Kill in a park and avoid prison.

Tom Crispin said:

"Normally this offence would incur a custodial sentence, but
exceptionally I am going to spare you that bearing in mind that you
pleaded guilty at the first opportunity, have shown remorse, and there
was no evidence of excessive speed," the judge said.

30mph through a park is excessive.

I have said this before:
The Park must accept some responsibility for the death of Mr Woods. It
is absurd to allow motorists to drive at 30mph through a park. It is
a nonsense that overtaking is permitted on a 6m wide two-way road
without markings - though it appears that Mr Voong was not overtaking.
The two-way shared use footway cycle lane is wholly inadequate for
cyclists travelling downhill at up to 30mph and cyclists travelling
uphill as low as 4mph.

www.johnballcycling.org.uk/photos/troop
Mr Woods was killed at about the spot where the electric vehicle is
near the top of the hill.
www.greenwichcyclists.org.uk/img/white_bike.jpg
The ghost bike left by Greenwich Cyclists and the victim's family in
memory of Leonard Woods.

Tom Crispin said:

A Vietnamese restaurant owner who admitted causing the death of a
cyclist in Greenwich Park by dangerous driving was fined £2,500 and
banned from driving for five years at Woolwich Crown Court on
Wednesday.

I have to say I don't see what benefit would be gained from imprisoning him.
I am disappointed that he will ever be allowed to have his driving license
back. But prison doesn't solve things. It doesn't make the driver a better
person, and it doesn't bring the cyclist back to life. I'm not persuaded
that the community needs to be protected from this man in any way that just
stopping him driving won't achieve.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
"The result is a language that... not even its mother could
love. Like the camel, Common Lisp is a horse designed by
committee. Camels do have their uses."
;; Scott Fahlman, 7 March 1995

Tom Crispin said:

Tom Crispin said:

"Normally this offence would incur a custodial sentence, but
exceptionally I am going to spare you that bearing in mind that you
pleaded guilty at the first opportunity, have shown remorse, and there
was no evidence of excessive speed," the judge said.

30mph through a park is excessive.

I have said this before:
The Park must accept some responsibility for the death of Mr Woods. It
is absurd to allow motorists to drive at 30mph through a park.

OK, that I will agree with. And if there had been a more rational speed
limit, the collision would have been much less likely to be fatal. A
default 20mph limit in urban areas would definitely improve things - for
everybody.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

IMHO, there aren't enough committed Christians, but that's care
in the community for you. -- Ben Evans

"Tom Crispin" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Tom Crispin said:

"Normally this offence would incur a custodial sentence, but
exceptionally I am going to spare you that bearing in mind that you
pleaded guilty at the first opportunity, have shown remorse, and there
was no evidence of excessive speed," the judge said.

30mph through a park is excessive.

"excessive" is the court/police jargon for "above the speed limit"

pk

Simon Brooke said:

Tom Crispin said:

A Vietnamese restaurant owner who admitted causing the death of a
cyclist in Greenwich Park by dangerous driving was fined £2,500 and
banned from driving for five years at Woolwich Crown Court on
Wednesday.

I have to say I don't see what benefit would be gained from
imprisoning him. I am disappointed that he will ever be allowed to
have his driving license back. But prison doesn't solve things. It
doesn't make the driver a better person, and it doesn't bring the
cyclist back to life. I'm not persuaded that the community needs to
be protected from this man in any way that just stopping him driving
won't achieve.

I think I agree with that, but the community would have benefited if he had
been given a load of community service to do (on top of a fine and a long
driving ban).

~PB

Simon Brooke said:

Tom Crispin said:

A Vietnamese restaurant owner who admitted causing the death of a
cyclist in Greenwich Park by dangerous driving was fined £2,500 and
banned from driving for five years at Woolwich Crown Court on
Wednesday.

I have to say I don't see what benefit would be gained from imprisoning him.
I am disappointed that he will ever be allowed to have his driving license
back. But prison doesn't solve things. It doesn't make the driver a better
person, and it doesn't bring the cyclist back to life. I'm not persuaded
that the community needs to be protected from this man in any way that just
stopping him driving won't achieve.

I agree here, the bloke apparently had no prior record of dangerous
driving, prison won't help him, and won't act as a deterrent for most of
the people who think they are good drivers.

Tom Crispin said:

Tom Crispin said:

"Normally this offence would incur a custodial sentence, but
exceptionally I am going to spare you that bearing in mind that you
pleaded guilty at the first opportunity, have shown remorse, and there
was no evidence of excessive speed," the judge said.

30mph through a park is excessive.

