Driver kills 2 people, sentenced for 2 years suspended

[Taipan]

Based on the thread title I was reaching for my pitchfork whilst lighting my torch, but then I read the article. As I'm removed from the emotion of being family or friends I completely get the outcome, but I'd probably not be as forgiving if it were one of mine.

I've been hit by low sunlight suddenly blinding me through a gap in the hedgerow or trees before, many times. I'm sure most of us have at some point. You can't really predict or easily counter that moment.

[DefTrap]

I've been hit by low sunlight suddenly blinding me through a gap in the hedgerow or trees before, many times. I'm sure most of us have at some point. You can't really predict or easily counter that moment.

I had taken to a morning cycle ride before work. As the days started to draw in the beginning of my ride (up a hill out of the village) started to coincide with the sun rising just over the crest - completely blinding for about 100 yards, more than enough distance for a driver to be distracted or blinded and mow me down - even with my stoopid hi-vis tabard. Yeah folk should take more care but they don't. My responsibility or their responsibility? I had more to lose, I still did it.

[Screwdriver]

It is difficult to separate the "crime" from the consequence. What "crime" did the driver commit? Since we were not party to the precise details of the event, one has to assume a relatively minor transgression occurred or possibly simply a set of circumstances made observation difficult.

I don't know what speed limit was in force but even at 40-60 mph virtually stationary objects are going to come at you in no time so unless those cyclists were "on it" you would be on top of them in a heartbeat. They might have been going up a slope for example which makes the closing speed even higher and even more surprising unless it's a route that a lot of cyclists use.

If the unfortunate victims had been in a car, depending on the closing speed, the very same incident would have been a minor shunt. Though it would be fair to suggest if the driver hadn't seen an entire car, then clearly he was a LOT more distracted or inattentive than a reasonable driver should be. But like I said, you can't upgrade the crime just because of the severity of the outcome.

[weeksy]

It is difficult to separate the "crime" from the consequence. What "crime" did the driver commit? Since we were not party to the precise details of the event, one has to assume a relatively minor transgression occurred or possibly simply a set of circumstances made observation difficult.

I don't know what speed limit was in force but even at 40-60 mph virtually stationary objects are going to come at you in no time so unless those cyclists were "on it" you would be on top of them in a heartbeat. They might have been going up a slope for example which makes the closing speed even higher and even more surprising unless it's a route that a lot of cyclists use.

If the unfortunate victims had been in a car, depending on the closing speed, the very same incident would have been a minor shunt. Though it would be fair to suggest if the driver hadn't seen an entire car, then clearly he was a LOT more distracted or inattentive than a reasonable driver should be. But like I said, you can't upgrade the crime just because of the severity of the outcome.

Causing death by careless driving ?

[Horse]

It is difficult to separate the "crime" from the consequence. What "crime" did the driver commit?

Causing death by careless driving ?

Yup.

As said, several times in the thread.

The reason its such a light "sentence" is because it been deemed to be careless rather than wreskless or Dangerous driving.

Also, it's the action being punished, rather than the consequences.

[Screwdriver]

It was a rhetorical question. It was intended to encourage people to think about the word "crime". Careless driving is not a criminal offence.

"when the defendant's driving falls below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver" covers a multitude of sins. It might be simply applied automatically since the driver caused an accident without any extenuating circumstances.

Is there a link to the full proceedings or are we just guessing what the defence was?

My question still stands: what did the driver do other than not see two cyclists in time to avoid hitting them. What was the nature of his "crime"?

I am assuming he was not on the phone, not drunk or under the influence, nor speeding or failing to observe a traffic sign or signal etc. Any of which would I again assume, have led to the more serious charge of causing death by dangerous etc. So other than the fact that he did not see two cyclists, what did this chap do to justify the calls for a harsher sentence?

It should be perfectly safe for cyclists to use any main road in the UK, knowing that road as I do, I can assure you it is not. It's bad enough on a motorcycle these days...

[irie]

Reading the full article in the OP would have answered many of your questions, such as:

I am assuming he was not on the phone, not drunk or under the influence, nor speeding or failing to observe a traffic sign or signal etc.

“He was not driving at excessive speed. He was not under the influence of alcohol or drugs. He had not been distracted by anything as far as he knows.

[weeksy]

It was a rhetorical question. It was intended to encourage people to think about the word "crime". Careless driving is not a criminal offence.

In your opinion. Others may differ. Despite what the 'law' says. For me, if the case had been called "death by misadventure' or 'accident' even, i'd feel very differently. However the Careless driving to me implies a mistake, error in judgement which was not an accident but caused by the driver being 'careless' rather than just something that happened. That's where my opinion on it comes from anyway.

[Mr. Dazzle]

Virtually all accidents are caused by carelessness or some variation of it (i.e. inattention, inebriation, biting off more than you can chew etc.).

It's very very rare to have an accident which is totally out of the blue and not preceded by some error on the driver(s) part. So adding "carelessness" as a qualifier to an accident is a bit redundant IMO.

[weeksy]

Virtually all accidents are caused by carelessness or some variation of it (i.e. inattention, inebriation, biting off more than you can chew etc.).

It's very very rare to have an accident which is totally out of the blue and not preceded by some error on the driver(s) part. So adding "carelessness" as a qualifier to an accident is a bit redundant IMO.

Why add it then ?

