Unlicensed driver kills cyclist, fined £93

bod43 wrote:

(snip whine)
Shouldn't think it'll cause too much of a problem for your MP - he'll
just file it in the circular filing cabinet and add your name to the
list of obsessive judgemental nutters to keep clear of come polling day.

Doug wrote:

This is typical and demonstrates that any old excuse can be used to
vindicate motorists against vulnerable road users who are killed by
them. Still, with a justice system dominated by a motorist majority
what else can you expect?

Nothing. Great, innit?

Brimstone wrote:

mileburner wrote:

The bottom line is that if you are going to do something which ends
up with another person getting killed, you really do need to make
sure that you are behaving in an entirely legal manner to start
with.

Of course, he killed this poor chap quite deliberately didn't he?

.... which is, of course, not what's being said at all.

He deliberately drove for eight years completely outside the normal and
lawful parameters everyone should follow.

--
Paul - xxx

'96/'97 Landrover Discovery 300 Tdi
Dyna Tech Cro-Mo comp

On Tue, 12 May 2009 13:39:40 +0100, "mileburner"
wrote:


"Brimstone" wrote in message
...
mileburner wrote:

The bottom line is that if you are going to do something which ends
up with another person getting killed, you really do need to make
sure that you are behaving in an entirely legal manner to start with.

Of course, he killed this poor chap quite deliberately didn't he?

Of course he didn't deliberately kill the poor chap and neither did he
intend to cause the accident - thought I had made that clear further up the
thread. My point is that if you are going to drive around in an illegal
manner you had better be darn careful not to cause any accidents.


If you do,
you have no defence whatsoever.



Is that a statement of law - or your considered opinion?


--

"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.

A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.

Highway Code Rule 168 : "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass."

On Mon, 11 May 2009 14:25:27 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

snip

Where is the sense of proportion here?


well there you go


Yet another Judge finding that the failure to wear a helmet was a
mitigating factor - excellent.


This does seem to be becoming the norm now when fault is to be
apportioned in courts of law.

--

"Primary position" the middle of a traffic lane. To take the "primary position" : to ride a bike in the middle of the lane in order to obstruct other road vehicles from overtaking.

A term invented by and used by psycholists and not recognised in the Highway Code.

Highway Code Rule 168 : "Never obstruct drivers who wish to pass."

Paul - xxx wrote:
Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:

http://tinyurl.com/denismoore

The driver had never had a full license but it's OK because it was
only a "momentary lapse of concentration".

Absolutely disgusting.

rant
How can driving for 8 years without a license be a momentary lapse?
So he felt remorse, tough ****, he's a dick who should have had the
full book thrown at him.TBH, it's things like this that make me despair
a little for what we are becoming. Fercrissakes he killed someone ...
mitigating circumstances or not (and I don't believe wearing a helmet
should be a mitigating circumstance unless the collision was at low
speed 15 ish mph say) there should be something more than a let-off,
tag and a ban. A BAN !!! .. fercrissakes he didn't have a license
anyway, so how's a ban going to stop him doing EXACTLY the same again?
/rant mode

That feels better ...

And has the same effect as everyone elses rant.

N Ron Hubbard wrote:

JNugent wrote:


The judge sentenced him to 24 weeks in jail, suspended for 12 months, ordered
him to be electronically tagged to stay at home between 8pm and 7am for the
next three months, and banned him from driving for two years, after which he
must sit an extended test.
ENDQUOTE

24 weeks in prison (suspended), electronic tagging for 12 months and a
two-year driving ban for doing something that's "OK"?

God help any of us who do something that's not "OK", eh?

He killed someone. Why should he EVER be allowed to drive?

I think you missed the point by a mile or two.

mileburner wrote:
"Brimstone" wrote in message
...
mileburner wrote:

The bottom line is that if you are going to do something which ends
up with another person getting killed, you really do need to make
sure that you are behaving in an entirely legal manner to start with.
Of course, he killed this poor chap quite deliberately didn't he?

Of course he didn't deliberately kill the poor chap and neither did he
intend to cause the accident - thought I had made that clear further up the
thread. My point is that if you are going to drive around in an illegal
manner you had better be darn careful not to cause any accidents. If you do,
you have no defence whatsoever.

There is now a separate offence of causing death whilst unlicensed (as a
driver) - irrespective of whether the driver was really to blame.

Perhaps this incident pre-dates that change in the law.

Simon Mason wrote:

"Brimstone" wrote in message
...
mileburner wrote:

The bottom line is that if you are going to do something which ends
up with another person getting killed, you really do need to make
sure that you are behaving in an entirely legal manner to start with.

Of course, he killed this poor chap quite deliberately didn't he?


He deliberately drove on a road which he had no right to be on.

And there is now a law which addresses that very issue.

Paul - xxx wrote:
Brimstone wrote:

mileburner wrote:

The bottom line is that if you are going to do something which ends
up with another person getting killed, you really do need to make
sure that you are behaving in an entirely legal manner to start
with.
Of course, he killed this poor chap quite deliberately didn't he?

... which is, of course, not what's being said at all.

He deliberately drove for eight years completely outside the normal and
lawful parameters everyone should follow.

That isn't what he was convicted of.