Has life become too cheap?

I notice that the killing of Chris Boardman's mother while distracted by a mobile phone carries a 30 week prison sentence for the convicted driver. Would readers consider this too lenient? https://www.aol.co.uk/news/2019/01/31/driver-who-killed-chris-boardmana-s-mother-handed-30-week-jail/

I notice that the killing of Chris Boardman's mother while distracted by a mobile phone carries a 30 week prison sentence for the convicted driver. Would readers consider this too lenient?

https://www.aol.co.uk/news/2019/01/31/driver-who-killed-chris-boardmana-s-mother-handed-30-week-jail/

Short answer - yes. Longer answer penalties [i]applied[/i] for serious injuries caused by motorists are generally far too low. Locally when a cyclists is hit from behind by a motorist, despite the Highway Code guidance the full width of the vehicle is a minimum for passing - or slow down and wait until there is safe clearance - the local coroner usually comes up with the lame excuse the driver was "momentarily distracted". The local coroner can come up with the same excuse when a motorist kills a motorist. Killing a policeman (it does not matter how) usually gets at least 10 years.

Short answer - yes.

Longer answer penalties applied for serious injuries caused by motorists are generally far too low.

Locally when a cyclists is hit from behind by a motorist, despite the Highway Code guidance the full width of the vehicle is a minimum for passing - or slow down and wait until there is safe clearance - the local coroner usually comes up with the lame excuse the driver was "momentarily distracted".
The local coroner can come up with the same excuse when a motorist kills a motorist.

Killing a policeman (it does not matter how) usually gets at least 10 years.

[quote]I notice that the killing of Chris Boardman's mother while distracted by a mobile phone carries a 30 week prison sentence for the convicted driver. Would readers consider this too lenient? https://www.aol.co.uk/news/2019/01/31/driver-who-killed-chris-boardmana-s-mother-handed-30-week-jail/[/quote] Yes, I think the 30 week sentence [i]is [/i]too lenient. I also think it is outrageous that drivers committing serious crimes when driving are allowed to ever drive again. There are far too many cars on the road already without having selfish, irresponsible nutters creating more mayhem and manslaughter.

Quote:I notice that the killing of Chris Boardman's mother while distracted by a mobile phone carries a 30 week prison sentence for the convicted driver. Would readers consider this too lenient?

https://www.aol.co.uk/news/2019/01/31/driver-who-killed-chris-boardmana-s-mother-handed-30-week-jail/

Yes, I think the 30 week sentence is too lenient.
I also think it is outrageous that drivers committing serious crimes when driving are allowed to ever drive again.
There are far too many cars on the road already without having selfish, irresponsible nutters creating more mayhem and manslaughter.

The case is not a straight forward as first appears. If you read the full trial report it appears that Mrs Boardman had approached the roundabout but crossed the 'give way ' lines at the roundabout (ie failed to give way to traffic from the right ) and then, for some reason, fell off her bike directly in the path of the oncoming motorist . That said, had he not been distracted by his mobile, then he could have possibly swerved to avoid her.

The case is not a straight forward as first appears. If you read the full trial report it appears that Mrs Boardman had approached the roundabout but crossed the 'give way ' lines at the roundabout (ie failed to give way to traffic from the right ) and then, for some reason, fell off her bike directly in the path of the oncoming motorist . That said, had he not been distracted by his mobile, then he could have possibly swerved to avoid her.

In the metro this morning, a police couples 17 yer old son who killed two people whilst on drugs and having stolen his parent car had £105 fine and 100 hours of community work. ( way to light a sentence i thing) and also later in the paper, a person who smashed a car drivers window and threatened them with a zombie knife got 30 months. Liam Rosney seems to have got 30 weeks for not being fully alert as he had just put his phone down when he ran over a cyclist that fell in front of him, The polices drug son got a slap on the wrist for driving on drugs. The other chap with the knife got 30 months for bring intentionally threatening. Would a parent distracted by noisy children or a glasses wearer be treated as a murderer if they killed someone due to being distracted whilst driving? I really look forward to self driving cars becoming reality and taking us selfish humans out of the driving equation.

