A man who mowed down three cyclists as they crossed a road has been spared jail, despite police investigators’ belief that had he been travelling at the 40mph speed limit, he should have been able to stop between 24 and 45 metres before the location of the crash.
The Daily Echo reports that Peter Mead, Elizabeth Hutchings and their daughter, Saffron Mead, 14, were returning to their caravan at the Hollands Wood Campsite in the New Forest after a bike ride on Saturday, September 27, 2014. Having dismounted, they tried to cross the A337 between Lymington and Brockenhurst but were hit by Kyle Lloyd’s Aston Martin.
Peter Mead sustained a fractured lower leg and cuts and bruises and after being resuscitated by paramedics was flown to Southampton General Hospital by air ambulance. Hutchings sustained two broken thigh bones and a broken ankle, while Saffron Mead sustained a fractured jaw and injuries to her teeth.
One motorist told police that Lloyd was travelling so fast that “it was incredible”. Another said he heard the sound of the engine “screaming”.
During his trial at Bournemouth Crown Court, Lloyd said: “I drove off like an idiot unfortunately. [The car] had a noisy engine and I was accelerating away like an idiot.”
Simon Jones, prosecuting, said that Lloyd had travelled at an average speed of 63mph between the train station in Brockenhurst and the site of the crash outside Setleyridge Vineyard – a stretch of road where the speed limit is first 30mph and then 40mph.
Lloyd admitted that he had been speeding, but said that after taking a corner too quickly, he had slowed down.
He said he “glanced” in his wing mirror at a car travelling in the opposite direction and then realised the family were in the middle of the road. He attempted to swerve around them, saying he had no time to brake.
Lloyd was found guilty of three counts of driving without due care and attention, but not guilty of three counts of causing serious injury by dangerous driving. He will return to court for sentencing on May 6. The maximum sentence for driving without due care and attention is an unlimited fine.
61 thoughts on “Aston Martin driver who hit family of cyclists while driving ‘like an idiot’ spared jail”
Beggars belief. Revoke his
Beggars belief. Revoke his driving licence. He’s clearly not capable of controlling a car
I have to stop reading these
I have to stop reading these cases. Too frustrating. Makes you want to break out some Dexter-like vigilante justice.
There will come a time when
There will come a time when some people will get so pissed off with the continued leniency handed out to reckless and dangerous drivers, that they will gather up their pitchforks and have themselves a lynching.
Whether those lynched will be the judges, CPS or the drivers themselves remains to be seen.
zanf wrote:
Where he lives (or at least the address he gave to the court) is a short road with no secure parking. I would imagine he won’t be parking his expensive cock replacement device anywhere nearby.
For every Hillsborough jury there are twenty like this one. I’m surprised he’s even been convicted as most of the evidence will have been circumstantial.
zanf wrote:
What would be better is if someone organised a die-in at the court on May 6th when the driver returns for sentencing. Would be good to coincide with his arrival and/or judgement and to get the event covered by the local/national press.
I’d consider heading down for the day to participate.
the victims get broken bones
the victims get broken bones but flash harry with his aston & expensive briefs gets just a fine. Just love British justice, perhaps natural justice might occur in the fullness of time.
had someone from a council estate mown him and his family down what sort of justice would he find appropriate i wonder…
In my daydreaming i have the
In my daydreaming i have the smug twat coming back for sentencing and the magistrate fully exercising the unlimited fine. In reality it will be a couple of hundred quid.
Also I would make him watch the crushing of his stupid car.
And yet again we see these
And yet again we see these totally unacceptable and not fit for purpose Road Traffic Act offences in play. This idiot driver should have gone to prison for two years and lost his licence for 10 years. I am totally ashamed of our justice system. It is wholly unfit for today’s society.
How is that not dangerous
How is that not dangerous driving? I would expect jail time for incidents caused by breaking the speed limit. Or maybe GBH/ABH.
Hmmm so the origional charges
Hmmm so the origional charges are Three counts of causing serious injury by dangerous driving. Based on the list of injuries below seems reasonable concidering he admitted he was driving like an Idiot.
fractured lower leg
cuts and bruises
stopped breathing and was resuscitated
two broken thigh bones
a broken ankle
fractured jaw
injuries to teeth
So how the Fuck is it possible to be found guilty of three counts of driving without due care and attention!!!!!!!
Beggers belief.
Yet another one -deliberately
Yet another one -deliberately breaking the law, and in doing so injures people. Ludicrous pro car killer bias in our joke system. Hopefully someone will offer him real justice.
If it was a black teen from a
If it was a black teen from a ghetto, he would have got 20 years jail term.
Dreadful clickbait reporting.
Dreadful clickbait reporting.
He hasnt been ‘spared jail’. He has been acquitted by a jury of all of the charges that could possibly carry a jail sentence.
Those blaming the judge or the CPS, what more do you want? The CPS pressed serious charges and presented strong evidence. Once again a jury acquits. You think a judge should overrule and jail him anyway?
Place the blame fair and square where it belongs. The toxic politicisation of cycling culture had led to a them and us situation and unfortunately there are more of them than us.
We have become so despised by the general public that you can now run down a decent family obeying the rules of the road and a jury will side with you.
So depressing.
L.Willo wrote:
I think there’s more to it than that.
Cyclists are a minority of the population so the vast majority of jurors are not cyclists but are motorists. And they sit there wondering if they’ve ever done something that might be dangerous if that happened or if that was different.
And so they acquit, because they realise that they have, and that they therefore have to give the accused the benefit of the doubt. Because if they didn’t, they’d have to admit that there but for the grace of God &c &c…
brooksby wrote:
I think there’s more to it than that.
Cyclists are a minority of the population so the vast majority of jurors are not cyclists but are motorists. And they sit there wondering if they’ve ever done something that might be dangerous if that happened or if that was different.
And so they acquit, because they realise that they have, and that they therefore have to give the accused the benefit of the doubt. Because if they didn’t, they’d have to admit that there but for the grace of God &c &c… — L.Willo
The majority of the jurors will also be members of families and can imagine themselves on holiday trying to cross a road with their kids and being run over by a speeding lunatic. They still acquitted.
Cannot be proved one way or the other but my gut feeling is that the family would have got justice if they were not associated with cycling. It has become such a toxic issue, especially in the last year or two.
[/quote]
[/quote]
The majority of the jurors will also be members of families and can imagine themselves on holiday trying to cross a road with their kids and being run over by a speeding lunatic. They still acquitted.
Cannot be proved one way or the other but my gut feeling is that the family would have got justice if they were not associated with cycling. It has become such a toxic issue, especially in the last year or two.
[/quote]
I would agree….essentially if you’re a cyclist you’re in the way, you’re holding me up, you’re a nuisance. I truly believe the outcome would have been viewed differently without the bikes, by association it appears to lower the sentence/view of the jury.
I get that the judge is now unable to hand down a custodial sentence but given the apparent disregard for law, the injuries sustained and the availability of an ‘unlimited fine’ I would be setting the minimum penalty as the cost of a new Aston for starters…plus some for being a dickhead
brooksby wrote:
I think there’s more to it than that.
Cyclists are a minority of the population so the vast majority of jurors are not cyclists but are motorists. And they sit there wondering if they’ve ever done something that might be dangerous if that happened or if that was different.— L.Willo
Substitute Cyclist with Jewish/Black/disabled (any other minority group) and then consider the sentence handed down by the biased jury… The system would be radically overhauled to prevent bias and discrimination.
L.Willo wrote:
I don’t think I entirely disagree with you… Except you haven’t said where the blame belongs.
Who or what exactly is to blame for this toxic politicisation? Boardman, Gilligan, reason and evidence? Trollumnists and mouth-breather commenters who will always consider the car as the primary mode of transport anyway? Clarkson? London cab lobbyists?
There is a them and us – quite right, but not all parties are to blame for that.
davel wrote:
The cause is of academic interest (it will literally take a few government committees to address) and the cause needs to be addressed long term. However, the short term fix is very easy. It’s already being done in Europe and other parts of the world. Change the liability system such that the vulnerable riad user is protected! If this had happened in Germany (where I lived and drove) the driver would need to explain what the pedestrians/cyclists had done wrong in order to prevent the book from being thrown at him. Given the circumstances of this case there would be no wiggle room for the jury. The consequence of that legal starting point is that as a driver you are aware that your actions have consequences – you need to not only be able to show that you passively did nothing wrong but that you were actively driving with care and able to react to small but predictable mistakes by vulnerable road users. Rather like the change in societal views on drink driving, the fix is both a quick legal change which leaves no wiggle room for juries and a longer term societal education plan. The change in the legal system re-enforces the societal attitude change: people don’t want to be stigmatised with a criminal record.
L.Willo wrote:
Hear hear. I blame the cyclists for making themselves despised. They should have stayed in the bike lane where they belong instead of outraging motoring juries on the public highway.
If that was my wife and
If that was my wife and daughter, I would make sure he suffered appropriately.
“He said … he had no time
“He said … he had no time to brake ” – well of course not, if he was travelling at nearly twice the speed limit!!!
brooksby wrote:
How on earth does driving at
How on earth does driving at 63mph on average not meet this legal definition of dangerous driving?
‘the way he/she drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous’
Juries need to be barred from cases involving cyclists being injured or killed.
One solution is to simply define what constitutes dangerous driving such as, texting at speed limit, speeding 60% over speed limit in residential areas, not concentrating on the road for xx number of seconds etc etc. Take the decision out of juries hands – let the evidence decide.
kie7077 wrote:
well this exactly, how does driving at double the speed limit,being involved in an accident almost certainly as a direct consequence because of stopping distances etc etc, not constitute dangerous driving.
Can anyone from the CPS, judiciary,solicitors, random jury members not just explain that part to us lay folk, because it doesnt make any sense to me, you break the careful and considerate driver part as soon as you go beyond the speed limit, you travel at double the speed limit and cause a crash, thats dangerous driving, I mean what on earth do these people think dangerous driving is, some kind of Mad Max Fury Road style approach to driving !?!?
Awavey wrote:
How on earth does driving at 63mph on average not meet this legal definition of dangerous driving?
‘the way he/she drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous’— Awavey
— kie7077 well this exactly, how does driving at double the speed limit,being involved in an accident almost certainly as a direct consequence because of stopping distances etc etc, not constitute dangerous driving. Can anyone from the CPS, judiciary,solicitors, random jury members not just explain that part to us lay folk, because it doesnt make any sense to me, you break the careful and considerate driver part as soon as you go beyond the speed limit, you travel at double the speed limit and cause a crash, thats dangerous driving, I mean what on earth do these people think dangerous driving is, some kind of Mad Max Fury Road style approach to driving !?!?
I don’t know anything about this case other than what I read in the news but I note that he was charged, according to the Echo, with causing serious injury by dangerous driving. Correct charge: doing 70 in a 40 and causing that crash is plainly dangerous.
His defence was that he had indeed been going very fast but that he had then slowed down to 40 before the crash. If the jury find that this might be true (innocent until PROVEN guilty being reasonable doubt) then it is right he be acquitted because the injuries were not caused by dangerous driving if he’d stopped driving dangerously beforehand. It sounds like a nonsense defence to me, but sometimes that’s juries for you.
Dan S wrote:
I don’t know anything about this case other than what I read in the news but I note that he was charged, according to the Echo, with causing serious injury by dangerous driving. Correct charge: doing 70 in a 40 and causing that crash is plainly dangerous.
His defence was that he had indeed been going very fast but that he had then slowed down to 40 before the crash. If the jury find that this might be true (innocent until PROVEN guilty being reasonable doubt) then it is right he be acquitted because the injuries were not caused by dangerous driving if he’d stopped driving dangerously beforehand. It sounds like a nonsense defence to me, but sometimes that’s juries for you.
There seems to be clear conflict between that statement and the drivers further statement that when he saw them he tried to go round them as there wasn’t time to stop.
wycombewheeler wrote:
How on earth does driving at 63mph on average not meet this legal definition of dangerous driving?
‘the way he/she drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous’— wycombewheeler
— Dan S well this exactly, how does driving at double the speed limit,being involved in an accident almost certainly as a direct consequence because of stopping distances etc etc, not constitute dangerous driving. Can anyone from the CPS, judiciary,solicitors, random jury members not just explain that part to us lay folk, because it doesnt make any sense to me, you break the careful and considerate driver part as soon as you go beyond the speed limit, you travel at double the speed limit and cause a crash, thats dangerous driving, I mean what on earth do these people think dangerous driving is, some kind of Mad Max Fury Road style approach to driving !?!?— Awavey
I don’t know anything about this case other than what I read in the news but I note that he was charged, according to the Echo, with causing serious injury by dangerous driving. Correct charge: doing 70 in a 40 and causing that crash is plainly dangerous.
His defence was that he had indeed been going very fast but that he had then slowed down to 40 before the crash. If the jury find that this might be true (innocent until PROVEN guilty being reasonable doubt) then it is right he be acquitted because the injuries were not caused by dangerous driving if he’d stopped driving dangerously beforehand. It sounds like a nonsense defence to me, but sometimes that’s juries for you.
— kie7077 There seems to be clear conflict between that statement and the drivers further statement that when he saw them he tried to go round them as there wasn’t time to stop.
At 40mph the reacting distance is approximately 40ft. That’s how far he would travel before he could realistically hit the brake or turn the wheel. Thereafter the braking distance is about another 80ft. Swerving generally takes less distance than braking.
Dan S wrote:
I don’t know anything about this case other than what I read in the news but I note that he was charged, according to the Echo, with causing serious injury by dangerous driving. Correct charge: doing 70 in a 40 and causing that crash is plainly dangerous.
His defence was that he had indeed been going very fast but that he had then slowed down to 40 before the crash. If the jury find that this might be true (innocent until PROVEN guilty being reasonable doubt) then it is right he be acquitted because the injuries were not caused by dangerous driving if he’d stopped driving dangerously beforehand. It sounds like a nonsense defence to me, but sometimes that’s juries for you.
— Awavey There seems to be clear conflict between that statement and the drivers further statement that when he saw them he tried to go round them as there wasn’t time to stop.— kie7077
At 40mph the reacting distance is approximately 40ft. That’s how far he would travel before he could realistically hit the brake or turn the wheel. Thereafter the braking distance is about another 80ft. Swerving generally takes less distance than braking.
If you drive round a corner so fast that you cannot react to something blocking the road, that is dangerous.
wycombewheeler wrote:
There seems to be clear conflict between that statement and the drivers further statement that when he saw them he tried to go round them as there wasn’t time to stop.— Awavey
At 40mph the reacting distance is approximately 40ft. That’s how far he would travel before he could realistically hit the brake or turn the wheel. Thereafter the braking distance is about another 80ft. Swerving generally takes less distance than braking. — kie7077
If you drive round a corner so fast that you cannot react to something blocking the road, that is dangerous.
Ah, sorry, I misunderstood your point. I thought you were saying that there’s a conflict between “going at 40” and “trying to go round because there wasn’t time to stop”.
The problem is that, in true legal fashion, the test for “dangerous driving” isn’t “was it dangerous”! It’s “does the standard fall far below that of a reasonable, careful and competent driver?”. Note, not a perfect driver, just a reasonable one. The only difference between careless and dangerous is the word “far” in that test.
As an aside, it often informally comes down to careless being inadvertent (“mistakes” and “errors of judgment”) and dangerous being deliberate “grossly excessive speed, aggressive overtaking, road rage, driving the wrong way down dual carriageways etc (and that’s just one case from last week…).
Driving around a corner at a speed that means you can’t react to something blocking the road certainly could be found to be far below but it might equally (and here plainly was) found to be merely “below” that standard. Misjudging your speed can happen to anybody, even on roads you know pretty well. And, at least in my experience, whether you’re driving or on a bike (for myself, I’ve also misjudged speed, cornering and stopping on horseback and in a kayak, but that’s perhaps less relevant).
