Twice speed limit driver jailed after cyclist's death

CCTV footage compelled killer to plead guilty

by Mark Appleton   July 29, 2011  

Gavel

A man who drove at twice the speed limit in a built-up area before striking and killing a cyclist, has been jailed, reports the Barnet and Whetstone Press.

Aleksander Preslavski, 22, of Colindale in the London borough of Barnet, pleaded guilty at Harrow Crown Court on Tuesday to a charge of causing death by dangerous driving.

The court heard that on July 20, 2010 at 6.20am while driving a Honda Civic at excessive speed on Uxbridge Road, Preslavski struck 34-year old father of two Rajendra Ramakrishnan near the junction with Cornwall Road.

Mr Ramakrishnan suffered head and neck injuries in the collision and died two days later at the Royal London Hospital, in Whitechapel.

The driver was arrested at the scene of the incident and this week was sentenced to two years and seven months imprisonment and disqualified from driving for three years.

Detective Sergeant Chris Osborne of the Road Death Investigation Unit told the B&W Press: “This serves as a warning that doing double the speed limit in a busy area can not only result in someone’s death, but also a term in jail.

“Using CCTV we were able to provide overwhelming evidence that resulted in the defendant pleading guilty, giving the victim’s family the answers they needed. My thoughts remain with them.”
 

20 user comments

Oldest firstNewest firstBest rated

Why are you showing a Gavel? Is justice now an auction? The Gavel is not used in any British court, only in auction houses.

posted by Kim [127 posts]
29th July 2011 - 10:08

like this
Like (0)

Detective Sergeant Chris Osborne of the Road Death Investigation Unit told the B&W Press: “This serves as a warning that doing double the speed limit in a busy area can not only result in someone’s death, but also a term in jail.

It's an interesting comment, it appears the Police Sgt appears to think that killing somebody needs to have weight added to the severity .. nice thinking.

RhysW's picture

posted by RhysW [73 posts]
29th July 2011 - 10:20

like this
Like (0)

If you're doing twice the speed limit in a built up area, it's premeditated. 2 years for premeditated murder is a fuck1ng joke. As usual.

posted by Matt_S [182 posts]
29th July 2011 - 10:21

like this
Like (1)

who knows about the sentence, does good behaviour mean out in 1.5yrs?

But a three driving ban, has anyone ever actually been given a proper ban i.e. more than 10yrs or life, what would you actually have to do to get a proper ban beyond killing someone on the road.

Will this ban be served whilst he is in prison, becuase if he serves the whole term that would mean a 5month ban.

posted by surreyxc [44 posts]
29th July 2011 - 10:28

like this
Like (1)

Surrey - I'm starting to thinking similarly. Causing a death on the roads should entail a mandatory lifetime ban, in addition to any prison sentence or fine.

Stewie

posted by stewieatb [298 posts]
29th July 2011 - 10:45

like this
Like (0)

So long as the driving licence remains as a sacred right we will never have real justice, just a lottery or an auction.

posted by Kim [127 posts]
29th July 2011 - 10:51

like this
Like (0)

Kim wrote:
Why are you showing a Gavel? Is justice now an auction? The Gavel is not used in any British court, only in auction houses.

we should probably replace it with a picture of a slapped wrist for most of these stories Plain Face

Dave Atkinson's picture

posted by Dave Atkinson [7252 posts]
29th July 2011 - 10:52

like this
Like (1)

As has been observed before here; if you want to kill someone, do it from inside a car, and you'll never face proper punishment.

posted by kace19 [22 posts]
29th July 2011 - 10:57

like this
Like (0)

Aged 22 and with a three year ban it'll be 10 years at least until he can afford insurance to drive again. To be honest, I feel more for the victim's family and what they're going through. I don't really care about the bloke who caused the accident.

OldRidgeback

posted by OldRidgeback [2132 posts]
29th July 2011 - 11:23

like this
Like (0)

Agree with Surreyxc.

Surely a ten year ban is the only effective deterrent for drivers? 3 years passes quickly but 10 years would really make them think.

posted by londonplayer [671 posts]
29th July 2011 - 11:24

like this
Like (1)

Maybe a picture of the driver next time?

posted by smernicki [29 posts]
29th July 2011 - 11:26

like this
Like (1)

OldRidgeback wrote:
Aged 22 and with a three year ban it'll be 10 years at least until he can afford insurance to drive again.

Call me cycnical if you like but I doubt whether a three year ban or the lack of insurance will prevent a little shit like this from getting behind the wheel of a car.

cavasta's picture

posted by cavasta [197 posts]
29th July 2011 - 13:30

like this
Like (1)

cavasta wrote:
OldRidgeback wrote:
Aged 22 and with a three year ban it'll be 10 years at least until he can afford insurance to drive again.

Call me cycnical if you like but I doubt whether a three year ban or the lack of insurance will prevent a little shit like this from getting behind the wheel of a car.

The cops have finally woken up to the dangers posed by uninsured drivers. He'll be a marked man. If he gets behind the wheel he'll be stopped not too long after. ANPR does a lot of the donkey work.

OldRidgeback

posted by OldRidgeback [2132 posts]
29th July 2011 - 14:08

like this
Like (1)

disqualification from driving should commence on release from prison since they can't drive anyway while locked up.

antonio

antonio's picture

posted by antonio [933 posts]
29th July 2011 - 16:33

like this
Like (1)

Matt_S wrote:
If you're doing twice the speed limit in a built up area, it's premeditated. 2 years for premeditated murder is a fuck1ng joke. As usual.

B*ll*cks. Premeditated requires an intention to kill. Although driving at double the speed limit is undeniably reckless it doesn't mean the driver set out with the intention of killing someone.

What price would be satisfactory? 10 years? 20? I'm sure to the family of the dead man no penalty would be good enough.

Ticktock

posted by Michael5 [121 posts]
29th July 2011 - 19:34

like this
Like (1)

How about a sentence that will make more people think twice? That sentence is not a deterrent.

posted by moonbucket [55 posts]
29th July 2011 - 20:43

like this
Like (1)

death caused by dangerous driving should be on par with manslaughter sentances wise. The shit should've got a longer ban & at least 5 years in the chokey.

posted by sam_smith [48 posts]
31st July 2011 - 16:47

like this
Like (1)

I am not a lawyer but I think murder is defined as having "mens rea" or sometimes in English "malice aforethought". Manslaughter is defined as causing death through reckless or negligent behaviour and understanding that such behaviour might cause death and not caring. I could just about get someone driving 10 or 20% over the limit not being regarded as reckless etc, but TWICE the limit in a built-up area?

The conviction should have been for manslaughter, for which a sentence of up to about 10 years, and up to about 6 served, would have been commensurate.

posted by Paul M [306 posts]
31st July 2011 - 17:01

like this
Like (1)

On the subject of sentencing, why is it now so common for sentences to be nearly halved for 'good behaviour'? I'm beginning to suspect that the bar for 'good' behaviour is set drastically too low.

Stewie

posted by stewieatb [298 posts]
31st July 2011 - 18:22

like this
Like (1)

You will find that when soemeone is a dizzy driver they either dont drive at all or dont give a stuff and continue to drive each and every day, so banning them for long periods doesn't make much sense as if they get caught the courts are very reluctant to send them to prison.

A previous entry about ANPR was correct but if a dizzy driver is going out in someone else's car it wont flag up on the system.

If you must break the law, do it to seize power: in all other cases observe it. Gaius Julius Caesar.

stumps's picture

posted by stumps [2669 posts]
31st July 2011 - 20:39

like this
Like (1)