What sentence does this taxi man deserve? Answers on a postcard to Glasgow Sheriff Court within the next three weeks.

 

BBC NEWS | Scotland | Glasgow, Lanarkshire and West | Taxi ran down cyclist on purpose

He deliberately used his vehicle as a weapon to inflict actual bodily harm on another human being.

 

He should be SECTIONED!

He certainly should lose his licence for a year and therefore his livelyhood, and a short prison sentence would be appropriate in addition. There should also be a requirement to take and pass the full driving test in future before his licence is restored.

.

A year in jail? He should do at least five. Whatever way you look at it, whoever was in the wrong in the first instance, that driver deliberately targetted the cyclist and could have killed him. That's attempted murder in my book.

I shall look out for the sentencing report in the local press. As he has been convicted of assault, rather than a breach of the Road Traffic Acts, the court cannot excuse a light sentence on the grounds that only the degree of reckless or careless driving can be taken into account with no regard for the consequences (other than, thanks to recent amendments, where death results).

 

Nevertheless as the weapon in this assault was a motor vehicle rather than a gun or a knife, or an axe, or a fist, be prepared for a more lenient outcome than if any other weapon had been used.

Just goes to show how ridiculous some people can be – to deliberately try to maim / kill another road user just because they react to their poor driving.

I would consider that attempted murder not assault.

I hope the judge sees this for what it is and gives him the stiffest sentence possible

 

flecc posted:

.... There should also be a requirement to take and pass the full driving test in future before his licence is restored ....

 

I think when people use a vehicle like this (as a weapon) they should loss their licence for life.

.

Edited October 7, 200817 yr by Footie

Nevertheless as the weapon in this assault was a motor vehicle rather than a gun or a knife, or an axe, or a fist, be prepared for a more lenient outcome than if any other weapon had been used.

 

I tend to agree with your thoughts on this. And regardless of the type of weapon used, it seems that in “Violent Britain”, brutal aggression is an acceptable recourse if the person metering it out believes that the victim has in some way shown him disrespect. Add to this the government’s desire to befriend and to assist the criminals in going about their business, it makes me think that this taxi driver will receive a fine and non-custodial sentence. But we will just have to wait and see.

 

flecc posted:

.... There should also be a requirement to take and pass the full driving test in future before his licence is restored ....

 

I think when people use a vehicle like this (as a weapon) they should loss their licence for life.

.

 

I'm taking the realistic view of what could happen of course, rather than any ideal.

 

Where the length of prison sentence is concerned, I have a rooted objection to keeping people in prison for many years at a cost to us of well over £1000 per person per week. After all, it's they who should be punished, not us.

 

I'd like to see very much shorter sentences for most offences, to a miserable prison regime with all day hard work, the identical bowl of stew and a chunk of rye bread and water only to drink every day, and no amenities like TV, visiting privileges etc.

 

That way most sentences could be slashed to a fraction of their present length and be far more effective deterrents with the cost to us massively reduced. At present a sentence actually brings an improvement to their life for many convicts, and that is about as daft as a system could be.

,

,

 

Change of signature or typo. I like it, it suggests that there is more to come.

The ultimate irony would be for him to lose his license and have to get a bike. Shame we can't get people like this hooked up to the national grid. On gernerating machines that is.

A little something posted on my local rags website...

 

Link: Driver throws cyclists bike into hedge!

a few months ago on LBC talk radio a london cab driver called in and said, he had stopped in traffic and heard a thump behind. A cyclist had collided side on across the back of his cab. he had a heated discussion with him and as the cyclist rode of he spat in the cab drivers face through the window. The cabby admitted he lost it completely and chased the cyclist down a one way street etc.. unfortunately I cant remember if he hit him or came to his senses......

and that's the flipside. Cyclists are as prone to road rage as anyone else. If the cyclist had taken a slap from the cabby that would have been his own fault. Ddeliberately spitting in someone's face is not only intended to humiliate but can these days be considered an assault in itself.

Yes. I've seen many incidences of cyclist road rage, and in my commuting into central London days the cyclists were definitely the worst for it, especially from the sporting lycra/drop handlebar brigade.

 

Of course there might be an element of fear/fright playing a part in it, since a perceived near miss is very much more alarming for a cyclist than for someone in a reinforced tin box. The adrenalin boost could easily trigger the rage.

.

I'd like to see very much shorter sentences for most offences, to a miserable prison regime with all day hard work, the identical bowl of stew and a chunk of rye bread and water only to drink every day, and no amenities like TV, visiting privileges etc.

 

,

 

 

Whilst most of the UK population, including myself would agree with this statement and would probably include public humiliation (stocks?) and flogging, you wouldn't get any of it past the invisible PC brigade who rule this country and would claim that his human rights were being violated etcetera etcetera et bl**dy cetera. On the other hand, the victim doesn't have any human rights, seemingly.

Whilst most of the UK population, including myself would agree with this statement and would probably include public humiliation (stocks?) and flogging, you wouldn't get any of it past the invisible PC brigade who rule this country and would claim that his human rights were being violated etcetera etcetera et bl**dy cetera. On the other hand, the victim doesn't have any human rights, seemingly.

