Three years and four months in jail for driver who killed teen cyclist then set fire to his car

Just give him an extra 10 years for every % chance of the poor lad still being alive if the driver had not left the scene...

6.6 years for manslaughter... Oh, you left them for dead, destroyed evidence but it was only a cyclist, here's your discount tariff.

I presume this kid was wearing hi-viz, for all the good it would have done?

First, I wish to express my sorrow to the grieving parents for the loss of their fine son.  I and many others know how sad you feel, how devastated and unhappy you are in your misery. 

I am in total agreement with those above who have written in and sent their sincere comments. Crime, justice, punishment and deterrents. It is very close to a murder, yet the punishment is ridiculously lenient, and will hardly act as a deterrent. Shocking and disgraceful. This is not justice.

Let us hope some strong leader, and crowd funding will emerge to lead a powerful protest to the failed authorities. I would contribute.

We are fellow cyclists, let us all band together and fight.

@oldstrath & srchar 

Thanks for the replies let's hope next week we get MPs who actually act on behalf of the electorate.

We have these discussions on this forum every few weeks, regarding sentences appearing excessively lenient. Whilst it may feel good to vent frustration, it ultimately achieves nothing unless those same feelings are brought to the attention of our MPs. As a contributor to the recent all party parliamentary group I feel that my concerns have been listened to. However, the actions and reccomendations made by the group will not come to fruition unless the MPs continue to be pressurised by us cylists.

So every time you vent on here, e-mail your MP and put pressure on them.

BTBS, I think the discount for a guilty plea is more for expediency than anything else.  I see where you're coming from, people should do the right thing anyway, but anybody guilty, whether by plea or by trial, is by definition a criminal.  Not the most honest subset of society.  Sadly in this context if you don't have some sort of reward for owning up you'll get more people trying it on.  If you had said there should be a heavy penalty even if you plead guilty, and then an even heavier one if you are found guilty at trial, then I would be with you.

Hard to disagree with the rest of your post.

Maybe we need such callous disrespect for another human being treated far more harshly. When aggravating factors are included such as leaving someone to die after you've already neglected their safety to such an extent they are likely to succumb then maybe we need to think about an eye for an eye.

Whilst captial punishment for motoring crimes seems a bit OTT 9 out of 10 people surveyed by road safety campaigners stated they would want death by dangerous driving prosecuted as manslaughter.

That death by careless is being used yet again just hightlights how the system is failing us, not just people on bikes but others in motorvehicles, pedestrians, equestrians etc.

The sickening thing is the killer gets a discount for pleading guilty, this IMHO is ALWAYS wrong. Getting a reward for not lying under oath/attestation and owning up to your crime should never receive a reduction on your tariff.

Also because the powers that be saw fit to offer 'death by careless' as a solution to a failed system due to reluctance of motorcentric jury's to convict. That we downgrade a dangerous act (by definition that you struck and harmed another means the act must have being dangerous in the first place) to merely 'careless' is a disgusting, callous and unjust course to take not only on individuals families but on society as a whole.

The governement are culpable for almost all deaths and serious injuries on our roads by their failure to act, their failure to not only put measures in place to restrict motorvehicle use (& all the other downsides from that), but failure to put in measures that could simply bring the standard of driving to a far higher level and change the mindset of people driving killing machines.

it would be oh so easy to change the laws that reduce power and acceleration to a maximum level for private motors and to force hauliage companies to rethink their rolling stock when used in towns/cities but they won't.

Gutless and criminal, worse than the killer here in fact.

Detective Sergeant Adam Cooper, Serious Collision Investigation Unit, said

"Steven Mills allowed hardly any room... "

Does the DS need someone to explain to him how this collision thing works?

He hit him, with a vehicle, not allowing any room, hardly or otherwise.

4.5 years driving ban??!!  Mandatory lifetime driving ban if you are convicted of dangerous driving that takes a life. 

I keep signing petitions for this but they never get anywhere. It makes no difference to the victim - but if I was a family member for a victim, knowing that person will never be able to drive again would help. 

Other than using the Government petition system what way is there to make the Judicial system review the pathetic Careless/Dangerous Driver system and ridiculous sentences offenders are given?

There must be something as riders that can be done

Good to know that at least hardened arse touchers from the 70s will be put away for 8 years though.

Yes cyclists, your life is worth less than a fondled arse.

If he keeps his nose clean while inside, he'll be out in 20 months. Utterly pitiful sentencing. Who knows, if this selfish individual had stopped to check on the poor young lad, performed CPR, stemmed bleeding, even just called an ambulance, he may still be alive. I struggle to see much difference between leaving someone to die and murder.

Shocking sentence considering the driver, as well as hitting the lad, didn't check his condition, glad the scene, tried to destroy the evidence. Pathetic. And that driving ban will do no good whatsoever. I'm making an assumption here but I suspect that before his license is restored he'll be driving again. And will obviously be u insured. I have no evidence to back this up, purely personal bias. But compared to the actions of the guilty party I'm prepared to flaunt my bias.

Very sad, both the incident and the average sentencing numbers at the end of the article.

I hesitate to make this point because in this context it's coming from a grieving family's statement, which I think is different, but I think it's relevant because of what yet again seems an unduly lenient sentence.  I'm disturbed by an increasing trend to note that no sentence will bring back the deceased.  

I'm pretty sure in other cases I've heard the police and even judges make this observation as though to justify a lesser charge and sentence.  Was that in their minds in this case also?  Because if so it's inappropriate.  The whole basis of criminal law is to treat the criminal's act as a wrong done to society as a whole, not just to the immediate victim.  Obviously, an appropriate punishment helps society by deterring others from committing the same crime in future.  We all have a stake in this.

Naturally the family will feel this way in their suffering and they have my respect and condolences.  But no officials in the criminal justice system should be thinking this way.

So destroying evidence is worth only four months less than killing a teenager? Less than two years for leaving someone to die by the side of the road?

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr