Should Driver like this face tougher sentencing and Lifetime Driving Ban

[PaulF]

If the threat of jail doesn't work, why use it. What makes you think a) he will hurt innocent people - the driving ban see's to that. b) he'd drive like that again. He has got 2 minor motoring convictions and a minor drug one, this isn't Fred West.

What makes you think won't hurt innocent people again? (his ban isn't for ever so sooner or later he'll be driving again).
How do you know he won't drive like that again? his attitude outside the court would suggest he may not change his ways.

Interestingly, his 2 minor motoring offences are for the same thing, didn't learn his lesson there so what make you think he'll learn now.

I sincerely hope he does come out of prison a changed man and he learns from what he has done.

 

[SFTPhotography]

You cannot punish people on the basis of what they might do again. There is no proof other than keyboard warrior musings that think this guy is a threat to the public. Presumably after the incident and the court case he was driving. I assume no-one was killed as a result of him driving.

A period of disqualication plus a retest and a short stay behind bars as the driving was really bad is IMHO a fair and suitable punishment.

It would appear the judicial system agrees with me.

 

[seriousrikk]

Indeed - and the driver in question should have known the likely outcome of driving at twice the speed limit through an area where there were kids.... unless he's mentally ill he must have known the risk he was taking, so implicitly he was acting intentionally when the incident occurred

How many times has someone driven a car at double the speed limit in a 30 and not killed someone
How many times has someone discharged a firearm into a crowd of people and not killed someone

Killing someone is almost guaranteed when you discharge a firearm into a crowd of people, whereas it is not almost guaranteed when driving at 60 in a 30.

It's as simple as that.

 

[Bernie174]

Interestingly, his 2 minor motoring offences are for the same thing, didn't learn his lesson there so what make you think he'll learn now.

Using a mobile while driving and Causing death by dangerous driving? Yes, I can see them being the same thing....not!

Face facts, he's been convicted of the most appropriate offence. That isn't going to change. The shouts for a different charge are just silly and would result in him not have been convicted. As are attempts to compare against totally different acts.

On sentence, he's got a third roughly of the maximum. I can't recall having seen anyone get more than a third for say theft or criminal damage, or GBH for the first like offence, so depending on your point of view it can be said he has been sentenced harshly.

It's over and done with now, can we move along please?

 

[LCPete]

Listen, he sped, lost control. That is the crime. Dangerous driving, he caused a death by driving dangerously so was charged with causing death by dangerous driving.

Everyone has a right to a second chance, it was not a deliberate killing. I hope the driver learns from his mistakes and when they drive again they do safely. If they do, what is the harm done?

Yes but if you or I had made that mistake and killed a child because we was speeding we would never forgive ourselves but he didn't seen to give a toss about the child he killed
thats the difference
although in fact I do stick rigidly to the speed limits in 30s and 40s
I did have a toddler walk out in front of me in a 40 but I was able to stop in time because I was doing under 40

 

[PaulF]

Using a mobile while driving and Causing death by dangerous driving? Yes, I can see them being the same thing....not!

Face facts, he's been convicted of the most appropriate offence. That isn't going to change. The shouts for a different charge are just silly and would result in him not have been convicted. As are attempts to compare against totally different acts.

On sentence, he's got a third roughly of the maximum. I can't recall having seen anyone get more than a third for say theft or criminal damage, or GBH for the first like offence, so depending on your point of view it can be said he has been sentenced harshly.

It's over and done with now, can we move along please?

Just to clarify, I am not saying a different charge should have been used as that would be difficult to prove. I am saying his sentence seems to be light given the circumstances. If that is the norm that it's only a third of the maximum possible I wonder what you would need to do to get the maximum

My point in this thread is that some seem to be defending the sentence as fine, and suggesting that as this was basically a motoring 'mistake' he should just of had a fine and a ban!
I wonder if the judge regretted giving him bail so he could go see his children before starting his prison sentence given his attitude outside with the family of the boy he had killed.

