Driver Jailed

It is a tough one. In most cases the CPS would have accepted the plea for Careless as they don't normally expect to get Dangerous Driving convicted by a jury, (especially against Cyclists for some strange reason which might be due to all the shitcase stories made up by the DM and others). 

In this case they decided Dangerous Driving would have a chance and I do wonder if it was a combination of the amount of evidence, that is was a pedestrian AND the profiles of the victim and the driver. However as Recovery mentioned, there are just too many variables really to fully compare cases but as he was done for Death / Dangerous Driving AND failure to stop, the actual sentence is low compared to the top end it could have been. However that could be because the Judge might have decided some of the responsibility was down to someone crossing the road against a red light and not looking or listening. 

As an aside on whether it might be the colour of the skin, there is people commenting in the Chronical called ProudWhite and other responses have been removed so some might be suggesting the colour might have helped him get off etc. 

I expect those same gammons would be posting Anti Cyclist stuff if shown links to "our" list of similar incidents. 

One would hope that the sentence would not change based on the victim's mode of transport and the offender's race, but given that every case is unique, every judge appears to interpret the law and sentencing guidelines differently, who knows, in all honesty?

IMO, as soon as a driver kills or seriously injures someone (cyclist, pedestrian, other driver)  through poor, careless or drunk driving, the legal starting point should be a jail sentence equivalent to a manslaughter/GBH charge, and the onus should be on the defence to prove that isn't appropriate. 

Compare with this one - white driver, two separate incidents, 3 years.

https://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/news/thames-valley/news/2021/april/05...

Some more details in The Chronicle.

There was evidence that he had been using his mobile phone when driving shortly before the collision, but they couldn't prove he was using it at the time of the collision. I think there needs to be a rethink about how this is dealt with, as it's very difficult to prove timings. Use of a phone shortly before an incident ought to be deemed to be a contributary factor by default - with the burden to prove otherwise on the defendant.

As for if they had been a cyclist - well, the victim crossed the road without looking and against a red pedestrian crossing light whilst wearing headphones. I have no doubt that if they had been on a bike, he would have got away without a prison term - despite the severe lack of attention and excessive speed.

Yes to the first question, probably not to the second. 

A thirty month sentence for a speeding fatal hit and run on a pedestrian is far greater than many sentences for the equivalent where the victim is a cyclist. As reported here far too many times