Am I missing something here?

[DanDare]

Erm, the cyclist went through a red light?????????

We've all been guilty of speeding and not always paid attention to the road but this was a bit harsh I think!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hampshire/7270751.stm

[the_lone_wolf]

we did this a while ago:

http://forums.sv650.org/showthread.php?t=103845

it's basically making an example to try to scare people into compliance, i wonder if she'd have got the same sentence if it'd been a motorcyclist or another car she hit?

no helmet, jumping a red light on a busy dual carriageway, chancing it IMO...

[Luckypants]

45 in a 30 and texting. to me that is dangerous driving. A death was caused.

However, the cyclist did run a red light so basically was taking his life in his hands.

I think the conviction is sound, but perhaps the penalty imposed is a bit harsh given that the cyclist should not have been there.

Would be interesting to read the trial transcript to see how much was made of the cyclist's culpability.

[Fizzy Fish]

Personally I'm all for the courts coming down hard on people using mobiles while driving - it starts to get the message across to people that this behaviour is not acceptable.

The issue was that she wasn't paying attention and was therefore done for dangerous driving, and that fact remains regardless of whether anyone else was involved. In her case she was particularly unlucky since someone died, and hence the sentence was higher.

Yes, the cyclist jumped a red light - but then they did pay with their life for their part in the accident, so hardly got off scott free!

[Biker Biggles]

The only way that makes sense is if everyone caught using a phone and exceeding the speed limit like that gets sent down for it.That was the crime.The fact that a cyclist commited hari kiri was just a coincidence which got the baying mob on the case.If you want a deterrant jail em all.If that is not acceptable stop scapegoating the unlucky few who are involved in a bad outcome.

[SoulKiss]

Not harsh at all - she was speeding and texting - so the Dangerous Driving should stick.

They should however stop playing down the fact that the guy ran the lights

[DanDare]

I think she should be punished for her crime of dangerous driving.

However the sentence IMHO was based on the fact she killed someone.
He shouldn't of been there, thus it becomes a mute point.

I hate the idea of someone being made an example, come down hard on all or not at all!

[TOY40]

Not harsh at all - she was speeding and texting - so the Dangerous Driving should stick.

They should however stop playing down the fact that the guy ran the lights
So this was done to serve as a reminder to all cage drivers not to use there mobile while driving.Is anything been done to stop the cyclists running red lights,riding dangerously and possibly causing a accident.

[the_lone_wolf]

if we were going to get into semantics, did she really cause death by dangerous driving?

yes of course if she hadn't been speeding she might have swerved or stopped

if she hadn't been texting she might have seen the cyclist earlier

but you can be 100% certain that if he hadn't jumped the light there'd have been no accident

i'd maintain that he caused the accident, but her driving aggravated the consequences...

but then that wouldn't make for good propaganda headlines;)

[DanDare]

i'd maintain that he caused the accident, but her driving aggravated the consequences...

but then that wouldn't make for good propaganda headlines;)

:smt023

[SoulKiss]

if we were going to get into semantics, did she really cause death by dangerous driving?

yes of course if she hadn't been speeding she might have swerved or stopped

if she hadn't been texting she might have seen the cyclist earlier

but you can be 100% certain that if he hadn't jumped the light there'd have been no accident

i'd maintain that he caused the accident, but her driving aggravated the consequences...

but then that wouldn't make for good propaganda headlines;)

1) She was driving dangerously - speeding @ 50% over the limit qualifies as that, never mind operating a device that requires one hand to be off the wheel and looking at a screen - she also approached and crossed a junction at that speed, and she was involved in someone dying - so death by dangerous driving sounds more than reasonable.

I would have thought an observing officer of the law, had there been one, would have pulled her for speeding and Dangerous Driving if she had been spotted.

[the_lone_wolf]

Nonsense, if she'd been going slower (or faster..), she would've passed straight by him without hitting him, unless he was stationary in the middle of the junction.
so she caused the accident by being in the exact spot a cyclist who jumped a red happened to be? you mean like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dnf6ib823vM

They're both at fault, he's dead, she's doing a custodial sentence which she deserves for:

- Driving without due care & attention
- Using a mobile phone will driving
- Speeding
- Being a selfish T**T

:smt066
i never said she wasn't at fault, but she wasn't prosecuted or convicted of any of those things you've listed was she? she got DbDD, and i'd submit that it was because they could imprison her and (rightly or wrongly) try to scare people into complying with the law...