Out of interest, what time frame are you referring to with your recollections? Serious question, just interested if your knowledge of courts is recent or a number of years ago as things may have changed since you were last personally involved.

 

[seriousrikk]

I wonder if the judge regretted giving him bail so he could go see his children before starting his prison sentence given his attitude outside with the family of the boy he had killed.

As I pointed out previously, we don't know what was said in the lead up to that comment. A single line can easily sound a whole lot worse if you do not know the context. I'm not going to deny that at any time saying 's*** happens' would acceptable in this case but had he just received a torrent of abuse that could just be his reaction. We simply don't know anything apart from what the media thinks will sell their product.

 

[simonblue]

But that is not the point. His intention was to drive too quickly, not to take a child's life. You cannot prove, but I'd like it if you could present the proof, that he set out in that car intending on taking someone's life.

Therefore the crime is dangerous driving (its obvious to a careful competent driver than 61mph in a 30mph limit is dangerous) and it has to be punished as such.

It ain't rocket science this. What we are seeing is hysterical daily mail style rants not rational thinking.

Nor is it rocket science that's speeding in car can and does kill people,or is all this road safety stuff just rubbish.

 

[simonblue]

You cannot punish people on the basis of what they might do again. There is no proof other than keyboard warrior musings that think this guy is a threat to the public. Presumably after the incident and the court case he was driving. I assume no-one was killed as a result of him driving.

A period of disqualication plus a retest and a short stay behind bars as the driving was really bad is IMHO a fair and suitable punishment.

It would appear the judicial system agrees with me.

You keep saying the judicial agrees with you,no it's doesn't alway the max sentence was increase from 10 years to 14 years in 2004,it's is up to a judge to decide what sentence you received,and it is we'll know that some judges are a soft touch,that why the defence team will look at court listing to see who they are going before,and some if they think it's going to be the wrong judge,will try all sort of tricks to get say a more lenient judge.

 

[SFTPhotography]

Yes but if you or I had made that mistake and killed a child because we was speeding we would never forgive ourselves but he didn't seen to give a toss about the child he killed
thats the difference
although in fact I do stick rigidly to the speed limits in 30s and 40s
I did have a toddler walk out in front of me in a 40 but I was able to stop in time because I was doing under 40

The guilt is the punishment, and the guilt is what will correct the driving.

Who know's what the aggreaved family said to provoke him. He will have plenty running through his mind right now.

You keep saying the judicial agrees with you,no it's doesn't alway the max sentence was increase from 10 years to 14 years in 2004,it's is up to a judge to decide what sentence you received,and it is we'll know that some judges are a soft touch,that why the defence team will look at court listing to see who they are going before,and some if they think it's going to be the wrong judge,will try all sort of tricks to get say a more lenient judge.

If the sentence is unduly lienient, there is a review process that can increase the sentence. If you feel that strongly you should get in touch with the aggreaved family, and hire a solicitor to have the sentence re-reviewed.

Nor is it rocket science that's speeding in car can and does kill people,or is all this road safety stuff just rubbish.

Yes, but we are talking about intent here, not outcome but desired outcome. Can you please prove this chap meant to kill a child?

 

[simonblue]

Using a mobile while driving and Causing death by dangerous driving? Yes, I can see them being the same thing....not!

Face facts, he's been convicted of the most appropriate offence. That isn't going to change. The shouts for a different charge are just silly and would result in him not have been convicted. As are attempts to compare against totally different acts.

On sentence, he's got a third roughly of the maximum. I can't recall having seen anyone get more than a third for say theft or criminal damage, or GBH for the first like offence, so depending on your point of view it can be said he has been sentenced harshly.

It's over and done with now, can we move along please?

You could say maybe it's time for you to move on ?
You keep saying this is his first offence,but this is a life of a child he took,thought his driving and careless indifferent to anybody else.
Also driving using an mobile can and does kill,but hey say theft or criminal damage or GBH is the same as killing a person,you know damn well he got of lightly,people want to see tougher sentenced for this sought of reckless act that can cause death,and if we continue to see the deaths of people,thought this sort of driving we have every right to ask for tougher sentencing to be given out.

