Suspended sentence for killing cyclist

tomasrojo

Time wrote: »

It seems that you're basing your assessment on the outcome, and not looking at the wider context. How else could you justify a lifetime punishment?

I don't believe that a single instance of poor judgement, no matter the outcome means that a person has poor judgement generally. We all make unintentional mistakes, and some of them unfortunately can have tragic outcomes, but we learn from them.

It's not "poor judgement". It's utterly braindead, consequence-ignoring ****wittery. A doctor who killed a patient by doing something so completely deranged would be struck off.

buffalo

Time wrote: »

Have you ever had a lapse of concentration on the bike? I know i have, and hit the ground because of it. Does that mean i'm really really bad at cycling? No. Should i be banned from cycling incase i hurt myself or someone else? of course not.

I think yes, if your cycling killed someone you should be banned from it.

fritzelly

Cannot believe people saying she needs the car, think of the children, driving ban is bad - lots of people manage without a car
Take 2 seconds to think about if there had been a very large truck barrelling down the motorway while she was more interested in removing a tag from a toy - very likely killed all of them

No excuse for her behaviour, being a mother is a piss poor defence to escape jail
Unfortunately in this country killing someone does not equate to any kind of equatable punishment. In the papers today, man got 3 months or so for burglary (ridiculous in itself at such a lenient sentence with 127 other convictions), DPP appealed it and the sentence increased to some 3 years - he didn't even kill anyone!

This woman deliberately took her eyes off the road and obviously for quite some time travelling at a very fast speed - she was a danger to all road users, unfortunately in this case a cyclist was killed

Time

tomasrojo wrote: »

It's not "poor judgement". It's utterly braindead, consequence-ignoring ****wittery. A doctor who killed a patient for doing something so completely deranged would be struck off.

Deranged? Calm the hyperbole. Facts are facts, and it's a fact people inadvertantly do things that have bad outcomes all the time, we don't let it impact the remainder of their lives though, because they aren't intentionally doing something wrong.

You're comparing apples and oranges, Doctors have a higher duty of care to their patients than road users have to each other, not only that but Doctors make mistakes resulting in patient deaths and receive censures all rather than being struck off all the time.

If we struck off every Doctor that made a mistake that led to a patients death, we'd have a lot less doctors than we do now. So really your point doesn't stand up to scrutiny

tomasrojo

Time wrote: »

Deranged? Calm the hyperbole. Facts are facts, and it's a fact people inadvertantly do things that have bad outcomes all the time, we don't let it impact the remainder of their lives though, because they aren't intentionally doing something wrong.

We're talking about the revocation of the right to drive, not her going to prison for life. I don't have a car. A lot of my family don't have cars. It's not some dire punishment.

Time wrote: »

You're comparing apples and oranges, Doctors have a higher duty of care to their patients than road users have to each other, not only that but Doctors make mistakes resulting in patient deaths and receive censures all rather than being struck off all the time.

I'm not saying that drivers who make mistakes should be struck off all the time. Just the ones who make it really clear that they are really bad at driving, either by narcissistically excessive reactions to minor provocations, or by showing atrocious judgement.

Time

fritzelly wrote: »

Cannot believe people saying she needs the car, think of the children, driving ban is bad - lots of people manage without a car
Take 2 seconds to think about if there had been a very large truck barrelling down the motorway while she was more interested in removing a tag from a toy - very likely killed all of them

No excuse for her behaviour, being a mother is a piss poor defence to escape jail
Unfortunately in this country killing someone does not equate to any kind of equatable punishment. In the papers today, man got 3 months or so for burglary (ridiculous in itself at such a lenient sentence with 127 other convictions), DPP appealed it and the sentence increased to some 3 years - he didn't even kill anyone!

This woman deliberately took her eyes off the road and obviously for quite some time travelling at a very fast speed - she was a danger to all road users, unfortunately in this case a cyclist was killed

I'm not saying she shouldn't be banned, i'm saying that a lifetime ban, and custodial sentence are disproportionate given that it was unintentional, which is the key differentiator.

Intentional acts like burglary are far more heinous and are rightly punished far more severely than unintentional acts. Society is well served by a person who commits an intentional act, such as murder, rape, burglary etc.. being deprived of their liberty. Both as a punishment for the violent and intrusive nature of the act, and a deterrent to others who would consider such acts.

