Aston Martin driver who hit family of cyclists while driving ‘like an idiot’ spared jail

9 month ban, £1000 fine. For seriously injuring three people and for driving at an average of 63mph in a 30/40 limit.

Apparantly the poor lamb has been emotionally affected by it and the ban will affect his business and mean it will be difficult for him to see his son. Bless 

http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/14477556.Aston_Martin_driver_who_c...

Before you blame the justice system you have to ask why ARE CASES NOT GOING TO COURT AND DRIVERS SENT ON COURSES.   

86 courts are being closed due to 'lack of work' this year. Why?  because the POLICE are not sending the matters to the CPS, instead the Police  and sending people on courses, giving them cautions or fixed penalty notices. Many are justfied, but many are not. 

Have you been involved in a traffic matter? DId the Police say to you, do you want the driver prosecuted? Often the response is No because people don't want to get involved.  You need to complain to your MP, the Chief Constable, local newspaper etc

The courts have to sentence in accordance with the Sentencing Guidelines, the Police do not. This needs to be changed and the decision removed from the Police. The Police get money from every person sent on a course and avoid the paperwork associated with going to court. 

You can see the Sentencing Guidelines at 

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/the-magistrates-court-sentencing-gu...

But he's been acquitted of the serious charges and not yet sentenced on the others. What complaint would be made?

The legal deliniation between careless and dangerous driving seems so arbitrary in so many cases. 

Logically if you are within the speed limit, are distracted and hit someone that is careless driving 'without due date and attention'.

If you are above the speed limit and hit someone whether distracted or not - that is dangerous driving surely? Or what is the speed limit for?

The government is in denial about how many accidents are caused by speeding. The public know it is dangerous but will carry on pushing the boundaries until speeding becomes unacceptable through ad campaigns - or people start losing their licence for at least 10 years - or life if they take a life. 

A friend of mine who is not a stupid person told me she thought 20mph signs were just advisory rather than the legal limit. It's this kind of vagueness which is encouraging speeding still. 

Just what do you have to do get convicted of dangerous driving you are driving nearly twice the speed limit.  You caused an injury by driving dangerously, fact.

The fact he is in an expesnsive car is irrelvent, the face the people injured were cyclists is irrelent as they were just crossing the road on foot, therefore they were pedestrians.

People like this need to be made an example of and given hefty sentences and fines that have some corralation with the physical and mental injury they have caused.....and yes, crush his silly car

What make were their bikes?

It is a shame that the results have come to this.

One hopes that the fine will be appropriate given his wealth and that this will pave the way for the victims to sue for suitable compensation.

While I realise that this fine is unlimited in its scope, I do sometimes wonder if we should have a system like in some European countries where the fine is based on income of the individual for those which are limited.

I  should go back to driving like bell-end, seems attitudes have changed!

Many years ago,In my driving a car with extra lamps on days, I got done for dangerous driving for a far lesser offence than this.  I'd have probably just get a driver awareness course if I'd done it now. 

Or maybe I just didn't hit a cyclist?

To "lighten" the mood and go slightly OT - what group again is it that the residents of the New Forest hate for the danger they cause? Oh yes cyclists. Bloody cyclists getting off their bikes and trying g to cross the road. They are worse than ISIL.

The people who were the unfortunate receipients of the front end of the Aston; are they able to appeal against any decision or sentencing handed down?

On the surface of it, another frustrating case. Charging, findings, and sentencing are all different parts and its sad to see how infrequently they align. It's especially frustrating when it's juries that return peverse outcomes Very little you can do about that except remove trial by jury in these cases. 

As Terry Pratchett said, privilege means private law. The law of the rich who can buy the lawyer expertise to convince juries to let them off. His statement clearly is contradicted by the police evidence. Bet the judge didn't point that out before they considered their verdict.

This article is about how dangerous driving cases should not go before a jury 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/08/drivers-who-kill-re...

The Driver is a fucking cunt, the justice system is a fucking joke.

I do think it is a weakness of the English and Welsh legal system that juries are not called on to explain their decisions. 

Living in Lymington he will have been a regular driver on that road so he will have known the conditions. Its the main route out to the north connecting to Brockenhurst & Lyndhurst. For the most part (the section where he admits he was doing 70) it is tree-lined and sight lines aren't long. That's not the case where he hit them - straight road and relatively open. 

Its not a road where you would expect to see pedestrians as for the most part there are no pavements - I'm guessing the family were walking across intending to get on their bikes on the opposite side of the carriageway. As tourists they wouldn't have been aware of the nature of the road as being one that local cyclists avoid like the plague unless they have no choice. Too many drivers travelling too fast - often in a hurry to get to the ferry in Lymington. Much quieter forest roads are close enough to warrant a detour.

Assuming the pedestrians weren't complete lemmings I just don't understand how he didn't see them as a result of a momentary glance in his wing mirror. The sight lines are just too long there. More likely he was distracted by something in his car.

Decide for yourself, this is the accident site.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Setley+Ridge+Vineyard+%26+Farm+Shop/@50.80603,-1.5706719,14z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x73b76f3f1870a0d2

He's heading south to Lymington, they're crossing the road to get on their bikes to head north to Hollands Wood (campsite north of Brockenhurst)

How glad would we be if the judge/jury turned around and recommended a lifetime revoking of his liscence, his car to be sold at auction (money raised going to victims) and a ton of community service.

I know that would feel quite close to justice in my book.

Is it just me, or were these people just crossing the road with pushbikes? Therefore not technically cycling?

Also, lay of the nasty comments about the Aston, they're a lovely car, and not always driven by cocks. (No, I haven't got one, I wish

How on earth does driving at 63mph on average not meet this legal definition of dangerous driving?

Quote:

'the way he/she drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous'

Juries need to be barred from cases involving cyclists being injured or killed.

One solution is to simply define what constitutes dangerous driving such as, texting at speed limit, speeding 60% over speed limit in residential areas, not concentrating on the road for xx number of seconds etc etc. Take the decision out of juries hands - let the evidence decide.