Justice my ar5e

[ajstoneservices]

WDIK

Thanks I know you mean it.

I do feel angry everytime I see someone driving without paying attention. we feel too safe in our cars, vans lorries as we go our merry way it will be 2 years on March the 15th since "Paddy" was killed the rage inside has barely died.

But I'm reasonable too, the facts in each case are too similar not dissimilar all were texting immediately before the crash not ten minutes before, none of them saw the vehicles stopped in front of them. If it were possible to confirm they had been texting at the moment of the crash's then the charges may well have been different.

The police told us that while phone records can prove that someone had been phoning prior to an "accident" they very seldom are able to prove they were being used at the "moment" of the crash. We asked endless questions as to how someone can drive their car through another then claim it wasn't seen. All the points raised by namsag along with many more were questions we asked, the answer we were given is that "most" people do not pay attention when driving its usually called "driver error".

 

[Blasphemous]

We have no idea what he was doing at the time of the accident. There are no witnesses... or at least, there are no 'independent' witnesses. Mr Ahmed did have 2 people in the car with him apparently.

He may well have been using his phone 'at the time' of the accident but who knows how long it took him to dial 999? For example, if he hit the car at 10.30pm he may have checked to see if his passengers were OK, got out and checked the damage, checked the other car's damage then gone to check the driver, found he was unconscious, ran back to his car, got the other passengers out to help, they try to revive the lad, no response... errmm, 'do you think we should dial 999?' All that could have taken 5 mins, 10 mins, I don't know, but unless he called the emergency services 'immediately' then the record of the time he dialled 999 (the recorded time of the accident), will not match his phone company's record of his texting times. It may be a matter of minutes 'before' the recorded time of his call to the police but it's still before.

Like most others here, I believe the penalty for using a phone whilst driving should be a lot heavier. I think it's the only way we'll see people taking any notice of the law. At the minute I personally see that law flouted EVERY day.

 

[conny]

"most" people do not pay attention when driving its usually called "driver error".

and does that include the mother who, after being 'asked' by me to at least sit in the back seat with her 3 month old son when she left the garage, promptly got in the front and with her mate started to point and snigger at me before raising 2 fingers as they drove off with no seat belts on? I feel so sorry for that child.

When we are taught to drive it is ingrained in our thick heads that we MUST concentrate on the road at ALL TIMES! Why then 5, 10 15 years down the line is it called 'driver error'? It is selfishness, plain and simple!
Treat every other driver as an idiot and ALWAYS expect the unexpected.
Rant over.

 

[namsag]

Ajstson.
I am defending no one .
Although you say i am talking boll#x , i would be very surprised if the reasons i gave do not cause far far more road accidents and deaths than the recently new thing of textin or using a phone.
People are quick to have a go at other things but ignore the things they do because they have always done them so they must be safe.

IF your anger is in regards length of sentences that is a whole other issue as they judges can only work within guidelines and opinions vary its human nature

 

[WDIK]

just a suggestion?

lets take it down a peg or two

 

[ajstoneservices]

Namsag,
You maybe right or wrong it makes no difference. My post was about texting in the moments before someone is killed in a crash not someone combing their hair picking their nose or even scratching their ar5e, texting.

It has just been reported on the news LA had spent sixteen minutes texting while driving at 60 miles an hour he had apperently stopped texting 3 miles before the "accident" so is that 3 minutes before? was he reading or constructing a reply? we'll never know.

 

[Blasphemous]

Ajstson.
I am defending no one .
Although you say i am talking boll#x , i would be very surprised if the reasons i gave do not cause far far more road accidents and deaths than the recently new thing of textin or using a phone.
People are quick to have a go at other things but ignore the things they do because they have always done them so they must be safe.

IF your anger is in regards length of sentences that is a whole other issue as they judges can only work within guidelines and opinions vary its human nature

NS I agree to a certain extent but I believe that texting, phoning etc is just 'another' distraction in the long list. We could add, Sat Nav. We could add the amount of information we are expected to take in from road signs. It seems to me that there are road signs for anything and everything these days. Whether the distractions you mention are any worse than texting/phoning I really don't know but one thing is for sure, there is no law against speaking, arguing etc with your wife, children etc in your car. You just shouldn't be doing it as it is without doubt a distraction to your attention. Using a Mobile Phone however is against the law (as all drivers know... hopefully!), but that law, just like speeding, is flouted every single day. I'm not one for all these cameras quite the opposite, I do think however, that many drivers just seem to stick 2 fingers up to this law.

 

[Blasphemous]

It has just been reported on the news LA had spent sixteen minutes texting while driving at 60 miles an hour he had apperently stopped texting 3 miles before the "accident" so is that 3 minutes before? was he reading or constructing a reply? we'll never know.

Exactly, I agree ajstone, we'll never know.

 

[ajstoneservices]

The issue of sentence is the disparity between the other cases given.

The guidelines below

The Panel recommends:

* a short custodial sentence for an offence arising from a momentary error of judgment or short period of bad driving, where there are no aggravating features;
* a custodial sentence of 2-5 years when the standard of the offender's driving is more highly dangerous, e.g. aggressive driving or greatly excessive speed, or when the offender has consumed alcohol or drugs;
* a custodial sentence over 5 years, up to the maximum of 10 years, for the most serious offences, where the offender has driven with complete disregard for the safety of other road users and where other aggravating features are present.

Factors that would increase the seriousness of an offence include:

* the death of more than one victim or serious injury to one or more victims in addition to the death;
* failing to stop or falsely claiming that one of the victims was responsible for the crash; and
* previous convictions for motoring offences, especially if they involved bad driving or the consumption of excessive alcohol before driving.


Now given that tests have shown that using the phone (talking) while driving is at least as dangerous as drink driving surely texting is even worse.

 

[libby lou lou]

Its good to know. asjton. that in your 30 years of driving you have never opened a can of coke and had a drink, light a fag, unwrapped and ate food or sweets , never fumbled while changing radio station or changing cassettes or CD`s. OR the one they say causes the most accidents , losing the nut with the kids or the wife.

A guy said quite few years ago . Let them without sin cast the first stone.

So put it into prespective things you would do as second nature could also be deemed as creating a danger

I tell you what I have done, LOST A FAMILY MEMBER "Paddy" was killed 9 weeks before his eighteenth birthday by someone driving without due care.

I drive expecting everyone else to drive like a complete **** because they usually are. I try not to endanger others but may not drive as well as I could all the time. I don't smoke or use the phone or computer, read a map or play with myself while driving.

You may be playing devils advocate, but I suspect you're defending the indefensible.
So forgive me for thinking your talking bo$$ocks again.

You lost a famlLy member, ls thls what lt's all about ?

 

[Blasphemous]

You lost a famlLy member, ls thls what lt's all about ?

What difference does it make for his motivation?

On a lighter note... have you STILL not got a new bloody keyboard?

 

[ajstoneservices]

You lost a famlLy member, ls thls what lt's all about ?

There's a clue at the beginning of this thread my family's experience has little to do with it.