Drug driver who caused horrific crash which seriously injured cyclist avoids jail, given 10-month suspended sentence

Presumably "shocked, I was shocked"... and then "not rushing to leave my safe space having just seen a graphic demonstration of how fragile vulnerable road users are"?

"close call"....it might have been an actual person....

Eburt is exactly right!

So, by "close call" did he mean "nobody died"? Because otherwise, saying it was just a close call is f-ing insane! 

Bill H wrote:

I thought that cannabis was supposed to calm you down?

For most users it does, although there is some evidence that heavy long-term use of stronger variants such as skunk can lead to psychotic events. Unfortunately it also tends to remove inhibitions and therefore encourages risk-taking behaviours which, coupled with the impairment to perception it also imposes, can lead to fatal errors of judgement. The correct sentencing for driving in such a condition seems still to need working on; if the driver in this case had twice the legal amount of alcohol in their blood one would think it very unlikely they would have got such lenient treatment.

I'm fairly sure polls show lots, possibly most people think cannabis should be legalised. It's less harmful than alcohol, and there is plenty of evidence that the current system of prohibition causes far more harm. In that respect, most people (even judges) won't think that someone who uses cannabis is of bad character any more than discovering that someone didn't wait until they were eighteen before having their first pint in a pub.

I'd argue the poor character comes from driving whilst still under the influence of cannabis, and the lack of patience when overtaking, which I'd argue reflects a permanent bad attitude. Reading the original article the driver abandoned the car and ripped off the number plates - presumably a clumsy attempt at a cover up. That to me is a more relevant sign of bad character.

One of the very obvious pitfalls of prohibition is that it's much harder for people to be educated on the dangers of drug driving. I have a good idea how much I can drink and when if I want to be sure of being under the legal drink drive limitthe next time I drive. If I were a cannabis user (I'm not - just think the laws are daft) I wouldn't have a clue how to work out when I'd next be safe to drive. An unregulated market means I'd have no idea how many 'units' I'd consumed, and under prohibition there is a lack of general knowledge in the population, never mind communicated official research as to how long it takes for whatever I have consumed to enter and then leave my system.

I remember turning up at a local police station the day after my friend's eighteenth to ask if he could be breathalised as we weren't sure if he was OK to drive yet. They had a good laugh, but went along with it. We'd never consider asking for a check against the cannabis driving limit.

Of course this man may have smoked a joint immediately before getting into the car, and there is no ambiguity that he should have known he was not fit to drive. If there were any doubt he should have avoided driving/consuming the cannabis, but I genuinely have no idea how much he'd need to have smoked or when to be twice over the legal limit, so I find it harder to be judgemental on that one.

You get more for protesting climate change.

You're the kind of bed wetter that is the reason we have such poor driving standards. Where on earth do you pull out at lights like that to overtake, it can't possibly be justifed. Lets hope when someone does this again it doesnt kill you, but if it does.....oh well they didn't mean it.

It's not an accident when you drive whilst high on drugs, that's always a conscious decision and one that deserves to be appropriately punished.

He's a drug driver, so no, it's no accident. He didn't see the cyclist, as he wasn't looking. He was annoyed at the vehicle in front, most likely berating the driver as he went past. His attention was elsewhere when it should have been looking ahead. He never even braked, even after he wiped the cyclist out. 

alexuk wrote:

Sometimes accidents happen. 

Taking enough drugs to impair your driving, pulling onto the wrong side of the road without having a view of who is in that lane, overtaking at a junction. None of that is an 'accident'. It's criminal negligence, in the literal sense.

Clearly no one on Road.cc ever made a mistake in their lives. You're all so quick to judge and spew hate. Shows your age. I'm glad you're not working the courts.

alexuk wrote:

Clearly no one on Road.cc ever made a mistake in their lives. You're all so quick to judge and spew hate. Shows your age. I'm glad you're not working the courts.

Nobody in these comments thus far (12:03 p.m.) has made any comment that could be remotely construed as "spewing hate". In fact the only person who appears to be spewing hate is your good self, against other commentators because they don't agree with your point of view. Perhaps you could take off your troll hat for a moment and consider how you would feel if you or one of your loved ones was nearly killed, hospitalised with a risk of paralysis and with a punctured lung and spinal fractures because somebody chose to drive whilst stoned and couldn't be bothered to wait behind another driver so drove head-on into you. Would you be shrugging your injuries, or perhaps those to a child of yours, off as "sometimes accidents happen"?

I'd hope we save our 'mistakes' for things that have little consequence - such as putting too many sugars in someone's tea, perhaps. On the roads, sensible people mitigate against their 'mistakes' by looking twice, leaving extra room, not being stoned, driving at an appropriate speed for the conditions etc.

If someone can't drive without taking people out, they're not fit to drive.

alexuk wrote:

Clearly no one on Road.cc ever made a mistake in their lives. You're all so quick to judge and spew hate. Shows your age. I'm glad you're not working the courts.

I have never driven under the influence of cannabis.

alexuk wrote:

... I'm glad the driver is off the road for the next 3yrs and has to spend the next two years on best behaviour with mandated rehab + 300hrs unpaid.

Sometimes accidents happen...

I would be glad if I thought there was a modicum of hope that if - for example - he got irritated again by not being able to drive for a few years that he couldn't just jump back in the car with almost no chance of being caught.  And approximately zero penalty if he was.

Accident?  Only if most of what happens in the world is an accident.  Here there were several decisions taken (or not) by the colliding car driver including a couple of really fundamental ones e.g. never drive while intoxicated and always make proper observations before changing speed or course.  Oh, and don't just drive off and leave people lying in the road (certainly the first to react were people in a different vehicle entirely).

Additionally there are a few decisions made here by the designers of our infra: the only "protection" for vulnerable users at that junction is paint and it's physically possible to overtake at the junction (at least one country blocks or strongly discourages overtaking into a lane with oncoming vehicles in many places) etc.

And how was it a "close call" - that's a close pass. This was a direct effing hit!!!  Screwed up the poor cyclist's life -hope he can eventually recover. Gaol time is clearly appropriate.

How is this careless and not dangerous driving?

Because it's only a cyclist who was KSI'd. I thought you would all have learned by now that the police and justice system treat cyclists as people who have brought it upon themselves. B*****d should have gone to prison, even if only for a short sentence, because that establishes him as a criminal, whereas 'community service' doesn't.