I have said this before:
The Park must accept some responsibility for the death of Mr Woods. It
is absurd to allow motorists to drive at 30mph through a park. It is
a nonsense that overtaking is permitted on a 6m wide two-way road
without markings - though it appears that Mr Voong was not overtaking.

Motorists should be able to judge what is and is not safe, they should
not need signs telling them not to overtake when it is not safe. However
I agree that a 20mph speed limit should be in place in the park.

Quoted message said:

The two-way shared use footway cycle lane is wholly inadequate for
cyclists travelling downhill at up to 30mph and cyclists travelling
uphill as low as 4mph.

The shared use should be on the left-uphill side of the road, and used
as a crawler lane for those that decide to use it.

There is no reason to use a lane like this going downhill.

Martin Dann writtificated

Quoted message said:

Motorists should be able to judge what is and is not safe

...and pigs should have wings :-/

Simon Brooke said:

Tom Crispin said:

A Vietnamese restaurant owner who admitted causing the death of a
cyclist in Greenwich Park by dangerous driving was fined £2,500 and
banned from driving for five years at Woolwich Crown Court on
Wednesday.

I have to say I don't see what benefit would be gained from imprisoning him.
I am disappointed that he will ever be allowed to have his driving license
back. But prison doesn't solve things. It doesn't make the driver a better
person, and it doesn't bring the cyclist back to life. I'm not persuaded
that the community needs to be protected from this man in any way that just
stopping him driving won't achieve.

"...pour encourager les autres..."

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 22:39:37 GMT, Martin Dann <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The two-way shared use footway cycle lane is wholly inadequate for
cyclists travelling downhill at up to 30mph and cyclists travelling
uphill as low as 4mph.

The shared use should be on the left-uphill side of the road, and used
as a crawler lane for those that decide to use it.

There is no reason to use a lane like this going downhill.

That is *exactly* what I had said to the park manager in a meeting 10
months *before* the fatality.

In article <[email hidden]>, Tom Crispin
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Voong had apologized to the victim's widow and two daughters and
offered to help the family in any way. The court was told he had
voluntarily surrendered his licence after the collision. In a
pre-sentence report Voong was said to be of previously good character
with a clean record, a devout Buddhist, and had been diagnosed as
clinically depressed since the incident.

Hardly the typical reckless selfish [censored] who would deserve to be banged
up (for all the good it would do) so why the hysterical headline?

Simon Brooke said:

Tom Crispin said:

A Vietnamese restaurant owner who admitted causing the death of a
cyclist in Greenwich Park by dangerous driving was fined £2,500 and
banned from driving for five years at Woolwich Crown Court on
Wednesday.

I have to say I don't see what benefit would be gained from imprisoning him.
I am disappointed that he will ever be allowed to have his driving license
back. But prison doesn't solve things. It doesn't make the driver a better
person, and it doesn't bring the cyclist back to life. I'm not persuaded
that the community needs to be protected from this man in any way that just
stopping him driving won't achieve.

If, as Mr Voong says, and there is no reason to disbelieve him, his
windscreen shattered before he veered into Mr Woods, the cause of the
fatality was driving at an inappropriate speed for a park but within
the park speed limit.

Mr Voong could have pleaded not guilty to dangerous driving - and may
well have been found innocent of any crime. Instead he accepted
responsibility for being the cause of Mr Woods' death, and appears to
be genuinely remorsful for his actions.

Rumours that he was overtaking another vehicle at the time appear to
be unfounded by the evidence of the taxi driver. I would like to hear
more about rumours that he was pulling over to use the park toilets on
the right, but without any evidence that that was the cause of the
crash I can only accept Mr Voong's word that his windscreen shattered.

It remains that Mr Voong was driving at an inappropriate speed for a
park, and had his speed been under 20mph not 30mph the fatality may
well have been avoided. However, the park allows motorists to drive
at 30mph, and that must also be considered.

Sending Mr Voong to prison, in this case, would not have served any
useful purpose.

The park authorities must accept some responsibility for the death of
Mr Woods. They must now take action to avoid any similar incident.

Best of all, The Avenue should be closed to all but park vehicles and
cyclists at all times, with park vehicles limited to 5mph. At present
it is open weekdays only 7am - 10am and 4pm - dusk (6pm in winter to
9.30pm in summer).

Failing that, speed should be restricted to 20mph, with rigourous
enforcement - this, as in all Royal Parks, includes an enforcable
limit on cyclists. (I know that all park police now carry radar
guns). Overtaking on the park road should be prohibited: this doesn't
have to be done by road markings, it can be done by signs. The
two-way cycle lane on the west of the The Avenue should be removed and
replaced by an uphill only cycle lane on the east of The Avenue so
cyclists have the option to use the road or cycle lane.

