Reading the article the 18 student had previously been convicted of a speeding offence a month prior to the death of Rob Jeffries, in May 2011.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News
Student convicted for killing of Rob Jeffries
(24 posts)-
Posted 13 years ago #
-
Cahill pleaded guilty to the charge of Causing Death by Careless Driving and was given a 12 month, 200-hour community order and an 18 month driving ban, followed by a compulsory re-test.
He had been driving 4 months, already convicted of speeding then kills someone and he gets that sentence?
Is that what someone's life is worth? Appaling. The law has brought him to trial and convicted him. The sentencing judge should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.
Posted 13 years ago # -
There ought to be some sort of guidance on sentencing so that at the very least they have a long driving ban.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Another one as well where the excuse was shown up to be just that... The 'dazzling' sun was, according to a police expert who went the following day, directly 'across' the road - i.e. not in the driver's face.
Also the car in front passed the cyclist with bags of room, and he should have noticed that.
Sheer, unbridled, negligence. 18 month ban? 200 hours community service over the next 12 months? That's a little over half an hour a day. 2 hours each Saturday and Sunday and it's done. I'm sure he feels remorse, and retribution is ugly, but that all feels like a pitiful amount at which to value a life.
Posted 13 years ago # -
That's a very lenient sentence. I think people who say the wouldn't cycle on the roads as they are too dangerous really mean they wouldn't cycle in case they encountered drivers with skills equal to their own. Every cyclist on the roads is giving a vote of confidence in the abilities of the drivers around them (something that is never acknowleged in anti-cycling tirades) but drivers like this really undermine efforts to increase cyling numbers. That at least, ought to be built into the sentence somehow - getting the perp to talk to school children for example - even if nothing else is.
Posted 13 years ago # -
"That at least, ought to be built into the sentence somehow - getting the perp to talk to school children for example - even if nothing else is."
Yes, couldn't agree more.
Posted 13 years ago # -
unbelievable sentence
Posted 13 years ago # -
I agree that this is far too lenient a sentence. It also shows up the weakness in driver training and licensing. The guy was done for speeding within a few weeks of passing his test!
Clearly people get licences who shouldn't. I think drivers who pass their test should be issued with probationary licenses - which would be withdrawn if they broke the law within a year or two of the test. Hopefully this would make good driving technique second nature and remove the licences from those who shouldn't have got them in the first place.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Young drivers - the hard facts
http://www.brake.org.uk/facts/young-drivers-the-hard-facts.htm
Posted 13 years ago # -
"I think drivers who pass their test should be issued with probationary licenses - which would be withdrawn if they broke the law within a year or two of the test."
Again, agree wholeheartedly. Speeding conviction, whatever, licence taken away for even 3-6 months, AND the need to resit the test to get it back.
Posted 13 years ago # -
I used to get angry about these but I'm not so sure now.
Would 12 months jail have a meaningful deterrent effect on top of 12 months community service for "2 hours each Saturday and Sunday"?
I don't believe that many people like the killer in this case are making a judgement like "I'll just swerve around a bit because I don't mind getting a year of community service and having to pay £10,000 a year insurance, just so long as I don't get jailed!!".
That's not to say that I agree with the sentences that are handed out, but I don't think that jail is a relevant punishment unless there are serious aggravating factors.
Posted 13 years ago # -
I agree about the jail, unless there is real and specific intent to cause harm as opposed to more vague "dangerous driving". However there needs to both a protective element through the licence system and a lesson element through community service and/or fines as appropriate.
Posted 13 years ago # -
When I was learning to drive I do recall my instructor (through the blue choking haze of Embessy Number1's) telling me he was teaching me to pass the test, and that after that I would have to learn to drive, meaning just because you have the licence it doens't make you a good driver. I wonder if this sort of advice is still being practiced. Also when i learned to drive I couldn't afford a car and used to drive Army Landrovers on a weekend, in feilds and woods etc...
