Driver tries to kill cyclist, hits building.

[hatler]

Hmmm, yes. I bet if you tried using a gun to kill someone there would be little hesitation in withdrawing your gun licence for ever.

 

[oldstrath]

So a woman who previously was convicted of driving on the wrong side of the road, while pissed, and now convicted of trying to kill someone with her car (sorry, 'of trying to do someone serious injury' for the weasels) will be allowed to drive again in 4 years' time. This is what really stinks, about this and many other cases. The law's complete inability or reluctance to stop incompetent, angry, nutjobs from driving ever again.

 

[Neilsmith]

She should be banned for life as she has clearly not learned from her first ban, her actions on both occasions show her contempt for other road users

 

[hatler]

Call me cynical if you will, but I wonder if the £25,000 damage to a building resulted in the sentence being more severe than it might otherwise have been. Crimes against property and all that ...

 

[hatler]

The comments at the bottom of the article should prove interesting as they appear. How long before anyone mentions RLJing do you reckon ?

 

[Arjimlad]

I suppose she will have to kill someone before copping a lifetime ban. I guess she will also have to drive uninsured henceforth as no self-respecting insurer should give her a policy.

 

[oldstrath]

From the story, the words of her defending weasel

"Defence counsel Lisa Bald called for a “justifiable act of mercy” and described the case as a “flash of anger that happened in seconds”."

How on earth can an intelligent human being believe that a woman capable of trying to kill a complete stranger 'in a brief flash of anger' is fit to be allowed behind the wheel of a car, or indeed to be allowed possession of anything sharp?

 

[Neilsmith]

I suppose she will have to kill someone before copping a lifetime ban. I guess she will also have to drive uninsured henceforth as no self-respecting insurer should give her a policy.

She will likely not tell her next insurer, and it will be the first poor sod she runs into that finds out her insurance isn't valid

 

[glenn forger]

Result. Although the thought of her back on the road is a bit scary.

 

[Markymark]

She will likely not tell her next insurer, and it will be the first poor sod she runs into that finds out her insurance isn't valid

It will be valid, the person she hits will not lose out. The insurance company would pay out and go after Natalie for the costs.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

From the story, the words of her defending weasel

"Defence counsel Lisa Bald called for a “justifiable act of mercy” and described the case as a “flash of anger that happened in seconds”."

How on earth can an intelligent human being believe that a woman capable of trying to kill a complete stranger 'in a brief flash of anger' is fit to be allowed behind the wheel of a car, or indeed to be allowed possession of anything sharp?

I know the defence agent is expected to plead the best possible case for the client but surely not to the extent of defying all sense of logic, reason or fact:

“...this wasn’t an act of violence.”

Defence counsel Lisa Bald​

GC

 

[jay clock]

Sounds fair to me

 

[oldstrath]

I know the defence agent is expected to plead the best possible case for the client but surely not to the extent of defying all sense of logic, reason or fact:

“...this wasn’t an act of violence.”

Defence counsel Lisa Bald​

GC

The argument is always made that anyone is entitled to a proper defence. I never understand why that extends to begging for leniency once the person has been found guilty.

 

[Markymark]

The argument is always made that anyone is entitled to a proper defence. I never understand why that extends to begging for leniency once the person has been found guilty.

Because you are paying them to act on your behalf.

 

[benb]

The custodial sentence sounds proportionate, but what does someone actually need to do to get a significant driving ban?