Speeding driver who killed dedicated cyclist days before Christmasgets jail sentence

On 08/09/2020 00:49, JNugent wrote:
On 07/09/2020 22:02, Mike Collins wrote:
On Monday, 7 September 2020 17:23:39 UTC+1, JNugentÂ* wrote:

We need to bear in mind the Police investigators have to report a
speed based on their measurements and errors then give the defendant
the benefit of the doubt and report the MINIMUM possible speed. If
the report showed a MINIMUM speed of 59mph it was more likely an
indicated speed of 90mph.

.....

Do you actually realise the depth of your own ignorance?

Not knowing the meaning of the word "likely" shows you don't know the
depth of yours.

On 08/09/2020 02:33, Mike Collins wrote:
On Tuesday, 8 September 2020 02:24:58 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 08/09/2020 02:20, Mike Collins wrote:
On Tuesday, 8 September 2020 00:48:19 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 07/09/2020 22:02, Mike Collins wrote:
On Monday, 7 September 2020 17:23:39 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 07/09/2020 16:27, Mike Collins wrote:
On Friday, 4 September 2020 19:20:52 UTC+1, Simon Mason wrote:
Utter scum driver.
QUOTE:
A speeding Porsche driver who killed a cyclist when he lost control of his £50,000 sports car and knocked him off his bike has been spared jail.

David McSkimming was driving at 59mph in a 40mph zone when he collided with keen cyclist Anthony Satterthwaite, 51.

The 53-year-old was travelling almost 20mph over the speed limit on Eastcote Lane, Solihull, West Mids., when he lost control on a bend.

He hit a tree, span across the road and smashed into Mr Satterthwaite who was cycling in the opposite direction.

Mr Satterthwaite suffered multiple injuries and was pronounced dead at the scene of the crash which happened at 11.50am on December 22, 2018.

McSkimming, who lives in Knowle, West Mids., admitted causing death by careless driving at Birmingham Crown Court.

In a victim impact statement read to the court, Mr Satterthwaite’s wife said: "Most people will remember Anthony for his huge smile, his laugh and his friendly demeanour.

"Anthony was an incredibly strong cyclist who was passionate about the sport and would cycle hundreds of miles a week to keep fit and also enjoy the great outdoors as well as the social aspect of cycling."

Today McSkimming was sentenced to six months in prison, suspended for two years, ordered to carry out 250 hours of community service and banned from driving for two years.

Detective Sergeant Paul Hughes, of the Serious Collision Investigation Unit, said: "This was a tragic collision which resulted in the death of a much-loved husband and father.

"Our thoughts remain with Anthony’s devastated family at this difficult time."

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...cated-22630868

We need to bear in mind the Police investigators have to report a speed based on their measurements and errors then give the defendant the benefit of the doubt and report the MINIMUM possible speed. If the report showed a MINIMUM speed of 59mph it was more likely an indicated speed of 90mph.

Please show your working out and explain the basis and relevance of your
dodgy assumptions.

So you think the calculations had no errors?

What "calculations"?

Please show them.

Even though car speedometers MUST over read by law?

Do you actually realise the depth of your own ignorance?

+ or - how much?

Thanks for the confirmation.

Thank you for confirming you do not understand error bars.

Your ignorance was shown in words (an incorrect statement of the law).

On 08/09/2020 03:49, Mike Collins wrote:
On Tuesday, 8 September 2020 02:24:58 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 08/09/2020 02:20, Mike Collins wrote:
On Tuesday, 8 September 2020 00:48:19 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 07/09/2020 22:02, Mike Collins wrote:
On Monday, 7 September 2020 17:23:39 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 07/09/2020 16:27, Mike Collins wrote:
On Friday, 4 September 2020 19:20:52 UTC+1, Simon Mason wrote:
Utter scum driver.
QUOTE:
A speeding Porsche driver who killed a cyclist when he lost control of his £50,000 sports car and knocked him off his bike has been spared jail.

David McSkimming was driving at 59mph in a 40mph zone when he collided with keen cyclist Anthony Satterthwaite, 51.

The 53-year-old was travelling almost 20mph over the speed limit on Eastcote Lane, Solihull, West Mids., when he lost control on a bend.

