# 19 year old jailed for killing cyclist



## Bugner (23 Feb 2010)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8529091.stm


----------



## 2Loose (23 Feb 2010)

Its a start.

Apparently she iddn't see the other time trialist she passed very closely either, so one less bad diver on the roads for a short time.


----------



## ianrauk (23 Feb 2010)

21 months for killing someone... not long is it. How could you not see a cyclist. Unless you were not paying attention.
Has her license been taken away? I bloody hope so.


----------



## Andy in Sig (23 Feb 2010)

It is not long and I was thinking that 18 months would be the most one could hope to see, so the sentence seems OK. That said, given the absence of malice in the case i.e. she was no more than woefully, stupidly negligent, I would have thought that three years should have been the maximum.


----------



## Crackle (23 Feb 2010)

I'd hope to see her licence taken away and a re-test applied, preferably a tougher one but I've no idea if she even loses her licence for this.


----------



## Bad Company (23 Feb 2010)

I thought the sentance was a bit harsh. This was a dual carriageway with a 70 mph limit. Not a great place for a time trial.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (23 Feb 2010)

Bad Company said:


> I thought the sentance was a bit harsh. This was a dual carriageway with a 70 mph limit. Not a great place for a time trial.


just like most of the time trials around here.

all the more reason, I'd have thought, that if you are driving, to keep your eyes peeled, your wits about you, and to get your car out into the outside lane and give each and all the cyclists, exercising their entirely lawful right to ride on said dual carriageway, a very wide berth.


----------



## wafflycat (23 Feb 2010)

The stats for injuries/deaths on TTs show that dual carriageways are actually safer than single carriageways. The reality is that on a dual carriageway, the traffic has a complete lane it can pull out into when overtaking you. The main danger points on a dual carriageway are the sliproads. I know that 'common sense' would dictate that duals are bad, but the reality is the opposite (The CTT keep accident stats which are published annually)


----------



## GrasB (23 Feb 2010)

Bad Company said:


> I thought the sentance was a bit harsh. This was a dual carriageway with a 70 mph limit. Not a great place for a time trial.


She'd passed very close to another cyclist before she hit this man & also to say that she didn't see him & the first thing she knew about his presence was him impacting the car. She blatantly wasn't paying proper attention to the road at high speed, this led to the tragic & unfortunate death of a cyclist. IMHO the sentence wasn't harsh.


----------



## Bugner (23 Feb 2010)

ianrauk said:


> Has her license been taken away? I bloody hope so.



Banned for 2 years. Personally, I think she should be banned for life


----------



## Andy in Sig (23 Feb 2010)

I would have thought at least a five year ban in addition to the prison time would have been sensible. Mind you, I would bet that her insurance premiums rocket so high that she could be effectively banned for a few years. Does anybody know what happens to the premiums in cases like this?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (23 Feb 2010)

Andy in Sig said:


> I would have thought at least a five year ban in addition to the prison time would have been sensible. Mind you, I would bet that her insurance premiums rocket so high that she could be effectively banned for a few years. Does anybody know what happens to the premiums in cases like this?



they go through the roof and many household name insurers won't touch her. but we don't have a properly vigilant system to prevent uninsured, banned/unlicensed, drivers taking to the roads in their unroadworthy cars.


----------



## Bad Company (23 Feb 2010)

GrasB said:


> She'd passed very close to another cyclist before she hit this man & also to say that she didn't see him & the first thing she knew about his presence was him impacting the car. She blatantly wasn't paying proper attention to the road at high speed, this led to the tragic & unfortunate death of a cyclist. IMHO the sentence wasn't harsh.



I'm not saying that she should not have been penalised. I just don't see the point of sending somebody like her to jail.


----------



## gaz (23 Feb 2010)

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/jail-for-motorist-who-killed-cyclist-rhys-evans-25132



> Yesterday she attended Huntingdon Crown Court for sentencing and was given 21 months in jail, of which she will serve half. The care assistant was also handed a two-year driving ban.



so less than a year in jail for killing someone? And the driving ban runs at the same time she is in jail, so it's only a 14 month driving ban? if she served full time only a 3month driving ban.