Society is not well served by imprisoning non-violent offenders who unintentionally cause harm, are at no risk of re-offending and are probably deeply traumatised by what they have done. Theres a vast vast difference between the two categories.

tomasrojo

Time wrote: »

Society is not well served by imprisoning non-violent offenders who unintentionally cause harm, are at no risk of re-offending and are probably deeply traumatised by what they have done.

On the first point, given that she did this by having either no awareness of or no interest in the consequences of driving at speed in a 1500kg vehicle while looking in the other direction for a protracted period, you have no way of knowing she isn't a risk going forward.

On the second point, I'm sure she is deeply affected. It's not all that relevant as to whether she's got the right temperament to drive.

splinter65

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The child of the man killed will be grand without their dad for the rest of their life won't they.

So your saying that because the mother of children caused suffering to some other children, that it’s only fair if her kids have to suffer too?

Time

tomasrojo wrote: »

On the first point, given that she did this by having either no awareness of or no interest in the consequences of driving at speed in a 1500kg vehicle while looking in the other direction for a protracted period, you have no way of knowing she isn't a risk going forward.

On the second point, I'm sure she is deeply affected. It's not all that relevant as to whether she's got the right temperament to drive.

Very true, i cant state that she wouldn't ever be a risk on the road again, just as you couldn't state with any surety that she would be. I was speaking more from a sentencing point of view. She is unlikely to come before the courts again which is a factor the court has to consider.

Again her being deeply traumatised is evidence of remorse, which is relevant when it comes to sentencing, rather than her driving.

BikeRacer

A first time offence for drunk driving could carry a 3 year disqualification, even if nobody was injured, because you're deemed potentially not in full control of your vehicle. That is deemed a worthy punishment for that crime.

This woman chose not to be in full control of her vehicle, and as a result it ended another persons life. So the difference from potentially not in control, to not in control at all and ending someones life as a result is an extra 2 year disqualification.

Does that seem a worthy punishment? Not even close in my opinion.

fritzelly

Time wrote: »

Very true, i cant state that she wouldn't ever be a risk on the road again, just as you couldn't state with any surety that she would be. I was speaking more from a sentencing point of view. She is unlikely to come before the courts again which is a factor the court has to consider.

Again her being deeply traumatised is evidence of remorse, which is relevant when it comes to sentencing, rather than her driving.

We shouldn't be looking at the future saying well she probably won't kill someone again, but she proved her lack of consideration for other road users in the first place.
Give it a few years and this incident will be a distant memory

Time

BikeRacer wrote: »

A first time offence for drunk driving could carry a 3 year disqualification, even if nobody was injured, because you're deemed potentially not in full control of your vehicle. That is deemed a worthy punishment for that crime.

This woman chose not to be in full control of her vehicle, and as a result it ended another persons life. So the difference from potentially not in control, to not in control at all and ending someones life as a result is an extra 2 year disqualification.

Does that seem a worthy punishment? Not even close in my opinion.

Again a huge difference as drunk driving contains the element of intent not present here.

Time

fritzelly wrote: »

We shouldn't be looking at the future saying well she probably won't kill someone again, but she proved her lack of consideration for other road users in the first place.
Give it a few years and this incident will be a distant memory

Why shouldn't we? It's an accepted aspect of sentencing that previous crimes of a similar nature are an aggravating factor, and that a lower likelihood of reoffending is a mitigating one. I see lack of consideration from fellow cyclists every single day when they run red lights, but we don't ban people from using the roads for that. Lack of consideration in itself is not sufficient to lock people up.

Stephen15

Jailing the women, would only fùck two families lives up rather than one. Obivously it's very sad what happened to the cyclist for his family but taking a mother away from her children is not right and would be very cruel on them. She should however be given a lengthy driving ban.

I find that there is large proportion of people out there who don't take driving very seriously and have general lax casual approach to it. It's only really professional drivers that take driving seriously.

ford2600

Two career burglars had their sentences increased this year on appeal by the DPP; their crime resulted in the death of a homeowner.

Part of the DPP argument was the message the punishment should send out.

Similarly here, drive and play with your phone, look behind while doing 120km, drive while sleep deprived and someone dies; you go to jail.

If she killed two kids on the side of the road would being out of jail still be OK?

A free pass here might is the easy choice when the hard choice is the better one for society. But let's think of the children eh?

fritzelly

Stephen15 wrote: »

Jailing the women, would only fùck two families lives up rather than one. Obivously it's very sad what happened to the cyclist for his family but taking a mother away from her children is not right and would be very cruel on them. She should however be given a lengthy driving ban.

Many children grow very happy without the mother being present, and better off in some cases
Stop this "think of the children without a mother" rubbish - end of the day their mother killed someone through a very negligent and selfish act.
She's lucky she wasn't the cause of a major pile up with multiple people killed or horrific injuries! Total deliberate unwanton ignorance of being in charge of car and ignoring the golden rule of driving. What if it was outside a school that this happened and she killed a few children - would you be so forgiving?
Judges need to harden up and give appropriate sentences

Time

ford2600 wrote: »

Two career burglars had their sentences increased this year on appeal by the DPP; their crime resulted in the death of a homeowner.

Part of the DPP argument was the message the punishment should send out.

Similarly here, drive and play with your phone, look behind while doing 120km, drive while sleep deprived and someone dies; you go to jail.

If she killed two kids on the side of the road would being out of jail still be OK?

A free pass here might is the easy choice when the hard choice is the better one for society. But let's think of the children eh?

It’s very clear from people’s comments on this thread that they have absolutely no understanding of how sentencing works. As I’ve pointed out several times now an intentional act is several times more serious than an unintentional one, and will attract a custodial sentence far more easily. That’s how our system (in general) works. If she had mowed down two kids intentionally I’d say she’d have gotten a heavy sentence, if she’d had a blowout and lost control, she probably wouldn’t even be in court. The material facts are relevant

Also if you read the CoA judgment regarding that burglary case you’ll see that as I have being saying, the history of offending, the premeditation, likelihood of reoffending and the fact it was a spree were factors to increase the sentence. Those are the grounds the appeal was taken on, not the death of the homeowner

Carlos Orange

Time wrote: »

I see lack of consideration from fellow cyclists every single day when they run red lights, but we don't ban people from using the roads for that. Lack of consideration in itself is not sufficient to lock people up.

There is also the small matter of somebody dying.

tomasrojo

... and extreme carelessness.

Time

psinno wrote: »

There is also the small matter of somebody dying.

Not every act that results in the death of another is deserving of a custodial sentence, this being one of them

tomasrojo

Time wrote: »

It’s very clear from people’s comments on this thread that they have absolutely no understanding of how sentencing works.

I don't find your Rumpole of the Bailey stylings all that convincing either.

Alkers

Try this one:
[url]Https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/disqualified-truck-driver-who-caused-death-of-fatheroftwo-jailed-for-10-months-36579677.html[/url]
Causing the death of a Polish biker by driving a heavy goods vehicle on the wrong side of the road towards a group of motorcyclists while serving BOTH a 6 year driving ban for drunk driving AND another 10 year ban for other driving-related offences. Then lying to the Gardai to try and cover himself by claiming the biker was speeding which was proved not to be the case by CCTV of the incident. Punishment of a 10 month sentence and a 6 year driving ban to add to the two concurrent bans he already has, what a joke, how many chances do we need to give people like this. Banning people for driving while already banned can hardly be considered an effective deterrent

Stephen15

fritzelly wrote: »

Many children grow very happy without the mother being present, and better off in some cases
Stop this "think of the children without a mother" rubbish - end of the day their mother killed someone through a very negligent and selfish act.
She's lucky she wasn't the cause of a major pile up with multiple people killed or horrific injuries! Total deliberate unwanton ignorance of being in charge of car and ignoring the golden rule of driving. What if it was outside a school that this happened and she killed a few children - would you be so forgiving?
Judges need to harden up and give appropriate sentences

And an appropriate sentence would be that she never steps foot in the drivers seat of car ever again.

tomasrojo

There's a pretty good blogpost about (UK) disqualifiation sentences by Martin Porter:

In a pre-guidelines case, R v Cully (2005) which is still referred to and followed by the Court of Appeal, the Court said this when reducing the Defendant's disqualification from 5 years to 2:
“We consider that the purpose of a disqualification from driving is so far as possible to protect the public. Often it may be that drivers come before the sentencing court with an appalling driving record. In such cases an extended period of disqualification may be appropriate since the offence indicates the risk to the public in the individual continuing to drive. Where circumstances do not suggest that there is any such risk, a period of disqualification, though inevitable as it is in a case of dangerous driving, can, and should in our view, be kept to the minimum.”
There seems, to me, to be a rather unfortunate assumption that, appalling driving records aside, there is no real risk to the public and Judges should keep disqualifications to the statutory minimum.

