An “inexperienced” teenage motorist who pulled out of a junction and fatally struck a cyclist, just two months after passing his driving test, has avoided jail, and has instead been banned from driving for a year and ordered to complete 180 hours of unpaid work after pleading guilty to causing the cyclist’s death by careless driving.
Cyclist Alan Preston was riding on the A452 Chester Road near Aldridge, five miles north of Walsall, on the morning of Saturday 11 February 2023, when he was struck by 19-year-old driver Alfie Swann, who had pulled out onto the road at its junction with Lazy Hill.
Swann, who was on his way to visit his grandparents at the time, claimed to police that he had looked both ways before pulling out, but hadn’t seen Mr Preston approaching until it was too late, Wolverhampton Magistrates Court heard on Tuesday, the Express and Star reports.
The 58-year-old suffered serious head injuries and bleeding in the collision, and died in hospital 13 days later.
(West Midlands Police)
According to a statement from a witness, Janice Howard, who was driving on Chester Road when the crash took place, Mr Swann hit the cyclist as he pulled out, sending him “flying over the bonnet before landing on the floor”.
Swann stopped his car following the collision and remained at the scene until the police arrived, before co-operating in interviews. He later pleaded guilty to causing Mr Preston’s death by careless driving.
In court this week, prosecutor Mrs Maggie Meakin said tests carried out on the 19-year-old driver provided “no evidence of drugs or alcohol” and that conditions on the day were described as “clear and bright”.
Representing Mr Swann, Brij Chaudhry said the case was a “very, very tragic” one and that the motorist asked him to pass on his condolences to Mr Preston’s family.
“Mr Swann was taking quite a regular route. On weekends he would often have brunch or late lunch with his grandparents. They lived not far from where he resided,” Mr Chaudhry said in court.
He also claimed that Swann had not pulled out of the junction at speed, while distracted, or under the influence of any substances.
“He simply did not see Mr Preston, who was cycling down the road itself. He said he saw something out of the corner of his eye and braked but it was too late,” the lawyer said.
“He accepts his wrongdoing in the sense of driving without due care and attention, in the circumstances we have heard.
“He had only been driving for some two and a half months prior to this incident and therefore was a relatively inexperienced driver.”
Expressing his “heartfelt condolences” to the popular cyclist’s family, and criticising the time it took to bring the case to a conclusion, District Judge Michael Wheeler said: “No sentence that I can pass can bring back Mr Preston.
“Alfie Swann, the collision that led to Alan Preston’s death was your fault. You told the police that you looked left and you looked right, as you were required to do.
“You pulled out and you struck Mr Preston, who had the right of way. You didn’t see him – you should have.
“To your credit, you didn’t attempt to divert responsibility away from your own conduct towards Mr Preston.
“You passed your [driving] test only a matter of weeks before this traumatic incident. This was not an unsafe manoeuvre in and of itself – it became unsafe when you failed to see a cyclist when you should have.”
However, the judge noted Swann’s remorse following the fatal collision and his previous good character, and said he would stop short of a custodial sentence.
Instead, he ordered the motorist, now 20, to complete 180 hours of unpaid work over two years, and banned him from driving for 12 months, a suspension that was backdated to 22 May, when an interim disqualification was first issued.
Swann must complete an extended driving re-test once his ban is completed. He was also told to pay a £154 victim surcharge and £85 in prosecution costs.
> “Panicked” motorist who mounted grass verge to undertake cyclist banned from driving for 12 months
In a victim impact statement read in court, Mr Preston’s ex-wife Jayne said that her life “stopped” on the day of the collision and that she has “just been existing since”, while his son Matthew said that he was unable to work for months following his father’s death, putting him in debt.
“On February 11, 2023, my life stopped – and I feel like I’ve just been existing since,” Mrs Preston said, before adding that she has been in “constant anxiety” since the death of the keen cyclist, badminton player, and Walsall FC season ticket holder.
“When you lose someone who you have loved for 30 years unexpectedly, it does have a massive impact. My health has been severely impacted. I have found myself struggling daily to stay strong for my family.
“It’s impacting on my physical, emotional, and financial wellbeing. All I want is justice for Alan and our family.”
