Crook delivery driver who killed Cleadon cyclist on A66 near Stockton walks free from court

The Northern Echo: Cleveland Police Cleveland Police

A DELIVERY driver who killed a cyclist when he ploughed into the back of him in his seven-and-half-tonne lorry walked free from court.

Sean Ruff died instantly when his bike was hit from behind by Argos driver Joseph Reed on the A66 at Elton, near Stockton, last May.

Teesside Crown Court heard Mr Ruff was a finance director at Able UK, and was taking his regular ride after work before driving home.

The 61-year-old father-of-four, from Cleadon, South Tyneside, was wearing a high-visibility jacket, helmet and his lights were on.

Prosecutor Christine Egerton said it was 6.20pm and daylight when the accident happened on the busy dual-carriageway on May 21.

Reed, 50, from Crook, County Durham, admitted a charge of causing death by careless driving at an earlier court hearing.

His barrister, Christopher Dorman-O'Gowan, told Judge Peter Armstrong that he had been a hard-working man all of his adult life.

"He does not seek to blame Mr Ruff in any way," he said. "A thoroughly decent man died that day, and a good man was at the wheel of the wagon."

Miss Egerton said Mr Ruff would have been visible for at least nine seconds or from 227 metres away.

"Witnesses said he did not brake or deviate, even after the collision," she added. "Some witnesses feared he was not going to stop, although he did do so.

"An accident reconstruction found he was travelling at 55mph on the 70mph limit dual carriageway."

The court heard Mr Ruff died from multiple injuries, and his death was likely to have been almost instantaneous.

Reed claimed in his police interview he had seen the cyclist, but there was too much traffic in lane two for him to pull out, and too much traffic behind for him to stop.

Miss Egerton added: "Witness accounts do not support that, they say lane two was empty.

"In any case, there was room for Mr Reed to pass safely while remaining in lane one."

Reed, of Railway Terrace, Willington, has criminal convictions from 30 years ago, and a more recent conviction for speeding, the court heard.

Judge Armstrong sentenced Reed to six months in prison, suspended for two years, and banned him from driving for two-and-a-half years.

The judge told him: "Cases such as this are a tragedy for all concerned.

"Nothing I can say will provide comfort or recompense for the family of Mr Ruff, any life is priceless.

"The effect on you has also been great, you have lost your job and your home, and you will have to live with the fact you have taken a life.

"Your inattention to the road that day was not momentary, but neither was it a prolonged period of inattention.

"In passing sentence, I am bound to follow the guidelines for judges in such cases."

Comments (22)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

9:07pm Tue 18 Feb 14

Tulyar says...

I read this with disbelief - the excuse that "I might have had to slow down" not only beggars belief but runs counter to the basic requirement spelled out in the highway code and case law. If there is a hazard ahead you should be able to slow down and stop before a collision occurs, and naturally that reflects on driver in any following vehicle being able to stop without colliding with the vehicle in front if it stops.

I'm also concerned by the comments from the prosecutor Ms Egerton, with her claim that it would have been safe for the truck travelling at a minimum of 30mph faster than the cyclist to overtake safely within the width of the traffic lane. She clearly has not experienced a close pass by a large vehicle when cycling, not read the DfT publication TAL 15/99 which reviewed the safe limits for vehicles overtaking cyclists which constrained within a lane at road works. For an HGV this is 'adequate' in safety terms, only for widths over 4 metres. Scaled from the cars on the Google Street view of this road the lane widths are barely 3.5 metres - if not less. A close fit for the dynamic envelope of an HGV (2.55m body width - wider over mirrors) at a speed of 50mph - the speed to which HGV are limited on dual carriageways. This is 5mph slower than the speed the truck is claimed to have been travelling at, unless of course it was a truck weighing below 7.5T GVW, (the limit for these is 60mph on dual carriageways).

The lack of knowledge the appears in so many of these cases is staggering, in a recent case the investigators had to have the absence of a legally required 'blind spot' mirror pointed out to them when pictures of the truck involved in the crash were produced for a case. Contrast this with the clear and thorough investigations, which are routinely published for rail crashes, and air crashes, and the attendant low casualty figures for these modes of transport, through their diligent outlook on delivery of safe operation.
I read this with disbelief - the excuse that "I might have had to slow down" not only beggars belief but runs counter to the basic requirement spelled out in the highway code and case law. If there is a hazard ahead you should be able to slow down and stop before a collision occurs, and naturally that reflects on driver in any following vehicle being able to stop without colliding with the vehicle in front if it stops. I'm also concerned by the comments from the prosecutor Ms Egerton, with her claim that it would have been safe for the truck travelling at a minimum of 30mph faster than the cyclist to overtake safely within the width of the traffic lane. She clearly has not experienced a close pass by a large vehicle when cycling, not read the DfT publication TAL 15/99 which reviewed the safe limits for vehicles overtaking cyclists which constrained within a lane at road works. For an HGV this is 'adequate' in safety terms, only for widths over 4 metres. Scaled from the cars on the Google Street view of this road the lane widths are barely 3.5 metres - if not less. A close fit for the dynamic envelope of an HGV (2.55m body width - wider over mirrors) at a speed of 50mph - the speed to which HGV are limited on dual carriageways. This is 5mph slower than the speed the truck is claimed to have been travelling at, unless of course it was a truck weighing below 7.5T GVW, (the limit for these is 60mph on dual carriageways). The lack of knowledge the appears in so many of these cases is staggering, in a recent case the investigators had to have the absence of a legally required 'blind spot' mirror pointed out to them when pictures of the truck involved in the crash were produced for a case. Contrast this with the clear and thorough investigations, which are routinely published for rail crashes, and air crashes, and the attendant low casualty figures for these modes of transport, through their diligent outlook on delivery of safe operation. Tulyar

9:41pm Tue 18 Feb 14

samsamsam says...

I really do think the law should be changed to stop bikes going on this road, it is far to dangerous for them. The road is the same speed as a motorway but has no hard shoulder... to me a motorway would be safer for a bike than the 66 because of this and yet bike are not aloud on them. Sorry to say but the speeds are to fast and there is simply not room for them
I really do think the law should be changed to stop bikes going on this road, it is far to dangerous for them. The road is the same speed as a motorway but has no hard shoulder... to me a motorway would be safer for a bike than the 66 because of this and yet bike are not aloud on them. Sorry to say but the speeds are to fast and there is simply not room for them samsamsam

10:10pm Tue 18 Feb 14

spankdex_clod says...

What if he'd ploughed into the back of a broken down car and killed a family? Would you suggest that people don't break down on this road either?

He was driving a 7.5 tonne lorry, didn't look where he was going, and then killed someone.

i'd argue that was the cause of the accident, rather than the fact someone happened to be in his way.

unbelievable sentence.

what relevance the fact he was a hard-working man is, i don't know. Maybe the harder we work, the worse we are allowed to drive?
What if he'd ploughed into the back of a broken down car and killed a family? Would you suggest that people don't break down on this road either? He was driving a 7.5 tonne lorry, didn't look where he was going, and then killed someone. i'd argue that was the cause of the accident, rather than the fact someone happened to be in his way. unbelievable sentence. what relevance the fact he was a hard-working man is, i don't know. Maybe the harder we work, the worse we are allowed to drive? spankdex_clod

10:30pm Tue 18 Feb 14

samsamsam says...

breaking down is something that can't be helped but I don't see why you would want to put yourself in danger intentionally. I understand that the road shouldn't be dangerous if everyone driven perfectly at all times but unfortunately people are only human and things do go wrong. at theses speeds they don't have a lot of chance.
I'm not saying in this case it was or wasn't the drivers fault. I'm just saying I think its a dangerous road for bikes considering other roads of the same speed limit, that they can't go on, are much wider.
breaking down is something that can't be helped but I don't see why you would want to put yourself in danger intentionally. I understand that the road shouldn't be dangerous if everyone driven perfectly at all times but unfortunately people are only human and things do go wrong. at theses speeds they don't have a lot of chance. I'm not saying in this case it was or wasn't the drivers fault. I'm just saying I think its a dangerous road for bikes considering other roads of the same speed limit, that they can't go on, are much wider. samsamsam

10:44pm Tue 18 Feb 14

Paul_M says...

