Cyclist killer sentence

So he came back afterwards, and that makes it alright. Not.

"John Hearns" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

So he came back afterwards, and that makes it alright. Not.

Hey, it's only a cyclist :-(

Stinks, doesn't it.

Cheers, helen s

wafflycat said:

<http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/news/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=News&tBrand=edponline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED17%20Mar%202006%2018%3A16%3A34%3A063>

or

http://tinyurl.com/pvnbu

about the cyclist who was knocked off his bike and was left for dead in
Fakenham

includes
<snip>
"Mrs Tucker said Mr Walder had a red reflector on the back of his bike
and there was street lighting."

Does that imply the cyclist was unlit?

Zog The Undeniable said:

wafflycat said:

<http://new.edp24.co.uk/content/news/story.aspx?brand=EDPOnline&category=News&tBrand=edponline&tCategory=news&itemid=NOED17%20Mar%202006%2018%3A16%3A34%3A063>

or

http://tinyurl.com/pvnbu

about the cyclist who was knocked off his bike and was left for dead
in Fakenham

includes
<snip>
"Mrs Tucker said Mr Walder had a red reflector on the back of his bike
and there was street lighting."

Does that imply the cyclist was unlit?

I thought that. Would be hard to avoid an unlit cyclist while two and a
half times over the limit.

Zog The Undeniable said:

Does that imply the cyclist was unlit?

Would seem to but I doubt it made a difference since he a) wasn't
looking anyway but fiddling with his CDs b) he was drunk and c) he
didn't know what had hit his windscreen or apparently didn't even notice
a smashed windscreen

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Tosspot said:

I thought that. Would be hard to avoid an unlit cyclist while two and a
half times over the limit.

It doesn't matter how many lights you have if the motorist that hits you
is too busy playing with his CD player to look where he is going.

The moral of this particular tale has little to do with cycle lighting
and everything to do with drunk-driving. Attempting any blame on the
cyclist is beyond despicable.

d.

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

Quoted message said:

It doesn't matter how many lights you have if the motorist that hits you
is too busy playing with his CD player to look where he is going.

The moral of this particular tale has little to do with cycle lighting and
everything to do with drunk-driving. Attempting any blame on the cyclist
is beyond despicable.

d.

Indeed. And I'm fairly certain that if the cyclist had of been unlit, it
would have been reported, knowing how the local rag tends to view
cyclists....

Cheers, helen s

"John Hearns" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

So he came back afterwards, and that makes it alright. Not.

Nothing will "make it alright". A young lad was killed.

However, at least the driver owned up and has faced the system. Many times
the driver has not stopped and has not returned to the scene.

As well as the three and a half year jail sentence, he was given a six-year
driving ban and ordered to take an extended driving test. He'll have plenty
of time to reflect on his actions.

in message <[email hidden]>, elyob

(') said:

"John Hearns" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

So he came back afterwards, and that makes it alright. Not.

Nothing will "make it alright". A young lad was killed.

However, at least the driver owned up and has faced the system. Many
times the driver has not stopped and has not returned to the scene.

As well as the three and a half year jail sentence, he was given a
six-year driving ban and ordered to take an extended driving test.
He'll have plenty of time to reflect on his actions.

You have to think about what prison is for. Either we send people to
prison for retribution - which, it seems to me, achieves nothing - or
for remediation - in which case, surely, two years (which is what he's
likely to serve) ought to be enough to teach anyone how to behave
responsibly - or because we have absolutely no confidence in our ability
to ever make them into safe members of society - in which case a death
sentence would be more humane.

The British criminal justice system does still seem to apply a higher
penalty to property crimes than to killing, and that /is/ shocking; but
frankly I cannot see what would be achieved by locking this particular
idiot up for eight years rather than two.

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

;; lovely alternative to rice.

Simon Brooke said:

You have to think about what prison is for. Either we send people to
prison for retribution - which, it seems to me, achieves nothing - or
for remediation - in which case, surely, two years (which is what he's
likely to serve) ought to be enough to teach anyone how to behave
responsibly - or because we have absolutely no confidence in our ability
to ever make them into safe members of society - in which case a death
sentence would be more humane.

You forgot deterrence. One purpose of a long sentence is to deter
people from offending and as an example to deter others.

As for making them safe members of society, the Home Office published
2002 re-offending rate for motoring offences with custodial or community
sentences, excluding taking and driving away vehicles, was 65%. Does
that give you confidence?

