Driver who killed cyclist had been checking WhatsApp messages leading up to collision

Northernbike wrote:

if you drive a car without looking where you are going then it is not 'unfortunate luck' when you hit something or someone but an entirely foreseeable consequence of your inattention

So we agree driving around without paying attention has a foreseeable potential consequence.

But what im saying is the action by the driver is the same regardless of the ACTUAL consequence. Sadly the hitting or not hitting someone when you are not paying attention is down to luck.

The consequence of hitting someone is clearly terrible but, but £60 fine and not banned vs years in prison? why should there be a difference when its the same action, lack of attention / care. For clarity, im not saying the worst outcome should be reduced!

Quote:

I fail to see why the rest of us should have to share the road, whether we are in a cars, on our bikes or walking, with convicted killers

Isnt every person you see on the road holding a phone as bad as the person who has already hit someone? If they have not seen you, but you avoid being hit by your action, you have not only saved yourself you have protected them from a year in jail.

STATO wrote:

Northernbike wrote:

if you drive a car without looking where you are going then it is not 'unfortunate luck' when you hit something or someone but an entirely foreseeable consequence of your inattention

So we agree driving around without paying attention has a foreseeable potential consequence.

But what im saying is the action by the driver is the same regardless of the ACTUAL consequence. Sadly the hitting or not hitting someone when you are not paying attention is down to luck.

The consequence of hitting someone is clearly terrible but, but £60 fine and not banned vs years in prison? why should there be a difference when its the same action, lack of attention / care. For clarity, im not saying the worst outcome should be reduced!

Quote:

I fail to see why the rest of us should have to share the road, whether we are in a cars, on our bikes or walking, with convicted killers

Isnt every person you see on the road holding a phone as bad as the person who has already hit someone? If they have not seen you, but you avoid being hit by your action, you have not only saved yourself you have protected them from a year in jail.

Yes, of course they are. Which is why the only real solution is to install a phone blocker in every car, and make tampering with it punishable by loss of car, phone, driving privilege and liberty. But that doesn't mean the law should ignore those who do manage to kill.

oldstrath wrote:

Yes, of course they are. Which is why the only real solution is to install a phone blocker in every car, and make tampering with it punishable by loss of car, phone, driving privilege and liberty. But that doesn't mean the law should ignore those who do manage to kill.

I have no problems with people in cars using mobile phones as long as they are not driving.

That will mean that passengers won't be able to use their phones either, of course.

Meaulnes wrote:

That will mean that passengers won't be able to use their phones either, of course.

I sometimes think this is a small price to pay. Majority of cars on the road have only a single occupant anyway.

STATO wrote:

Northernbike wrote:

if you drive a car without looking where you are going then it is not 'unfortunate luck' when you hit something or someone but an entirely foreseeable consequence of your inattention

So we agree driving around without paying attention has a foreseeable potential consequence.

But what im saying is the action by the driver is the same regardless of the ACTUAL consequence. Sadly the hitting or not hitting someone when you are not paying attention is down to luck.

Balls to that. 'When you are not paying attention' When exactly are you allowed to not pay attention while driving?
'Oh, lucky I didn't hit that cyclist, considering I was texting'
Like others have said, it's a conscious choice to pick up and use your phone while driving, being remorseful about getting caught or reaping the consequences for an accident shouldn't factor into the equation.
FFS

STATO wrote:

balmybaldwin wrote:

Claiming PTSD is appalling how do you think his family feels?

Sadly, the people causing these incidents are just normal people, not setting out to kill and destroy peoples lives.

They set out to do a dangerous thing while in charge of a lethal weapon. Claiming they didn't set out to kill essentially involves thinking that they are so braindead they cannot comprehend the danger.

STATO wrote:

What we need is more penalty for using them while driving all the time, not more penalty when unfortunate luck turns it into something terrible like loss of life.

