Text and Drive

[Saracen]

....

As for the cyclist? He caused an accident and died as a result. Killing a cyclist who runs a red light from time to time is a good idea, as it reminds the others what a dangerous pastime it is. Fortunately the girl didn't swerve into any pedestrians. Of course I am a cyclist myself.

So am I. And a driver.

Killing cyclists might be going a tad far, but I'd agree about much of the rest ..... if she hadn't been speeding and texting. Had she been obeying the speed limits and concentrating on her driving, one of two outcomes was likely :-

- she'd have seen the cyclist and stopped in time, or
- she couldn't have stopped in time, the cyclist would still be hurt/dead but she probably wouldn't have been prosecuted.

Yes, the cyclist was in the wrong too. But the fact of the conviction suggests that circumstances were such that her actions, or lack of care, resulted in an otherwise avoidable death, even though the idiot cyclist jumped the lights.

[TeePee]

Or three - She sees the cyclist and swerves into a lamp post, killing herself, and the mother and children stood next to it. The cyclist rides away.

[ajones]

If I may ask a slightly different question....

Would the arguaments regarding her sentencing be different if she had not been using her mobile phone, had not been speeding but had been DWI?

DWI is equally as illegal as speeding... or using a mobile phone.... and she was breaking both those laws....

Killing a cyclist who runs a red light from time to time is a good idea, as it reminds the others what a dangerous pastime it is. Fortunately the girl didn't swerve into any pedestrians. Of course I am a cyclist myself.

I appreciate that I'm taking your quote literally, and I'd hope that the sentiment is actually a joke BUT....

If it's a good idea to warn cyclists every once and a while by killing one off....
Why isn't it a good idea to jail a driver every once in a while for breaking traffic laws?

[TeePee]

Slightly aside from this case I have an academic problem with the crime of 'Causing death by..'.

Imagine a scenario where a driver, call it a drunk to avoid confusion, drives his car off the road and ploughs into a bus stop. He's arrested, etc and the bus stop is repaired. The next month, another drunk runs into the same bus stop. In this case, purely by chance, a mother and children are stood there, and are killed.

Drunk A gets his licence suspended for a year, while drunk B gets life in prison. Why is this? It isn't fair, that two people who commit identically bad, wilful criminal acts should face such radically different consequences. But what's the alternative? Should every drunk get life? Should a drunk who massacres a family get a slap on the wrist? Of course not, these outcomes are totally unacceptable to society.

Take this to the extreme and imagine another driver. This time, he's not a drunk, but he does fall asleep at the wheel, and run off the road. Completely by chance this happens near a railway bridge with a short barrier and he ends up on the tracks. Completely by chance, there's a train coming at exactly this time, and it hit's the car and derails. Completely by chance, there's another train coming in the other direction, which hits the first train, and 10 people die. How much responsibility does this driver really have? People fall asleep at the wheel all the time, most face no criminal penalty, only a wrecked car. This guy didn't DO anything different, did he?

This is the nature of justice. While the Selby train crash guy might have been a nasty piece of work, I can't help thinking that what we're really doing here isn't punishing people for their wrongful actions, but taking revenge for the hurt they cause. Is that wrong?

I think in this case, the fact that the girl was texting is simply used as an excuse to take revenge on her for the death of a cyclist, whoin reality undoubtedly caused his own death.

[TheAnimus]

in the case of drunk A and drunk B, its very hard to show that A could of killed people. The bus stop was empty, it could be argued he'd of known that.

Only B can easily, be proved beyound all reasonable doubt, to of killed people as a result of drunk driving. As such B can be given a bigger sentance.

I wounder if anyone has any stats on the punishment terms for Premeditated Murder and Premed. Attempted murder.

[ajones]

Some interesting points TeePee, but...

I think in this case, the fact that the girl was texting is simply used as an excuse to take revenge on her for the death of a cyclist, whoin reality undoubtedly caused his own death.

There's no simple thing about it. Texting whilst in control of a vehicle is illegal. Driving at 45 in a 30 zone is illegal. Whilst doing so someone was killed - there was no premeditation about it, and the cyclist did contribute, so she was done for manslaughter.

The cyclist did not cause his own death, he contributed to the circumstances. He was dumb, she was dumb... they both deserved a court appearance, but alas for the cyclist that was unfortunately impossible due to the nature of the injuries he received for his part in this accident.

[Saracen]

Or three - She sees the cyclist and swerves into a lamp post, killing herself, and the mother and children stood next to it. The cyclist rides away.

Possible, certainly. But that's why I said one of those two outcomes was "likely" rather than that it was limited to them.

[Saracen]

Slightly aside from this case I have an academic problem with the crime of 'Causing death by..'.

Imagine a scenario where a driver, call it a drunk to avoid confusion, drives his car off the road and ploughs into a bus stop. He's arrested, etc and the bus stop is repaired. The next month, another drunk runs into the same bus stop. In this case, purely by chance, a mother and children are stood there, and are killed.

Drunk A gets his licence suspended for a year, while drunk B gets life in prison. Why is this? It isn't fair, that two people who commit identically bad, wilful criminal acts should face such radically different consequences. But what's the alternative? Should every drunk get life? Should a drunk who massacres a family get a slap on the wrist? Of course not, these outcomes are totally unacceptable to society.

Take this to the extreme and imagine another driver. This time, he's not a drunk, but he does fall asleep at the wheel, and run off the road. Completely by chance this happens near a railway bridge with a short barrier and he ends up on the tracks. Completely by chance, there's a train coming at exactly this time, and it hit's the car and derails. Completely by chance, there's another train coming in the other direction, which hits the first train, and 10 people die. How much responsibility does this driver really have? People fall asleep at the wheel all the time, most face no criminal penalty, only a wrecked car. This guy didn't DO anything different, did he?

This is the nature of justice. While the Selby train crash guy might have been a nasty piece of work, I can't help thinking that what we're really doing here isn't punishing people for their wrongful actions, but taking revenge for the hurt they cause. Is that wrong?

I think in this case, the fact that the girl was texting is simply used as an excuse to take revenge on her for the death of a cyclist, whoin reality undoubtedly caused his own death.

Some good points that illustrate some of the problems with a legal system actually dispensing justice. The system is far from perfect, which is why I generally refer to it as a legal system rather than a justice system, because the latter it often fails to be.

But another way of looking at it is that in each case, the severity of the penalty related to the consequences of the actions of the offender.

I also dispute that the cyclist "undoubtedly" caused his own death. He contributed to it, yes. But from the descriptions of events, if she hadn't been speeding and texting, he'd quite possibly (maybe 'probably') still be alive, despite his jumping the lights. And he was riding a bike. She'd driving a ton and a half of metal. The likelihood of an incident in a car causing serious injury or death is far higher than the likelihood of an incident with a cyclist doing so. That's why there are so many laws about the obligations of drivers, and far fewer (some, certainly, but far fewer) about cyclists.

As for drunk drivers, I'm not even going there, because I have no doubt a lot of people would regard what my sentence for them would be as barbaric. They are, in my view, an utterly contemptible bunch of bleeps.

[Agent]

I text while riding my motor bike But I keep my eyes on the road, i can text without looking does that count?

Just in case you ain't joking - Id' love to pull up next to you on my bike so I could go all Road Rash on your ass
I assume you're joking though as you couldn't physically text with bike gloves on

As for the subject: I'm glad to see they are coming down hard on it. If the road had her full attention, its unlikely he would have been killed, even if he was in the wrong for the red light.
Then again, I'm slightly biased as a day rarely goes by where some idiot comes way to close to my bike through using a phone while driving

[badass]

I don't think anyone's arguing that the women is blameless - just that I believe (and it sounds like SilentDeath is with me here) that the punishment is harsh given that the cyclist also did something incredibly stupid - i.e. he was also at fault for his fate. In my book running a red light is more dangerous than speeding by a few mph... Yes she was 50% over the speed limit but we can all think of occasions where the speed limit has been artificially lowered on a road for non-safety reasons and not knowing the road in question it is not reasonable to say how unsafe (as opposed to how legal) such a speed would be. It's easy to say she was approaching a junction and should have slowed down but she could have known that junction - including the timing of the lights - very well and not felt she was doing anything particularly dangerous. Not forgetting that on a busy road where everyone else was doing 30mph at most if would have been very difficult to do 45mph! For me texting while driving is plainly stupid but speeding is more of a grey area - a safe driving speed depends upon the conditions at the time and not what the sign says (e.g. driving at the speed limit can be dangerous as well). And please, don't tell me you always respect the speed limit as well as get ready to stop for every light you ever drive up to / through - no-one drives like a saint all the time.

