Oh and just to clarify, I too believe her sentence was too lenient. She should have received a far longer ban and be forced to take an extended test before getting her license back. However as this was tried in magistrates court there is a limit to the sentence they can pass.
6 month ban and £275 fine for woman who killed a motorcyclist
- Thread starter Rilot
- Start date
But then why not make an example out of this woman - don't drive whilst you cannot see the road and are doing something other than driving (ie. doing your hair, changing CD, reaching for a tissue, reading a map, playing with your mobile/sat nav)?
Also, i thought the CTR driver accidently clipped the bank and made him spin? Could be wrong though...
Surely you could say that about the CTR driver. If i read it in the newspaper i'd think twice about driving too quickly.
I think the CTR guy got bent over because
A) He was a youngish (IIRC)
B) He was male.
C) He had a car with a gary boy stigma attached to it.
Both the CTR driver and this woman made stupid mistakes, both didn't mean for anyone to get hurt, both were results of poor judgement, both will regret their actions forever.
The only thing that isn't the same is that the CTR driver got 12 months in prison and a 3 yr ban, whilst the woman got 6 pts and a £250 fine.
You have to ask, where is the justice?
Last edited:
I'm sorry, but there is a big difference between reaching over for a tissue and driving so fast and recklessly that you lose adhesion. One mistake was a split second and took some bad luck, the other mistake was probably the result of continued fast and reckless driving, certainly longer than a split second. They are fairly different scenarios.
dont post stuff if you dont know for definate its true.
The most a court can issue for the offence of speeding is a 42 day ban
Any more than 42 days and they have to charge you with Dangerous Driving or Driving without Due Care and Attention here
The problem here is not the sentance, more the crime she has been comitted of.
If you kill somebody while driving, it should not be a driving offence and should be automatic manslaughter.
Same as 12 year olds who steal cars and go joy riding should not be charged for driving offences. If you go joy riding, you'll get charged for the twoc if they can proove it, but they also charge you for driving without insurance, driving outside license conditions etc..
Theres no actual crime of joy riding. Like i said, they just get charged with driving offences
Same with this woman, she got charged for driving without due care and attention. The sort of charge given to somebody who gets caught eating an apple while driving.
They need to rethink the crimes these people get charged with. If the crime desnt exist, create it.
They need to stop automatically issuing driving related penalties just because they were in a car.
herelin lies the problem. The sentance is appropriate for the crime. The crime is "driving without due care and attention"
Whether or not she was charged with the right crime is obviously wrong. As previously said if you kill somebody while driving it should automatically be manslaughter. And abolish the "death by dangerous driving" crime as well. That only seems to carry 1 - 2 years in jail which again is disproportionate to the crime.
I don't normally comment on stuff like this because by and large I think the system "works".
That said I can't rationalise this sentence at all - if you killed someone in the street, even accidentally, you would serve time - I imagine at least 5 years if it were accidental, and considerably more if it was intentional. Kill someone in a car through your direct actions and you get a 6 month ban?
There surely has to be more to this than meets the eye, otherwise I find the whole thing ridiculous!
That said I can't rationalise this sentence at all - if you killed someone in the street, even accidentally, you would serve time - I imagine at least 5 years if it were accidental, and considerably more if it was intentional. Kill someone in a car through your direct actions and you get a 6 month ban?
There surely has to be more to this than meets the eye, otherwise I find the whole thing ridiculous!
Neither. Personally I would like her to serve a just punishment. Not revenge, punishment. In my mind, and I suspect many others, the said punishment would involve a custodial sentence.
Oh boohoo. The mans family has to live with the fact that they no longer have a father/son/husband for the rest of their lives. Weigh them both up and tell me which is the harsher.
Last edited:
She went round a corner on the wrong side of the road and, while doing so, chose to take her attention off the road. She was driving dangerously and through her recklessness she killed someone.
Of course, we don't have all the details, etc. etc.
I think in cases like this one it is legitimate to impose punishment rather than simple rehabilitation. Not for revenge, but because it is important to put out a clear message that people will be held accountable for serious failures in their driving ability.
Fair enough, that's your opinion. Likewise many people will disagree with you. By all means present a decent argument as to why we should waste a valuable space in prison with a woman who had a car accident and I'll gladly listen. I just don't see what a custodial sentence would achieve. Isn't punishment meant to be a deterrent? Will chucking this woman in prison really stop people from taking tissues from a box in their car?
We don't, all we know is that she wasn't nicked for dangerous or reckless driving but driving without due care and attention. There are different offenses for a reason.
its got more chance than 6points and a £200 fine......
also like someone above has said. if you accidentally killed someone in the street you'd get sent down for 5years +
both are seen as manslaughter, yet one is a traffic incident the other is not.
do it whilst in a car, and its only points? whats the difference?
with this countries justice system it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest
No you wouldn't...
If you threw it at his head, then you would. Like the woman didn't aim for the guy on the bike
so if someone was to accidentally kill someone by say causing a fire in a restaurant......
We know she was originally charged with causing death by dangerous driving, but this charge was lowered apparently because of lack of witnesses.
But, ignoring this particular case for a moment, do you think going round a bend on the wrong side of the road is dangerous driving? Especially if you're then going to not pay attention? I accept there are circumstances under which you might need to do so if, for example, there was something obstructing your lane, but assuming there wasn't.
It would appear the prosecutors thought otherwise and in that I think they're probably correct. Our court systems, rightly, hold to a very high standard of proof before conviction especially for more serious offences.
Please explain why. I know it's your opinion but the way you express it seems to suggest non-negotiability in your stance and you believe - without exeception - that you are right in your opinion and the hundreds of judges, ministers and civil servants who make up our justice system - and are far more qualified than you to decide these things - are wrong.
Not picking on you here, just genuinely interested in how you come to such a position.
The problem is you are taking the word 'dangerous' literally. Driving without due care is dangerous, but it is a separate charge to 'dangerous driving' (DD40). Likewise 'reckless driving' (DD30) is dangerous but again a separate offence. There is plenty of information on the net regarding which charge should be used when, but I'm off home now.
Hmmm 4 months in prison for this http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=17890446 or a 6 month driving ban for taking a life? difficult to choose between them really.