Cycling UK Forum

Maybe racing or lying about the driver?

Aiding and abetting? Incitement? If so, would the police have said so?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-26734694

Some very slight consolation to the family.

It was unsettling, in a way, but very moving, to get an E-mail purportedly from Mr Smith himself, after I made a contribution on justgiving. Of course it was an automatic message. Nonetheless it came close to bringing tears to my eyes.

Well, the follow-up:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-30553947
I suppose the question has to be asked: is five years an adequate sentence? And what's with the five-year driving ban? If it runs concurrent with the sentence, it amounts to no ban at all (although she'll probably get out half way through on parole).

My feeling is, there has to be a serious re-think about teenage and low-twenties driving. Only a couple of days ago, two teenage boys were killed in a crash at Handcross, not far from where I live, in a car driven by a 20-year old (no cyclists were involved in that one). If we can't raise the driving age, at least make it far more difficult for these youngsters to get behind the wheel where they can cause such havoc and heartbreak.

Incidentally, I don't understand the reference to the "black box device fitted by Mackie's insurance firm" in the article. Can anyone elucidate?

661-Pete wrote:Incidentally, I don't understand the reference to the "black box device fitted by Mackie's insurance firm" in the article. Can anyone elucidate?

It's pretty much what it says. A black box that monitors driving and reports back to her insurers. It would have reported being over the speed limit, it will also report how aggressively the car is being driven and obviously in cases like this it's pretty handy as a 3rd party witness...

They're one of the reasons a lot of teenagers these days drive slowly.
(I'm of the opinion all cars should have them fitted.)

.

Well, if that's the case, the box clearly didn't work since this offender was reported to be 16 mph over the limit.
I note that there are also comments on the case in this thread.

These words need to be drilled into the head of every [ person ] given a driving licence...

A short time later I had to wake up my 12, nine and five-year-old to tell them that their daddy was dead.
The sounds that they made can only be described as horrifying.

661-Pete wrote:Well, if that's the case, the box clearly didn't work since this offender was reported to be 16 mph over the limit.
I note that there are also comments on the case in this thread.

Actually they do.
The data is sent back to her insurers and they'll bump the premium up and in extreme cases even cancel the insurance. Think of it as an "electronic policeman" that continually monitors even things like hard acceleration/braking and cornering and issues fines automagically.
Obviously there's little they can do at the point in time the offence is being carried out but all the evidence is that long term they're excellent at modifying driver behaviour.

kwackers wrote:

661-Pete wrote:Well, if that's the case, the box clearly didn't work since this offender was reported to be 16 mph over the limit.
I note that there are also comments on the case in this thread.

Actually they do.
The data is sent back to her insurers and they'll bump the premium up and in extreme cases even cancel the insurance. Think of it as an "electronic policeman" that continually monitors even things like hard acceleration/braking and cornering and issues fines automagically.
Obviously there's little they can do at the point in time the offence is being carried out but all the evidence is that long term they're excellent at modifying driver behaviour.

It also gave the police the information they needed to nail this liar(amongst other things).
I agree every car should be fitted with one,it could help clean up a lot of bad driving IMO.

kwackers wrote:Actually they do.
The data is sent back to her insurers and they'll bump the premium up and in extreme cases even cancel the insurance. Think of it as an "electronic policeman" that continually monitors even things like hard acceleration/braking and cornering and issues fines automagically.
Obviously there's little they can do at the point in time the offence is being carried out but all the evidence is that long term they're excellent at modifying driver behaviour.

What I meant of course is that this device didn't act as a deterrent in this tragic case. The knowledge that this person will be done for astronomical insurance premiums should she ever get behind the wheel again (with a prison sentence for Causing Death by Dangerous Driving, surely she'd have had that anyway?), will hardly be of any consolation to Christian Smith's grieving family.

But if it acts as a deterrent for 99% of motorists who would otherwise drive like maniacs, better than nothing. Bring them on! I'd gladly have one in my car, provided it didn't put me out of pocket. HGVs already have them, after all.

One thing that puzzles (irritates?) me is that insurance proposal forms have a statement "Have you ever been convicted or been charged (but not tried) with any criminal offence (other than a motoring offence)? Why don't motoring offences count??

thirdcrank wrote:

661-Pete wrote: ... But I probably shouldn't be speculating - not on this thread at this time. ...

It all depends on the evidence gathered during the investigation, of course, but if this were to result in a contested trial, I'd expect that the defence would emphasise the length of time the deceased had been riding apparently without sleep, and the implication of poor mental health.

Before anybody jumps on me, I'm only predicting a couple of lines the defence might explore, without expressing an opinion on the merit of their doing so.

.. riding without sleep ... What about P-B-P, it takes place in 2015. Should it be banned or restricted? Open question!

thirdcrank wrote:

661-Pete wrote: ... But I probably shouldn't be speculating - not on this thread at this time. ...

It all depends on the evidence gathered during the investigation, of course, but if this were to result in a contested trial, I'd expect that the defence would emphasise the length of time the deceased had been riding apparently without sleep, and the implication of poor mental health.

Before anybody jumps on me, I'm only predicting a couple of lines the defence might explore, without expressing an opinion on the merit of their doing so.

But could only be of any value if the defendant claimed the cyclist had wobbled/veered/swerved in front the car she was driving.But at twice the legal limit and 15+mph over the speed limit,with four month driving experience,how reliable would her account of events be?
Not very is my estimation .

Cyril Haearn wrote: .. riding without sleep ... What about P-B-P, it takes place in 2015. Should it be banned or restricted? Open question!

It's something that troubles me about long distance Audax events.
But then again any driver of a vehicle not needing a tachograph to measure time driving,could be behind the wheel of such a vehicle at considerably higher speeds for as long as they saw fit,which is a worrying thought.
The difference of course is that a sleep deprived cyclist would more than likely only put their own life at risk.
Whereas someone driving a motor with the same level of sleep deprivation has the potential for far more devastation.