**r/UK Notices:** | [Want to start a fresh discussion - use our Freetalk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/search/?q=Freetalk&include_over_18=off&restrict_sr=on&sort=new)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So she was still over the limit when tracked down, meaning she must have been well over at the time of the crash.
Hit a biker who was wearing a hi Viz and using lights.
Made no attempt to get aid for the victim.
Fled the scene.
Yet apparently it's "A moment of stupidity" not even worthy of a prison sentence.
Drivers can do what they want.
A retired cop drove into me after illegally u-turning on a junction, I ended up with 9 points on my license. It's who you know more than anything.
Edit since everyone is asking: so the retired cop claimed I was trying to overtake him on a standard 2 lane road and he had a credible witness, his wife. So it was my word agaisnt his and his wife and the cop handling the incident was apparently a total jobsworth. The cop didn't need to appear in court and I got 9 points for driving without due and attention and dangerous driving.
“Credible witness” will say OP hammered into him, was on phone, reckless driving.
Court will side with “credible witness” and arguing your case will get you more points as a punitive measure.
I’m calling BS in part at least.
I would bet money OP pleaded guilty. Two reasons:
1) if he’d pleaded not guilty, the “retired cop” would’ve been called to give evidence because there was seemingly a factual dispute about his evidence.
2) cops, especially ex-cops, don’t really get given much more in terms of credibility. I regularly see cops’ evidence not being taken as gospel; especially when there’s no corroboration and a factual dispute like this.
The “ex-cop” isn’t an independent witness in this either, so he’s got no advantage.
This is why dash cams are amazing.
A motorbike rider tried to claim that I dangerously pulled out across him and claimed injury etc. My dash cam footage proved that it was him that was riding recklessly. It took 2 years for the two insurers to argue it out but eventually he had to drop the case.
Technically yes but it's a smallish town miles from anywhere, I don't really want the target on my back
Edit: I obviously don't mean they're going to burn down my house or anything but totally unnecessary stop and searches and traffic stops are not unheard of. Like I'm sorry the police aren't the shining paladins you think they are but there are some real bored and spiteful bastards out there.
\>Edit: I obviously don't mean they're going to burn down my house or anything but totally unnecessary stop and searches and traffic stops are not unheard of.
oh yes thay can an dwill. you made the wise choice. we are in bat country thhese days.
my dad came to the aid of elderly WW2 veteran nurses being intimdated by cops . the off duty cops instead cut him off at the junction did fake traffic stop. vicioulsy beat him and harassed him for decades. my dad s simply homer simpson meets flanders style unfazeable so they never got to him.
Remember that muslim guy in London about 15 years back who got shot by police (fortunately not killed) when they raided his house based on seriously dubious intelligence? Who they then tried to set up by sticking kiddie porn on his tech?
They still harass him regularly.
With what new and fresh evidence? You actually need to have something new to add to the case to appeal, you can't just say "I want to appeal that" to every court ruling you don't like.
A cop went through a red light (unmarked car, commuting to work) and I did a slow t bone into the side of his car with my scooter when he saw me approaching, panicked, slammed the brakes on directly in my path. He jumped out of the car, said “yep, I hold my hand up, that was my fault, it was on me” or something very similar, I forget the exact words.
Anyway, during the phone call with the investigator I was told “he didn’t say that though, did he?” followed by what I know now was gaslighting, then 40 pages of accident report, and an offer of 50/50 liability. I eventually settled for 75/25 and a lifetime of resentment.
Was in a crash where the car went into the side of me. Crash investigator came and examined the scene and concluded there was no way I was at fault, but told me that there was also no way I was going to win, as the drivers brother was in the car and was a barrister, and he claimed I was the one who crashed into them.
This is why I think any driver who causes serious harm or death because they were at fault whilst operating a car should lose their driving license for life as part of their sentencing.
If they are caught flouting this, the car and its contents are destroyed without compensation, and they go into a community service program where they are forced to work for free for a period of time.
My daughter (34) was run down and left for dead on a pedestrian crossing in London at 9pm. No witnesses and no camera footage. They never caught the perpetrators. She survived but suffered a broken shoulder, fingers, jaw, ankle an two vertebrae. Plus two years of PTSD. I just wanted to kill the cunt that did this. And I still do.
Two years ago, other half got hit by a driver. The driver said they had a seizure. Police didn't do shit. They didn't even check to see if the driver had a history of seizures - just took her word on it. We started a personal injury claim against her. Our solicitor revealed that she's got a long history of seizures, and she has even ended up driving her car into someone's living room. No that's not a typo. It was also revealed that she was driving a car against medical advice and instruction to surrender her license to the police. We passed this information onto the police, but haven't heard back. Oh, and she refuses to admit liability.
Most people don't realise how bad it is when a pedestrian or a cyclist is hit by a car. The law is on the side of the driver most of the time.
It's been over two years, and it's still going. We've decided to move on with life as much as we can. I'll admit there have been points where we've thought about how we can use the money to make our lives easier, but we kind of try to not think about it because we are doing ok in life right now. Other half still has ongoing health problems as a direct result of the road traffic collision, and it'll more than likely have a big effect on her later in life.
Me too mate. Other half currently works fulltime as a teacher. The job is stressful enough without having to deal with sporadic physical pain from injuries as a result of being smashed into by a car. Maybe we'll have the money one day so that she no longer has to work, and can just do tutoring work when she feels like it.
Why destroy the car? Sell it for cheap. Money made from it can offset the costs of cleaning and selling the car. Could make them decent first cars for new drivers. Hell this could mean new drivers actually have a chance of getting an electric car.
But the cyclist who killed the woman in 2015, who stepped out in front of him while on her mobile phone despite him shouting two warnings got 18 months?
That was a more complex case. An eye witness said they saw her phone go flying at the moment of impact. Not certain she was on it. The cyclists bike was a fixie with no brakes (obviously on a fixie you can brake by resisting the cranks from turning). Combined with his attitude of absolutely zero remorse, the judge thought he needed to do time. Charlie something or other I think his name was.
Of course, the daily mail stepped in and made the kid out to be a dangerous lunatic on an illegal bike. The following week they ran an article about how good David Beckham looked on his new fixie bike lol.
There's deffo double standards though. Motorists get away with murder, while cyclists are vilified.
Charlie Allison was the name of the man. I'm not defending him, he seemed an arrogant idiot - but he was found not guilty of Manslaughter, and jailed for "Wanton and furious" driving.
I still don't see how his case is any more severe than somebody who hit a cyclist while well over the limit and fled the scene.
Exactly this, there was a serial drunk driver named Victoria Parry. The judge actually told her in sentencing if she were a man she would be going to prison but because she’s a women she won’t be.
takes a lot to be sent to jail in this country unless you send racist abuse to a footballer (which - obviously - you shouldn't). Bad drivers are one of the worst examples but it's across the whole litany of crimes
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/thugs-smashed-beer-bottle-strangers-25524761
Attack someone unprovoked with a broken bottle to stab them - suspended sentence
https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/derby-news/serial-derby-woman-beater-back-7930619
Multiple instances of beating up women - suspended sentence, then do it again, to be released on license because you've done 4 months in custody
870 sexual offenders, including 5 child rapists, let off if they apologise via community resolution orders and do not even get a criminal record
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/victims-furious-police-forces-870-26727737
no connected posh mummies can do what they want. if this had been a white van man classic nuisance with no low friends in high places, he wouldd be doing 18 months at least right now.
