Who needs a car? Part 2…

From https://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/news/26690352.driver-sentenced-murder-michael-mullins/ “Richardson has a significant history of driving offences, the court has heard. In April 2011, he was arrested for careless driving and failing to stop or report an accident. He lost control of a vehicle and fled the scene. In July 2012, driving with excess alcohol and driving while disqualified, he once again fled the scene on foot. May 2013: driving while disqualified and without insurance. He gave officers a false name and date of birth; he was suspected of driving with excess alcohol. November 2014: driving with excess alcohol, dangerous driving, failing to stop and no insurance. He tried to drive away from police and fled at speed before crashing into a vehicle and fleeing on foot. He was found to be over the limit. In February 2023, he was convicted of driving without a licence and no insurance. He was stopped, checked, and gave false details to the officer. He remains on bail for affray, ABH, and possession of cocaine in December 2024, and that case is currently listed for trial.” Will there be a review of why he was allowed to remain outside of prison, thus him believing his behaviours were not serious enough to stop now ending up with him killing someone? At what point in a case like this where someone has a list of previous driving offences does the law say “enough is enough, licence revoked, full stop, do anything again end up behind bars for a long time”…? Each instance of his previous dangerous driving would have been a straight fail on a driving test. Yet he was allowed to continue without any significant punishment or deterrent to future offending. If the law had done something more then this murder could have been avoided. But cyclists.

Condolences to Mr Mullins' family. Reading through this article it is beginning to sound like there were opportunities to take Mr Richardson off the road sooner; so many lenient sentences for repeated instances of substandard driving and lawbreaking. The sentences were likely within the rules; perhaps the rules need to change.

@M20MAMIL Thanks. "Richardson has a significant history of driving offences, the court has heard. In April 2011, he was arrested for careless driving and failing to stop or report an accident. He lost control of a vehicle and fled the scene. In July 2012, driving with excess alcohol and driving while disqualified, he once again fled the scene on foot. May 2013: driving while disqualified and without insurance. He gave officers a false name and date of birth; he was suspected of driving with excess alcohol. November 2014: driving with excess alcohol, dangerous driving, failing to stop and no insurance. He tried to drive away from police and fled at speed before crashing into a vehicle and fleeing on foot. He was found to be over the limit. In February 2023, he was convicted of driving without a licence and no insurance. He was stopped, checked, and gave false details to the officer. He remains on bail for affray, ABH, and possession of cocaine in December 2024, and that case is currently listed for trial." Will there be a review of why he was allowed to remain outside of prison, thus him believing his behaviours were not serious enough to stop now ending up with him killing someone? At what point in a case like this where someone has a list of previous driving offences does the law say "enough is enough, licence revoked, full stop, do anything again end up behind bars for a long time"...? Each instance of his previous dangerous driving would have been a straight fail on a driving test. Yet he was allowed to continue without any significant punishment or deterrent to future offending. If the law had done something more then this murder could have been avoided. But cyclists.

@OldTom Good. Nothing much to add to that except to say well done that judge, glad that she acknowledged just how serious the offence was. I hope it might be some tiny crumb of comfort to the Mullins family to know that justice has been properly served. One thing that the case does highlight is that the drink-driving laws are far too soft, this guy had four drink-driving offences on his record including one of drink-driving when disqualified, and given his behaviour and driving at the time of the offence one wouldn't be surprised if he was over the limit then as well, no way of knowing of course. Personally I'd be happy to see drink-driving incur a lifetime ban for a first offence, but I suppose that would be "war on the motorist". At a minimum it should be a five year ban for a first offence and lifetime for a second, if someone has such a problem with alcohol that they are incapable of stopping themselves driving drunk, even when they've previously been banned for it, they clearly are not a fit person to hold a licence to drive on the public highway. Quite possibly it wouldn't have deterred this individual anyway but it might deter some at least.

@M20MAMIL Minimum 25 years. Up from an offence minimum of 15 years due to aggravating factors.

I appreciate Road.cc covering this, thanks, but claiming Critical Mass (in London or anywhere else) has organisers is a misunderstanding of what CM is. There are no organisers. Some people may take what you might call a "leading role", but that can easily be ignored if the majority on the ride decide they do not agree. Clearly in this instance there was a strong enough feeling amongst the riders that this was worthwhile doing. There are no organisers, just people on the ride.

Live updates from the court for sentencing in the Michael Mullins case, by the local newspaper . Lots of previous motoring convictions. https://www.warringtonguardian.co.uk/news/26690352.driver-sentenced-murder-michael-mullins/

Parser error. Not necessarily. It's entirely possible that all those instances were made up... er, I mean, reported, by the same three people.

In fairness, @Borisface says in their other comment that they've ridden steel a lot. It's just aluminium that they have an inexplicable problem with.

I love Exposure lights, but that price is nuts