOWN and give even more space to cyclists than you normally would (should!).
The decisions made by the courts in the UK never cease to amaze me, and not just in Road Traffic matters. It's a farce, and a licence for people with such tendencies to do as they please.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (10 Jun 2016)

He was, at least, found guilty; which in itself is pretty remarkable.

The sentence really nips my sack, mind.


----------



## uphillstruggler (10 Jun 2016)

so a gust of wind from behind caused him to hit the cyclist - can it get any worse?

why didn't the court just slap his wrist for being a poor unfortunate van driver and send him on his way.


----------



## jefmcg (10 Jun 2016)

uphillstruggler said:


> why didn't the court just slap his wrist for being a poor unfortunate van driver and send him on his way.


Umm, they did. Suspended sentence and 12 months ban is the definition of a (metaphorical) slap on the wrist.


----------



## uphillstruggler (10 Jun 2016)

jefmcg said:


> Umm, they did. Suspended sentence and 12 months ban is the definition of a (metaphorical) slap on the wrist.



My point is that it's a pretty lenient sentence, it's almost a token gesture.

And it's just not good enough.

I can only imagine the pain that the family are feeling.


----------



## Vantage (10 Jun 2016)

Before we know it, a driver can claim to have farted with the ejected air pressure forcing him/her to press harder on the accelerator and the methane causing them to react slower. It'll happen. Just wait and see.


----------



## ayceejay (10 Jun 2016)

I thought this was going to be about Tony Blair but he hasn't been sentenced yet


----------



## briantrumpet (10 Jun 2016)

Here's a random example of the idiocy of this sentence in comparison. Drunk man an with air freshener tries to rob a bank. 2.5 years in prison.


----------



## glenn forger (10 Jun 2016)

Gust of wind/spider/coughing fit/sunlight/lack of sunlight/wrong sort of sunlight/moment's distraction.


----------



## briantrumpet (10 Jun 2016)

glenn forger said:


> Gust of wind/spider/coughing fit/sunlight/lack of sunlight/wrong sort of sunlight/moment's distraction.


Hey, you're good at this. Though you've forgotten the sob story part of how your life would be ruined if you couldn't carry on driving, and so the judge would be cruel to take away your licence (despite having killed someone in broad daylight).


----------



## glenn forger (10 Jun 2016)

"It was early morning/around noon/in the afternoon/at night. Exactly when you don't expect to see a cyclist."


----------



## Drago (10 Jun 2016)

Vantage said:


> Before we know it, a driver can claim to have farted with the ejected air pressure forcing him/her to press harder on the accelerator and the methane causing them to react slower. It'll happen. Just wait and see.



There's already the defence of automatism, although I'm not sure anyone has used an involuntary fart as an excuse yet.


----------



## briantrumpet (10 Jun 2016)

Drago said:


> ...although I'm not sure anyone has used an involuntary fart as an excuse yet.


Voluntary farts are what the judges are when they take already derisory guidelines and then go for the minimum sentence possible. We are a long way from the position where it is recognised that if you use something which can kill if you don't pay attention, you should bloody well pay attention, or pay the price. Every time one of these sentences is given, the message is "It's relatively OK to kill if it was inattention". The bar must be raised.


----------



## doog (10 Jun 2016)

User said:


> Once again, the finger of blame can be pointed at our criminal justice system from start to finish. If we start off with people who see nothing wrong with overtaking vulnerable road users without sufficient clearance, and that gets viewed by police officers, CPS lawyers, and courts the same way, then that reinforces the general perception.



Hang on.a minute...thats a hell of a presumption...the Police and CPS for example dont make the law.. .so hardly fair to tar the whole system with the same brush...the person at fault here is the *Judge *who sentenced him, everyone else did their job including the jury.

The sentence should be appealed, if it isnt feel free to have a crack at the CPS.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (10 Jun 2016)

User said:


> Once again, the finger of blame can be pointed at our criminal justice system from start to finish. If we start off with people who see nothing wrong with overtaking vulnerable road users without sufficient clearance, and that gets viewed by police officers, CPS lawyers, and courts the same way, then that reinforces the general perception.