[Stu]

Is anything been done to stop the cyclists running red lights,.
Well this one got killed, is that enough of a deterrant for you? :confused:

[the_lone_wolf]

1) She was driving dangerously - speeding @ 50% over the limit qualifies as that, never mind operating a device that requires one hand to be off the wheel and looking at a screen - she also approached and crossed a junction at that speed, and she was involved in someone dying - so death by dangerous driving sounds more than reasonable.
you've never driven that section of road have you? 45mph is an entirely reasonable speed to be travelling at that point.

texting while driving is stupid, no doubt, i'd never do it, but that (or her speed) isn't what caused the accident

i'd say cyling through a red light across a busy dual carriageway entails a certain risk of death, if he'd cycled out in front of an HGV doing 25 he'd probably be even deader, yet the driver of the truck wouldn't have been ostracised for causing the accident, which is what is implied by this ruling...

[Gazza77]

Not harsh at all - she was speeding and texting - so the Dangerous Driving should stick.

They should however stop playing down the fact that the guy ran the lights

:winner:

[SoulKiss]

you've never driven that section of road have you? 45mph is an entirely reasonable speed to be travelling at that point.


Bollox!!!!!

I dont need to have driven a bit of road to know that doing 50% over the speed limit is unreasonable.

[TOY40]

Especially through a bloody junction! You should slow down for junctions or at least ease off so you can see it's safe! How do you know someone's not running a red...

she was textn! she prob didnt even know she was going through a junction. "SORRY,didnt see you there."

[SoulKiss]

Especially through a bloody junction! You should slow down for junctions or at least ease off so you can see it's safe! How do you know someone's not running a red...

Was going to add that bit too :P

[DanDare]

I think some you are missing the point I was originally raising.

I agree she should be convicted of an offence of dangerous driving, I never said she shouldn't. I simply was raising the level of sentence given out was harsh compared to someone who might of been pulled over by the police for dangerous driving.

The death I believe was a mute point, being he caused the accident as much as she was a contributor to it.

[SoulKiss]

I think some you are missing the point I was originally raising.

I agree she should be convicted of an offence of dangerous driving, I never said she shouldn't. I simply was raising the level of sentence given out was harsh compared to someone who might of been pulled over by the police for dangerous driving.

The death I believe was a mute point, being he caused the accident as much as she was a contributor to it.

Not at all.

Let me make this simple

Dangerous Driving + Death = Death (caused) by Dangerous Driving.

She hit him

If he had gone into the side of her then maybe you would have had an argument.

[the_lone_wolf]

has anyone actually looked this junction up? to get to where the accident occured the guy would have run a red light on a three lane carriageway, crossed a dual carriagway that had a green light to proceed and then cycled without looking into someone's path who also had a green light, that's not just stupid, that's a damned good suicide attempt.
He ran the read light.
which is the only part of the accident you can say with certainty; "if it hadn't happened he would still be alive"

You cannot argue that her actions didn't lead to his death and that her driving was not dangerous.

She was driving, she was over the speed limit, she was using a mobile, she hit him, she was driving dangerously.
then why are these things pursued by means of FPNs and not court appearances for dangerous driving or even the lesser offence of driving without due care? even combined you'd be hard pressed to get a conviction
All the court has to prove is that her driving was dangerous at the time at which she killed him.
that's not what your other quote says though, they have to show that she caused the death:
Road Traffic Act 1991

"A person who causes the death of another person by driving a mechanically propelled vehicle dangerously on a road or other public place is guilty of an offence. "
so, if we assume speeding and texting are dangerous by default, she caused the death to occur by speeding and texting, if she'd been doing neither you can say beyond reasonable doubt he'd still be alive? no helmet + hitting tarmac at any speed isn't going to do you a lot of good, but i'm not able to say at what particular impact speed it becomes deadly...

of course i'm not condoning her actions, you can't, but the way this thing has been pounced on by the media and local police to create an example of the person who commited the crime is wrong, it's fundamentally wrong to punish someone to a greater extent simply to rub their face in it and scare everyone else, and it seems Dan's about the only other person here who actually gets it

@Soulkiss - you've never "nipped" through a set of green lights before? never? you've never breifly hit 90 in a 60? npt even on a road you know well? and of course you'd fully expect to be prosecuted for dangerous driving if you got (get?) caught because "doing 50% over the speed limit is unreasonable." no matter what the circumstances?

[SoulKiss]

@Soulkiss - you've never "nipped" through a set of green lights before? never? you've never breifly hit 90 in a 60? npt even on a road you know well? and of course you'd fully expect to be prosecuted for dangerous driving if you got (get?) caught because "doing 50% over the speed limit is unreasonable." no matter what the circumstances?

