Left someone dying at the scene of an accident??
Discussion
If you had driven off from the scene of an accident, leaving the other person involved behind you, dying in the road, I'm sure you'd expect a pretty severe punishment?
How about two whole weeks of community service?
What a complete joke!
How on earth can that be considered justice?
How about two whole weeks of community service?
What a complete joke!
How on earth can that be considered justice?Kermit power said:
If you had driven off from the scene of an accident, leaving the other person involved behind you, dying in the road, I'm sure you'd expect a pretty severe punishment?
How about two whole weeks of community service?
What a complete joke! How on earth can that be considered justice?
It's near the top of the allowable sentence. Given that it was a guilty plea, we don't know the course of events, and there's no suggestion that the driver was at fault (I would have thought a careless/dangerous driving charge would have been substituted in that case), so the only crime here was not stopping. A prison sentence would have ruined this person's life, and probably left them struggling on benefits for a long time. That's not going to help the victim's family, due to the extra tax they will have to pay, and although it will punish the offender, it's not going to rehabilitate them.How about two whole weeks of community service?
What a complete joke!
How on earth can that be considered justice?davepoth said:
It's near the top of the allowable sentence. Given that it was a guilty plea, we don't know the course of events, and there's no suggestion that the driver was at fault (I would have thought a careless/dangerous driving charge would have been substituted in that case), so the only crime here was not stopping. A prison sentence would have ruined this person's life, and probably left them struggling on benefits for a long time. That's not going to help the victim's family, due to the extra tax they will have to pay, and although it will punish the offender, it's not going to rehabilitate them.
I see your point to an extent, but 9:40pm, with the other person involved in the accident conveniently dead? Call me a cynic, but when the driver only goes and owns up after realising how damaged her car was, I'd say there's a bloody high probability that the only thing preventing a charge of careless/dangerous driving would've been a lack of other witnesses.Seriously, what sort of scum can fail to stop at an accident which has clearly caused that amount of damage?
It really doesn't take much to kill a cyclist though, does it? From the article, the cyclist could have ridden into the car for all we know. All we know is that the driver didn't stop. She was obviously under a lot of stress, and people do funny things when stressed. I don't see that this is a particularly lenient sentence given the level of offending mentioned.
Could be worse. Remember the case of the Iarqi guy who left a girl for dead by the side of the road ? He did a runner after thinking it may be best considering he had no insurance, MOT, driving license , a string of convictions etc etc. He was given leave to stay here and enjoy his life, the ironic part being he used his kids as an argument to stay in court , because it would breach his human rights otherwise.
Mr_B said:
Could be worse. Remember the case of the Iarqi guy who left a girl for dead by the side of the road ? He did a runner after thinking it may be best considering he had no insurance, MOT, driving license , a string of convictions etc etc. He was given leave to stay here and enjoy his life, the ironic part being he used his kids as an argument to stay in court , because it would breach his human rights otherwise.
I remember that well, it was in Blackburn.From http://www.surreyherald.co.uk/surrey-news/news-sur...
THE driver involved in a fatal collision with a teenage cyclist in Byfleet has been sentenced to 100 hours of unpaid work.
Woking College student Joel Semmens (pictured), 17, from Evelyn Close, was cycling home from his girlfriend’s house in Byfleet on the night of October 13 last year when he was in collision with a black Audi TT.
Hannah James, 31, of Disraeli Road, Putney, appeared at Woking Magistrates’ Court on Thursday, May 12 to face charges of failing to stop after a road accident and using a vehicle with an unsuitable tyre.
Joel was taken to St Peter’s Hospital in Chertsey where he died from his injuries the following day, two days before what would have been his 18th birthday.
Prosecutor Samantha Forsyth said: “When the victim rode his mountain bike out from Queen’s Avenue, her car struck the left hand side of the bike and the victim was thrown across the road.
“The defendant did not stop and she returned later and admitted being the driver involved in the collision.”
The court heard that James, who admitted all the charges, continued travelling to her parent’s house in nearby Pyrford, where she realised the full extent of the damage to her car.
Mark Haslam, defending, said: “The prosecution have said speed was not an issue. You are aware there was no alcohol involved.”
He added no evidence had been found for a charge of death by dangerous driving.
“It’s fair to say failing to stop covers a multitude of sins and it is designed to deal with a totally different scenario, a genuine hit-and-run, and here we have a completely different situation,” he added.
Mr Haslam also told the court that the case had a significant impact on James, who is undergoing counselling to deal with what happened.
James was ordered to complete the sentence in the next 12 months and she will also have her licence endorsed with 10 penalty points. She will pay costs of £87 and face no additional penalty for the tyre offence.
More than 30 friends and family of Joel Semmens turned up to show support, some bringing flowers.
My bold. 10 points, less the 3 for an unsuitable tyre, is disgusting. She should be jailed, and never alowed near motor vehicles for the rest of her life.
