Community Service for a Life « CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum

CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

Community Service for a Life

(27 posts)

Started 15 years ago by Wilmington's Cow
Latest reply from Instography

No tags yet.

Wilmington's Cow
Member

Sometimes I really just don't understand

http://road.cc/node/17145

So tests on the scene showed the driver to be driving around 60mph on a twisty 40mph section of road, losing control, and hitting a cyclist on opposite side of the road. A post-mortem reveal injuries consistent with being hit at between 50 and 60mph.

And yet the Sheriff comments that: "Had you been driving at a reckless speed you would be facing a charge of reckless driving"

Now I don't know ALL of the facts, or the guy's background, so it may well be the Sheriff was correct when he said, "I do not believe the level of carelessness is substantial enough to merit a sentence of imprisonment."

But.

He's killed someone while driving at 150% of the speed limit (and you'll note was up in court again in the same day for threatening a customer of his with violence) and got 12 months driving ban (12 months?!?!?) and 240 hours community service. I have no doubt he was traumatised by what happened, and who knows it may actually change his driving habits, but it still seems to send out the message to me that killing someone with a car is almost acceptable.

Posted 15 years ago #
cb
Member

From BBC article

The court heard he threatened to "smash" a customer with a three-foot steel water key, after his standard of work was questioned.

Nice guy.

Posted 15 years ago #
chdot
Admin

Also from BBC

"
However, Neil Greig, assistant director of the Institutes of Advanced Motorists Motoring Trust, said the sheriff's decision "sent out the wrong message".

He said: "People who are charged with a death because of their driving should be given a strong message that they will be punished."
"

Posted 15 years ago #
Wilmington's Cow
Member

The IAM often speak a lot of sense - they've had a lot of pro-cycling stuff recently actually.

Posted 15 years ago #
Min
Member

But there are so many cases like this. I have often thought of collating them to use as "evidence" when people start having a go at cycling. But I think it would make me too depressed.

Posted 15 years ago #
SRD
Moderator

"The IAM often speak a lot of sense - they've had a lot of pro-cycling stuff recently actually."

That's not even pro-cycling, just anti-bad driving! But good either way.

Posted 15 years ago #
SRD
Moderator

more on the topic - a sentence like this can be appealed can't it?

Posted 15 years ago #
Kim
Member

When the Sheriff said, "I do not believe the level of carelessness is substantial enough to merit a sentence of imprisonment." It really does make it sound like killing someone with a car is socially acceptable. This sort of thing really sickens me.

Posted 15 years ago #
Dave
Member

Surely that sentence can be appealed. How is it possible that doing 150% of the speed limit on the wrong side of the road and taking a life (and lying about it!) is not a custodial offence, and merits such a tiny ban?

Does anyone know who we'd need to complain to, to get this moving?

Posted 15 years ago #
Wilmington's Cow
Member

There isn't any process for the general public forcing a review of these things. Hell, it's not even in the hands of the family (they CAN raise a private prosecution but there has only been one of those int he last 100 years).

Down to the fiscal service if they think the sentence is unduly lenient.

Posted 15 years ago #
Wilmington's Cow
Member

Though contacting the MP/MSP for the area might at least get some political pressure (however bear in mind that MSPs can only technically serve the requests of people actually in their constituency - not sure about MPs).

Posted 15 years ago #
chdot
Admin

Another one -

Family of hit and run victim ‘devastated’ as sentence announced

Posted 15 years ago #
Cyclingmollie
Member

Min: "I have often thought of collating them"
I see there is a site doing just that mentioned in the article:
http://www.Stop-SMIDSY.org.uk
I have to say, I do enjoy wearing my Smidsy t-shirt (available from City Cycling) and watching people's faces as they try to work out what it means. Some people just don't get it and just occasionally you see someone who looks like it annoys them - excellent.

Posted 15 years ago #
spytfyre
Member

and people say I am daft for joining in with Critical Mass...

Posted 15 years ago #
Wilmington's Cow
Member

Not sure how Critical Mass stops drivers the country over from speeding???

Anyway, another one: http://www.thisisbath.co.uk/news/Community-sentence-distracted-death-crash-driver/article-2105498-detail/article.html

150 hours community service; 2 year ban; no fine.

Straight road, with the cyclist visible for at least 20 seconds before being hit - argued it was 'momentary innatention' because her husband was speaking to her. Also... LIED about the incident, saying the cyclist had swerved in front of her, which CCTV footage showed not to be the case.

Posted 15 years ago #
spytfyre
Member

I didn't say that Anth, please don't mis-quote me...
I stand by my comments over on the other CM thread that a large visible group of cyclists will put the word "bike" into the front of the driver's brain, even just for the day, other lone cyclists further down the road may then benefit from a pair of driver's eyes more aware of slower moving smaller vehicles...

Posted 15 years ago #
Wilmington's Cow
Member

Well I didn't quote, so it wasn't a misquote (argh, in a pedantic mood), but rather I made an inference that may have been incorrect...

Though if we're going down that route, I didn't say you were 'daft'. You have reasoning, which almost automatically makes it not 'daft' but actually 'considered'. I merely happen to disagree with that reasoning (and hopefully have reasoning of my own to back up my own personal opinion).

Hell, if we all thought the same way it would be a boring old world.