[Mr. Dazzle]

Probably to make the point that it's not reckless, negligent or dangerous driving. Sounds like nit picking but there's a whole lot of legal severity wrapped up in the difference between "careless", "negligent" and "reckless".

[slowsider]

Virtually all accidents are caused by carelessness or some variation of it (i.e. inattention, inebriation, biting off more than you can chew etc.).

It's very very rare to have an accident which is totally out of the blue and not preceded by some error on the driver(s) part. So adding "carelessness" as a qualifier to an accident is a bit redundant IMO.

They are not really accidents, rather collisions.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident

[Mr. Dazzle]

Virtually all accidents are caused by carelessness or some variation of it (i.e. inattention, inebriation, biting off more than you can chew etc.).

It's very very rare to have an accident which is totally out of the blue and not preceded by some error on the driver(s) part. So adding "carelessness" as a qualifier to an accident is a bit redundant IMO.

They are not really accidents, rather collisions.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident

Yeah I've seen Hot Fuzz too

[slowsider]

Virtually all accidents are caused by carelessness or some variation of it (i.e. inattention, inebriation, biting off more than you can chew etc.).

It's very very rare to have an accident which is totally out of the blue and not preceded by some error on the driver(s) part. So adding "carelessness" as a qualifier to an accident is a bit redundant IMO.

They are not really accidents, rather collisions.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident

Yeah I've seen Hot Fuzz too

In your hoodie

[Yambo]

Virtually all accidents are caused by carelessness or some variation of it (i.e. inattention, inebriation, biting off more than you can chew etc.).

It's very very rare to have an accident which is totally out of the blue and not preceded by some error on the driver(s) part. So adding "carelessness" as a qualifier to an accident is a bit redundant IMO.

They are not really accidents, rather collisions.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident

Arguably, as they were not intended, they are accidents.

It would be interesting to see the Police Accident Investigators report as he would have looked at the events comprehensively. An everyday Stats 19 is sometimes lacking but the AI reports produced for fatal accidents that I used to see were top notch.

[slowsider]

Virtually all accidents are caused by carelessness or some variation of it (i.e. inattention, inebriation, biting off more than you can chew etc.).

It's very very rare to have an accident which is totally out of the blue and not preceded by some error on the driver(s) part. So adding "carelessness" as a qualifier to an accident is a bit redundant IMO.

They are not really accidents, rather collisions.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident

Arguably, as they were not intended, they are accidents.

It would be interesting to see the Police Accident Investigators report as he would have looked at the events comprehensively. An everyday Stats 19 is sometimes lacking but the AI reports produced for fatal accidents that I used to see were top notch.

It fails on the last bit:
'An accident is an unintended, normally unwanted event that was not directly caused by humans'

For the prosecution to have been successful there must have been something he could have done to take more care, such as slow down when his view was obscured.

[weeksy]

They are not really accidents, rather collisions.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident

Arguably, as they were not intended, they are accidents.

It would be interesting to see the Police Accident Investigators report as he would have looked at the events comprehensively. An everyday Stats 19 is sometimes lacking but the AI reports produced for fatal accidents that I used to see were top notch.

It fails on the last bit:
'An accident is an unintended, normally unwanted event that was not directly caused by humans'

For the prosecution to have been successful there must have been something he could have done to take more care, such as slow down when his view was obscured.

SAdly i don't think it states what his defence was in the article ? We're assuming that due to the direction of travel and the time of day implied that it was low sunlight.... but i 100% agree with you that potentially that would have saved someones life maybe. But obviously that's all just a bit guesswork.

[Yambo]

They are not really accidents, rather collisions.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident

Arguably, as they were not intended, they are accidents.

It would be interesting to see the Police Accident Investigators report as he would have looked at the events comprehensively. An everyday Stats 19 is sometimes lacking but the AI reports produced for fatal accidents that I used to see were top notch.

It fails on the last bit:
'An accident is an unintended, normally unwanted event that was not directly caused by humans'

For the prosecution to have been successful there must have been something he could have done to take more care, such as slow down when his view was obscured.

I'm not convinced that the Wikipedia meaning is correct. I don't see it as an authority on the English language. I'm not sure what the OED says but I doubt it includes the last bit. But it's just semantics, so meh.

As far as traffic accidents/incidents/collisions go then it is pretty much a given that speed will be a factor* and that if any of the parties involved had done something differently just before the accident/incident/collision occurred the outcome would be different.

*If there is no movement (i.e. no speed (yeah, yeah, I know about velocity and all that shit)) then the likelihood of a collision is nil.

As far as this tragic accident is concerned, I'm sure the Court and the Judge will have the Accident Investigator's report front and centre and it's contents wold have had a bearing on the charge and the judge's decision. We simply don't know all of the facts (I doubt the Court heard all of the 'facts') and we can only debate on the information to hand. I just hope that the two dead guys had not had a positive Covid test in the previous 28 days as that will skew some statistics.

[Horse]

Virtually all accidents are caused by carelessness or some variation of it

They are not really accidents, rather collisions.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accident

So if not 'accident', then deliberate?

This gets into areas such as behavioural based safety, where the terms Lapse, Error and Violation are used - all of which might result in a collision.

Virtually all accidents are caused by carelessness or some variation of it ( inebriation).

It could probably be argued that inebriation isn't careless, it's a deliberate decision to drink, knowing the likely effect on your driving (unless you have had a drink 'spiked').

[Mr. Dazzle]

Indeedly - hence why driving under the influence gets pretty harsh penalties.