 

[simonblue]

The guilt is the punishment, and the guilt is what will correct the driving.

Who know's what the aggreaved family said to provoke him. He will have plenty running through his mind right now.



If the sentence is unduly lienient, there is a review process that can increase the sentence. If you feel that strongly you should get in touch with the aggreaved family, and hire a solicitor to have the sentence re-reviewed.



Yes, but we are talking about intent here, not outcome but desired outcome. Can you please prove this chap meant to kill a child?

The problem is and alway has been some people love of cars and driving fast,if people wish to drive like that,and they kill,there should be a tough price to paid intent or not.
But who I am I to think its wrong,after all it's everybody right to drive as fast as they like,and if they kill well there was no intent.

 

[SFTPhotography]

The problem is and alway has been some people love of cars and driving fast,if people wish to drive like that,and they kill,there should be a tough price to paid intent or not.
But who I am I to think its wrong,after all it's everybody right to drive as fast as they like,and if they kill well there was no intent.

Liking cars and enjoying speed (be it on an autobahn or track) is not an issue. Why not ban all dogs as certain dogs killed children.

All I will say, is two wrongs do not make a right. He's made a terrible mis error of judgement with terrible consequences, but not an intentional one. Hence I feel the sentence is fine. If you don't, do something about it and hire a brief to appeal the sentence.

 

[SickAsAParrot]

The problem is and alway has been some people love of cars and driving fast,if people wish to drive like that,and they kill,there should be a tough price to paid intent or not.
But who I am I to think its wrong,after all it's everybody right to drive as fast as they like,and if they kill well there was no intent.

Correct, we have two people at my place of work who drive extremely aggressively (45 in 30 zones, tailgating constantly etc), they are never not driving like that, one of these days one of them will kill somebody, maybe even me.

No amout of 'education' will change them (they are middle aged, not youngsters just starting out). As far as i'm concerned, the intent is there and it was there all the time.

 

[PatrickO]

Liking cars and enjoying speed (be it on an autobahn or track) is not an issue. Why not ban all dogs as certain dogs killed children.

All I will say, is two wrongs do not make a right. He's made a terrible mis error of judgement with terrible consequences, but not an intentional one. Hence I feel the sentence is fine. If you don't, do something about it and hire a brief to appeal the sentence.

Those are very strange arguments. The number of deaths due to dog attacks is less than a handful each year. Road deaths are in the thousands. A dog which kill someone (no matter that it's probably the owner to blame) will result in the dog being put down. If someone kills through selfish/dangerous driving, the least we can expect is a permanent ban.

And we are NOT talking about autobahn/tracks, we mean urban roads.

 

[Bernie174]

You could say maybe it's time for you to move on ?
You keep saying this is his first offence,but this is a life of a child he took,thought his driving and careless indifferent to anybody else.
Also driving using an mobile can and does kill,but hey say theft or criminal damage or GBH is the same as killing a person,you know damn well he got of lightly,people want to see tougher sentenced for this sought of reckless act that can cause death,and if we continue to see the deaths of people,thought this sort of driving we have every right to ask for tougher sentencing to be given out.

Dear God Simon!
Yes, he killed someone who you have no connection too, so enough of the outrage by proxy.
Yes, using a mobile while driving can lead to a death, but it didn't. So why are you trying to re sentence someone for an unconnected incident?

Are you going to go and throw yourself on the mercy of your local court for every time you have driven faster than a speed limit? No, of course you aren't, nor are you going to stop doing so. So, that puts you in if not the same boat as chummy, then the boat next door. Can you imagine if the Courts imprisoned everyone for speeding? ie everyone who put themselves in a position where they could do the same as this guy? You'd all be crying your eyes out over that! But you can't have it both ways.

No, I don't know he got off likely, he didn't, he got slightly more than the norm. I accept you think it should be life, but thats not and never was an option, nor was the max sentence. It almost never does for ANY offence, short of murder, and this was not murder.

