I was toying with putting this in the general chat but thought it's motorcycle related and I'm sure others will spill into here sometimes. Is it me who sees these two sentences unfair. Before we go any further, this isnt a police bashing thread. 

 

The first incident is a bloke who stupidly went out and recorded him test riding a couple of sports bike at stupid speeds. Yes he deserves to end up in court, doing upwards of 150mph, recording it and putting it on youtube is idiotic, stupid, dangerous etc etc BUT nobody died, he didnt have an accident (by sheer luck no doubt) and he held his hands up and pleaded guilty. He got a 2 year ban AND 9 months in prison. 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-devon-34006300

 

The second incident is a Police woman who made a U turn in her police vehicle without checking it was clear and wiped out a motorcyclist, killing him. She then went on to say she didnt see him, yet still pleaded not guilty to careless driving. She was convicted of this charge and got a 1 year ban and 180 hours community service.

 

Thats what a human life is valued at now is it? I think the bit that really hits me is that she says she didnt see the motorcycle, yet still pleads not guilty? Well its clear he was there, so if she didnt see him, that is by default 'careless' is it not? Its not even like she's come out and held her hands up and said I made a dreadful mistake, I'm sorry. 

 

http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/cumbrian-police-officer-guilty-of-causing-motorbiker-s-death-1.1225869#

 

The parents of the lad killed are quite rightly appealing the sentence, the thought that she could be back out on the road ready to kill again in a years time, in her mind she's done nothing wrong. 

 

It just baffles me how those two punishments can be handed out, they should be the other way round imo. 

Edited 21 August, 201510 yr by matt1chelski

Takes the pee. Makes no sense.

I dont know the circumstances of the first story, but on a quiet A road or motorway 150mph and back down to 70 can be done in seconds. Dangerous? Only if theres others on the road. Its not speed thats dangerous, its differentials in speed.

And number 2 is more than silly. But its not the first time ive seen police get off with hardly anything. The officer who pulled out on an innocent biker (a father iirc) whilst on the phone to her mrs and killed him got hardly anything either.

I think the judges do whatever they can to get the police out of things, tbh.

Having read the story of the bloke speeding, he was doing it on country lanes and nearly 90mph through villages. No doubt he deserves to be dropped in the **** and thats whats got him in so much trouble BUT, putting him in our overcrowded prisons? While the woman walks free with a few hours painting over graffiti. Sickening. 

Edited 21 August, 201510 yr by matt1chelski

Having read the story of the bloke speeding, he was doing it on country lanes and nearly 90mph through villages. No doubt he deserves to be dropped in the **** and thats whats got him in so much trouble BUT, putting him in our overcrowded prisons? While the woman walks free with a few hours painting over graffiti. Sickening.

Ah okay. 90mph in villages is silly. I dont agree with any prolonged speeding in a 30 or 40''s tbh.

Nah. Dont think prison is helping. As i said. Speed in certain places is safe as anything. People seem to forget that high powered stuff isnt just good at acceleration, the brakes are bloody good too

Sorry. Double post

Edited 21 August, 201510 yr by fabiamk2SE

The disparity above is something I have been pointing out and questioning for years. I have no problem with the likes of the punishment biker got with regards to the specific case. The problem in my mind with all this, is the lacking of sentence for killers, which is what they are! 

It is hard to come to a conclusion particularly regarding the fatal crash as so few details are provided in the news report. For example.......the nature and cause of the u turn, the speed of the motorcycle, the environmental factors, biker visibility and so on and so on.............

On the face of it the sentencing looks unjust. However, in my view, more detail is needed before reaching a considered viewpoint. The news report contains insufficient detail.

Im struggling to think of a situation where not looking properly is going to be ok? It was dark and the motorcycle had his lights on from another report I read.

I think I'd maybe feel different if she'd held her hands up and apologised but she's gone the whole way pleading not guilty when quite clearly she is, the bike was there and she didn't see him, that's careless whatever the reason for the u turn.

Matt,

The question you raised was regarding the appropriateness or otherwise of the sentencing.

On the facts as we know them there is insufficient to come to a reasonable conclusion.

I agree, however, that from what we do know, she appears to, at least, been careless.

Sadly, people often, on the advice of their legal reps, choose not to take responsibility for their actions. Their first concern is their own position rather than that of the victim or the victim's family/friends.

 . . a bit like this one: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2278048/Collette-Carpenter-Death-crash-policewoman-escapes-prosecution-mobile-phone--lap.html  ?

. . a bit like this one: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2278048/Collette-Carpenter-Death-crash-policewoman-escapes-prosecution-mobile-phone--lap.html ?

Yeah thats the one i was reffering to (:

Oh wow I'd not even seen that one, surely phone or not she was careless?! 

I know things have changed with Dangerous Driving since I was in the job and I am sure there are others on here more up to date AND qualified than me to comment but......

 

For Dangerous driving you have to have the knowledge that what you are doing is dangerous and you carry on regardless.  For careless driving it is just a matter that you have done something in error and you should have taken more care but the act in itself (u turn in this case) isn't in itself dangerous. 

 

I will go and research the up to date legislation and come back with it but what the biker did was clearly dangerous and he would have known that.  What she did unless she saw the bike coming and thought it is close and he may hit me but I will chance it anyway isn't defined as dangerous.

 

For all that I still think that taking a life like that calls for a heavy sentence and far more than what she was given.  As for the Judge looking after the Police.  Believe me it does not happen!  If anything it works the other way round as they say that the Police should have known better and make an example of them.  In passing sentence the Judge would know that what he was doing would be open to appeal and would have his or her own reasoning as they know full well they are open to criticism.

 

Just because I was in the Police does not mean I defend them at all costs.  Quite the opposite in fact I criticise where needed because I am a firm believer in you should be seen to be whiter than white.  It is also difficult for us to determine from the few facts we are privy to what happened in reality and therefore it is easy to jump to a wrong conclusion.

 

EDIT:  Just found the following on the CPS web site which explains the sentencing a little more.

 

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/causing_death_by_careless_or_inconsiderate_driving/

 

Also this.

 

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/dangerous_driving/

A thread here where the biker has been made an example of: 

 

http://thenantwichnews.co.uk/2015/08/24/motorcyclists-face-crackdown-from-unmarked-police-bikes/

 

Not saying that I agree with doing 120mph on the roads but no one was injured and this biker has almost got the same sentence for speeding as the pretend police woman in the post above has for killing someone. 

Edited 3 September, 201510 yr by BlueMonster

Some views from both ends of the spectrum in that article I see. 

 

Sentencing is governed.  Courts can only hand out what is applicable to that offence.  There is leeway in between maximum and minimum and whatever is given on the day can always be appealed by the defendant or their council if they think it is too harsh. Does the fact that no one was killed on this occasion make it less serious?  Is that a case of more by good luck than judgement?

 

Fact is a Court will give out a sentence in accordance with it's guidelines based on the evidence available at the time.  Yes certain Magistrates may have a different view to others as to what is more severe and that may depend upon a number of things.  I don't think you can ever compare one case with another as they are never the same. OK when someone was killed it is serious but is it less so when someone could have been?  Mute point maybe.

 

I don't subscribe to the view that us poor motorcyclists are being picked on.  Fact is we do have some amongst us who are incredibly foolhardy and have no regard for rules or safety.  Should we be protected against them?  Yes I would like to think so.  I do accept however that it is difficult to decide who deserves what and it is almost impossible to make it a foolproof system where everyone gets the same because nothing is the same.