"He does not seek to blame Mr Ruff in any way," Any self-respecting judge would have given him 2 years simply for saying such an outrageous thing.
"He does not seek to blame Mr Ruff in any way," Any self-respecting judge would have given him 2 years simply for saying such an outrageous thing. Paul_M

11:18pm Tue 18 Feb 14

DarloXman says...

samsamsam wrote:
I really do think the law should be changed to stop bikes going on this road, it is far to dangerous for them. The road is the same speed as a motorway but has no hard shoulder... to me a motorway would be safer for a bike than the 66 because of this and yet bike are not aloud on them. Sorry to say but the speeds are to fast and there is simply not room for them
Horrible tragic story. The truck driver has been rightly found guilty.

I do however agree with samsamsam - I would not want to ride a bike on the A66 - the road is too busy and too fast to ride a bike safely on that road.

I live near the area of the accident and we either have mostly narrow winding country lanes or fast single and dual carriage ways - all with 60/70 mph speed limits - on these roads cars and bikes do not mix well!
[quote][p][bold]samsamsam[/bold] wrote: I really do think the law should be changed to stop bikes going on this road, it is far to dangerous for them. The road is the same speed as a motorway but has no hard shoulder... to me a motorway would be safer for a bike than the 66 because of this and yet bike are not aloud on them. Sorry to say but the speeds are to fast and there is simply not room for them[/p][/quote]Horrible tragic story. The truck driver has been rightly found guilty. I do however agree with samsamsam - I would not want to ride a bike on the A66 - the road is too busy and too fast to ride a bike safely on that road. I live near the area of the accident and we either have mostly narrow winding country lanes or fast single and dual carriage ways - all with 60/70 mph speed limits - on these roads cars and bikes do not mix well! DarloXman

8:07am Wed 19 Feb 14

@skippydetour says...

Darloxman has stated the obvious ! There was no Alternative road for the Cyclist to use , since ALL are in his opinion , " Just as Dangerous "! Cycling was a mode of Transport that ALL enjoyed , before the Judiciary started to treat Death as a "Suspended Sentence " issue ?

When a driver can SEE a Cyclist , they have choices , either ease off the pedal or signal and move out to a distance that allows for a " Safe Pass " , just as they would do with ANY Other vehicle !

Sport is what you watch on TV or practice on a playing field ! There are those that think " Bullying Cyclists " , is a Sport ! WRONG ! If the Judiciary followed the Law , then there would be a rash of Custodial Sentences , until the Motoring Public , realised that their behaviour WOULD result in Custodial Inconvenience , let alone the possibility of Lost Income and Monetary penalties !

With a Road Death and charges pending , would it not be appropriate for Drivers to be " tagged " thus limiting their access to Motor Veehicles ? The victim has lost their LIFE and the perpetrator currently continues their life as if nothing has changed until the Court Hearing ? The Death is an inescapable fact , the Custodial Sentence is a matter of HOW LONG ?

WHY is it that we continually read of Death causing inconvenience rather than a JAIL Sentence ? The JAILS too full with people that have minor motoring offences , substance abuse or other petty matters ?

