Harsh or not...possible custodian sentance?

1. the cyclist went through a red light.
2. the car driver was on the phone.
3. the car driver was speeding.

Yes 2&3 equate to reckless driving but 1 also means that the cyclist was also at fault causing his own death.
 
peetee said:
some people are just decent at multitasking, Iv got friends who hold there phone up so they can see through the windscreen at the same time, they lose concentration more when they see something on the side of the road .. something funny, an advert, a tart etc..
Obviously its illegal and shouldnt be happening but when you have the green light you generally are not really going to be very alert, as only a complete idiot would go through a red..
Click to expand...

It's got nothing to do with multi tasking. You cannot concentrate as well on your driving - that's plain fact, scientific and evidential. There is no excusing of it at all I'm afraid - none. There is no justification at all, none whatsoever, not in a million years, don't even try to find one, you will not and it'll just be decimated.

It's about time they started to clamp down hard on this. In London I'm sure since the law's been put in place it's become worse.
 
MrFunex said:
So is going through a red light. Both parties are in the wrong but unfortunately only one gets to live to receive punishment. :(
Click to expand...

A cyclist running a red light, although illegal, won't kill anybody else (very unlikely). When you are in charge of a few tonnes of metal doing 40mph, you have much bigger responsibilities.
 
Indeed, she should get a reduced sentence considering there are two parties involved here. She should however, be punished because regardless her inability not to answer/use the phone has caused the death of someone.
 
Freefaller said:
It's got nothing to do with multi tasking. You cannot concentrate as well on your driving - that's plain fact, scientific and evidential. There is no excusing of it at all I'm afraid - none. There is no justification at all.
Click to expand...

Same for all the rubberneckers who go smashing into the back of the car in front because of an accident on the opposite carriageway. So let's ban accidents.
 
As has been said, there is no excuse for texting whilst driving. If she hadn't been so reckless she may have been able to stop in time and wouldn't have killed him.

If there were children around and one had run out it would have been similar. If you're looking at a text, even for just a second you're massively increasing the chances of killing someone on the roads. The roads kill thousands a year so a sentence like this sends out an important message: don't needlessly increase that number.
 
andyp said:
Same for all the rubberneckers who go smashing into the back of the car in front because of an accident on the opposite carriageway. So let's ban accidents.
Click to expand...

Oh don't be childish. Rubbernecking is just as bad, and does come under driving without due care and attention if that person were to be involved in an incident. However you make an active choice to use your phone and be distracted.
 
Freefaller said:
Oh don't be childish. Rubbernecking is just as bad, and does come under driving without due care and attention if that person were to be involved in an incident. However you make an active choice to use your phone and be distracted.
Click to expand...

A person also makes an 'active choice' to gawp across the other side of the road.

Driving without due care and attention can be applied to virtually any situation the police want it to and the CPS will usually pander along to make it stick. It's another one of those nothing motoring offences that quite a lot of the time means zero in the real world but a judge will dole out whatever he can because he feels he has to.

Driving standards are abysmally low in this country without the offences being devalued in such a way.
 
andyp said:
A person also makes an 'active choice' to gawp across the other side of the road.

Driving without due care and attention can be applied to virtually any situation the police want it to and the CPS will usually pander along to make it stick. It's another one of those nothing motoring offences that quite a lot of the time means zero in the real world but a judge will dole out whatever he can because he feels he has to.

Driving standards are abysmally low in this country without the offences being devalued in such a way.
Click to expand...

True enough - but it will be a short instance (albeit you can be distracted on your phone for a mere second for something wrong to happen) - however on the phone you can be chatting away in your little world for hours potentially.

The driving standards are abysmal and I really think everyone should have to do mandatory advanced driver training. Or that serious offences such as this are taken more seriously, and minor infractions such as a few mph over the speed limit should be dealt with more fairly.
 
andyp said:
Driving without due care and attention can be applied to virtually any situation the police want it to and the CPS will usually pander along to make it stick. It's another one of those nothing motoring offences that quite a lot of the time means zero in the real world but a judge will dole out whatever he can because he feels he has to.

