Am I missing something here?

[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.

Originally Posted by rubberduckofdeath

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"

Originally Posted by rubberduckofdeath

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

Originally Posted by rubberduckofdeath

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:

Originally Posted by rubberduckofdeath

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]

Originally Posted by the_lone_wolf

@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.

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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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

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

Originally Posted by the_lone_wolf

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.

[the_lone_wolf]

Originally Posted by SoulKiss

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

including what is effectively a motorway slip road? 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

Originally Posted by rubberduckofdeath

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]

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?

@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?

[yorkie_chris]

Originally Posted by rubberduckofdeath

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.