Harsh or not...possible custodian sentance?

I never said it "didn't cause" the accident, I'm merely saying that it's potentially not the only factor. Whilst the cyclist is certainly to blame for running the red, the motorist may or may not also be to blame, depending on whether or not they could have avoided the cyclist had they not been speeding and texting.

Your attitude seems to be that, since the cyclist broke the law by crossing the red, this absolves the motorist of all responsibility for the accident as the cyclist shouldn't have been in her way. Doesn't work like that I'm afraid. If she could have stopped but didn't by virtue of her speeding and texting then she's just as culpable as the cyclist.

If a pedestrian jumps out in front of you 100 yards up the road then, although the pedestrian has no right to stand in the road, you're still expected to stop. If you're busy speeding/texting/phoning/reading the paper or whatever and, as a result, plough straight through the pedestrian, then I'm afraid it's your fault just as much as it's the pedestrian's.
 
badbob said:
It was, as she was distracted. It doesn't matter if the cyclist jumped through a red light or not, she wasen't paying attention.
Click to expand...

Just quoting this one but it seems to be the opinion of many.

Now are you being serious? If so I might ignore red lights for a day, stay alert people, its you job to miss me :confused:

Having nearly wiped out a cyclist doing this and nearly being wiped out myself on a pedestrian crossing I have no sympathy I'm afraid.
 
Vertigo1 said:
I never said it "didn't cause" the accident, I'm merely saying that it's potentially not the only factor. Whilst the cyclist is certainly to blame for running the red, the motorist may or may not also be to blame, depending on whether or not they could have avoided the cyclist had they not been speeding and texting.

Your attitude seems to be that, since the cyclist broke the law by crossing the red, this absolves the motorist of all responsibility for the accident as the cyclist shouldn't have been in her way. Doesn't work like that I'm afraid. If she could have stopped but didn't by virtue of her speeding and texting then she's just as culpable as the cyclist.

If a pedestrian jumps out in front of you 100 yards up the road then, although the pedestrian has no right to stand in the road, you're still expected to stop. If you're busy speeding/texting/phoning/reading the paper or whatever and, as a result, plough straight through the pedestrian, then I'm afraid it's your fault just as much as it's the pedestrian's.
Click to expand...

I agree and have been saying the same, wasting your time with most on here it seems.

While motorists are hammered and i do agree with many people with the bad treatment on drivers i can not see why anyone is trying to justify the drivers actions just because the cyclist ran a red light.
 
Shimmyhill said:
I agree and have been saying the same, wasting your time with most on here it seems.

While motorists are hammered and i do agree with many people with the bad treatment on drivers i can not see why anyone is trying to justify the drivers actions just because the cyclist ran a red light.
Click to expand...

it's not justifying actions, it's mitigating circumstances. the cyclist put himself in the line of fire so to speak. you don't stick yourself in front of a loaded gun and hope you don't get hit. you just don't do it in the first because common sense says otherwise. a harsh result but one that most people with common sense and a will to live would realise before doing it.
 
Vertigo1 said:
I never said it "didn't cause" the accident, I'm merely saying that it's potentially not the only factor. Whilst the cyclist is certainly to blame for running the red, the motorist may or may not also be to blame, depending on whether or not they could have avoided the cyclist had they not been speeding and texting.

Your attitude seems to be that, since the cyclist broke the law by crossing the red, this absolves the motorist of all responsibility for the accident as the cyclist shouldn't have been in her way. Doesn't work like that I'm afraid. If she could have stopped but didn't by virtue of her speeding and texting then she's just as culpable as the cyclist.

