Drunk driver ran over 10-year-old cyclist – then drove home with bike wedged under car

On 24/05/2021 15:34, JNugent wrote:
On 24/05/2021 10:25 am, TMS320 wrote:
On 24/05/2021 01:32, JNugent wrote:
On 22/05/2021 09:43 pm, TMS320 wrote:
On 22/05/2021 15:18, JNugent wrote:
On 22/05/2021 12:28 pm, TMS320 wrote:
On 21/05/2021 12:39, JNugent wrote:
On 21/05/2021 11:34 am, wrote:

https://road.cc/content/news/drunk-d...der-car-283521


The follow-up comments are of additional interest, with many
Â*Collins-type harumphing complaints that the court should
have handed down a lifetime ban from driving. You know, a
punishment that doesn't actually exist in law and which as a
consequence, the court may not inflict (some liberal nonsense
about courts having to act lawfully, I expect). Perhaps there
are a few banana republics around the world where arbitrary
power of that sort may be wielded.

What is the maximum punishment available to the court? Was it
more than a measly 54 month driving ban and if it was, why
wasn't it applied?

I don't know offhand what the maximum penalties might have been
(you could always look up the legislation), but would suggest
that in the circumstances of that particular offender, the
penalties handed down were fairly robust. There has to be a
chance that he won't outlive the end of either part.

Perhaps, but just because something doesn't exist is no reason why
Â*people can't harrumph about it.

As it happens, a 74 year old given a disqualification for 54
months has probably got something pretty close to a lifetime
driving ban, given average life expectancy. There's more than
a fair chance that he'll never drive again. Getting insurance
may be a significant problem after his disqualification
period expires. From what I hear, it's even a problem for
octogenarians who have not committed any offences at all, let
alone serious ones like this.

If the law wasn't infallible a 20 year old under identical
circumstances should get the same sentence. The practicalities
are irrelevant.

The circumstances as compared between a 20-yr-old offender and a
74-yr-old offender cannot possibly be "identical" for obvious
reasons. You'd have to invent a new meaning for "identical" to
accommodate that.

Of course the circumstances of the incident can be identical. Only
Â*external (and possibly extraneous) issues can be different.

The contemporary circumstances *and* antecedence of an offender are
*always* taken into account for sentencing purposes.

Yes, but you're just telling us that the law takes external matters
into account. We know that already from the stories about people
getting lenient sentences after grovelling to the judge.

"External matters" are part of the circumstances. People bring their
personal circumstances (and their personal histories) with them wherever
they go.

How could they possibly not?

The road is a place where skills have to be considered, not personal issues.

The circumstances as compared between a 20-yr-old offender and a
74-yr-old offender cannot possibly be "identical" for obvious
reasons. You'd have to invent a new meaning for "identical" to
accommodate that.

There is nothing to invent in the definition of identical.

I rather suspect that if you heard of a case in which a 20-yr-old was up
on a charge of driving without due care and attention and had a
score-card of half a dozen previous offences of a similar nature, you'd
be miffed if he were not banned.

The case is about running people over. If the law allows someone to get
a "score card" we have a very serious problem.

I also rather suspect that if you, at the age, of say, 60, were up on a
charge of the same offence but had absolutely history of such offences
in 40 years of faultless driving, you'd be pretty miffed to be treated
the same - and to get the same outcome - as the 20-yr-old tearaway.
You'd have a reasonable expectation of your record being taken into
account (and counting in your favour).

When such a serious brain failure occurs after 40 years, history is not
going to fix anything.

You wouldn't be alone in that.

But see? You *do* agree with *all* the circumstances being taken into
account and rightly see the decisions of courts to be taken a bit more
seriously and solemnly than those of traffic wardens when handing out
FPNs for parking.

On Tuesday, May 25, 2021 at 9:43:16 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:

When such a serious brain failure occurs after 40 years, history is not
going to fix anything.

Quite:

". People don't just suddenly get drunk at age 76 and totally lose control after a life of responsible driving, so I do wonder if it wasn't the first time and he previously had just been lucky not to cause any collisions before. "

On 25/05/2021 09:43 am, TMS320 wrote:
On 24/05/2021 15:34, JNugent wrote:
On 24/05/2021 10:25 am, TMS320 wrote:
On 24/05/2021 01:32, JNugent wrote:
On 22/05/2021 09:43 pm, TMS320 wrote:
On 22/05/2021 15:18, JNugent wrote:
On 22/05/2021 12:28 pm, TMS320 wrote:
On 21/05/2021 12:39, JNugent wrote:
On 21/05/2021 11:34 am, wrote:

https://road.cc/content/news/drunk-d...der-car-283521



The follow-up comments are of additional interest, with many
Â*Collins-type harumphing complaints that the court should
have handed down a lifetime ban from driving. You know, a
punishment that doesn't actually exist in law and which as a
consequence, the court may not inflict (some liberal nonsense
about courts having to act lawfully, I expect). Perhaps there
are a few banana republics around the world where arbitrary
power of that sort may be wielded.

