Children and adult mown down by car - no helmets

Strangely the paper makes no mention of helmets.

Bet the driver here regrets not hitting a load of
cyclists instead since any unhelmeted cyclists may
well have reduced the drivers sentence.

http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-e...1634-23580444/
'was told by Judge Richard Lowden that Mr Jorgensen’s failure
to wear a helmet was a “mitigating factor”.'

I wonder how it works, does the sentence go down a bit
for each unhelmeted cyclist that a driver kills. How many
might it take to reach a negative sentence? How might a
negative snetence be carried out? So many questions,
so few answers.

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 17:21:26 -0700 (PDT), bod43
wrote:

http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-e...1634-23580444/
'was told by Judge Richard Lowden that Mr Jorgensen’s failure
to wear a helmet was a “mitigating factor”.'

"ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £15."

That will help!

On 26 Sep, 01:21, bod43 wrote:
Strangely the paper makes no mention of helmets.

Bet the driver here regrets not hitting a load of
cyclists instead since any unhelmeted cyclists may
well have reduced the drivers sentence.

http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-e...s/2009/05/09/k...
'was told by Judge Richard Lowden that Mr Jorgensen’s failure
to wear a helmet was a “mitigating factor”.'

I wonder how it works, does the sentence go down a bit
for each unhelmeted cyclist that a driver kills. How many
might it take to reach a negative sentence? How might a
negative snetence be carried out? So many questions,
so few answers.

It must have been one of those 'accidents' we hear so much about. So
the cyclist, aka vulnerable victim, was to blame for not wearing a
helmet and getting in the way of the driver, who happened to be
'suffering' from a “momentary lapse of concentration”?

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

Doug wrote:
On 26 Sep, 01:21, bod43 wrote:
Strangely the paper makes no mention of helmets.

Bet the driver here regrets not hitting a load of
cyclists instead since any unhelmeted cyclists may
well have reduced the drivers sentence.

http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-e...s/2009/05/09/k...
'was told by Judge Richard Lowden that Mr Jorgensen’s failure
to wear a helmet was a “mitigating factor”.'

I wonder how it works, does the sentence go down a bit
for each unhelmeted cyclist that a driver kills. How many
might it take to reach a negative sentence? How might a
negative snetence be carried out? So many questions,
so few answers.

It must have been one of those 'accidents' we hear so much about. So
the cyclist, aka vulnerable victim, was to blame for not wearing a
helmet and getting in the way of the driver, who happened to be
'suffering' from a “momentary lapse of concentration”?

which appears to include momentarily forgetting to pass his driving test.

Words fail.

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 17:21:26 -0700 (PDT), bod43
wrote:

Strangely the paper makes no mention of helmets.

Bet the driver here regrets not hitting a load of
cyclists instead since any unhelmeted cyclists may
well have reduced the drivers sentence.

http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-e...1634-23580444/
'was told by Judge Richard Lowden that Mr Jorgensen’s failure
to wear a helmet was a “mitigating factor”.'

I wonder how it works, does the sentence go down a bit
for each unhelmeted cyclist that a driver kills. How many
might it take to reach a negative sentence? How might a
negative snetence be carried out? So many questions,
so few answers.


No - there is one simple answer: Wear a helmet.

This is not the first time a judge has decided that not wearing a
helmet can be a contributory factor to injury or even death


--

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 26 Sep, 08:29, Tom Crispin
wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 17:21:26 -0700 (PDT), bod43
wrote:

http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-e...s/2009/05/09/k...
'was told by Judge Richard Lowden that Mr Jorgensen’s failure
to wear a helmet was a “mitigating factor”.'

"ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £15."

Yes, I noticed that too. That makes me so, so angry. It would have
been far less offensive to have let him off scott-free than to have
valued an innocent man's life at fifteen pounds. One hundred and fifty
pounds an three penalty points is what you get for breaking a speed
limit. Is killing an innocent, law-abiding man peacefully going about
his lawful business in a lawful manner no more serious an offence than
breaking a speed limit?

I wouldn't like to have that judge's conscience.