Driving standards are abysmally low in this country without the offences being devalued in such a way.
Click to expand...

You're looking at the situation completely backwards.

Driving is bad and these offences should be used to punish and deter people from driving like idiots. They aren't being devalued if they are used as they should be.

Furthermore, it's not as if the offence can just be handed out to anyone. The suspect has to be convicted of a criminal offence. The standard of proof is very high. If someone is found guilty then the punishment should be severe as it was in this case.

Too many people seem to close their eyes to the fact that the car is a deadly weapon. If people were waving loaded guns around in public and someone got shot you'd expect there to be consequences. Driving without due care and attention is as dangerous as waving a loaded gun. Hence the penalties should be serious.
 
andyp said:
A person also makes an 'active choice' to gawp across the other side of the road.
Click to expand...

Yes and no, you are observing conditions on the road while 'rubbernecking' but you shouldn't allow it to distract you and cause further problems. A mobile phone is not part of the conditions on the road, if you can't ignore your mobile phone while driving then either switch it off for the duration of your journey, get a hands free kit or leave it at home. Whichever suits but all the above would reduce the risk.

andyp said:
Driving without due care and attention can be applied to virtually any situation the police want it to and the CPS will usually pander along to make it stick. It's another one of those nothing motoring offences that quite a lot of the time means zero in the real world but a judge will dole out whatever he can because he feels he has to.

Driving standards are abysmally low in this country without the offences being devalued in such a way.
Click to expand...

Quite possibly driving without due care can be applied to most situations but you argue against it being applicable and then say that driving standards are abysmally low in this country. I don't think you can have it both ways, if we, as a nation, set abysmally low standards then we almost certainly aren't paying due care and attention.
 
Just watched the video of the families reaction. They hope that his death acts as a deterrent to other drivers using their mobile phone whilst driving which I totally agree with, but even more importantly it should act as a deterrent to cyclists running red lights and riding without helmets, something they didn't mention.

I've got to say I'm shocked at the length of the sentence.
 
peetee said:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7270751.stm

A motorist who was texting on her mobile phone when she hit and killed a cyclist has been sentenced to four years in prison.

Ok, she deserves some punishment, obviously ... but then...

Jordan Wickington, 19, died from head injuries when he went through a red light and was struck by Kiera Coultas' car
and
Following the crash, Mr Wickington, of Netley, Hampshire, who had not been wearing a helmet, was taken to Southampton General Hospital where he later died.

"In this particular incident, it transpired from a phone analysis that there was phone use close to the time of the incident."


Ok, so a young woman has to now go to jail for a few years, jails which are overcrowded etc, for POSSIBLY making a little mistake, shes blatently made a mistake which she has learned from.
The cyclist went through a red light without a helmet, thats what i call negligence. How exactly could they figure out that a phone was being used at the time?? for texting?? even if one was sent then it doesnt mean it was being typed etc at that time, it could have taken a while to send.. phones dont log the start-time of when you start writing texts do they??
or could there be a timestamp on a draft that was around the same time?

Is it just me or is this completely wrong?
Click to expand...

Both were at wrong.

The woman should be punished for texting, that's fair enough, but it's not her fault she knocked the cyclist over

Lashout_UK said:
Well, I know where you're coming from but using a phone and driving is ILLEGAL, so there's a clear violation of a much-stated law. Also, I've seen what people drive like when texting and it's obvious that it's just an accident waiting to happen.

At the end of the day, she killed someone and could have averted it with ease.

Easily avoided and shouldn't have happened, hence the punishment maybe? Sending out a bit of a message?

Hope it reaches some people.
Click to expand...

Running a red light not illegal then?
 
There is that, yea - but I think the difference I'm trying to make is that the cyclist was presumably paying some attention to where he was going (or if he wasn't, he was just being an idiot) whereas the driver was actively NOT concentrating on driving.
 
I used a good analogy last time this came up - if you hit me becuase I was overtaking on a blind bend and you killed me, but you happened to be on the phone, should you be jailed?

Its the same thing - yes she was using the phone but the cyclist sailed through a red light.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom