Taxi driver who killed cyclist and blamed fatal crash on being "blinded by sun" gets six-month suspended sentence

There may well be an element of that but I'm afraid such words too often precede pathetically weak sentences for me to believe that there isn't also at least an element of "so there's no real point in a stiff sentence" involved as well.

The judges abide by detailed sentencing guidelines. It's not so much "there's no point using the maximum sentence" as "the guidelines don't indicate that I should use the maximum". I'm not saying that I think this sentence is adequate. I'm just saying it's not necessarily the individual judge (though of course they have to apply the rules), but the sentencing framework that they work within. Here's the guideline for death by careless: https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/causing-death-by-careless-or-inconsiderate-driving/   Looks like they assessed him as culpability C, mitigated by no previous convictions, aggravated by vulnerable victim, reduced for guilty plea etc.  

I'd argue that culpability B would be more appropriate, specifically "Unsafe manoeuvre or positioning". "Driving for commercial purposes" is also an aggravating factor alongside, as you note, the fact that the victim was a cyclist. We can't know if the judge has decided it's culpability B or C as the sentence is the lowest allowable for B and midrange for C. It would help if the judge had to provide a detailed public explanation of the reasoning for sentencing rather than just some (in my opinion) weasel words about "no sentence can bring the victim back so..."

quiff wrote:

I always take these judicial comments as a recognition that the often the family of the victim will also be in the room hearing the sentence. Trite as it is, it's a human response to them. Rather than signalling a misunderstanding of the role, I think recognising that no sentence could compensate for their loss underlines that that is not and can not be the purpose of sentencing.     

This is why I think that causing someone's death by careless/dangerous driving should result in a lifetime ban. It at least provides the grieving family/friends with a modicum of relief that the driver won't be allowed a second chance to put another family through the same ordeal.

The purpose of sentencing may not be to compensate the family but it should give them a sense that justice has been done. Surely they have a right to expect that. Had the cyclist been killed by a gun then the charge would be manslaughter and if this sentence had been the result I would expect the family to be incensed by it. As others have said, prison may not be the answer (he stopped at the scene and seemed to show genuine remorse although pleading guilty to dangerous driving would have confirmed that) but a lengthy driving ban would not have gone amiss (just as if it ahd been a gun I would expect the firearms licence, or whatever is needed to own a gun, to be revoked).

For what it's worth, I'm not trying to defend the sentence, and I do agree with all the calls for longer bans. 12 months' disqualification is the minimum for this offence, and it gets increased if they've had previous bans - how many chances does someone need?