Never said that I haven't and the 6 points on my license shows that I am no angel.

You may also care to note that when people ask advice on here about looud cans, small plates, or undertrays/rear lights with inbuilt indicators I am usually one of the 1st people to say that its illegal and wrong (ok not so much about cans). Doesn't stop me from doing those things, but I feel I have top point those things out so people can make an informed choice.

I will however point out that if I do something wrong (and get caught), anything less than the full sentence available to the judge is a bonus.

I very much believe in taking responsibility for my actions, if I chose to do the crime, I have to be willing to do the time.

But then we are not talking about anyone on here are we - we are talking about someone who broke the law on 2 counts and ended someones life.

45mph across a junction controlled by traffic lights is just asking for it.

[Fizzy Fish]

I think some you are missing the point I was originally raising.

I agree she should be convicted of an offence of dangerous driving, I never said she shouldn't. I simply was raising the level of sentence given out was harsh compared to someone who might of been pulled over by the police for dangerous driving.

The death I believe was a mute point, being he caused the accident as much as she was a contributor to it.

That's a different issue really, and relates more to the question of 'to what extent should the consequences of your actions be taken into account when considering the punishment'

You could argue that causing 'death by dangerous driving' should carry an equal punishment to 'dangerous driving', and I would have some sympathy with that POV.

But as Soulkiss said: according to the current law,

death + dangeous driving = death by dangerous driving = a harsh sentence

You can't deny that she was driving dangerously, or that someone died as a result (at least in part) of this, so case closed!

[the_lone_wolf]

i did write a long reply, but i realised nobody would read it, so i'll summarise what i wrote:

1. her speed, in my opinion, was not dangerous at all at that particular junction, anyone who's driven or ridden it will probably know why i'm saying this, but if you haven't i can see why you might think it was

2. texting, while stupid, is not the same as dangerous driving, otherwise everyone caught doing so should be prosecuted for the same

3. the fact that the cyclist died does not mean he didn't cause or contribute to the resulting accident, which is what the media coverage implys,

4. the conviction of "causing death by dangerous driving" implys that her actions caused the accident, which is not the case, her actions aggravated the result, but the cyclist caused the accident.

5. whether texting or not, it would be very difficult to see an approaching cyclist at this junction, there would be moving traffic to your right which would confuse your peripheral vision, and traffic simply doesn't approach from your RHS blind spot there

6. if she had hit hit at 30mph it is unlikely that he would have survived without a crash helmet

make of that what you will...

[SoulKiss]

i did write a long reply, but i realised nobody would read it, so i'll summarise what i wrote:

1. her speed, in my opinion, was not dangerous at all at that particular junction, anyone who's driven or ridden it will probably know why i'm saying this, but if you haven't i can see why you might think it was


As said, taking any controlled junction @ 45mph is Dangerous Driving.

[Wideboy]

this was one of the lads at works mate that got killed.

dont know what to think really, yes he shouldnt have jumped the light but she shouldn't have been speeding and texting, if she wast she would have most likely seen him and stopped

He ran the red light; therefore his fault and his blame. Texting and the speed only affected the severity of the accident and did not cause the accident.
Neil, London yes because if the cyclist wast there she would have gone on her way and not caused an accident:rolleyes:

[the white rabbit]

i did write a long reply, but i realised nobody would read it

You know and I have always had you down as a sensible bloke.....







.......and this post only confirms that idea. :lol:

[the_lone_wolf]

As said, taking any controlled junction @ 45mph is Dangerous Driving.
including what is effectively a motorway slip road (http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&q=50.906808,-1.419373&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl)? i assume every time you're on a dual carriageway in a NSL with signal controlled lights showing you green you slow down to 45 when it's perfectly clear?

and of course if you were observed travelling through "any signal controlled junction at 45mph" you'd be reported for the consideration of being prosecuted for dangerous driving, even if your light was green? of course not, that's a stupid thing to suggest and reality reflects that

Road Traffic Act...

A person is regarded as ?driving dangerously? if:
? The way they are driving falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and
? It would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous [2] (http://www.brake.org.uk/index.php?p=675#_ftn2)

Texting while driving IS dangerous driving.
yet again, if it's that clear cut in the eyes of the law, why is it dealt with using FPNs and not dangerous driving convictions? surely the latter would be a greater deterrent?:confused:

@Dr Rich - this is disturbingly relevant:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

still i'm sensible to know when a thread is stagnating, so i'll leave this parting shot:

if it had been a car driver who'd jumped the red light, and a motorcyclist not paying attention and speeding would you be quite so eager to hang him from the highest tree without the slightest hint of the car driver doing anything wrong?;)

[the white rabbit]

:lol:

[yorkie_chris]

She was speeding, texting and going through a junction.