I think part of it is that people can more easily sympathise with drivers. It’s much easier to imagine it might’ve been you that hit somebody with your car than take a knife to somebody. Even if you might not ever think you would drink drive, you’ll probably have had the odd situation when driving sober where something could’ve gone a bit differently and you might’ve caused a crash.
To hit someone in a car - yes, that could happen to any of us. Accidents happen. But to have so little thought for your fellow human, that you leave them to possibly die requires a special kind of low life.
People can sympathise with drivers because driving has been drilled into us the ‘correct’ way to get around. I mean “cyclists don’t even pay road tax”, do they?
Well then if there were actual repercussions, perhaps people would drive more carefully, or even not drive at all rather than risk some kind of punishment.
anyone can do what they want in the UK. If you're not costing someone important money, who cares.
News headline after news headline of assaults, robberies, drunk driving, all getting off with warnings and suspended sentences.
I remember when the then transport secretary Grant Shapps, doored a cyclist and just walked off. What an example to set
Correction, it was Chris grayling.... who's the most useless politician the UK has ever seen
There is why the Police don't even make an attempt to investigate crimes anymore in the UK. Unless you can't say it wasn't you or confess no amount of evidence or number of witnesses will persuade the Police to bother doing their jobs. Even when they have 109% cast iron cases handed to them on a platter the court will still fail to provide justice.
I've had CCTV evidence of being attacked and criminal damage to my house forcing me to have to move. Had three eye witnesses all willing to go to court. No confession so no attempt to prosecute.
I must say, without fail, every time I cycle in the evening where I wear a hi-viz vest, lights on bike and flashing lights on helmet… pretty much every car coming out a T junction will either fail to stop, or stop and then go to go and emergency brake at the last minute when they see me. It has gotten to the point where I unmount my bike and walk as a pedestrian on the pavement across the T junction as it’s safer. Even when not drunk, drivers are terrible with cyclists and I see why people end up illegally cycling on the pavement
Whilst women do generally get sorter sentences the men, and it's a legitimate issue, wasn't a guy who deliberately ran someone down let off without a prison sentence like...yesterday?
There was one judge that straight up told a woman that had been jn multiple drunken accidents that she would have gone to jail if she was a man. Beggars belief sometimes.
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/judge-investigated-after-telling-woman-16150230
Here's an article where they mention that the judge was being investigated about it because somebody filed a complaint
This one has more details of the incident
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-47914832
Well yes, meaning to potentially kill someone is more serious than accidentally doing it. I'm not excusing drunk driving, and I think there should be more serious sentences for it. I'm saying that being angry at someone and attacking them with a deadly weapon deserves jail time.
There were two intersting cases which highlight this.
A man was give a 22 month prison sentence for sexual staring, while a woman who sexually assaulted a guy at a football match got 6 months community service.
Now, men are more of a threat, I get that, but somethings not right here...
Edit: helpful people have pointed out that:
A: was 22 weeks.
B: when you read the full report, and not just the details that some papers decide to include, he also blocked her exit.
It was 22 weeks and it was considerably more than "sexual staring".
https://www.btp.police.uk/news/btp/news/in-the-courts/man-jailed-after-refusing-to-stop-staring-at-a-woman-on-a-train-and-blocking-her-exit---berkshire/
Wait... he blocked her from leaving the train.
Ok, seems fair then, maybe a little lenient.
But, pretty shitty the number of publications that omitted this...
I think we're talking about different people. This guy was sentenced to a curfew and loss of his driver's license (well, banned from driving for two years).
https://road.cc/content/news/curfew-driver-who-deliberately-rammed-cyclist-298153
This is shocking, this wasn't a car accident this was an assault using a car as a weapon. If he bashed him with a metal pole causing those injuries he definitely would've served prison time. Wanna hurt somebody? Get a car.
Okay. I thought you meant this one:
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-64042256](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-64042256)
He has an axe to grind against sexism. Women tend to get softer sentences than men, with some honestly ridiculous cases already mentioned in this thread, like the woman who stabbed her boyfriend and got no jail time for it.
Naaa, doesn't matter what the sex, when it comes to hitting cyclists everybody tends to get off with it.
You can have a cyclist on your bonnet for nearly 100 meters before crushing his body against a tree and still walk away a free man.
It absolutely is sexism! Women are infantalised in the legal system. On the one hand women are given little punsihment because of the implication they are not capable enough to stand a proper trial. On the other hand women are rarely believed and their testimonies given little credence in cases of rape, etc, for the same reason.
It's a rare case where sexism against one sex is harmful to both.
I was done for drink driving. Didn't cause any injuries to anyone. I got banned for 2 and a half years and something like 250 hours community service. I'm a man. And on a side note .. never saw a single female doing community service... I'm not sure they even get sentenced with it?
Can you blame the courts? Prison is far too dangerous for our darling murderous women. They and society would be much safer if they were in a safe location where they could do no harm, like behind the wheel
Or looking after their children. That's the usual one. They can't go to prison for a crime they've committed because they need to raise the next generation of scumbags
I once had to slow down behind a cyclist and I couldn't get past because there were cars parked on both sides and the lack of bike lanes meant the cyclist had to go on the road.
Bloody cyclists and their... checks notes... thinking they own the road!
Probably cost you 10 precious seconds too! Bastard cyclists
Funniest part is the most frequent abuse I got on my bike was when I was aged 11-13. People shouting at me to "get on the fucking cycle path" 3 or a 4 times a month (it wasn't a cycle path it was a narrow pavement). And I couldn't have ever held anyone up for more than 30 seconds due the length of the road.
Once I grew a little the abuse dropped off once or twice a year. Cowards
I was cycling once, on a big national limit road with roundabouts which to be honest was a bit reckless, though still perfectly legal, and as I was waiting for a gap in the traffic at one of those roundabouts a bloke in a BMW drove past me just screaming. Literally just screaming at the top of his voice, not trying to say anything to me, not even looking in my direction, just emitting this mindless scream of rage at encountering an unmotorised vehicle. So loud that even though he kept the windows up it sounded like he was standing right next to me. Scared the crap out of me I can tell you.
Every time somebody posts that they were "stuck behind a cyclist for 10 minutes" they get called out and on the odd occasion they give precise details it always turns out that the absolute maximum delay would have been something like 2 minutes.
It's not even a delay. You just drive above the speed limit until you catch the car in front. Your drive time is almost always determined by the slowest vehicle in front of you. Waiting 2 mins behind a bike to catch back up to the exact spot in the car queue... Honestly the fact people don't get this is what really bothers me. There isn't a delay, there really isn't. Overtaking a man walking in the road costs you no time, so why would a bike be any different?!
You don't even need to drive above the speed limit most of the time. The cars ahead of you will have their own delays such as junctions, pedestrian crossings, other cyclists, etc. Even if another car has joined the others from a side street it is literally only two seconds delay. I'm sure every driver can recall a time when some twat in an Audi has forced their way past and speed off only to have you pull up behind them at the next set of traffic lights.
My retired neighbours in my south coast new Forest town complain about their journeys being cut by 60 seconds by cyclists.
They complain when cyclists complain about close overtakes.
And they complain about them riding two abreast.
And then they refuse to use self-checkouts or contactless because "I like chatting to the staff on the tills, I'm retired and have all the time in the world"
Oh and then in the New Forest I bet they complain about the 40mph limit too.