 

Sadly true carigada. One big problem is the existence of countries with very soft regimes who have more success than us with much lower crime rates. I believe that in most cases this is due to those countries having very different cultures and child upbringing methods, but all too often their better performance is attributed to their "humane" methods, and we suffer in consequence.

.

...would claim that his human rights were being violated...

 

I take it that you don't believe that prisoners have any human rights?

It is more a case that the definition of "Human Rights" has become abused.

I take it that you don't believe that prisoners have any human rights?

 

John, I know you're replying to carigada but do you really think that someone who has committed crimes against society should have the same rights on the inside than they do on the outside?

 

What are human rights anyway?

 

Should it not be the case that all humans have the right to live their lives free from fear of crime, or violence, or victimisation? Should it really be the case that those who transgress the rights of others be allowed themselves to keep those same rights?

 

I'm not for one second suggesting that anyone in prison should be fair game for a beating, but they certainly don't deserve to enjoy the same comforts and privileges as the majority of people that manage to live their lives without harming others.

John, I know you're replying to carigada but do you really think that someone who has committed crimes against society should have the same rights on the inside than they do on the outside?

 

If you mean human rights, yes.

 

What are human rights anyway?

 

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

 

Should it not be the case that all humans have the right to live their lives free from fear of crime, or violence, or victimisation?

 

Yes.

 

Should it really be the case that those who transgress the rights of others be allowed themselves to keep those same rights?

 

That contradicts the above statement ("...all humans...").

 

I'm not for one second suggesting that anyone in prison should be fair game for a beating, but they certainly don't deserve to enjoy the same comforts and privileges as the majority of people that manage to live their lives without harming others.

 

Agreed. Comforts and privileges are not rights.

 

That contradicts the above statement ("...all humans...").

 

It was a question, not a statement.

 

 

Agreed. Comforts and privileges are not rights.

 

Which is kind of what I was driving at. Prison isn't always the answer, but neither is cosseting those that blatantly flout the law.

 

As for having the same rights inside than out? Human rights yes. Can't argue with that. Anything else, no, sorry mate, you gave up any such rights when the crime was committed.

I take it that you don't believe that prisoners have any human rights?

 

Prisoners do have human rights and quite rightly so, but we will have to agree on a definition of human rights. The most fundamental human right is the right to live. If we broaden the description, I would say that things like the right to have food, water and shelter would come into it. All of this I agree with for prisoners.

 

You can add other things but then we start getting to the grey area. For example, televisions and games consoles in prisons are not a fundamental human right, although the PC brigade would probably say different. I think that prison should be a deterrent, and should be made to be as hard and unpleasant as possible to achieve this aim.

 

Our taxi driver example has by his actions indicated that the human rights of others in society are not important to him. I believe that those who have by their actions rejected the fundamental principles of our society do not deserve anything from this society but the most basic of 'human rights’ in return. This happens already. For example, we deprive a prisoner of his ‘liberty’ even though liberty is one of the rights laid down in the Universal Declaration.

Edited October 9, 200817 yr by carigada

While we await the sentence of the court (which, as the weapon was a motor vehicle, is unlikely to be condign) perhaps it would be instructive to consider how best to avoid a similar confrontation at a similar road junction.

 

I am not familiar with the scene of the crime, and we have only the brief court report about what happened, but there is apparently a roundabout with centre islands at the entrances. The assailant overtook the cyclist at one of these centre islands and passed too close for safety.

 

How to avoid this? First thing I would suggest is a bar mirror for a brief observation 50 to 100 metres away from the junction to see what if anything is about to enter the same junction. Second thing to do, having checked the mirror and turned the head, would be to move out to the "prime" riding position (60 cms from the kerb according to the woeful Highway Code, 100 cms according to experienced cyclists, but in my own opinion in such a situation, preferably the centre of the relevant lane, to block any following vehicles).

 

I would advise this position also on approaching a left hand bend, which is what in effect we encounter at the entrance to a roundabout, with the added danger that drivers will be looking to their right to give way to traffic already on the roundabout. If the cyclist is positioned in the middle of the lane the following vehicle cannot overtake, and the driver, looking to the right, will still be able to see the cyclist out of the corner of his eye (assuming no tunnel vision, mobile phone to left ear, or drug induced blindness, of course).

 

There is the possibility, if there has been a preceding incident causing road rage, that the driver will deliberately run down the centre-of-lane cyclist, as the assailant did in the instant case at the exit from the roundabout. I would suggest that the best thing to do, if at all possible, after an incident of the near-miss kind is to dismount at the side of the road and wave the offender on with a fascetious grand Regency fop type gesture, but with only two fingers extended in a horizontal V sign. Be ready of course to remount and race off in the opposite direction in case such a give-way gesture is wrongly (or should I say correctly) interpreted.

I'd say 2 year driving ban, short prison sentence and compulsory anger management rehabilitation. I also think that the government has something to answer for as this wouldn't have happened but for the appalling provisions made for cyclists and the gridlocked nature of the roads in general which can make many people do irrational things and 'moments of madness'.

... the gridlocked nature of the roads ...

 

Surely this is due to the number of cars on them! Let's have more congestion charging!