Makes me feel sick that true justice isn't given.


----------



## MacB (23 Feb 2010)

gaz said:


> http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/jail-for-motorist-who-killed-cyclist-rhys-evans-25132
> 
> 
> 
> ...



But what is true justice, she's not a violent criminal nor at risk of being a danger to others, is prison the best option? Liberty can be curtailed via electronic tagging and the person employed in seving the community, maybe via a charity. 

Maybe two years assisting with grief counselling and an order to travel everywhere by bicycle might have been more fitting. If someone truly regrets an action then they'll punish themselves far more than anything we can do. If they don't then the dehumanising prison system is more likely to make them worse.


----------



## GrasB (23 Feb 2010)

Bad Company said:


> I'm not saying that she should not have been penalised. I just don't see the point of sending somebody like her to jail.


I agree jail probably isn't the most appropriate punishment for this crime & this person. There is however a difference between a punishment being harsh & appropriate. In terms of man slaughter, which is fundamentally what death by dangerous driving is, I don't see that the sentence as harsh.


----------



## Crankarm (23 Feb 2010)

The justice system is at a total loss as to how to adequately deal with offenders such as her. She should have been banned for 10 years, a proper 5 year prison sentence during which she should spend time cycling with other killer driver cons along the A66, A14 and A34 . When she is eventually released she should pay 50% of any wages she earns to the Evans family for a period of 5 years.

The punishment needs to be seen to be a deterrent given the large numbers of drivers on the roads who drive in a dangerous manner.


----------



## gaz (23 Feb 2010)

MacB said:


> But what is true justice, she's not a violent criminal nor at risk of being a danger to others, is prison the best option? Liberty can be curtailed via electronic tagging and the person employed in seving the community, maybe via a charity.
> 
> Maybe two years assisting with grief counselling and an order to travel everywhere by bicycle might have been more fitting. If someone truly regrets an action then they'll punish themselves far more than anything we can do. If they don't then the dehumanising prison system is more likely to make them worse.


And this is the problem with the modern system, everyone has different opinions and views on justice that you can't please everyone.

At least a much longer driving ban is in order, thats my opinion.


----------



## Crankarm (23 Feb 2010)

User3143 said:


> Get real Crankarm ffs




Oh p* off Lee.


----------



## MacB (23 Feb 2010)

gaz said:


> And this is the problem with the modern system, everyone has different opinions and views on justice that you can't please everyone.
> 
> At least a much longer driving ban is in order, thats my opinion.



Absolutely it's all up for debate but the terms justice, rehabilitation, revenge and punishment, do need to be understood. You could argue that a lack of justice begins with the ease of obtaining a driving licence and the minimal strictures placed on the operation of high speed machinery. 

Finger pointing and 'hang em high' approaches are rather knee jerk and do nothing to tackle underlying issues.


----------



## MartinC (23 Feb 2010)

I don't think the prison sentence is harsh or unduly lenient. Killing a fellow human being by driving negligently is a serious matter which the justice system needs to mark significantly.

What's appalling to me is the law's attitude to driving standards. Anyone who's killed another road user through bad driving should only get their licence back (if at all) after a significant time and rigourous re-training and testing.

The attitude that because it happened in a time trial on a dual carriageway it's less blameworthy is an egregious example of road hog culture. You have an obligation to drive carefully and watch out for other road users on any road. Only motorways restrict the types of traffic permitted on them. A time trial simply means that your riding your bike alone on the road. Claiming that car drivers have the right to be dismissive of others lives on roads they unilaterally decide are appropriate for them alone is as wrong as the victims colleagues deciding that they have the right to avenge their comrade's death with a 9mm round.


----------



## gaz (23 Feb 2010)

MartinC said:


> What's appalling to me is the law's attitude to driving standards. Anyone who's killed another road user through bad driving should only get their licence back (if at all) after a significant time and rigourous re-training and testing.


As MacB said, shouldn't the test just be better and harder the first time round... it's far to easy to to pass imo, and from my experience you don't actually learn how to drive until you are in a car by your self!