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Simon Brooke said:

You have to think about what prison is for. Either we send people to
prison for retribution - which, it seems to me, achieves nothing - or
for remediation - in which case, surely, two years (which is what he's
likely to serve) ought to be enough to teach anyone how to behave
responsibly - or because we have absolutely no confidence in our ability
to ever make them into safe members of society - in which case a death
sentence would be more humane.

You forgot deterrence. One purpose of a long sentence is to deter people
from offending and as an example to deter others.

Death is a common punishment for dangerous driving so the deterrent effect
of a prison sentence is some what questionable.

A prison sentence does however convey the impression that the crime is taken
very seriously.

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

Quoted message said:

As well as the three and a half year jail sentence, he was given a
six-year driving ban and ordered to take an extended driving test. He'll
have plenty of time to reflect on his actions.

I can't understand the driving ban. Why let him ever have a licence again.

Quoted message said:

John said:

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

Quoted message said:

As well as the three and a half year jail sentence, he was given a
six-year driving ban and ordered to take an extended driving test. He'll
have plenty of time to reflect on his actions.

I can't understand the driving ban. Why let him ever have a licence again.

If there's a life ban there's less incentive to obey the driving ban.
With a fixed term ban there's an incentive to obey the ban with the
knowledge that, at some stage, being able to drive legally again.
--
Let us have a moment of silence for all Americans who
are now stuck in traffic on their way to a health club
to ride a stationary bicycle. -
Congressman Earl Blumenauer (Oregon)

Tom Crispin said:

If there's a life ban there's less incentive to obey the driving ban.
With a fixed term ban there's an incentive to obey the ban with the
knowledge that, at some stage, being able to drive legally again.

The chance of reoffending depends also on the penalties for doing so and
the (actual and perceived) chance of being caught; I'd have thought that
the length of the ban is a minor modifier.

R.

Sounds (sort of) impressive. 35% failure is a bit of a nuisance when you
get hit by some clown who still can't master driving.

--
John Clayton
www.calder-clarion.co.uk

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

As for making them safe members of society, the Home Office published 2002
re-offending rate for motoring offences with custodial or community
sentences, excluding taking and driving away vehicles, was 65%. Does that
give you confidence?

--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham

Tony Raven said:

Zog The Undeniable said:

Does that imply the cyclist was unlit?

Would seem to but I doubt it made a difference since he a) wasn't
looking anyway but fiddling with his CDs b) he was drunk and c) he
didn't know what had hit his windscreen or apparently didn't even notice
a smashed windscreen

True, but it's not going to help the family get much in the way of
compensation, should they intend to sue the driver :-(

"Zog The Undeniable" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:441d1ba4.0@entanet...

Quoted message said:

Tony Raven said:

Zog The Undeniable said:

Does that imply the cyclist was unlit?

Would seem to but I doubt it made a difference since he a) wasn't looking
anyway but fiddling with his CDs b) he was drunk and c) he didn't know
what had hit his windscreen or apparently didn't even notice a smashed
windscreen

True, but it's not going to help the family get much in the way of
compensation, should they intend to sue the driver :-(

The driver has been found guilty. He was over the drink drive limit. He
admits he was not paying attention... If the family do sue, and the
insurance company tried it on... it's exactly the reason why CTC membership
is a good idea and why the Cyclists' Defence Fund is too.

Cheers, helen s

John said:

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You forgot deterrence. One purpose of a long sentence is to deter people
from offending and as an example to deter others.

Death is a common punishment for dangerous driving so the deterrent effect
of a prison sentence is some what questionable.

Death of someone else (as in this case) seems to be the most common
punishment of dangerous driving in the urban environment. It doesn't
seem to have much deterrent effect, and imprisonment of the
perpetrator may well have stronger deterrent.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

"Ian Smith" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

John said:

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

You forgot deterrence. One purpose of a long sentence is to deter
people
from offending and as an example to deter others.

Death is a common punishment for dangerous driving so the deterrent
effect
of a prison sentence is some what questionable.

Death of someone else (as in this case) seems to be the most common
punishment of dangerous driving in the urban environment. It doesn't
seem to have much deterrent effect, and imprisonment of the
perpetrator may well have stronger deterrent.

You miss the point. In many situations reckless drivers also endanger
themselves, this doesn't seem to deter them. Motorcyclists are the classic
example by the deterrence theory they should be the safest drivers.

The way it works is that drivers don't expect to kill someone and hence do
not factor the penalties for doing so into their behaviour.

It seems much more likely that the minor punishments inflicted by speed
cameras and breathalysers have more deterrent effect.

You may feel that the perpetrator deserves a long sentence but this isn't
the same thing as it actually deterring others.