Zaytsev Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 A driver who was sending a text when she hit and killed a teenage cyclist was starting a four-year prison term last night. LINK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xxsarahxx Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 im sorry but that is absolutely disgraceful. a young mans life is cut short just by one person thinking they are above the law. one moment of her stupidity and that young mans family are affected forever.... i know she will have to live with what she has done forever but IMO she deserved a longer sentence than the one she got Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
newvanandman Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 The cyclist ran a red light,thats ok, but texing isnt?? Had the cyclist not ran a red light the accident would not have happened.Sorry but if i run a red light then i would take the consequenses,i would not want to point the finger at someone else,just because they happened to be picking their nose,or texing. The driver also has family,they also have to live with whats happened for the rest of their life,sending them to prison for 4 years is just pc nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shanhancoen Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 She should not have been texting but had he not ran a red maybe he would not have been hit by her in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magneteer Posted February 29, 2008 Share Posted February 29, 2008 Contrary to popular belief, a green light does NOT give a vehicle an automatic "Right of way". All it does is gives you precedence, IF, it is safe to proceed. In this case it was clearly not safe to proceed. In other words, you must check all is clear before going through, something this driver was clearly unable to do, due to her being on the phone. In this case, the cyclist was asking for trouble, but it could have been a child or maybe a partially sighted pedestrian etc who could have been mown down just the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaytsev Posted February 29, 2008 Author Share Posted February 29, 2008 The cyclist ran a red light,thats ok, but texing isnt?? Had the cyclist not ran a red light the accident would not have happened.Sorry but if i run a red light then i would take the consequenses,i would not want to point the finger at someone else,just because they happened to be picking their nose,or texing. The driver also has family,they also have to live with whats happened for the rest of their life,sending them to prison for 4 years is just pc nonsense. I know what you're getting at and the guy running a red light was stupid and wrong but as a biker you know perfectly well that this dumb bint was an accident waiting to happen. If she had not been texting she may have been able to avoid hitting him. Remember she wasn't just on the phone talking but actually TEXTING. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pseudonym Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 From the BBC website... "Sgt Alyson West, of Hampshire Constabulary, said the ruling would hopefully discourage others from using their mobile phones while driving." It may sound cynical to say say it but I would have thought that it was considerably more of a disincentive to cyclists to run red lights than it was for motorists to use a mobile phone whilst driving in this case! Strange that no mention appears to have been made of the gravity of the rule-breaking by the cyclist... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 Strange that no mention appears to have been made of the gravity of the rule-breaking by the cyclist... I think that the consequences of the cyclists actions are obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pseudonym Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 I think that the consequences of the cyclists actions are obvious.You've missed the point, indeed they are obvious, as a powerful deterrent to cyclists not to jump the lights... Yet this isn't touched upon. The family statement says that they hope that his death will prevent or deter other drivers from using their mobile phones when driving... Blinkered view or what? The driver was prosecuted for causing death by dangerous driving when to be strictly accurate the charge should have been, 'Driving in a hazardous manner and by so doing, failing to avoid causing the death of another, put at risk by their own actions.' Not that such a charge exists but it describes the situation much more accurately than 'Causing death by dangerous driving' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jfish1936 Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 Distractions while Driving are Deadly! Why did she need to reply to a message before pulling in and parking? From an estranged husband sounds ominous -- likely to be provoking? I can handle simple questions from passengers, even "Are you sure this is the right way?", but I couldn't row with my wife without pulling in to park. I can do financials, in round thousand dollars, but to do $32,456.75 plus $17,682.45 over 3 years at 6% --- that's a stationary job (with stationery, too) If I get a mob phone call while driving alone, I'm likely to say "I'll call back" and drop it. I dare not get into an argument. I'm too old to text without studying the keyboard, and I wouldn't even look at the incoming message while the car was moving Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.