----------



## gaz (23 Feb 2010)

User3143 said:


> The test if fairly tough and the failure rate quite high. The theory test has been extended and so has the HPT (I think).
> 
> I think you'll find that if you put a motorist in a car who has been driving for a number of years that they would fail the test due to bad habits and general laziness. I don't see how this complacency can be reduced by making the test harder the first time round people take thier test.


Has the practical test changed much in the past 5 years?

I know the theory test has been extended. but is it really that hard? i did my test 5 years ago, and got 34/35 in the theory test, and HP was around 80% correct.

the main theory test was easy in my mind, i didn't study for it or anything, just common sense. The HP is a great test, and i think that should be a big part of the test as it is (or should be) a major part of everyones day to day driving.

But when i say harder, i was more talking about expanding the practical aspect. To my knowledge there isn't anything about driving around cyclists in that exam or is it a must in the theory, thus someone could learn to drive, take there test and not have anything to do with cyclists.

It seams like that would be a great place to hit the young drivers that will be on the road.


And shouldn't the failure rate be high? we don't want to be handing them our like GCSE's *runs and ducks*


----------



## 2Loose (23 Feb 2010)

User3143 said:


> The test if fairly tough and the failure rate quite high. The theory test has been extended and so has the HPT (I think).



When some new drivers and even driving instructors believe that cyclists should stay on the far leftcycle lanepavement, then the testing is definitely missing something despite being tough in certain areas.


----------



## Crankarm (23 Feb 2010)

User3143 said:


> The test if fairly tough and the failure rate quite high. The theory test has been extended and so has the HPT (I think).
> 
> _*I think you'll find that if you put a motorist in a car who has been driving for a number of years that they would fail the test due to bad habits and general laziness*_. I don't see how this complacency can be reduced by making the test harder the first time round people take thier test.



Evidence or pure suposition?


----------



## Crankarm (23 Feb 2010)

MartinC said:


> I don't think the prison sentence is harsh or unduly lenient. Killing a fellow human being by driving negligently is a serious matter which the justice system needs to mark significantly.
> 
> What's appalling to me is the law's attitude to driving standards. Anyone who's killed another road user through bad driving should only get their licence back (if at all) after a significant time and rigourous re-training and testing.
> 
> The attitude that because it happened in a time trial on a dual carriageway it's less blameworthy is an egregious example of road hog culture. You have an obligation to drive carefully and watch out for other road users on any road. Only motorways restrict the types of traffic permitted on them. A time trial simply means that your riding your bike alone on the road. *Claiming that car drivers have the right to be dismissive of others lives on roads they unilaterally decide are appropriate for them alone is as wrong as the victims colleagues deciding that they have the right to avenge their comrade's death with a 9mm round*.



Errr .......... who is claiming the 'rights' that you describe or did you make them up?


----------



## Crankarm (23 Feb 2010)

User3143 said:


> There's been a few programmes about it on the TV over the years.



Aghh ........... TV. So a reliable form of sampling of the driving population or just lining up some tired old motoring journos to give anecdotal evidence. It wouldn't be the Beeb by any chance would it? Which programmes ........


----------



## Bad Company (23 Feb 2010)

MacB said:


> But what is true justice, she's not a violent criminal nor at risk of being a danger to others, is prison the best option? Liberty can be curtailed via electronic tagging and the person employed in seving the community, maybe via a charity.
> 
> Maybe two years assisting with grief counselling and an order to travel everywhere by bicycle might have been more fitting. If someone truly regrets an action then they'll punish themselves far more than anything we can do. If they don't then the dehumanising prison system is more likely to make them worse.



Good post - Not often I find myself in agreement with MacB.

For the benefit of Mr Paul I am not saying that she was right or that she should go unpunished. I am simply saying that imo a prison sentence is not appropriate.


----------



## MacB (23 Feb 2010)

Bad Company said:


> Good post - Not often I find myself in agreement with MacB.



There's hope for you yet then, unlike Cranky who's a lost cause


----------



## MacB (23 Feb 2010)

> Why not? He was legally riding on the road, and she was obliged to pay due care and attention. She didn't and didn't see him until she hit him from behind.
> 
> Your response is that the sentence is harsh because it's a 70mph road, and the suggestion that the bike shouldn't have been there.
> 
> ...




no, he's saying that a prison sentence isn't appropriate, that's very different to saying that the punishment is too harsh. For all you know he may harbour secret desires to see public flogging reinstated.