He was charged, in itself not always a guaranteed outcome, and charged with an appropriate offence, which isn't always the case, and he was found guilty of that charge, which all too often doesn't happen. So Plod, CPS, and jury all did right by the bike riding public. The clot of judge then took a dump on everyone else's good judgement. imo.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (10 Jun 2016)

User said:


> Choosing to pass a cyclist close enough that a slight error, or movement by either party, is not careless. This death happened because the driver made a conscious choice to pass too close.


I'd say it was careless. A could not care less judgement. The jury decided it was careless and caused death. They can only decide on the basis of the charge. They found him guilty.

Had he faced a higher charge he may not have been convicted. As I have said here before we need a simple "manslaughter whilst driving a motor vehicle" charge on the statue books so prosecutors and juries focus on outcomes and facts and not on subjective judgements about carelessness or dangerousness.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 Jun 2016)

User said:


> And what are we doing about it? Who else has written to the CPS asking them to seek a review?


Give me the name and the address and I will happily do so. cc'ing my MP.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 Jun 2016)

User said:


> Which brings me back to my earlier judgement, it is a systematic failure.


It is a failure of parliament to enact adequate laws. I agree with the principle of your argument but in your earlier post you seemed to be singling out (groups of) the actors as being at fault. With the exception of the judge, who is a nobber, I'd say the system worked well within its current boundaries.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (11 Jun 2016)

Consider it done.


----------



## Vantage (11 Jun 2016)

I think I'll be writing to this lady myself regarding this case and the many others where they literally just couldn't be ars*d doing their job. Remember that Volvo fiasco? Gah!


----------



## doog (11 Jun 2016)

He might have a point. Charging standards and sentencing guidelines - despite not getting paid to worry about this any more (and at the risk of being accused of talking bollox) this does look borderline death by dangerous in that _the defendant failed to have proper regard to vulnerable road users..._albeit its the lowest scale. The CCP was probably vindicated in their decision to charge death by careless by the resulting pathetic sentence.

I can understand the need for mitigation in sentencing but I'd be interested to read the summing up in this case (not that we'll ever see it), particularly in light of forensic and witness evidence that showed the defendant didn't deviate before hitting the victim....


----------



## Pale Rider (11 Jun 2016)

Criticism of the judge is mis-placed.

He is obliged to follow the sentencing guidelines from the Sentencing Guidelines Council.

These start at page 14 of the linked document.

If you look at the table, it appears the judge put the case in the middle band, sentencing range community order to two years.

We don't have all the relevant information, but - under the guidelines - if this young man had led a blameless life in other respects, a suspended sentence looks about right.

If you don't like judges, look at it another way.

This judge had all the information and it is in his interests to do his job correctly to protect his large salary and absurdly generous pension.

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.u...ing_death_by_driving_definitive_guideline.pdf


----------



## briantrumpet (11 Jun 2016)

Pale Rider said:


> Criticism of the judge is mis-placed.
> 
> He is obliged to follow the sentencing guidelines from the Sentencing Guidelines Council.


So again we end up with a situation where it's no-one's fault, people shrug and move on.

So if there is consensus enough to say that the practical outcome - that killing with a vehicle because of bad driving is socially more acceptable than pretending an aerosol is a gun, for instance - is farcical, it needs systemic change.

It needs systemic change. This law is an ass.


----------



## doog (11 Jun 2016)

Pale Rider said:


> Criticism of the judge is mis-placed.
> 
> He is obliged to follow the sentencing guidelines from the Sentencing Guidelines Council.
> 
> ...



Why is it misplaced when the Judge put the case in the middle band? Why didnt he put it in the upper band bearing in mind my earlier comment from the same guidelines that suggest this may have fallen into band 3 if the charge had been death by dangerous. My guess is that mitigation played a big part.