Posted 15 years ago #
chdot
Admin

And one from Edinburgh (not a death).

http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/topstories/Fury-at-sentence--for.6281904.jp

Posted 15 years ago #
Kim
Member

@ chdot: Notable comment from the Edinburgh drivers defence team

"She ... thinks she was careful in her driving."

This was given as a defence for a woman who drove through a red light and hit a kid on puffin crossing. The Court heard yesterday that the child was "thrown into the air and landed on the roadway". The car must have been travelling at some speed.

Posted 15 years ago #
LaidBack
Member

- argued it was 'momentary innatention' because her husband was speaking to her. Also... LIED about the incident, saying the cyclist had swerved in front of her, which CCTV footage showed not to be the case.

The momentary lack of concentration excuse has been used too often to allow poor drivers to stay driving. Used more or less in the Jason McIntyre case.

Some drivers seem to think that a road is like a railway line and anyone that dares to go on it deserves what they get.

The brain-damaged girl court decision is a mystery to me. This happened at a crossing for heaven's sake. These should always be approached with care - particularly if another vehicle has stopped nearby.

Lastly - everyone seems to agree that our roads are too busy. Banning a few of these 'less able' people will be a benefit to those that have got the hang of driving safely.
Plenty of other potential new drivers waiting in the wings - so no worries about our roads not being used!

Posted 15 years ago #
Dave
Member

To be fair here, I don't really agree with jailing people for bad driving in most cases - it's hard to see, for example, how society would profit from sending down a 50-something teacher who went through a red light and hit a child.

Community service would almost certainly be more productive, but the most important thing is a lengthy ban (indefinite where a death was caused). Because there's no better way of addressing someone's bad driving than simply taking them off the roads!

(We'd need to bump up the penalty for driving while disqualified however, and for that I think a mandatory jail term would be appropriate).

Posted 15 years ago #
Kim
Member

@ Dave there in lies the problem, if you were to cause that sort of damage to another person by any other means, they you would be looking at a potential prison sentence plus a lifetime ban from doing what ever you were doing. However, because driving has become some sort of right, lifetime driving bans are rearer then hens teeth.

All too often the driver gets a minor slap on the wrist and a small fine. Driving should not be regarded as a right, but as a privilege granted by licence, and licence which can easily be with drawn.

Posted 15 years ago #
Smudge
Member

In agreement with much of this, I have to say that where someone has been convicted of causing death by dangerous driving then surely the penalty should be a lifetime ban.
Further I agree with the sentiment earlier that people who drive whilst disqualified should suffer serious penalties.

However, we must always be careful to punish the actions/offence rather than the consequencies of the action / offence.
To explain, if I fall asleep on the motorway and crash into a field breaking both my legs and destroying my car should I be jailed and banned? Now say in the same accident I hit a child playing in the field, kill them but am unhurt myself what is the sentence now? The offence is EXACTLY the same, just the outcome changes, and peoples opinion of the fairness of any sentence handed down.
I am in no way defending dangerous/bad driving, just pointing out that the level of offence of a driver is not always as clear cut as it may first appear.

I have seen reports of drivers who have killed walk away with suspended sentences and fines, I have seen a motorcyclist caught for (very) excessive speed banned for two years and given 6 months suspended... (on the A702 iirc). Which is appropriate? Very hard to say without the full info :-/

Posted 15 years ago #
Dave
Member

Although it sounds good, I'm not sure I agree with the premise above. Suppose a builder deliberately throws a cracked breeze block he was working with down onto the street below, where they've got a skip set up.

Unfortunately for him, he's not a very good shot and the breeze block lands in the adjacent parking space instead. In one situation this is empty, the mess is cleaned up, nothing further happens. In the other situation he kills a mother and child who were crossing the road. It's almost certain that a prosecution would result despite the action being identical in each case.

Which is right? Should we charge everybody who drops a breeze block with manslaughter or can we not charge somebody who takes a life with anything at all?

The status quo in traffic law sometimes appears to be that since many people drive badly, when someone does drive badly and kill, they shouldn't be taken too much to task because most of the time, a loss of life wouldn't have resulted.

This is wholly wrong in my opinion, because if we had the death penalty for speeding, nobody would speed - the offence rate is exactly proportional to the (perceived) cost of offending, so not setting an example of killer drivers encourages drivers to kill.

Posted 15 years ago #
cb
Member

A horrible story but the driver got a life sentence in this case.

Posted 15 years ago #
crowriver
Member

Bump.

Thought this thread was relevant given the debate over cycle safety.

Should we be campaigning for tougher sentences and longer driving bans for dangerous and careless drivers?

Y'know, get away from blaming the victims and onto punishing the perpetrators?

Posted 13 years ago #
Instography
Member

I think Kim nails the problem in his most recent post in this thread - driving is a privilege you earn by demonstrating the ability to control a car. If you show you are unable to effectively control a car i.e. you are easily distracted, aggressive, drive too fast or erratically, you should expect the privilege to be removed. This is the sort of privilege / withdrawal logic people should be familiar with from childhood. After a period, you can regain the privilege by demonstrating that you have learned how to properly control a car, by undertaking further training and being re-examined.

Of course, if something terrible happens as a consequence of your carelessness you should expect a much harsher punishment but the minimum should be having your toy taken away until you show you can behave.

Posted 13 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.

// CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum

About This Forum

CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!

Community Service for a Life

Reply

RSS Feeds

Links