What is the maximum punishment available to the court? Was it
more than a measly 54 month driving ban and if it was, why
wasn't it applied?

I don't know offhand what the maximum penalties might have been
(you could always look up the legislation), but would suggest
that in the circumstances of that particular offender, the
penalties handed down were fairly robust. There has to be a
chance that he won't outlive the end of either part.

Perhaps, but just because something doesn't exist is no reason why
Â*people can't harrumph about it.

As it happens, a 74 year old given a disqualification for 54
months has probably got something pretty close to a lifetime
driving ban, given average life expectancy. There's more than
a fair chance that he'll never drive again. Getting insurance
may be a significant problem after his disqualification
period expires. From what I hear, it's even a problem for
octogenarians who have not committed any offences at all, let
alone serious ones like this.

If the law wasn't infallible a 20 year old under identical
circumstances should get the same sentence. The practicalities
are irrelevant.

The circumstances as compared between a 20-yr-old offender and a
74-yr-old offender cannot possibly be "identical" for obvious
reasons. You'd have to invent a new meaning for "identical" to
accommodate that.

Of course the circumstances of the incident can be identical. Only
Â*external (and possibly extraneous) issues can be different.

The contemporary circumstances *and* antecedence of an offender are
*always* taken into account for sentencing purposes.

Yes, but you're just telling us that the law takes external matters
into account. We know that already from the stories about people
getting lenient sentences after grovelling to the judge.

"External matters" are part of the circumstances. People bring their
personal circumstances (and their personal histories) with them
wherever they go.

How could they possibly not?

The road is a place where skills have to be considered, not personal
issues.

"Everything" that surrounds an incident is a circumstance.

Did they not offer Latin at your secondary school?

The circumstances as compared between a 20-yr-old offender and a
74-yr-old offender cannot possibly be "identical" for obvious
reasons. You'd have to invent a new meaning for "identical" to
accommodate that.

There is nothing to invent in the definition of identical.

I rather suspect that if you heard of a case in which a 20-yr-old was
up on a charge of driving without due care and attention and had a
score-card of half a dozen previous offences of a similar nature,
you'd be miffed if he were not banned.

The case is about running people over.

Knocking a pedestrian over will often not be a driver's fault.

In many other cases, though, the charge will be "driving without due
care and attention".

Come on... you *know* that. Don't act daft.

If the law allows someone to get
a "score card" we have a very serious problem.

I don't accept that you are so misinformed as to imagine that
antecedence is of no relevance or interest to a court.

You're being dafter than usual.

I also rather suspect that if you, at the age, of say, 60, were up on
a charge of the same offence but had absolutely history of such
offences in 40 years of faultless driving, you'd be pretty miffed to
be treated the same - and to get the same outcome - as the 20-yr-old
tearaway. You'd have a reasonable expectation of your record being
taken into account (and counting in your favour).

When such a serious brain failure occurs after 40 years, history is not
going to fix anything.

That is not the issue. And you know that, despite your affected air of
ignorance.

You wouldn't be alone in that.

But see? You *do* agree with *all* the circumstances being taken into
account and rightly see the decisions of courts to be taken a bit more
seriously and solemnly than those of traffic wardens when handing out
FPNs for parking.

On Tuesday, May 25, 2021 at 9:43:16 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:

The case is about running people over.

It's a bit more serious than simply running over a child. He ran over the child, THEN *reversed* over him THEN dragged him under the car before abandoning the vehicle before running off. He was more than DOUBLE the drink drive limit. This piece of scum only got 2 1/2 years in jail. A pathetic sentence in any point of view.