He hit a tree, span across the road and smashed into Mr Satterthwaite who was cycling in the opposite direction.

Mr Satterthwaite suffered multiple injuries and was pronounced dead at the scene of the crash which happened at 11.50am on December 22, 2018.

McSkimming, who lives in Knowle, West Mids., admitted causing death by careless driving at Birmingham Crown Court.

In a victim impact statement read to the court, Mr Satterthwaite’s wife said: "Most people will remember Anthony for his huge smile, his laugh and his friendly demeanour.

"Anthony was an incredibly strong cyclist who was passionate about the sport and would cycle hundreds of miles a week to keep fit and also enjoy the great outdoors as well as the social aspect of cycling."

Today McSkimming was sentenced to six months in prison, suspended for two years, ordered to carry out 250 hours of community service and banned from driving for two years.

Detective Sergeant Paul Hughes, of the Serious Collision Investigation Unit, said: "This was a tragic collision which resulted in the death of a much-loved husband and father.

"Our thoughts remain with Anthony’s devastated family at this difficult time."

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...cated-22630868

We need to bear in mind the Police investigators have to report a speed based on their measurements and errors then give the defendant the benefit of the doubt and report the MINIMUM possible speed. If the report showed a MINIMUM speed of 59mph it was more likely an indicated speed of 90mph.

Please show your working out and explain the basis and relevance of your
dodgy assumptions.

So you think the calculations had no errors?

What "calculations"?

Please show them.

Even though car speedometers MUST over read by law?

Do you actually realise the depth of your own ignorance?

+ or - how much?

Thanks for the confirmation.

Are you one of the people who believed that when the UK mains voltage changed from 240v to 230v in line with the rest of the EU cookers used less energy?

That isn't even a proper sentence, though I suppose it is possible to
work out what you meant.

https://www.leadsdirect.co.uk/knowle...opean-voltage/

It's called error.

talking of error, re-read your rather brave assertion about the
provisions of the Construction and Use regulations.

On 08/09/2020 10:02, TMS320 wrote:
On 08/09/2020 00:49, JNugent wrote:
On 07/09/2020 22:02, Mike Collins wrote:
On Monday, 7 September 2020 17:23:39 UTC+1, JNugentÂ* wrote:

We need to bear in mind the Police investigators have to report a
speed based on their measurements and errors then give the
defendant the benefit of the doubt and report the MINIMUM possible
speed. If the report showed a MINIMUM speed of 59mph it was more
likely an indicated speed of 90mph.

.....

Do you actually realise the depth of your own ignorance?

Not knowing the meaning of the word "likely" shows you don't know the
depth of yours.

You have, of course, missed the point entirely and snipped the wrong things.

Again.

On 08/09/2020 13:42, JNugent wrote:
On 08/09/2020 10:02, TMS320 wrote:
On 08/09/2020 00:49, JNugent wrote:
On 07/09/2020 22:02, Mike Collins wrote:
On Monday, 7 September 2020 17:23:39 UTC+1, JNugentÂ* wrote:

We need to bear in mind the Police investigators have to report a
speed based on their measurements and errors then give the
defendant the benefit of the doubt and report the MINIMUM possible
speed. If the report showed a MINIMUM speed of 59mph it was more
likely an indicated speed of 90mph.

.....

Do you actually realise the depth of your own ignorance?

Not knowing the meaning of the word "likely" shows you don't know the
depth of yours.

You have, of course, missed the point entirely and snipped the wrong
things.

Only in your worthless opinion.

On Tuesday, 8 September 2020 13:36:59 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 08/09/2020 02:33, Mike Collins wrote:
On Tuesday, 8 September 2020 02:24:58 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 08/09/2020 02:20, Mike Collins wrote:
On Tuesday, 8 September 2020 00:48:19 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 07/09/2020 22:02, Mike Collins wrote:
On Monday, 7 September 2020 17:23:39 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 07/09/2020 16:27, Mike Collins wrote:
On Friday, 4 September 2020 19:20:52 UTC+1, Simon Mason wrote:
Utter scum driver.
QUOTE:
A speeding Porsche driver who killed a cyclist when he lost control of his £50,000 sports car and knocked him off his bike has been spared jail.