Find me a single junction in this country where:
There are traffic lights
The speed limit is 30 MPH
It is anything other than so utterly stupid that it can't be anything other than criminally negligent to be BOTH texting on a mobile phone AND doing 45 MPH across the junction.

Put it another way,
Texting whilst driving is bloody stupid.
Doind 50% over the speed limit is stupid in the vast majority of cases.
Texting while doing 50% over the speed limit is very, very, very stupid.
Texting whilst crossing a junction with traffic lights at the speed limit is very, very, very stupid.
What does that make driving across a junction at 50% over the speed limit whilst texting?

I'd say that irrelevant of whether anyone gets hurt or killed, the stupid cow fully deserves 4 years in prision to think about how stupidly dangerous she was being.

And yes, if the cyclist survived, he should have been punished for running the red.

Also, the fact the cyclist ran the red is irrelevant to the girls punishment. It could just as easily been an unattentive pedestrian which does happen all of the time.

[malfunction]

the stupid cow fully deserves 4 years in prision to think about how stupidly dangerous she was being

Yes she was an idiot but 4 years is a long time for a stupid mistake - I'm not saying don't punish the woman but as she's already likely dealing with the guilt of killing someone through her stupidity, losing her job and her liberty I think 4 years is a bit strong. I'm no expert on the matter but browsing through the drunk driver stories on news.bbc.co.uk shows anything from fines (!) to 6 + years being handed out and I'm sorry but as stupid as it is it isn't as stupid as getting in the car drunk - and again the cyclist ran the red light - find me a single junction in this country where it's safer to do that than wait for the lights to change!

[Agent]

Yes she was an idiot but 4 years is a long time for a stupid mistake - I'm not saying don't punish the woman but as she's already likely dealing with the guilt of killing someone through her stupidity, losing her job and her liberty I think 4 years is a bit strong. I'm no expert on the matter but browsing through the drunk driver stories on news.bbc.co.uk shows anything from fines (!) to 6 + years being handed out and I'm sorry but as stupid as it is it isn't as stupid as getting in the car drunk - and again the cyclist ran the red light - find me a single junction in this country where it's safer to do that than wait for the lights to change!

What would you suggest?
She had already had 3 speeding tickets. Doesn't seem appear to be the kind of person to take note of fair warnings.

[Saracen]

Getting in the car (to drive) drunk is monumentally stupid and selfish. But so is speeding and texting. And if, in either case, you end up killing (or seriously injuring) someone, you deserve to get the book thrown at you. In either case, lives are lost and families devastated because of the rank stupidity and selfishness of the driver .... and the punishment should reflect that.

[malfunction]

What would you suggest?
She had already had 3 speeding tickets. Doesn't seem appear to be the kind of person to take note of fair warnings.

Obviously it's hard to say without knowing all the circumstances - despite the fact that I've already been doing just that - but to me 1 or 2 years would be more appropriate for accidental (though highly negligent) behaviour

[malfunction]

In fact, having thought about it some more I'm not convinced even 1 to 2 years isn't over the top. I guess it stems from the relevant punishments for each individual act where the consequences are less severe:

Speeding, fine and points, maybe a ban depending on severity
Using the phone while driving, fine and points

(in fact I think the base fine for both is £60 and 3 points?)

As such a jump to 4 years just because someone else was being idiotic at the time seems rather harsh

[badass]

I'm sorry but as stupid as it is it isn't as stupid as getting in the car drunk

Cant agree with you there. Someone who gets in a car over the drink driving limit is not being more negligent than this unbelievably stupid girl. Someone does not have to be drunk to be over the limit. The punishments for drink driving are generally fair. Someone over the limit is guilty of a single stupid act. They are guilty of being in charge of a deadly weapon whilst unfit to do so. What this girl did is similar in stupidity to approaching a junction, holding your eyes shut and flooring it.
Of course if a driver gets drunk, then drives excessively fast and ignores junctions then they may be as negligent or even more negligent, but simply being over the limit in a car is nowhere near as bad as what this girl did.