Safe Speed Forums

The campaign for genuine road safety
It is currently Sun Feb 16, 2020 20:19

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2009 20:22 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 23:42
Posts: 3820
I suppose I Had better "get me coat" or a suit of armour.. :roll: as some lurks may take their flak out on me as Durham based. :roll:

OK what's it about? :? :shock:

Per CW and CTC - a judge at Durham Crown Court REDUCED the sentence of a driver who KILLED a cyclist .. on

CW and Northern Echo wrote:

the cyclist was not wearing a helmet



OK .. so I wear a lid and advise all to do so.. but all the ruddy same . I have to agree with the CTC this time :popcorn:

You see.. this driver got a 24 week SUSPENDED SENTENCE.


Why am I so :banghead: feckin' angry to the point of swearing on the internet which I've never done ever? :shock: :shock: :shock:

The twazak in question has NEVER EVER PASSED A DRIVING TEST :censored: ************************!!!!!

:furious: :banghead:

He claimed a

aforementioned twazak in court wrote:

A momentary lapse in concentration when he hit the cyclist on a roundabout at Seaham, co Durham in Sep 08


The cyclist died 8 days later from severe head injuries. The judge claimed the non wearing of the helmet was a mitigating factor and reduced the sentence "accordingly"

Scuse me .. but that fool failed to look .. was ILLEGAL FULL :censored: STOP!

To me - mattered not about the helmet. Driver was a dangerous fool per the reports read as "raw data" who had zero right to be driving unsuperivised anyway :banghead:


CTC are playing this as a "helmet issue". It's not. It's an issue over an unqualified driver not getting his full come-uppance but using the "helmet as an excuse for the usual soft politically correct nonsense" :furious:

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!


Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2009 21:05 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member
User avatar

Joined: Wed Dec 08, 2004 14:26
Posts: 4364
Location: Hampshire/Wiltshire Border
Contrast this with the lady given a long jail sentence after she collided with a cyclist who had gone through a red light. Where was the mitigation there?

_________________
Malcolm W.
The views expressed in this post are personal opinions and do not represent the views of Safespeed.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2009 21:12 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 23:42
Posts: 3820
I know malc. Makes no sense... :popcorn:

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!


Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu May 21, 2009 22:19 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 15, 2005 00:15
Posts: 5232
Location: Windermere
Can you tell us WHICH judge?

We need to know who these liberal thinkers are who threaten our well being, by releasing dangerous persons back into society before their time. :x

_________________
Time to take responsibility for our actions.. and don't be afraid of speaking out!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2009 07:34 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 23:42
Posts: 3820
CW page20 wrote:
Judge Richard Lowden gave Denis M (50) a 24 week suspended prison sentence



Yep - speechless with shock.

CW wrote:
The defendant who had passed a driving test pleaded he had suffered a "momentary lapse of concentration when he collided with the 55 year old cyclist on a roundabout at Seaham, Co Durham


:furious:

CTC are complaining he reached his verdict without hearing any evidence about helmets etc.


I, on the other hand, am complaining because this "judge" handed down a riduculously lenient sentence to a person [i]who had never bothered to take a driving test and was thus ILLEGAL.. UNINSURED and will no doubt continue to drive illegally. :furious: The helmet wearing is not the issue and the deceased's family and CPS should be appealing to INCREASE this sentence.

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!


Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2009 20:10 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
malcolmw wrote:
Contrast this with the lady given a long jail sentence after she collided with a cyclist who had gone through a red light. Where was the mitigation there?


She had several previous motoring releated convictions.

She was using a mobile phone at the time (she said she wasn't, jury decided she was lying).

She was speeding at the time.

She was clearly not looking where she was going at the time (she said the first time she knew of the cyclist was when he was "on my windscreen").

That the cyclist had jumped a red light at that particular junction is about as much to do with that case as if he had jumped a red light at a junction 40 minutes before he got struck.


Last edited by weepej on Fri May 22, 2009 20:22, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2009 20:13 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
Oh, and I think it's disgusting that a judge thinks that the victim not wearing a helmet is a mitigating factor for somebody that whacks into a cyclist.

If you're going to go down the helmet route it's clear that if anybody should be wearing helmets it's pedestrians and car drivers, so why isn't that used as a mitigating factor in those cases?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2009 20:26 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 23:42
Posts: 3820
weepej wrote:
malcolmw wrote:
Contrast this with the lady given a long jail sentence after she collided with a cyclist who had gone through a red light. Where was the mitigation there?


She had several previous motoring releated convictions.