It’s impossible to judge it without seeing and hearing all of the evidence. That’s why it is generally silly to state as fact opinions formed on the basis of short reports in the papers or on forums. Court reporting is sometimes good, sometimes bad and sometimes plain awful (bit like driving, really). The judge and jury heard the evidence and we didn’t. It isn’t good enough simply to go from a few third hand paragraphs to alleging that juries got it wrong.
kie7077 wrote:
Shall we apply a moment’s thought to that suggestion? I’ll skip over my incredulity at the suggestion that injuring a cyclist is somehow to be tested more seriously than rape and murder and just ask a few questions.
1. No jury if a cyclist is killed or injured. Is that a blanket ban? Does the cyclist get any say? Does being injured while cycling deprive me of my right to have the guy tried by a jury? Or is it my choice? Does riding a bike allow me to decide whether or not the last thousand years or so of criminal justice should be disapplied?
2. Define cyclist. In this case they had dismounted and were walking with their bikes. Are they cyclists? What if they’d left their bikes on one side of the road and were crossing to the coffee shop? What if a driver hits a car and knocks it into a cyclist? He gets a jury for injuring the car driver but not for the cyclist? And what if one person says the victim was cycling and one says he wasn’t – jury or not?
3.For that matter, are we just talking about drivers? What if it’s a collision between two cyclists? What if it’s a cyclist racing along the pavement and hitting a child? Cyclist falls off and injures himself – jury in his trial? Does the child’s dad get a jury if he pulls the cyclist off his bike for inuring the child?
4. Define inured. If I scrape my knee is there a jury? If there’s no contact but I fall because I swerve? What if I say I was inured and the other guy says I wasn’t – who decides whether he gets a jury?
3. Moving past the procedural points, let’s look at “take the decision out of juries hands – let the evidence decide”. I don’t want to get too technical here but who decides what the evidence says? Let’s say that texting is dangerous. One witness says that the driver was texting, one says he wasn’t. Let’s let the evidence decide that. Was he texting or not?
At the moment we get 12 people together, show them the evidence and they swear to return a true verdict according to the evidence. We call them a jury. How would your system work where there is some contradiction in evidence (as there is in basically every case ever)?
Dan S wrote:
In your eagerness to defend the jury system, and explain how unfair it would be to privilege cyclists, I think you miss the point. It’s not about privileging cyclists, it’s about ending the default that you can drive a powerful, dangerous, vehicle, within any real thought for consequences.
It should not be about punishment, it should simply be that if you show, in particular by injuring or killing a vulnerable road user, that you are not fit to drive safely in the current road system, your licence should be revoked. No argument, no juries. Because as the one with the power, you should also bear the responsibility.
In a half-sensible world, we would also expect frequent retesting, including physical and psychiatric evaluation. Maybe then people would finally take driving as the serious, scary privilege it really is. Maybe some of them would stop.
oldstrath wrote:
Speaking of missing the point, one of the main things I was saying in my reply was that you cannot say “if you show…” while also removing the people who decide whether you show something.
If you show WHOM that you are not fit to drive safely? If there’s no jury, who decides whether you injured somebody? Who decides whether you drove safely? Cyclist says the driver left hooked him, driver says cyclist swerved in front of him. Who is telling the truth? Are you going to revoke a licence every time somebody alleges bad driving, without actually testing that allegation?
And what if the cyclist says he had to swerve to avoid a car drifting in and thus hit the kerb and fell? Driver says he didn’t drift, cyclist just wobbled and fell. Who decides which is true? And who decides whether that counts as not being safe to drive?
I agree that driving offences are under-sentenced. And unlike most people on this forum, I actually know what I’m talking about, because I see it first hand rather than just reading short summaries on the internet. I agree that drivers should have regular retests. But you cannot have a justice system that doesn’t have a body responsible for determining who’s telling the truth. That is the purpose of a jury.
Is it just me, or were these
Is it just me, or were these people just crossing the road with pushbikes? Therefore not technically cycling?
Also, lay of the nasty comments about the Aston, they’re a lovely car, and not always driven by cocks. (No, I haven’t got one, I wish :))
cw42 wrote:
Yea great cars. I’m sure you can go pretty fast without even realising. Nice and quiet.
And corner quickly. Right before hitting people.
Maybe you want one for the fuel efficiency though. Or the emmisions.
Thankfully not everyone can afford an Aston Martin.
