Partner's anger as death crash driver walks free

The law has failed again, another sentence which would be a joke if
it was no so serious.

http://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/roundup/articles/2010/05/06/400008-partners-anger-as-death-crash-driver-walks-free/

The case also demonstrates that the usual suspects are wrong when
they whine about speed limits. Had the criminal been driving at or
below the speed limit, 40 mph, rather than between 50 and 60 mph,
then it is unlikely that he would have crashed into the cyclist.

As usual the criminal tried to blame the victim. Not only claiming
that the cyclist was on the wrong side of the road but also that the
cyclist did not have lights on his vehicle. Both claims were lies.







--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

On Thu, 06 May 2010 19:16:06 +0100, David Hansen
wrote:

The law has failed again, another sentence which would be a joke if
it was no so serious.

http://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/roundup/articles/2010/05/06/400008-partners-anger-as-death-crash-driver-walks-free/

The case also demonstrates that the usual suspects are wrong when
they whine about speed limits. Had the criminal been driving at or
below the speed limit, 40 mph, rather than between 50 and 60 mph,
then it is unlikely that he would have crashed into the cyclist.

As usual the criminal tried to blame the victim. Not only claiming
that the cyclist was on the wrong side of the road but also that the
cyclist did not have lights on his vehicle. Both claims were lies.

On the strength of that report, the sentence is a disgrace. But the
charge also appears wrong.

Do that have the charge of, 'Causing death by dangerous driving', in
Scotland, or do the Scots just have, Driving without due care &
attention, and Reckless Driving?

Tom Crispin wrote:

David Hansen wrote:

The law has failed again, another sentence which would be a joke if
it was no so serious.
http://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/roundup/articles/2010/05/06/400008-partners-anger-as-death-crash-driver-walks-free/
The case also demonstrates that the usual suspects are wrong when
they whine about speed limits. Had the criminal been driving at or
below the speed limit, 40 mph, rather than between 50 and 60 mph,
then it is unlikely that he would have crashed into the cyclist.
As usual the criminal tried to blame the victim. Not only claiming
that the cyclist was on the wrong side of the road but also that the
cyclist did not have lights on his vehicle. Both claims were lies.

On the strength of that report, the sentence is a disgrace. But the
charge also appears wrong.

Do that have the charge of, 'Causing death by dangerous driving', in
Scotland, or do the Scots just have, Driving without due care &
attention, and Reckless Driving?

The report states that the conviction was for causing death by careless
driving (ie, causing death by driving without due care and attention).

I'd be fairly certain that this is as new an offence in Scotland as it is in
the rest of the UK. And equally sure that it is a charge used where the
prosecuting authorities (who of course know more about the case than anyone
here can) take the view that a charge of causing death by dangerous driving
is less than likely to lead to a conviction (because of the standard of proof
required).

On 6 May, 21:48, JNugent wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:
David Hansen wrote:
The law has failed again, another sentence which would be a joke if
it was no so serious.
http://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/roundup/articles/2010/05/06/4000...
The case also demonstrates that the usual suspects are wrong when
they whine about speed limits. Had the criminal been driving at or
below the speed limit, 40 mph, rather than between 50 and 60 mph,
then it is unlikely that he would have crashed into the cyclist.
As usual the criminal tried to blame the victim. Not only claiming
that the cyclist was on the wrong side of the road but also that the
cyclist did not have lights on his vehicle. Both claims were lies.
On the strength of that report, the sentence is a disgrace. But the
charge also appears wrong.
Do that have the charge of, 'Causing death by dangerous driving', in
Scotland, or do the Scots just have, Driving without due care &
attention, and Reckless Driving?

The report states that the conviction was for causing death by careless
driving (ie, causing death by driving without due care and attention).

I'd be fairly certain that this is as new an offence in Scotland as it is in
the rest of the UK. And equally sure that it is a charge used where the
prosecuting authorities (who of course know more about the case than anyone
here can)

"the prosecuting authorities (who of course know more about the case
than anyone here can)"

Really? You don't say? Well, why have you never reminded us of that
useful fact before?