EDIT - This is the junction where it happened : http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&a...
THE driver involved in a fatal collision with a teenage cyclist in Byfleet has been sentenced to 100 hours of unpaid work.
Woking College student Joel Semmens (pictured), 17, from Evelyn Close, was cycling home from his girlfriend’s house in Byfleet on the night of October 13 last year when he was in collision with a black Audi TT.
Hannah James, 31, of Disraeli Road, Putney, appeared at Woking Magistrates’ Court on Thursday, May 12 to face charges of failing to stop after a road accident and using a vehicle with an unsuitable tyre.
Joel was taken to St Peter’s Hospital in Chertsey where he died from his injuries the following day, two days before what would have been his 18th birthday.
Prosecutor Samantha Forsyth said: “When the victim rode his mountain bike out from Queen’s Avenue, her car struck the left hand side of the bike and the victim was thrown across the road.
“The defendant did not stop and she returned later and admitted being the driver involved in the collision.”
The court heard that James, who admitted all the charges, continued travelling to her parent’s house in nearby Pyrford, where she realised the full extent of the damage to her car.
Mark Haslam, defending, said: “The prosecution have said speed was not an issue. You are aware there was no alcohol involved.”
He added no evidence had been found for a charge of death by dangerous driving.
“It’s fair to say failing to stop covers a multitude of sins and it is designed to deal with a totally different scenario, a genuine hit-and-run, and here we have a completely different situation,” he added.
Mr Haslam also told the court that the case had a significant impact on James, who is undergoing counselling to deal with what happened.
James was ordered to complete the sentence in the next 12 months and she will also have her licence endorsed with 10 penalty points. She will pay costs of £87 and face no additional penalty for the tyre offence.
More than 30 friends and family of Joel Semmens turned up to show support, some bringing flowers.
My bold. 10 points, less the 3 for an unsuitable tyre, is disgusting. She should be jailed, and never alowed near motor vehicles for the rest of her life.
EDIT - This is the junction where it happened : http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?f=q&source=s_q&a...
Edited by PintOfKittens on Thursday 2nd June 11:10
Frankeh said:
What a load of b
ks. Deserves a driving ban and at least a small stint.
Mitigating circumstances were probably low lighting, no lights on bike and other such things.
Who the fk doesn't stop after hitting someone?!
For those who wish to take a look, the accident happened here.ks. Deserves a driving ban and at least a small stint. Mitigating circumstances were probably low lighting, no lights on bike and other such things.
Who the f
k doesn't stop after hitting someone?! As you can see, a straight bit of road with no obstructions and very good street lighting.
For her to have hit the left hand side of the bike, I would imagine that she must've driven off leaving him in the middle of the road.
As the article says, she only turned herself in when she saw how much damage she'd done to her car. Or, to put it another way, she assumed she'd not done it much damage, and didn't therefore bother to stop and check how much damage she'd done to the other party. Callous b
h!So little information to go on. Im suprised to the shouts of bans, jail, shouldnt be allowed to drive, etc
We know very little about the crash. The article by its absence implies the cyclist was at fault, what injuries did he suffer? did he have a helmet which may have helped? It was dark - did he have lights? what time was it? He was entering a 40mph road from a side street perhaps in dark clothes and no lights? Perhaps zipping along back home full of beans after sharing his love for his girlfriend and not really concentrating on cycling carefully.
It did not say that had she stopped it would have altered the outcome for the cyclist.
Clearly she panicked, it does not say she has any other convicitons of anything else so again implies a good character.
Untill more details are given then I think the sentence was right.
Its a bit like a work reference. Read between the lines.
We know very little about the crash. The article by its absence implies the cyclist was at fault, what injuries did he suffer? did he have a helmet which may have helped? It was dark - did he have lights? what time was it? He was entering a 40mph road from a side street perhaps in dark clothes and no lights? Perhaps zipping along back home full of beans after sharing his love for his girlfriend and not really concentrating on cycling carefully.
It did not say that had she stopped it would have altered the outcome for the cyclist.
Clearly she panicked, it does not say she has any other convicitons of anything else so again implies a good character.
Untill more details are given then I think the sentence was right.
Its a bit like a work reference. Read between the lines.
Edited by superlightr on Thursday 2nd June 11:23
Edited by superlightr on Thursday 2nd June 11:24
Edited by superlightr on Thursday 2nd June 11:26
Edited by superlightr on Thursday 2nd June 11:28
Edited by superlightr on Thursday 2nd June 11:29
superlightr said:
We know very little about the crash. The article by its absence implies the cyclist was at fault, what injuries did he suffer? did he have a helmet which may have helped? Was it dark? did he have lights?
Iv driven by this spot many a time (3 times, both ways, every week for the last year), and at night you still have perfect visibility. I can easily make out faces of people who are walking, let alone a cyclist in the middle of the road.She was travelling to Pyrford, which is UP the hill and across the bridge, which means she would have come from the roundabout at the bottom. You can CLEARLY see the junction from the roundabout.
