Professional footballer admits causing death of cyclist

I wonder how he got to the game?

arowland wrote:

And indulging my penchant for picking up the least important matter in the entire article...
"obtaining or getting a driving licence". What is the difference?

He's kindly explaining, in case the footballer isn't familar with the word "obtaining."

duzza wrote:

Most clubs probably wouldn't of employed a convicted killer, even if they only got a fine and a suspended sentence.

Are you sure? The football world's not exactly known for its strong moral stances.

Courts have a massive backlog due to the pandemic. Nothing to do with the CPS allowing him to finish his footballing career.

Google the Luke McCormick case.

stonojnr wrote:

Google the Luke McCormick case.

I still don't understand why lifetime driving bans aren't issued for cases like that.

hawkinspeter wrote:

I still don't understand why lifetime driving bans aren't issued for cases like that.

I agree, they should be there as a punishment and a deterrent; unfortunately the Court of Appeal ruled in 2023 that a lifetime ban can only be imposed if, essentially, it can be proved that the offender will remain a risk to the public for the rest of their life. If there is any possibility of rehabilitation, they said, a lifetime ban should not be imposed because it could hamper the rehabilitation process (presumably because driving a car is obviously an innate human right and it's cruel and unusual punishment to take it away permanently). An extraordinary ruling, particularly when one looks at the specific case in which they allowed the appeal against a lifetime ban which was of an offender who had been disqualified from driving twenty-four times and convicted of drink driving nine times.

Yeah but if you take away any chance of getting their licence back they'll turn into some kind of amoral road-bandit! * checks court records again * ... oh, err ....

If people are deep in addiction they will likely do anything ... so perhaps there is an argument that at some point after they've thoroughly proved to have changed their life we should reconsider things?

OTOH if they've really come full circle and appreciated the harm they've done perhaps they'll understand why some things are no longer permitted to them?

Or even better: make driving licences weight-restricted. AIUI you have to take a different test to be able to drive a minibus or a LGV or a HGV. Why not have it that a standard driving licence only allows you to drive vehicles up to a certain weight, and make that weight be low enough that you'd have to take a special test if you wanted to drive a wankpanzer...?

There already is. For old g!ts like me the weight limit is 7.5 tonnes, for people passing since 1997 it is 3.5 tonnes (both gross vehicle weight). The manufacturers have all sorts of tricks to keep the max GVW below the 3.5 tonnes, such as making some of them only 4 seaters as a 5th person at a nominal 75kg will push them over the limit.

In that case, perhaps lower it to - say - 2 tonnes?  I'd wager that would catch out all the Wankpanzerkapitäne…
 

Have some compassion, the average League One footballer's salary is only around £5000 a week, judging by some of the penalties we've seen handed out recently to drivers who kill cyclists he's at serious risk of losing maybe half a day's pay...

I think you could easily argue that 90% of vehicles on the road are unnecessarily sized and add a considerable risk of injury (to others) in the event of a collision. Here in Devon, a large number of people seem to think "I live in the country so a huge SUV is necessary", whereas a once a week trip to Sainburys and once a month to the docs is not really what they're built for.

I often look at the size of cars being driven around small winding roads...and then marvel how the world seems to fall apart when they meet something similar coming the other way.

That (car-shaped) boat has sailed, alas... (until something like this starts becoming popular).

Many modern vehicles exhibit something of the "reverse-tardis" effect - they are not much bigger on the inside given their much bigger exteriors.  But apparently that's "because safety" or something.

Anyway - I would be in favour of some kind of a Japanese-style rules (apparently you don't get to have a car if you can't show you've a place to store it, was it?)  Perhaps something more lenient initially like "if you have a garage, you don't get to park your car on the street outside".  Which of course would be unfair as for many older properties where could you now buy a car which would fit?

And many properties have more than one car these days.
If I had to keep my car in the garage, I would have nowhere to keep my bikes.🤔
I just can't understand why such large cars are in such high demand. Fuel costs, tyre costs etc are much higher.
It is a triumph of marketing over practicality.

Yes ... and people buy what's on sale.  (You might have to look harder for something smaller).
Keeping up with the Joneses?
Arms race (have to have a mini-truck to protect myself from others with them)?
Garages are just "storage space" because we (collectively / government) have accepted that "public space" includes "my parking space".  Why wouldn't you, until they actually clamp your car and charge you?  (Then you go to the court ... of public opinion!)

Those monstrous vehicles may look unnecessary in Devon, but here in London they are simply ridiculous. Yesterday as I cycled through St John's Wood along a narrow street this absolutely gargantuan Range Rover saw me and still turned into the road to face me. So I had to stop and get off my bike to get past. (I was on a GSD) The fat fck couldn't even wait for me to pass. And he was on the phone. 

We're gonna need a bigger bike...

Several times recently I've come across drivers having to back out of roads and take an alternative route because either their cars wouldn't physically fit into a narrow street with parked cars or their driving skills weren't up to getting down it without scratching their precious against them. One would think that would only have to happen once before they realised they'd bought the wrong car for the urban environment but obviously obnoxious wealth flaunting is much more important than practicality.

Rome73 wrote:

(I was on a GSD)

Drivers (admittedly, not urban Range Rover drivers) tend to be quite good around horses and their riders - you'd think it would carry over to German shepherd dogs and their riders.

"...  this absolutely gargantuan Range Rover saw me ... "

Did it (the car) have eyes? Was it self-driving?

Or was it the driver who saw you?

the little onion wrote:

Driving a Mercedes G-Wagon

 I wonder how many of those G Class Mercs ever go "off-road" once they've been bought?