About as clear as SMIDSY as you can get.
Stunned they kept this as a Causing Death by Dangerous Driving charge, and then made it stick.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
SMIDSY Prison Sentence
(15 posts)-
Posted 13 years ago #
-
"must re-sit his test", WHY!?! Why on earth should he be allowed his licence back??? He has proven he is capable of driving dangerously enough to kill, his victim will not magically come back to life so WHY THE **** should he get a licence back and carry on as normal???
<rage>Posted 13 years ago # -
Indeed. At least the b will see the inside of a prison cell though. Maybe the Sheriff is a biker, because most of them seem to be all too sympathetic to murderous drivers.
Posted 13 years ago # -
He'll be allowed to re-sit his test and get a licence back (if he passes) because he will, by then, have served out the sentence for his crime. That's the way things work in this country, for 99.999999% of offenders.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Exactly. It's the reason we don't chemically castrate rapists or cut the hands off burglars, because you are deemed to have 'spent' your conviction after a period of time.
Posted 13 years ago # -
So, let's say someone accidentally yet carelessly discharge a shotgun into a person, killing them. They are convicted of whatever offence (GBH/assault/involuntary manslaughter), do time, and are released. Do they get to apply for a firearms certificate/license when they get out? Surely not!
Posted 13 years ago # -
Reading these type of articles I'm sickened by things like '... and I'm sure you've suffered enough having the trauma of causing someones death..." and such similar comments attributed to the Sherrifs holding court. If someone has caused another persons death the defendants 'suffering' should have nothing to do with the sentance determination, what-so-ever!
EDIT, and my personal pet hate is the press' use of the word accident. Ever since watching Hot Fuzz I think of Simon Peg using the word incident not accident, as to say accident atributes no blame on the defendant, like there was nothing anyone could do to prevent it...
Posted 13 years ago # -
"Do they get to apply for a firearms certificate/license when they get out? Surely not!"
Depends on the circumstances, but probably, yes. all depends - if they shoot someone deliberately then maybe not, but then if someone runs someone over deliberately they could be banned form driving for life. Whereas discharge a firearm carelessly and you will likely be able to apply, in much the same way you can re-sit your test (remember, getting the licence back isn't automatic) if you carelessly run over and kill someone.
Always remember to compare apples with apples in situations like this.
Posted 13 years ago # -
It does seem however, that the legal authorities don't take deaths caused by cars as seriously as deaths by other means - for example by throwing something off a bridge with reckless disregard as to the consequences. After all, the driver in this case drove out at speed from the side road with reckless disregard as to whether or not anyone was coming; it's just as if he had dropped a breezeblock off a bridge with no attempt to check if anyone were passing beneath. We ought to take car-caused deaths much more seriously.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Oh that I'd agree with. Despite this 'war on the motorist' it's self-evident that (to use an almost apt figure of speech) they get away with murder (murder requiring pre-meditation, so what they actually get away with is culpable homicide (in Scotland) and manslaughter (in England)).
Posted 13 years ago # -
It is also interesting to note, as dave commented on this other threadchild knocked down in marchmont that it has to be a DEATH before a cyclist gets a mention.
I know two people (cyclists) who have been hit and knocked over the bonnet of inattentive drivers this year alone.
One happened the other night at Northfield Broadway, he was turning into Mountcastle Drive North, and the car zoomed out of the same street and T-Boned him.
This despite said cyclist being very visible, lights, and catching (he thought) the drivers eye.
Guy very apologetic - but a SMIDSY.
IN NONE OF THESE CASES WAS ANYTHING IN THE PAPER, AND I DONT IMAGINE IT WOULD UNLESS THEY WERE KILLED.
I dont really think they need reporting, to be honest, but its a tad annoying when a cyclists well being and health is undoubtedly rated behind pretty much every other road user.
But what does get reported is when idiot cyclists hit people on the canal etc, incidents as common as hens teeth....