David McSkimming was driving at 59mph in a 40mph zone when he collided with keen cyclist Anthony Satterthwaite, 51.

The 53-year-old was travelling almost 20mph over the speed limit on Eastcote Lane, Solihull, West Mids., when he lost control on a bend.

He hit a tree, span across the road and smashed into Mr Satterthwaite who was cycling in the opposite direction.

Mr Satterthwaite suffered multiple injuries and was pronounced dead at the scene of the crash which happened at 11.50am on December 22, 2018.

McSkimming, who lives in Knowle, West Mids., admitted causing death by careless driving at Birmingham Crown Court.

In a victim impact statement read to the court, Mr Satterthwaite’s wife said: "Most people will remember Anthony for his huge smile, his laugh and his friendly demeanour.

"Anthony was an incredibly strong cyclist who was passionate about the sport and would cycle hundreds of miles a week to keep fit and also enjoy the great outdoors as well as the social aspect of cycling."

Today McSkimming was sentenced to six months in prison, suspended for two years, ordered to carry out 250 hours of community service and banned from driving for two years.

Detective Sergeant Paul Hughes, of the Serious Collision Investigation Unit, said: "This was a tragic collision which resulted in the death of a much-loved husband and father.

"Our thoughts remain with Anthony’s devastated family at this difficult time."

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...cated-22630868

We need to bear in mind the Police investigators have to report a speed based on their measurements and errors then give the defendant the benefit of the doubt and report the MINIMUM possible speed. If the report showed a MINIMUM speed of 59mph it was more likely an indicated speed of 90mph.

Please show your working out and explain the basis and relevance of your
dodgy assumptions.

So you think the calculations had no errors?

What "calculations"?

Please show them.

Even though car speedometers MUST over read by law?

Do you actually realise the depth of your own ignorance?

+ or - how much?

Thanks for the confirmation.

Thank you for confirming you do not understand error bars.

Your ignorance was shown in words (an incorrect statement of the law).

If it cannot be expressed in figures it is not science it is an opinion.

On 08/09/2020 14:56, Mike Collins wrote:
On Tuesday, 8 September 2020 13:36:59 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 08/09/2020 02:33, Mike Collins wrote:
On Tuesday, 8 September 2020 02:24:58 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 08/09/2020 02:20, Mike Collins wrote:
On Tuesday, 8 September 2020 00:48:19 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 07/09/2020 22:02, Mike Collins wrote:
On Monday, 7 September 2020 17:23:39 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 07/09/2020 16:27, Mike Collins wrote:
On Friday, 4 September 2020 19:20:52 UTC+1, Simon Mason wrote:
Utter scum driver.
QUOTE:
A speeding Porsche driver who killed a cyclist when he lost control of his £50,000 sports car and knocked him off his bike has been spared jail.

David McSkimming was driving at 59mph in a 40mph zone when he collided with keen cyclist Anthony Satterthwaite, 51.

The 53-year-old was travelling almost 20mph over the speed limit on Eastcote Lane, Solihull, West Mids., when he lost control on a bend.

He hit a tree, span across the road and smashed into Mr Satterthwaite who was cycling in the opposite direction.

Mr Satterthwaite suffered multiple injuries and was pronounced dead at the scene of the crash which happened at 11.50am on December 22, 2018.

McSkimming, who lives in Knowle, West Mids., admitted causing death by careless driving at Birmingham Crown Court.

In a victim impact statement read to the court, Mr Satterthwaite’s wife said: "Most people will remember Anthony for his huge smile, his laugh and his friendly demeanour.

"Anthony was an incredibly strong cyclist who was passionate about the sport and would cycle hundreds of miles a week to keep fit and also enjoy the great outdoors as well as the social aspect of cycling."

Today McSkimming was sentenced to six months in prison, suspended for two years, ordered to carry out 250 hours of community service and banned from driving for two years.

Detective Sergeant Paul Hughes, of the Serious Collision Investigation Unit, said: "This was a tragic collision which resulted in the death of a much-loved husband and father.

"Our thoughts remain with Anthony’s devastated family at this difficult time."