Each Tragedy causes the Victims Families GRIEF , in this Case there are likely to be 5 Victims Families affected ? What of them , sentenced to a Life of Loss , whilst the cause walks FREE ? How is that for UK Justice ?
Darloxman has stated the obvious ! There was no Alternative road for the Cyclist to use , since ALL are in his opinion , " Just as Dangerous "! Cycling was a mode of Transport that ALL enjoyed , before the Judiciary started to treat Death as a "Suspended Sentence " issue ? When a driver can SEE a Cyclist , they have choices , either ease off the pedal or signal and move out to a distance that allows for a " Safe Pass " , just as they would do with ANY Other vehicle ! Sport is what you watch on TV or practice on a playing field ! There are those that think " Bullying Cyclists " , is a Sport ! WRONG ! If the Judiciary followed the Law , then there would be a rash of Custodial Sentences , until the Motoring Public , realised that their behaviour WOULD result in Custodial Inconvenience , let alone the possibility of Lost Income and Monetary penalties ! With a Road Death and charges pending , would it not be appropriate for Drivers to be " tagged " thus limiting their access to Motor Veehicles ? The victim has lost their LIFE and the perpetrator currently continues their life as if nothing has changed until the Court Hearing ? The Death is an inescapable fact , the Custodial Sentence is a matter of HOW LONG ? WHY is it that we continually read of Death causing inconvenience rather than a JAIL Sentence ? The JAILS too full with people that have minor motoring offences , substance abuse or other petty matters ? Each Tragedy causes the Victims Families GRIEF , in this Case there are likely to be 5 Victims Families affected ? What of them , sentenced to a Life of Loss , whilst the cause walks FREE ? How is that for UK Justice ? @skippydetour

8:55am Wed 19 Feb 14

sonicspanner says...

The sentence is an insult. He killed a human being to avoid inconveniencing what he considered to be more important traffic around him. And despite lying in his testimony, the judge decided not only that he shouldn't be locked up, but that at some point he will be allowed to get behind a wheel again. He didn't even brake as a token gesture. If the sentence genuinely does reflect guidelines for cases like these, then the guidelines need to be changed.
The sentence is an insult. He killed a human being to avoid inconveniencing what he considered to be more important traffic around him. And despite lying in his testimony, the judge decided not only that he shouldn't be locked up, but that at some point he will be allowed to get behind a wheel again. He didn't even brake as a token gesture. If the sentence genuinely does reflect guidelines for cases like these, then the guidelines need to be changed. sonicspanner

8:59am Wed 19 Feb 14

jps101 says...

Considering how busy the 66 is there must have been a multitude of other drivers passing this cyclist without hitting him including HGVs quite a few bigger than 7.5t!
If they could do it why couldn't he?

Saying that I've cycled 100s miles around the north east but personally I wouldn't feel safe on the 66 at that same point and would avoid it.
Considering how busy the 66 is there must have been a multitude of other drivers passing this cyclist without hitting him including HGVs quite a few bigger than 7.5t! If they could do it why couldn't he? Saying that I've cycled 100s miles around the north east but personally I wouldn't feel safe on the 66 at that same point and would avoid it. jps101

10:36am Wed 19 Feb 14

DarloXman says...

@skippydetour wrote:
Darloxman has stated the obvious ! There was no Alternative road for the Cyclist to use , since ALL are in his opinion , " Just as Dangerous "! Cycling was a mode of Transport that ALL enjoyed , before the Judiciary started to treat Death as a "Suspended Sentence " issue ?

When a driver can SEE a Cyclist , they have choices , either ease off the pedal or signal and move out to a distance that allows for a " Safe Pass " , just as they would do with ANY Other vehicle !

Sport is what you watch on TV or practice on a playing field ! There are those that think " Bullying Cyclists " , is a Sport ! WRONG ! If the Judiciary followed the Law , then there would be a rash of Custodial Sentences , until the Motoring Public , realised that their behaviour WOULD result in Custodial Inconvenience , let alone the possibility of Lost Income and Monetary penalties !

With a Road Death and charges pending , would it not be appropriate for Drivers to be " tagged " thus limiting their access to Motor Veehicles ? The victim has lost their LIFE and the perpetrator currently continues their life as if nothing has changed until the Court Hearing ? The Death is an inescapable fact , the Custodial Sentence is a matter of HOW LONG ?

WHY is it that we continually read of Death causing inconvenience rather than a JAIL Sentence ? The JAILS too full with people that have minor motoring offences , substance abuse or other petty matters ?

