London cyclist killed in collision with HGV at Knightsbridge

mbrads72 wrote:

Whilst it's always a tragedy and not a point-scoring exercise I did struggle to reconcile the 10 year custodial  sentence with the usual slap on the wrist if the victim is a cyclist.

It always helps if there is dashcam footage of what the driver is doing just before and during the accident.

Unfortunately with HGVs in cities the main issue is why are they there at that time in the first place.

Bluebug wrote:

mbrads72 wrote:

Whilst it's always a tragedy and not a point-scoring exercise I did struggle to reconcile the 10 year custodial  sentence with the usual slap on the wrist if the victim is a cyclist.

It always helps if there is dashcam footage of what the driver is doing just before and during the accident.

That's exactly the point.  To put an offence into the most serious category for sentence you need to show a "deliberate decision to ignore (or a flagrant disregard for) the rules of the road and an apparent disregard for the great danger being caused to others".  The Prosecution have to prove that beyond reasonable doubt and that's often hard to do.  In a mobile phone case, for example, you may have some eyewitness evidence that the driver was looking at their phone but if the defendant says that they only glanced down for a few seconds then it's hard to disprove that.  And while we can rant as much as we like about locking them all up for ever, bloody drivers, all just murderers etc etc, the law distinguishes between levels of fault and it does so on the basis of proof.

Here we have cab footage that shows beyond doubt that he ignored the rules of the road (indeed, ignored the road) for a prolonged period.  Add in killing multiple victims and the recent reminder not to use his phone and you get to the high sentence.  It would have been just as high had they been cyclists.

Dan S wrote:

Bluebug wrote:

mbrads72 wrote:

Whilst it's always a tragedy and not a point-scoring exercise I did struggle to reconcile the 10 year custodial  sentence with the usual slap on the wrist if the victim is a cyclist.

It always helps if there is dashcam footage of what the driver is doing just before and during the accident.

That's exactly the point.  To put an offence into the most serious category for sentence you need to show a "deliberate decision to ignore (or a flagrant disregard for) the rules of the road and an apparent disregard for the great danger being caused to others".  The Prosecution have to prove that beyond reasonable doubt and that's often hard to do.  In a mobile phone case, for example, you may have some eyewitness evidence that the driver was looking at their phone but if the defendant says that they only glanced down for a few seconds then it's hard to disprove that.  And while we can rant as much as we like about locking them all up for ever, bloody drivers, all just murderers etc etc, the law distinguishes between levels of fault and it does so on the basis of proof.

Here we have cab footage that shows beyond doubt that he ignored the rules of the road (indeed, ignored the road) for a prolonged period.  Add in killing multiple victims and the recent reminder not to use his phone and you get to the high sentence.  It would have been just as high had they been cyclists.

Similar story from 2009 - 3 years for killing a family of six and disqualified from driving for three years. Beggars belief...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/4640395/Portuguese-lorry-driver-w...

kil0ran wrote:

Dan S wrote:

Bluebug wrote:

mbrads72 wrote:

Whilst it's always a tragedy and not a point-scoring exercise I did struggle to reconcile the 10 year custodial  sentence with the usual slap on the wrist if the victim is a cyclist.

It always helps if there is dashcam footage of what the driver is doing just before and during the accident.

That's exactly the point.  To put an offence into the most serious category for sentence you need to show a "deliberate decision to ignore (or a flagrant disregard for) the rules of the road and an apparent disregard for the great danger being caused to others".  The Prosecution have to prove that beyond reasonable doubt and that's often hard to do.  In a mobile phone case, for example, you may have some eyewitness evidence that the driver was looking at their phone but if the defendant says that they only glanced down for a few seconds then it's hard to disprove that.  And while we can rant as much as we like about locking them all up for ever, bloody drivers, all just murderers etc etc, the law distinguishes between levels of fault and it does so on the basis of proof.

Here we have cab footage that shows beyond doubt that he ignored the rules of the road (indeed, ignored the road) for a prolonged period.  Add in killing multiple victims and the recent reminder not to use his phone and you get to the high sentence.  It would have been just as high had they been cyclists.

 

Similar story from 2009 - 3 years for killing a family of six and disqualified from driving for three years. Beggars belief...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/4640395/Portuguese-lorry-driver-w...

 

Yes, but in 2009 the maximum sentence was 5 years. Since then it's been increased to 14, in recognition of the fact that 5 years is nowhere near enough. The law is gradually moving away from the position that if it happens behind the wheel of a car then it should be leniently dealt with. It's gradual, and it will take time, but it's going in the right direction.

Dan S wrote:

Bluebug wrote:

mbrads72 wrote:

Whilst it's always a tragedy and not a point-scoring exercise I did struggle to reconcile the 10 year custodial  sentence with the usual slap on the wrist if the victim is a cyclist.

It always helps if there is dashcam footage of what the driver is doing just before and during the accident.