In the metro this morning, a police couples 17 yer old son who killed two people whilst on drugs and having stolen his parent car had £105 fine and 100 hours of community work. ( way to light a sentence i thing)

and also later in the paper, a person who smashed a car drivers window and threatened them with a zombie knife got 30 months.

Liam Rosney seems to have got 30 weeks for not being fully alert as he had just put his phone down when he ran over a cyclist that fell in front of him,
The polices drug son got a slap on the wrist for driving on drugs.
The other chap with the knife got 30 months for bring intentionally threatening.


Would a parent distracted by noisy children or a glasses wearer be treated as a murderer if they killed someone due to being distracted whilst driving?

I really look forward to self driving cars becoming reality and taking us selfish humans out of the driving equation.

I reckon that 30 wks is an adequate sentence for using a mobile phone whilst driving. But there should be an extra tariff for causing death whilst doing so. Something like 5 to 10 years. Lets not forget there is a victim here, family and friends also suffer by the loss. Colin

I reckon that 30 wks is an adequate sentence for using a mobile phone whilst driving.
But there should be an extra tariff for causing death whilst doing so. Something like 5 to 10 years.
Lets not forget there is a victim here, family and friends also suffer by the loss.
Colin

[quote] Like4 The case is not a straight forward as first appears. If you read the full trial report it appears that Mrs Boardman had approached the roundabout but crossed the 'give way ' lines at the roundabout (ie failed to give way to traffic from the right ) and then, for some reason, fell off her bike directly in the path of the oncoming motorist . That said, had he not been distracted by his mobile, then he could have possibly swerved to avoid her. [/quote] I’ve no qualms with motorists having the book thrown at them for being “distracted” by a mobile phone...there’ve been some horrendous “accidents” thus caused....nobody is that important that it can’t wait a little longer until pulling over safely to deal with it...a pet hate of mine for sure... However...I do get a little wound up with some cyclist’s arrogant/ignorant behaviour.. Only yesterday, I was parked in an A1(M) service station, and watched a guy unhitch his mountain bike from the rear of a camper van, fit his (useless...?) polystyrene helmet, boots, and proceed to ride out of the car park entrance (well marked with road painted direction arrows..) hence against potential incoming cars, across a grass verge, through the fuel station the wrong way, and, I assume, off to some local hills or other... and if he’d collided with an incoming vehicle...?

Quote: Like4
The case is not a straight forward as first appears. If you read the full trial report it appears that Mrs Boardman had approached the roundabout but crossed the 'give way ' lines at the roundabout (ie failed to give way to traffic from the right ) and then, for some reason, fell off her bike directly in the path of the oncoming motorist . That said, had he not been distracted by his mobile, then he could have possibly swerved to avoid her.



I’ve no qualms with motorists having the book thrown at them for being “distracted” by a mobile phone...there’ve been some horrendous “accidents” thus caused....nobody is that important that it can’t wait a little longer until pulling over safely to deal with it...a pet hate of mine for sure...

However...I do get a little wound up with some cyclist’s arrogant/ignorant behaviour..

Only yesterday, I was parked in an A1(M) service station, and watched a guy unhitch his mountain bike from the rear of a camper van, fit his (useless...?) polystyrene helmet, boots, and proceed to ride out of the car park entrance (well marked with road painted direction arrows..) hence against potential incoming cars, across a grass verge, through the fuel station the wrong way, and, I assume, off to some local hills or other...

and if he’d collided with an incoming vehicle...?

Sounds harsh to me. Its possible in fact that she might have died even if he wasnt on the phone, such as changing the radio station, drinking a coffee, or, for female drivers, applying make-up - there are so many ways to be distracted. The phone is bad, certainly, and it has the technical benefit that its use at the time can be proven, however, distraction can only be assumed, not proven. Its possible, technically, to have any car disable the cell phone when the car is in motion, and perhaps allow an emergency call - something that should be looked at with manufacturers. The hands free phone is every bit as distracting as a non hands free, you attention is drawn to the conversation. If he was using hands free, would he still have the same penalty?

Sounds harsh to me. Its possible in fact that she might have died even if he wasnt on the phone, such as changing the radio station, drinking a coffee, or, for female drivers, applying make-up - there are so many ways to be distracted. The phone is bad, certainly, and it has the technical benefit that its use at the time can be proven, however, distraction can only be assumed, not proven.