She was using a mobile phone at the time (she said she wasn't, jury decided she was lying).

She was speeding at the time.

She was clearly not looking where she was going at the time.

That the cyclist had jumped a red light at that particular junction is about as much to do with that case as if he had jumped a red light at a junction 40 minutes before he got struck.



Weepy . the judge in this instance would fall into what Wildy :neko: calls a "pillock of society" now we explained in words of one syllable what the term means :lol: [size=50] Long story.. but you have to know the woman and her naive innocence [/size[


:popcorn:

COAST fails by all though :roll: She was alleged to have texted. I pointed out that reading a text can be viewed as "texting" in the eyes of the law.. same as just holding the phone can be held as "using" even if switched off. :popcorn:

I do not recall the speeding allegation. I think the Wild :neko: will as she has that infuriating "instant recall gift" :popcorn: if this was the case :? :?

She may have not looked to her left.. but she saw a green light all the same though. Most expect others to obey a red light regardless. There's zero excuse for jumping a red light.

But she was legally entitled to drive. This person was not at all. He's now free to stick the same two fingers up at the law. Of the two - he deserved a longer sentence. :roll:

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!


Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2009 20:35 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
In Gear wrote:
I do not recall the speeding allegation.


She was doing over 40; her admission to the court.

In Gear wrote:
She may have not looked to her left..


That doesn't matter (anyway it would've been a look to the right at that junction). The cyclist was struck by her after he had crossed the junction. It wasn't like he rode out in front of her and she had no chance to stop. Like I say, the red light jumping thing here was a total and utter red herring (and this was stated by the judge).

In Gear wrote:
but she saw a green light all the same though.


Assertion, you don't know she saw the green light.


In Gear wrote:
He's now free to stick the same two fingers up at the law. Of the two - he deserved a longer sentence. :roll:


Clearly the judge didn't think so.

How do you know he's sticking two fingers up at the law now?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2009 20:55 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 23:42
Posts: 3820
weepej wrote:
In Gear wrote:
I do not recall the speeding allegation.


She was doing over 40; her admission to the court.



OK .. but that's "speeding" and not proven to be dangerous unless we can prove beyond doubt to be the case. In this instance the speed was not the issue . but the use or act of reading a text message was the issue :roll: As said - just holding a phone can be the offence just as sleeping in a field in a car with key in trouser pocket can earn an accusation of drink driving :popcorn: I am stating the law as it is. Folk will have to prove innocence to a court - and have every right to do so. :popcorn: Do not attack me for spelling it out as it exists in reality.. and | am not at all judging anyone here. :popcorn:

Quote:

In Gear wrote:
She may have not looked to her left..


That doesn't matter (anyway it would've been a look to the right at that junction). The cyclist was struck by her after he had crossed the junction. It wasn't like he rode out in front of her and she had no chance to stop. Like I say, the red light jumping thing here was a total and utter red herring (and this was stated by the judge).



OK .. she did not look in any direction. You say the red light jumping was a "red herring". Do please visit Co Durham -a s a lovely area. and jump a red light in front of any PCSO or Durhan cop in CTC BEACON LAND and you may get a bit of a shock to your wallet :wink: Red light jumping is red light jumping. No sane person could condone RLJ. :roll:

Quote:
In Gear wrote:
but she saw a green light all the same though.


Assertion, you don't know she saw the green light.



She said so and the crux was he jumped the red. If he jumped the red . she had to be green on that basis. :popcorn:

Case as I recall reported that she was on the green and he jumped the red. If he jumped red. then the other set would thus be green??? :popcorn:


There was no report of a "stuck light" :popcorn:


She could appeal. She may have done for all we know..


Quote:
In Gear wrote:
He's now free to stick the same two fingers up at the law. Of the two - he deserved a longer sentence. :roll:


Clearly the judge didn't think so.

How do you know he's sticking two fingers up at the law now?



Because that type do. :popcorn: He was unlicenced/uninsured. That type have zero regard for any laws in the land. I have met too many of this type. :roll:

Are you saying it's right to let off a person who has zero regard for any law by virtue of his record to date?

Shame on you!

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!


Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri May 22, 2009 22:09 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
In Gear wrote:
weepej wrote:
She was doing over 40; her admission to the court.



OK .. but that's "speeding" and not proven to be dangerous unless we can prove beyond doubt to be the case. In this instance the speed was not the issue .


Clearly it was, if she had been going slower the cyclist would've had more chance of survival.


