Am I missing something here?

[SoulKiss]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by rubberduckofdeath

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

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]

Originally Posted by TOY40

Is anything been done to stop the cyclists running red lights,.

Well this one got killed, is that enough of a deterrant for you?

[the_lone_wolf]

Originally Posted by SoulKiss

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]

Originally Posted by 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

[SoulKiss]

Originally Posted by the_lone_wolf

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.

Originally Posted by rubberduckofdeath

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]

Originally Posted by rubberduckofdeath

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

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.