[News] Just 3 years for killing a boy through dangerous driving

[herecomesaregular]

Only just seen this thread .....
My sister was killed on this very day, 15 years ago, on the A303 outside Amesbury after a head on collision. The other driver overtook a lorry on a hill bend. Charged with CDBDD, he was sentenced two the grand total of 2 years. No doubt he was out in 1.
Don't need to tell me that the penalty for taking a life through driving stupidity is ridiculously inadequate and total inconsistent.

Very saddened to hear this. Dreadfully short sentence, to be out in 1 year. I stopped cycling because, amongst other things, I lost trust in my safety when realising the number of utter morons on the road. Would only cycle off road or on a seperate cycle path nowadays.

 

[1066familyman]

Not victim-blaming as such, and the drink-driving is unforgivable, but what on earth was a 10 year old doing out cycling in the dark after 10pm in October? If nothing else, they should have been in bed for an hour or so.

Ok, I don't generally do keyboard warrior, but unless I've been whoosed (which judging but your subsequent replies, I haven't), are you for fecking real!?

You read that report and all you can think of is... 10pm is after a 10 year olds bed time and shouldn't be on the road on a bicycle in the dark.

Feck me, that's incredible!

 

[Sheebo]

Give over: you have absolutely no idea what they were doing out. There could have been a family emergency; they could have been on their way home much earlier but got stuck because something else happened; it could have been somebody's birthday and he was allowed to stay up late specially; they could have been going two hundred yards from one house to another. If only the parent had been run over, would you be criticising the late bed time of the kid?

How absolutely miserable to judge the parent(s) in this case when the only reason this has happened is because of some selfish, pissed tosser who couldn't be arsed to walk from one part of tiny West Chiltington to another.

On a push bike?! Family emergency - grab the bike Absolutely not safe - walk if it’s that close. I’m not bothered, I didn’t make the initial post, I just thought you read it wrong and we’re a bit harsh on the poster - clearly you didn’t! Yes I agree it’s the pricks fault, but it is odd the kid was on a bike at half 10 and let’s say very ‘unusual’ to avoid anyone taking the point wrongly, again.

 

[Stat Brother]

It’s Crash Not Accident: Road Collision Reporting Guidelines Issued

https://www.forbes.com/sites/carlto...mp/?sh=545a8f02f2a6&__twitter_impression=true

One of the new Road Collision Reporting Guidelines stresses that journalists should not use the word “accident” for a road collision but, instead, use “crash.” This is the language long used by the police, with the acronym RTA for “road traffic accident” superseded by “road traffic collision,” or RTC. The word “accident” suggests no-one is to blame for a crash.

 

[Worried Man Blues]

Life time driving ban obviously, then after jail some community work, say 3 days a week, for the rest of his life so he doesn't forget and his family doesn't forget.

 

[Acker79]

EDIT: Realised what thread this was. Perhaps not so appropriate.

 

[Weststander]

Very saddened to hear this. Dreadfully short sentence, to be out in 1 year. I stopped cycling because, amongst other things, I lost trust in my safety when realising the number of utter morons on the road. Would only cycle off road or on a seperate cycle path nowadays.

I still cycle on roads, but I’m always aware that I’d be completely helpless to a moron in a lorry, van or car fiddling with their beloved phone.

 

[Stat Brother]

[tweet]1402563836788547585[/tweet]

 

[Stat Brother]

Like a few others recently I wasn't going to bother with this one, after all it's just 'same old same old'.

Then I stupidly read the report:-

https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/n...jailed-crash-left-boy-life-changing-injuries/


Just how in the name of justice is a 2 year sentence acceptable?







Oh and this has always been my opinion, but in the wake of 'Time' on BBC1,

I'm not saying 'pah 2 years I could do that standing on my head'.

I couldn't, I absolutely couldn't, I know full well I wouldn't even make it to the first play time.
2 years (1 year, 1 Christmas, possibly no Easter's missed! ) is terrifying.

That's not the point I'm making.
My point is 2 years v an entire life, plus family, changed by the actions of a man who was 'too stoned to brake' - really doesn't feel like justice.