How glad would we be if the
How glad would we be if the judge/jury turned around and recommended a lifetime revoking of his liscence, his car to be sold at auction (money raised going to victims) and a ton of community service.
I know that would feel quite close to justice in my book.
dafydd_llywelyn wrote:
Unfortunately I don’t think those options are available in this case. But yes, lifetime ban is all I’m really after for this type
dafydd_llywelyn wrote:
I wouldn’t be. I’d be very concerned that at least two orders not available to the Court were being exercised.
bendertherobot wrote:
Fair… I was semi-fanticising. I’m no expert on law (by which I mean I know very nearly nothing about it.)
I do think it is a weakness
I do think it is a weakness of the English and Welsh legal system that juries are not called on to explain their decisions.
Living in Lymington he will
Living in Lymington he will have been a regular driver on that road so he will have known the conditions. Its the main route out to the north connecting to Brockenhurst & Lyndhurst. For the most part (the section where he admits he was doing 70) it is tree-lined and sight lines aren’t long. That’s not the case where he hit them – straight road and relatively open.
Its not a road where you would expect to see pedestrians as for the most part there are no pavements – I’m guessing the family were walking across intending to get on their bikes on the opposite side of the carriageway. As tourists they wouldn’t have been aware of the nature of the road as being one that local cyclists avoid like the plague unless they have no choice. Too many drivers travelling too fast – often in a hurry to get to the ferry in Lymington. Much quieter forest roads are close enough to warrant a detour.
Assuming the pedestrians weren’t complete lemmings I just don’t understand how he didn’t see them as a result of a momentary glance in his wing mirror. The sight lines are just too long there. More likely he was distracted by something in his car.
Decide for yourself, this is the accident site.
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Setley+Ridge+Vineyard+%26+Farm+Shop/@50.80603,-1.5706719,14z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x73b76f3f1870a0d2
He’s heading south to Lymington, they’re crossing the road to get on their bikes to head north to Hollands Wood (campsite north of Brockenhurst)
The Driver is a fucking cunt,
The Driver is a fucking cunt, the justice system is a fucking joke.
This article is about how
This article is about how dangerous driving cases should not go before a jury
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/08/drivers-who-kill-remove-right-to-trial-by-jury-death-cyclists-pedestrians-justice
nicmason wrote:
Interesting bit……
“If you happen to be charged with dangerous driving or causing death by careless driving, should you choose a magistrates’ court trial the maximum penalty for either is six months in prison. But opt for a judge and jury and this rises, respectively, to two and five years.
So why is your defence lawyer likely to advise you to take the latter option? It’s because they know from experience that juries have a poorer record of convicting drivers, especially if the victim is a cyclist or a pedestrian.”
nicmason wrote:
I would prefer to see them go before specialised juries of driving examiners. The trouble is most people think there are experts on driving when they are not.
nicmason wrote:
Interesting article. The obvious problem is that magistrates have a maximum sentence of 6 months available to them. Death by dangerous driving is therefore not something that should be before them. I agree about death by careless.
As Terry Pratchett said,
As Terry Pratchett said, privilege means private law. The law of the rich who can buy the lawyer expertise to convince juries to let them off. His statement clearly is contradicted by the police evidence. Bet the judge didn’t point that out before they considered their verdict.
On the surface of it, another
On the surface of it, another frustrating case. Charging, findings, and sentencing are all different parts and its sad to see how infrequently they align. It’s especially frustrating when it’s juries that return peverse outcomes 🙁 Very little you can do about that except remove trial by jury in these cases.
The people who were the
The people who were the unfortunate receipients of the front end of the Aston; are they able to appeal against any decision or sentencing handed down?