64 thoughts on “Teenage motorist who hit and killed cyclist two months after passing test banned from driving for a year, ordered to complete 180 hours unpaid work, and fined £240”
Horrible when this sort of
Horrible when this sort of thing happens. Sometimes though you have to accept that prison isn’t the solution every time someone dies on the road. There is no right answer here and perhaps the right judgement was made.
Maybe prison isn’t the right
Maybe prison isn’t the right solution, but any driver who who gets 6 or more points on their driving licence within 2 years of passing their test for a full licence, has their licence cancelled. And they must then retake both parts of the test again. Why hasn’t that been implemented here ?
There isn’t even any mention of points that were given in this sentence, merely an extended driving test, which would apply to any driver of any experience convicted of causing death by careless driving.
stonojnr wrote:
Not saying that it’s sufficient but he’s banned for a year which is what someone would get for getting 12 points in three years and then racking up 12 points again within three years of the original (6 months) disqualification, so pretty hefty in terms of the law, if pathetically inadequate in terms of common sense.
If you are ordered to take an extended driving test before being allowed to drive again you have to apply to the DVLA for a new provisional licence and you are a learner again, so you have to retake the theory test before you can apply to take the extended practical.
Will also take a hammering
Will also take a hammering from the insurance.
mctrials23 wrote:
I agree, a 10 year ban would be much more impactful, keep other cyclists safe for a while and send a message to other dangerous drivers.
Also what about a £6000 fine which would have to be paid off over 50 years at £10 per week which might remind the driver to look out for vulnerable road users every time he looks at his bank statement?
NOtotheEU wrote:
Most Gen Zers I know never check their bank statements and would imagine that they wouldn’t notice the tenner per week. A large fine to be paid quickly resulting in taking out a loan to cover it so the large monthly payments over five years would be quite effective.
At 18 many young people make
At 18 many young people make a positive decision that costs them around £50K worth of debt to be paid back over decades. I sometimes wonder why those that make bad decisions aren’t saddled with similar amounts of debt.
.
.
Quick, quick! Let’s give children the vote!
.
A Lay Bah government. A Laaaaaay Bah government.
.
Coming your way very soon, to sort out every problem in the world, especially cycling ones.
.
Oh, hang on …..
.
If we’re going to deny the
If we’re going to deny the vote to age groups where people do dangerous shit on the roads, we’ll be doing away with democracy in pretty short order.
Since they remember Kinnoch
Since they remember Kinnoch in his prime, they’re probably suffering from the same tendency as some of us other folks here might. That is to imagine that anyone less than say 40 is a giddy youth that can’t be trusted not to eat all their sweeties at once and needs wiser adults to manage things.
Enfranchise – and worry about Parliament being renamed “Talky McTalkPlace”, your old absolutes being redefined and cringy ministerial TikToks? Or don’t – and worry that the current wave of enthusiasm to shake things up might not stop at sitting in the road or splashing paint on things?
Those 8-year-olds might not wait quietly for their chance to use democratic change to give them space to cycle! And they’re a good height to let your car’s tyres down…
I think a better solution
I think a better solution would be a ban till his 25th birthday, by which time has hopefully he will be mature enough to take on board the seriousness and consequential responsibility of being licenced to drive a motor vehicle. In the meantime using public transport and cycling will teach him much
Prison sentences are a
Prison sentences are a deterrent not just for those who commit crimes but for others who might do the same and thus should heed the warning and take greater care.
The message here is that you can pass your test, immediately go out on your own, drive carelessly, kill, and as long as you apologise and make an excuse there will be no serious consequences. Nothing positive can come from such outcomes.
Problem is that deterrence
Problem is that deterrence either needs active thought OR training and reinforcement.
In the case of driving we’d have to fix it so people are more aware of the risks when they get into their vehicles. And/or more actively involved in the driving process. We have humans and mass motoring so lots are going to be driving at any given moment with insufficient attention / low mental arousal / distraction.
I’m less sure about the reinforcement side. Is it that we don’t get the message enough, or we ignore it?
If the latter, is it because we only hear about the really terrible ones – because “news”, or because less blantantly bad driving doesn’t attract noteworthy sentences or indeed any punishment? Perhaps then we can “other” those bad drivers. We know we are good drivers!
Perhaps it’s also that any messages about road safety get muted since we get daily reinforcement that driving’s no big deal – because we almost always come home at the end of the day?
