flake99please
We all scream for ice cream
- Location
- Edinburgh
That's not what I read the van was behind the lorry he saw the cyclist the lorry driver didn't
If that’s the case in this instance, then I stand corrected.
That's not what I read the van was behind the lorry he saw the cyclist the lorry driver didn't
So justice is only about punishment, not redemption? And punishment should extend unilaterally to the accused and his family regardless.
I'm not sure I'd want a justice system that works like that.
He can find alternative employment, or should he be able to continue to kill others just so his family can eat?
https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/new...craig-beharrell-peter-sanderson-trial-3189591
The defence is employing the 'constant bearing, decreasing range' phenomenon to argue the driver's innocence (although their CCTV specialist is defining it as 'synchronicty'). Whilst the article does not go into much detail on the extent of the cross-examination, hopefully the prosecution made it clear that if the driver had made any effort to change his head position and therefore perspective on the approach to the junction - as a competent HGV driver would, the cyclist would have been visible and the collision avoidable.
How could it be constant bearing decreasing range if the driver was stopped, other than approaching at 90 degrees in which case it'd be obvious to spot the approach ?
https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/new...craig-beharrell-peter-sanderson-trial-3189591
The defence is employing the 'constant bearing, decreasing range' phenomenon to argue the driver's innocence (although their CCTV specialist is defining it as 'synchronicty'). Whilst the article does not go into much detail on the extent of the cross-examination, hopefully the prosecution made it clear that if the driver had made any effort to change his head position and therefore perspective on the approach to the junction - as a competent HGV driver would, the cyclist would have been visible and the collision avoidable.
Is that the same as Target Fixation or is that something different. Just trying to understand the defence and not giving any excuses.
It's different. Bez provides a detailed analysis of the 'rolling blindspot' here: https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/collision-course/
Did the person he ended up killing have anyone relying on him being there?Alternative employment might not be as easy as you think it is, if driving is his only skill-set and given his age. You then make a false equivalence. His driving is likely to be much more cautious as a result of this horrific incident. The point of restorative justice is to try to find the best way of dealing with a crime. It may be to disqualify him from driving. It might be to force him to retake his tests. It might be a permanent ban. But his circumstances are still valid. You have no idea about his family, who relies on him and for what. On the other hand he might not want to drive again anyway, he's close to retirement age. In which case banning him serves no real purpose.
It might be that he has no dependents. It might be that he has a severely disabled son / daughter / mother / father and the money he earns pays for treatment and care. There is a whole spectrum of circumstances that a Judge takes into account to determine the appropriate sentence. Throw him in prison? That's expensive. Is his attitude going to be any different when he leaves prison, or is he already contrite and devastated by his own actions?
This is why Judge's take great care when sentencing and consider all factors. Otherwise you end up like America and just throw everyone in prison for ever.