Persistent offender killed cyclist while driving & texting

[ufkacbln]

We attended thecToB a few years ago and found a point on the embankment

One side of the road was closed and the other was open

There were a couple of Police Officers "keeping order"

Cue 4x4 driver on his phone so he is pointed out to the Constable who reprimanded him

That set the tone

You have to do something whilst waiting for the race

Every few minutes a chant went up with 30 or 40 people pointing at a car and chanting

"He's on his phone, he's on his phone"

Credit to the Constables as they responded each time to a huge cheer

 

[GrumpyGregry]

How do you show that the two points in this post

a) were you driving
b) did somebody die
without all the subjective bollox of determining dangerous or careless.

Are sufficient to state that the driver caused the death?
From where did the kinetic energy originate, the transfer of which into the vulnerable human body of another shared-space road user, caused the extinction of life therein?

If you operate a kinetic energy weapon in a way that people die you have caused their death. That mode of operation ought, in my view, to be a criminal offence, regardless of subjective tests of carelessness or recklessness or dangerousness relating to the mode operation. An offence with the same sentencing guidelines as manslaughter.

If I 'accidentally' kill a passerby whilst operating my chainsaw et cetera.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

My mileage varies here . Disagree. I cannot see the rationale behind making the consequence of an accident an offence in and of itself.

How are you defining 'accident'.

Many instances of manslaughter are 'accidents' no?

 

[EnPassant]

How are you defining 'accident'.

Many instances of manslaughter are 'accidents' no?

For the purposes of discussion, lets say the woman in the Chelsea tractor above hits you and kills you rather than misses. Better yet say it's somebody else, we are always a bit biased when it's ourselves we are considering.

What you appear to be positing is that if she misses that person, yes, she was a bit daft to think she could drive in those conditions and really didn't understand the capabilities of a 4x4 or the road conditions but had committed no actual offence. However, if she had hit them, she did commit an offence?
I can't get my head around that is all I'm saying. Her actions were the same in both circumstances, it is pure chance whether there is somebody down the hill behind her.
I wouldn't drive like that, you wouldn't, but we know better, she apparently doesn't. Regardless I can't see a law for ignorance alone working in practice.

For the manslaughter part, I'd need to look at further links of @glasgowcyclist 's nature to be sure on this, but for now I understand it as where somebody commits an offence the consequence of which is somebody dying, but that death was not the intention (the distinction between manslaughter and murder). There would still have to be an offence committed (or perhaps a lower standard of willful negligence), but I am still not a lawyer and would need to check the specifics.

This is all however in my mind getting a bit off the topic of the original post. My opinion on him, is that he should have been locked up far before he actually did, anyone who has been convicted 6 or more times for using a phone is a total menace who cares nothing for anyone but themselves and one could say it was only a matter of time before he did kill somebody.
My distinction for what it is worth is that he deserves longer behind bars than the woman in the 4x4, but as has been pointed out already, we don't always get what we deserve and 'luck' has a part to play.

TLDR. 100 quid and 3 points for a 6th offence of phone use whilst driving is ridiculous. The tragic consequences of the 7th (or greater) offence were an 'accident' waiting to happen. It wouldn't have occurred had his licence been revoked on the second (or any subsequent) offence.

ETA: Reg posted his shorter reply before I finished waffling on manslaughter.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

No. Manslaughter is not accidental. In UK law you can have manslaughter three ways: deliberate but with mitigation, through recklessness or through criminal negligence. None of these is 'accidental'.

Define 'accidental'?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

For the purposes of discussion, lets say the woman in the Chelsea tractor above hits you and kills you rather than misses. Better yet say it's somebody else, we are always a bit biased when it's ourselves we are considering.

What you appear to be positing is that if she misses that person, yes, she was a bit daft to think she could drive in those conditions and really didn't understand the capabilities of a 4x4 or the road conditions but had committed no actual offence. However, if she had hit them, she did commit an offence?
I can't get my head around that is all I'm saying. Her actions were the same in both circumstances, it is pure chance whether there is somebody down the hill behind her.
I wouldn't drive like that, you wouldn't, but we know better, she apparently doesn't. Regardless I can't see a law for ignorance alone working in practice.

As it stand she could be charged with causing death through careless driving.

But the jury would think EXACTLY as you do. She didn't understand. She didn't mean too. She misjudged it. It's pure chance. It could happen to anyone. She's not guilty.

Motor-centric thinking at its finest. You can kill someone with a motor vehicle but somehow you aren't really responsible for the outcome. It was just bad luck and folk will bend over backwards to defend you.

 

[EnPassant]

That may well be so, but doesn't make the case that a law is needed where careless (or above) doesn't have to be proven. Pick an example of your own which does.

I personally wouldn't presume to know what 12 other people might think.

Not motor centric in my case, I cycle more than I drive (in fact I rather resent the implication). Pick an example that isn't anything to do with driving if you like. I don't see why a law is needed that doesn't have some onus of careless or worse in any field not just motorised vehicles. You want the change, you make the case, you provide the example.

 

[mjr]

Mowing people down a la deathrace 2000 shouldn't in my view attract the same penalty as skidding on black ice whilst not speeding. And only partly because the second case calls to mind the phrase "There but for the grace of god, go I".

People are judged by a jury of their peers, so you have motorists deciding the fate of motorists. The long-term way to change this is for all of us to get as many motorists as possible back on their bikes, which has two major benefits: firstly, fewer people motoring for cyclists to deal with on every trip; secondly, when there is a case like this, we'll have cyclist-motorists among the jury. So please, everyone, help with newcomers' rides as much as you can and support things likely to get more people back on their bikes.

