Look out for the cyclist

[Otta]

Actually I think a lifetime ban from driving would be appropriate foe someone found guilty of causing death by careless driving.

Somehow I can't imagine it would be enough to satisfy you.

[LadyDeliah]

I am not a lock em and flog em kind of person Otta.

I think the sentence should be in line with other offences where death is caused by someone's careless or negligent act, such as causing death by carelessly starting a fire.

I do not believe that because millions of people drive, death by careless driving should be a special case and attract insultingly low sentences. It is tolerated because there is an acceptance in society that all drivers break the law and these things are just part of life.

I think 12 months suspended sentence for this offence is too low, especially given one of the mitigating reasons was because she was a Christan and did charity work.

If it was my family member who'd been killed in these circumstances, I would lobby for the AG to appeal on the sentence and sue the offender in the civil courts too. Drivers need to face tougher penalties or society's attitude and drivers' behaviour is very unlikely to improve.

[LadyDeliah]

Driving should not be seen as an automatic entitlement.

If you cannot prove that you are safe and this applies to the HGVs, without proper safety modifications, thundering down our roads, then you should not be allowed to drive your vehicle on the roads.

[the-e-dealer]

I'm sure you rang your mandatory bell to warn the pedestrian.

[LadyDeliah]

the-e-dealer Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm sure you rang your mandatory bell to warn the

> pedestrian.

Wrong thread.

I think you want this one: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,1175727,page=15

[LadyDeliah]

Here are the mitigating factors the judge is supposed to take into account:

1.Alcohol or drugs consumed unwittingly

2. Offender was seriously injured in the collision

3. The victim was a close friend or relative

4. Actions of the victim or a third party contributed significantly

5. The offender?s lack of driving experience contributed to the commission of the offence

6. The driving was in response to a proven and genuine emergency falling short of a defence

Can't see being a Christian or doing voluntary work in the list.

http://sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/guidelines/guidelines-to-download.htm

[Otta]

But if she was just banned for driving for kife, with no prison sentence at all (suspended or otherwise), plenty of people would scream and shout about that.

Don't get me wrong, if a person kilks a cyclist because they're driving like a total nut case, they should lose their right to drive AND spend some time in prison IMO.

But in this case I think losing her license woukd have been appropriate.

[LadyDeliah]

Otta, she has a responsibility not to be a danger to other people when in charge of lethal machinery. If I carelessly poison someone, causing their death, because of bad heigine in my restaurant, should my only penalty be that I can't own a restaurant again?

[Otta]

Make your mind up, you're either "not a lock em and flog wm person" or you are.

I think the community service would be much more useful than locking her up. What the hell is the point?

[mynamehere]

check out the Facebook group: Stop Killing Cyclists

It started after the spate of killings and has 1500 + members

[Otta]

It's the language that basically winds me up. "stop killing cyclists"? Lije people are actually doing it on purpose.

[Loz]

Bit like one of the posters in LD's link - "all these cyclists are in this HGV's blind spot'. Damned stupid place to stop, then.

[Robert Poste's Child]

I'm not sure it's fair to assume that if a cyclist is in a lorry or car's blind spot it's their own fault anyway. I cycle around here most days and it frequently happens that someone overtakes you then immediately starts to pull in and hems you in.

[ultraburner]

"Lije people are actually doing it on purpose."

Quite a lot wrong with what you've written there.

Sometimes riders get themselves into dangerous situations yes... but more often it's just bad driving due to lack of concentration/tirdeness or on-your-phone-itus; those are choices people make that most drivers wouldn't, so they are actually purposeful.

Lady D is spot on; "lethal machinery" is a good description.

[Loz]

ultraburner Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Lady D is spot on; "lethal machinery" is a good description.

No, 'lethal machinery' is one of those over-emotional phrases pressure groups like to use. They think it's terribly clever, whilst everyone else thinks they are being emotionally blackmailed and react accordingly.