What right do you have to ask for greater sentences? Where is this 'right'? There isn't one, you didn't hear the case, you were not part of the sentencing process, which is independent for a reason, to keep emotion out of it.

Now if you think that sentences should be higher, write to your MP, not go round in circular and hypocritical arguments here, which is pointless.

 

[SFTPhotography]

Those are very strange arguments. The number of deaths due to dog attacks is less than a handful each year. Road deaths are in the thousands. A dog which kill someone (no matter that it's probably the owner to blame) will result in the dog being put down. If someone kills through selfish/dangerous driving, the least we can expect is a permanent ban.

And we are NOT talking about autobahn/tracks, we mean urban roads.

People can learn from their mistakes, they should always be given the chance to do so. If the ban serves the purpose, what is the harm?

 

[Blank_Canvas]

Not in this case. This obnoxious little scroat didn't learn the lesson that talking on a mobile was illegal did he? In fact he got a second FPN for it. You can't educate pond life. Sadly some members of our society are beyond help.

 

[LCPete]

Not in this case. This obnoxious little scroat didn't learn the lesson that talking on a mobile was illegal did he? In fact he got a second FPN for it. You can't educate pond life. Sadly some members of our society are beyond help.

yes exactly this what I was trying to say earlier

 

[simonblue]

Dear God Simon!
Yes, he killed someone who you have no connection too, so enough of the outrage by proxy.
Yes, using a mobile while driving can lead to a death, but it didn't. So why are you trying to re sentence someone for an unconnected incident?

Are you going to go and throw yourself on the mercy of your local court for every time you have driven faster than a speed limit? No, of course you aren't, nor are you going to stop doing so. So, that puts you in if not the same boat as chummy, then the boat next door. Can you imagine if the Courts imprisoned everyone for speeding? ie everyone who put themselves in a position where they could do the same as this guy? You'd all be crying your eyes out over that! But you can't have it both ways.

No, I don't know he got off likely, he didn't, he got slightly more than the norm. I accept you think it should be life, but thats not and never was an option, nor was the max sentence. It almost never does for ANY offence, short of murder, and this was not murder.

What right do you have to ask for greater sentences? Where is this 'right'? There isn't one, you didn't hear the case, you were not part of the sentencing process, which is independent for a reason, to keep emotion out of it.

Now if you think that sentences should be higher, write to your MP, not go round in circular and hypocritical arguments here, which is pointless.

I don't drive and are not allow to drive due to a medical condition,i accept that and at no point in my life have i ever attempted to drive,to do so would put other people at risk.
I know i might seem odd to you but i respect life,and never had the wish to put other people life in danger because of my actions.

 

[Bernie174]

Not in this case. This obnoxious little scroat didn't learn the lesson that talking on a mobile was illegal did he? In fact he got a second FPN for it. You can't educate pond life. Sadly some members of our society are beyond help.

And how many 'Mr Respectables' have 2 tickets for using their mobiles? How many have more than 2 for speeding? Lots. How many of those have gone onto kill someone, more than a few. In any case, both these were years ago, and really a bit irrelevant to the topic.
The first part of what you said seems to be the real problem here, "Scrote'. If he was a stockbroker would we be having this conversation? No, of course not. Would you be calling for higher sentencing? no, you wouldn't. Yet there's probably as many "Mr Respectables" doing time for the same crime. If someone who posted on here were to do it, you'd be forming a team to dig him an escape tunnel!
This subject has become a circular lesson in hypocrisy, nothing more.

I don't drive and are not allow to drive due to a medical condition,i accept that and at no point in my life have i ever attempted to drive,to do so would put other people at risk.
I know i might seem odd to you but i respect life,and never had the wish to put other people life in danger because of my actions.