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...cated-22630868

We need to bear in mind the Police investigators have to report a speed based on their measurements and errors then give the defendant the benefit of the doubt and report the MINIMUM possible speed. If the report showed a MINIMUM speed of 59mph it was more likely an indicated speed of 90mph.

Please show your working out and explain the basis and relevance of your
dodgy assumptions.

So you think the calculations had no errors?

What "calculations"?

Please show them.

Even though car speedometers MUST over read by law?

Do you actually realise the depth of your own ignorance?

+ or - how much?

Thanks for the confirmation.

Thank you for confirming you do not understand error bars.

Your ignorance was shown in words (an incorrect statement of the law).

If it cannot be expressed in figures it is not science it is an opinion.

Your "opinion" of what the law provides (in one particular instance) was
incorrect.

On 08/09/2020 14:15, TMS320 wrote:
On 08/09/2020 13:42, JNugent wrote:
On 08/09/2020 10:02, TMS320 wrote:
On 08/09/2020 00:49, JNugent wrote:
On 07/09/2020 22:02, Mike Collins wrote:
On Monday, 7 September 2020 17:23:39 UTC+1, JNugentÂ* wrote:

We need to bear in mind the Police investigators have to report a
speed based on their measurements and errors then give the
defendant the benefit of the doubt and report the MINIMUM
possible speed. If the report showed a MINIMUM speed of 59mph it
was more likely an indicated speed of 90mph.

.....

Do you actually realise the depth of your own ignorance?

Not knowing the meaning of the word "likely" shows you don't know the
depth of yours.

You have, of course, missed the point entirely and snipped the wrong
things.

Only in your worthless opinion.

Please yourself.

You could read the thread and realise your mistake.

On 08/09/2020 15:25, JNugent wrote:
On 08/09/2020 14:15, TMS320 wrote:
On 08/09/2020 13:42, JNugent wrote:
On 08/09/2020 10:02, TMS320 wrote:
On 08/09/2020 00:49, JNugent wrote:
On 07/09/2020 22:02, Mike Collins wrote:
On Monday, 7 September 2020 17:23:39 UTC+1, JNugentÂ* wrote:

We need to bear in mind the Police investigators have to report
a speed based on their measurements and errors then give the
defendant the benefit of the doubt and report the MINIMUM
possible speed. If the report showed a MINIMUM speed of 59mph it
was more likely an indicated speed of 90mph.

.....

Do you actually realise the depth of your own ignorance?

Not knowing the meaning of the word "likely" shows you don't know
the depth of yours.

You have, of course, missed the point entirely and snipped the wrong
things.

Only in your worthless opinion.

Please yourself.

You could read the thread and realise your mistake.

I have read it and not made a mistake.

On 08/09/2020 17:25, TMS320 wrote:
On 08/09/2020 15:25, JNugent wrote:
On 08/09/2020 14:15, TMS320 wrote:
On 08/09/2020 13:42, JNugent wrote:
On 08/09/2020 10:02, TMS320 wrote:
On 08/09/2020 00:49, JNugent wrote:
On 07/09/2020 22:02, Mike Collins wrote:
On Monday, 7 September 2020 17:23:39 UTC+1, JNugentÂ* wrote:

We need to bear in mind the Police investigators have to report
a speed based on their measurements and errors then give the
defendant the benefit of the doubt and report the MINIMUM
possible speed. If the report showed a MINIMUM speed of 59mph
it was more likely an indicated speed of 90mph.

.....

Do you actually realise the depth of your own ignorance?

Not knowing the meaning of the word "likely" shows you don't know
the depth of yours.

You have, of course, missed the point entirely and snipped the wrong
things.

Only in your worthless opinion.

Please yourself.

You could read the thread and realise your mistake.

I have read it and not made a mistake.

Collins made a mistake as to the a provision of the C&R regulations and
that fact was pointed out to him. he at least realised he was wrong
because he's gone quiet about it.

You made a mistake by wrongly assuming that his error as to the meaning
and effect of the C&U Regulation in question was something to do with
the remote measurement of speed, consequently snipping the relevant part
of the thread and leaving and relying upon other stuff which was nothing
to do with Collins' error.

You both made mistakes (but not the same one).