# Another cyclist killed by motorist on the phone.



## Cycleops (16 Apr 2021)

A woman who was chatting with her sister on WhatsApp has been jailed for 30 months for killing a 80 year old cyclist. 
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-56776552
Not nearly long enough.


----------



## Slick (16 Apr 2021)

https://www.alloaadvertiser.com/new...dead-crash-involving-e-bike-car-forth-valley/

I didn't know any of the gentlemen in either story, but I do know the world is slightly worse off for them not being in it.


----------



## Drago (16 Apr 2021)

30 months for killing an innocent cyclist.

Meanwhile, a fat man gets 11 years for defrauding the NHS out of 3 x salaries.


----------



## mjr (16 Apr 2021)

Drago said:


> 30 months for killing an innocent cyclist.
> 
> Meanwhile, a fat man gets 11 years for defrauding the NHS out of 3 x salaries.


As I'm sure you know, the beaks have long valued property more highly than plebs.


----------



## numbnuts (16 Apr 2021)

> Paige Blake, who is pregnant,


Maybe why a light sentence


----------



## mjr (16 Apr 2021)

numbnuts said:


> Maybe why a light sentence


I do hope not because that would send out an awful message of how to get a light sentence. (The collision was almost a year ago.)


----------



## HMS_Dave (16 Apr 2021)

numbnuts said:


> Maybe why a light sentence


It probably is, but not really a good excuse.


----------



## Darius_Jedburgh (16 Apr 2021)

numbnuts said:


> Maybe why a light sentence


That shouldn't have any bearing on the sentence, but in the present world any excuse will get your term reduced.....unless you are a man.


----------



## Cycleops (16 Apr 2021)

HMS_Dave said:


> It probably is, but not really a good excuse.


I believe she was pregnant at trial rather than when the offence was committed.


----------



## flake99please (16 Apr 2021)

I would accept the 3 years, if a lifetime driving ban was included.


----------



## numbnuts (16 Apr 2021)

Cycleops said:


> I believe she was pregnant at trial rather than when the offence was committed.


She had a good solicitor, maybe he's the father 
The trouble with “life time bans” no one would keep to it so they will be driving with out insurance ect


----------



## Cycleops (16 Apr 2021)

numbnuts said:


> She had a good solicitor, maybe he's the father
> The trouble with “life time bans” no one would keep to it so they will be driving with out insurance ect


I'm not so sure, with ANPR everywhere they'd get pulled up quite quickly.


----------



## roubaixtuesday (16 Apr 2021)

Darius_Jedburgh said:


> That shouldn't have any bearing on the sentence, but in the present world any excuse will get your term reduced.....unless you are a man.



Strong the victimhood is in this one Yoda.


----------



## DCLane (16 Apr 2021)

She pleaded guilty at the first instance, which reduces her sentence significantly.

What happens to the baby is another issue, where they may not let her keep it.


----------



## flake99please (16 Apr 2021)

numbnuts said:


> The trouble with “life time bans” no one would keep to it so they will be driving with out insurance ect



Make it clear that if a driver is subsequently caught driving without a license, etc, there is a mandatory 20 year sentence (10 served for good behaviour). That should be a strong enough deterrent.


----------



## CanucksTraveller (16 Apr 2021)

Cycleops said:


> I'm not so sure, with ANPR they'd get pulled up quite quickly.


ANPR pings cars, not drivers, that's the problem. The car doesn't get banned, so it can't be flagged because the banned driver can, (for example), allow family members to drive them around. Some banned drivers just drive another car, boyfriend's, wife's, whoever.

See Katy Price for a good example of why driving bans only work on law abiding mugs, and why any one else will drive regardless. Stopped while banned? No problem, your punishment is only an extended ban, and you've got no intention of following that either.
Police have to witness/ stop you to find out that you're driving while banned. Unless you're a muppet then being stopped should be rare... I've been stopped once in about 30 years.

You can eventually get a custodial if you're caught repeatedly, but only eventually, and most lawyers will argue that a custodial will bring undue hardship, so it goes back to a ban. Again, see Katy Price for evidence of that.


----------



## Baldy (16 Apr 2021)

mjr said:


> I do hope not because that would send out an awful message of how to get a light sentence. (The collision was almost a year ago.)



Pleading your belly, was a ploy extensively use in the 18/19th centuries to escape the noose.


----------



## mjr (16 Apr 2021)

flake99please said:


> Make it clear that if a driver is subsequently caught driving without a license, etc, there is a mandatory 20 year sentence (10 served for good behaviour). That should be a strong enough deterrent.


I give it approximately 47 seconds between that being announced and a "war on motorists" headline on the DM website.