Then it's perhaps a little difficult for you to see this from an independent point of view, or with the benefit of reality.
Like it or not, what the defendant did in this case in terms of his driving is not unusual.
I have stopped probably just into the 100's of people doing that sort of speed on a 30mph road. Some of them yobs and some who we would describe as mr respectable. Probably more of the latter, as they seem to think it's OK for them. The yobs know they will get stopped so tend to behave a bit more.
The act itself, while dangerous, is not evidence of anything other than either blatant disregard for law, or more usually, "I know best", again, the second of those is usually the Mr Respectables.
The sentence in this case was fair and reasonable. Yes, someone has died, but thats really the only connection it has with murder or manslaughter, and so the sentence reflects that it is not considered in the same league.
Now, you doubtless think it should be, you wont change it complaining on here though. But if you want it changed, be careful what you wish for, because just like the sentencing thing, the result will apply to all.

 

[simonblue]

Liking cars and enjoying speed (be it on an autobahn or track) is not an issue. Why not ban all dogs as certain dogs killed children.

All I will say, is two wrongs do not make a right. He's made a terrible mis error of judgement with terrible consequences, but not an intentional one. Hence I feel the sentence is fine. If you don't, do something about it and hire a brief to appeal the sentence.

How do you know i don't do anything ?,color or paint this any way you like,but the only person who paid the ultimate price was the little boy and his parents.

 

[SFTPhotography]

How do you know i don't do anything ?,color or paint this any way you like,but the only person who paid the ultimate price was the little boy and his parents.

But the driver didn't intentionally kill him. So we (society) use a lesser charge than murder and do not disqualify for life. I feel you, rather than pontificate on here, should write to your MP or start an appeal process on the sentence.

 

[simonblue]

And how many 'Mr Respectables' have 2 tickets for using their mobiles? How many have more than 2 for speeding? Lots. How many of those have gone onto kill someone, more than a few. In any case, both these were years ago, and really a bit irrelevant to the topic.
The first part of what you said seems to be the real problem here, "Scrote'. If he was a stockbroker would we be having this conversation? No, of course not. Would you be calling for higher sentencing? no, you wouldn't. Yet there's probably as many "Mr Respectables" doing time for the same crime. If someone who posted on here were to do it, you'd be forming a team to dig him an escape tunnel!
This subject has become a circular lesson in hypocrisy, nothing more.

You know as i have said before it matter not who the person is,no one is above or below the law.
And Mr Respectable should know a lot better.

 

[TopBanana]

And how many 'Mr Respectables' have 2 tickets for using their mobiles? How many have more than 2 for speeding? Lots. How many of those have gone onto kill someone, more than a few. In any case, both these were years ago, and really a bit irrelevant to the topic.
The first part of what you said seems to be the real problem here, "Scrote'. If he was a stockbroker would we be having this conversation? No, of course not. Would you be calling for higher sentencing? no, you wouldn't. Yet there's probably as many "Mr Respectables" doing time for the same crime. If someone who posted on here were to do it, you'd be forming a team to dig him an escape tunnel!
This subject has become a circular lesson in hypocrisy, nothing more.

Actually I think that if it was someone rich there would also be a big outcry as you regularly see people in flash cars on the motorway either speeding or on their phones and you know that they're just of the opinion that they can afford to pay the fine. So I think we would have this conversation with a stockbroker, but probably not an average person like a teacher. So I'm not denying that we're tainted by our prejudices towards the person, I just think we have issues with more people than we care to admit!

 

[PatrickO]

But the driver didn't intentionally kill him. So we (society) use a lesser charge than murder and do not disqualify for life. I feel you, rather than pontificate on here, should write to your MP or start an appeal process on the sentence.

Why do think simonblue should not post on here? Surely that's the point of OOF. Just an exchange of opinions.

 

[simonblue]

But the driver didn't intentionally kill him. So we (society) use a lesser charge than murder and do not disqualify for life. I feel you, rather than pontificate on here, should write to your MP or start an appeal process on the sentence.

The CPS can start an appeal process,and i hope it does.

 

[SFTPhotography]

Why do think simonblue should not post on here? Surely that's the point of OOF. Just an exchange of opinions.