Hitting the left side of the bike would to me sound like he was coming out of the junction on the right with him still diaganally across te road ie side on to the car. Again no indiction of what he was wearing at night in terms of reflective clothing or lights or helmet.
Clearly this lady did not see him - perhaps some of us may have perhaps some of us may not. so many variables.
Clearly this lady did not see him - perhaps some of us may have perhaps some of us may not. so many variables.
superlightr said:
The article by its absence implies the cyclist was at fault
How exactly do you get to that conclusion? It implies no such thing.All it states is that speed wasn't a factor - although it would be more accurate to say that speeding wasn't a factor, as 40mph is more than enough to kill a cyclist or pedestrian - and alcohol wasn't a factor, so clearly she owned up fairly rapidly after the event.
All that can be implied from the article is that there were no independent witnesses to the accident.
The article states that there was insufficient evidence to charge her with dangerous driving. That's hardly saying it was the cyclist's fault, is it? It's just saying there's nobody else to counter her side of the story, and the forensic evidence is inconclusive alone.
Kermit power said:
How exactly do you get to that conclusion? It implies no such thing.
All it states is that speed wasn't a factor - although it would be more accurate to say that speeding wasn't a factor, as 40mph is more than enough to kill a cyclist or pedestrian - and alcohol wasn't a factor, so clearly she owned up fairly rapidly after the event.
All that can be implied from the article is that there were no independent witnesses to the accident.
The article states that there was insufficient evidence to charge her with dangerous driving. That's hardly saying it was the cyclist's fault, is it? It's just saying there's nobody else to counter her side of the story, and the forensic evidence is inconclusive alone.
its doenst say the cyclist had full lights, reflective clothing, but still she failed to see him, it doenst say that despite wearing a helmet his head injury was too severe to survive - thus to my mind by not saying any of the above he is likely not to have any lights, refelective clothes or a helmet.All it states is that speed wasn't a factor - although it would be more accurate to say that speeding wasn't a factor, as 40mph is more than enough to kill a cyclist or pedestrian - and alcohol wasn't a factor, so clearly she owned up fairly rapidly after the event.
All that can be implied from the article is that there were no independent witnesses to the accident.
The article states that there was insufficient evidence to charge her with dangerous driving. That's hardly saying it was the cyclist's fault, is it? It's just saying there's nobody else to counter her side of the story, and the forensic evidence is inconclusive alone.
It sounds like he was still crossing the road to get hit on the left side of the bike- so side on which may not have aided him even if he had lights.
Edited by superlightr on Thursday 2nd June 11:44
Google maps has the distance from the roundabout to the junction at 163 meters.
40 miles an hour in meters per second is 17.9
She would have covered the distance in 9.1 seconds, IF she was following the speed limit (which I doubt).
Now, would the kid on the bike start pulling out BEFORE the car had passed? Very unlikely. Even if he did, would he pull directly into the path of a car doing 40mph? Also very unlikely.
What I think happened is, the young cyclist started pulling out from the side road, with it being empty. Daddys girl in her Audi TT Convertible goes around the roundabout, and floors it.
I dont see any other possible way for this accident to have happened.
40 miles an hour in meters per second is 17.9
She would have covered the distance in 9.1 seconds, IF she was following the speed limit (which I doubt).
Now, would the kid on the bike start pulling out BEFORE the car had passed? Very unlikely. Even if he did, would he pull directly into the path of a car doing 40mph? Also very unlikely.
What I think happened is, the young cyclist started pulling out from the side road, with it being empty. Daddys girl in her Audi TT Convertible goes around the roundabout, and floors it.
I dont see any other possible way for this accident to have happened.
PintOfKittens said:
Google maps has the distance from the roundabout to the junction at 163 meters.
40 miles an hour in meters per second is 17.9
She would have covered the distance in 9.1 seconds, IF she was following the speed limit (which I doubt).
Now, would the kid on the bike start pulling out BEFORE the car had passed? Very unlikely. Even if he did, would he pull directly into the path of a car doing 40mph? Also very unlikely.
What I think happened is, the young cyclist started pulling out from the side road, with it being empty. Daddys girl in her Audi TT Convertible goes around the roundabout, and floors it.
I dont see any other possible way for this accident to have happened.
She could have been scrambling around her glove box for a CD. 40 miles an hour in meters per second is 17.9
She would have covered the distance in 9.1 seconds, IF she was following the speed limit (which I doubt).
Now, would the kid on the bike start pulling out BEFORE the car had passed? Very unlikely. Even if he did, would he pull directly into the path of a car doing 40mph? Also very unlikely.
What I think happened is, the young cyclist started pulling out from the side road, with it being empty. Daddys girl in her Audi TT Convertible goes around the roundabout, and floors it.
I dont see any other possible way for this accident to have happened.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff