£500 fine to driver who caused crash (RE: Young Pillion Ban)

For those of you that might remember a few months back, a discussion about a campaign for the introduction of an age limit of 16 years for pillion riders, after the death of an eight year old pillion rider in East Sussex.

Source: http://www.eastbournetoday.co.uk/Vie...ticleID=879385

DEVASTATED mum Cassie Pearce has blasted the £500 fine given to the driver who caused the crash which killed her son Sean.

She said it wasn't justice, and he should have been jailed. 'At the end of the day, he's got a £500 fine,' she said. 'I've got to pay for a funeral, a headstone, and I've lost my son.' The court heard that the driver Photios Charambolous, 37, had a previous conviction for speeding.

His vehicle crashed into a motorbike carrying Sean Pearce-Weston on the A27 bypass at Pevensey in May. He was fined £500 and banned from driving for six months on Wednesday after admitting driving without due care and attention. Mum Cassie, of Shanklin Close, Shinewater, said, 'I think it should have been death by dangerous driving. 'It makes me sick that he's walking out free.' Cassie said she would be talking to her solicitor about taking the matter further.

She said, 'I think the magistrate would have given him more if the police had charged him with something else. 'I've got to pick up the pieces. In court it was said he had suffered for six months with this hanging over him, well I've got the rest of my life without my son.' Charambolous, who wept during the hearing, was driving a Ford Fiesta along the A27 from his brother's restaurant in Brighton to his home in Hastings.

He tried to overtake a Ford Escort ahead of him and as he pulled out crashed into the motorcycle turning right into a lay-by. Kate Heffernan, prosecuting, said, 'The passengers in the Ford Escort said they were all aware of a huge bang just behind them at which point they saw that the car being driven by the defendant hadn't seen the motorcycle in the middle of the road.' She said police who attended the scene said Charambolous had not complied with the highway code but said the motorcyclist had done nothing wrong.

Charambolous had three points on his licence and was driving a courtesy car as his own was being repaired. David Alexander, defending, said, 'Clearly this is a tragic case and he would like to express his condolences to the family and friends of Sean Pearce-Weston.' Mr Alexander said Charambolous did not agree with the police's account of the accident but 'accepted that he didn't see the motorcycle'.

He said, 'It was an error of judgement, nothing more than that, with tragic consequences. It will live with him for the rest of his life. He is very, very remorseful.'

It's always very difficult to be objective in this sort of case especially when it involves a death.

The problem the courts have is whether they punish the offence which is in my opinion the right thing to do or the consequences of the offence.

I can think of many instances where my attention has wondered like when changing a tape in the car stereo and not concentrating on the road. I've heard of cases where people have been involved in serious accidents for exactly that reason and have thought "there but for the grace of god go I". 999 times out of 1000 we get away with it but the one time you do not invariably has tragic consequences.

Remember the guy who fell asleep at the wheel, ran his landrover off the road onto the railway and caused a train to be derailed killing many people. Had he dozed off half a mile either side of that bridge he may well have drifted onto the hard shoulder and been woken up by the police and perhaps received a fine or short driving ban. Please don't for one minute think I am advocating driving while tired but who hasn't at some time been in a similar situation?

The arguments for locking someone up and throwing the key away are compelling and as unfair as it may seem, it is the offence that must be punished, not the consequence. Of course if someone is driving recklessly, drunk or on drugs that is another matter.

On a similar note I was listening to the news on Radio 4 last night while driving home from work (I have to use a car ). There was an interesting discussion concerning how drunken/reckless drivers were in some ways protected by the law while a person who in a similar state of mind deliberately or recklessly injures or kills another can be routinely charged with assault or manslaughter. Manslaughter they said has a maximum penalty of life while causing death by dangerous driving rates only ten years, often much less. The incident that sparked this particular debate concerned a 22 year old man who had his original six year sentence reduced to five years "because he pleaded guilty early on and showed remorse!" In spite of the fact he was over the drink drive limit (although apparently not as much as some people), was driving at 'motorway speeds' in a town high street and finally at the scene tried to blame the 18 year old girl he ran down and who later died. This in my opinion IS an example of the punishment not fitting the offence let alone the consequence.

this is a sad case but dont see how increasing the age of pillion would help. i take my daughter 11 on the bike and i am very aware that some nutter could take us out at any time, but then she walks to school and cud be run over by the same idiot, then the school she attends has steps which she could fall down. i feel for the mum but the driver did not mean to kill anyone and we have all broken the highway code at least once.

I live in Eastbourne and read about this case. it would appear the biker was turning right into a layby when the car overtook another car and ploughed into him coz he didn't see the bike. Extremely sad, maybe the car driver was not paying enough attention but in my mind simply a tragic accident. This stuff happens sometimes but it doesn't mean that we should ban pillions really...does it?

It's so tragic. I agree with you chutz, a ban on young pillions would solve nothing.

And on a similar subject:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/3986503.stm

[timwilky]

I have to agree with Nick762. It is a debate we have often had in our household whenever one of the emotive incidents happens. You must punish the offence not the consequences.

There is nobody on the roads that cannot say they have not made a mistake. There was not enough information in the report to indicate that the driver involved had attempted to overtake. Indeed the passenger witness said he heard a bang behind him.

It could be something as simple as the driver pulled out to check it was clear to overtake and found the bike stationary at the white line (if there was one) and whoops too late.

At this point it was a mistake, there is nothing to indicate he was speeding etc. his mistake was probably being too close to the vehicle in front to be able to see if it was clear to pull out a little more. An offence that warrants a due care and attention charge, and not dangerous driving.

If anything whilst it is a tragedy that somebody was killed and doubly so being a child, the driver involved deserves our sympathy. Only he truly knows what happened and it is he who has to live with his conscience.

[21QUEST]

Originally Posted by timwilky

It could be something as simple as the driver pulled out to check it was clear to overtake and found the bike stationary at the white line (if there was one) and whoops too late.

Whilst I agree that it can be quite easy not to be objective in cases such as this I have to disagree with 'timwilky' regarding the above comment. if he had pulled out to check if it was clear to overtake, then he was obviously comtemplating an overtake and was either travelling too close/fast in relation to the car infront. The simply things(so called) always that wrecking lifes and anyway the courts in many cases do punish the offence but also take into account the consequences.

In my mind which ever you look at it the punishment did not fit the offence. Hell, I got find over £200/points for having a defective vehicle i.e centre stand defective. ( pleaded not guilty but was convicted on the evidence of a 'lying Filth').

As a side note some of the simply things I hate include not indicating, crap lane discipline(round etc), cutting across mini round about, cutting into wrong lane when turning right into a side street,coming up too fast into a give way/stop line. All these all simply but people get lazy maybe just too stupid? and one day those sort of simply things end up not being 'just a simple case of..........

Cheers
Ben

[timwilky]

Originally Posted by 21QUEST

Whilst I agree that it can be quite easy not to be objective in cases such as this I have to disagree with 'timwilky' regarding the above comment. if he had pulled out to check if it was clear to overtake, then he was obviously comtemplating an overtake and was either travelling too close/fast in relation to the car infront. The simply things(so called) always that wrecking lifes and anyway the courts in many cases do punish the offence but also take into account the consequences.

Ben

Please do not take issue with this single paragraph as I stated in the following one that he was probably too close the leading vehicle when he undertook this manoeuvre. The issue is and always will be what the driver was charged with, and should the punishment be seen to fit the crime.

This driver was charged with driving without due care and attention. From the report at the start of this thread I guess it is the correct charge. Certainly not causing death by dangerous driving. When a death occurs lives are wrecked and everything becomes very emotive.

When you read your local paper and read the petty sentences that most people get for due care and attention I think this driver was quite severely sentenced.

Manslaughter and death by dangerous driving are notoriously difficult things to prove. At the end of the day was this driver being reckless. The only witnesses seem to have been the passengers in the leading car that stated what they heard. Unfortunately we do not have the benefit of the riders statement. The report does not indicate his condition after this accident.

What is also wrong in this report was the implication that this guy may have been speeding by virtue of the fact that he had a prior speeding conviction. How many contributors to this forum have a speeding conviction. Does this make them more dangerous riders/drivers as a result. I think not, there is also some evidence that they may be safer by virtue that they do not want to pick up subsequent convictions. There is certainly no evidence that the guy was speeding, otherwise the charge would have been dangerous driving.

[21QUEST]

Ben

Please do not take issue with this single paragraph as I stated in the following one that he was probably too close the leading vehicle when he undertook this manoeuvre. The issue is and always will be what the driver was charged with, and should the punishment be seen to fit the crime.

Tim, sorry didn't really mean to take issue with that single paragraph as such. I just think we do not need to be making excuses for things which on the face of it look like a simple mistakes when I believe they could have be avoided quite easily. What ever he was charged with, I don't believe the punishment fitted the offence. Anyone know what the maximum sentence is for reckless driving? Maybe I'm being emotional but I have ride on Garratt Lane SW london and on the bit(closer to Tooting high street) where there is an 'S' bend four out of five time (atleast), I have a near miss while waiting to turn right into a one way street because some idiot can't be bothered to keep in their lane/pay attention through the bend for whatever reason. The worst thing is you have got diagonal stripes to seperate the two lanes and still even with me just inside the sectiona I have had to take evasive action to avoid a collision and I would hate to think if the worst happened a driver would get away with a lousy punishment for that no matter what he/she is charged with.

What is also wrong in this report was the implication that this guy may have been speeding by virtue of the fact that he had a prior speeding conviction. How many contributors to this forum have a speeding conviction. Does this make them more dangerous riders/drivers as a result. I think not, there is also some evidence that they may be safer by virtue that they do not want to pick up subsequent convictions. There is certainly no evidence that the guy was speeding, otherwise the charge would have been dangerous driving.

Agree whole heartedly, especially now getting a speeding conviction is a bit like getting a ticket for illegal parking.

Cheers
Ben