In Gear wrote:
OK .. she did not look in any direction. You say the red light jumping was a "red herring". Do please visit Co Durham -a s a lovely area. and jump a red light in front of any PCSO or Durhan cop in CTC BEACON LAND and you may get a bit of a shock to your wallet :wink: Red light jumping is red light jumping. No sane person could condone RLJ. :roll:


Please, am I condoning red light jumping here?

In Gear wrote:
She said so and the crux was he jumped the red. If he jumped the red . she had to be green on that basis.

Case as I recall reported that she was on the green and he jumped the red. If he jumped red. then the other set would thus be green??? :popcorn:



Yes, I'm not saying her light wasn't green, I'm challenging the assertion that she SAW it was green because she clearly wasn't looking ahead for at least some of the time she was driving at that point; remember she said the first time she saw the cyclist was against her windscreen.



In Gear wrote:
Are you saying it's right to let off a person who has zero regard for any law by virtue of his record to date?


Er, no.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2009 10:04 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 08, 2004 21:41
Posts: 3608
Location: North West
Appalling! :roll: I wonder if there's some kind of conspiracy to force helmet wearing given one judge has already suggested reducing compo in the Smith v Finch case :popcorn:


But where's the penalty for driving like a twunt and being illegal in each sense of the word? :censored:

_________________
If you want to get to heaven - you have to raise a little hell!

Smilies are contagious
They are just like the flu
We use our smilies on YOU today
Now Good Causes are smiling too!

KEEP SMILING
It makes folk wonder just what you REALLY got up to last night!

Smily to penny.. penny to pound
safespeed prospers-smiles all round! !

But the real message? SMILE.. GO ON ! DO IT! and the world will smile with you!
Enjoy life! You only have the one bite at it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat May 23, 2009 10:05 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 02, 2004 23:42
Posts: 3820
weepej wrote:
In Gear wrote:
weepej wrote:
She was doing over 40; her admission to the court.



OK .. but that's "speeding" and not proven to be dangerous unless we can prove beyond doubt to be the case. In this instance the speed was not the issue .


Clearly it was, if she had been going slower the cyclist would've had more chance of survival.



But we do not know that for sure. Heck weepy - folk can die if hit at any speed and fall the "the tragically fateful way" You do not know any more than I do - how he fell and if his head - helmeted or not - caught the kerb at a tragic angle.

He was also riding at fair rate perhaps. Kinetic force of impact of each party can also affect outcome

Her act of reading the text was dangerous. I think she said she could not recall her speed but the prosecution alleged she was at 40 mph given the distance claimed to have been travelled between the receipt of the text and the collision from what I recall of the original article. No one's condoning her action by the way - but commenting that she was not proven to have been at 40 mph but conceded to the court that she may have been under cross examination.

Quote:
In Gear wrote:
OK .. she did not look in any direction. You say the red light jumping was a "red herring". Do please visit Co Durham -a s a lovely area. and jump a red light in front of any PCSO or Durhan cop in CTC BEACON LAND and you may get a bit of a shock to your wallet :wink: Red light jumping is red light jumping. No sane person could condone RLJ. :roll:


Please, am I condoning red light jumping here?



But the red light for the cyclist was no "red herring". Per the court report picked up by the pres at the time (and there's no reason to doubt the journalists' reporting) The reports are on this forum somewhere.. I cannot be bothered to hunt for them as I have other stuff to do.

Quote:
In Gear wrote:
She said so and the crux was he jumped the red. If he jumped the red . she had to be green on that basis.

Case as I recall reported that she was on the green and he jumped the red. If he jumped red. then the other set would thus be green??? :popcorn:



Yes, I'm not saying her light wasn't green, I'm challenging the assertion that she SAW it was green because she clearly wasn't looking ahead for at least some of the time she was driving at that point; remember she said the first time she saw the cyclist was against her windscreen.



Because she did not look ot her right.. I think anton put up a Google map and a photo of the site in question in the original thread. It was a fairly tight junction via the left filter lane and she did not make any double checks :popcorn:


Quote:
In Gear wrote:
Are you saying it's right to let off a person who has zero regard for any law by virtue of his record to date?


Er, no.

#

I am pleased to read this. :clap: No one is condoning her standard of driving - or rather "lack of any decent standard" by virtue of her alleged texting. But the cyclist should have stopped at the red light all the same.


But we are drifting off the topic. The judgement in the case I have posted up for discussion?

CW wrote:

The judge said the victim's non wearing of a helmet was a "mitigating factor" and the sentence would be reduced accordingly


:censored: The driver was illegal in every sense of the word. The helmet issue could not be held to be a mitigating factor. The driver has a history by the way. :furious:

I see Ted has referred to an earlier case ^^^^^

_________________
Take with a chuckle or a grain of salt
Drive without COAST and it's all your own fault!

A SMILE is a curve that sets everything straight (P Diller).

