Ghostrider Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 Am I forgetting something here though. I know he should be punished for what he did but why didnt the pensioner use a pelecan crossing. Dont they have two. One near Primark and one further on near the Coop? Do we really need another crossing? I forgot all about these two when I made my earlier post. It doesnt matter how many there are, if people dont use them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WageSlave Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 It doesnt matter how many there are, if people dont use them... And people don't use them. A quick look on google earth shows a crossing outside Primark and one outside the premier inn. You can also see people crossing the road just a few yards away from the crossings. I agree you can have as many crossing as you like, people just don't use them even when it's a case of the crossing only been a few yards away from where the person is wanting to cross. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
InigoMontoya Posted March 5, 2015 Author Share Posted March 5, 2015 Why was this not a custodial? He admitted that he chose not loosing his bonus over killing someone. Are you sure it wasn't something he'd submitted in evidence as mitigation, rather than "chosing" to kill someone? Having said that, I'm surprised his brief allowed him to submit this to the court, it makes him look not only like a complete buffoon, but also mercenary and callous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vegas1 Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Looks to me like a case of he thought she was going to clear the road in time, the article suggests she was only 2m away from safety I witness it all the time at that road junction, people just floating across the road paying no attention to their surroundings. Not saying this lady did that, I can't imagine a 74 year old being light on her feet either though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodmally Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 It doesnt matter how many there are, if people dont use them... I know my post was simply to argue a case against spending money on another one. I suspect the driver was foolish and careless but so was the OAP and I have crossed there foolishly too so not signalling her out just saying we can all learn from this tragedy me included. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dannyno Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Why was this not a custodial? He admitted that he chose not loosing his bonus over killing someone. We only know what's been reported. The judge seems to have said the driver made a "clear error of judgement" and that his view of the road was obstructed by street furniture. So along with the claim that he was trying not to swerve or break suddenly, that would have been his mitigation. He wasn't over the speed limit, and he admitted the offence. The sentencing guidelines for "causing death by dangerous driving" are here: https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/publications/item/causing-death-by-driving-definitive-guideline/ The judge has to assess the seriousness of the offence, given someone died. They do that by looking at "awareness of risk" - were they driving very badly for a long period of time? - the not swerving etc thing might be counted here I suppose. "Effect of alcohol or drugs" - no evidence of that in the article. "Inappropriate speed" - he was going 14 mph, so not an issue. "Seriously culpable behaviour" - no evidence in the article of aggressive driving, using a mobile phone, distraction, medical condition, tiredness or a dangerous load. "Victim" - "failing to have proper regard to vulnerable road users" - maybe this? Aggravating/mitigating factors include: multiple victims - one victim in this case. Effect on offender - injury to driver could be a mitigating factor, if driver's driving not to blame, but none reported actions of others: if others contributed to the offence, that's mitigation, but nothing in the article on that. Good driving record: not recorded, but if so it would have been taken into account Conduct at the scene/after the event: no information on this, but if he stopped and gave assistance, then that would be mitigating. If he was remorseful, that would be mitigating, if genuine So then the process it the judge determines a sentencing starting point, and then applies any mitigation and a reduction for pleading guilty. There are three levels of "causing death by dangerous driving". Maximum sentence is 14 years for a level 1 offence, with the starting point being at 8 years. For a level 3 offence, the maximum is 5 years and the starting point 3 years. However, the notes say that if the offence involved driving "less culpable" than usual for level 3, then the judge needs to start at the most serious level of "causing death by careless driving". Maximum sentence for that is 5 years. However, in this case the driver has got a 12 month community order, which would mean it's been assessed in the middle range of sentences for death by careless driving. So I'm taking that to mean that although the driver didn't take proper evasive action, and that's the key to their sentence, there were no other aggravating factors. They pleaded guilty, for all we know has a clean record, wasn't drunk or on drugs, wasn't speeding, stopped after the accident, pleaded guilty, is remorseful, and didn't have a good view of the road due to "street furniture". The judge called for a crossing, which suggests he thought the lack of one was a problem that he was also taking into account. It hasn't been stated, but it's also possible that the pedestrian was unfortunately in the "wrong" place. I doubt the driver will work as a driver again. Taking all