And what it does is propogate the myth that cyclists only cause their own accidents, when in truth we are very much the injured parties.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Yes, it's all part of a general assumption that goes a bit like this.
Well, honestly, those pedal pushers, if they are going to go around balanced on such a ridiculous contraption, with their silly lycra clothes, instead of driving a proper car like any self respecting person, well then they can expect to be knocked off. I mean they don't pay road tax, they undertake on the inside, jump red lights, ride on the pavement. They're asking for it.
(Whallop! Crunch! Groan.)
Ooops! Sorry Mate I Didn't See You!
Posted 13 years ago # -
It does seem however, that the legal authorities don't take deaths caused by cars as seriously as deaths by other means - for example by throwing something off a bridge with reckless disregard as to the consequences.
But 'the law' allows for a degree of frequency and commonness of an activity, which leads to unfortunate collateral damage.
If everyone carried breeze blocks around on wheelbarrows, and a lot of the time had piled them several blocks high, then now and again some blocks would fall off and hit the ground. Now and again that would happen when someone was crossing a bridge and a block would crash to the ground below and hit someone or their wheelbarrow. But it's just unfortunate, an accident, because pretty much everyone has to carry breeze blocks.
Even though the wheelbarrow makers have made them safer with inflatable padding and tall sides, some people have to carry lots of breeze blocks and in tall piles, and some have to transport them faster. They know it's a wee bit dangerous, but most of the time they'll be ok doing it. Then someone comes along with a really big, tall pile in their wheelbarrow, and tried to get from A to B a bit faster than the next person, and has a bit of an accident where someone was hit on the head when the breeze blocks all crashed down.
But most of the time, people get their wheelbarrows from A to B quite happily without any trouble at all, and they all have those tall sides - some a bit taller than others, some with extra padding and an extra wheel for stability - so no-one's terribly worried about being killed. So when it does happen, it's just one of those things. But was that wheelbarrow being pushed in a dangerous manner? Or was the pile of breeze blocks just a bit too big?
You can't take away people's wheelbarrows, or their right to push them, because everyone has to get their breeze blocks from A to B!
Posted 13 years ago # -
@Druidh @Anth, my point is that the sentencing is inappropriate and presumes that a licence is something everyone may expect to have, rather than what I personally believe it to be. That is to say, discretionary permission to use a motor vehicle, a privilege and not a right.
I have a fair bit of experience with firearms and I would expect that anyone convicted of causing death by the careless use of a firearm would be unlikely to get another licence, yes they would be allowed to apply, but, as I'm sure you know, it is not as simple as: sit a test, get a licence! Depending on the circumstances however it is possible.
Anyone who caused a death by wilfully reckless or dangerous use of a firearm would stand little chance of ever getting another licence.I believe the firearms/driving licence comparison is valid and does stand as "apples to apples".
As an example: There was a case recently covered by the British Association for Shooting and Conservation (BSAC) of a gamekeeper who, after a long day at work, sat in his kitchen to clean iirc a shotgun and a rifle, he fell asleep, and while he was sleeping, the local Policeman happened to call round about an unconnected matter. As he found the keeper asleep with weapons by him in an unlocked kitchen, the keepers licence has been revoked, his guns removed and he stands to lose his job. The decision is being appealed, but can you imagine a similar level of carelessness being prosecuted so firmly when applied to motor vehicles?
About ten years ago a friends son accidentally allowed his shotgun licence to lapse (he was at sea serving with the Royal Navy at the time). L&B's finest forced entry to his gun cabinet and siezed his gun with a view to destroying it, something averted at the last moment by obtaining legal help/advice.
I could go on, but I think that serves to illustrate the difference (in my experience) in attitude between two sets of useful, legal, but potentially lethal devices. :-/Posted 13 years ago # -
@Anth " in much the same way you can re-sit your test (remember, getting the licence back isn't automatic)"
But as we all know, if you re-sit your driving test and pass, getting the licence back IS automatic :-/
Posted 13 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