On 25/05/2021 14:29, JNugent wrote:
On 25/05/2021 09:43 am, TMS320 wrote:
On 24/05/2021 15:34, JNugent wrote:
On 24/05/2021 10:25 am, TMS320 wrote:
On 24/05/2021 01:32, JNugent wrote:
On 22/05/2021 09:43 pm, TMS320 wrote:
On 22/05/2021 15:18, JNugent wrote:
On 22/05/2021 12:28 pm, TMS320 wrote:
On 21/05/2021 12:39, JNugent wrote:
On 21/05/2021 11:34 am, wrote:

https://road.cc/content/news/drunk-d...der-car-283521




The follow-up comments are of additional interest, with many
Â*Collins-type harumphing complaints that the court should
have handed down a lifetime ban from driving. You know, a
punishment that doesn't actually exist in law and which as a
consequence, the court may not inflict (some liberal nonsense
about courts having to act lawfully, I expect). Perhaps there
are a few banana republics around the world where arbitrary
power of that sort may be wielded.

What is the maximum punishment available to the court? Was it
more than a measly 54 month driving ban and if it was, why
wasn't it applied?

I don't know offhand what the maximum penalties might have been
(you could always look up the legislation), but would suggest
that in the circumstances of that particular offender, the
penalties handed down were fairly robust. There has to be a
chance that he won't outlive the end of either part.

Perhaps, but just because something doesn't exist is no reason why
Â*people can't harrumph about it.

As it happens, a 74 year old given a disqualification for 54
months has probably got something pretty close to a lifetime
driving ban, given average life expectancy. There's more than
a fair chance that he'll never drive again. Getting insurance
may be a significant problem after his disqualification
period expires. From what I hear, it's even a problem for
octogenarians who have not committed any offences at all, let
alone serious ones like this.

If the law wasn't infallible a 20 year old under identical
circumstances should get the same sentence. The practicalities
are irrelevant.

The circumstances as compared between a 20-yr-old offender and a
74-yr-old offender cannot possibly be "identical" for obvious
reasons. You'd have to invent a new meaning for "identical" to
accommodate that.

Of course the circumstances of the incident can be identical. Only
Â*external (and possibly extraneous) issues can be different.

The contemporary circumstances *and* antecedence of an offender are
*always* taken into account for sentencing purposes.

Yes, but you're just telling us that the law takes external matters
into account. We know that already from the stories about people
getting lenient sentences after grovelling to the judge.

"External matters" are part of the circumstances. People bring their
personal circumstances (and their personal histories) with them
wherever they go.

How could they possibly not?

The road is a place where skills have to be considered, not personal
issues.

"Everything" that surrounds an incident is a circumstance
Did they not offer Latin at your secondary school?

I did. I was good it it but didn't take the O level because I disliked
the teacher. Think Monty Python.

The circumstances as compared between a 20-yr-old offender and a
74-yr-old offender cannot possibly be "identical" for obvious
reasons. You'd have to invent a new meaning for "identical" to
accommodate that.

There is nothing to invent in the definition of identical.

I rather suspect that if you heard of a case in which a 20-yr-old was
up on a charge of driving without due care and attention and had a
score-card of half a dozen previous offences of a similar nature,
you'd be miffed if he were not banned.

The case is about running people over.

Knocking a pedestrian over will often not be a driver's fault.

This case is about running someone over.

In many other cases, though, the charge will be "driving without due
care and attention".

Come on... you *know* that. Don't act daft.

If the law allows someone to get a "score card" we have a very serious
problem.

I don't accept that you are so misinformed as to imagine that
antecedence is of no relevance or interest to a court.

It is not necessary to be misinformed to disagree with something.

You're being dafter than usual.

I find it difficult to believe that someone can be so daft to think the
law is perfect.

I also rather suspect that if you, at the age, of say, 60, were up on
a charge of the same offence but had absolutely history of such
offences in 40 years of faultless driving, you'd be pretty miffed to
be treated the same - and to get the same outcome - as the 20-yr-old
tearaway. You'd have a reasonable expectation of your record being
taken into account (and counting in your favour).

When such a serious brain failure occurs after 40 years, history is
not going to fix anything.

That is not the issue. And you know that, despite your affected air of
ignorance.

Deterioration of the brain with age is an established phenomenon. And
it's never going to improve. Remarkable that you don't know that.

On 25/05/2021 17:22, wrote:
On Tuesday, May 25, 2021 at 9:43:16 AM UTC+1, TMS320 wrote:

The case is about running people over.

It's a bit more serious than simply running over a child. He ran over
the child, THEN *reversed* over him THEN dragged him under the car
before abandoning the vehicle before running off. He was more than
DOUBLE the drink drive limit. This piece of scum only got 2 1/2 years
in jail. A pathetic sentence in any point of view.

Indeed. Except Nugent can't handle more than one simple idea at a time.