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 03:27:22 -0000, Rob Morley <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Tom Crispin
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Voong had apologized to the victim's widow and two daughters and
offered to help the family in any way. The court was told he had
voluntarily surrendered his licence after the collision. In a
pre-sentence report Voong was said to be of previously good character
with a clean record, a devout Buddhist, and had been diagnosed as
clinically depressed since the incident.

Hardly the typical reckless selfish [censored] who would deserve to be banged
up (for all the good it would do) so why the hysterical headline?

I have now posted a detailed opinion on the sentence and the
responsibility the Royal Parks must share and action they should take.
The subject line serves its purpose in drawing attention to the
report.

_ said:

Simon Brooke said:

Tom Crispin said:

A Vietnamese restaurant owner who admitted causing the death of a
cyclist in Greenwich Park by dangerous driving was fined £2,500 and
banned from driving for five years at Woolwich Crown Court on
Wednesday.

I have to say I don't see what benefit would be gained from imprisoning
him. I am disappointed that he will ever be allowed to have his driving
license back. But prison doesn't solve things. It doesn't make the driver
a better person, and it doesn't bring the cyclist back to life. I'm not
persuaded that the community needs to be protected from this man in any
way that just stopping him driving won't achieve.

"...pour encourager les autres..."

To be honest, I think a suspended life sentence, with immediate release on
license provided that he does not drive (as I have suggested before) would
have a much stronger deterrent effect. He would not then be imprisoned
unless he was ever caught driving a vehicle again.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

my other car is #<Subr-Car: #5d480>
;; This joke is not funny in emacs.

On 27 Mar 2008 00:04:43 GMT someone who may be Mark T
<pleasegivegenerously@warmail*turn_up_the_heat_to_reply*.com.invalid>
wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Martin Dann writtificated

Quoted message said:

Motorists should be able to judge what is and is not safe

..and pigs should have wings :-/

It was the inability of motorists to judge what is safe and not safe
that caused the public clamour for speed limits to be applied to
them.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:44:30 +0000 someone who may be Tom Crispin
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Police also stated that the car's windscreen appeared to have
shattered at the moment of impact with the cyclist, and not before, as
the defendant’s evidence that his windscreen suddenly "went white" had
suggested.

So, the offender's windscreen suddenly "went white" and, instead of
applying the brakes, the offender swerved the vehicle?

I don't believe it.

The question of a suitable sentence is more difficult.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

Martin Dann said:

Tom Crispin said:

30mph through a park is excessive.

I have said this before:
The Park must accept some responsibility for the death of Mr Woods. It
is absurd to allow motorists to drive at 30mph through a park. It is
a nonsense that overtaking is permitted on a 6m wide two-way road
without markings - though it appears that Mr Voong was not overtaking.

Motorists should be able to judge what is and is not safe, they should
not need signs telling them not to overtake when it is not safe. However
I agree that a 20mph speed limit should be in place in the park.

Absolutely. Similarly, people should not require signs telling them not
to trespass on railway lines and indeed much of the Highway Code is
actually a statement of common sense. Sadly, many people are fallible
and require a certain amount of guidance.

I agree with others that imprisonment would almost certainly be of
benefit to nobody.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

Rob Morley said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Tom Crispin
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Voong had apologized to the victim's widow and two daughters and
offered to help the family in any way. The court was told he had
voluntarily surrendered his licence after the collision. In a
pre-sentence report Voong was said to be of previously good character
with a clean record, a devout Buddhist, and had been diagnosed as
clinically depressed since the incident.

Hardly the typical reckless selfish [censored] who would deserve to be banged
up (for all the good it would do) so why the hysterical headline?

That's not hysterical: it is a statement of fact. I suspect that
'Pleasant, remorseful bloke not sent to prison' would not attract many
readers.

Cheers,
Luke

--
Red Rose Ramblings, the diary of an Essex boy in
exile in Lancashire <http://www.shrimper.org.uk>

On Mar 27, 5:32 pm, David Hansen <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:44:30 +0000 someone who may be Tom Crispin
<[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Police also stated that the car's windscreen appeared to have
shattered at the moment of impact with the cyclist, and not before, as
the defendant's evidence that his windscreen suddenly "went white" had
suggested.

So, the offender's windscreen suddenly "went white" and, instead of
applying the brakes, the offender swerved the vehicle?

I had a windscreen "suddenly go white" on me several years ago (hit by
a stone). It was at night, so not exactly a barrel of laughs, but
stopping the car safely didn't involve any drama. The remainder of the
trip home with no windscreen (once I'd knocked it out) was less fun,
and bits of glass kept dropping out of the air vents for years
afterwards.

James