We need both, plus much better policing, and the removal of garbage such as 'I feel remorseful' from consideration by courts.

oldstrath wrote:

They set out to do a dangerous thing while in charge of a lethal weapon. Claiming they didn't set out to kill essentially involves thinking that they are so braindead they cannot comprehend the danger.

That's the nub of it. Driving a car is dangerous and difficult to do safely even when not impaired. Making the decision to do something which further increases the risk is intentionally taking a gamble with other people's lives. Why should someone who has proven that they have done this be granted the privilege of operating the dangerous machinery _again_?

STATO wrote:

Using a phone is so easy and so ingrained in society that people forget to put them away, and that 'just a quick check cos it beeped' leads to more and more distraction.

People look at me like I'm a Victorian, or just mad, when my phone beeps and I ignore it.

"But you've got a message!", they cry. "I know, but if it was urgent, they'd call me", I reply.

Or my phone rings and I don't answer it. "But your phone is ringing!", they cry. "That doesn't mean I have to answer it", I reply, "I do have voicemail."

People are gradually becoming slaves to their technology, IMO.

cat1commuter wrote:

I think that if the offence was called "manslaughter" rather than "dangerous driving", this would feel like quite a light sentence. Why is driving so special?

Probably a policy decision. Manslaughter apparently being difficult to secure convictions for - possibly leading to people charged with motoring offences simply being acquitted by juries and walking away free.

cat1commuter wrote:

I think that if the offence was called "manslaughter" rather than "dangerous driving", this would feel like quite a light sentence. Why is driving so special?

Couldn't agree more. There is an urgent need for a sentencing review and change in law or guidance to Judges. Until manslaughter or murder are applied as charges in these cases, irresponsible and reckless idiots will continue to be punished far too leniently.
A few months inside is no reflection on the value of the life that was cruelly taken.

demolitionspecial wrote:

Couldn't agree more. There is an urgent need for a sentencing review and change in law or guidance to Judges. Until manslaughter or murder are applied as charges in these cases, irresponsible and reckless idiots will continue to be punished far too leniently.
A few months inside is no reflection on the value of the life that was cruelly taken.

Murder is irrelevant as there is no intentional to kill. I'm sure it does happen, but that isn't what is going on in these cases. Manslaughter is specifically not used because jury's didn't convict when manslaughter charges were used for these cases. So sure, feel free to change it back to manslaughter, and then you can watch conviction rates slip even further. The best you can hope for is stiffer sentencing, but you may even find that juries were again hesitant to convict because they wouldn't want to be convicted and harshly sentenced if it was them innocently texting while driving 40mph past a school at chucking out time. At which point the lesson we learn is that the general public, for it be they who make up the juries, believe that road deaths are an acceptable price to pay for the convenience of driving, which is pretty sad, but what can you do? Move to the Netherlands perhaps...

vonhelmet wrote:

The best you can hope for is stiffer sentencing, but you may even find that juries were again hesitant to convict because they wouldn't want to be convicted and harshly sentenced if it was them innocently texting while driving 40mph past a school at chucking out time. At which point the lesson we learn is that the general public, for it be they who make up the juries, believe that road deaths are an acceptable price to pay for the convenience of driving, which is pretty sad, but what can you do? Move to the Netherlands perhaps...

Yup, everyone is correct to claim driving is a privilege not a right, but we are so close to it being the other way. Everything about our society now is geared to driving, from where we live (housing estates out of town), how we work (office complexes miles from home), how we shop (retail parks). To juries of our peers driving requires a 'level' of focus, if the defendant is a normal person and not an 'angry yob' then they identify as someone who tries but makes a 'mistake'.

Of course the key fact, there are more and more convictions. Which means our 'peers' are raising the 'cost' of life and 'mistakes' ARE being punished. But its the Judges that pass sentence, and its a slow process to push to tougher sentences.

[Please note my use of ' ' around key words such as 'mistake', yes i know its not before someone rants, but thats what the public thinks like it or not]