Suspended sentence for lorry driver who reached for phone and killed cyclist

The judge is f*****g incompetent and should be struck off for 1)such a lenient sentence 2)bias against cyclists and pro motons 3) outrageous remarks.

In an unrelated incident a cyclist uses a D-lock to protect him self against an aggressive dangerous driver, whacks a car and gets 150 hrs community plus huge fines. This mobile toting driver KILLS a cyclist and gets a suspended sentence. Where is justice for cyclists?

The justice system and courts are really f****d up.

I filmed this video yesterday (travelling at 60 mph on Friday midday) on the section where Chris Dennehy died (Friday just before 11am). I understand it was in the area between 20-40s on the video. From the lower view point of my car I can see clearly ahead to the margins for 7-9 seconds at all points on the road ahead (which equates to about 200m or 2 football picthes). It would also be possible to see vehicles  much further ahead deflecting their course around someone on a bike - that is IF you are looking at the road and making a risk assessment before looking away for even a fraction of a second.  Quite how the expert decided the driver had only 2 seconds to see Chris is beyond me.

This looks like another case of a victim and their family being cruelly let down by what passes as the criminal justice system when it comes to motoring offences. The ill-considered and psychologically revealing comments by the judge reinforce the evidence of a bias towards the criminal in these types of cases. This sentence will probably not deter others from using their mobile 'phones while driving.  Was the defendant acquitted by the jury? Or were they given the option of pleading for the less serious offence? In the case of jury selection, as I have witnessed, the judge has discretion to set rules for excluding jurors.  In this type of case the following jurors who had committed the following should have been allowed to serve on the panel because of their likely prejudice if they have been:

1) Convicted of a driving offence

2) Received points on their licence for related driving offences, particularly use of a mobile 'phone

3) As an alternative to 2) been sent on a "re-education course"

As I have not seen that reported for any such case, perhaps formal advice from the Department of Justice is now required, to ensure that it is considered.

I am also interested in another poster's comments about the time taken for this "lapse in concentration".  The times quoted do suggest that the defendant's vehicle was alreay dangerous close to the cyclist.

Quote:

“This was a moment of carelessness and as human beings it is something we are all guilty of on a daily basis "

The causal acceptance by the judiciary of the normalisation of dangerously illegal behaviour, is the statement I find most worrying.

“This was a moment of carelessness and as human beings it is something we are all guilty of on a daily basis..." said the judge.

In other words: "It could have happened to any of us therefore I'm going to show leniency because it's the sort of thing I might have done" said the judge.

Anyone remember when drink-driving became socially unacceptable and there were large media and policing campaigns to drive the message home? The same approach should be taken to phone-driving.

The comment about "church goers" marks the judge out as a muppet and why wasnt the driver in court? 

My deepest sympathy to the family.

3 years ago my brother in law was killed whilst cycling on a long wide straight road in  daylght and perfect weather conditions.  The driver had no recollection of seeing the cyclist, it appears she had some mental health problems.  It is difficult to describe the devastation this has brought to the family.  The points I'd make are:

The family and I did not see that a prison term was appropriate in our case - it would only have ruined several other lives.  However there was no re-test and I see no mention of this in this here.

I note in both cases, a prison term was avoided by the defendent being 'a good Christian' - this should be utterly irrelevant.  There are obviously two set of sentencing guidelines in this country (one for Christians and one for the rest of us).

I would like to see that any road user who is at fault and  injures a cyclist (i.e. the cyclist has a trip to hospital or is killed) has to have a re-test to prove their competence. Drivers need to understand that if they injure cyclists they will be taken off the road and  have to prove their competence before being allowed behind the wheel again.

For "Church" should we read "Lodge"?

I drove up this section of the A38 this morning and videoed my journey at 60mph. I calculate that, contrary to the expert opinion given at the trial (of 2 seconds to see the cyclist Chris Dennehy), that the driver must have been distracted for not less than 7-9 seconds = 200 mteres = 2 football pitches. Sadly, on the remainder of my journey up the road I saw one HGV drift 3 x across the white lines (phone use? sleeping? eating?) and one guy in a white van texting whilst driving. Distracted driving is becoming 'normalised'.
Mandatory one year ban for mobile phone use whilst driving? and a life time ban if you kill? 
What else will stop this?

Anyone who wants to know how cyclists are viewed by British justice only needs to read this and the Bike Lock story to confirm just how little regard we are held in. 

Disgusting. 

That's a shocking result. Both death by careless and death by dangerous driving need scrapping and new offences created. The judges are forced (mostly) to act within that legislation and sentencing guidelines. The end result is disgusting sentencing.

Every driver in Britain knows that mobile phone use is illegal (yes, I get hands free) including our trucker here, who is classed as a professional driver. He intentionally reaches for his phone. That is a deliberate and conscious act where the driver knew his attention would be momentarily taken away from his driving. Long enough to kill a person. How the Hell can that be a lapse of concentration?

"Lapse of concentration" is too often used by courts and judges to diminish and excuse the unacceptable behaviour of drivers that kill.

It's high time we had some new legislation and those horrible offences are scrapped.

“I hope this case will send a message to other road users, who we see day in and day out using mobile phones or other devices."

 

Yeah, it tells them they can kill cyclists with impunity.

 

If you kill a cyclist or pedestrian while in the act of committing a driving offence (such as reaching for a phone) the minimum charge should be manslaughter. I think that would send a stronger message. I also think we'd see quitw a drop in injured/dead cyclists.

 

 

 

 

Surely most road collisions are caused by a momentary lapse of attention. Is dangerous driving now acceptable if you don't intend to kill someone, but end up doing so?

Hit someone's  car and swear at them you get punished. Kill someone because you deliberately  break the law, cry crocodile tears, invoke the baby Jesus, get let off. Bastard stupid system.

Yes, it says kill someone and get off with a slap on the wrist - that will have them quaking in their boots and no mistake.

"As well as handing down a suspended jail sentence, the recorder also said Noble must undertake 250 hours’ unpaid work and recommended that some of that should be carried out on behalf of charities.

He added: “I hope this case will send a message to other road users, who we see day in and day out using mobile phones or other devices" Yep the message is kill a cyclist & you get to give up 5 weekends doing community work. Great message from another a**ehole promoted above his abilities. Shame the Recorder couldn't be bothered to actually read the Law.

Unf**kingbelievable.

And, as Batchy said, what, in the blue f**k, does religion have to do with anything here?

What the fuck does "the church" have to do with justice !

Some of the world's most dangerous lunatics in human history have been " church goers". It just goes to show how stupid our judicial system has become !