It is, but it is apparent he feels very strongly about it. So he should try and do something.

The CPS can start an appeal process,and i hope it does.

They can, and I believe the family can appeal the sentence too, although I am not sure. You can write to your MP to share your displeasure over sentences such and see if you bring about a change.

 

[Blank_Canvas]

It is relevant, that some repeat offenders cannot be rehabilitated and continue to commit further offences after their 'fair and just' sentences. Burglary, fraud, domestic violence (leading to murder). Respectable or not, it makes no difference. Whilst I would like to be believe that people can be rehabilitated it. It is widely accepted, documented and evidenced that some people cannot. To think other wise is naive. The real tragedy in this case is the victim and his poor family. I doubt this case would ever go to a judicial review. The sentence in the eyes of the law is proportionate, but to people who have been effected, or influenced by other events will always feel that it unjust.

 

[simonblue]

It is, but it is apparent he feels very strongly about it. So he should try and do something.


They can, and I believe the family can appeal the sentence too, although I am not sure. You can write to your MP to share your displeasure over sentences such and see if you bring about a change.

How do you know I haven't done anything ?.

 

[SFTPhotography]

How do you know I haven't done anything ?.

Enlighten me?

 

[SpikeK6]

I think he will learn from this, I have read this thread from start to finish and to proove a point I will tell my side of the story.

When I was alot younger 22 to be exact I had a sports car and to be honest I very rarley drove at the speed limit, if that car could reach the red line it did, if I could race some one I would. BUT every time I got behind that wheel of that car not once did I ever set out to kill someone, yes I could of but I never did, till one summers day, me and this audi where traveling along this counrty lane at lets say nearly twice the speed of the national limit. yes it was fun yes it was great yes the adrenilin was pumping, then we slowed down, he turned off at his turning and I carried on so by this time doing say 50 in a 60 limit, then about 100 yards down the road a lady pulled straight out in front of me, I was young reactions times where great and I ended up going over the bonett of her car, how do I know that well the skid marks where there then the left the road then they appeared again.

Now in her car was her her parents and a child, so my car was written off and so was hers, to this day if it had not been for my quick actions and went over the front I would have hit the car straight in the side, probably taking out the father and a child (killed them who knows) now at the time the father gave me some harsh words about speeding, saying it was all my fault, so he got a bit of greif from me, so i probably reacted the same as that kid outsde of the court, sh*t happened. That was not my answer to the father but lets just say it was colourful.

Well shortly after maybe a week , it dawned on me that had that car pulled out say 1/2 mile up the road, before me and the audi had slowed for him to turn off I probably would not be sitting here typing this, and you know what, I got another sports car and yes i broke the speed limits but not by twice the limit, and I certainly did not go round driving like a bloody idiot every where I went. I like hopefully this lad will will reflect on what he did (what nearly happened to me) and not do it again. I was lucky, I got away with far more than I probably should have but i learned from it.

did I learn my lesson? to bloody true I did,
did I set out to kill anyone that day?? no I dident,
could I have?? yes I could,
did I learn from it?? yes I did

So like that lad he did not set out to kill anyone he set out to get from A to B as fast as he could, and he eneded up killing a poor young child through his wreckless actions.
He got a sentence what he deserved.
He has been slaughtered for his coment afterwards but the papers will only report that, not what was said to get that reaction so all of us can think badly of him, it sells papers it get a reation

 

[simonblue]

I think he will learn from this, I have read this thread from start to finish and to proove a point I will tell my side of the story.

When I was alot younger 22 to be exact I had a sports car and to be honest I very rarley drove at the speed limit, if that car could reach the red line it did, if I could race some one I would. BUT every time I got behind that wheel of that car not once did I ever set out to kill someone, yes I could of but I never did, till one summers day, me and this audi where traveling along this counrty lane at lets say nearly twice the speed of the national limit. yes it was fun yes it was great yes the adrenilin was pumping, then we slowed down, he turned off at his turning and I carried on so by this time doing say 50 in a 60 limit, then about 100 yards down the road a lady pulled straight out in front of me, I was young reactions times where great and I ended up going over the bonett of her car, how do I know that well the skid marks where there then the left the road then they appeared again.