Perhaps we’re now safe enough so that there’s just not enough pressure to make things better. Not enough people dying or – nicer outcome – drivers walking away shaking from the blazing wreck of their vehicles? Or just having them impounded / their licences removed – but the “keeping them from ignoring bans” part is the trick!
chrisonabike wrote:
Question — do you all not have experience with the saying “Fifteen’ll get ya twenty” in your country?
That phrase has prevented countless illegal sexual relations between young girls and older men. It’s been around for decades at least, and not many in this country haven’t heard it. It works, even despite the fact those relations were ubiquitous throughout human history until very, very recently.
Fear of spending a couple decades in prison does actually modify behavior, even some behavior that is arguably inherent to our species.
dh700 wrote:
Well I am completely convinced by this argument.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/jeffrey-epstein-list-names-b2489252.html
No, wait…
dh700 wrote:
In 2022 95,492 persons aged 15 and under were subject to sexual abuse from adults in the USA. That’s just cases in which there was a conviction of the abuser, and it’s estimated by some experts that up to 90% of child sexual abuse goes unreported, which would give us a figure of close to 1,000,000 victims per year. Doesn’t sound like “it works” is actually working that well.
I feel that prison sentences
I feel that prison sentences should be sparingly used and perhaps in cases like this reserved for any failure to observe the much longer driving ban such a crime should demand, though I would like to see a suspended and repeatable 28 day prison sentence to be be enacted immediately on apprehension without any further court appearance attached to any driving ban.
mctrials23 wrote:
Why, exactly, is prison not the solution in this case?
Had this killer chosen any weapon other than a motor vehicle, he would be facing a decade or so in prison for manslaughter. Precisely what magic makes killing with a car fine and dandy?
If a person walked up to this killer on the street, and shot him fatally, would that person escape all repercussions if they claimed that they “looked, but didn’t see” the victim?
Why the double standard, then?
Ah, but driving a car is just
Ah, but driving a car is just like putting on shoes and going for a walk! Shoes and socks aren’t weapons – I wear them every day! Then – if you step on someone’s foot, it’s probably an accident…
As to penalties – the UK charge being “causing death by careless driving” here.
History but this (with the more serious “causing death by dangerous driving” – which now tends not to get charged for the following reason…) was set up in large part because juries would simply not convict drivers of charges like murder or manslaughter.
Juries didn’t think it was really “evil” and/or would compare their own driving behaviour / that they had observed and think “there but for the grace of god”. Or feel that it was a small and/or inadvertent mistake which just happened to have tragic consequences. No intent to actually harm someone.
Unfortunately the new charges don’t seem to have fully fixed this issue either. Reading the reports of these cases (albeit not the whole mess) it’s possible to squint and see “could have happened to anyone” / “but they didn’t mean to” at work. And a neat little variant – the “incompetence paradox” – where your counsel effectively implies that it’s not fair to punish you for “mistakes” since you aren’t actually a competent driver!
Now you’ve sent me down a
Now you’ve sent me down a rabbit-hole of reading about what the UK euphemistically calls its ‘justice system’, and holy cow, it might be worse than the United States’.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Louise_Jensen
That said, there’s no rational argument that this crime wasn’t manslaughter, in the UK. The test has four parts;
1. Was the act unlawful? Clearly, failing to yield the right of way and ramming a cyclist is unlawful.
2. Was the act dangerous? Clearly ramming a cyclist is dangerous.
3. Was the act the cause of death? Doesn’t even need to be mentioned.
4. Mens Rea. Wouldn’t even matter if the killer claimed that he didn’t know a cyclist could die after being rammed by his car.
Ref: https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/invol-mans-cases.php
I don’t necessarily agree
I don’t necessarily agree with your argument but wondered why you brought up the Jensen case? They were tried and imprisoned un Cyprus under Cypriot law. Not that we don’t have a few examples of a failing justice system here: Wrongful conviction of Andrew Malkinson – Wikipedia for example.
Law is a rabbit hole – a
Law is a rabbit hole – a skeptic might say by design (or simply evolution – doesn’t seem to be much pressure for “less law, fewer lawyers”).
Not a lawyer but some do post here so will correct me if mistaken. In the UK I believe there are two main routes to court for this kind of event: a) a case being brought by the Crown Prosecution Service and b) a private prosecution.