If a pedestrian jumps out in front of you 100 yards up the road then, although the pedestrian has no right to stand in the road, you're still expected to stop. If you're busy speeding/texting/phoning/reading the paper or whatever and, as a result, plough straight through the pedestrian, then I'm afraid it's your fault just as much as it's the pedestrian's.
Click to expand...
But that's slightly different to a cyclist pulling out of a junction into the path of incoming cars, it only takes a few seconds to cross a junction, so unless he stood in the middle of the road for a bit then I don't think you can make a case for the accident being caused by the driver, and that is ultimately what "causing death by dangerous driving" is all about. The only thing that would have guaranteed an accident not happening in this manner is if he didn't jump the red light.
 
[TW]Fox;11022753 said:
Just before this happened, you reached down to pick up a softmint you'd dropped.

We collide and I am killed. The OcUK motors forum congratulates you for this act, and you are made Man of Honour :p

Now, you were involved in a fatal accident during which you were both exceeding the speed limit and, in the moments before the accident, driving without due care.

Should you be jailed for causing Death by Dangerous Driving?
Click to expand...

Yes, of course you should be jailed. You took your eyes off the road to pick upa mint and becasue of that you killed someone. You're in a over a tonne of metal travelling at speed - you should be ******* careful for every second! You might get a way with lapses of concentration and carelessness most of the time, but if it all goes wrong you have to take the consequences. The car overtaking and coming the other way makes no difference - there was an obstacle in the road that you didnt see because you werent looking. Quite simple.

From a blame point of view I look at is as both parties are 100% to blame (ie joint and several) but in this case the cyclist was dead so you cant really prosecute him. If he'd run the light, she was alert, swerved and hit someone else then it would have been totally the cyclists fault as she did all she could.
 
Jokester said:
But that's slightly different to a cyclist pulling out of a junction into the path of incoming cars, it only takes a few seconds to cross a junction, so unless he stood in the middle of the road for a bit then I don't think you can make a case for the accident being caused by the driver, and that is ultimately what "causing death by dangerous driving" is all about. The only thing that would have guaranteed an accident not happening in this manner is if he didn't jump the red light.
Click to expand...

All I'm saying is that the culpability of the motorist is dependent on whether they'd have been able to stop if they'd not been speeding and texting.

If, as you say, the cyclist pulled out into her path and there was nothing she could have done even if she'd been paying attention and under the speed limit, then the fact that she was texting and speeding is largely irrelevant. If, OTOH, the cyclist was in her path for a significantly longer period of time and she could have been expected to stop or avoid him if she'd been paying attention and travelling slower, then she's just as responsible for his death as he is for being there in the first place.

FWIW, this is what I've always said. I've never claimed that the driver is definitely responsible nor have I ever claimed that the cyclist was innocent.
 
i think people are misunderstanding what the likes of Fox, Jokerster and myself etc are saying. She should be punished of course, but not sent to prison.
 
Another questionable jailing. Woman kills cyclist.

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?
 
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.
 
peetee said:
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?
Click to expand...

Yes you will be able to tell the exact times
 
I find it hard to believe that this information wouldnt have been put before the court when they considered the verdict. Thats the thing about courts, they do consider both sides before deciding.

PK!
 
I think the jail sentence should be reduced to a year or two, as you said the cyclist went through the red light, which is illegal, and had no helmet, which is stupid. On the other hand she does deserve punishment for using a mobile phone in the car, which is both ilegal and stupid.
 
I don't think a jury of peers would give a guilty verdict on someone in this instance unless there was substantial evidence - the news report obviously doesn't contain all the facts of the case.
 
Yea but surely they cant have an exact time of the accident unless there was a camera too.
She made a mistake, shes most likely learned from it, the guy wasnt wearing his helmet and went through a red light.. he broke 2 laws? =/
Bit harsh for her really.. poor girl.


surely she should be given community service+driving ban, atleast then shes still paying taxes and giving something to the community instead of talking one more prison bed that could have gone to a nutjob.
 
She must have been negligent in some way, how else would a jury return a guilty verdict? Through the court case a substantial amount of evidence would have been provided either way for the prosecution and the defence. This news report can't hope to cover the scope of the case.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom