Reply to: Its one rule for them and......

[sasguru]

Which one of us haven't been driving a juggernaut down a motorway, at night, focussing on your laptop and working out your route instead of watching the road ahead?

Erm, me, for one...

oh is that what he did? The w**nker.

[ratewhore]

I actually felt quite sorry for the Portuguese lorry driver. There for the grace of God go I etc. Which one of us hasn't had a lapse in conecntration and probably escaped by pure luck?

Which one of us haven't been driving a juggernaut down a motorway, at night, focussing on your laptop and working out your route instead of watching the road ahead?

Erm, me, for one...

[cailin maith]

Yeah, a Zodiac would have difficulty but you managed it. A modern car with powerful headlights, ABS, disc brakes et al would easily avoid a non moving car. Just think how often traffic stops on motorways these days, yet most of the time we manage not to hit each other.

Carling, I think he demontrated that concentrating on the road ahead is not his top priority, I bet he was messing with something else, food/CD/Paperwork and I bet he was driving a big automatic merc or some such car on cruise control. You see those guys all the time swaying about.

Probably you are right.

I wasn't defending him at all BTW, just mentioning what they'd said on the news.

[Bagpuss]

Yeah, a Zodiac would have difficulty but you managed it. A modern car with powerful headlights, ABS, disc brakes et al would easily avoid a non moving car. Just think how often traffic stops on motorways these days, yet most of the time we manage not to hit each other.

Carling, I think he demontrated that concentrating on the road ahead is not his top priority, I bet he was messing with something else, food/CD/Paperwork and I bet he was driving a big automatic merc or some such car on cruise control. You see those guys all the time swaying about.

[cailin maith]

According to what ever I was half watching this morning (either Breakfast or the Wright Stuff) he was two miles away when the last text was sent. On the motorway, thats a couple of minutes at most.

I thought it was BBC I saw last night, but I might be mistaken. I'd imagine there is conflicting reports about it.

[sasguru]

Both deserved custodial sentences for breaking the law.
Mr. Ahmed (I can't bring myself to call him Lord) is the worst type of NL flunkey and I dislike that sort intensely. However there are clear differences in the cases:

1) One was texting as the accident happened and crashed into a car parked on the hard shoulder.
2) The other crashed into a car stopped in the fast lane (that had already been hit by another car) and that happened after the texting had occurred.

In this case the difference in sentencing is about right.

I actually felt quite sorry for the Portuguese lorry driver. There for the grace of God go I etc. Which one of us hasn't had a lapse in conecntration and probably escaped by pure luck?

[Moscow Mule]

I saw on the news last night that they checked his phone records and the last text he sent was 15 or 20 mins prior to the accident.

According to what ever I was half watching this morning (either Breakfast or the Wright Stuff) he was two miles away when the last text was sent. On the motorway, thats a couple of minutes at most.

[cailin maith]

What's to say he wasn't texting just before he hit the car?
I have managed to avoid stationary cars on more than 1 occasion, even in the dark. The guy obviously doesn't pay attention while driving.

I saw on the news last night that they checked his phone records and the last text he sent was 15 or 20 mins prior to the accident.

[Bagpuss]

What's to say he wasn't texting just before he hit the car?
I have managed to avoid stationary cars on more than 1 occasion, even in the dark. The guy obviously doesn't pay attention while driving.

[Old Greg]

Much as I'm sure Lord Ahmed is a despicable NL stooge, I thought 12 weeks was harsh (assuming it was a 1st offence, I don't know that) for an offence that had no link to the accident. People don't go to prison as a rule (I think, happy to be contradicted) for drinking and driving 1st offences.

[Unicorn]

Was he jailed for dangerous driving? If so, how come the lorry driver who wiped out a whole family because he was fannying around with his laptop only got sent down for 'careless' driving?
...

I think that lorry driver got sent down for causing death by careless driving. It's a new offence which doesn't have the same criteria as causing death by dangerous driving which is harder to prove. The new death by careless driving has a lower maximum sentence than death by dangerous driving.

[ratewhore]

That is how I read it. He was jailed for dangerous driving, not for having the accident; as it happens the first was only exposed because of the second. The judge acknowledged that the texting didn't cause the accident:

Was he jailed for dangerous driving? If so, how come the lorry driver who wiped out a whole family because he was fannying around with his laptop only got sent down for 'careless' driving?

Problem we are faced with is that the justice system is based on judges interpretation of the law, and the fact that most of them are dribbling, colostomy-bag wearing ****tards clearly doesn't help...

[tim123]

Mr Justice Wilkie said: "It's clear the dangerous driving had no causal link to the accident."

Seems to contradict...

"I have come to the conclusion that by reason of the prolonged, deliberate, repeated and highly dangerous driving for which you have pleaded guilty, only an immediate custodial sentence can be justified."

No, because the texting was 3 miles before the accident and the accident was caused by his driving into a stationary car in the outside lane.

You might argue that the type of person who is going to text whilst in the outside lane is the type of person who always drives dangerously, but I think that (for most of you) stepping back and looking at your own driving might change your mind.

So, no causal link between the criminal offence of "texting whilst driving" and the accident, which ISTM was exactly that, an accident which could easily have ended the same way if it were you driving down the outside lane at 70 mph to find a stationary car just in front of you.

Thankfully, UK law prosecutes you for what (it can be proved) you actually did, not what you might have done.

tim

[expat]

I hate to defend the idiot as I hate driving texters but didn't she veer off the road and plough into a static motorist while he crashed into a static car that had already crashed and been hit by another car in the outside lane at night.

I can see the similarities but whereas she did definitely kill the girl due to lack of concentration, he would have had the same accident texting or not.

That is how I read it. He was jailed for dangerous driving, not for having the accident; as it happens the first was only exposed because of the second. The judge acknowledged that the texting didn't cause the accident:

Mr Justice Wilkie said: "It's clear the dangerous driving had no causal link to the accident."

[London75]

I hate to defend the idiot as I hate driving texters but didn't she veer off the road and plough into a static motorist while he crashed into a static car that had already crashed and been hit by another car in the outside lane at night.

I can see the similarities but whereas she did definitely kill the girl due to lack of concentration, he would have had the same accident texting or not.