bigjim wrote:I personally don't need to know that a person was helmetless when they have been run over by a twenty ton truck. What is the point. The info does not add anything.?
That's like the Dr Helen Measures case where she admitted to overtaking on a blind bend into the path of oncoming traffic resulting in the death of cyclist.
The vast majority of the case completely overlooked that fact and was instead focused on proving what a pillar of society the good doctor was and that seemed the sole basis of the decision to allow her to get way with manslaughter even though her character and moral fibre were completely irrelevant to whether she was driving dangerously or irresponsibly.
I suspect that if Dr Measures had in fact been a previously convicted thug who had defrauded old people out of the lifes savings then she would have got found guilty!
bigjim wrote:I personally don't need to know that a person was helmetless when they have been run over by a twenty ton truck. What is the point. The info does not add anything.?
That's like the Dr Helen Measures case where she admitted to overtaking on a blind bend into the path of oncoming traffic resulting in the death of cyclist.
The vast majority of the case completely overlooked that fact and was instead focused on proving what a pillar of society the good doctor was and that seemed the sole basis of the decision to allow her to get way with manslaughter even though her character and moral fibre were completely irrelevant to whether she was driving dangerously or irresponsibly.
I suspect that if Dr Measures had in fact been a previously convicted thug who had defrauded old people out of the lifes savings then she would have got found guilty!
That's partly a class thing too, as well as the fact they played on the fact she worked on cancer (sometimes to the media I think there is no other disease) and that sort of emotive crap sways a jury, unfortunately, as does the fact that most jurors are drivers who know they haven't always been as careful as they should have been around other road users, so you get the 'there but for the grace of god' thing. It isn't actually the jury's job to feel sorry for anyone, it's their job to sort out the truth- mitigation etc, is for the judge afterwards. Some juries don't seem to realise that. And judges ought to remind them of that- and also remind counsel of it.
soaysheep wrote:And I see the Tweeter who knocked down a cyclist, fled the scene and the Tweeted about it has got off with a £300 fine.
Makes you feel proud to be British doesn't it?
She has also signed an exclusive deal with a media outlet - so is likely to be in profit for hitting a cyclist.
But she has lost her job and could have difficulty in finding a similar potentially well paid one. She will also have a significant increase in car insurance premiums with 7 points on her licence.
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master.
I don't peddle bikes.
I dont think that gloating or stupidity are jail offences in many civilised countries.
Many different levels here.
Minor collision with a cyclist for which she was found not guilty Leaving the scene of an accident £330 and 7 points, a result way above what motorists normally get and ONLY bought about because of her silly posting. Silly posting, not a crime Gloating and TV shows, not a crime.
Discussing her vilification on TV, something she should have every right to and in this respect she is I assume, a victim to those who took it further than was allowed. She didnt lose all rights by her actions. I for one think "her dues are paid" and now will call for no more action than a bit of ridicule against her.
TV appearance fees - about £2000 for a five minute slot of medium interest
National Daily Exclusive - £3-4,500, plus expenses. (travel, five star hotel ect)
7.5k for leaving the scene of a crime and being a despicable human being into the bargain.
Call me old fashioned, but that's not exactly punishment. It's only when we start to come down very hard on motorists, that they will think twice about being so feckless and cavalier with the lives of cyclists. Jail should be the first sentencing option in circumstances like these.
If you think a £330 fine and points are an acceptable outcome, heaven help us all.
The actual incident that the tweet was about was minor enough that the rider didnt even consider reporting it, possibly he didnt want to report it as it wasnt clear cut that she was to blame.
This whole thing sparked off because of the tweet. I do see them as separate entities. Her punishment fitted the crime, what happened afterwards wasnt a crime.
God help us all if you actually think your comments are in support of the safety of cyclists on the road.
If I was a judge, with such blatant idiocy and self referencing gloating brought before me I would have jailed her in an instant.
We, as a country are far too lenient on motorists who endanger the lives of cyclists. When assumed culpability becomes law (which it will) I hope to see an awful lot more motorists banged up. A fine is no punishment for leaving the scene of an accident you have caused, however minor. How many more road deaths.... Being Liberal is not an option when it comes to dangerous drivers.
It comes to something when somebody calls me liberal about punishing motorists.
I just believe in fitting punishments, if everybody got 7 points for such a run in with a cyclist, we would soon be in cycling paradise.
I only want to give them 3 points for each minor speeding offence too and just 3 points each time they use a mobile and just 3 points per bald tyre. You can not jail them for any and everything.
Also for the nth time she was found NOT GUILTY of careless driving.