Each Tragedy causes the Victims Families GRIEF , in this Case there are likely to be 5 Victims Families affected ? What of them , sentenced to a Life of Loss , whilst the cause walks FREE ? How is that for UK Justice ?
Sorry to have offended you by simply having an opinion! In future I send you my intended post before posting and you can correct/change it so that it fits with your jaundiced opinions!

I see from your twitter account and blog that you are a bit of an anti-society campaigner - unless you happen to ride a bike! I also note that you are not a local and hence not familiar with the roads around the vicinity of the accident. I commented that "most" of the roads in the area are not suitable for bikes and cars - but there are some roads suitable - through Elton village for example where the speed limit is 30mph.

So please allow others their opinions - as you are entitled to yours, I am entitled to mine.

I expect a massive negative score to this post as it appears someone had nothing better to do than to continuously clear their cookies and negatively score comments they don't like! Have fun!
[quote][p][bold]@skippydetour[/bold] wrote: Darloxman has stated the obvious ! There was no Alternative road for the Cyclist to use , since ALL are in his opinion , " Just as Dangerous "! Cycling was a mode of Transport that ALL enjoyed , before the Judiciary started to treat Death as a "Suspended Sentence " issue ? When a driver can SEE a Cyclist , they have choices , either ease off the pedal or signal and move out to a distance that allows for a " Safe Pass " , just as they would do with ANY Other vehicle ! Sport is what you watch on TV or practice on a playing field ! There are those that think " Bullying Cyclists " , is a Sport ! WRONG ! If the Judiciary followed the Law , then there would be a rash of Custodial Sentences , until the Motoring Public , realised that their behaviour WOULD result in Custodial Inconvenience , let alone the possibility of Lost Income and Monetary penalties ! With a Road Death and charges pending , would it not be appropriate for Drivers to be " tagged " thus limiting their access to Motor Veehicles ? The victim has lost their LIFE and the perpetrator currently continues their life as if nothing has changed until the Court Hearing ? The Death is an inescapable fact , the Custodial Sentence is a matter of HOW LONG ? WHY is it that we continually read of Death causing inconvenience rather than a JAIL Sentence ? The JAILS too full with people that have minor motoring offences , substance abuse or other petty matters ? Each Tragedy causes the Victims Families GRIEF , in this Case there are likely to be 5 Victims Families affected ? What of them , sentenced to a Life of Loss , whilst the cause walks FREE ? How is that for UK Justice ?[/p][/quote]Sorry to have offended you by simply having an opinion! In future I send you my intended post before posting and you can correct/change it so that it fits with your jaundiced opinions! I see from your twitter account and blog that you are a bit of an anti-society campaigner - unless you happen to ride a bike! I also note that you are not a local and hence not familiar with the roads around the vicinity of the accident. I commented that "most" of the roads in the area are not suitable for bikes and cars - but there are some roads suitable - through Elton village for example where the speed limit is 30mph. So please allow others their opinions - as you are entitled to yours, I am entitled to mine. I expect a massive negative score to this post as it appears someone had nothing better to do than to continuously clear their cookies and negatively score comments they don't like! Have fun! DarloXman

11:22am Wed 19 Feb 14

jenny wren 2 says...

Yet again the courts place so little value on human life. Parliament is reviewing the sentencing of careless and dangerous drivers this year. Please write to your local MP to add to the pressure for change, and also please visit the website stopdangerousdrivers
.com and add your name to the online petition. I send my sincerest sympathies to the victims family at this awful time.
Yet again the courts place so little value on human life. Parliament is reviewing the sentencing of careless and dangerous drivers this year. Please write to your local MP to add to the pressure for change, and also please visit the website stopdangerousdrivers .com and add your name to the online petition. I send my sincerest sympathies to the victims family at this awful time. jenny wren 2

2:34pm Wed 19 Feb 14

Darkroom Devil says...