----------



## Pale Rider (11 Jun 2016)

doog said:


> Why is it misplaced when the Judge put the case in the middle band? Why didnt he put it in the upper band bearing in mind my earlier comment from the same guidelines that suggest this may have fallen into band 3 if the charge had been death by dangerous. My guess is that mitigation played a big part.



For banding, the death is irrelevant because it's present in all cases.

The crucial point is the manner of the driving.

In terms of careless, how careless was it?

We do lack information, but on the face of it swerving in windy conditions in a high-sided vehicle is at the lower end of the legal definition of careless which is 'a momentary lapse of attention'.

Perhaps not the lowest, it may have been a big swerve, which could explain why the judge has put the case in the middle band.

Aggravating features and mitigation then play a big part.

No suggestion the driver fled the scene, so he may have stopped to offer assistance, which under the guidelines, goes in his favour.

Personal mitigation could have been strong, young man, in work, previous good character, genuine remorse.

It is easy to say 'sorry' and be cynical about that, but I have seen killer drivers who are genuinely devastated by what they have done.


----------



## Pale Rider (11 Jun 2016)

User said:


> @Pale Rider, in your eagerness to explain hhow courts work you miss the point. The driver chose to drive close enough that, coupled with a gust of wind that may or may not have caused the collision, he was too close to avoid killing someone. The wind is not mitigation whatsoever, if it was a windy day, that is just even more reason to pass wide and slow. His original decision was dangerous, and consciously so. The charge was weak.



In your usual eagerness to have a swipe at a poster with whom you disagree, you are confusing fact and opinion.

Your take on the case is purely your opinion.

Swerving as the driver did does not amount to the legal definition of dangerous driving.

That is a matter of fact.

If you think the sentence is too light, then a reform of the law is what's required, or at the very least a rewrite of the sentencing guidelines, which are not law, but the judge is all but obliged to follow them.


----------



## Pale Rider (11 Jun 2016)

User said:


> No it is the passing too close in the first place that is dangerous



He didn't pass too close, did he?

If he'd done that we wouldn't be here.

The wind explanation will be regarded by some as fortunate for the driver, but the fact it was windy is just that, a fact.

Legally, it was careless of him not to take sufficient account of the possibility of a gust, but the legal definition of dangerous driving - a prolonged period of inattention or driving falling far below the standard of a careful and competent driver - is not met.

If this case was dealt with in the court of public opinion, there may have been a different outcome.

But it wasn't, it was dealt with in a court of law.


----------



## Pale Rider (11 Jun 2016)

User13710 said:


> Eh? Of course he did, he killed the guy.



If he had passed too close - which he may have been attempting to do - it would have been just that, a close pass, but the cyclist would not have been killed or injured.

Of course, there is no legal definition of a close pass.

What you or I may regard as a close pass may not be so regarded by another cyclist, or vice-versa.


----------



## doog (11 Jun 2016)

Pale Rider said:


> Legally, it was careless of him not to take sufficient account of the possibility of a gust, but the legal definition of dangerous driving - *a prolonged period of inattention *or driving falling far below the standard of a careful and competent driver - is not met.
> 
> I



There was forensic and witness evidence to say that the driver didnt deviate from his path prior to the collision .So NO gust of wind and it appears that he simply didnt see him, which in turn would suggest that the criteria you refer to above was met '*a prolonged period of inattention '* . Looking at google images of the scene the limit point would have been extremely long for the driver to see a cyclist.


----------



## Pale Rider (11 Jun 2016)

doog said:


> There was forensic and witness evidence to say that the driver didnt deviate from his path prior to the collision .So NO gust of wind and it appears that he simply didnt see him, which in turn would suggest that the criteria you refer to above was met '*a prolonged period of inattention '* . Looking at google images of the scene the limit point would have been extremely long for the driver to see a cyclist.



This will all have been heard in evidence, which neither of us heard.

My speculation is the driver said something like: "I went to pass the cyclist and a gust of wind blew me into the cyclist as I did so."

The fact it was windy was independently verified, and as I said, may be seen as fortunate for the driver.

But we may also have to reach for the last resort when assessing any defendant's evidence - his account was true as he saw it.

I have seen hundreds of defendants give evidence and most tell lies, but even I have to accept some will be telling the truth.


----------



## doog (11 Jun 2016)

Pale Rider said:


> This will all have been heard in evidence, which neither of us heard.



Staffordshire Police released a statement to this effect. However we need to remember he was found guilty so his account wasn't believed by the jury.

The issue is twofold for me , was the initial charge the correct one and was the sentence correct ? I guess the fact a conviction was obtained would suggest it was the correct charge as far as the CPS were concerned however I bet the investigating officers were a little miffed at the decision to go for the lower charge. As for the judge, looking at the sentencing guidelines he was extremely lenient in my view. 

Im seeing both sides and with reflection I can understand some of the views displayed on here and which I earlier commented on.


----------



## Vantage (12 Jun 2016)

I can believe that windy blustery conditions can be proven but I don't see how an isolated gust of wind in any one area can be proven. So we only have the drivers word for that. If his account is true, was the cyclist not also blown off course by an even bigger degree given that a cycle has fewer stabilising wheels and less weight to keep it planted on the road?
Theres also the issue with the above photo showing the amount of room a vehicle driver should give when passing a cyclist, most drivers I've been with and those I've seen rarely give that amount of space when passing another car. Its usually less than half that.
The Highway Code and its rules and advice are for the most part a distant memory to lots of drivers having passed their test.
This needs strict reinforcing on a regular basis and harsher penalties for failing to follow the rules of safe driving.


----------



## Drago (12 Jun 2016)

I can't understand why the law thinks being careless on the road is somehow less bad than being dangerous? If a driver kills someone through their own stupid behaviour the end result is still a corpse and a mourning family - the victims don't get any less pain and grief, so why should the offender receive any less punishment?


----------



## briantrumpet (12 Jun 2016)

Drago said:


> I can't understand why the law thinks being careless on the road is somehow less bad than being dangerous? If a driver kills someone through their own stupid behaviour the end result is still a corpse and a mourning family - the victims don't get any less pain and grief, so why should the offender receive any less punishment?


The 'careless' bit wouldn't wash in a HSE investigation if you were an employer and your carelessness had led to the death of an employee. From the HSE: "Under the common law, gross negligence manslaughter is proved when individual officers of a company (directors or business owners) by their own grossly negligent behaviour cause death. This offence is punishable by an unlimited fine and a maximum of life imprisonment."


----------



## DaveReading (12 Jun 2016)

Pale Rider said:


> I have seen hundreds of defendants give evidence and *most tell lies*, but even I have to accept some will be telling the truth.



The statistics tell us that only about a quarter of Crown Court trials result in a guilty verdict. So unless the ones you have seen are completely unrepresentative, you appear to be saying that the majority of those acquitted have lied in court.

No pun intended, but what's your evidence for that assertion?


----------



## HLaB (12 Jun 2016)

briantrumpet said:


> It's obviously only slightly worse to kill a cyclist and lie about the cause to try to get off, than it is not to have a TV licence but watch the TV. That's the message that's being sent out by the courts, it seems.
> 
> http://road.cc/content/news/193037-van-driver-claimed-gust-wind-made-him-hit-cyclist
> 
> He got off with a suspended sentence, a £2000 fine, and a 12-month driving ban. 'Outrageous' doesn't even come close.


A comparatively heavy sentence


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Jun 2016)

Drago said:


> I can't understand why the law thinks being careless on the road is somehow less bad than being dangerous? If a driver kills someone through their own stupid behaviour the end result is still a corpse and a mourning family - the victims don't get any less pain and grief, so why should the offender receive any less punishment?


spot on. Outcome is what counts imo not the motivations of the driver.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (12 Jun 2016)

User said:


> In what way is the law about causing death by dangerous driving inadequate?


in that it requires a subjective judgement by a jury, most of whom will be drivers, about what constitutes dangerous driving in law.

A lot, the majority even, of what you and I might regard as dangerous driving in not dangerous driving in law.