On Sep 26, 1:59*pm, Simon Brooke wrote:
On 26 Sep, 08:29, Tom Crispin
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 17:21:26 -0700 (PDT), bod43
wrote:

http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-e...s/2009/05/09/k....
'was told by Judge Richard Lowden that Mr Jorgensen’s failure
to wear a helmet was a “mitigating factor”.'

"ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £15."

Yes, I noticed that too. That makes me so, so angry. It would have
been far less offensive to have let him off scott-free than to have
valued an innocent man's life at fifteen pounds. One hundred and fifty
pounds an three penalty points is what you get for breaking a speed
limit. Is killing an innocent, law-abiding man peacefully going about
his lawful business in a lawful manner no more serious an offence than
breaking a speed limit?

I wouldn't like to have that judge's conscience.

How good it must be to know nothing about a subject & then spout
rubish about it.

Victim surcharge, see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6431401.stm

PeterG

"Simon Brooke" wrote in message
...
On 26 Sep, 08:29, Tom Crispin
wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 17:21:26 -0700 (PDT), bod43
wrote:

http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-e...s/2009/05/09/k...
'was told by Judge Richard Lowden that Mr Jorgensen’s failure
to wear a helmet was a “mitigating factor”.'

"ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £15."

Yes, I noticed that too. That makes me so, so angry. It would have
been far less offensive to have let him off scott-free than to have
valued an innocent man's life at fifteen pounds.

You might want to read the article a little more carefully - there were two
people sentenced, and the one with the victim surcharge wasn't the driver.

On 26 Sep, 14:47, PeterG wrote:
On Sep 26, 1:59*pm, Simon Brooke wrote:



On 26 Sep, 08:29, Tom Crispin
wrote:

On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 17:21:26 -0700 (PDT), bod43
wrote:

http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-e...s/2009/05/09/k...
'was told by Judge Richard Lowden that Mr Jorgensen’s failure
to wear a helmet was a “mitigating factor”.'

"ordered to pay a victim surcharge of £15."

Yes, I noticed that too. That makes me so, so angry. It would have
been far less offensive to have let him off scott-free than to have
valued an innocent man's life at fifteen pounds. One hundred and fifty
pounds an three penalty points is what you get for breaking a speed
limit. Is killing an innocent, law-abiding man peacefully going about
his lawful business in a lawful manner no more serious an offence than
breaking a speed limit?

I wouldn't like to have that judge's conscience.

How good it must be to know nothing about a subject & then spout
rubish about it.

Victim surcharge, seehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6431401.stm

And that invalidates what I wrote in what way?

On 2009-09-26, Simon Brooke wrote:
On 26 Sep, 08:29, Tom Crispin
wrote:
On Fri, 25 Sep 2009 17:21:26 -0700 (PDT), bod43
wrote:

http://www.journallive.co.uk/north-e...s/2009/05/09/k...
'was told by Judge Richard Lowden that Mr Jorgensen?s failure
to wear a helmet was a ?mitigating factor?.'

"ordered to pay a victim surcharge of ?15."

Yes, I noticed that too. That makes me so, so angry. It would have
been far less offensive to have let him off scott-free than to have
valued an innocent man's life at fifteen pounds.

The 15 pound surcharge was for his partner, Janice Bell, the owner of
the car, who was guilty of letting Moore drive it although she knew he
hadn't passed a test.

It was Moore who actually hit the cyclist and admitted to causing death
by dangerous driving. He got 24 weeks in jail suspended for 12 months,
tagged, curfewed, and banned for driving for 2 years (which, unless he
does actually go to jail, is still relatively scott-free).

I hope the helmet wasn't really a big factor but it sounds like the
judge thought he didn't do it on purpose, he was sorry, so what's the
point of punishing him.

One hundred and fifty pounds an three penalty points is what you get
for breaking a speed limit. Is killing an innocent, law-abiding man
peacefully going about his lawful business in a lawful manner no more
serious an offence than breaking a speed limit?

Speeding fines are somewhat out of proportion but deterrence (and just
taking people's cash) is a bigger factor there.

I wouldn't like to have that judge's conscience.

What sentence would you consider appropriate?