that into account, I wouldn't lock him up either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodmally Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 We only know what's been reported. The judge seems to have said the driver made a "clear error of judgement" and that his view of the road was obstructed by street furniture. So along with the claim that he was trying not to swerve or break suddenly, that would have been his mitigation. He wasn't over the speed limit, and he admitted the offence. The sentencing guidelines for "causing death by dangerous driving" are here: https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/publications/item/causing-death-by-driving-definitive-guideline/ The judge has to assess the seriousness of the offence, given someone died. They do that by looking at "awareness of risk" - were they driving very badly for a long period of time? - the not swerving etc thing might be counted here I suppose. "Effect of alcohol or drugs" - no evidence of that in the article. "Inappropriate speed" - he was going 14 mph, so not an issue. "Seriously culpable behaviour" - no evidence in the article of aggressive driving, using a mobile phone, distraction, medical condition, tiredness or a dangerous load. "Victim" - "failing to have proper regard to vulnerable road users" - maybe this? Aggravating/mitigating factors include: multiple victims - one victim in this case. Effect on offender - injury to driver could be a mitigating factor, if driver's driving not to blame, but none reported actions of others: if others contributed to the offence, that's mitigation, but nothing in the article on that. Good driving record: not recorded, but if so it would have been taken into account Conduct at the scene/after the event: no information on this, but if he stopped and gave assistance, then that would be mitigating. If he was remorseful, that would be mitigating, if genuine So then the process it the judge determines a sentencing starting point, and then applies any mitigation and a reduction for pleading guilty. There are three levels of "causing death by dangerous driving". Maximum sentence is 14 years for a level 1 offence, with the starting point being at 8 years. For a level 3 offence, the maximum is 5 years and the starting point 3 years. However, the notes say that if the offence involved driving "less culpable" than usual for level 3, then the judge needs to start at the most serious level of "causing death by careless driving". Maximum sentence for that is 5 years. However, in this case the driver has got a 12 month community order, which would mean it's been assessed in the middle range of sentences for death by careless driving. So I'm taking that to mean that although the driver didn't take proper evasive action, and that's the key to their sentence, there were no other aggravating factors. They pleaded guilty, for all we know has a clean record, wasn't drunk or on drugs, wasn't speeding, stopped after the accident, pleaded guilty, is remorseful, and didn't have a good view of the road due to "street furniture". The judge called for a crossing, which suggests he thought the lack of one was a problem that he was also taking into account. It hasn't been stated, but it's also possible that the pedestrian was unfortunately in the "wrong" place. I doubt the driver will work as a driver again. Taking all that into account, I wouldn't lock him up either. Based on what I have read there was no malice in what the driver did its just likely carelessness. The same carelessness of the person who got ran over for not using the appropriate crossing which has lead to a tragic circumstance. So I think the punishment fits the event fully. Lets hope people learn from this and we dont have a repeat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchemist Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 That road doesn't need a crossing, it just needs people to actually look when crossing it, it is only one way. But it would help if the driver was actually willinig to stop for people who dont happen to look!! ---------- Post added 06-03-2015 at 11:01 ---------- Well I don't see an issue with having a scheme like that, I have been on plenty of rough bus rides with the drivers breaking harshly all the time, obvious bus drivers shouldn't be knocking over old ladies (or any other pedestrian) in order to try and win it though and if that was in the drivers mind when he knocked her over then he is a fool. So as long as the bus doesnt bump as it drives over a pedestiran its OK? Do bus drivers get extra points like in death race 2000? ---------- Post added 06-03-2015 at 11:03 ---------- It wont harm having a crossing there but you are right it needs people to take care when crossing. It sounds like if there HAD been a crossing there it wouldnt have made any difference as it would have still have needed him to stop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vegas1 Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 (edited) So as long as the bus doesnt bump as it drives over a pedestiran its OK? Err, where did I say that? I'm quite sure First dont want its bus drivers running over pedestrians in order to win a bonus. I alrady said the driver is a fool, you actually quoted it. Shouldnt speak ill of the dead but are you attributing 0% blame to the pedestrian in this case? A 74 year old lady, not the fastest mover no doubt, spurning a pedestrian crossing. Blame can be apportioned to both parties it seems, in my opinion Edited March 6, 2015 by Vegas1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchemist Posted March 6, 2015 Share Posted March 6, 2015 Do you not think smooth driving is a big part of safe driving? I think that NOT knocking over pedestrains is an even bigger part!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now