That's exactly the point.  To put an offence into the most serious category for sentence you need to show a "deliberate decision to ignore (or a flagrant disregard for) the rules of the road and an apparent disregard for the great danger being caused to others".  The Prosecution have to prove that beyond reasonable doubt and that's often hard to do.  In a mobile phone case, for example, you may have some eyewitness evidence that the driver was looking at their phone but if the defendant says that they only glanced down for a few seconds then it's hard to disprove that.  And while we can rant as much as we like about locking them all up for ever, bloody drivers, all just murderers etc etc, the law distinguishes between levels of fault and it does so on the basis of proof.

Here we have cab footage that shows beyond doubt that he ignored the rules of the road (indeed, ignored the road) for a prolonged period.  Add in killing multiple victims and the recent reminder not to use his phone and you get to the high sentence.  It would have been just as high had they been cyclists.

I hate with a passion the statement 'I only looked down for a few seconds' almost as much as I hate the courts treating the people who use it with such leiniency.

'Oh well if it was only a few seconds that you weren't concentrating on the road while driving your block of metal' Fuck's sake.

STiG911 wrote:

Dan S wrote:

Bluebug wrote:

mbrads72 wrote:

Whilst it's always a tragedy and not a point-scoring exercise I did struggle to reconcile the 10 year custodial  sentence with the usual slap on the wrist if the victim is a cyclist.

It always helps if there is dashcam footage of what the driver is doing just before and during the accident.

That's exactly the point.  To put an offence into the most serious category for sentence you need to show a "deliberate decision to ignore (or a flagrant disregard for) the rules of the road and an apparent disregard for the great danger being caused to others".  The Prosecution have to prove that beyond reasonable doubt and that's often hard to do.  In a mobile phone case, for example, you may have some eyewitness evidence that the driver was looking at their phone but if the defendant says that they only glanced down for a few seconds then it's hard to disprove that.  And while we can rant as much as we like about locking them all up for ever, bloody drivers, all just murderers etc etc, the law distinguishes between levels of fault and it does so on the basis of proof.

Here we have cab footage that shows beyond doubt that he ignored the rules of the road (indeed, ignored the road) for a prolonged period.  Add in killing multiple victims and the recent reminder not to use his phone and you get to the high sentence.  It would have been just as high had they been cyclists.

I hate with a passion the statement 'I only looked down for a few seconds' almost as much as I hate the courts treating the people who use it with such leiniency.

'Oh well if it was only a few seconds that you weren't concentrating on the road while driving your block of metal' Fuck's sake.

Yup, me too. I have to deal with it on pretty much a weekly basis...

mbrads72 wrote:

Whilst it's always a tragedy and not a point-scoring exercise I did struggle to reconcile the 10 year custodial  sentence with the usual slap on the wrist if the victim is a cyclist.

I think it's just as appauling actually. 2.5 years per life, plus the guy who ended up with a broken back? Yep, standard shite UK sentance.

unconstituted wrote:

Throw a politician under a lorry everytime this happens. Bet quality of life would improve real fast then. 

Quality of life would improve if we just started throwing politicians under lorries as a general rule, rather for any specific reason...

brooksby wrote:

unconstituted wrote:

Throw a politician under a lorry everytime this happens. Bet quality of life would improve real fast then. 

Quality of life would improve if we just started throwing politicians under lorries as a general rule, rather for any specific reason...

Cannot disagree with that 

unconstituted wrote:

Saw this footage for the first time today. The guy signed a form saying he wouldn't use his phone behind the wheel of the lorry. Then gets into the lorry, and starts using his phone . Then kills a woman and her kids.
 

Less than an hour after signing the form 

unconstituted wrote:

Throw a politician under a lorry everytime this happens. Bet quality of life would improve real fast then. 

 

Saw this footage for the first time today. The guy signed a form saying he wouldn't use his phone behind the wheel of the lorry. Then gets into the lorry, and starts using his phone. Then kills a woman and her kids.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67Em_LR2q58

 

Story:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/oct/31/lorry-driver-distracted-...

Fully sickening, I'm actually sat at my desk crying after seeing that. Will have to take a few minutes before cycling home.
I hope this can be the turning point for mobile device use while driving/riding and attitudes towards such.
I'm also slightly angry that we don't seem to see these sort of sentences when it's "just a cyclist" that is affected.
Sadly, it is now that time of year when fatalaties spike

unconstituted wrote:

 

Saw this footage for the first time today. The guy signed a form saying he wouldn't use his phone behind the wheel of the lorry. Then gets into the lorry, and starts using his phone. Then kills a woman and her kids.

As clear an example of why cars should be fitted with black boxes as ever.  Last 30 min of driven time, in cabin video with sound + forward looking video on a loop.  Tested at MOT time.  Chaep to implement and should allow large scale forensic level examination of the causes of crashes in one fell swoop.