----------



## MartinC (23 Feb 2010)

MacB said:


> no, he's saying that a prison sentence isn't appropriate, that's very different to saying that the punishment is too harsh. For all you know he may harbour secret desires to see public flogging reinstated.




No. The post was "I thought the sentance was a bit harsh. This was a dual carriageway with a 70 mph limit. Not a great place for a time trial."


----------



## MacB (23 Feb 2010)

MartinC said:


> No. The post was "I thought the sentance was a bit harsh. This was a dual carriageway with a 70 mph limit. Not a great place for a time trial."



and that has since been qualified, I said some dorky things about all sorts 20 odd years ago, am I still to be defined only by those statements?


----------



## MartinC (23 Feb 2010)

Which still leaves the other 2 points.


----------



## Crankarm (23 Feb 2010)

> Post #6





> Post #6
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Bad Company (23 Feb 2010)

> Why not? He was legally riding on the road, and she was obliged to pay due care and attention. She didn't and didn't see him until she hit him from behind.
> 
> Your response is that the sentence is harsh because it's a 70mph road, and the suggestion that the bike shouldn't have been there.
> 
> ...



I'm not saying that she was not in the wrong - she was and she should pay a penalty. I am saying that imo jail is not the answer here.

I'm not saying that the law is any different because it was a dual carriageway. My guess is that she was cruising along at 70 ish withoug proper concentration and was surprised to come accross a group of cyclists.


----------



## Crankarm (23 Feb 2010)

MacB said:


> There's hope for you yet then, unlike Cranky who's a lost cause



It is tiresome and depressing that the liberal leftie apologists are so disparaging and vindictive toward others who hold different views. In fact their manner reveals them to be nothing more than fascists .


----------



## Bad Company (23 Feb 2010)

Crankarm said:


> It is tiresome and depressing that the liberal leftie apologists are so disparaging and vindictive toward others who hold different views. In fact their manner reveals them to be nothing more than fascists .



Hey I'm no liberal. My politics are to the right of 'Attila the Hun'.


----------



## Crankarm (23 Feb 2010)

Bad Company said:


> I'm not saying that she was not in the wrong - she was and she should pay a penalty. I am saying that imo jail is not the answer here.
> 
> I'm not saying that the law is any different because it was a dual carriageway. My guess is that she was cruising along at 70 ish withoug proper concentration and was surprised to come accross a group of cyclists.



BC she had close passed another cyclist prior to hitting Major Evans on his bike. She may even have been close passing or buzzing the cyclists deliberately and didn't realise how dangerous her actions were and came to prove. I have driven along the road that was being used many times. It is a wide dual carriageway with a shoulder and very easy to spot what is in front, leaving or joining the road. Her driving fell well below that of the competent and prudent driver as to be dangerous as the court found. The only contention now is the sentence given her.


----------



## Crankarm (23 Feb 2010)

Bad Company said:


> Hey I'm no liberal. My politics are to the right of 'Attila the Hun'.



BC my comment wasn't directed at you if you look to my quote. And I've never noticed you being vindictive as some are.


----------



## MacB (23 Feb 2010)

Crankarm said:


> BC my comment wasn't directed at you if you look to my quote. And I've never noticed you being vindictive as some are.



Ah, you'll get over it Cranky, coz you KNOW you're right


----------



## Crankarm (23 Feb 2010)

MacB said:


> Ah, you'll get over it Cranky, *coz you KNOW you're right*



Glad we're in agreement then McB .


----------



## Bad Company (23 Feb 2010)

Crankarm said:


> BC she had close passed another cyclist prior to hitting Major Evans on his bike. She may even have been close passing or buzzing the cyclists deliberately and didn't realise how dangerous her actions were and came to prove. I have driven along the road that was being used many times. It is a wide dual carriageway with a shoulder and very easy to spot what is in front, leaving or joining the road. Her driving fell well below that of the competent and prudent driver as to be dangerous as the court found. The only contention now is the sentence given her.



IF what you are suggesting about her 'buzzing' the cyclists was right I would agree that a long prison sentance would be well deserved as that would be a deliberate act. 

Having said that I can see no evidence of this in any of the press articles on this so I have to assume that she was just foolish and did not pay adequate attention.


----------



## Crankarm (23 Feb 2010)

Bad Company said:


> IF what you are suggesting about her 'buzzing' the cyclists was right I would agree that a long prison sentance would be well deserved as that would be a deliberate act.
> 
> Having said that I can see no evidence of this in any of the press articles on this so I have to assume that she was just foolish and did not pay adequate attention.



I think your interpretation is a lot little more charitable toward her than mine. I have some interest as probably about 20-25 years ago a former boss of mine was TTing along this road who was also knocked down, but left for dead. When he didn't come in at his allotted time and following riders hadn't seen him a few guys went back up the course and eventually found him lying unconscious in a ditch by the side of the carriageway with his head split open. He was rushed to hospital. Fortunately he survived but has a huge scar across the back of his skull to show. He can remember nothing. It turned out that a white van that had been buzzing a few of the cyclists along the route had actually hit my boss nearly killing him. They were caught and the driver jailed.

So obviously you cannot apply that situation to the current one but it must be a possibility given that Hart could offer no explanation as to why she close passed one cyclist and then just didn't see Major Rys Evans as she drove into him. I also saw footage of her attending court and she didn't look very contrite or devasted to me. One shot she appeared to have the beginnings of a smirk. Maybe this was down to her immaturity and being totally overwhelmed by the situation she had created. I don't know but certainly she could have given a much fuller explanation as to what she was doing as she drove along that road on that morning. But she would have been advised by weasel defence lawyers not to incriminate herself so we shall never really know whether her actions were deliberate or as has been found negligent to the point of being dangerous.

A very sad case indeed, as a man in his prime, who had served his country, needlessly lost his life and his family have been devastated.


----------



## MartinC (23 Feb 2010)

Bad Company said:


> I'm not saying that she was not in the wrong - she was and she should pay a penalty. I am saying that imo jail is not the answer here.
> 
> I'm not saying that the law is any different because it was a dual carriageway. My guess is that she was cruising along at 70 ish withoug proper concentration and was surprised to come accross a group of cyclists.



I disagree with the first point. Although we probably agree that a long sentence wouldn't achieve anything worthwhile to me it's still very important the the law recognises that a life has been taken and that this is a matter with very serious consequences. If can people arbiitrarily define circumstances where taking a life is of little consequence then the way is open for others to argue that they have the same option - hence the point about retaliation.

The issue of banning is to me about driving standards not necessarily criminal justice. To me it's unarguable that anyone who has shown that they drive so badly that people are killed should only ever get their licence back after lengthy suspension and retraining - if ever.

I still don't understand your point about dual carriageways, 70 limits and time trials. The original gist of the post seemed to me to be a classic piece of victim blaming. You may have reconsidered this but your first post is still striking and reflects, maybe not in a way intended, an attitude that I'd always challenge.


----------



## Crankarm (23 Feb 2010)

MartinC said:


> I disagree with the first point. Although we probably agree that a long sentence wouldn't achieve anything worthwhile to me it's still very important the the law recognises that a life has been taken and that this is a matter with very serious consequences. *If can people arbiitrarily define circumstances where taking a life is of little consequence then the way is open for others to argue that they have the same option - hence the point about retaliation*.
> 
> The issue of banning is to me about driving standards not necessarily criminal justice. To me it's unarguable that anyone who has shown that they drive so badly that people are killed should only ever get their licence back after lengthy suspension and retraining - if ever.
> 
> I still don't understand your point about dual carriageways, 70 limits and time trials. The original gist of the post seemed to me to be a classic piece of victim blaming. You may have reconsidered this but your first post is still striking and reflects, maybe not in a way intended, an attitude that I'd always challenge.



The risk that the law, a term I use loosely, is seen to be an ass and may allow for vigilantism or disatisfied victims or members of their family to take retaliatory action, or OTH for people to think there is little risk of detection or prosecution and even if they are caught, the penalty is only slight, so _"Get out of my a*hole! __I don't give a sh1t! "_


----------



## Bad Company (23 Feb 2010)

MartinC said:


> I still don't understand your point about dual carriageways, 70 limits and time trials. The original gist of the post seemed to me to be a classic piece of victim blaming. You may have reconsidered this but your first post is still striking and reflects, maybe not in a way intended, an attitude that I'd always challenge.



I have to admit to having never done a time trial but to me such activity on a fast dual carriageway sounds dangerous. As appears to have happened here a driver comes along at 70 ish, not concentrating properly and definitely not expecting to come accross a group of cyclists.


----------



## GrasB (23 Feb 2010)

I tend to find that cycling on a dual carriage way to be generally safer than cycling on a single carriageway NSL trunk road or an ex-trunk A road. 99% of drivers see you & swap lanes leaving you loads of space on the dual carriageway, on the NSL single carriageway drivers tend to move out just far enough to pass you as long as you don't move more than 6" further to the offside.


----------



## Crankarm (23 Feb 2010)

Bad Company said:


> I have to admit to having never done a time trial but to me such activity on a fast dual carriageway sounds dangerous. As appears to have happened here a driver comes along at 70 ish, not concentrating properly and definitely not expecting to come accross a group of cyclists.



BC when you are TTing you tend not to cycle in a group. Anyway she didn't just 'happen' upon Major Evans, she had already closed passed another cyclist .


----------



## Bman (23 Feb 2010)

It doesnt matter how easy or hard the driving test is. If you have enough time/money you can take the test as many times as you want.


----------



## Crankarm (23 Feb 2010)

Bad Company said:


> I have to admit to having never done a time trial but to me such activity on a fast dual carriageway sounds dangerous. As appears to have happened here a driver comes along at 70 ish, not concentrating properly and definitely not expecting to come accross a group of cyclists.



I must admit I would not wish to ride on such a road for fear of drivers like dangerous killer driver Hart but early on a quiet sunday morning, maybe I might give it a try in a TT. But certainly not now since this tragic case shows some drivers are still clearly not even capable of driving safely on a pretty empty road on a sunday morning .


----------



## Bad Company (23 Feb 2010)

GrasB said:


> I tend to find that cycling on a dual carriage way to be generally safer than cycling on a single carriageway NSL trunk road or an ex-trunk A road. 99% of drivers see you & swap lanes leaving you loads of space on the dual carriageway, on the NSL single carriageway drivers tend to move out just far enough to pass you as long as you don't move more than 6" further to the offside.



I bow to your experience on that point.


----------



## Bad Company (23 Feb 2010)

Crankarm said:


> I must admit I would not wish to ride on such a road for fear of drivers like dangerous killer driver Hart but early on a quiet sunday morning, maybe I might give it a try in a TT. But certainly not now since this tragic case shows some drivers are still clearly not even capable of driving safely on a pretty empty road on a sunday morning .



Being passed by fast traffic does not sound like fun cycling to me so I won't be going near dual carriageways.


----------



## Origamist (23 Feb 2010)

Bad Company said:


> I have to admit to having never done a time trial but to me such activity on a fast dual carriageway sounds dangerous. As appears to have happened here a driver comes along at 70 ish, not concentrating properly and definitely not expecting to come accross a group of cyclists.



There would have been signs and marshals along the route, usually they are placed at slip roads/junctions/RaBs - she should therefore have expected to see cyclists along the inside lane of the dual carriageway. It appears that not only did she fail to see Gareth Rhys-Evans, she didn't spot the preceding rider, Claire Lee, or seemingly, the marshals en route. 

Remember, the maximum sentence for causing death by dangerous driving is 14 years - 21 months is at the bottom end of the scale.

As WC has already pointed out, as far as TTs go, dual carriageways are generally safer than single carriageways. I always preferred TTs on the former, even with cars passing me in the offisde lane at well above 80mph.


----------



## StuartG (23 Feb 2010)

A custodial sentence is appropriate to mark it as a very serious crime. The sentencing has to be in line on what was proved and not speculated. That was she was not paying attention, the incident was not intended and there are no other aggravating factors and she is contrite.