Its a very sad story.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Of course no-one has actually suggested he go to jail... Longer ban hinted at; more of his time taken up than just a few hours of a weekend; no guarantee of getting the licence back; review of the licencing system.
The death penalty in the States kinda proves that major major penalties don't really deter and are more about keeping dangerous/criminal minds off the streets. Life imprisonment and death penalty are such abstract ideas really.
Taking up a person's time to speak to people about the mistakes they made; inconveniencing them in a way that is perfectly tangible (but how will I get my fridge home?); that sort of thing is more 'real'. It's time to get creatively harsh. Insurance companies should also be required to put massive levies on those who have killed through driving if/when they get a licence back.
I also reckon that, like with motorbikes, engine size should be limited with age (though in this case the car was a Clio so probably low-power), and I do like the idea of an automatic suspension of a licence if a driving conviction is picked up in the first 12-24 months of having a licence.
Posted 13 years ago # -
The problem with whatever sentence* you impose on offending drivers is that you will get a proportion of 17 year old who believe they are great drivers and can handle whatever the road throws at them with skill and elan. The deterrent doesn't matter because they're so good at driving that it won't happen to them.
*for the record, the harsher the better in my book - not custodial, but if you have demonstrated that you are unable to drive in a careful and safe manner, then you shouldn't be getting back behind the wheel any time soon...
Posted 13 years ago # -
That's why 'direct' action can help. Get a convicted young killer/dangerous driver to go to schools to speak to 16 and 17 year olds. All the better if he breaks down in remorse, shows the kids the impact, and possibly helps the offender with a bit of realisation and closure.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Good point.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Of course there will still be that core who think they are indestructible. But I do think something more 'creative' needs to be thought of. Those in charge always point to less people being killed or injured on the roads, which simply misses the point - there should be even fewer suffering this fate.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Massively longer bans is the only deterrent option I really see working, the presumtion remains of a "right" to a licence being more important than the victims right to life.
Personally I'd like to see a minimum several year ban for causing death with a motor vehicle and a mandatory lifetime ban for causing death by dangerous driving.
Until we treat killing people on the roads that seriously, some drivers will continue to endanger those around them for spurious reasons.Posted 13 years ago # -
I'd agree, though I also think if a mandatory ban was imposed on causing death by dangerous driving we'd actually see a fall in convictions for it/charges of it being levied, precisely for those 'right to drive' reasons still being in the public/judiciary conscious...
Posted 13 years ago # -
@anth, I know what you mean, however the impression I get is that the conditions required for actually getting a conviction for the offence are so tight it has to be pretty black and white for them to try even now.
I suspect we would see a slight reduction in the number of people being done for it, but the shock value of a "whole life" ban would make up for that imo.Seems only logical, if you take a life through gross stupidity/carelessnes/whatever with a tool, one that you've been trained and tested in the safe use of, that you're not allowed to use it again... or is that just me?!?
Posted 13 years ago # -
They should simply decouple the administration of the driving licence from the judiciary and pass it to a civil authority.
The judge can be responsible for setting a sentence such as 200 hours community service, yes indeed. But by that time the killer will already have an automatic 5 year ban for "being convicted of any driving offence in relation to an incident involving loss of life".
Posted 13 years ago # -
this made me go looking for this case
given its the only UK one I could recall for comparisonPosted 13 years ago # -
Ah yes, I remember that one.
It's a strange case because there was serious doubt about whether the cyclist was on the pavement or the road; the stories of the kids completely contradicted each other at times; but... he was found guilty, and as such the fine does seem somewhat cheap for a life.
Interesting quote from the article: "f people are cycling dangerously I don't understand why they should be treated differently from dangerous driving, if their behaviour results in the same outcome"
As we've seen, a £2000 fine actually isn't treating cyclists any differently from motorists.
You're right though, we do see things through cyclist's eyes. But I have to say, if that cyclist was found guilty then he should have been more severely punished as well. I'm not going to defend him simply because he uses the same mode of transport as I do.
Posted 13 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