 

[Weststander]

Like a few others recently I wasn't going to bother with this one, after all it's just 'same old same old'.

Then I stupidly read the report:-

https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/n...jailed-crash-left-boy-life-changing-injuries/


Just how in the name of justice is a 2 year sentence acceptable?







Oh and this has always been my opinion, but in the wake of 'Time' on BBC1,

I'm not saying 'pah 2 years I could do that standing on my head'.

I couldn't, I absolutely couldn't, I know full well I wouldn't even make it to the first play time.
2 years (1 year, 1 Christmas, possibly no Easter's missed! ) is terrifying.

That's not the point I'm making.
My point is 2 years v an entire life, plus family, changed by the actions of a man who was 'too stoned to brake' - really doesn't feel like justice.

Disgusting - brainless driving, failing to stop, on drugs.

A child’s life and hopes in ruins.

The price of all that? 14 months inside, then a full life lived.

It’s not about throwing away the key for vengeance. Instead, jail terms (actual time served) must be commensurate to the damage done to the person by crimes and serve as a far better deterrent. Until then, millions will nonchalantly drive their 1.5t steel projectile badly whilst on the phone (saw this again today) and/or drugs.

 

[Stat Brother]

WTF was this cyclist and pedestrian doing, anyone would think they wanted to be killed:-

[tweet]1410646692416925697[/tweet]

 

[marcos3263]

I do think that there should be lifetime bans for anything like this.
I also think sentences should include community service. If they were forced to clear litter at the side of roads and witness the speed of cars, that would be a constant reminder, but generally painting railing, graffiti cover up, littler collection etc, all stuff the councils struggle to fund and prioritise so at least they give a little back. Plus a few years wearing a distinctive uniform/Gillet/overalls would constantly remind people what they did and that they are doing 'time' for it.

 

[Kaiser_Soze]

Disgusting - brainless driving, failing to stop, on drugs.

A child’s life and hopes in ruins.

The price of all that? 14 months inside, then a full life lived.

It’s not about throwing away the key for vengeance. Instead, jail terms (actual time served) must be commensurate to the damage done to the person by crimes and serve as a far better deterrent. Until then, millions will nonchalantly drive their 1.5t steel projectile badly whilst on the phone (saw this again today) and/or drugs.

I'm afraid this just simply doesnt work on several levels.

1. The deterrent argument relies on the fact that a person is thinking clearly in the period immediately before, and during committing a crime. Under the influence or drink or drugs, or even just emotion, this process is hindered. Increasing the sentence is no deterrrent if someone is not thinking about a deterrent when they commit an offence.

2. By linking the damage done to a person by a crime to the sentence, all you will do is push every crime into having longer sentences. The point of the justice system is to take the emotion out of sentencing. Invariably victims and families of victims don't feel sentences are long enough, even when data suggest they are "right"

I do feel that DBDD or DBCD should have similar sentencing guidelines to Manslaughter. In my eyes, they are the same.
The other failure is in court reporting. Very rarely do the papers give enough information in relation to how the judge came to the sentence they did. Even if you don't agree with the sentence, if one understand what framework the judge was operating under and how they came to the decision, at the very least, people would understand.

 

[Weststander]

I'm afraid this just simply doesnt work on several levels.

1. The deterrent argument relies on the fact that a person is thinking clearly in the period immediately before, and during committing a crime. Under the influence or drink or drugs, or even just emotion, this process is hindered. Increasing the sentence is no deterrrent if someone is not thinking about a deterrent when they commit an offence.

2. By linking the damage done to a person by a crime to the sentence, all you will do is push every crime into having longer sentences. The point of the justice system is to take the emotion out of sentencing. Invariably victims and families of victims don't feel sentences are long enough, even when data suggest they are "right"

I do feel that DBDD or DBCD should have similar sentencing guidelines to Manslaughter. In my eyes, they are the same.
The other failure is in court reporting. Very rarely do the papers give enough information in relation to how the judge came to the sentence they did. Even if you don't agree with the sentence, if one understand what framework the judge was operating under and how they came to the decision, at the very least, people would understand.

Justice and the court system is also very much about punishment.

