"Wholly and morally wrong": wife of cyclist killed by speeding driversays family are "traumatised" by lenient suspended sentence

On 10/09/2020 13:05, JNugent wrote:
On 10/09/2020 08:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/09/2020 00:52, JNugent wrote:
On 08/09/2020 21:05, Simon Mason wrote:
On Tuesday, September 8, 2020 at 8:55:36 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:

It doesn't look like "just an accident" or being careless.
Perhaps bonkers speeding ought to be treated as a deliberate
action, just like a cyclist deliberately using a bike without a
front brake. The sentence really does look lenient.

The moron driver even had his toddler son in the car when he
crashed into the tree.

Does that not indicate a lack of intent to crash into anything?

Only a very stupid person would say "No" in answer to that.

Only an incredidibly stupid person could add that last sentence.

Hardly.

Oh definitely. You're defending the action of the driver.

On 10/09/2020 13:56, Simon Mason wrote:

On Tuesday, September 8, 2020 at 2:16:13 PM UTC+1, Simon Mason wrote:
QUOTE:
RobD | 926 posts | 1 day ago
9 likes

So at what point does breaking the law whilst driving, in this case speeding go from careless to dangerous?

The answer is contained within the relevant Road Traffic Act and in
certain decisions of the relevant upper courts.

QUOTE:
(Road Traffic Act 1988)

Section 2A: Meaning of dangerous driving.

(1) For the purposes of sections 1 and 2 above a person is to be
regarded as driving dangerously if (and, subject to subsection (2)
below, *only* if)—
(a) the way he drives falls *far* below what would be expected of a
competent and careful driver, and
(b) it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving
in that way would be dangerous.
(2) A person is also to be regarded as driving dangerously for the
purposes of sections 1 [F2, 1A] and 2 above if it would be obvious to a
competent and careful driver that driving the vehicle in its current
state would be dangerous.
(3) In subsections (1) and (2) above “dangerous� refers to danger either
of injury to any person or of serious damage to property; and in
determining for the purposes of those subsections what would be expected
of, or obvious to, a competent and careful driver in a particular case,
regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which he could be
expected to be aware but also to any circumstances *shown* to have been
within the *knowledge* of the accused.
(4) In determining for the purposes of subsection (2) above the state of
a vehicle, regard may be had to anything attached to or carried on or in
it and to the manner in which it is attached or carried.
ENDQUOTE

My emphases above. Note that Section 2A subsection 3 effectively
requires a mens rea and means that the alleged offence cannot be
regarded as absolute (unlike, say, excess speed or failure to comply
with traffic lights or one-way working).

QUOTE:
Section 3: Careless, and inconsiderate, driving.

If a person drives a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other
public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable
consideration for other persons using the road or place, he is guilty of
an offence.
ENDQUOTE

Neither offence requires any damage or injury to have been caused.
The law clearly provides that the judgment of what is "dangerous" falls
to a "competent and careful driver" (and by extension, the court,
standing in the shoes of a competent and careful driver), *not* a
cyclist or any other person with a loose-screw grudge against motor
traffic. But of course, that is obvious and you had already realised it.

If you're not speeding and not doing anything illegal and it happens I can kind of understand it being careless, you weren't taking appropriate care, but as soon as you're speeding that should be dangerous driving shouldn't it?

Why? 35mph in a 30mph speed limit is an absolute offence in its own
right, but is it automatically dangerous (or even careless)?

If so, how?

And if it were, why would we need a law against exceeding the speed
limit if it automatically counted as either careless or dangerous driving?

See:
https://www.mosshaselhurst.co.uk/site/news/legal/high-speed-is-that-dangerous-driving

QUOTE:
In a case from 2006, the Director of Public Prosecutions v Mark Scott
Milton, Lady Justice Hallett said “it is not for this Court to attempt
to lay down hard and fast rules that driving at X times any particular
speed limit is so excessive as to amount to dangerous driving per se.
That would be an impossible and inappropriate task�.

As a result of that it is a question of the circumstances of each
particular case as to whether driving at high speed is dangerous or not.
That can depend upon road conditions, traffic conditions, the
preponderance or otherwise of junctions, schools, houses, factories etc,
and many other factors.

In a recent case on the A11 in Suffolk a driver was banned for 56 days
for speeding at 154 mph. It is to be noted that that was a charge of
speeding.
ENDQUOTE

That's not the reported case I was thinking of, but the Court of Appeal
once held that [a high speed] was not automatically dangerous or to be
deemed to be so in the absence of other specific and evidenced
circumstances which, when combined with the speed, created a situation
which a "competent and careful driver" would regard as dangerous.

Just as with other legislation which calls for the judgment of a person
of any particular description (eg, a competent and careful driver), the
reasonableness of the judgment of that person itself has to be
objective. For instance, someone saying "I am a reasonable person and I
would always judge 45 in a 40 as dangerous" is not acting reasonably and
therefore not lawfully. It would not be up to you to burst into the
court to declare your own claimed care and competence and to beg to
differ with the magistrates or the jury.

