Driver who killed cyclist while adjusting her sat nav faces a jail sentence

Wow.

{adds 'should people who kill while fiddling with Sat Navs go to jail?' to list of Cyclist Dinner Party Topics To Avoid, along with red light jumping, helmets, hi-viz, Critical Mass...}

Meanwhile...here's something serious that gets you a custodial sentence... contempt of court!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23495785

I would favour a simple approach: A life ban for dangerous driving. A ten year ban for careless driving and 5 years mandatory sentence for anyone driving after disqualified.

Sotting in a cell contemplating your driving ban is probably not as effective as sitting at the bus stop contemplating it.

There are some really good points raised here and also some which are from the heart rather than the head and will no doubt strike a chord with many on the forum.

Lifetime driving bans, as some suggest, are nigh on impossible to regulate. With the number of cars on the road it's not possible to check every single driver every single day.

Prison is the most extreme punishment and should only be used when there is no doubt about the dangerous driving - as someone mentions the HGV scenario.

Unless you drive for a living then losing your licence wont effect your employment. You can cycle, walk, car share, bus, train, metro / tram. But then again if you do take someone's life should it not be that you also have to suffer with employment loss, house repossession etc as no doubt the family whose life was taken will also suffer similar losses never mind the fact that they have suffered the ultimate loss of a family member.

There is no black and white answer as every case is different.

"CTC does not think that imposing custodial sentences on drivers who cause death is the ideal solution, as in most cases they only present a danger to the public when behind the wheel of a car."

Rather like saying murderers are only a danger to the public when in possession of a weapon like a gun or knife.....

No matter how you take a life prison should be involved along with a lifetime driving ban!

To describe this tragic death as an 'accident' is as crass as it is insulting to the memory of the dead cyclist.

Life ban enforced by tagging should be the minimum sentence for death by dangerous driving.

In a statement the organisation said: "CTC does not think that imposing custodial sentences on drivers who cause death is the ideal solution, as in most cases they only present a danger to the public when behind the wheel of a car. Thus, imposing long-term or life-time driving bans is a more effective solution and deterrent to bad driving.

No, the more effective deterrent is the prison sentence, you can't drive if you're in prison AND you're in prison.

Clearly with the current state of driving, good deterrents are needed, £30 fines and short driving bans are not good deterrents, prison is. And if people don't behave then they should be punished, like WFT is going on in CTCs heads.

"Unbelievable sentence."

What, the sentence that hasn't actually been delivered yet? Jesus, at least read, don't just pull an opinion out of your arse.

"But lets not forget the family she has devastated by her irresponible actions, they might want her put away."

This an entirely understandable viewpoint, but people differ. Look back to the Dowling case and you'll see that the family were deeply against having the driver put away. Then again I read of another case recently where one member of the family vowed to have what in her eyes was justice, which transpired to be getting the driver's prison term increased.

To have sentencing significantly influenced by people's emotions would give you wild variations in punishment, and it's not a way to run a consistent and egalitarian sentencing system. These things really need to be discussed and determined in a sanguine and emotionally uninvolved manner.

Driving bans don't keep people off the road. The driver who killed Ross and Claire Simons just up the road from me in Bristol was disqualified, but driving his partner's car. He was sentenced to 10 years in prison, but I don't know to what extent this counts as a deterrent - many people have no idea what the maximum sentence is for a crime anyway.

The local MP is now doing a rather half-hearted campaign to get the maximum sentence increased, after initially saying that he was going to press for traffic calming measures in the road where it happened.

Personally I'd much rather have the latter; there's absolutely no point in someone rotting in jail for a couple of extra years if the death could have been avoided in the first place.

They should be banning bad drivers for life before they kill somebody, if you get the max points that should be it, lifetime ban.

If Throbbobank showed any carelessness in handling his shotgun it would be taken away from him, a car kills you just as dead as a gun.

Everybody parping on about why she should or should,nt get a custodial sentence, imo she should. But lets not forget the family she has devastated by her irresponible actions, they might want her put away.
So lets not forget the grieving family here,

Obviously the collision/death was accidental. So what good would come from locking the driver up? At CTC say, they'e not a menace to society, with the exception of when they're behind the wheel - so lengthy bans instead. Maybe large fines too? I don't think simply a ban is enough. But can't see that locking them up in prison would be in anyone's interest.

Of course as they also state, repeat offenders (which may be less likely to occur if the culprit was banned for longer) or where the driving was intentionally dangerous such as when a car does a punishment pass/stop to knock the rider off etc, those should result in custodial sentences.

surely one of the most effective deterrents is to read in the paper/hear on the news that a driver who killed someone did so because they were fiddling with their satnav and they got a custodial sentence and a lengthy driving ban when they leave prison.

I find it incredulous that the CTC would argue that custodial sentences should not form part of the sentencing outcome in cases like this. Yes, these drivers need to be removed from the road for a long time, but they also need to reflect while serving their prison sentence.

The defence was he was difficult to spot, I'm not surprised with a sat nav in your face! Unbelievable sentence.

it will be interesting to see what 'sentence' this irresponsible idiot is handed, probably a fine and smack on the wrist .....

Very interesting. What would hurt more, a short spell in jail (remember 50% of time is served in general), a lifetime ban, heavy fine, or confiscation of any vehicles owned by the guilty party. The ban if respected would at least remove someone careless with others lives from the road, removal of vehicle(s) woud be financially painful. Or perhaps those jailed should be made to pay the full costs of their incarceration?
But I do agree that no-one sane goes out with the intent of killing someone with thier vehicle, so the element of "revenge" is questionable. However this needs to be balanced against a message that says this is not acceptable behaviour and so must have a serious consequence, of which removal of liberty for a period and a criminal record is one option.

I think driving bans - and often lifetime driving bans are appropriate - send out a message to all drivers that driving is fundamentally dangerous and something which is not a right, but a privilege that can be revoked.

I don't think custodial sentences make that point more successfully. When we read that somebody got a custodial sentence, we can it as a story about criminals being locked up. We don't tend to feel we have much in common with criminals, and therefore we don't feel personally affected by how they are dealt with.

I think it makes sense to save custodial sentences for cases such as breaches of driving bans and to impose punishments like community service. In certain cases where a driver has been extraordinarily negligent, it should also be possible for the driver's insurance company to pay out to victims or their families and then sue the driver to try and recover some of the payout. (I would prefer this to fines, since it would be clearer that drivers are facing the consequences of their own actions rather than being dealt out some random punishment by the state.)