but the judge himself said
which doesn't seem to match up with it being a honest mistake
Sentencing of Car Driver Who Caused Motorcycle Death
- Thread starter Nomisf
- Start date
but the judge himself said
which doesn't seem to match up with it being a honest mistake
but what will be different in 12 months time?
thats what i dont get with these short bans, do they have to do their test again, any further training any courses or is it just
"well clearly if we stop you driving for a year you'll be way safer when you get back behind that wheel totally rusty"
I'm with you on that, she should be made to take all her tests again as well as having to pass an advanced driving course before she's legal to drive, and she can't do any of that until she's served her driving ban.
I'm not sure, there has been quite a bit of research into how people do and don't see bikes (not that i can find it right now! Doh). Just because she could have, or even should have - doesn't mean she didn't just totally fail to recognize his presence. Yes, that's her failing - and a pretty big mistake at that - i guess it depends how you define honest mistake. If she looked for bikes and still missed him, maybe...
Don't get me wrong, it infuriates me every day when I commute that people look through me and then nearly cause accidents!
This is kind of why I alluded to a short custodial term (couple of weeks i guess), then she is really going to have an unpleasant reminder every time she pulls out of a junction to keep her honest! I agree, 12 month ban is a bit daft, both ways.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
Over a certain length of ban you have to take an extended test to get your licence back IIRC, can't remember how long it has to be for that to kick in though.
It's not just bikers, it's anything and everything, the human brain is very callable, and often just makes stuff up. Which is why illusions work. Training also doesn't seem to make much different. You have highly trained pilots who swear blinds they didn't see anything, when they clearly must have.
Trouble is modern scientific research does not integrate well with the law. How do you know that happened and not just them lying, what does removing their culpability di to the law and instead blaming it on human nature that affects everyone.
I can guarantee situational blandness has happened to everyone. Some one beeps there horn, and you're like where the hell did they come from, I looked. 99% of the time, you wouldn't even know it happened.
Simple ones are the videos that ask you to count something in the screen and then a giant gorilla walks about, and almost no one sees the gorilla. Until' it's pointed out.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
I can see where you're coming from but I'd say it's pretty logical to say if your actions caused someone to lose their life then that is worse than your actions not having consequences.
Caporegime
I don't know how you can't take into consideration the outcome of someones actions. You could drive through a village at 90mph at get away with it or you could plow through 30 schoolchildren. Should the sentence be the same for the two incidents?
I think sentencing should be a lot harsher for getting caught doing things that could easily lead to a death but when you actually hurt someone the consequences must be larger.
I think sentencing should be a lot harsher for getting caught doing things that could easily lead to a death but when you actually hurt someone the consequences must be larger.
Where's the logic? Your trying to hide emotion behind logic. If it's logical to think that, then you should be able to explain why, which you can't and even said as much in the post.
You say must, but why. Explain why they should be harsher. Whilst tempering we would still take into accountable foreseeable consequences. So speeding on an emote road at night would nit be the same as speeding in a heavily pedestrian area.
The law they broke in that example was speeding, they didn't commit murder otherwise they would be tried for such.
So both have committed the same offence, both could have had the same outcome, so why on earth shouldn't they be punished the same?
Last edited:
Caporegime
Because the idea of punishment is tied to the outcome of actions. In a lot of situations there is no crime without an outcome of the actions taken. You simply cannot have a fair justice system that doesn't take into consideration the outcome of your actions.
What should the sentence be for someone who doesn't look before pulling out of a side road. By your logic there should be a singular sentence given to all people that do this. By your logic should someone who does this and is seen by the police but doesn't cause an accident not be treated in the same manner as someone who pulls out and kills a bus full of people?
Consequences must weigh in sentencing otherwise you have no means of fitting a sentence to a crime. Every day people in their cars do something that would kill another person if they were really unlucky. Does that absolve them of it if they are the unlucky one whos actions lead to a death.
Caporegime
I think this is just one of those cases where I have to admit defeat and just take solace in the fact that random people on the internet have no power to implement their deranged ideas.
No it must always be like that, just because we have. The crime is the action not the consequence.
The weighting could easily be based on risk, risk of incidences like this is low, thousands di it every day and it's rare for such an outcome. therefore you prosecute everyone at a low level regardless of outcome.
How has outcome changed what they did? How does it change the crime? It doesn't and you and the others know it. But it's all you have ever known and can't admit to it being illogical.
Caporegime
Accidentally causing death is charged as manslaughter unless you happen to be in a car at the time. The offences of causing death by dangerous/careless driving were introduced because juries would not convict on vehicular manslaughter charges. So while you're not wrong to say that they're not being charged with murder, the analogous charge would be much more likely to be manslaughter.
As it goes, juries are now reluctant to convict on death by dangerous/careless charges and where they do convict judges give piddly sentences, so the change has not been effective. It all just belies our obsession with and dependence on cars and driving in our society.
Soldato
Agree with this. Its sad for the family etc and i am sure the car driver has gone through a lot of stress too. I am sure all these things are taken into consideration. If it was a blatant road rage incident then fair enough but it may very well been just a sad accident where the car driver honestly didn't notice the biker.
Caporegime
If you're so unobservant that you manage to kill someone, why should we trust you to drive a car again? It's a privilege, not a right.
And if you want to ignore everything we know about being human. then you better just ban cars to start with. As everyone has the same lapse of judgment, just that 99.99% of the time, it results in nothing.
Caporegime
What is your crime if you stab someone and they die vs stabbing them and they live?
What is the crime when you are caught speeding and no one dies vs when you kill someone through speeding? The action is the same so isn't that the consequences that dictate what your crime is?
Caporegime
How do we encourage people to raise their game and try harder to pay attention? Maybe by actually applying meaningful penalties to those who fall below an acceptable standard.