A Smiley Per post
FINES USfor our COAST!


Approach love and cooking with reckless abandon - but driving with a smile and a COAST calm mind.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun May 24, 2009 09:35 
Offline
Life Member
Life Member
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 22:02
Posts: 3266
weepejs image of that accident is very distorted. the drivers view of the cyclist would be impared by the a piller, the 30 degree angle of incidence would have ment he stated in the blind spot. Red lighting that junction is akin to cycling down the main london to birmingham line. The route is the 3 lane, pedestrian free trunk road with a seperate cycle lane. If he atempted this red light manuver with out looking the odds are very high that a normal motorist would hit him or have to take severe evasive action to miss him. The evidence reported about the phone records was missing a lot of detail such as which mast served the 999 phone call and texts. both cases were an insult for justice.

_________________
Speed limit sign radio interview. TV Snap Unhappy
“It has never been the rule in this country – I hope it never will be - that suspected criminal offences must automatically be the subject of prosecution” He added that there should be a prosecution: “wherever it appears that the offence or the circumstances of its commission is or are of such a character that a prosecution in respect thereof is required in the public interest”
This approach has been endorsed by Attorney General ever since 1951. CPS Code


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 25, 2009 08:20 
Offline
Member
Member

Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2004 14:04
Posts: 2325
Location: The interweb
In Gear wrote:

Per CW and CTC - a judge at Durham Crown Court REDUCED the sentence of a driver who KILLED a cyclist .. on

CW and Northern Echo wrote:

the cyclist was not wearing a helmet




I suspect this is the consequence of prosecuting for the outcome rather than the offence. When you start treating causing death by dangerous driving differently to dangerous driving then anything which influences the outcome becomes relevant to the level of punishment.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon May 25, 2009 21:44 
Offline
User

Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 22:50
Posts: 3267
anton wrote:
weepejs image of that accident is very distorted. the drivers view of the cyclist would be impared by the a piller, the 30 degree angle of incidence would have ment he stated in the blind spot.



Nonsense she was travelling at 40mph+, there's no way he would have stayed in any blind spot for long at that speed, and that's even if he was in a blind spot at all.

Her description of being aware of him only when he appeared ON her windscreen certainly does not sound like he was obscured by the a piller for any of the time, let alone the entire time. You would expect a side collision if that was the case as she was effectively bearing left as the road curved to the left.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue May 26, 2009 22:47 
Offline
User

Joined: Wed Nov 09, 2005 21:10
Posts: 1693
Quote:
I suspect this is the consequence of prosecuting for the outcome rather than the offence. When you start treating causing death by dangerous driving differently to dangerous driving then anything which influences the outcome becomes relevant to the level of punishment.


Pertty well took the words out of my mouth!

If the outcome is held to define the level of criminality then it goes by the same logic that "Contributary neglegence" is a fair argument for mitigation in sentance.

Bound to happen sooner or later!

_________________
"The road to a police state is paved with public safety legislation"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 27, 2009 10:40 
Offline
Gold Member
Gold Member

Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 14:06
Posts: 3654
Location: Oxfordshire
Absolutely, punish the crime, not the outcome. I absolutely agree with the previous case of reducing compensation on the grounds of the injured party not taking reasonable steps to protect themselves, but it seems crazy to reduce a sentence based on the same, given that the sentence is for everything that happened up until the moment of impact.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed May 27, 2009 21:48 
Offline
User
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 13, 2005 23:28
Posts: 1940
I think these days all get charge with "dangerous" in first instance but juries directed to lesser charge verdict when the evidence appear in court?


Proving ist very difficult at it has to be beyond reasoned doubt? :? :? Ja . oder? I am not saying right .. but reflecting how it ist? I trust my comment will not be twisted by the known trollster who lurk.

_________________
Nicht ganz im Lot!
Ich setze mich immer wieder in die Nesseln! Der Mad Doc ist mein Mann! Und ich benutzte seinen PC!

UND OUR SMILEYS? Smile ... und the the world smiles with you.
Smiley guy seen when you read
Fine me for Safe Speed
(& other good causes..)

Greatest love & Greatest Achievements Require Greatest Risk
But if you lose the driving plan - don't lose the COAST lesson.
Me?
Je ne regrette rien
!


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 19 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
[ Time : 0.759s | 13 Queries | GZIP : Off ]