----------



## Cycleops (16 Apr 2021)

mjr said:


> I give it approximately 47 seconds between that being announced and a "war on motorists" headline on the DM website.


Here's the actual article:

https://mol.im/a/9479087


----------



## DRM (17 Apr 2021)

I suspect the pregnancy is a ploy to avoid prison, the baby should be removed and put up for adoption, as for people who drive when banned take the vehicle off them and crush it, no if's no but's, driving soon becomes very expensive, particularly if you've borrowed somebody's car, then 3 strikes and it's prison


----------



## matticus (17 Apr 2021)

Darius_Jedburgh said:


> That shouldn't have any bearing on the sentence, but in the present world any excuse will get your term reduced.....unless you are a man.


I think you mean a Hardworking Family Man (who needs a car to commute, and for his share of the school-run ... )


----------



## Bazzer (17 Apr 2021)

DRM said:


> I suspect the pregnancy is a ploy to avoid prison, the baby should be removed and put up for adoption, as for people who drive when banned take the vehicle off them and crush it, no if's no but's, driving soon becomes very expensive, particularly if you've borrowed somebody's car, then 3 strikes and it's prison


Apologies in advance for appearing to be a Daily Heil reader, but I wouldn't even do three strikes. If you are banned and caught driving, the car you are driving is crushed and you face a mandatory jail sentence. End of.


----------



## Drago (18 Apr 2021)

And the man should be changed so that "use, cause or permit" regulations are strengthened - anyone allowing, causing or permitting a disqualified driver to use their car should face the same penalty as the driver.


----------



## DRM (19 Apr 2021)

Drago said:


> And the man should be changed so that "use, cause or permit" regulations are strengthened - anyone allowing, causing or permitting a disqualified driver to use their car should face the same penalty as the driver.


I think you're absolutely spot on with that, it'll only take a couple of cases to get it through to their thick skulls about allowing others to use your car, and if the banned driver just borrows a car without the owners knowledge you can add TWOC to their criminal record/sentence as well for good measure with no if's or but's, as for lawyers like that Mr Loophole, he should be put in the stocks and pelted with those dog waste bags people leave dangling in trees


----------



## Phaeton (19 Apr 2021)

flake99please said:


> Make it clear that if a driver is subsequently caught driving without a license, etc, there is a mandatory 20 year sentence (10 served for good behaviour). That should be a strong enough deterrent.


Yeah that'll work, just like the death sentence does in the places that still have it.


----------



## Pale Rider (19 Apr 2021)

DRM said:


> I suspect the pregnancy is a ploy to avoid prison,



Known in court circles as a tactical pregnancy.

The punter knows the gestation period of a court case is roughly the same as for a human.

Thus getting pregnant immediately after being nicked will ensure that come the evil day the woman will know she will either be heavily pregnant, about to give birth, or a recent mother.

All of which are handy cards to play to avoid or lessen the appropriate penalty.



roubaixtuesday said:


> Strong the victimhood is in this one Yoda.



Gender equality has a long way to go before it reaches court sentencing.

Funnily enough, I don't hear women's rights campaigners moaning about that.


----------



## roubaixtuesday (19 Apr 2021)

Pale Rider said:


> Gender equality has a long way to go before it reaches court sentencing.
> 
> Funnily enough, I don't hear women's rights campaigners moaning about that.



https://howardleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/APPG-report-on-sentencing-31-October-2018.pdf


----------



## Pale Rider (19 Apr 2021)

roubaixtuesday said:


> https://howardleague.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/10/APPG-report-on-sentencing-31-October-2018.pdf



The report says nothing about men V women sentencing.

Lots of predictable hand wringing about the need for even more ludicrously lenient sentences for women.

If a woman - or a man for that matter - doesn't want to go to prison the answer is obvious.

Don't offend.


----------



## roubaixtuesday (19 Apr 2021)

Pale Rider said:


> If a woman - or a man for that matter - doesn't want to go to prison the answer is obvious.
> 
> Don't offend.



Yeah. Obvious. Simple. Easy. 

Absolutely nothing to see here, and for gawds sake don't try to engage our brains.


----------



## Badger_Boom (19 Apr 2021)

Darius_Jedburgh said:


> That shouldn't have any bearing on the sentence, but in the present world any excuse will get your term reduced.....unless you are a man.


You mean unlike all the usual "he's of previously sound character"; "it was his first offence"; "he'll lose his job is he can't drive" b'llcks?