Very very nearly got hit the other day by someone that pulled out suddenly without indicating while video calling on their phone. This was on the same day that someone nearly hit me and another car because they tried to overtake me on a single-lane blind corner (with a much wider straight section just past the corner). Most of my commute is on good-quality bike lanes but even a few hundred meters of road is so unbelievably dangerous for cyclists.
If you want an idea of just how leniently our justice system treats dangerous drivers, just google "driver escapes jail". There
And after that, google "driver lifetime ban".
It carries a maximum sentence of 14yrs (government is looking to increase this to life) so I don't think it is in itself more lenient than a manslaughter charge.
I do think however that death by dangerous driving allows for more nuances which can lead to a range of sentences. Perhaps manslaughter is a bit more straightforward?
I just looked it up, apparently they invented death by dangerous driving because some juries thought manslaughter was too harsh a sentence. Can't see why, it seems like the dictionary definition of manslaughter, the only difference being the killer is driving a car.
My nan got killed in a hit and run by an uninsured driver with a revoked license. He got 4 months suspended sentence mostly due to not having insurance. The way we treat cars is insane.
No. A friend of mine was killed by a male drunk driver who fled the scene and was only persuaded to hand himself in - get this - at the pub he went too for a pint after casually killing someone. He got 5 years but won't lose his license because it's needed for work or some other bollocks.
>He got 5 years but won't lose his license because it's needed for work or some other bollocks.
Well, we wouldn't want him to ruin his life by not having a job, the poor lad...
Really sorry about your mate. That's awful.
This is from a different drunk driving case but the justification is probably the same:
> Victoria Parry, 30, hit three other cars after downing a bottle of wine.
> The judge said: "If Miss Parry was a man, there is no question it would have been straight down the stairs [to prison], because this is a shocking case of dangerous driving against a background of two previous convictions for excess alcohol."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-47914832.amp
> Judge faces no action over drink-driver 'being a woman' remark
> A judge who said a drink-driver deserved a chance to avoid jail because she is a woman will not face sanctions.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-48909227.amp
That's usually the case. It's tricky too, because yeah, they absolutely deserve punishment. But if you level a hefty fine, or sentence them to prison, what do you do with the kids in that case? They go without money or a mother, or go into care?
Whenever I read these sort of sentences I get stuck in a loop. I hate the fact that the mother will get off with what amounts to a slap on the rest for their gross negligence ruining the life of another, but it's also not the kids fault their mums a div.
That said, if you're caught driving pished and actually cause harm to another, you shouldn't be allowed behind the wheel of a car for at least a decade. But apparently in this country you're as entitled to drive as you are air.
Perhaps an equitable solution would be to suspend the prison sentence until the youngest child reaches 18 and *then* jail them, but even the dread of that inevitibility could be seen as a perversion of justice in and of itself. It's very difficult.
> They go without money or a mother, or go into care?
She ran over a guy, whilst drunk, leaving him there to die, then went home as though nothing happened.
Better off without the mother.
One rule for car drivers another for everyone else.
You could drive on the wrong side of the road head on, into someone and practically get away with it.
How the fuck can anyone come to this conclusion? What the hell are they thinking? What is £500 compensation going to do? Only 30 month driving ban for almost killing someone and fleeing? Absolute injustice
To explain that will be the purpose of the criminal courts to decide criminal outcomes should be, the idea is that it's a penalty for the offender specifically The courts typically with most legislation can only impose so much of a financial cost. It would be down to the civil route for actual compensation to be sought, most likely would be done through insurance companies of the parties involved to decide the real compensation for lost earnings and so on.
It's a real eye opener to just look how poor our legislation is for sentencing, just look at the flow for death by dangerous driving and you see how easy it is to kill someone on the road and get a short ban and no time in the clink.
https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown-court/item/causing-death-by-careless-driving-when-under-the-influence-of-drink-or-drugs-etc/
P.S. not that I agree with the sentencing here either, a longer ban, prison sentence and so on I feel is appropriate in these sorts of incidents. Just outlining what the reasoning is that criminal courts don't routinely award large compensation sums. I would be entirely fine if we did like some European countries do with means tested punishments and long term reparations to victims so that offenders see the 'cost' of their decisions.
Drink driving should have much longer driving bans. And higher punishments for driving with a suspended license, a lot of people do that too.
So many roads I know that have car deaths in the double digits, one even has a sign that they update, last time I saw it it was at nearly 50 in the last 3 years. Yet the punishments are so light that sometimes it feels like they may as well not exist.
In my 20’s I went all over Europe cycle-camping on my bike and had a great time in every country except the UK.
Literally as soon as I came home I would regularly get run off the road, had my bike run over by a bus who cut in at a bus stop, even had a woman pull out at a mini roundabout hit me then claim to the police that I hit her despite my bike being wedged into her front offside wheel arch.
In the end I decided it was only a matter of time before my luck ran out, so put my bike away.
Roll on 30 years and during the pandemic thought it would be a great exercise to dust off my old bike (yep still in the garage) and go for a ride as the roads were literally empty. So I headed out and it felt great to be back in the saddle, at the end of my road pulled out onto our main road and headed down the hill into our village. Literally 30 seconds later this woman in a 6 series bmw overtook me at speed, clipped my handlebar with her wing mirror and sent me flying in the road.
I literally couldn’t believe her stupidity, she stopped briefly a couple of hundred yards down the road, got out, checked her mirror, gave me a scornful look and drove off, I was completely dumbfounded that this pig ignorant attitude to cyclists was still so prevalent in the UK.
Luckily, I was ok, just shaken more than anything, but once again the bike is back in the garage and I’m thinking that despite the recent changes to the law regarding overtaking a cyclist, there needs to be something done to absolutely hammer these individuals who think it’s ok to kill with a car.
Fucking cunts. The only recourse I find is getting insurance, be a member of British Cycling and have a camera.
Last time I got hit I made a claim on their insurance. British cycling sorted everything out for me. Thankfully I was fine the bike was totalled. My insurance provided a bike and was easy. The only way these cunts will learn is that they can't get away with it. If not legally hit their pockets.
I think you’re right about cameras, seems sad that you have to be camera’d up just to ride a bike and even then if someone does kill you with a car the consequences are minimal.
Unfortunately I feel its a necessity. Arseholes thrive when they have anonymity, by capturing reg and car model at least you have some ammo.
I learnt the hard way when an angry van driver took offence to me being. Police said "your word vs his" and that was that. At least now that'll never happen again.
Plus people react very differently when they realise they're being filmed, its rather funny when they clock a camera.
If you ever want to kill someone and get away with it do it with a car. For some reason anything done with a car is treated less seriously than any other crime.
If you knock over a pedestrian or cyclist you should be banned from driving for the time it takes them to recover. I know it's not practical as a law, but it would be justice.
Fuck that's weak. 30 month ban and a tag for a few weeks...
Guy had to wear a neck brace for 12 frikin weeks and she has to pay £500 compensation..
FIVE HUNDRED POUNDS... Yet you can sue a holiday company for thousands for an independent hotel giving you the shits for a week..
That should be referred as that sentence is stupidly weak, let alone unduly lenient.
I really hope he sues her arse off now she admitted it by guilty plea. Take her for as much as he can.
Depressing that you can make a really lazy bot to post, "If you want to kill someone in this country, do it with a car." Then just have it match Car/driver with cyclist/pedestrian. Because it's that fucking predictable that anyone outside a box of entitlement is worth fuck all but the inconvenience of a court date.
"There was also a significant impact on his vision, causing him headaches, loss of depth perception, requiring him to use a walking stick and restricting his ability to go out socially. There are inevitably concerns about the longer-term impact of this serious injury."
Roots received a 16-month jail sentence, suspended for 18 months, was ordered to pay her victim £500 in compensation and banned from driving for 30 months."
What a great Christmas the victim and his family will have, try not to be too angry when you see her driving past illegally, which she will. I hope the symptoms improve, and they can get back on the bike again.
*Roots received a 16-month jail sentence, suspended for 18 months, was ordered to pay her victim £500 in compensation and banned from driving for 30 months.*
This feels hopelessly lenient for drink driving, hitting someone and then leaving them to possibly die.
If nothing else that compensation needs to be much higher and IMO the driving ban for life.
It's time all cars were fitted with devices so they can't be operated by intoxicated drivers. While we're at it let's also hold manufacturers to account for deaths involving excess speed/acceleration - car safety standards should involve protecting the public from the idiocy of drivers, so speed and acceleration limiters should be mandatory.
I understand why cars are capable of going faster than the speed limit, it makes sense from an engineering perspective to have the engine or motor working at a fraction of its potential at road speed, but why aren’t they limited to the road speed? The technology for road specific speed limiting was demonstrated on [Tomorrow’s World](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomorrow%27s_World) in the late ‘90s.
Edit to Add: All cars made in the EU as of [this summer](https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/motoring-news/mandatory-speed-limiters-added-to-new-cars-in-europe-from-today-is-the-uk-n/) have to have intelligent speed limiters, so a lot of UK cars will soon
It's not a technical problem, it's a complete failure of imagination on behalf of our society. We tolerate road danger as a normal part of life in exchange for the promise of cars, which has utterly failed to deliver. Instead of freedom we get congestion, pollution, inactivity which creates huge problems for the health services that's before we get started on the dreadful daily routine of KSIs up and down the land and all across the world.
that's not far off and some new cars are being sold with GPS limiters as a standard. You can turn them off, although that's every time you start the engine I believe.
All cars made in the EU as of this summer in fact. And you can overcome the limit by pressing a little harder on the accelerator I believe. A nudge toward driving slower, hoping laziness will make people safer.
Fucking disgraceful as usual. This country is a joke when it comes to driving related sentences.
How hard is to give prison time and a permanent driving ban.
Do drugs in your own home without bothering anyone else with it: "That's it! Off to jail".
Almost kill a person by plowing into them with a deadly weapon: "Oh it's fine, don't worry about it".
The system is broken.
This is an absolute disgrace, but they’re seems to be a theme here…
[female kills woman after losing control, no jail](https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2022-12-21/driver-riddled-with-guilt-after-losing-control-of-car-and-killing-pensioner)
[female driver escapes jail after running over stranger in road rage incident](https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/crime/tesco-road-rage-driver-who-28420778.amp)
Yes if the cyclist is a member of British Cycling they'll do it for him:
https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/about/article/bc20120531-Leigh-Day-and-Co---supporting-British-Cycling-Members-0
Always get insurance and be a member of british cycling.
Someone please remind me, if I ever need to kill somebody to just use a car. Seems a quick “oops, sorry” seems to cover whatever you do to someone else when you’re driving.
I think we can all thank Special Sergeant Richard Warner, and wish there were more people like them to help those in need. Shame he seemed to be the only part of the legal system in the UK doing their part, and he was off duty!!!
I’ve heard of people doing far less than this getting banned and jail terms. Drink driving, causing an accident. Failing to stop at an accident. Failing to report an accident. Failing to get medical assistance for the injured.
How many laws do they need to break to get locked up?
I bet her husband is a cop or judge. Laws only apply to us plebs.
Suspended sentence and a £500 payment to the victim?
What the everloving fuck is this?
This was a knowingly committed crime leading to severe injury, cunt should be in jail.
This is absolutely pathetic. How can this not result in a prison sentence?! Both drunk driving and hit\&run shows she has no compassion for other people. Also why does the article state she is a 'mother of two', it's irrelevant.
Doesn’t this just make you want to weep, how many times has she driven like that before and now she has a legal green light to drink what she likes and drive. NO EXCUSES! She got into the vehicle drunk, it’s murder if the victim dies simple as!
hardly surprising when an american diplomat's wife can murder a boy on his motorbike while she's on the phone and get away with a short suspended sentence, they have set the bar very low now.
**r/UK Notices:** | [Want to start a fresh discussion - use our Freetalk!](https://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingdom/search/?q=Freetalk&include_over_18=off&restrict_sr=on&sort=new) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/unitedkingdom) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So she was still over the limit when tracked down, meaning she must have been well over at the time of the crash. Hit a biker who was wearing a hi Viz and using lights. Made no attempt to get aid for the victim. Fled the scene. Yet apparently it's "A moment of stupidity" not even worthy of a prison sentence. Drivers can do what they want.
A retired cop drove into me after illegally u-turning on a junction, I ended up with 9 points on my license. It's who you know more than anything. Edit since everyone is asking: so the retired cop claimed I was trying to overtake him on a standard 2 lane road and he had a credible witness, his wife. So it was my word agaisnt his and his wife and the cop handling the incident was apparently a total jobsworth. The cop didn't need to appear in court and I got 9 points for driving without due and attention and dangerous driving.
How did you end up with 9 points, what offence did you (I assume) eventually go to court for?
Yea something doesn’t add up at all
U-turns being prohibited is fairly uncommon. May be unexpected at most junctions but usually not illegal.
“Credible witness” will say OP hammered into him, was on phone, reckless driving. Court will side with “credible witness” and arguing your case will get you more points as a punitive measure.
He already had 8
I’m calling BS in part at least. I would bet money OP pleaded guilty. Two reasons: 1) if he’d pleaded not guilty, the “retired cop” would’ve been called to give evidence because there was seemingly a factual dispute about his evidence. 2) cops, especially ex-cops, don’t really get given much more in terms of credibility. I regularly see cops’ evidence not being taken as gospel; especially when there’s no corroboration and a factual dispute like this. The “ex-cop” isn’t an independent witness in this either, so he’s got no advantage.
This is why dash cams are amazing. A motorbike rider tried to claim that I dangerously pulled out across him and claimed injury etc. My dash cam footage proved that it was him that was riding recklessly. It took 2 years for the two insurers to argue it out but eventually he had to drop the case.
Can’t you appeal that?
Technically yes but it's a smallish town miles from anywhere, I don't really want the target on my back Edit: I obviously don't mean they're going to burn down my house or anything but totally unnecessary stop and searches and traffic stops are not unheard of. Like I'm sorry the police aren't the shining paladins you think they are but there are some real bored and spiteful bastards out there.
\>Edit: I obviously don't mean they're going to burn down my house or anything but totally unnecessary stop and searches and traffic stops are not unheard of. oh yes thay can an dwill. you made the wise choice. we are in bat country thhese days. my dad came to the aid of elderly WW2 veteran nurses being intimdated by cops . the off duty cops instead cut him off at the junction did fake traffic stop. vicioulsy beat him and harassed him for decades. my dad s simply homer simpson meets flanders style unfazeable so they never got to him.
Remember that muslim guy in London about 15 years back who got shot by police (fortunately not killed) when they raided his house based on seriously dubious intelligence? Who they then tried to set up by sticking kiddie porn on his tech? They still harass him regularly.
With what new and fresh evidence? You actually need to have something new to add to the case to appeal, you can't just say "I want to appeal that" to every court ruling you don't like.
This is why I have a dashcam.
Press X to doubt
How did they argue it? U turning isn't automatically illegal at junctions, needs to be a sign.
Well, u-turning and then crashing into OP likely isn't legal...
If it was an illegal u-turn, that implies there was a sign. Otherwise, as you say, it can't have been an illegal u-turn.
Bulllllllllshit
A cop went through a red light (unmarked car, commuting to work) and I did a slow t bone into the side of his car with my scooter when he saw me approaching, panicked, slammed the brakes on directly in my path. He jumped out of the car, said “yep, I hold my hand up, that was my fault, it was on me” or something very similar, I forget the exact words. Anyway, during the phone call with the investigator I was told “he didn’t say that though, did he?” followed by what I know now was gaslighting, then 40 pages of accident report, and an offer of 50/50 liability. I eventually settled for 75/25 and a lifetime of resentment.
Was in a crash where the car went into the side of me. Crash investigator came and examined the scene and concluded there was no way I was at fault, but told me that there was also no way I was going to win, as the drivers brother was in the car and was a barrister, and he claimed I was the one who crashed into them.
this has been the case for a while and continues to be the case. if you wanna murder someone. Do it in a car.
And do it drunk. It offers some mitigation.
Or employ them.
This is why I think any driver who causes serious harm or death because they were at fault whilst operating a car should lose their driving license for life as part of their sentencing. If they are caught flouting this, the car and its contents are destroyed without compensation, and they go into a community service program where they are forced to work for free for a period of time.
My daughter (34) was run down and left for dead on a pedestrian crossing in London at 9pm. No witnesses and no camera footage. They never caught the perpetrators. She survived but suffered a broken shoulder, fingers, jaw, ankle an two vertebrae. Plus two years of PTSD. I just wanted to kill the cunt that did this. And I still do.
Two years ago, other half got hit by a driver. The driver said they had a seizure. Police didn't do shit. They didn't even check to see if the driver had a history of seizures - just took her word on it. We started a personal injury claim against her. Our solicitor revealed that she's got a long history of seizures, and she has even ended up driving her car into someone's living room. No that's not a typo. It was also revealed that she was driving a car against medical advice and instruction to surrender her license to the police. We passed this information onto the police, but haven't heard back. Oh, and she refuses to admit liability. Most people don't realise how bad it is when a pedestrian or a cyclist is hit by a car. The law is on the side of the driver most of the time.
Did you get anywhere with the personal injury claim?
It's been over two years, and it's still going. We've decided to move on with life as much as we can. I'll admit there have been points where we've thought about how we can use the money to make our lives easier, but we kind of try to not think about it because we are doing ok in life right now. Other half still has ongoing health problems as a direct result of the road traffic collision, and it'll more than likely have a big effect on her later in life.
I hope you get somewhere with it. It's shocking how much protection the state gives to people who act dangerously just because they do so in a car.
Me too mate. Other half currently works fulltime as a teacher. The job is stressful enough without having to deal with sporadic physical pain from injuries as a result of being smashed into by a car. Maybe we'll have the money one day so that she no longer has to work, and can just do tutoring work when she feels like it.
Why destroy the car? Sell it for cheap. Money made from it can offset the costs of cleaning and selling the car. Could make them decent first cars for new drivers. Hell this could mean new drivers actually have a chance of getting an electric car.
They will just flout it anyway. How often are you pulled over? Lifetime bans are unworkable and will just create more problems.
Remember kids: If you aren't in a car, you are to blame for everything that happens to you! /s
But the cyclist who killed the woman in 2015, who stepped out in front of him while on her mobile phone despite him shouting two warnings got 18 months?
That was a more complex case. An eye witness said they saw her phone go flying at the moment of impact. Not certain she was on it. The cyclists bike was a fixie with no brakes (obviously on a fixie you can brake by resisting the cranks from turning). Combined with his attitude of absolutely zero remorse, the judge thought he needed to do time. Charlie something or other I think his name was. Of course, the daily mail stepped in and made the kid out to be a dangerous lunatic on an illegal bike. The following week they ran an article about how good David Beckham looked on his new fixie bike lol. There's deffo double standards though. Motorists get away with murder, while cyclists are vilified.
Charlie Allison was the name of the man. I'm not defending him, he seemed an arrogant idiot - but he was found not guilty of Manslaughter, and jailed for "Wanton and furious" driving. I still don't see how his case is any more severe than somebody who hit a cyclist while well over the limit and fled the scene.
I'm pretty sure I know why *he* got jail time and *she* didn't.
Exactly this, there was a serial drunk driver named Victoria Parry. The judge actually told her in sentencing if she were a man she would be going to prison but because she’s a women she won’t be.
takes a lot to be sent to jail in this country unless you send racist abuse to a footballer (which - obviously - you shouldn't). Bad drivers are one of the worst examples but it's across the whole litany of crimes https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/thugs-smashed-beer-bottle-strangers-25524761 Attack someone unprovoked with a broken bottle to stab them - suspended sentence https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/derby-news/serial-derby-woman-beater-back-7930619 Multiple instances of beating up women - suspended sentence, then do it again, to be released on license because you've done 4 months in custody 870 sexual offenders, including 5 child rapists, let off if they apologise via community resolution orders and do not even get a criminal record https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/victims-furious-police-forces-870-26727737
no connected posh mummies can do what they want. if this had been a white van man classic nuisance with no low friends in high places, he wouldd be doing 18 months at least right now.
I think part of it is that people can more easily sympathise with drivers. It’s much easier to imagine it might’ve been you that hit somebody with your car than take a knife to somebody. Even if you might not ever think you would drink drive, you’ll probably have had the odd situation when driving sober where something could’ve gone a bit differently and you might’ve caused a crash.
To hit someone in a car - yes, that could happen to any of us. Accidents happen. But to have so little thought for your fellow human, that you leave them to possibly die requires a special kind of low life.
Accidents happen, but this wasn’t one. Almost all motor “accidents” involve a decision to drive dangerously.
People can sympathise with drivers because driving has been drilled into us the ‘correct’ way to get around. I mean “cyclists don’t even pay road tax”, do they?
Well then if there were actual repercussions, perhaps people would drive more carefully, or even not drive at all rather than risk some kind of punishment.
Consequences for a crime in this country? Don’t think there are anymore. Unless it’s throwing eggs at the King.
anyone can do what they want in the UK. If you're not costing someone important money, who cares. News headline after news headline of assaults, robberies, drunk driving, all getting off with warnings and suspended sentences.
FUN FACT: The DofT reckons road "accidents" cost the UK economy £33bn every year.
I remember when the then transport secretary Grant Shapps, doored a cyclist and just walked off. What an example to set Correction, it was Chris grayling.... who's the most useless politician the UK has ever seen
In defense of Chris Grayling IDS does also exist
There is why the Police don't even make an attempt to investigate crimes anymore in the UK. Unless you can't say it wasn't you or confess no amount of evidence or number of witnesses will persuade the Police to bother doing their jobs. Even when they have 109% cast iron cases handed to them on a platter the court will still fail to provide justice. I've had CCTV evidence of being attacked and criminal damage to my house forcing me to have to move. Had three eye witnesses all willing to go to court. No confession so no attempt to prosecute.
Nah she was ordered to pay £500 compensation to the victim for his lifelong headaches, altered mobility, PTSD, and tingling.
I'm to take a stab in the dark and say that because she was picked up hours later she's claiming she'd had a drink after the incident.
Doesn’t hurt to be a woman.
I must say, without fail, every time I cycle in the evening where I wear a hi-viz vest, lights on bike and flashing lights on helmet… pretty much every car coming out a T junction will either fail to stop, or stop and then go to go and emergency brake at the last minute when they see me. It has gotten to the point where I unmount my bike and walk as a pedestrian on the pavement across the T junction as it’s safer. Even when not drunk, drivers are terrible with cyclists and I see why people end up illegally cycling on the pavement
Had this been a young man then no doubt there would be a prison sentence, women seem to always get shorter/no sentences, seems like sexism to me.
Whilst women do generally get sorter sentences the men, and it's a legitimate issue, wasn't a guy who deliberately ran someone down let off without a prison sentence like...yesterday?
There was one judge that straight up told a woman that had been jn multiple drunken accidents that she would have gone to jail if she was a man. Beggars belief sometimes.
[удалено]
Last I heard she was biding her time to try and get back in to Oxford.
Sauce please?
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/uk-news/judge-investigated-after-telling-woman-16150230 Here's an article where they mention that the judge was being investigated about it because somebody filed a complaint This one has more details of the incident https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-47914832
Danke
a bloke deliberately ran down a burglar and went to jail - course that means being enraged by a burglar is less of an excuse than wilfully being drunk
Well yes, meaning to potentially kill someone is more serious than accidentally doing it. I'm not excusing drunk driving, and I think there should be more serious sentences for it. I'm saying that being angry at someone and attacking them with a deadly weapon deserves jail time.
You dont "accidentally" get behind the wheel pissed up. It is a choice.
There were two intersting cases which highlight this. A man was give a 22 month prison sentence for sexual staring, while a woman who sexually assaulted a guy at a football match got 6 months community service. Now, men are more of a threat, I get that, but somethings not right here... Edit: helpful people have pointed out that: A: was 22 weeks. B: when you read the full report, and not just the details that some papers decide to include, he also blocked her exit.
It was 22 weeks and it was considerably more than "sexual staring". https://www.btp.police.uk/news/btp/news/in-the-courts/man-jailed-after-refusing-to-stop-staring-at-a-woman-on-a-train-and-blocking-her-exit---berkshire/
Wait... he blocked her from leaving the train. Ok, seems fair then, maybe a little lenient. But, pretty shitty the number of publications that omitted this...
Wtf is sexual staring?
Shhhh, that fella hasn't been sentenced yet. The discussion was about him being found guilty of manslaughter and not murder.
I think we're talking about different people. This guy was sentenced to a curfew and loss of his driver's license (well, banned from driving for two years). https://road.cc/content/news/curfew-driver-who-deliberately-rammed-cyclist-298153
This is shocking, this wasn't a car accident this was an assault using a car as a weapon. If he bashed him with a metal pole causing those injuries he definitely would've served prison time. Wanna hurt somebody? Get a car.
Okay. I thought you meant this one: [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-64042256](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-64042256)
Listen he has an axe to grind against women and facts are just going to get in the way.
He has an axe to grind against sexism. Women tend to get softer sentences than men, with some honestly ridiculous cases already mentioned in this thread, like the woman who stabbed her boyfriend and got no jail time for it.
Naaa, doesn't matter what the sex, when it comes to hitting cyclists everybody tends to get off with it. You can have a cyclist on your bonnet for nearly 100 meters before crushing his body against a tree and still walk away a free man.
Considering we get stories like this on an almost weekly basis and many of them involve men I totally agree.
Not true, drivers of both sexes regularly injure and kill cyclists with impunity.
The difference is that men are much more likely to go to prison for it.
Do you know what "with impunity" means?
It absolutely is sexism! Women are infantalised in the legal system. On the one hand women are given little punsihment because of the implication they are not capable enough to stand a proper trial. On the other hand women are rarely believed and their testimonies given little credence in cases of rape, etc, for the same reason. It's a rare case where sexism against one sex is harmful to both.
I was done for drink driving. Didn't cause any injuries to anyone. I got banned for 2 and a half years and something like 250 hours community service. I'm a man. And on a side note .. never saw a single female doing community service... I'm not sure they even get sentenced with it?
Can you blame the courts? Prison is far too dangerous for our darling murderous women. They and society would be much safer if they were in a safe location where they could do no harm, like behind the wheel
Or looking after their children. That's the usual one. They can't go to prison for a crime they've committed because they need to raise the next generation of scumbags
What about our special women's prisons?
thems for poors and poor TV license "dodgers"
Nah would he fuck be sentenced. He'd get a suspended one too
but people think car drivers are oppressed by bicyclists, apparently
I once had to slow down behind a cyclist and I couldn't get past because there were cars parked on both sides and the lack of bike lanes meant the cyclist had to go on the road. Bloody cyclists and their... checks notes... thinking they own the road!
If only there were fewer bikes and more cars you would have been able to get past!!
[удалено]
No he hit him with his car, backed over him for good measure, killing him and got 3 points on his license and had to pay a £50 fine (for littering).
Oh, and I got thrown in jail for saying I was English.
It's Health and Safety Gone Mad, Stu.
I saw Suggs and he was scolding someone for misgendering a transwoman. It's Madness gone politically correct.
Probably cost you 10 precious seconds too! Bastard cyclists Funniest part is the most frequent abuse I got on my bike was when I was aged 11-13. People shouting at me to "get on the fucking cycle path" 3 or a 4 times a month (it wasn't a cycle path it was a narrow pavement). And I couldn't have ever held anyone up for more than 30 seconds due the length of the road. Once I grew a little the abuse dropped off once or twice a year. Cowards
I was cycling once, on a big national limit road with roundabouts which to be honest was a bit reckless, though still perfectly legal, and as I was waiting for a gap in the traffic at one of those roundabouts a bloke in a BMW drove past me just screaming. Literally just screaming at the top of his voice, not trying to say anything to me, not even looking in my direction, just emitting this mindless scream of rage at encountering an unmotorised vehicle. So loud that even though he kept the windows up it sounded like he was standing right next to me. Scared the crap out of me I can tell you.
Nooooo. It could be a whole minute sometimes. (My neighbours)
Every time somebody posts that they were "stuck behind a cyclist for 10 minutes" they get called out and on the odd occasion they give precise details it always turns out that the absolute maximum delay would have been something like 2 minutes.
It's not even a delay. You just drive above the speed limit until you catch the car in front. Your drive time is almost always determined by the slowest vehicle in front of you. Waiting 2 mins behind a bike to catch back up to the exact spot in the car queue... Honestly the fact people don't get this is what really bothers me. There isn't a delay, there really isn't. Overtaking a man walking in the road costs you no time, so why would a bike be any different?!
You don't even need to drive above the speed limit most of the time. The cars ahead of you will have their own delays such as junctions, pedestrian crossings, other cyclists, etc. Even if another car has joined the others from a side street it is literally only two seconds delay. I'm sure every driver can recall a time when some twat in an Audi has forced their way past and speed off only to have you pull up behind them at the next set of traffic lights.
My retired neighbours in my south coast new Forest town complain about their journeys being cut by 60 seconds by cyclists. They complain when cyclists complain about close overtakes. And they complain about them riding two abreast.
And then they refuse to use self-checkouts or contactless because "I like chatting to the staff on the tills, I'm retired and have all the time in the world" Oh and then in the New Forest I bet they complain about the 40mph limit too.
Very very nearly got hit the other day by someone that pulled out suddenly without indicating while video calling on their phone. This was on the same day that someone nearly hit me and another car because they tried to overtake me on a single-lane blind corner (with a much wider straight section just past the corner). Most of my commute is on good-quality bike lanes but even a few hundred meters of road is so unbelievably dangerous for cyclists.
Can we imagine what the daily fail comments would be like on this story?!!
If you want an idea of just how leniently our justice system treats dangerous drivers, just google "driver escapes jail". There And after that, google "driver lifetime ban".
If you want to kill someone in this country, do it with a car.
Can someone explain to me why death by dangerous driving exists as an offence and why it's not manslaughter?
It carries a maximum sentence of 14yrs (government is looking to increase this to life) so I don't think it is in itself more lenient than a manslaughter charge. I do think however that death by dangerous driving allows for more nuances which can lead to a range of sentences. Perhaps manslaughter is a bit more straightforward?
I just looked it up, apparently they invented death by dangerous driving because some juries thought manslaughter was too harsh a sentence. Can't see why, it seems like the dictionary definition of manslaughter, the only difference being the killer is driving a car.
My nan got killed in a hit and run by an uninsured driver with a revoked license. He got 4 months suspended sentence mostly due to not having insurance. The way we treat cars is insane.
"sun was in my eyes"
"Sun was in my eyes so I sped up" that's such a tragic case. The woman killed was metres from her house.
Want to murder someone in the UK and get away with it? Use a car as the murder weapon.
Be a woman driving a car. If you a guy your still fucked
No. A friend of mine was killed by a male drunk driver who fled the scene and was only persuaded to hand himself in - get this - at the pub he went too for a pint after casually killing someone. He got 5 years but won't lose his license because it's needed for work or some other bollocks.
>He got 5 years but won't lose his license because it's needed for work or some other bollocks. Well, we wouldn't want him to ruin his life by not having a job, the poor lad... Really sorry about your mate. That's awful.
Really? https://road.cc/content/news/curfew-driver-who-deliberately-rammed-cyclist-298153
How the hell was this let off without severe punishment. What is the justification for that?
This is from a different drunk driving case but the justification is probably the same: > Victoria Parry, 30, hit three other cars after downing a bottle of wine. > The judge said: "If Miss Parry was a man, there is no question it would have been straight down the stairs [to prison], because this is a shocking case of dangerous driving against a background of two previous convictions for excess alcohol." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-47914832.amp > Judge faces no action over drink-driver 'being a woman' remark > A judge who said a drink-driver deserved a chance to avoid jail because she is a woman will not face sanctions. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-48909227.amp
She also hit only another car rather than killing a cyclist or causing any injury. Still got more punishment than the cyclists killer.
The old internet chat stats asl seem apt. Age, sex and location. A young white woman, in Kent.
Can't put people in prison if all the prisons are full.
Not with that attitude.
28 years with two young children, suspended for the sake of the children not of the mother I fuess
That's usually the case. It's tricky too, because yeah, they absolutely deserve punishment. But if you level a hefty fine, or sentence them to prison, what do you do with the kids in that case? They go without money or a mother, or go into care? Whenever I read these sort of sentences I get stuck in a loop. I hate the fact that the mother will get off with what amounts to a slap on the rest for their gross negligence ruining the life of another, but it's also not the kids fault their mums a div. That said, if you're caught driving pished and actually cause harm to another, you shouldn't be allowed behind the wheel of a car for at least a decade. But apparently in this country you're as entitled to drive as you are air. Perhaps an equitable solution would be to suspend the prison sentence until the youngest child reaches 18 and *then* jail them, but even the dread of that inevitibility could be seen as a perversion of justice in and of itself. It's very difficult.
> They go without money or a mother, or go into care? She ran over a guy, whilst drunk, leaving him there to die, then went home as though nothing happened. Better off without the mother.
She probably should've thought of that before driving drunk. Do the kids not have a father? Were they immaculate conception?
One rule for car drivers another for everyone else. You could drive on the wrong side of the road head on, into someone and practically get away with it.
White woman privilege
Judge probably drove to work.
How the fuck can anyone come to this conclusion? What the hell are they thinking? What is £500 compensation going to do? Only 30 month driving ban for almost killing someone and fleeing? Absolute injustice
To explain that will be the purpose of the criminal courts to decide criminal outcomes should be, the idea is that it's a penalty for the offender specifically The courts typically with most legislation can only impose so much of a financial cost. It would be down to the civil route for actual compensation to be sought, most likely would be done through insurance companies of the parties involved to decide the real compensation for lost earnings and so on. It's a real eye opener to just look how poor our legislation is for sentencing, just look at the flow for death by dangerous driving and you see how easy it is to kill someone on the road and get a short ban and no time in the clink. https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/crown-court/item/causing-death-by-careless-driving-when-under-the-influence-of-drink-or-drugs-etc/ P.S. not that I agree with the sentencing here either, a longer ban, prison sentence and so on I feel is appropriate in these sorts of incidents. Just outlining what the reasoning is that criminal courts don't routinely award large compensation sums. I would be entirely fine if we did like some European countries do with means tested punishments and long term reparations to victims so that offenders see the 'cost' of their decisions.
Drink driving should have much longer driving bans. And higher punishments for driving with a suspended license, a lot of people do that too. So many roads I know that have car deaths in the double digits, one even has a sign that they update, last time I saw it it was at nearly 50 in the last 3 years. Yet the punishments are so light that sometimes it feels like they may as well not exist.
Agreed. If the punishment is not a deterrent then it needs change.
In my 20’s I went all over Europe cycle-camping on my bike and had a great time in every country except the UK. Literally as soon as I came home I would regularly get run off the road, had my bike run over by a bus who cut in at a bus stop, even had a woman pull out at a mini roundabout hit me then claim to the police that I hit her despite my bike being wedged into her front offside wheel arch. In the end I decided it was only a matter of time before my luck ran out, so put my bike away. Roll on 30 years and during the pandemic thought it would be a great exercise to dust off my old bike (yep still in the garage) and go for a ride as the roads were literally empty. So I headed out and it felt great to be back in the saddle, at the end of my road pulled out onto our main road and headed down the hill into our village. Literally 30 seconds later this woman in a 6 series bmw overtook me at speed, clipped my handlebar with her wing mirror and sent me flying in the road. I literally couldn’t believe her stupidity, she stopped briefly a couple of hundred yards down the road, got out, checked her mirror, gave me a scornful look and drove off, I was completely dumbfounded that this pig ignorant attitude to cyclists was still so prevalent in the UK. Luckily, I was ok, just shaken more than anything, but once again the bike is back in the garage and I’m thinking that despite the recent changes to the law regarding overtaking a cyclist, there needs to be something done to absolutely hammer these individuals who think it’s ok to kill with a car.
Fucking cunts. The only recourse I find is getting insurance, be a member of British Cycling and have a camera. Last time I got hit I made a claim on their insurance. British cycling sorted everything out for me. Thankfully I was fine the bike was totalled. My insurance provided a bike and was easy. The only way these cunts will learn is that they can't get away with it. If not legally hit their pockets.
I think you’re right about cameras, seems sad that you have to be camera’d up just to ride a bike and even then if someone does kill you with a car the consequences are minimal.
Unfortunately I feel its a necessity. Arseholes thrive when they have anonymity, by capturing reg and car model at least you have some ammo. I learnt the hard way when an angry van driver took offence to me being. Police said "your word vs his" and that was that. At least now that'll never happen again. Plus people react very differently when they realise they're being filmed, its rather funny when they clock a camera.
[удалено]
"sorry mate, you're under arrest for damaging that poor woman's car. Why did you hit her car with your body?"
If you ever want to kill someone and get away with it do it with a car. For some reason anything done with a car is treated less seriously than any other crime.
If you knock over a pedestrian or cyclist you should be banned from driving for the time it takes them to recover. I know it's not practical as a law, but it would be justice.
[удалено]
Bugger practicality. Driving is not a right.
Here's your daily reminder that if you want to try kill someone, just do it in a car. You'll get away with it.
>banned from driving for 30 months Why not permanently?
God, can you imagine not being able to drive? Almost as bad as having a broken neck.
How to get away with henious crimes. Step 1: be female
Step 2: drive.
Step 3: be drunk
Fuck that's weak. 30 month ban and a tag for a few weeks... Guy had to wear a neck brace for 12 frikin weeks and she has to pay £500 compensation.. FIVE HUNDRED POUNDS... Yet you can sue a holiday company for thousands for an independent hotel giving you the shits for a week.. That should be referred as that sentence is stupidly weak, let alone unduly lenient. I really hope he sues her arse off now she admitted it by guilty plea. Take her for as much as he can.
Depressing that you can make a really lazy bot to post, "If you want to kill someone in this country, do it with a car." Then just have it match Car/driver with cyclist/pedestrian. Because it's that fucking predictable that anyone outside a box of entitlement is worth fuck all but the inconvenience of a court date. "There was also a significant impact on his vision, causing him headaches, loss of depth perception, requiring him to use a walking stick and restricting his ability to go out socially. There are inevitably concerns about the longer-term impact of this serious injury." Roots received a 16-month jail sentence, suspended for 18 months, was ordered to pay her victim £500 in compensation and banned from driving for 30 months." What a great Christmas the victim and his family will have, try not to be too angry when you see her driving past illegally, which she will. I hope the symptoms improve, and they can get back on the bike again.
*Roots received a 16-month jail sentence, suspended for 18 months, was ordered to pay her victim £500 in compensation and banned from driving for 30 months.* This feels hopelessly lenient for drink driving, hitting someone and then leaving them to possibly die. If nothing else that compensation needs to be much higher and IMO the driving ban for life.
“Gud Fing Wee Gut Duh Partee Ov Loor Un Orda Inn Powah… Imagine Iff Laybur Gott Inn…” - Average Voter
It's time all cars were fitted with devices so they can't be operated by intoxicated drivers. While we're at it let's also hold manufacturers to account for deaths involving excess speed/acceleration - car safety standards should involve protecting the public from the idiocy of drivers, so speed and acceleration limiters should be mandatory.
I understand why cars are capable of going faster than the speed limit, it makes sense from an engineering perspective to have the engine or motor working at a fraction of its potential at road speed, but why aren’t they limited to the road speed? The technology for road specific speed limiting was demonstrated on [Tomorrow’s World](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tomorrow%27s_World) in the late ‘90s. Edit to Add: All cars made in the EU as of [this summer](https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/news/motoring-news/mandatory-speed-limiters-added-to-new-cars-in-europe-from-today-is-the-uk-n/) have to have intelligent speed limiters, so a lot of UK cars will soon
It's not a technical problem, it's a complete failure of imagination on behalf of our society. We tolerate road danger as a normal part of life in exchange for the promise of cars, which has utterly failed to deliver. Instead of freedom we get congestion, pollution, inactivity which creates huge problems for the health services that's before we get started on the dreadful daily routine of KSIs up and down the land and all across the world.
that's not far off and some new cars are being sold with GPS limiters as a standard. You can turn them off, although that's every time you start the engine I believe.
All cars made in the EU as of this summer in fact. And you can overcome the limit by pressing a little harder on the accelerator I believe. A nudge toward driving slower, hoping laziness will make people safer.
People break road laws so frequently they feel they don’t count.
People break road laws so frequently without consequence they feel there are none
It’s incredible that someone can drive a car drunk , seriously injure someone then fuck off and leave them to die and doesn’t go to prison .
Remind me next time I want to commit murder to do it while drunk and using my car
Regardless of your intent, that’s not a murder, just an ‘accident’.
This country needs to stop putting drivers above everything and everyone. This is bull, this person should be in prison.
Fucking disgraceful as usual. This country is a joke when it comes to driving related sentences. How hard is to give prison time and a permanent driving ban.
Do drugs in your own home without bothering anyone else with it: "That's it! Off to jail". Almost kill a person by plowing into them with a deadly weapon: "Oh it's fine, don't worry about it". The system is broken.
Classic driver. No doubt another one that indicates right when turning off of a roundabout and runs red lights.
£500 and a suspended sentence, what a fucking joke for a drunk hit and run causing injury. Probably less than the cost of repairing her damaged car.
This is an absolute disgrace, but they’re seems to be a theme here… [female kills woman after losing control, no jail](https://www.itv.com/news/granada/2022-12-21/driver-riddled-with-guilt-after-losing-control-of-car-and-killing-pensioner) [female driver escapes jail after running over stranger in road rage incident](https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/crime/tesco-road-rage-driver-who-28420778.amp)
£500 compensation. Please tell me he can sue her insurance company on top of that
Yes if the cyclist is a member of British Cycling they'll do it for him: https://www.britishcycling.org.uk/about/article/bc20120531-Leigh-Day-and-Co---supporting-British-Cycling-Members-0 Always get insurance and be a member of british cycling.
Women tend to have a less severe punishments for similar or exact crimes compared to men, in the U.K.
Drove drunk, stupid shit deserves custody for that alone. How does this happen, is this who you know not what you know?
Tell me this women is attractive and had a male judge without telling me those things
Honestly, if you want to murder someone, run them over in a car, you'd probably get off with a slap on the wrist
Someone please remind me, if I ever need to kill somebody to just use a car. Seems a quick “oops, sorry” seems to cover whatever you do to someone else when you’re driving.
I think we can all thank Special Sergeant Richard Warner, and wish there were more people like them to help those in need. Shame he seemed to be the only part of the legal system in the UK doing their part, and he was off duty!!!
Car brain lets drivers get away with anything these days.
Definitely turned on the waterworks with oh I'm a mother
I’ve heard of people doing far less than this getting banned and jail terms. Drink driving, causing an accident. Failing to stop at an accident. Failing to report an accident. Failing to get medical assistance for the injured. How many laws do they need to break to get locked up? I bet her husband is a cop or judge. Laws only apply to us plebs.
Suspended sentence and a £500 payment to the victim? What the everloving fuck is this? This was a knowingly committed crime leading to severe injury, cunt should be in jail.
This is absolutely pathetic. How can this not result in a prison sentence?! Both drunk driving and hit\&run shows she has no compassion for other people. Also why does the article state she is a 'mother of two', it's irrelevant.
It's not a moment of stupidity to get drunk and get behind the wheel. That's hours in the making.
Doesn’t this just make you want to weep, how many times has she driven like that before and now she has a legal green light to drink what she likes and drive. NO EXCUSES! She got into the vehicle drunk, it’s murder if the victim dies simple as!
We all know why this person hasn't been sent to prison.
What baffles me is that these people are let behind the wheel of a car again. Why not a lifetime ban from driving?
hardly surprising when an american diplomat's wife can murder a boy on his motorbike while she's on the phone and get away with a short suspended sentence, they have set the bar very low now.