Cyclist deliberately knocked off - driver banned for 6 months

[raleighnut]

...you may want to rethink that - what about straight on?

i'd be at the inside of the right hand lane approaching the roundabout if going straight on to allow left turning cars to turn left. If turning right I'd be in the centre of the right hand lane and indicating right.

 

[Oldhippy]

I got clipped on the way to a motorcycle rally in Cornwall a couple of years ago. Loaded bike in the right lane on the roundabout. A knob in the inside lane suddenly realised he needed the turning I was approaching. He cut across the front of me I heard a loud clang as his rear wheel arch caught the front wheel nut on the bike. How I got away with not crashing I don't know. I did get the satisfaction of briefly seeing a large scrape in his paint work as he sped off seemingly oblivious of near causing a serious accident!

 

[matticus]

Anybody else find being overtaken on roundabouts an issue? Two of us (in tandem - not ‘on’) negotiating a roundabout in the left hand lane overtaken by a car by using the right hand lane, then cutting off the lead rider to get on to the exit first. Joy.

Hardly ever.
Far more common is driver charging onto roundabout without looking. A variant of the SMIDSY, which 2-wheelers will see in many places 🤦‍♀️

 

[icowden]

But I remain uncomfortable with the idea that every driver in similar circumstances would be automatically guilty of a serious criminal offence.

I agree - this is why people like Priti Patel are so dangerous when they pander to the people "demanding" more serious sentences.

Remember there was that demand for "Harper's Law"?

We are calling for #HarpersLaw. The creation of this law - spearheaded by Lissie Harper, the widow of hero PC Andrew Harper - would mean anyone found guilty of killing a police officer, firefighter, nurse, doctor, prison officer or paramedic would be jailed for life.

So by this definition, the elderly widow of a police office who smothers their police officer husband who has dementia would go to prison for life. A man killing a doctor on his bike through careless driving would go to prison for life. A woman who panics whilst being rescued from a burning building causing a firefighter to lose their life through smoke inhalation would go to prison for life.

Absolutes have no business in law because there will always be exceptions.

 

[Punkawallah]

Well this escalated quickly :-)

Always thought we had judges for considering extenuating circumstances et al. Yes, I know, sentencing guidelines limit discretion - but the buggers should earn their money somehow.

Anyone for reducing the law books to two items - ‘Littering’ and ‘Conduct Likely or Cause a Breach of the Peace’?

 

[DCBassman]

Yes, I know, sentencing guidelines limit discretion

This is the problem, really. They are not guidelines, but rules. Exercising skill and judgement no longer play much part.

 

[Lozz360]

Remember there was that demand for "Harper's Law"? (Harper’s Law would mean anyone convicted of murdering a police officer, fire fighter, doctor, paramedic, etc. would go to jail for life).

So by this definition, the elderly widow of a police office who smothers their police officer husband who has dementia would go to prison for life. A man killing a doctor on his bike through careless driving would go to prison for life. A woman who panics whilst being rescued from a burning building causing a firefighter to lose their life through smoke inhalation would go to prison for life.

Your first example would be diminished responsibility and the other two would not be murder.

 

[Pale Rider]

Your first example would be diminished responsibility and the other two would not be murder.

That's his point, currently the various killings can be dealt with individually, but a catch all law would likely remove the various options.

I'm also not keen on grading killings by occupation.

The life of the local greengrocer is worth just as much as the local beat copper.

 

[Solocle]

Your first example would be diminished responsibility and the other two would not be murder.

Given that the scrotes involved in the Andrew Harper case were not found guilty of murder either... this is killing, not murder.

Hard cases make bad law.

 

[icowden]

Your first example would be diminished responsibility and the other two would not be murder.

You have paraphrased me as saying something I didn't. Harper's Law specifically calls for a mandatory life sentence for anyone found guilty of killing, so implicit in that is manslaughter or by reason of diminished responsibility.

This is the point made, and backed up by @Solocle and @Pale Rider. Discretion in sentencing is vital, and it is vital that we have a competent attorney general and home secretary. Sadly both are utterly incompetent and have been promoted far above their abilities. This was demonstrated in the very subtle castigation by Appeal Court Judges of Suella Braverman when she wrongly appealed the sentencing in the Harper case, and in just about everything that issues from Priti Patel's mouth.

If you want to understand more about the law and why hard sentencing is bad law, I would recommend https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret?s=20 and their best selling books.

 

[Pale Rider]

Suella Braverman

Slightly off-topic, but I saw in a press report the other day we have a new incumbent.

Michael Ellis QC, MP was given the job in March.

Braverman is now described as 'Minister on Leave', whether that means she may return I've no idea.

I don't agree she was in any way 'wrong' to appeal the Harper killers sentences, she merely asked the question (which is all any attorney general can do) and received an answer.

However, I did get the impression from gossiping with barristers that she was not generally highly regarded before Harper.

Need to be a bit careful with that piece of intelligence since every attorney general in the last 25 years to my knowledge has received some criticism from some barristers.

https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers/attorney-general

 

[kynikos]

This was demonstrated in the very subtle castigation by Appeal Court Judges of Suella Braverman when she wrongly appealed the sentencing in the Harper case, and in just about everything that issues from Priti Patel's mouth.

FTFY

 

[RRCC]

Slightly off-topic, but I saw in a press report the other day we have a new incumbent.

Michael Ellis QC, MP was given the job in March.

Braverman is now described as 'Minister on Leave', whether that means she may return I've no idea.

I don't agree she was in any way 'wrong' to appeal the Harper killers sentences, she merely asked the question (which is all any attorney general can do) and received an answer.

However, I did get the impression from gossiping with barristers that she was not generally highly regarded before Harper.

Need to be a bit careful with that piece of intelligence since every attorney general in the last 25 years to my knowledge has received some criticism from some barristers.

https://www.gov.uk/government/ministers/attorney-general

She's on maternity leave