It would seem harsh if they were doing 42mph in a 40, a few mph can be a momentary slip, but 60 in a 40 is not in that territory.

The courts do have some guidelines on how to treat various degrees of
excess speed. As you can see above, a driver was disqualified for 56
days for driving at 156mph in a (presumed) 70mph limit.

On 10/09/2020 14:25, TMS320 wrote:

On 10/09/2020 13:05, JNugent wrote:
On 10/09/2020 08:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/09/2020 00:52, JNugent wrote:
On 08/09/2020 21:05, Simon Mason wrote:
On Tuesday, September 8, 2020 at 8:55:36 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:

It doesn't look like "just an accident" or being careless.
Perhaps bonkers speeding ought to be treated as a deliberate
action, just like a cyclist deliberately using a bike without a
front brake. The sentence really does look lenient.

The moron driver even had his toddler son in the car when he
crashed into the tree.

Does that not indicate a lack of intent to crash into anything?
Only a very stupid person would say "No" in answer to that.

Only an incredidibly stupid person could add that last sentence.

Hardly.

Oh definitely. You're defending the action of the driver.

The exact *opposite* (but then, you *often* have trouble in deciphering
English and exercising logic), don't you?

I am declining to condemn him as having done something deliberately when
there is no evidence to support such a view and when there is good
reason for believing that the accident happened other than as a result
of deliberate or wilful behaviour on the part of the driver.

If you wouldn't deliberately endanger the lives of your own children
(I'm being very charitable to you in assuming that without eliciting it
directly from you), what makes you "think" that the driver in the case
would have done so?

But you, of course, don't need tiresome things like evidence, do you?

On 10/09/2020 14:41, JNugent wrote:
On 10/09/2020 14:25, TMS320 wrote:

On 10/09/2020 13:05, JNugent wrote:
On 10/09/2020 08:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/09/2020 00:52, JNugent wrote:
On 08/09/2020 21:05, Simon Mason wrote:
On Tuesday, September 8, 2020 at 8:55:36 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:

It doesn't look like "just an accident" or being careless.
Perhaps bonkers speeding ought to be treated as a deliberate
action, just like a cyclist deliberately using a bike without a
front brake. The sentence really does look lenient.

The moron driver even had his toddler son in the car when he
crashed into the tree.

Does that not indicate a lack of intent to crash into anything?
Only a very stupid person would say "No" in answer to that.

Only an incredidibly stupid person could add that last sentence.

Hardly.

Oh definitely. You're defending the action of the driver.

The exact *opposite* (but then, you *often* have trouble in deciphering
English and exercising logic), don't you?

You decided your opinion was the only possible one and closed off
discussion.

snipped unread

On 10/09/2020 15:52, TMS320 wrote:

On 10/09/2020 14:41, JNugent wrote:
On 10/09/2020 14:25, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/09/2020 13:05, JNugent wrote:
On 10/09/2020 08:12, TMS320 wrote:
On 10/09/2020 00:52, JNugent wrote:
On 08/09/2020 21:05, Simon Mason wrote:
On Tuesday, September 8, 2020 at 8:55:36 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:

It doesn't look like "just an accident" or being careless.
Perhaps bonkers speeding ought to be treated as a deliberate
action, just like a cyclist deliberately using a bike without a
front brake. The sentence really does look lenient.

The moron driver even had his toddler son in the car when he
crashed into the tree.

Does that not indicate a lack of intent to crash into anything?
Only a very stupid person would say "No" in answer to that.

Only an incredidibly stupid person could add that last sentence.

Hardly.

Oh definitely. You're defending the action of the driver.

The exact *opposite* (but then, you *often* have trouble in
deciphering English and exercising logic), don't you?

You decided your opinion was the only possible one and closed off
discussion.

My opinion, here and elsewhere, is that you cannot condemn anyone for
anything without evidence which *credibly* supports it. The only
evidence here supports the opposite view from the one you wanted to take
(without your having to bother with little things like evidence).

snipped unread

....andd reinstated because (a) it is central to the esponse to TMS320's
dishonest posts, and (b) it embarrasses him by exposing the unthinking
nature of his "conclusions".

QUOTE:
[in response to: "You're defending the action of the driver":]

The exact *opposite* (but then, you *often* have trouble in deciphering
English and exercising logic), don't you?

I am declining to condemn him as having done something deliberately when
there is no evidence to support such a view and when there is good
reason for believing that the accident happened other than as a result
of deliberate or wilful behaviour on the part of the driver.

If you wouldn't deliberately endanger the lives of your own children
(I'm being very charitable to you in assuming that without eliciting it
directly from you), what makes you "think" that the driver in the case
would have done so?

But you, of course, don't need tiresome things like evidence, do you?
ENDQUOTE

Your attempt at a response was laughable. And you knew that.

On Tuesday, September 8, 2020 at 2:16:13 PM UTC+1, Simon Mason wrote:
QUOTE:
wtjs | 162 posts | 2 days ago
6 likes


A custodial sentence, even a 6 month one, was required- along with a driving ban of at least 5 years. That would have shown that sociey takes the offence seriously- admittedly this wasn't one of the 'didn''t see the cyclist, not my fault' examples. This was a 'didn't see the margin of the road and that massive tree and I had to speed because I was driving a fast car', which the police generally excuse as 'momentary loss of concentration so it's all right'. We don't know how hard it was prosecuted, but it looks more like a sentencing failure born of the 'making the driver suffer won't bring back the dead' dodge. CPS should appeal this joke sentence. We're all disregarding the community service-and we're quite right.


https://road.cc/content/news/wife-tr...entence-277085

On 10/09/2020 17:30, Simon Mason wrote:
On Tuesday, September 8, 2020 at 2:16:13 PM UTC+1, Simon Mason wrote:
QUOTE:
wtjs | 162 posts | 2 days ago
6 likes


A custodial sentence, even a 6 month one, was required- along with a driving ban of at least 5 years. That would have shown that sociey takes the offence seriously- admittedly this wasn't one of the 'didn''t see the cyclist, not my fault' examples. This was a 'didn't see the margin of the road and that massive tree and I had to speed because I was driving a fast car', which the police generally excuse as 'momentary loss of concentration so it's all right'. We don't know how hard it was prosecuted, but it looks more like a sentencing failure born of the 'making the driver suffer won't bring back the dead' dodge. CPS should appeal this joke sentence. We're all disregarding the community service-and we're quite right.


https://road.cc/content/news/wife-tr...entence-277085

Why doesn't the state dispense with the traffic police, the CPS and the
magistrates' courts and appoint Simon Mason to carry out all their
functions?

After all, even without hearing the evidence presented to the court, he
knows it all and they apparently know nothing.

On Thursday, 10 September 2020 13:00:44 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 10/09/2020 03:13, Mike Collins wrote:
On Thursday, 10 September 2020 00:50:48 UTC+1, JNugent wrote:
On 08/09/2020 21:05, Simon Mason wrote:
On Tuesday, September 8, 2020 at 8:55:36 PM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:

It doesn't look like "just an accident" or being careless. Perhaps
bonkers speeding ought to be treated as a deliberate action, just like a
cyclist deliberately using a bike without a front brake. The sentence
really does look lenient.

The moron driver even had his toddler son in the car when he crashed into the tree.

Does that not indicate a lack of intent to crash into anything?

Only a very stupid person would say "No" in answer to that.

So you are saying motor vehicles are so dangerous they kill people even if the licensed operator has no malicious intent?

Yet again, you appear to have tremendous difficulty with English.

I didn't say that or anything even remotely like it.

I *asked* whether the reported fact that the driver of a car which
crashed had his "toddler son" aboard (at the time of the crash) didn't
indicate that he had no intention of crashing the vehicle and that none
of it was deliberate (as suggested - exceptionally stupidly, even for
this place - by a previous poster).

The only possible answer, from a sane respondent, has to be "Yes, it
does indicate a lack of intention and deliberateness".

So you agree, cars injure and kill innocent bystanders absent any malicious intent by the nominal operator.


Why do we let fallible human beings to operate such unpredictable dangerous machinery on public roads?

That's a different question entirely and rather more cosmic in its
scope. You could ask the same question in respect of sharp kitchen
knives and bottles of aspirin. And the answers for all three (as for
many other things) would probably be quite similar.

Outside of Liverpool people do not normally run around the streets with kitchen knives or try to force Aspirin down the throats of others.

On 10/09/2020 16:25, JNugent wrote:

I am replying just so that you can't apply the "you didn't reply so I
won" rule.

...andd reinstated because
.... you're a tedious individual.

snipped unread again

On 11/09/2020 08:06, TMS320 wrote:

On 10/09/2020 16:25, JNugent wrote:

I am replying just so that you can't apply the "you didn't reply so I
won" rule.

...andd reinstated because
... you're a tedious individual.

snipped unread again

Once more, TMS320 demonstrates that he cannot stand being shown to be
wrong yet again.

Here's the snipped material, reinstated (again):

[in response to TMS320's: "You're defending the action of the driver"
(written because he wants to believe that the driver in a traffic
accident deliberately caused a crash whilst his toddler son with him in
the car:]

QUOTE:
....and reinstated because (a) it is central to th response to TMS320's
dishonest posts, and (b) it embarrasses him by exposing the unthinking
nature of his "conclusions".

The exact *opposite* (but then, you *often* have trouble in deciphering
English and exercising logic), don't you?

I am declining to condemn him [the driver] as having done something
deliberately when there is no evidence to support such a view and when
there is good reason for believing that the accident happened other than
as a result of deliberate or wilful behaviour on the part of the driver.

If you wouldn't deliberately endanger the lives of your own children
(I'm being very charitable to you in assuming that without eliciting it
directly from you), what makes you "think" that the driver in the case
would have done so?

But you, of course, don't need tiresome things like evidence, do you?

Your attempt at a response was laughable. And you knew that.
ENDQUOTE

Perhaps you *would* deliberately endanger your family members out of
some perverted "logic" and perhaps you believe that everyone else would
deliberately do the same.

You are wrong on that as on so much else.