Its possible, technically, to have any car disable the cell phone when the car is in motion, and perhaps allow an emergency call - something that should be looked at with manufacturers. The hands free phone is every bit as distracting as a non hands free, you attention is drawn to the conversation. If he was using hands free, would he still have the same penalty?

Could have...it can be anything that distracts you from the normal function of driving.

Could have...it can be anything that distracts you from the normal function of driving.

I do think that a 30 week prison sentence is a little surprising and light and I am not making any excuses for what he did. However, after the 30 weeks, his punishment will continue for the rest of his working life. His insurance premiums will rocket; he will always have to declare to employers that he has a criminal record and has served time in prison. Having a criminal record could even affect which countries he decides to visit. His life will be forever tainted by the stupid action of "just having to use the phone" whilst driving. His life has been totally redefined and reset by this incident. Coming out of prison is only the start of his redefined life. His use of the phone whilst driving was selfish and stupid and had tragic consequences. Motorists do ignore the law and take and make phone calls whilst driving and this tragedy should be a lesson to any driver tempted to use the phone whilst driving. I would be quite happy to see fines increased even more - trebled perhaps. At the moment, the punishment is not enough to deter people from using the phone whilst driving - so they take the chance they won't get caught. I see drivers of both sexes everyday in Portsmouth, holding the phone to one ear and driving with one hand. Mine stays in the glove box now whilst I am driving and has done for many years. I worked for an insurance company for 15 years, and know exactly how it affects drivers after tragedies like this. The prison sentence is only the start of his punishment. He will never escape the result of his actions.

I do think that a 30 week prison sentence is a little surprising and light and I am not making any excuses for what he did.
However, after the 30 weeks, his punishment will continue for the rest of his working life.
His insurance premiums will rocket; he will always have to declare to employers that he has a criminal record and has served time in prison.
Having a criminal record could even affect which countries he decides to visit.
His life will be forever tainted by the stupid action of "just having to use the phone" whilst driving.
His life has been totally redefined and reset by this incident.
Coming out of prison is only the start of his redefined life.
His use of the phone whilst driving was selfish and stupid and had tragic consequences.
Motorists do ignore the law and take and make phone calls whilst driving and this tragedy should be a lesson to any driver tempted to use the phone whilst driving. I would be quite happy to see fines increased even more - trebled perhaps.
At the moment, the punishment is not enough to deter people from using the phone whilst driving - so they take the chance they won't get caught.
I see drivers of both sexes everyday in Portsmouth, holding the phone to one ear and driving with one hand.
Mine stays in the glove box now whilst I am driving and has done for many years.
I worked for an insurance company for 15 years, and know exactly how it affects drivers after tragedies like this.
The prison sentence is only the start of his punishment. He will never escape the result of his actions.

As said above, the sooner we get to driverless cars the better. Yes there will still be crashes, but not as many, and they would be true accidents due to technical failings or exceptional circumstances. The emergency services changed from road traffic accidents (rta) terminology to road traffic collisions (rtc) because very rarely was it an accident in the true sense. Most were caused by bad or reckless driving on someones part. Driverless cars wont suffer from the incredible arogance of people who speed dangerously, drink/drug drive, tailgate others or use phones while driving, because that drivers time and convenience is more important than the lives of others. Until such time, if we want to save lives and injuries then we need much, much harsher penalties for bad driving, whether that causes a collision or not, as a deterent. Maybe a years ban for using a phone, excessive speed or just truly bad driving along with a fine of 10% of that persons income. With a lifetime ban and a prison sentence for a second offence. We need to stop the carnage on the roads, if drivers could only go out with the emergency services and see, first hand, what happens when metal and flesh meet at speed then perhaps, at least for a little while, they may be more sensible.