----------



## Pale Rider (12 Jun 2016)

The law recognises different levels of culpability.

Thus the drunk, speeding, driver on his mobile phone who kills a cyclist is treated more harshly than the sober driver who pulls out of a side turning and hits a cyclist with the same result.

The result is, of course, the same, the cyclist is dead.

But it seems reasonable to me for the drunk speeding driver to face a more serious charge and to be given a harsher penalty if convicted.


----------



## hatler (13 Jun 2016)

^ ^ ^ That, with knobs on. ^ ^ ^


----------



## Drago (13 Jun 2016)

How is a minor piece of carelessness less bad than dangerous driving if they both result in an innocent death? In each instance they drive otherwise than in accordance with the standards required of a road user and someone dies as a consequence. 

Once one crosses the line of unlawful behaviour on the road, it matters not how far beyond it they then go - they're breaking law, period, and should be held equally accountable for any adverse consequences of their behaviour.

We all have a duty to drive in a safe and diligent manner at all times - no excuses. If we can't do that then we shouldn't be risking the lives of innocents by driving.


----------



## hatler (13 Jun 2016)

There ought to be a distinction between driving which is dangerous, albeit unwittingly (due to the ridiculous levels of acceptability which the motoring lobby have engendered), and driving in a manner which is also dangerous, but wittingly, ie when you're pissed, on the phone, driving like a lunatic etc etc.

The problem for those on the receiving end of tragedies like this is the use of the language. Death by careless driving as a phrase is both a real ambiguity and a huge insult.

However, there is a multi-stage battle here; first the language needs to be changed, which should help the attitude shift, then the charging needs to be applied more robustly, and then ultimately sentencing needs to reflect what's felt to be fair (and sentencing is so far away from what those who have been impacted by poor driving feel to be fair), and most of all that sentencing should include more frequent use of much longer bans. And even much more frequent use of shorter bans for lower levels of driving misdemeanour.

That's a long road, and the only way it can get started is by a shift in public attitude to poor driving, and all the probably hopeless petitions to lengthen sentences help us along that road, even if individually they don't achieve their immediate and specific goals.


----------



## hatler (13 Jun 2016)

hatler said:


> There ought to be a distinction between driving which is dangerous, albeit unwittingly (due to the ridiculous levels of acceptability which the motoring lobby have engendered), and driving in a manner which is also dangerous, but wittingly, ie when you're pissed, on the phone, driving like a lunatic etc etc.
> 
> The problem for those on the receiving end of tragedies like this is the use of the language. Death by careless driving as a phrase is both a real ambiguity and a huge insult.
> 
> ...


And just to make my thinking clear here, if someone has killed or seriously injured anyone whilst driving then that should break the 'dangerous' threshold, by definition.


----------



## oldstrath (13 Jun 2016)

Pale Rider said:


> The law recognises different levels of culpability.
> 
> Thus the drunk, speeding, driver on his mobile phone who kills a cyclist is treated more harshly than the sober driver who pulls out of a side turning and hits a cyclist with the same result.
> 
> ...


Yes. In a reasonable law the drunk would be s murderer and the careless idiot guilty of manslaughter. Neither would ever be permitted to drive again.

Instead lawyers play on the reasonable distinction you make to turn drunken killing into a small thing, and incompetent stupidity into essentially nothing, less serious than forgetting to buy a TV licence.


----------



## hatler (13 Jun 2016)

^ ^ ^ So much more succinctly put than I managed. ^ ^ ^


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 Jun 2016)

Pale Rider said:


> The law recognises different levels of culpability.
> 
> Thus the drunk, speeding, driver on his mobile phone who kills a cyclist is treated more harshly than the sober driver who pulls out of a side turning and hits a cyclist with the same result.
> 
> ...


I disagree. It seems entire reasonable for the charge to be the same "causing death whilst driving" and the penalty to reflect the circumstances.