Everyone has an opinion until the hit someone and kill them. Neither party set off on that fateful day expecting their lives to change forever.
Everyone has an opinion until the hit someone and kill them. Neither party set off on that fateful day expecting their lives to change forever. Darkroom Devil

3:23pm Wed 19 Feb 14

Jackaranda says...

sonicspanner wrote:
The sentence is an insult. He killed a human being to avoid inconveniencing what he considered to be more important traffic around him. And despite lying in his testimony, the judge decided not only that he shouldn't be locked up, but that at some point he will be allowed to get behind a wheel again. He didn't even brake as a token gesture. If the sentence genuinely does reflect guidelines for cases like these, then the guidelines need to be changed.
Yes, and these are the same scumbags that have no problems pulling out in front of motorists, the majority of the time without indicating. I killed the cyclist cos I didn't want to brake, FFS!!
[quote][p][bold]sonicspanner[/bold] wrote: The sentence is an insult. He killed a human being to avoid inconveniencing what he considered to be more important traffic around him. And despite lying in his testimony, the judge decided not only that he shouldn't be locked up, but that at some point he will be allowed to get behind a wheel again. He didn't even brake as a token gesture. If the sentence genuinely does reflect guidelines for cases like these, then the guidelines need to be changed.[/p][/quote]Yes, and these are the same scumbags that have no problems pulling out in front of motorists, the majority of the time without indicating. I killed the cyclist cos I didn't want to brake, FFS!! Jackaranda

8:47pm Wed 19 Feb 14

ScaffoldPlank says...

Amazing. If this guy had any decency then he would never get behind the wheel again.
Amazing. If this guy had any decency then he would never get behind the wheel again. ScaffoldPlank

10:35pm Wed 19 Feb 14

Bereaved Mother says...

Why, why, why is it that to kill a person with a vehicle is classed as not as important as killing with a different weapon. A vehicle is a LETHAL weapon in the wrong hands. Just like a knife or gun, but there is no murder charge, no manslaughter charge, death by dangerous driving with 3 levels is not sufficient enough to charge these drivers with the offences they are committing, drivers are given the green flag by our justice system that its okay to kill an innocent person, take their life and destroy their family too.
Until this CRIME is classed as a REAL crime, these drivers/killers will carry on taking the lives horrifically of our loved ones. Wake Up Our Justice System!!!!
Why, why, why is it that to kill a person with a vehicle is classed as not as important as killing with a different weapon. A vehicle is a LETHAL weapon in the wrong hands. Just like a knife or gun, but there is no murder charge, no manslaughter charge, death by dangerous driving with 3 levels is not sufficient enough to charge these drivers with the offences they are committing, drivers are given the green flag by our justice system that its okay to kill an innocent person, take their life and destroy their family too. Until this CRIME is classed as a REAL crime, these drivers/killers will carry on taking the lives horrifically of our loved ones. Wake Up Our Justice System!!!! Bereaved Mother

9:32am Thu 20 Feb 14

IanfromCrook says...

The judiciary need to ask themselves - How high do they judge the cost of a life? Answer = usually a slap on the wrist. I am shocked, but I suspect the (I presume the CPS) desicion to agree a much lower charge.....should have been manslaughter.
The judiciary need to ask themselves - How high do they judge the cost of a life? Answer = usually a slap on the wrist. I am shocked, but I suspect the (I presume the CPS) desicion to agree a much lower charge.....should have been manslaughter. IanfromCrook

3:23pm Thu 20 Feb 14

MartinMo says...

No road is safe for a bicycle, when on my bike I will use all available off road routes (including pavements) and I force both my kids to do the same.

A cyclist crashing into a pedestrian is less likely to cause death than a motor vehicle hitting a cyclist.

Pavements- pedestrians / cyclists (slow)
Cycle Paths- Cyclists (average)
Roads- motor vehicles (fast)

Always put your own safety first, if you put yourself in harms way there's a dam good chance you will get hurt, or worse.
No road is safe for a bicycle, when on my bike I will use all available off road routes (including pavements) and I force both my kids to do the same. A cyclist crashing into a pedestrian is less likely to cause death than a motor vehicle hitting a cyclist. Pavements- pedestrians / cyclists (slow) Cycle Paths- Cyclists (average) Roads- motor vehicles (fast) Always put your own safety first, if you put yourself in harms way there's a dam good chance you will get hurt, or worse. MartinMo

3:36pm Thu 20 Feb 14

MartinMo says...

