Persistent offender killed cyclist while driving & texting

[glasgowcyclist]

This cyclist's killer had eight previous convictions, all for using a phone while driving yet was allowed to keep his licence. Only six weeks after pleading that loss of his licence would be an exceptional hardship, he did it again and killed Lee Martin.

http://www.itv.com/news/meridian/up...g-driver-jailed-after-causing-cyclists-death/

I have every sympathy with the family's view that the justice system has to partly answer for this.

GC

 

[r04DiE]

Completely agree with you. How terribly sad.

 

[RoubaixCube]

Too bad the forces have seen upto 40% cuts over the years. pursuing a driver for using a mobile phone while driving isnt very high on the list of priorities these days....Seems the only way to get anything done is to be that person who loses his or her life as it seems the police wont do anything if youre clinging to life by a thread.

 

[flake99please]

Too bad the forces have seen upto 40% cuts over the years. pursuing a driver for using a mobile phone while driving isnt very high on the list of priorities these days....Seems the only way to get anything done is to be that person who loses his or her life as it seems the police wont do anything if youre clinging to life by a thread.

Completely irrelevant in this instance. The judicial system let the cyclist & his family down. A terrible and avoidable tragedy. Im only encouraged by the quote from the PC in the article. The sentence handed out was harsher than I expected compared with other incidents of similar magnitude, so some credit must also go to the judge in question.

 

[summerdays]

To have been caught so many times must mean he used it a great deal as most motorists don't seem to get caught unfortunately! There does need to be a change in how it's dealt with as if you think you can plead that loosing your licience will have too big a hardship, so you can carry on repeating the same habit.

 

[ufkacbln]

Too bad the forces have seen upto 40% cuts over the years. pursuing a driver for using a mobile phone while driving isnt very high on the list of priorities these days....Seems the only way to get anything done is to be that person who loses his or her life as it seems the police wont do anything if youre clinging to life by a thread.

They caught him numerous times!

Part of the issue is the motoring lobby itself


There are numerous ways of dealing with these issues, but as soon as they are used there is the usual bleating of "Jihad against motorists", "Persecution", a taxation on otherwise law abiding citizens"

The classic was Manchester who used video to prosecute phone users, traffic offences, and antisocial or aggressive driving. The bleating included the AA who declared that such prosecutions were unacceptable as they showed a "lack of engagement"

So long as you have a major lobby that considers any infringement if their right to drive as they wish without censure these incidents will continue to happen

 

[Drago]

They should bin this 'hardship' mitigation malarkey. If they're so worried about hardship then they could simply not commit the nefarious deed in then first place.

 

[raleighnut]

It was a sad day they let that twonk keep his driving licence, at least 6 times he'd been caught using a phone whilst driving.

 

[rugby bloke]

I just don't get the hardship defense. I had to surrender my licence for 4 years until my epilepsy was controlled. As it came out of the blue there was no notice - one day I could drive, next day I couldn't. I at least could use a bike to get to work, so that was not a problem, but there were children to get to school, plus their other activities and I needed lifts to places when I could not reach by bike. My wife had to pick up the role as family taxi driver for the whole time. It was a hard four years but we got through it. These serial offenders simply have no respect for the law and see themselves as above it.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

They should bin this 'hardship' mitigation malarkey. If they're so worried about hardship then they could simply not commit the nefarious deed in then first place.

Agree wholeheartedly.

If anything, you should expect some hardship when you break the law, not use it as an excuse to avoid what you deserve.

GC

 

[EnPassant]

How on Earth does anyone get to keep their licence after being "convicted of using his phone at least 6 times prior to the event"?

Given, as @summerdays points out, you are not exactly in danger of being caught on every occurrence in the first place this guy had to have been pretty much using his phone every time he was driving. And still doing so despite having been to convicted of it on at least 6 previous occasions (I wonder if this is a record?).

I have this awful vision of the magistrate.
"Mr Gard, I have never before had anyone in front of the bench on six occasions for the same offence. You are a serial offender who has learned nothing from your previous appearances here. You leave me no choice other than to impose the most severe penalty it is within my powers so to do.
3 points, 50 quid and on you go son".

SIX times? SIX? I'm flabbergasted.

This isn't somebody who answered a call when they shouldn't have and was caught by a momentary lapse of reasoning. This is a person to whom the safety of others means absolutely nothing.

It's time they started, and perhaps more importantly we as a society started to view this as we now do drink driving.

 

[Firestorm]

I believe the "hardship" defence is primarily used on totting up bans.
mobile phone ise is a 3 point . 100 pound fixed penalty notice . So i guess the first ban was avoided because it was an accumulation of points rather than an outright ban for using his phone.
Not that makes it any more palatable or justified

Phone use whilst driving is a bit like drink driving was in the 70s, where you were considered unlucky if you got caught unless it involved a crash
The sooner it gets treated more seriously the better, by phone and car manufacturers as well as users

 

[Drago]

Should make it an obligatory disqualification.

 

[uphillstruggler]

these are the sort of people are above the law in their own eyes but hide behind it if anything goes wrong, including the hardship claim.

the hardship now is that he will be locked up for years, away from his kid, who will no doubt grow up saying that it wasn't dads fault and aren't the police bad for locking him up. I would hope that this isn't the case but hold no hope.

the fact that he tried to cover it all up with no tangible remorse is a worry, even when the poor guy was dying in the road/ambulance.

I hope the family of the deceased can take some solace in the sentence although it wont bring the chap back.

 

[EnPassant]

There is evidence that even hands free use is as distracting as holding the phone.

Is there any distinction in law between speaking on a phone and texting?* If not, why not? From personal experience (not whilst driving...:P) texting requires prolonged periods staring at tiny screen and attempting to "type" on titchy parts of it, this takes your eyes off the road as well as your attention. It must be more dangerous that talking surely?

*Some years ago I was a passenger in a car of 4 being driven back from Norfolk to London from of all things a pool competition, the driver was using his mobile to text, I actually asked him to please stop doing it, to which he replied "I'm not texting, I'm sending an email". Which is funny, until it's not.
To my eternal chagrin I should have demanded that he stop and let me out if he was going to continue, but I didn't. So despite becoming more considerate as I age (lord I was a twit at 20), I still allow social pressure to influence decisions I take that afterwards I'm not necessarily proud of.
Apocryphal tale stated here only to reinforce the point that as a society we simply still do not take it seriously enough.