----------



## Karlt (13 Jun 2016)

Drago said:


> How is a minor piece of carelessness less bad than dangerous driving if they both result in an innocent death? In each instance they drive otherwise than in accordance with the standards required of a road user and someone dies as a consequence.



Put it another way - how is it any less bad if the other party survives than if they die, if the action of the driver was the same in both cases?


----------



## Pale Rider (13 Jun 2016)

Or put it another way, if I drive out of a side turning and cause minor damage to a cheap car, should I be punished more heavily if I perform the same action and cause a pile-up and damage costing tens of thousands?

The criminality - my driving - is identical in both cases.


----------



## jefmcg (13 Jun 2016)

Karlt said:


> Put it another way - how is it any less bad if the other party survives than if they die, if the action of the driver was the same in both cases?


Well, we can't know if the actions of the driver were the same in both cases. If (for example) a driver passes close to a cyclist but no contact is made, it's hard to prove it was close. If there is a collision, then we know the car got very close.

We seem to be far down a slippery slope. Driving very close to a cyclist is not regarded as dangerous which is proven as know one was hurt. If someone was hurt, well the driver was just driving like everyone else, so that's not "dangerous" as it almost never kills anything.

I'm also finding the law odd. For me "careless" becomes "dangerous" when someone dies. It's what the word means. "Don't do that, it's very dangerous" means you think someone could be at least maimed. I was being careless with a knife when I took off a little of my nail and nail bed when cutting. When my friend walked towards my boyfriend to show us the interesting oversharpened carving knife, and stumbled**, I would have called that dangerous. 

**He survived. She either managed to stop herself from stumbling into him, or I grabbed her hand and stopped her. When motion ceased, the knife was half a metre from his chest, and my hand was around hers.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (13 Jun 2016)

jefmcg said:


> Well, we can't know if the actions of the driver were the same in both cases. If (for example) a driver passes close to a cyclist but no contact is made, it's hard to prove it was close. If there is a collision, then we know the car got very close.
> 
> We seem to be far down a slippery slope. Driving very close to a cyclist is not regarded as dangerous which is proven as know one was hurt. If someone was hurt, well the driver was just driving like everyone else, so that's not "dangerous" as it almost never kills anything.
> 
> ...


Driving carelessly = driving like you don't give a toss, like you could not care less, about vulnerable road users, and, ime on UK roads peak hours, is the default setting for most UK drivers around people on bikes

Driving dangerously = driving like you intend to hurt /scare, and present a real danger to, vulnerable road users, ime on UK roads peak hours, is the default setting for a very small minority of UK drivers around people on bikes

Driving properly = driving _carefully_ around vulnerable road users and imo, means the driver or their significant other rides a bike a lot.


----------



## oldstrath (13 Jun 2016)

Pale Rider said:


> Or put it another way, if I drive out of a side turning and cause minor damage to a cheap car, should I be punished more heavily if I perform the same action and cause a pile-up and damage costing tens of thousands?
> 
> The criminality - my driving - is identical in both cases.


I'll be completely consistent (easier for someone who doesn't drive). In both cases you have demonstrated unfitness to control your dangerous device properly, and at the very least should be retrained and retested.


----------



## jefmcg (13 Jun 2016)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Driving carelessly = driving like you don't give a toss, like you could not care less, about vulnerable road users, and, ime on UK roads peak hours, is the default setting for most UK drivers around people on bikes
> 
> Driving dangerously = driving like you intend to hurt /scare, and present a real danger to, vulnerable road users, ime on UK roads peak hours, is the default setting for a very small minority of UK drivers around people on bikes
> 
> Driving properly = driving _carefully_ around vulnerable road users and imo, means the driver or their significant other rides a bike a lot.


Yup, I know the difference. I guess in _english_ (ie not in law) driving carelessly around vulnerable road users is dangerous, it's just not _dangerous driving._


----------



## DaveReading (13 Jun 2016)

DaveReading said:


> Pale Rider said:
> 
> 
> > I have seen hundreds of defendants give evidence and *most tell lies*, but even I have to accept some will be telling the truth.
> ...



None? I thought not.


----------