Bereaved Mother wrote:
Why, why, why is it that to kill a person with a vehicle is classed as not as important as killing with a different weapon. A vehicle is a LETHAL weapon in the wrong hands. Just like a knife or gun, but there is no murder charge, no manslaughter charge, death by dangerous driving with 3 levels is not sufficient enough to charge these drivers with the offences they are committing, drivers are given the green flag by our justice system that its okay to kill an innocent person, take their life and destroy their family too.
Until this CRIME is classed as a REAL crime, these drivers/killers will carry on taking the lives horrifically of our loved ones. Wake Up Our Justice System!!!!
ERM, dribble.

Cars are dangerous agreed, especially the in wrong hands. The difference though is most deaths caused by motors are in fact accidental, whether through negligence or not, whilst you generally dont accidentally point a gun at someone and then accidentally pull the trigger. In cases of death by kniving you mostly find the alledged purposely and knowingly stabbed the victem.

Most modern day items are dangerous in the wrong hands, should everyone who causes accidental death be classed as a murderer. Would you accuse a parent whom leaves a bottle of pain killers on a bunker after taking some for a headache as murderer if their child unbeknown to them reaches up and eats the entire contents of the bottle as though they were sweets and sudsequently dies. This parent has to live with the fact they caused the accedental death of thier child, should they be then sentenced to imprisonment as a murderer.
[quote][p][bold]Bereaved Mother[/bold] wrote: Why, why, why is it that to kill a person with a vehicle is classed as not as important as killing with a different weapon. A vehicle is a LETHAL weapon in the wrong hands. Just like a knife or gun, but there is no murder charge, no manslaughter charge, death by dangerous driving with 3 levels is not sufficient enough to charge these drivers with the offences they are committing, drivers are given the green flag by our justice system that its okay to kill an innocent person, take their life and destroy their family too. Until this CRIME is classed as a REAL crime, these drivers/killers will carry on taking the lives horrifically of our loved ones. Wake Up Our Justice System!!!![/p][/quote]ERM, dribble. Cars are dangerous agreed, especially the in wrong hands. The difference though is most deaths caused by motors are in fact accidental, whether through negligence or not, whilst you generally dont accidentally point a gun at someone and then accidentally pull the trigger. In cases of death by kniving you mostly find the alledged purposely and knowingly stabbed the victem. Most modern day items are dangerous in the wrong hands, should everyone who causes accidental death be classed as a murderer. Would you accuse a parent whom leaves a bottle of pain killers on a bunker after taking some for a headache as murderer if their child unbeknown to them reaches up and eats the entire contents of the bottle as though they were sweets and sudsequently dies. This parent has to live with the fact they caused the accedental death of thier child, should they be then sentenced to imprisonment as a murderer. MartinMo

8:55pm Thu 20 Feb 14

IanfromCrook says...

http://www.drivingba
n.co.uk/drivingoffen
cespenalties.htm
The above link highlights how unjust this judgement is. Even if you disagree with me and think manslaughter would be a too harsh charge for this offence there were other more appropriate options than the one. As for the comment about the mother leaving paracetamol out not comparable (you don't pass a test proving competence of parenthood) however I would not expect anyone to walk free if they caused a death by negligence especially so easily avoidable..... Foot on brake..........or medicine in the cupboard.
http://www.drivingba n.co.uk/drivingoffen cespenalties.htm The above link highlights how unjust this judgement is. Even if you disagree with me and think manslaughter would be a too harsh charge for this offence there were other more appropriate options than the one. As for the comment about the mother leaving paracetamol out not comparable (you don't pass a test proving competence of parenthood) however I would not expect anyone to walk free if they caused a death by negligence especially so easily avoidable..... Foot on brake..........or medicine in the cupboard. IanfromCrook

3:58pm Fri 21 Feb 14

MartinMo says...

