Butterflies Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Where did you get that information from? quote (from 3FM website): Thompson told police she simply didn't see the cyclist adding "I do not know why. I've asked myself that every day" but admitted her driving before entering the village had been "erratic". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Sentencing will always be controversial. Earlier this week a woman was fined £250 for not seeing a red light on a new route to work on the main road through Glen Vine and wiping out a car going through the green light. Had the car been a cyclist or motorbike the outcome would have been different. But the offence and her actions would have been exactly the same, should the punishment for the offence or the outcome? Similar can be said about people getting into fights. People get punched or pushed outside pubs in Britain every week and most get no charge or a very modest fine. If the victim happens to fall and smack his head causing serious injury the offence and punishment suddenly escalate although the intent and actions of the attacker were exactly the same. No comparison. She knew the cyclist was there and deliberately put her own interests before the safety of the cyclist.The red light event was carelessness, the smacked head resulting in death was an unforseen outcome, in this case she put the cyclist in harms way deliberately. You should be careful what you say. There is nothing suggesting anything like what you are saying. There was nothing deliberate. The road was narrow, she deliberately overtook the cyclist. QED. Eh? It was my understanding she just drove straight into the cyclist, not attempting an "overtake" because she didn't know there was anything there to overtake! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 If so then the charge should have been causing death by dangerous driving? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 If so then the charge should have been causing death by dangerous driving? It should have been in either event in my understanding of the terms. http://www.motorists-lawyer.co.uk/content/helpsheets/dangerousandcarelessdriving.rhtm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 The bottom line is that some poor woman lost her life because of the gross inadequacy of the driving of someone else. How anyone could ever drive again after that defeats me. But to then lie in order to have her 'defence' paid for by the public adds insult to injury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thebees Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Step off Spook, the poor woman did not set out to kill the cyclist, it was a dreadful accident. I could have easily killed the cyclist I didn't see because of the sun, I think about it every time I go up the Ballahutchen, I was lucky, others are not so lucky. We are just people, we make mistakes and we punish ourselves, why the great need for some wigged hick to punish people further? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 From 20mph thread. Belongs here actually. Posted Today, 01:31 PM The Old Git, on 23 Jul 2015 - 12:50 PM, said: Perhaps I have higher standards? Kirk Michael is a narrow village street. with parked cars, pedestrians, cyclists, etc. People need to pay attention. Poeple shouldn't be dying on our roads because someone isn't giving their driving their full attention. Once more. Of course you are absolutely correct. But there is a human element. Where there is a human element anything is possible. Even concerning you. You COULD be distracted. Anyone could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Step off Spook, the poor woman did not set out to kill the cyclist, it was a dreadful accident. I could have easily killed the cyclist I didn't see because of the sun, I think about it every time I go up the Ballahutchen, I was lucky, others are not so lucky. We are just people, we make mistakes and we punish ourselves, why the great need for some wigged hick to punish people further? Do you think she did intend to perjure herself and falsely claim legal aid though? On the back of a court case she was a part of because she killed a person through negligence. I'm sorry, but I don't see why there should be any sympathy for this person. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sick Moon Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 You all sound like terrific drivers. But you're not as good as me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Regarding the 5 feet practicality; the campaign is suggesting 3 feet at 30mph and below, 5 feet outside that. Obviously some roads are narrow, and that is covered in equivalent laws elsewhere, eg: "If the road is too narrow for a vehicle to overtake a cycle at a distance of 1.5 metres, then that vehicle must travel behind the cycle until it is able to overtake it lawfully" 1.5 meters is not unreasonable where there is no limit. Any closer than that and you really are risking someone's life. I wouldn't say this is a kneejerk, it's a law that's been adopted elsewhere, and the supporters are using it as a way of doing some good in the way of this tragic incident. I suppose the concept of 'the cyclist' having some regard for the traffic he's holding up and pulling over is out of the question? For every car, or just the one you're driving? It simply isn't practical, I pull over when I can, but cars are faster than me obviously, if I pulled over all the time I'd never get anywhere. can you clarify please, regarding 3 feet at 30 5 feet outside that, is that actual speed of your vehicle, or whether or not you are in a 30mph speed restriction?? if the former then not enough room to give 1.5m might just mean slowing below 30mph to get past at 0.9m making your text in "s redundant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 You can only use common sense and trust that 99.999% of the time it'll be OK. Being overprescriptive is not workable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vulgarian Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Bottom line is, she fucked up and killed someone. She should pay a higher price than she did. People demand a just punishment. Indeed, it could happen to anyone. A moment of carelessness. It probably results from careless attitude to driving generally. Something we are all guilty of sometimes. Bad luck for her that her carelessness resulted in a death. This isn't one of those crimes where nobody really loses out in a big way. It's not benefit fraud, minor drug possession, drunk and disorderly, failure to report an accident, tax evasion. There is a clear perpetrator and victim. There's a family who want to know what will be done to the person that killed their mum. What purpose would it serve to send the perpetrator to jail? It's not going to remedy anything (it seldom does) but in cases like this a sentence serves as reparation for the family of the victim. It answers a very primitive need for restitution and recompense when a wrong has been done to someone. This is a feature of justice in human societies all over the world. We can't ignore this basic need. We should generally be moving toward a less retributive form of justice but I think there's still a place for it when someone has been seriously wronged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spook Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 You all sound like terrific drivers. But you're not as good as me. I don't doubt for an instant that you're able to drive a car faster than I can and maneuver better than I can but on the other hand I drive within the limits of my capability as well as i can assertain them (and my wife reminds me!) and the road conditions. Where I live the sun in the afternoon especially at this time of the year is a real hazard when driving West and virtually one drives accordingly. On our country lanes people also drive with great care because being faced with the fat backside of a horse with the equally fat backside of some middle aged old bat on it is a thing once encountered never forgotten. Anyway as my son is prone to say 'it is what it is'. But I still have my own opinion about this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
notwell Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Did she receive a driving ban? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted July 23, 2015 Share Posted July 23, 2015 Did she receive a driving ban? Yes, three years - http://www.energyfm.net/cms/news_story_384617.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.