Rapha Nadal wrote:
Anyone can complain to the Attorney General for review – from a different thread:
zanf [795 posts] 4 days ago
3 likes
I’ve posted this before but if everyone who is pissed at the leniency of his sentence, made a formal complaint, Attorney General would have to consider reviewing his sentence, and possibly send it to the Court of Appeal.
https://www.gov.uk/complain-about-low-crown-court-sentence(link is external)
Attorney General’s Office
http://www.attorneygeneral.gov.uk(link is external)
correspondence@attorneygeneral.gsi.gov.uk
Telephone: 020 7271 2492
Monday to Friday, 9am to 5pm
quote
– See more at: http://road.cc/content/news/187304-drunk-driver-who-killed-plymouth-cyclist-sentenced#sthash.eXFFoZbL.dpuf
To “lighten” the mood and go
To “lighten” the mood and go slightly OT – what group again is it that the residents of the New Forest hate for the danger they cause? Oh yes cyclists. Bloody cyclists getting off their bikes and trying g to cross the road. They are worse than ISIL.
I should go back to driving
I should go back to driving like bell-end, seems attitudes have changed!
Many years ago,In my driving a car with extra lamps on days, I got done for dangerous driving for a far lesser offence than this. I’d have probably just get a driver awareness course if I’d done it now.
Or maybe I just didn’t hit a cyclist?
It is a shame that the
It is a shame that the results have come to this.
One hopes that the fine will be appropriate given his wealth and that this will pave the way for the victims to sue for suitable compensation.
While I realise that this fine is unlimited in its scope, I do sometimes wonder if we should have a system like in some European countries where the fine is based on income of the individual for those which are limited.
What make were their bikes?
What make were their bikes?
Just what do you have to do
Just what do you have to do get convicted of dangerous driving you are driving nearly twice the speed limit. You caused an injury by driving dangerously, fact.
The fact he is in an expesnsive car is irrelvent, the face the people injured were cyclists is irrelent as they were just crossing the road on foot, therefore they were pedestrians.
People like this need to be made an example of and given hefty sentences and fines that have some corralation with the physical and mental injury they have caused…..and yes, crush his silly car
The legal deliniation between
The legal deliniation between careless and dangerous driving seems so arbitrary in so many cases.
Logically if you are within the speed limit, are distracted and hit someone that is careless driving ‘without due date and attention’.
If you are above the speed limit and hit someone whether distracted or not – that is dangerous driving surely? Or what is the speed limit for?
The government is in denial about how many accidents are caused by speeding. The public know it is dangerous but will carry on pushing the boundaries until speeding becomes unacceptable through ad campaigns – or people start losing their licence for at least 10 years – or life if they take a life.
A friend of mine who is not a stupid person told me she thought 20mph signs were just advisory rather than the legal limit. It’s this kind of vagueness which is encouraging speeding still.
But he’s been acquitted of
But he’s been acquitted of the serious charges and not yet sentenced on the others. What complaint would be made?
Before you blame the justice
Before you blame the justice system you have to ask why ARE CASES NOT GOING TO COURT AND DRIVERS SENT ON COURSES.
86 courts are being closed due to ‘lack of work’ this year. Why? because the POLICE are not sending the matters to the CPS, instead the Police and sending people on courses, giving them cautions or fixed penalty notices. Many are justfied, but many are not.
Have you been involved in a traffic matter? DId the Police say to you, do you want the driver prosecuted? Often the response is No because people don’t want to get involved. You need to complain to your MP, the Chief Constable, local newspaper etc
The courts have to sentence in accordance with the Sentencing Guidelines, the Police do not. This needs to be changed and the decision removed from the Police. The Police get money from every person sent on a course and avoid the paperwork associated with going to court.
You can see the Sentencing Guidelines at
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/the-magistrates-court-sentencing-guidelines/
9 month ban, £1000 fine
9 month ban, £1000 fine. For seriously injuring three people and for driving at an average of 63mph in a 30/40 limit.
Apparantly the poor lamb has been emotionally affected by it and the ban will affect his business and mean it will be difficult for him to see his son. Bless
http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/14477556.Aston_Martin_driver_who_crashed_into_family_of_cyclists_given_nine_month_ban/?ref=twtrec#comments-anchor
kil0ran wrote:
https://www.gov.uk/complain-about-low-crown-court-sentence
done.
atgni wrote:
Only certain types of case can be reviewed, including:
murder
rape
robbery
some child sex crimes and child cruelty
some serious fraud
some serious drug crimes
crimes committed because of the victim’s race or religion
OK, so we all pray at the altar of Le Man but I’m not sure that would apply to this family… 🙂