As said above, the sooner we get to driverless cars the better. Yes there will still be crashes, but not as many, and they would be true accidents due to technical failings or exceptional circumstances.
The emergency services changed from road traffic accidents (rta) terminology to road traffic collisions (rtc) because very rarely was it an accident in the true sense. Most were caused by bad or reckless driving on someones part. Driverless cars wont suffer from the incredible arogance of people who speed dangerously, drink/drug drive, tailgate others or use phones while driving, because that drivers time and convenience is more important than the lives of others.
Until such time, if we want to save lives and injuries then we need much, much harsher penalties for bad driving, whether that causes a collision or not, as a deterent. Maybe a years ban for using a phone, excessive speed or just truly bad driving along with a fine of 10% of that persons income. With a lifetime ban and a prison sentence for a second offence. We need to stop the carnage on the roads, if drivers could only go out with the emergency services and see, first hand, what happens when metal and flesh meet at speed then perhaps, at least for a little while, they may be more sensible.

[quote]The case is not a straight forward as first appears. If you read the full trial report it appears that Mrs Boardman had approached the roundabout but crossed the 'give way ' lines at the roundabout (ie failed to give way to traffic from the right ) and then, for some reason, fell off her bike directly in the path of the oncoming motorist . That said, had he not been distracted by his mobile, then he could have possibly swerved to avoid her. [/quote] Are [i]you[/i] another irresponsible driver? There is a difference between give way and halt - and if every road use waited until a roundabout was completely empty - roundabouts would not work. You make an in insulting comment about a none motorist road users that "for some reason fell off her bike" - with respect she is dead so we will never find out why. Then you say "directly, in the path of an oncoming motorist" - it takes several seconds to fall off a pedal cycle. We all have to give way, slow down or wait occasionally - if we are responsible motorists - and impact speeds of 10 mph rarely kill people. There is a duty not to drive without due care and attention - and using a mobile on a busy roundabout is a long, long way from due care. From the tone of your response you give a very clear impression you are a less than fully responsible driver, and that you condone "minimal" sentences for killing when there a motorist is responsible.

Quote:The case is not a straight forward as first appears. If you read the full trial report it appears that Mrs Boardman had approached the roundabout but crossed the 'give way ' lines at the roundabout (ie failed to give way to traffic from the right ) and then, for some reason, fell off her bike directly in the path of the oncoming motorist . That said, had he not been distracted by his mobile, then he could have possibly swerved to avoid her.

Are you another irresponsible driver?
There is a difference between give way and halt - and if every road use waited until a roundabout was completely empty - roundabouts would not work.
You make an in insulting comment about a none motorist road users that "for some reason fell off her bike" - with respect she is dead so we will never find out why.
Then you say "directly, in the path of an oncoming motorist" - it takes several seconds to fall off a pedal cycle.
We all have to give way, slow down or wait occasionally - if we are responsible motorists - and impact speeds of 10 mph rarely kill people.
There is a duty not to drive without due care and attention - and using a mobile on a busy roundabout is a long, long way from due care.
From the tone of your response you give a very clear impression you are a less than fully responsible driver, and that you condone "minimal" sentences for killing when there a motorist is responsible.

Sometimes i wonder if we should not make all car drivers ride bikes in busy traffic for a week every year. so they truly understand the challenges of cycling in traffic and the room needed to pass cyclists. But then i'd also want to force ALL driving tests to be retaken every 5 years and international drivers within a month of arriving. I'm both a cyclist and a driver; Most people are good drivers and cyclists, some of us drivers and cyclists are selfish idiots all the time ( this is the problem to address), and some of us drivers and cyclists do make occasional mistakes no matter how hard we try not too.

Sometimes i wonder if we should not make all car drivers ride bikes in busy traffic for a week every year. so they truly understand the challenges of cycling in traffic and the room needed to pass cyclists.

But then i'd also want to force ALL driving tests to be retaken every 5 years and international drivers within a month of arriving.

I'm both a cyclist and a driver; Most people are good drivers and cyclists, some of us drivers and cyclists are selfish idiots all the time ( this is the problem to address), and some of us drivers and cyclists do make occasional mistakes no matter how hard we try not too.

[quote] We need to stop the carnage on the roads, if drivers could only go out with the emergency services and see, first hand, what happens when metal and flesh meet at speed then perhaps, at least for a little while, they may be more sensible.[/quote] I live and travel extensively within the Winchester / Southampton / Portsmouth triangle and every day now there are accidents on the M27 / M3. A very high percentage of these occur at the same places -where 4 lanes merge back into 3 and where slip roads merge with motorways. No-one is prepared to give way and drivers are going too fast. When 4 lanes merge into 3 in the space of a couple of hundred yards, someone has to be big enough to touch the brake pedal. But the drivers in Lanes 3 & 4 play high speed chicken to see who will give way first - then they collide. It's the same with slip roads to join the motorways - drivers undertake at speeds higher than 70mph and expect to join without slowing down. It matters not to them that several other drivers have to brake to avoid a collision caused by their rocket speed, forced entry to the motorway traffic The standard of driving on the M3 & M27 is simply appalling in rush hour traffic. And every day on the motorways, I guarantee to see several people, head cocked to one side, with a phone wedged between their ear and shoulder or holding their phone in their right hand against their left ear thinking no-one can see what they are doing. And those drivers are local taxi drivers, mum's on the school run with kids in the back seats, white van man and car pool BMW (or similar) fleet drivers.

Quote: We need to stop the carnage on the roads, if drivers could only go out with the emergency services and see, first hand, what happens when metal and flesh meet at speed then perhaps, at least for a little while, they may be more sensible.


I live and travel extensively within the Winchester / Southampton / Portsmouth triangle and every day now there are accidents on the M27 / M3.
A very high percentage of these occur at the same places -where 4 lanes merge back into 3 and where slip roads merge with motorways.
No-one is prepared to give way and drivers are going too fast. When 4 lanes merge into 3 in the space of a couple of hundred yards, someone has to be big enough to touch the brake pedal. But the drivers in Lanes 3 & 4 play high speed chicken to see who will give way first - then they collide. It's the same with slip roads to join the motorways - drivers undertake at speeds higher than 70mph and expect to join without slowing down. It matters not to them that several other drivers have to brake to avoid a collision caused by their rocket speed, forced entry to the motorway traffic
The standard of driving on the M3 & M27 is simply appalling in rush hour traffic.
And every day on the motorways, I guarantee to see several people, head cocked to one side, with a phone wedged between their ear and shoulder or holding their phone in their right hand against their left ear thinking no-one can see what they are doing.
And those drivers are local taxi drivers, mum's on the school run with kids in the back seats, white van man and car pool BMW (or similar) fleet drivers.

[quote] wound up with some cyclist’s arrogant/ignorant behaviour.. (snipped) and if he’d collided with an incoming vehicle...?[/quote] The department of transport keep statistics on the cause of accidents. These indicate about 60% of motorists are to blame for accidents they are involved in, with the figure much lower at around 35% for cyclists. It would be better if all (rather than some) motorists, cyclists and pedestrians used the roads and pavements in a responsible manner, As to your "if he collided" comment - does this indicate you have an arrogant attitude to other road users? While I am not excusing the cyclist in any way, a cyclist is usually able to hear another vehicle approaching, unlike a motorist in a sound insulated vehicle. The motorist has to collide with the cyclist for their to be accident! You are talking about a predominantly parking area where responsible drivers travel relatively slowly, anticipating issues like a passenger or driver in a hurry to get to the loo, a small child escaping from parental control etc. By the tone of your comment are you implying motorists are OK to drive at motorway speeds in an area designated for parking?

Quote:

wound up with some cyclist’s arrogant/ignorant behaviour.. (snipped)

and if he’d collided with an incoming vehicle...?

The department of transport keep statistics on the cause of accidents.
These indicate about 60% of motorists are to blame for accidents they are involved in, with the figure much lower at around 35% for cyclists.

It would be better if all (rather than some) motorists, cyclists and pedestrians used the roads and pavements in a responsible manner,

As to your "if he collided" comment - does this indicate you have an arrogant attitude to other road users?
While I am not excusing the cyclist in any way, a cyclist is usually able to hear another vehicle approaching, unlike a motorist in a sound insulated vehicle.

The motorist has to collide with the cyclist for their to be accident!

You are talking about a predominantly parking area where responsible drivers travel relatively slowly, anticipating issues like a passenger or driver in a hurry to get to the loo, a small child escaping from parental control etc.

By the tone of your comment are you implying motorists are OK to drive at motorway speeds in an area designated for parking?