Bradford drivers whose 80mph race led to cyclist's death each jailed for four years

If I was messing about with my shotgun and killed someone I'd be in for manslaughter. Why should a car be anything different?

i guess one question is - would the sentences have been longer had the person who was killed been a pedestrian?
It seems to me that riding a bike means that somehow you are entering into a deal which reduces your rights

If you take out the stupidity of the racing then from my experience of the leeds/bradford borders - i worked there for some time including late into the night - then unlit cyclists particularly around industrial areas and connecting main roads are not uncommon and just part of the "normal" hazards, a responsible driver would be looking for them - a very sad death

on the sentence issue in general - for the judge this was easy as anyone can see that racing and driving without insurance is no go - a serious problem with sentencing is the "normal driving" by "people like us" and by professional drivers - especially concerned on the last - as these drivers should be (and probably are) aware of the risk to others that a particular manoeuvre entails but the law seems to deal with it as if were a mistake and just one of those things

As others have said, the likelihood of a driving ban deterring someone from driving when they are already racing on public roads without insurance is small.

Canal Road is a well lit road. Especially the bits with a central reservation. If the cyclist had had lights it would have made no difference.

From what some people have commented on here I think I shall have to make my point a little clearer.

1/ If the cyclist had had lights on the judge might have been able to give a more realistic (some will say harsher) sentence.. ie life seeing as they killed somebody

2/ I most certainly do not condone either of the drivers actions. Nor am I making excuses for them.

3/ I believe the drivers should not be allowed back on the road ever again.

When you drive at 80mph, the car becomes a weapon technically. So you hit someone with this weapon and kill them, that's manslaughter at the very least.

I know Canal Road well and have no idea where exactly it was, but as it says, lighting was good - it's a main road into/out of Bradford and is pretty damned wide. At 80mph, lights on the bike would have made little difference to when they saw him and the time they had to react. A paltry four years for this is rather short. If they were this negligent - i.e. reckless as to the safety of others - if their actions were out of a car, they would at the least have faced manslaughter and a much heavier sentence given the severity of the recklessness.

I had the misfortune to hit a pedestrian once in a car. I was only going 25mph, so fortunately just a broken ankle. He had run out at speed from behind a minibus, but I was completely liable regardless.
The law should change to do the same for cyclists. The fact he was wearing headphones and with no lights is exactly why speed limits are what they are. So that when accidents (read unforeseen circumstances) happen you have time to take evasive action and hopefully avoid collisions.

Well, she was wearing a short skirt and showing a bit of cleavage, she must have been gagging for it....

Sorry, my mistake I got my victim blaming lunacies mixed up for a second there.

Two points:

1, So, four years. That means out in two, right? Here's a suggestion for a degree thesis by a student who rides bikes: find out who the judge was, do the same for other incidents, and compile a "price of a life" index for the judiciary, correlated with age / gender / any other available data. It should make fascinating reading - with this joker coming in at a bargain-basement two years - and I'd like to see it in the public domain.

2. piously commencing the driving ban once they emerge from jail means only that it is actually a ban, as having the ban running concurrently with their jail term would of course be a meaningless non-ban. However, much more important is this: how seriously does anyone think that the driver who killed the cyclist will be taking this so-called 'ban' when he emerges, as said driver has already demonstrated a willingness to drive without insurance?

The cyclist was also crossing the road, not cycling along it. Could easily have been a (legally unlit) pedestrian crossing the road instead.

You have to question whether someone who drives a high performance car at twice the legal limit without insurance should deserve to drive again. How could anyone be more stupid?

As for the lights on the bike, that's sadly typical of people on lower incomes who cycle out of necessity rather than choice and tend not to be aware of the risks. It's progress that these two hooligans weren't let off because poor Mr Rozenbergs was blamed for not having lights.

if they needed the excitement or to experience the full
potential of their lethal weapons - a track day ??? but
no, lets just put everyone else's life in danger and
be complete prats.

driving is a privilege NOT a right - they should never
get their licenses back (as if that stops some !!)

While I don't wish to get into an argument about headphones, I do recall from self-defence training a lot of discussions about impairment of the senses. You should be able to walk down the street wearing headphones without the possibility of being bashed over the head from behind by someone you didn't hear, but other people (see article) can be arseholes, and it's wise to have a backup plan (such as being able to hear them beforehand). Not to say it would have changed the outcome in this situation though.

If he had lights on would one of them have thought I must drop back and give him more room, no!

Four years is pathetic for a couple of choppers who knew what their actions could do.

Fair one 'Andyp'

'I can’t see the relevance of wearing headphones in this instance'

or ever, in fact.

I can’t see the relevance of wearing headphones in this instance, not that I do, do they make you less visible or is it the cyclists’ responsibility to be able to hear and therefore get out of the way of a pair of numpties racing on a public highway? Regarding the lights issue I would like to think it might have made a difference but the whole thing is a bit sad really. I agree with the life time ban thing though as it might make people think before they acted as irresponsibly as these two have.

48 months for killing a cyclist.
30 months for nicking bikes in Sussex (see earlier story).

removing these drivers given right to drive for 4 years is a disgrace….how are they expected to take there sick grandmothers to hospital

should be banned for driving for life. simple.

I must admit I read the headline and immediately thought four years! is that all. Then I read the rest of the article to see that the victim had no lights on, so whilst I do feel sorry for him some of me thinks if he had lights on it may not have happened, as it states Mr. Khan hit the other vehicle in an attempt to avoid the cyclist if he had seen him earlier he might have been able to brake and not hit anybody.

Looking objectively, the custodial sentence seems OK. What I can't understand is why we should allow these people to ever drive again.

Is there latitude in law for lifetime driving bans?

At least the driving bans commence *after* their release.

(deleted)

*four* years... pitiful.