sneezing with a snorkelling mask on is where it's at
Media Portrayals of Events
- Thread starter Dis86
- Start date
As I've stated I knew the original stories were crap so I can't really answer that honestly.
I believe the media should be presenting both sides to the story and, where useful lessons can be learned, passing that on to people.
and i wholeheartedly agree. but i'm still lost to why readers opinion seems to matter in this story?
Morality. It's why I gave the fictional example that I did. Would you rather others thought of you as a hero who defended your family or a cold blooded killer?
the full stories seem attributed to court reporters who had probably been in court, so it may well have been the case the bigger guys weren't ready to pay for that journalism, or hadn't seen it, and took a syndicated version strung together from police news articles -
the details those articles gave on the lorry driver were obviously damming , in supporting the conviction, and explaining his admission of guilt.
(I hadn't read them in earlier post because the op said they were just discussing victims details.)
Driving a Ka (seems to have 4*'s ?) or smart for that matter , has always seemed a risky endeavour too, smart drivers often seem an oyxmoron.
sneezing when you have a full cup of coffee in hand near a laptop is worse than any driving scenario ... or if I was doing something with an electric drill/axe,
I suppose operating theatres have filtered air
the details those articles gave on the lorry driver were obviously damming , in supporting the conviction, and explaining his admission of guilt.
(I hadn't read them in earlier post because the op said they were just discussing victims details.)
Driving a Ka (seems to have 4*'s ?) or smart for that matter , has always seemed a risky endeavour too, smart drivers often seem an oyxmoron.
sneezing when you have a full cup of coffee in hand near a laptop is worse than any driving scenario ... or if I was doing something with an electric drill/axe,
I suppose operating theatres have filtered air
First of all, the primary purpose of all media is to sell. Usually advertising space, but sell something. That means that any story will be twisted in such a way so as to maximise revenue.
Second, it's a very long time since newspapers actually gathered news. That costs money. By and large they either regurgitate press releases, or re-write news agency releases. The most important job of the papers (for them) is to make sure that their readers come to the right conclusion. So important bits of the story are left out, and what is left is twisted to fit. In the case of some of the Red Tops, they will even just make stuff up. Just as long as they can spin the story in the desired way. In the case of the original story, remember that lorry drivers are evil, because most readers are car drivers and don't like them. That's the spin.
Second, it's a very long time since newspapers actually gathered news. That costs money. By and large they either regurgitate press releases, or re-write news agency releases. The most important job of the papers (for them) is to make sure that their readers come to the right conclusion. So important bits of the story are left out, and what is left is twisted to fit. In the case of some of the Red Tops, they will even just make stuff up. Just as long as they can spin the story in the desired way. In the case of the original story, remember that lorry drivers are evil, because most readers are car drivers and don't like them. That's the spin.
One thing that can be annoying with reporting of events is when they are giving us the peoples life stories and not the facts of what actually happened.
On the actual incident, so I looked up the road on the map. It seems to be a 40mph dual carriage way and from whats been described she stopped near the curb in the left lane.
I think it comes down to what is reasonable in this situation. I think it would depend on how much traffic there is to make a judgement about visibility. If there is a lot of vehicles braking and changing lanes fast then it is more reasonable that an accident is going to occur.
So in my view, as just a guy on the t'internet, is that this should have been a mitigating factor in the sentencing. They seem to be blaming the entire accident on him reaching over for his soft drink.
Also how is jailing this man fixing anything!? A waste of tax payers money.
On the actual incident, so I looked up the road on the map. It seems to be a 40mph dual carriage way and from whats been described she stopped near the curb in the left lane.
I think it comes down to what is reasonable in this situation. I think it would depend on how much traffic there is to make a judgement about visibility. If there is a lot of vehicles braking and changing lanes fast then it is more reasonable that an accident is going to occur.
So in my view, as just a guy on the t'internet, is that this should have been a mitigating factor in the sentencing. They seem to be blaming the entire accident on him reaching over for his soft drink.
Also how is jailing this man fixing anything!? A waste of tax payers money.
The road is a 70mph dual carriageway that drops to a 40mph nearer the roundabout. The accident happened in the 70mph stretch.
That would make the reasonable question more applicable, as I'm sure if a lorry was going 70mph and the driver was watching he would find it a struggle to both avoid the car and also avoid causing an accident himself by swinging in to the other lane.
The sentence seems very excessive.
It's like the Judge just assumes that the woman who parked the car has no liability. Very strange.
I would imagine the thinking is that: the lorry driver should have been driving with due care and attention. That includes looking for the unexpected. WE know she had stopped deliberately, but from the lorry driver's standpoint, he would assume that she had broken down. And he took no avoiding action. The reason why she had stopped doesn't matter; it's up to other drivers to avoid her. Yes, someone doing this can be prosecuted (if they live), but still, the whole point of driving is to expect the unexpected.
Errr...I thought it was to get somewhere faster than walking, in more comfort and potentially carrying heavier loads?
If he was paying attention he could have maybe braked earlier, and even if he didn't completely avoid the car, hit her slower and potentially she could have survived?
These are all assumptions, and I'm well aware may be completely wrong, but I'm guessing the reason why he was punished so harshly is possibly because they found evidence of late brake, e.g. tyre marks on the road or checked the deceleration of the lorry and found he didn't take evasive action in reasonable time - bear in mind a lorry driver has an elevated position so would potentially be able to see a stationary vehicle further ahead than a car driver (unless of course there was another large/high vehicle in front).
That's the point of cars. The point of driving is to do what you said without killing someone.
he had pleaded guilty and the court reporter would probably have mentioned aggravating/mitigating actions for sentencing.
UK legal aid financing has been cut under boris I believe, so I can't but believe there maybe people who plead guilty for fear of the costs if their state defence is inferior ?
there is all the bs reporting on wagatha girl and depp, but the details of justice being done on cases like this is limited.
I'd love to see that defined somewhere. Do you have a link?
My post was in response to the question as to whether he could have safely avoided her if he was paying attention - maybe not, but if he'd been on the brakes a second or 2 earlier then he would have hit at lower speed.
Be interested to see your definition, since it's perfectly possible to "get somewhere faster than walking, in more comfort and potentially carrying heavier loads?" without driving
It is perfectly possible, that doesn't change the definition.
Don't know how to break it to you...wait I do, the existence of one word doesn't change another.
Last edited:
Agree it's a bit sensationalist and her job is irrelevant.
However, to collide at 56mph the lorry driver can barely have braked at all.
However, to collide at 56mph the lorry driver can barely have braked at all.
Limit is 60 for HGVs, a lot are limited to 56mph because Europe. If he was doing 70mph then that makes it even worse.