The point I was trying to make is that when a motorist kills someone through reckless action there is widespread condemnation, but when a cyclist does something similar someone complains that he got a harsher sentence than someone else who did the same driving a car. Someone else states he should not be sent to prison. I really don't understand the difference in attitudes here. Just because some motorists get ridiculously light sentences doesn't mean that it is right to give ridiculously light sentences to everyone who kills someone.
Sentencing should be based on individual circumstances. The cyclist in this incident is described as being "Vulnerable" with "Learning Difficulties". I don't know what those learning difficulties are, but I bet they are more than dyslexia for them to be brought up in court. If these difficulties are severe then it would be wrong to imprison him it he is not an ongoing danger to society.
If the cyclist involved was fully mentally competent, then I think a prison term would have been correct.
If he'd been driving a car this ng would be full of righteous condemnation and calls for long prison sentences. Because he was riding a bike and merely gets a slapped wrist, er, thats OK then. Hypocrisy and double standards of the highest order, do you wonder why everyone (in the words of the Honda ad) hates cyclists?
If it had been a car driver, "motorists" would have complained that he received punishment for the consequence of his offence, not the offence. I wonder what the usual penalty the 80 or so drivers (each year!) get for the same offence?