----------



## matticus (19 Apr 2021)

<ahem>


matticus said:


> I think you mean a Hardworking Family Man (who needs a car to commute, and for his share of the school-run ... )


----------



## icowden (19 Apr 2021)

mjr said:


> As I'm sure you know, the beaks have long valued property more highly than plebs.



As I am sure you know, this is not true. The "beaks" have to follow sentencing guidelines.
For the offence, it looks like it has been classified as level 3 - driving that created a significant risk of danger.
That has a starting point of 3 years custody, a max of 5 years and a minimum of 2 years. A guilty plea knocks of 1/3rd and the rest is about mitigation and aggravating factors.

If you have a problem with the length of the sentence, lobby your MP to ask for tougher sentences. The risk of that is that MPs only go for tougher sentencing where it makes them look good.

Given that none of us were there for the trial nor have seen the summing up, we cannot know the decisions that the Judge took to determine the sentence. As she is heavily pregnant, the Judge may have reluctantly considered that (given a guilty plea) the sentence should be set such that she is able to complete her sentence in the community so that she is not separated from her baby (mothers can stay with babies until they are 18 months).

As it is, lets stop blaming Judges for the state of the legal system and start blaming those who are actually at fault.


----------



## mjr (19 Apr 2021)

icowden said:


> As I am sure you know, this is not true. The "beaks" have to follow sentencing guidelines.


As I'm sure you know, that doesn't contradict my statement. All you're doing is pointing out who's to blame for setting the values. I don't disagree.



> For the offence, it looks like it has been classified as level 3 - driving that created a significant risk of danger.


How on earth is that the correct charge for vehicular homicide anyway? Do they now charge an axe murderer with "forestry that created significant danger"?


----------



## icowden (19 Apr 2021)

mjr said:


> As I'm sure you know, that doesn't contradict my statement
> How on earth is that the correct charge for vehicular homicide anyway? Do they now charge an axe murderer with "forestry that created significant danger"?


I know it doesn't contradict it, but you do seem to be suggesting that somehow the judges give tougher sentences for damage of property (presumably referring to the monuments law).

As for vehicular homicide, It isn't and it wasn't. Again you are misattributing.

Homicide is the deliberate intent to kill someone. This was no such thing. This was the accidental and unintended death of a cyclist through poor driving. There was no intent to kill or even injure.


----------



## classic33 (19 Apr 2021)

icowden said:


> I know it doesn't contradict it, but you do seem to be suggesting that somehow the judges give tougher sentences for damage of property (presumably referring to the monuments law).
> *
> As for vehicular homicide, It isn't and it wasn't. Again you are misattributing.
> *
> Homicide is the deliberate intent to kill someone. This was no such thing. This was the accidental and unintended death of a cyclist through poor driving. There was no intent to kill or even injure.


Isn't that Death by dangerous driving in the UK.


----------



## icowden (20 Apr 2021)

classic33 said:


> Isn't that Death by dangerous driving in the UK.


Yes - hence the driver was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving.


----------



## classic33 (20 Apr 2021)

icowden said:


> Yes - hence the driver was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving.


Not "vehicle homicide", as given by you, which doesn't actually exist in the UK as a seperate offence.


----------



## icowden (20 Apr 2021)

classic33 said:


> Not "vehicle homicide", as given by you, which doesn't actually exist in the UK as a seperate offence.


Not by me - by @mjr 

I did look it up and apparently vehicular homicide doesn't require intent, but to British ears homicide does tend to become a synonym for murder.
All those US detective series y'see!


----------



## matticus (20 Apr 2021)

I think we (UK) have "man-slaughter" to cover unintended (but predictable) killings.


----------



## mjr (20 Apr 2021)

matticus said:


> I think we (UK) have "man-slaughter" to cover unintended (but predictable) killings.


Yes but that implies it wasn't murder, whereas homocide makes no judgment on intent.


----------



## mjr (20 Apr 2021)

icowden said:


> I know it doesn't contradict it, but you do seem to be suggesting that somehow the judges give tougher sentences for damage of property (presumably referring to the monuments law).


Not referring to that law. It's long been the case that crimes against property carry longer sentences than crimes against people. I don't say the judges choose the sentence ranges allowed, but they are what they are.



> As for vehicular homicide, It isn't and it wasn't. Again you are misattributing.
> 
> Homicide is the deliberate intent to kill someone. This was no such thing.


I think you misunderstood and have since corrected yourself.



> This was the accidental and unintended death of a cyclist through poor driving. There was no intent to kill or even injure.


That seems rather like saying that throwing knives into a crowd lacks intent. There comes a point where conduct is sufficiently reckless that killing is reasonably possible, so it's basically Russian Roulette with other people's lives. That's not on and should be dealt with more stiffly than the current driver's friend laws.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (20 Apr 2021)

icowden said:


> to British ears homicide does tend to become a synonym for murder



Murder is quite specific and is one category of homicide but you can also have justifiable homicide, casual homicide, and culpable homicide (equivalent to English manslaughter). This is relative to Scots law so it's not ideal to speak of how legal definitions might be interpreted by 'British' ears.


----------



## icowden (20 Apr 2021)

glasgowcyclist said:


> This is relative to Scots law so it's not ideal to speak of how legal definitions might be interpreted by 'British' ears.



I take your point, but I'd still have thought that if you asked the average Scotsman, Welshman, Englishman or NorthernIrishman (or woman) that their perception of homicide is someone deliberately killing someone else.

Anyway - as @mjr pointed out, I did correct myself.


----------



## Badger_Boom (21 Apr 2021)

mjr said:


> How on earth is that the correct charge for vehicular homicide anyway? Do they now charge an axe murderer with "forestry that created significant danger"?


My understanding is that motoring law is framed in this manner because if there was a chance of being charged with vehicular murder or manslaughter it would make driving far too unpopular. Think of the lost tax revenue and profits.


----------



## winjim (21 Apr 2021)

Anybody considering separating a child from its mother needs to have a really good think and a really extraordinarily good justification for that course of action. I'm not giving an opinion on whether this case provides that justification but it is not a trivial matter.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (21 Apr 2021)

A 10 year ban on driving would be justified


----------



## DCBassman (21 Apr 2021)

Ming the Merciless said:


> A 10 year ban on driving would be justified


At the very least, IMHO...


----------



## DRM (21 Apr 2021)

winjim said:


> Anybody considering separating a child from its mother needs to have a really good think and a really extraordinarily good justification for that course of action. I'm not giving an opinion on whether this case provides that justification but it is not a trivial matter.


Imagine how a child would feel finding out it was only conceived as a get out of jail free card


----------



## Drago (26 Apr 2021)

mjr said:


> Yes but that implies it wasn't murder, whereas homocide makes no judgment on intent.


Yes, you can recklessly assault someone, but strangely you can't recklessly murder them.

In a way its a bit of a joke, the whole thing open to happenstance. If I poke someone hard in the face but don't injire them, I could be done for common adsault. Punch someone else, in exactly the same circumstances using exactly the same level of force, but their skull fractures then I could end up in the jug for GBH. 

In either scenario the intent, the act of violence, and the level or force used in joules is identical, yet as an offender I would be sentenced (or rewarded) depending on the level of good or bad luck involved. 

To my mind you assault someone, or you don't. You assault someone with a weapon, or you don't. You kill someone, or you don't. Letting people off with lighter punishments simply because they aren't very good with their fists always seemed odd to me.


----------



## the snail (19 Jun 2021)

Badger_Boom said:


> My understanding is that motoring law is framed in this manner because if there was a chance of being charged with vehicular murder or manslaughter it would make driving far too unpopular. Think of the lost tax revenue and profits.


The 'death by' offenses were created because juries are reluctant to convict drivers on manslaughter charges ( c.f. the Allison case).
It occurs to me that if someone drives while disqualified, rather than the taxpayer forking out for prison accommodation, the offender should get an ankle bracelet and home arrest, so no need to worry about childcare etc.


----------



## simongt (19 Jun 2021)

This country is odd. If I go out and knife someone, I'll probaby get twenty years. If I run them down in a car, I'll probably get six months.


----------



## Profpointy (19 Jun 2021)

simongt said:


> This country is odd. If I go out and knife someone, I'll probaby get twenty years. If I run them down in a car, I'll probably get six months.



There is a difference between stabbing someone, presumably deliberately, and accidentally running someone over however blameworthy or recklessly you'd been driving. 

That said I have a major problem with some seeming deliberate hitting of cyclists as being seen as motoring offences rather than the serious assaults / attempted murder they quite clearly are.

And bad cycling leading to deaths are treated far more severely than bad driving.


----------



## simongt (20 Jun 2021)

The point here may be that if someone is more interested / concerned in looking at their cellphone than driving, then that is total irresponsibility and should be treated as such and not as an 'oh dear, well never mind, you're a driver after all not just a cyclist.'


----------



## simongt (25 Jun 2021)

Example being of Christopher Guard who in 2015, despite having previously been caught eight times using his cellphone whilst driving and put on two driver awareness courses to avoid points, continued to drive, claiming 'exceptional hardship' each time if he lost his licence, carried on using his cellphone whilst driving and later hit and killed cyclist Lee Martin. 
Nuff said.


----------