Real sentences have been steadily increasing for a wide range of driving (and sexual offences) over many years now, reflecting the views of society and politicians. It hasn't stopped people slaying bike riders or pedestrians whilst fiddling with their sacred iphone in a vehicle, but a price is paid. Who knows, but perhaps there would be far more killings if sentences were relaxed? In the 1980's half the people I knew routinely drunk drove, often paralytic, the risk was just a 12 month ban, higher car insurance for a few short years and invaribly local papers didn't print names. I don't think greater morality lowered the numbers. It was the fear of getting caught with the police targeting drink drivers and a far heavier price paid.

Separately, the damage done to victims and their loved ones is already part of the judge's assessment of sentencing, following the formal victim impact statement. The judge is not emotive, so there lies a safeguard.

 

[Stat Brother]

Justice and the court system is also very much about punishment.

Real sentences have been steadily increasing for a wide range of driving (and sexual offences) over many years now, reflecting the views of society and politicians. It hasn't stopped people slaying bike riders or pedestrians whilst fiddling with their sacred iphone in a vehicle, but a price is paid. Who knows, but perhaps there would be far more killings if sentences were relaxed? In the 1980's half the people I knew routinely drunk drove, often paralytic, the risk was just a 12 month ban, higher car insurance for a few short years and invaribly local papers didn't print names. I don't think greater morality lowered the numbers. It was the fear of getting caught with the police targeting drink drivers and a far heavier price paid.

Separately, the damage done to victims and their loved ones is already part of the judge's assessment of sentencing, following the formal victim impact statement. The judge is not emotive, so there lies a safeguard.

As is customary I've skipped half a dozen like minded news stories in between bounces.
Including the Brummie woman racing her Audi against a 911 estimated to have been traveling in excess of 100mph, in a 40mph limit, paralysing the victim who according to the accused 'just came out of nowhere, there was nothing I could do'.


There's a lot going on in the bouncing clip:-

- How fast do you need to be traveling to knock a pelican crossing clean out of the ground?
- Just how 'lucky' was the drive to not kill someone?
- Would hi-vis, helmet and insurance have saved the cyclist were it to have ended differently?
- Why wasn't the driver wearing red corduroy trousers?

& most importantly yet absolutely the most telling of all

- After coming within inches of killing 2 people why would you stand with your hands on your hips checking to see if your car is alright, and not the actual human beings? (unless of course the driver wasn't paying any attention at all and had no idea he'd nearly killed 2 people)

 

[Acker79]

As is customary I've skipped half a dozen like minded news stories in between bounces.
Including the Brummie woman racing her Audi against a 911 estimated to have been traveling in excess of 100mph, in a 40mph limit, paralysing the victim who according to the accused 'just came out of nowhere, there was nothing I could do'.


There's a lot going on in the bouncing clip:-

- How fast do you need to be traveling to knock a pelican crossing clean out of the ground?
- Just how 'lucky' was the drive to not kill someone?
- Would hi-vis, helmet and insurance have saved the cyclist were it to have ended differently?
- Why wasn't the driver wearing red corduroy trousers?

& most importantly yet absolutely the most telling of all

- After coming within inches of killing 2 people why would you stand with your hands on your hips checking to see if your car is alright, and not the actual human beings? (unless of course the driver wasn't paying any attention at all and had no idea he'd nearly killed 2 people)

I was watching it and noticed all the pedestrians rushing to the car to check on the driver rather than the cyclist or the pedestrian, who while standing could quite easily have been in shock.

The paramedic at the end of the video looks like she's unsure if she even wants to approach him

He seems to speed up into them, like he panicked and hit the accelerator instead of the brake. It looks like he realises he is about to hit the cyclist so turns right toward the pavement and the buildings rather than left toward the empty road, before realising there was a person there and pushing through between their dives out of the way.

What was he even doing? He was travelling too fast to be pulling over to park on that side of the road (of course he shouldn't be parking by a crossing, but would we be surprised if he was the sort of driver that parks in places that are inconvenient for other road users?), there wasn't a queue for the turning until after he crashes.

 

[Weststander]

As is customary I've skipped half a dozen like minded news stories in between bounces.
Including the Brummie woman racing her Audi against a 911 estimated to have been traveling in excess of 100mph, in a 40mph limit, paralysing the victim who according to the accused 'just came out of nowhere, there was nothing I could do'.


There's a lot going on in the bouncing clip:-

- How fast do you need to be traveling to knock a pelican crossing clean out of the ground?
- Just how 'lucky' was the drive to not kill someone?
- Would hi-vis, helmet and insurance have saved the cyclist were it to have ended differently?
- Why wasn't the driver wearing red corduroy trousers?

& most importantly yet absolutely the most telling of all

- After coming within inches of killing 2 people why would you stand with your hands on your hips checking to see if your car is alright, and not the actual human beings? (unless of course the driver wasn't paying any attention at all and had no idea he'd nearly killed 2 people)

I just don't get the opposing view to yours/my own.

I'm a car driver and no saint. If in my 1.5t missile I hurt a pedestrian, cyclist or someone in smaller car, through fiddling on my phone, speeding or drink/drug driving, that would be 100% my responsibily. Akin to chucking an object out of a window onto a pavement without looking or putting an obstacle across a cycle path or railway line.

I would never, ever justify anything with "well, .......".

 

[Stat Brother]

I just don't get the opposing view to yours/my own.

I'm a car driver and no saint. If in my 1.5t missile I hurt a pedestrian, cyclist or someone in smaller car, through fiddling on my phone, speeding or drink/drug driving, that would be 100% my responsibily. Akin to chucking an object out of a window onto a pavement without looking or putting an obstacle across a cycle path or railway line.

I would never, ever justify anything with "well, .......".

Naturally I don't want to trivialise this thread due to the seriousness of the content therein, but the annual 1500 deaths caused by motor vehicles isn't really my main motivation.

That said I strongly urge all to follow APPGCW on Twitter, the All Party Government Cycling and Walking feed, it is fookin scary out there.



I just don't understand the total blindness to just how pervasive cars have become, nowhere more so than Brighton. I say as a car driver contemplating my next car as I donate my current car to Jnr.

 

[Baldseagull]

Like a few others recently I wasn't going to bother with this one, after all it's just 'same old same old'.

Then I stupidly read the report:-

https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/n...jailed-crash-left-boy-life-changing-injuries/


Just how in the name of justice is a 2 year sentence acceptable?







Oh and this has always been my opinion, but in the wake of 'Time' on BBC1,

I'm not saying 'pah 2 years I could do that standing on my head'.

I couldn't, I absolutely couldn't, I know full well I wouldn't even make it to the first play time.
2 years (1 year, 1 Christmas, possibly no Easter's missed! ) is terrifying.

That's not the point I'm making.
My point is 2 years v an entire life, plus family, changed by the actions of a man who was 'too stoned to brake' - really doesn't feel like justice.

But too stoned to brake is your interpretation, did you also see that the driver has Aspergers? And "The judge asked police to inform the relevant authorities that there is a “real concern” as to Jeff’s ability to drive on a public road." Suggesting that in the judges view, his aspergers is likely to have been the reason for the terrible judgement.

He was driving at the right speed for the road, he saw people in the road, and his Aspergers brain says, they should not be on the road, I am going at the legal speed, I have right of way, I will beep my horn. Clearly he should have slowed, braked or changed course, but no amount of jail tim is going to cure his aspergers.

 

[KeegansHairPiece]

I was watching it and noticed all the pedestrians rushing to the car to check on the driver rather than the cyclist or the pedestrian, who while standing could quite easily have been in shock.

The paramedic at the end of the video looks like she's unsure if she even wants to approach him

He seems to speed up into them, like he panicked and hit the accelerator instead of the brake. It looks like he realises he is about to hit the cyclist so turns right toward the pavement and the buildings rather than left toward the empty road, before realising there was a person there and pushing through between their dives out of the way.

What was he even doing? He was travelling too fast to be pulling over to park on that side of the road (of course he shouldn't be parking by a crossing, but would we be surprised if he was the sort of driver that parks in places that are inconvenient for other road users?), there wasn't a queue for the turning until after he crashes.

My guess is he had a phone on his lap and was reading a text, when he looked up he had no idea he'd veered across the road.