The approaches in R v Cully and in R v Crew have been followed many times since. Essentially if you have not been caught driving badly on other occasions there is an assumption that whatever bad driving brought you before the Court was a one-off and that you do not pose a risk to the public. There is a touching, but wholly misguided, faith that motorists are caught and convicted whenever they endanger anyone and not simply once they have killed or, at best, injured. It does not take much time cycling around our cities to appreciate this assumption is completely unwarranted. The lorry driver who never faced substantive justice after killing Eilidh Cairns went on to kill again and I find it hard to accept that those who have killed once (or have driven in such a way that it is is only a matter of good chance they did not kill) are not more likely to do so again.

https://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.ie/2014/06/disqualifications-for-bad-driving.html

EDIT:

In relation to disqualification, driving needs to be seen as a privilege not a right. Those who cannot or will not drive carefully will have to get to work on the bus, train or bicycle like the thousands of other people who through an uninvited medical condition or through choice do not drive.

fritzelly

In relation to disqualification, driving needs to be seen as a privilege not a right. Those who cannot or will not drive carefully will have to get to work on the bus, train or bicycle like the thousands of other people who through an uninvited medical condition or through choice do not drive.

And that right there is the crux, seen as too much of a right here - ahh sure a few pints while driving never hurt anyone and how are they supposed to get home from the bar...

AndrewJRenko

TheBoyConor wrote: »

i'd say the 99.9% of parents have done something similar, taking their eyes off the road to look at their small child in the back for a second.

99.9% of parents most definitely have NOT attempted to remove a tag from a child's toy in the rear seat while driving at 80 kmph or 100 kmph. Stop trying to spin this as something that it wasn't.

TheBoyConor wrote: »

We must remember that she has small children that need to go to school, extracurricular activties etc.

TheBoyConor wrote: »

Whether we like it or not, a car is absolutely essential for the running of daily life for many many families. Take away the car and the family will be thrown into chaos.

Lots of people manage small kids without having a car. They go to local schools, they walk, they cycle, they get the bus, maybe the occasional taxi. Stop playing the 'won't someone please think of the children' card.

Kaisr Sose wrote: »

Or perhaps a large chunk of community service in lieu of jail?
A driver re-education programme?

Maybe she should work with Rothar, or with Cycling Without Age, or some other community work involving two wheels.

Time wrote: »

For all you know she could have always been an excellent driver up until that one lapse, so you can't really say she's really really bad at driving in general.

Given that she killed a cyclist, you CAN really say that she's really, really bad at driving.

Time wrote: »

Again a huge difference as drunk driving contains the element of intent not present here.

Did she accidentally reach for the child's toy in the back seat, or was it an intentional action?

TBH, it wouldn't surprise me if the 'child's toy' is a cover story for something. I wonder if the Gardai checked for phone traffic at that time.

Idioteque

I wonder if in cases like this the punishment should be something like a combination of regular compulsory blood donation and providing help to care centers for people with various disabilities...but the severity determines the amount of years.
At least that way the person is “punished” but there’s a benefit given to others as a result.
In an awful circumstance like this I would expected something like 10 years of the above.

At the end of the day an adult was irresponsible and that irresponsibility led to the death of another. That should have a punishment I believe. Maybe that should be prison but it should definitely not be prison or nothing.

dubrov

Have to agree. This was a lot more than forgetting to check a mirror.
There were plenty of options and she took the lazy one.
She took a huge risk (a lot more than most reasonable people) at the cyclist's expense.

I don't really see it any different than a someone chancing the drive home after a few drinks and running someone over because they didn't see them.

hesker

Does anyone know if an examination of her phone records formed part of the investigation. Or was the detail about attending to her child just her testimony which was accepted without question

fritzelly

hesker wrote: »

Does anyone know if an examination of her phone records formed part of the investigation. Or was the detail about attending to her child just her testimony which was accepted without question

Probably the easiest excuse her lawyers could come up with at the time
She admitted that is what she did so probably no reason to investigate it beyond that as she admitted liability