FOOL.

If she'd paid attention , she may well have stopped, avoided the cyclist or slowed down enough so that he wouldn't have been killed.

Nah, they guy would still be dead, suicidal muppet.

However, if there was no evidence she was texting she would've got away with a lesser punishment.

The blame lies right on the cyclist here IMO, the speeding and text-age are just additional factors.

[SoulKiss]

including what is effectively a motorway slip road (http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?hl=en&q=50.906808,-1.419373&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wl)? i assume every time you're on a dual carriageway in a NSL with signal controlled lights showing you green you slow down to 45 when it's perfectly clear?


and of course if you were observed travelling through "any signal controlled junction at 45mph" you'd be reported for the consideration of being prosecuted for dangerous driving, even if your light was green? of course not, that's a stupid thing to suggest and reality reflects that


yet again, if it's that clear cut in the eyes of the law, why is it dealt with using FPNs and not dangerous driving convictions? surely the latter would be a greater deterrent?:confused:

@Dr Rich - this is disturbingly relevant:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

still i'm sensible to know when a thread is stagnating, so i'll leave this parting shot:

if it had been a car driver who'd jumped the red light, and a motorcyclist not paying attention and speeding would you be quite so eager to hang him from the highest tree without the slightest hint of the car driver doing anything wrong?;)

You bet I would slow down - what if a car jumped the lights ?

Or to be more trutheful - I would be watching the junction like a hawk, not be texting on a mobile.

And even more truthful - I would be expecting there to be a hidden speed-trap :)

It was actually under similar circumstances I picked up 3 of my points.

I had been stopped by the lights on the dual carriage-way, they turned to green, I forgot where I was (ie in a 30 mph zone on a Dual Carriageway) and accelerated hard.

The Speedcamera at the point where the 30 went to a 50 got me - the limit didnt change to make my speed legal until a further couple of hundred meters.

As said, I am not squeaky clean.

Bottom line - 2 wrongs dont make a right in this case, he was wrong to jump the lights - god knows I am tempted to kick about 20 of these idiots that do it in London on a daily basis- but she still was driving dangerously, and texting and caused a death.

As you have posted hypothetical questions in this thread

What if he had been travelling in the same direction as her on the Dual Carriage way (which would have about the legality of running a red light) and she rear-ended him because she didnt see him?

[the_lone_wolf]

You bet I would slow down - what if a car jumped the lights ?
what if the ******** behind rear ends you because you braked?

Or to be more trutheful - I would be watching the junction like a hawk, not be texting on a mobile.
but if the lights were red would you jump them?

And even more truthful - I would be expecting there to be a hidden speed-trap
unless you're speeding on the approach to a signal controlled junction surely you have nothing to be concerned about?;)

What if he had been travelling in the same direction as her on the Dual Carriage way (which would have about the legality of running a red light) and she rear-ended him because she didnt see him?
if he was riding in a legal manner (ie: not drunk swinging across to the third lane or riding at night with no lights) and she simply ran him over then the blame would be squarely on her shoulders, in that hypothetical set of circumstances her texting could be argued to have prevented her seeing the cyclist, where a driver would normally be expected to see him, and that would be the grounds for dangerous driving

however this is nothing like the case we have here

he performed an illegal manoeuvre when he jumped the lights, at a junction where the road layout means that it would not be reasonable to expect someone to approach from the right. you can keep saying "expect the unexpected" or "what if..." but in reality you cannot drive in such a manner as to remove all risk from the roads. in this case he obviously wasn't watching the road, what if he'd simply cycled into the path of two HGVs side by side, they come up that way from the ports and can't go anywhere or stop, if you're not going to watch where you're going when jumping red lights then quite frankly you're asking to get run over, it was coincidental that the driver of the vehicle that hit him was on speeding whilst on the phone at the time...





now, don't avoid it, answer my question:

if it had been a car driver who'd jumped the red light, and a motorcyclist not paying attention and speeding would you be quite so eager to hang him from the highest tree and charge him with dangerous driving*

*bold text changed to reflect that fact that you said he was wrong to jump the lights


The blame lies right on the cyclist here IMO, the speeding and text-age are just additional factors.
bloody hell!!!

i think we actually agree on something:D