I doubt there are any drivers of any vehicle that can truthfully state that in their whole lifetime their minds have been fully on the task of driving. That they have never at any been distracted from the task at hand.

The driver did in fact stop and he obviously did this when he deem it safe to do so (ramming on your brakes in a truck is never advisable in any circumstances. Yes his undue care cost a human life but all the circumstances point towards accidental death, not murder, not manslaughter. It was not as though he started his journey with the intention of killing a cyclist should he find one in his path.

My example with the parent/child/pills is exactly the same.......undue care costs lives but accidents are accidents, not manslaughter or attempted manslaughter if life is not lost.
I doubt there are any drivers of any vehicle that can truthfully state that in their whole lifetime their minds have been fully on the task of driving. That they have never at any been distracted from the task at hand. The driver did in fact stop and he obviously did this when he deem it safe to do so (ramming on your brakes in a truck is never advisable in any circumstances. Yes his undue care cost a human life but all the circumstances point towards accidental death, not murder, not manslaughter. It was not as though he started his journey with the intention of killing a cyclist should he find one in his path. My example with the parent/child/pills is exactly the same.......undue care costs lives but accidents are accidents, not manslaughter or attempted manslaughter if life is not lost. MartinMo

8:11pm Fri 21 Feb 14

IanfromCrook says...

MartinMo wrote:
I doubt there are any drivers of any vehicle that can truthfully state that in their whole lifetime their minds have been fully on the task of driving. That they have never at any been distracted from the task at hand.

The driver did in fact stop and he obviously did this when he deem it safe to do so (ramming on your brakes in a truck is never advisable in any circumstances. Yes his undue care cost a human life but all the circumstances point towards accidental death, not murder, not manslaughter. It was not as though he started his journey with the intention of killing a cyclist should he find one in his path.

My example with the parent/child/pills is exactly the same.......undue care costs lives but accidents are accidents, not manslaughter or attempted manslaughter if life is not lost.
"his undue care cost a human life" you must either be the judge or a member of the perpetrator's family. He broke as an afterthought if the witnesses are correct and had nine seconds of nothing...nine seconds of driving with your eyes closed I would not recommend he was not careless he was dangerous. What are brakes for in a truck? obviously different to other vehicles.
[quote][p][bold]MartinMo[/bold] wrote: I doubt there are any drivers of any vehicle that can truthfully state that in their whole lifetime their minds have been fully on the task of driving. That they have never at any been distracted from the task at hand. The driver did in fact stop and he obviously did this when he deem it safe to do so (ramming on your brakes in a truck is never advisable in any circumstances. Yes his undue care cost a human life but all the circumstances point towards accidental death, not murder, not manslaughter. It was not as though he started his journey with the intention of killing a cyclist should he find one in his path. My example with the parent/child/pills is exactly the same.......undue care costs lives but accidents are accidents, not manslaughter or attempted manslaughter if life is not lost.[/p][/quote]"his undue care cost a human life" you must either be the judge or a member of the perpetrator's family. He broke as an afterthought if the witnesses are correct and had nine seconds of nothing...nine seconds of driving with your eyes closed I would not recommend he was not careless he was dangerous. What are brakes for in a truck? obviously different to other vehicles. IanfromCrook

9:03am Sat 22 Feb 14

jps101 says...

There's a simple rule in the highway code
Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop, Well within the distance you can see to be clear.

How many times do you see drivers driving so close to the vehicle in front so they can't see past it? if they'd only drop back a few car lengths not only would they be able to see more, they'd also find how much less stressful and more pleasant it is.
There's a simple rule in the highway code Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop, Well within the distance you can see to be clear. How many times do you see drivers driving so close to the vehicle in front so they can't see past it? if they'd only drop back a few car lengths not only would they be able to see more, they'd also find how much less stressful and more pleasant it is. jps101

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree