What's wrong with this article:
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
It's blood boil o'clock
(10 posts)-
Posted 13 years ago #
-
Ahh the extenuating circumstances-
Mr Kahl, who had been cycling along the road with friends, with no lights while listening to his MP3 player, died at the scene.
because of course this all matters when you've been hit by a drunk in a land rover....
At least this is a good sign
The jury's verdict was unanimous.Posted 13 years ago # -
He'd taken cocaine as well! Good grief... I wonder how dark it was, whether the friends he was cycling with had lights on, how loud the music in the MP3 player was (considering he was riding with friends).
But then we all know cyclists are really just asking to be run over by drunk and doped up drivers...
Posted 13 years ago # -
Presumably the 5 year ban will start after the 3 year sentence? Also it says he was unlicensed so that either means he's never had a license or he was already on a ban....
Posted 13 years ago # -
I understood from discussion elsewhere that the victim was actually crossing the road (as opposed to riding along it) when struck - not that it's legal to cross the road without lights anyway.
Posted 13 years ago # -
@recombodna, probably not, although DVLA and HMCS are trying to coordinate this. Its difficult though; if the judge/sheriff want to set a 5 year ban on top of a 3 year sentence, they should probably set a 6 1/2 year driving ban, assuming that the standard amount of the sentence served is half
Posted 13 years ago # -
There was a case on that years back. A guy pushing a bike over a zebra crossing with beacons (the type of thing on George Street, might be a Pelican?). Anyway, car struck him, and the drivers defence was that because he had a bike he wasn't a pedestrian and so wasn't allowed to use the crossing.
Always struck me (if you'll pardon the pun) as an odd defence. Basically saying if he hadn't had a bike he would have stopped. Thankfully the judge saw the ridiculous nature of the argument and the guy got done.
Posted 13 years ago # -
I suspect it may have been from a previous ban. Some drivers who are banned just start driving after the ban when they wrongly assume they can drive without re-applying for a licence.
Its a shame the chap had to die for him to be taken out of society, but I imagine if he hadn't been drinking and taking illegal drugs he may have received a non custodial sentence.
Posted 13 years ago # -
... most likely he wouldn't have been charged at all, in that case. Circumstances have to be pretty black before you'll be held to account.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Jeeezzzzz...
So if he had been shot/stabbed by a drunk when on a bike with no lights and MP3 player I'm sure that the perpetrator would have had an enormously heavy book thrown at him. But as it is he's getting what amounts to a light slap on the wrist for taking someone's life. I mean banning someone from driving who is happy to drive without a licence and when under the influence is just ridiculous, the guys already proved how much contempt he has "for the system" and that it won't stop him driving and killing.
Posted 13 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