 

[doog]

Clearly the problem in this case wasn't the Jury (he pleaded guilty) it was the decision of the Magistrates in the previous mobile phone cases when he avoided disqualification .. I know they are often directed by the clerk but this is an appalling case of sentencing incompetence that led to this tragedy.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

I'm reminded of the Abergavenny case. A driver skidded on black ice and killed four cyclists. He was fined £180, that is to say £45 per cyclist. His defence was that he couldn't see the ice - well, that's the point about ice, and, if there is heavy frost around it's sensible to drive slowly (or, even better, ask yourself whether the journey is necessary)

IIRC he was fined 3 x £60 for each bald tyre on his car and suffered no penalty for killing four people (because he was never charged in relation to that).

but my view is that he was driving badly, four people died, and he should have gone to jail for a long time.

Agreed. Taking to the road in a car that has three bald tyres in any weather is, to me, dangerous driving and he should have been charged accordingly. I think at the time the coroner too was incredulous that police ignored this aspect.

GC

 

[GrumpyGregry]

That may well be so, but doesn't make the case that a law is needed where careless (or above) doesn't have to be proven. Pick an example of your own which does.

I personally wouldn't presume to know what 12 other people might think.

Not motor centric in my case, I cycle more than I drive (in fact I rather resent the implication). Pick an example that isn't anything to do with driving if you like. I don't see why a law is needed that doesn't have some onus of careless or worse in any field not just motorised vehicles. You want the change, you make the case, you provide the example.

Pick a situation outside of driving where hundreds of people get maimed and killed each month?

I can't. Nothing that happens in our motor-centric society compares with the annual cull of road users. If something similar arose the activity would be banned immediately.

A person can ride 1000s of km a year and still have a motor-centric mindset. Sorry if that raises negative emotions but it is just how it is.

It is ridiculous that the authorities must persuade 12 motor-centrists, and motor-centric judges, to convict and sentence on absurd, and badly understood, criteria relating to what constitutes dangerous, careless or reckless driving.

Did your operation of a motor vehicle, even if done to a so-called "reasonable" standard, lead directly to the death of a more vulnerable road user. Yes? Then you are guilty and now we will listen to your claims in mitigation of a stiff sentence. No proving you drove dangerously, just proving you killed someone. Causing death whilst operating a motor vehicle.

But we won't get there because being a lousy driver around vulnerable road users is perfectly reasonable in the UK today.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

IIRC he was fined 3 x £60 for each bald tyre on his car and suffered no penalty for killing four people (because he was never charged in relation to that).



Agreed. Taking to the road in a car that has three bald tyres in any weather is, to me, dangerous driving and he should have been charged accordingly. I think at the time the coroner too was incredulous that police ignored this aspect.

GC

Dangerous to you. And to me. But perfectly normal to Mister Toad.

 

[EnPassant]

Pick a situation outside of driving where hundreds of people get maimed and killed each month?

I can't. Nothing that happens in our motor-centric society compares with the annual cull of road users. If something similar arose the activity would be banned immediately.

A person can ride 1000s of km a year and still have a motor-centric mindset. Sorry if that raises negative emotions but it is just how it is.

It is ridiculous that the authorities must persuade 12 motor-centrists, and motor-centric judges, to convict and sentence on absurd, and badly understood, criteria relating to what constitutes dangerous, careless or reckless driving.

Did your operation of a motor vehicle, even if done to a so-called "reasonable" standard, lead directly to the death of a more vulnerable road user. Yes? Then you are guilty and now we will listen to your claims in mitigation of a stiff sentence. No proving you drove dangerously, just proving you killed someone. Causing death whilst operating a motor vehicle.

But we won't get there because being a lousy driver around vulnerable road users is perfectly reasonable in the UK today.

We agree on most things.
The motor centric society in which we live is likely foremost amongst these. There is barely a day passes where I don't encounter some situation on the road where I consider that it is far too car centric. From crap cycle lanes that invite you to be doored or worse, to traffic light phasing that takes no account of cyclists (or those ones that stay red forever until a car pitches up behind you because they don't sense a cycle) to... well I could go on but it's all been said before.
The fact is that I don't agree on only one point and that one appears to be mostly semantics in any case. I've stated this, you disagree, that's fine by me, it would be an odd world if everyone agreed all the time.

 

[Roxy641]

That isn't a good example because no one decides to lose control due to a patch of water, or black ice etc (that is beyond any
driver's control). But, the driver can choose NOT to use a mobile phone (or anything else that might take away their concentration).
We do know what things that we can avoid to minimize harm while driving. The choice is with the driver. Many choose to abuse
that choice. But I do agree what we have to be sensible about this. If it is proven that the driver didn't do anything to cause the
accident, then she/he shouldn't be given as harsh a sentence as someone that was guilty of doing something likely to increase
the chances of an injury/death.

AIUI the difference between careless and dangerous (and perhaps reckless)
as far as the law is concerned is to do with intent.

As an example of what I believe it to mean: If you lost control on a patch of water, skidded and killed somebody on the pavement, depending
on the exact circumstance this would be careless. If however you mounted the pavement whilst massively exceeding the speed limit and
swerving around the inside of somebody turning right and then lost control hitting the same pedestrian this would be dangerous (reckless?).
Would you be happy that exactly the same penalty were applied in both cases? I'm not sure I would.YMMV.

 

[ufkacbln]

Two of the problems as I understand it are that the consequence of an action are not necessarily the offence.

You can be in a situation where the driver is found guilty of speeding, careless driving, but the injuries caused are simply not taken into account

Secondly the full story is not available. A colleague of mine was in the Jury for a motoring case and it was withheld that the driver had several other offences under his belt as this may be prejudicial. They were only judging the case itself not his history