Now in her car was her her parents and a child, so my car was written off and so was hers, to this day if it had not been for my quick actions and went over the front I would have hit the car straight in the side, probably taking out the father and a child (killed them who knows) now at the time the father gave me some harsh words about speeding, saying it was all my fault, so he got a bit of greif from me, so i probably reacted the same as that kid outsde of the court, sh*t happened. That was not my answer to the father but lets just say it was colourful.

Well shortly after maybe a week , it dawned on me that had that car pulled out say 1/2 mile up the road, before me and the audi had slowed for him to turn off I probably would not be sitting here typing this, and you know what, I got another sports car and yes i broke the speed limits but not by twice the limit, and I certainly did not go round driving like a bloody idiot every where I went. I like hopefully this lad will will reflect on what he did (what nearly happened to me) and not do it again. I was lucky, I got away with far more than I probably should have but i learned from it.

did I learn my lesson? to bloody true I did,
did I set out to kill anyone that day?? no I dident,
could I have?? yes I could,
did I learn from it?? yes I did

So like that lad he did not set out to kill anyone he set out to get from A to B as fast as he could, and he eneded up killing a poor young child through his wreckless actions.
He got a sentence what he deserved.
He has been slaughtered for his coment afterwards but the papers will only report that, not what was said to get that reaction so all of us can think badly of him, it sells papers it get a reation

Sorry but none of that rubs with me,you were 22 years old and was old enough to know better,and a very lucky man your actions did not cost a life.

 

[PaulF]

I think he will learn from this, I have read this thread from start to finish and to proove a point I will tell my side of the story.

When I was alot younger 22 to be exact I had a sports car and to be honest I very rarley drove at the speed limit, if that car could reach the red line it did, if I could race some one I would. BUT every time I got behind that wheel of that car not once did I ever set out to kill someone, yes I could of but I never did, till one summers day, me and this audi where traveling along this counrty lane at lets say nearly twice the speed of the national limit. yes it was fun yes it was great yes the adrenilin was pumping, then we slowed down, he turned off at his turning and I carried on so by this time doing say 50 in a 60 limit, then about 100 yards down the road a lady pulled straight out in front of me, I was young reactions times where great and I ended up going over the bonett of her car, how do I know that well the skid marks where there then the left the road then they appeared again.

Now in her car was her her parents and a child, so my car was written off and so was hers, to this day if it had not been for my quick actions and went over the front I would have hit the car straight in the side, probably taking out the father and a child (killed them who knows) now at the time the father gave me some harsh words about speeding, saying it was all my fault, so he got a bit of greif from me, so i probably reacted the same as that kid outsde of the court, sh*t happened. That was not my answer to the father but lets just say it was colourful.

Well shortly after maybe a week , it dawned on me that had that car pulled out say 1/2 mile up the road, before me and the audi had slowed for him to turn off I probably would not be sitting here typing this, and you know what, I got another sports car and yes i broke the speed limits but not by twice the limit, and I certainly did not go round driving like a bloody idiot every where I went. I like hopefully this lad will will reflect on what he did (what nearly happened to me) and not do it again. I was lucky, I got away with far more than I probably should have but i learned from it.

did I learn my lesson? to bloody true I did,
did I set out to kill anyone that day?? no I dident,
could I have?? yes I could,
did I learn from it?? yes I did

So like that lad he did not set out to kill anyone he set out to get from A to B as fast as he could, and he eneded up killing a poor young child through his wreckless actions.
He got a sentence what he deserved.
He has been slaughtered for his coment afterwards but the papers will only report that, not what was said to get that reaction so all of us can think badly of him, it sells papers it get a reation

I'm glad you learned from your experience. If I read that correctly, you drove like an idiot, slowed down to 10mph below the limit then had a crash.

There apears to be a difference between you and the driver in this case and that may explain why he is being slaughtered by people on here.
Did you try to leave the scene? Ok you probably couldn't but would you if you could've?
You braked, he didnt, he only crashed further down the road while trying to get away.
He pleaded not guilty, so can only assume he thought he'd done nothing wrong or he was trying to get away with it.
The judge commended the family for their conduct throughtout the trial, now that doesn't prove they didn't start the argument outside the court but the probability is that they didn't given what the judge had said and the actions of the lad.

 

[PaulF]

Sorry but none of that rubs with me,you were 22 years old and was old enough to know better,and a very lucky man your actions did not cost a life.

I think that's kind of what he said.

 

[simonblue]

I think that's kind of what he said.

Fair enough,but by your 22 years old racing around as he said over twice the speed limit at times,by that age you should know better.

 

[PaulF]

Fair enough,but by your 22 years old racing around as he said over twice the speed limit at times,by that age you should know better.

Yeh I agree,

 

[simonblue]

By the time i was 22 years old i had taken enough bodies to the morgue from fatal car accidents,one was a baby

 

[seriousrikk]

Fair enough,but by your 22 years old racing around as he said over twice the speed limit at times,by that age you should know better.

It's laugh if I thought you were joking...

By the time i was 22 years old i had taken enough bodies to the morgue from fatal car accidents,one was a baby

That's it, right there. I understand a bit more now why you have such strong views on the subject.

You have a very different perspective from almost anyone else. You have seen the results, most people at the age of 22 haven't (nor have most people 10-15 years older) so have to learn - and sadly this sometimes happens the hard way.

How can you expect them to know better?

Give us an honest answer... and think about it from someone's perspective other than your own... Maybe consider, just for a second, that not everyone has been through and seen what you have.

If you just tell people they should know better, that teaches them nothing. You have seen the results, you have the experience to actually make a difference if you could put yourself across better. Talk to the people who you perceive as problematic drivers not at them or down to them. If someone should know better, help them to know better.

 

[StewartR]

One of my friends is a retired priest. He used to be involved with the training of other priests in his diocese, and he taught courses on logic and ethics.

One very interesting observation he made, which is relevant to this debate, is that the notion of treating "causing death by dangerous driving" as a specific offence is - logically and ethically - absurd. If 1000 people commit the same act, and 999 times nothing happens, but the 1000th time somebody dies, why should one person be locked up for just being unlucky? The only policy which would be logical and ethical would be to treat all 1000 of them the same.

But the theory doesn't tell you how you should treat them, and that's where it gets messy. If you think the person who causes a death should be imprisoned, then the other 999 should be too. If you think it's wrong to convict the 999 people for whom the commission of the act had no undesirable consequences, then you shouldn't convict the one who was unlucky.

So...

people want to see tougher sentenced for this sought of reckless act that can cause death,and if we continue to see the deaths of people,thought this sort of driving we have every right to ask for tougher sentencing to be given out.

Can you imagine if the Courts imprisoned everyone for speeding? ie everyone who put themselves in a position where they could do the same as this guy? You'd all be crying your eyes out over that! But you can't have it both ways.

But if you want it changed, be careful what you wish for, because just like the sentencing thing, the result will apply to all.

It sounds to me like you're agreeing with one another, and with my friend the retired priest. It would be logical and ethical to base the sentencing on the act, rather than on the outcome. The only aspect you seem to disagree on is what the sentence should be.

It would be possible (in theory at least) to have a tariff something like this:
- driving above the speed limit = 1 year ban
- driving 10mph above the limit = lifetime ban
- driving 20mph above the limit = lifetime ban and custodial sentence
- driving 30mph above the limit = lifetime ban and lengthy custodial sentence
That might seem draconian, but it could be argued that the punishments reflect the potential for the act to cause harm up to and including death. It would be consistent, logical and ethical. I think it would keep Simon happy, though I'm not sure about Bernie. And I bet the roads would be safer! But I wouldn't want to be the politician who tried to argue in favour of it...