On Wed, 07 Sep 2016 20:55:07 +0100, Aubrey Straw wrote:

James Wilkinson wrote:

On Wed, 07 Sep 2016 17:47:34 +0100, Aubrey Straw wrote:

Mr Pounder Esquire wrote:

Tony Dragon wrote:
http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surr...clist-11849698




Driver who hit and killed cyclist on A31 near Farnham while texting
jailed for nine years

Why he wasn't banned before beggars belief.

Good, he deserves to be locked up.

However, I see cyclist riding both on the footpath and the road texting all
the
time.
If a texting cyclist was to hit and kill a pedestrian, would he get 9 years
in jail?
Or, do we both know the answer to that one?

We may be a long time waiting for the answer to that one being confirmed.
What is more likely to happen first out of a) and b) I wonder:

a) A pedestrian being hit and killed by lightening.

b) A pedestrian being hit and killed by a texting cyclist who already has
six previous convictions for texting while cycling.

The fines and punishments given to drivers don't make sense. The nurse overtaking a lorry killed a cyclist too, but she just got a 2 year ban and some community service. Clearly she's just as dangerous, as for whatever reason she didn't see the cyclist either.

When we hear these sentences that drivers receive we often don't know the
full facts that come out during their trail, so it can be difficult to
compare them objectively.

Even so, it does seem that on occasion you can be particularly lucky or
unlucky on the day - I guess it's just a day we all hope we are never
obliged to face.

Presumably it's up to the judge how big the sentence is, the jury just say guilty or not.

--
"I have left orders to be awakened at any time in case of national emergency, even if I'm in a cabinet meeting." - Ronald Reagan