Squashme wrote:
On 6 May, 21:48, JNugent wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:
David Hansen wrote:
The law has failed again, another sentence which would be a joke if
it was no so serious.
http://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/roundup/articles/2010/05/06/4000...
The case also demonstrates that the usual suspects are wrong when
they whine about speed limits. Had the criminal been driving at or
below the speed limit, 40 mph, rather than between 50 and 60 mph,
then it is unlikely that he would have crashed into the cyclist.
As usual the criminal tried to blame the victim. Not only claiming
that the cyclist was on the wrong side of the road but also that the
cyclist did not have lights on his vehicle. Both claims were lies.
On the strength of that report, the sentence is a disgrace. But the
charge also appears wrong.
Do that have the charge of, 'Causing death by dangerous driving', in
Scotland, or do the Scots just have, Driving without due care &
attention, and Reckless Driving?
The report states that the conviction was for causing death by careless
driving (ie, causing death by driving without due care and attention).

I'd be fairly certain that this is as new an offence in Scotland as it is in
the rest of the UK. And equally sure that it is a charge used where the
prosecuting authorities (who of course know more about the case than anyone
here can)

"the prosecuting authorities (who of course know more about the case
than anyone here can)"

Really? You don't say? Well, why have you never reminded us of that
useful fact before?

What are you talking about (assuming you know)?

On 7 May, 15:05, JNugent wrote:
Squashme wrote:
On 6 May, 21:48, JNugent wrote:
Tom Crispin wrote:
David Hansen wrote:
The law has failed again, another sentence which would be a joke if
it was no so serious.
http://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/roundup/articles/2010/05/06/4000...
The case also demonstrates that the usual suspects are wrong when
they whine about speed limits. Had the criminal been driving at or
below the speed limit, 40 mph, rather than between 50 and 60 mph,
then it is unlikely that he would have crashed into the cyclist.
As usual the criminal tried to blame the victim. Not only claiming
that the cyclist was on the wrong side of the road but also that the
cyclist did not have lights on his vehicle. Both claims were lies.
On the strength of that report, the sentence is a disgrace. But the
charge also appears wrong.
Do that have the charge of, 'Causing death by dangerous driving', in
Scotland, or do the Scots just have, Driving without due care &
attention, and Reckless Driving?
The report states that the conviction was for causing death by careless
driving (ie, causing death by driving without due care and attention).
I'd be fairly certain that this is as new an offence in Scotland as it is in
the rest of the UK. And equally sure that it is a charge used where the
prosecuting authorities (who of course know more about the case than anyone
here can)
"the prosecuting authorities (who of course know more about the case
than anyone here can)"
Really? You don't say? Well, why have you never reminded us of that
useful fact before?

What are you talking about (assuming you know)?

I know, and you, being omniscient, must know too.

On Thu, 06 May 2010 21:40:34 +0100 someone who may be Tom Crispin
wrote this:-

On the strength of that report, the sentence is a disgrace. But the
charge also appears wrong.

Agreed.

The Courier has a little more
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2010/02/24/newsstory14598793t0.asp.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000...#pt3-pb3-l1g54

On Fri, 07 May 2010 12:40:51 +0100, David Hansen
wrote:

On Thu, 06 May 2010 21:40:34 +0100 someone who may be Tom Crispin
wrote this:-

On the strength of that report, the sentence is a disgrace. But the
charge also appears wrong.

Agreed.

The Courier has a little more
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/output/2010/02/24/newsstory14598793t0.asp.


It doesn't say - did he have a helmet on?




--

There can be no doubt that a failure to wear a helmet may expose the cyclist to the risk of greater injury.

The wearing of helmets may afford protection in some circumstances and it must therefore follow that a cyclist of ordinary prudence should wear one.

Mr Justice Griffith Williams

On 6 May, 19:16, David Hansen wrote:
The law has failed again, another sentence which would be a joke if
it was no so serious.

http://www.dunfermlinepress.com/news/roundup/articles/2010/05/06/4000...

The case also demonstrates that the usual suspects are wrong when
they whine about speed limits. Had the criminal been driving at or
below the speed limit, 40 mph, rather than between 50 and 60 mph,
then it is unlikely that he would have crashed into the cyclist.

As usual the criminal tried to blame the victim. Not only claiming
that the cyclist was on the wrong side of the road but also that the
cyclist did not have lights on his vehicle. Both claims were lies.

As was the lie by the driver that he was not on the wrong side of the
road.

For the lies alone he should have had extra punishment. But as we all
know both the police and the courts are dominated by the car culture,
which seems to have a strong anti-cyclist, anti-vulnerable-victim
bias, amounting sometimes almost to hatred if these newsgroups are
anything to go by.

--
UK Radical Campaigns
http://www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

Doug wrote:
But as we all
know

Would you be polite enough to stop
telling me what I "know"?

It's bad enough telling me what your half arsed opinions
and knowledge are, without you making unjustified
assumptions about mine.

BugBear