The latter are pretty rare I believe – and I’ve not heard of any successful ones for road crime.
The former are the government body who look at the crime and the strength of evidence and decide what charges are appropriate AND which they are likely to *achieve a conviction* on. So (probably like justice anywhere) the business has a very practical and calculating side at distance from abstract “justice”. If they’ve found certain offenses are less likely to get convictions but lesser offenses are available which have higher conviction rates (eg road crime) they’ll take the safer bet.
Not sure what the killing of someone by some soldiers abroad has got to do with anything though? Or do are you suggesting the “exceptional” way we deal with road crime is analogous to the way military crime is dealt with? (Of course very often governments see to it that their diplomatic or military employees simply never see the same justice systems as everyone else – especially when crimes are committed in other countries. Our never see justice at all)
dh700 wrote:
Please try not to be silly. Such histrionic nonsense would best have been left behind in the high school debating society, of which, to judge by your juvenile arguments on many issues, you were doubtless a leading, if not popular, member. The legal systems of all democratic countries have developed over centuries to acknowledge differing grades of killing ranging from premeditated murder through manslaughter all the way down to accidental death. Trying to claim that this incident is equivalent to somebody carrying out a premeditated murder undermines the seriousness of the argument for stricter sentencing for such cases and simply makes you look hysterical.
Nope. The wrong judgement was
Nope. The wrong judgement was made.
And here we see another
And here we see another example of the entire problem, “law enforcement” that refuses to hold killers accountable for their crimes.
“I looked but did not see” is rank nonsense that would never be accepted from a killer who used any weapon other than a motor vehicle. The cyclist was hit by the front fender of the vehicle, which necessarily means he was only a few feet away when the driver claims to have looked. It is ridiculous to believe that a grown man was invisible from just a few feet away, and such an obvious lie would never be accepted in any other killing.
This case is an invitation, a formal request even, for motor vehicle operators to drive completely without care or attention — all they need do is remember the magic password, “Oops”, and they will face no repercussions.
Bumper.
Bumper.
But is it a wing mirror over
But is it a wing mirror over in the States?
It is a fender mirror
It is a fender mirror apparently. Or a door mirror. Or a bumper mirror. Who knows?
Secret_squirrel wrote:
Sorry, I cannot always be arsed to translate English into English.
Matthew Briggs and Ian Duncan
Matthew Briggs and Ian Duncan Smith will be dancing with joy.
This is somehow
This is somehow simultaneously too lenient, at least in the length of the driving ban, and also a more severe punishment than other cases where the driver was older, probably richer, more likely to elicit sympathy from the magistrate, and/or deployed one of a variety of excuses (sun in their eyes, medical condition, financial hardship if banned, etc, etc.)
So essentially, someone who
So essentially, someone who was wholly incompetent was let out on the roads behind the wheel of a car. Maybe the real trial here should be of the last few decades worth of Home Secretaries, Transport Ministers, etc. for dangerous governing, in failing to ensure an adequate licensing regime.
I would suggest the test is
I would suggest the test is as hard or harder than its ever been. Unless you want to have a far more extreme, long and expensive test that few people would pass, it is what it is. If you want to do that then you really need to be looking at making driving in general because the average newly qualified driver probably isn’t that much worse than most drivers who have been doing it for years.
mctrials23 wrote:
Which is an excessively low bar.
Sounds good to me.
Although it doesn’t need to be a one-off test – it can be a longer period of assessment (plus regular reassessment). Like what we’d do for operating any other piece of potentially dangerous equipment in the public realm.
“You passed your [driving]
“You passed your [driving] test only a matter of weeks before this traumatic incident”
Is this one of those incompetence paradoxes?
It’s not his fault he wasn’t up to the basic minimum standard.
That’s ridiculous. A driver
That’s ridiculous. A driver that causes the death of a person has no place ever being allowed to drive again. I can understand no prison time, but the driver has demonstrated beyond any doubt that they aren’t a safe driver and it’s an insult to the victim’s friends and family that they’re allowed to drive again and possibly kill someone else.
The issue with this logic is
The issue with this logic is that you would then have to ban people for life when they nearly kill someone. The difference between this lad and thousands every day is bad luck. I have had dozens of incidents on the roads that I avoided because I either saw them coming or am a competent enough cyclist that I managed to skirt them at the last second. Those people should 100% be banned too if you are saying this lad should never drive again.
mctrials23 wrote:
Not at all. If there’s no fatality, then just apply existing penalties. The idea is to ensure that the victim’s friends and family know that at least the driver won’t get the chance to kill again with a valid license.
So he’d just passed a test
So he’d just passed a test showing that he was a competent driver, then immediately kills someone because of his incompetent driving, so the test is clearly not fit for purpose.
Why didn’t the judge and the coroner demand that the test is revised until it is fit for purpose?
This is the same sentence as
This is the same sentence as a driver being stopped by the Police and found to be over the drink-drive limit
I feel that the road system
I feel that the road system is also at fault: the kerb radii are too large (should be zero – right angles) so that a driver pulling out of the jucntion will likley have to strain to look back over their shoulder for approaching traffic and will probably be trying to do this without stopping. If the junction is at right angles the view will to the right will be easier; a STOP sign woudl help too forcing the look. Will anyone make the highway authorityblook at this? Vison Zero!!
I’ve just looked at this
I’ve just looked at this junction on Gmaps. Stop sign or not ,(not. Give way only) I can’t believe any driver wouldn’t come to a full stop at this junction. More so for one who’d just recently passed their test.
I have been having similar
I have been having similar conversations with my 18 year old who is learning to drive as I was flabbergasted to learn that his instructor is telling him to roll through give way junctions if it is clear. The problem is that you can’t tell it is clear if you don’t take the time to stop and look!
LeadenSkies wrote:
Nonsense I’m afraid. There are many junctions, perhaps a majority, where it is perfectly possible to assess traffic without stopping your vehicle. This is why they are called “Give Way” and not “Stop”.
Training drivers to stop at every junction is unnecessary, verging on the lunatic.
I’m very happy with the ideas
I’m very happy with the ideas you are suggesting there in general BUT if we’re talking a proper infra solution here I think more than “kerbs and signs” nudges are needed.
How thorough do you want to be? If you want to look at that idea – (and I haven’t looked beyond the picture here) – first is it even a good idea to have cyclists here? If the A-road is NSL? Mixing modes with extreme speed differences AND with turning / crossing traffic? And where drivers are inevitably going to focus on “looking for motor vehicles” since numbers of cyclists will likely be *very* low?
That then sends us off looking at numbers cycling or even likely to want to cycle there and why (is it a “route” – or would it be of most people would cycle on such a road? Are there alternatives?)
Tgen – is there is psychological pressure on drivers turning out to “get up to (NSL?) speed as soon as possible?
This is also a kind of crossroads – they can be associated with higher crash rates (more directions to check). It’s more “safer for drivers” but perhaps a “voorrangsplein” design for some of these junctions would be in line with that also:
https://therantyhighwayman.blogspot.com/2021/02/voorrangsplein-part-1.html
The first step there is NSL
The first step there is NSL of 50 (I’d argue 40) on single carriagrways.
Then rewriting LHAs from the DNA up.
I think this ‘I didn’t see
I think this ‘I didn’t see him’ defence dodge is going to become more and more common in cases where cyclists are KSI’d by drivers- because it works! We saw a very successful deployment only last week in the case of a doctor killing a cyclist by pulling onto the main road right in front of him where, if I recall correctly, there wasn’t even a suggestion of the doctor being charged with any offence. The more this dodge becomes accepted as ‘normal’ the more we will see drivers suffering little penalty for killing cyclists- after all, you can always think up a lie about ‘not seeing’ a cyclist.
The real villain here is a
The real villain here is a training and testing system that passess drivers without the skills or awareness needed to be safe on the roads.
… and only requires we
… and (going beyond this case) only requires we verify they can drive according to the conditions on their licence once per lifetime! (Laws, vehicles and even roads being subject to change during that time).
There is a big push towards a
There is a big push towards a graduated licence system here in the UK. That’s a good thing. You might want to google it and sign up your support.
The testing and training
My son is a flight instructor, and there are strong incentives for him to only allow students who are actually ready to test, to do so. I hurts his metrics if his students fail.
There are also feedback mechanisms to incentivise check pilots to only pass competent students.
There will always be terrible drivers who can pass tests by (for instance) just not doing a bunch of drugs that morning, but I think you could catch a lot of it by figuring out who is training or passing the bad drivers. For instance, any time a driver with less than five years of experience gets to six penalty points, add them to a database with details on who their instructor and tester were. Then mine that database for instructors, schools, and testers who are disproportionately represented and either send them for remedial training, or in extreme cases ban them from creating more bad drivers.
All good stuff – although I
All good stuff – although I can imagine creating some perverse incentives with this if not careful. Flying is easier to regulate I suspect – far fewer pilots / people don’t “have to fly”…
OTOH with “mass motoring” – at least as we currently conceive it – I suspect that more regulation of entry to the driving pool will be fighting against another (the main) goal of the system – that it should permit the majority of adults to drive! (Especially incentivised in young people because “freedom” and “marker of being an adult” and “getting stuff done and a job” and probably still a dash of “sex”. Powerful motivations…)
In the UK driving is the primary mode of transport (well – taking walking for granted as we tend to do…)
I understand playing the
I understand playing the inexperienced card but in truth it takes 10,000 hours to be a master of a craft and most drivers will never clock this up. That’s why we have the Highway Code. Failing to give way at a give way sign is dangerous not careless. It’s part of a systematic societal failure to follow the guidelines that are put in place to prevent these incidents.
One of the things that makes me most nervous is drivers flying up to give way signs and applying their brakes at the last moment. You have no idea if they’ve seen you.
As part of a risk assessment to prevent reoccurrence the give way should be a stop sign and a camera to make sure drivers aren’t tempted to roll through (like they do at nearly every other stop sign).
With you on the last minute
With you on the last minute brakers. I don’t think it’s (always) because they only see a cyclist at the last second. I get the bejesus scared out of me regularly like this when I’m driving as well. Not as scary as when on the bike but I do wonder what, if anything, is going through a lot if drivers heads.
IanMK wrote:
100%, every single day, usually multiple times, I have to brake and/or swerve to anticipate the possible emergence of drivers who think the way to approach a give way is to approach at or over the speed limit and then emergency brake to stop just at or over the line. Many drivers also appear to believe that the correct way to stop at a give way is with the line under the driver’s arse rather than with the front bumper behind it. Maybe there should be signs posted fifty yards back from junctions saying “Give way approaching, reduce speed now”?
All true Rendel, but more
All true Rendel, but more signs at the taxpayers expense…just to tell fuckwits what they should already know…?
pockstone wrote:
Well yes, and no faith they would be obeyed. GPS chips in cars maybe the way forward, if you’re recorded not slowing down as you approach a give way ticket in the post?
Lots of people on here are
Lots of people on here are criticising this kid for not giving way at a ‘Give way’ sign but I can’t see where it says that that is what happened. Happy to be corrected.
All I can see it saying is that he (says he) failed to see the cyclist when he pulled out. He may very well have stopped (we don’t know) but the (sadly, all too common) failure to see or to notice the cyclist was surely the essential problem.
This statement from the judge
This statement from the judge would appear to confirm the existence of a give way sign.
We dont know if he stopped or
We dont know if he stopped or not, but even if he did, stopping at a give way sign and then driving into somebody on the main carriageway is not ‘giving way’.
The problem is people aren’t
The problem is people aren’t taught to look properly, or you get in the habit of a quick glance and if something the size of an artic isn’t on top of you, off you go. It happened to me years ago, I nearly did what this driver did to a cyclist, but luckily I had a second, proper look. I make sure I look properly now, more than once.
No problem with no jail time.
No problem with no jail time. The driver stopped, admitted guilt (only careless not dangerous though) and seems to have been genuinely remorseful. My problem is that drivers who do not stop and therefore, in my opinion, demonstrate lack of remorse, get similar punishments or sometimes even less.
I’d have preferred a longer ban and I would like to see drivers who hit cyclists being forced to cycle themselves.
Just as well Sunak, Harper
Just as well Sunak, Harper and Briggs are keen to put in a law for dangerous cycling because so many get away with killing other road users. Oh hang on.
So Mr. Swann’s attorney said
So Mr. Swann’s attorney said “Swann had not pulled out of the junction at speed,” but what did the witness say? Did Mr, Swann slow down at all at the junction, as one should, or just blow through it? The penalty here for killing someone is awfully lenient. Is there ANY other way you can kill someone in the UK and get off with this light of a sentence?