mad despot
Veteran
- Location
- Reading, England
Woman admits A32 Wickham cyclist death
- Thread starter mad despot
- Start date
-
- Tags
- cyclist
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
guitarpete247
Just about surviving
- Location
- Leicestershire
What is a life worth?
numbnuts
Legendary Member
- Location
- Gone over the hill and far away
Life time ban minimum, I now wonder how many more will use the “sun as a get out of free jail card”
classic33
Leg End Member
If one more uses it, it's too many.
glenn forger
Guest
Here is a small list, arrived at from some very cursory googling:
- Anthony Maynard, died 3 July 2008. Struck from behind by van. Driver was dazzled by low sun, CPS did not press charges.
- Peter Stubbs, died 4 May 2010. Struck from behind by car. Driver was dazzled by low sun, was charged with causing death by careless driving, two juries failed to reach a verdict, judge filed formal not guilty verdict.
- David Noble, died 20 October 2010. Struck from behind by car. Driver was dazzled by low sun, was charged with causing death by careless driving, wasfound not guilty.
- Arthur Lakin, died 25 October 2010. Struck by car. Driver was dazzled by low sun, was charged with causing death by careless driving, was found not guilty.
- Christian and Nicholas Townend, died 5 December 2010. Struck from behind by coach. Driver was dazzled by low sun, was charged with causing death by dangerous driving, was found not guilty of both the original charge and of causing death by careless driving.
- Maria Micklethwaite, died 13 January 2012. Struck by car. Driver was dazzled by low sun, was charged with causing death by careless driving, was found not guilty.
- Ray Elsmore, died 5 December 2012. Struck by car. Driver was dazzled by low sun, was charged with causing death by careless driving, jury failed to reach a verdict (Update, June 2014: After two retrials, the CPS dropped all charges).
- David Irving, died 17 December 2012. Struck from behind by minibus. Driver was dazzled by low sun, was charged with causing death by careless driving, was found not guilty.
- the victim died as a result of being hit by a car whose driver claimed not to have seen them
- the reason the driver gave for not having seen the victim was low sun (even if this was the case only at or immediately before the moment of collision and the victim was quite visible shortly beforehand)
- the driver was either not found guilty of any charges, or was never even charged
Mrs M
Guru
- Location
- Aberdeenshire
That's so sad.
glenn forger
Guest
It's not just cyclists, this was a couple of miles from my house:
http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/driver_who_injured_child_at_norwich_crossing_is_cleared_1_4653997
She ploughed over a line of children crossing with a lollipop lady, the child got a smashed face and broken leg.
http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/driver_who_injured_child_at_norwich_crossing_is_cleared_1_4653997
She ploughed over a line of children crossing with a lollipop lady, the child got a smashed face and broken leg.
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
Blinded by the low sun, yet continued to plough forth doggedly despite being unable to see. The punishment is derisory.
Can't see? Then stop immediately and potentially save a life.
Can't see? Then stop immediately and potentially save a life.
glenn forger
Guest
None of those Kent drivers got fined, the massive shunt on the Sheppey Bridge. When I saw the headline "100 Kentish drivers collide with each other" I thought it was a spelling mistake:
With no details of the actual piece of bad driving that led to this outcome, it's impossible to comment. Sentencing has to be based on the badness of the driving. There's no necessary correlation between how bad the driving was and how bad the consequences were.
Case 1 - driver stops, looks both ways, looks again, still fails to see approaching motorcyclist, pulls out in front of him resulting in his death.
Case 2 - driver drives for two hours at double the speed limit well over the legal alcohol limit, ignores red lights and priorities, but as luck would have it only property damage is done.
Who would you like to see receive the stiffer sentence?
Last edited:
jefmcg
Guru
You might be right in theory, but are drivers getting community service orders when no one is killed? I'm not seeing it, and if it's not happening, then yes, community orders are the price of a life.
Honestly? Take both their licenses away. Neither should be on the road. If you are a bad driver because of carelessness and lack of responsibility, or you are a bad driver because you can't see or can't look properly, but your heart is in the right place, what's the difference? If I am under their front wheels, it's a subtle point.
Starchivore
I don't know much about Cinco de Mayo
- Location
- Halifax, West Yorkshire
I appreciate your point but Driver 1 would have to be incompetent and not suitable for operating a vehicle if he can look twice and still fail to see what's in front of him. So I would say both should get banned. Yes case 2 might be considered worse but they are both a big danger to other road users.
Case 1 - driver has a 45 year driving record with no incidents. Or do we believe it is impossible for a normally excellent and safe driver to drop the ball, with potentially disastrous results? I know it is, because I've seen it, fortunately with no-one injured. This is one reason I look forward to more automation and driverless cars, because I do not believe that anyone is such a good driver that this couldn't happen to them. Humans are fallible.
glasgowcyclist
Charming but somewhat feckless
- Location
- Scotland
If the outcome is to be ignored then why do we have offences of causing death by dangerous/careless driving with substantially different maximum penalties?
GC