It's a bit like the posters in LD's post. Lots of cyclists will think they are terribly clever, but actually, the posters are just terrible... and more than a little amateurish. The last one in particular looked like it was done by someone using photoshop for the very first time. They fail to convey any succinct point. The only one that was anywhere near having a visual impact was the HGV one, but even then it can be seen in different ways (as I noted above).

People (in general) won't respond to them.

[northlondoner]

Otta Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's the language that basically winds me up.

> "stop killing cyclists"? Lije people are actually

> doing it on purpose.

Yes you and many others. It's the slightly queasy mix of self righteousness and perpetual victimhood that alienates a a lot of folk from the hard core special interest types.

You'll never convince them that a cyclist can be in the wrong under any circumstance. Save your breath.

[LadyDeliah]

Otta - I don't think I've contradicted myself.

I think the penalties for killing people whilst carelessly driving a dangerous and often lethal machine, is too low.

It normalises the deaths and fails to have an impact on offender behaviour, which is what punishment for crime is supposed to be.

I don't think there is any place for retribution in sentencing, but there must be an element of behaviour modification, not just for the offender, but for other drivers, for it to be of use.

Loz - cars, vans, buses, trucks; they are all machines whose use has been responsible for many deaths and the use of each individual one has the potential to kill. I think, therefore, they can rightly be described as lethal machinery.

Definition of Lethal:

a : of, relating to, or causing death

b : capable of causing death

Definition of machine:

: a piece of equipment with moving parts that does work when it is given power from electricity, gasoline, etc.

: a vehicle (such as a car or motorcycle)

[LadyDeliah]

I think the denial of drivers to face the potential harm of their behaviour is a massive problem and needs to be addressed.

[Otta]

So as I asked originally, what do you think should be the punishment for this woman? And should that be a standard punishment for all drivers that kill someone, or should they look at the details of individual cases and judge accordingly?

I actually have nothing against cyclists, and I'm not a motorist, I just basically laugh at the way sone cyclists talk.

[Robert Poste's Child]

I get that the legal system needs to be consistent, so perhaps focusing on individual stories is too emotive, but I'd tend to agree that whenever this subject is discussed, some people on the pro-driver side of the debate do seem to distance from the fundamental moral responsibility of killing someone. The law as it stands, along with some of the messages from the authorities and media, may be absolving them of that sense of responsibility.

On the other hand, when yet another driver overtakes me with a total disregard for the fact I'm turning right, I'll take responsibility for getting myself out of the way. Sometimes it's a choice between being right and getting home um one piece.

[LadyDeliah]

It's hard to say what sentence she should get, but for taking someone's life in the circumstances described, I would expect her to have a custodial sentence of some kind.

Death by motor vehicle was taken out of the manslaughter group of crimes some time ago.

I think it should be put back in and the sentences should be in-line with those for other forms of involuntary manslaughter, which is pretty wide depending on the mitigating and aggravating circumstances.

[Loz]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Definition of Lethal:

> a : of, relating to, or causing death

> b : capable of causing death

>

> Definition of machine:

> : a piece of equipment with moving parts that does work when it is given power from electricity,

> gasoline, etc.

> : a vehicle (such as a car or motorcycle)

Nice try at finding a definition of 'machine' to specifically exclude a bicycle, LD, but a bicycle is a machine as well. And can be - and is - lethal.

[LadyDeliah]

You claimed the description of a motor-vehicle as lethal machinery was hyperbolic and emotive, I was merely proving that it is an accurate description.

I did not need to look for a definition that excluded bicyles, they just weren't mentioned.

[the-e-dealer]

Says it all really.

[Loz]

LadyDeliah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You claimed the description of a motor-vehicle as

> lethal machinery was hyperbolic and emotive, I was

> merely proving that it is an accurate description.

Just because it is syntactically and technically correct (and I never said it wasn't), doesn't exclude it from being hyperbolic and emotive. It's a bit like the Daily Mail calling the MRSA 'a lethal drug' - technically correct, but woefully over-emotive.