Am I missing something here?

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/h...re/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.

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

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!

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

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

Originally Posted by the_lone_wolf

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

but then that wouldn't make for good propaganda headlines