The bottom line is should this crash completely wreck another life? I don't think so, many would agree (I worry about those who don't) and a long incarceration is going to benefit who?

The bigger question is whether she should ever be trusted behind a wheel again? A lifetime ban, perhaps appealable in 10/20 years if she can show she has has developed into a reliable careful considerate person. It should certainly be up to her to prove, I don't think an automatic lapse in the ban is appropriate. Community Service, Bicycle Training are all things that could help her repay and become a better person.

Oh and make her film a reconstruction which could be shown to new drivers taking their test ...


----------



## BentMikey (23 Feb 2010)

MacB said:


> But what is true justice, she's not a violent criminal nor at risk of being a danger to others, is prison the best option? Liberty can be curtailed via electronic tagging and the person employed in seving the community, maybe via a charity.




Not a risk, not a violent criminal? She killed someone violently with a car and is IMO quite likely to do so again given her apparent lack of remorse. Darn right she should be in prison.


----------



## GrasB (23 Feb 2010)

Bad Company said:


> Being passed by fast traffic does not sound like fun cycling to me so I won't be going near dual carriageways.


it's certainly no fun but it at least leaves more safety margin on dual carriage ways. I don't use these roads by choice but sometimes I'm looking at a 10mile diversion to avoid travelling 1 mile or so on an (ex-)trunk road


----------



## classic33 (23 Feb 2010)

Given that there appears to be a number of comments on the speed limit & the close passing, how many on here haven't cycled on a road where the limit is 60mph. 

One route taken, once on the main roads, has speed limits of 20-30-60-20-60-30-70 in that order in the space of three miles.

As has been said by others. With the rights to drive/ride on the roads come responsibilties. 
However if you don't want the responsibilties then I'd say give up your rights to use the roads.
Here we are talking about the killing of another road user. But can I ask, if the car had mounted a pavement & killed someone on the pavement would we expect the same sort of sentence to be handed out. And some dual carrigeway A-roads have pavements at the sides.


----------



## dellzeqq (23 Feb 2010)

StuartG said:


> A custodial sentence is appropriate to mark it as a very serious crime. The sentencing has to be in line on what was proved and not speculated. That was she was not paying attention, the incident was not intended and there are no other aggravating factors and she is contrite.
> 
> The bottom line is should this crash completely wreck another life? I don't think so, many would agree (I worry about those who don't) and a long incarceration is going to benefit who?
> 
> ...


absolutely, Stuart. This is a terrible business - but sending someone to jail for a long stretch won't make it better.


----------



## Norm (23 Feb 2010)

> I've found myself on them a few times and don't feel as safe as on other roads, but I've never had any trouble. Drivers have more space to give you more room, but they don't slow down, and being passed at 80-90 by a car even a lane away isn't very nice, though it's more of a perceived risk than an actual one. On single carriageways drivers are more likely to slow but give you less space, which is dangerous.
> 
> And I definitely should not have to expect any driver to pay less attention than on any other road.


I'm afraid, Mr P, that I'm going to have to agree with you on this one. 

The only exception, and I haven't figured out why, is the dual cabbageway which links Windsor to Slough. For some reason, cars never change lane to pass a bike on that one. My only theory is that it is built entirely on a causeway over the flood plain, so it is 20 feet above the surrounding land and therefore it feels more spacious than it actually is.


----------



## Cab (24 Feb 2010)

Kill someone and damn near kill others en route to doing so and you get a 21 month custodial sentence and a 2 year ban.

Ram another car head on in a non-lethal (and most unlikely to be lethal) way and you get an 8 month sentence and a 2 year ban:
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news_home/displayarticle.asp?id=484885

So... Killing someone is only two and a half times worse than ramming a car and damaging it? And it isn't worthy of a longer driving ban at all?

Fecked up beyond all recognition of 'justice'.


----------



## Norm (24 Feb 2010)

Using spin, one could compare the 2 year ban for killing someone with this chap, who got a five year ban just for flicking the v's. 

Although, of course, anyone who reads the details will see it's because he is a serial drink driver who will possibly ignore the ban and start driving immediately, as he only got a 12 week suspended sentence.

I like the bird box idea, though.


----------

