A drunk driver who ran over a 10-year-old cyclist in West Sussex then drove home with the youngster’s bike wedged under his car has been jailed for two and a half years (link is external).

The victim, from Pulborough, was cycling along Church Street, West Chiltington, with his father and another rider when the local resident, 76 year old Keith Vernon, who lives in the village, struck him from behind.

The child was thrown over his bike’s handlebars and onto the road, with Vernon continuing to drive over him despite shouts from the two other cyclists as well as members of the public for him to stop.

He then reversed over the boy, destroying his cycle helmet – as shown in the picture below, supplied by Sussex Police – before driving away.
Keith Vernon case - victim's cycle helmet (via Sussex Police)

The incident happened at around 10.20pm on 6 October last year, with the victim sustaining a broken collarbone, fractured vertebrae, a fractured pelvis, a dislocated hip and facial injuries.

Police officers went to the address of the registered keeper of the Renault Twingo car involved in the crash and found it unattended, with the driver – subsequently identified ads Vernon – having mounted a kerb and with the bike still wedged underneath the vehicle.

Vernon, who is retired, was breathalysed and found to be more than twice the legal limit for drink-driving, returning a reading of 77mcg of alcohol per 100ml of breath in his system. The legal limit is 35mcg.

He pleaded guilty in February at Worthing Magistrates’ Court to causing serious injury by dangerous driving, drink-driving and failing to stop after a road traffic collision.

Yesterday, he was sentenced at Hove Crown Court to two and a half years in jail and was also banned from driving for four and a half years.

Jailing Vernon, Judge Shani Barnes said that he had made a conscious decision to drive despite being drunk, and rejected his claim that he had not seen the cyclists, and that he did not know the victim was under his car.

She said that he had sought to protect himself over anyone else, deciding to go home and making no attempt to call 999 nor to return to the scene.

Senior Investigating officer, Sergeant Richard Hornsey of Sussex Police said: “Vernon was driving home after drinking in a local pub and was over the drink-drive limit when he collided with the cyclist. This was clearly a traumatic incident for those directly involved, but it has also affected the wider community.

“Vernon ignored the pleas of the bystanders, which included the child’s father, and they described the wheels of the car spinning as Vernon tried to drive away while the child and the bicycle were trapped underneath.

“The child was wearing a cycle helmet which received significant damage but protected him from a more serious head injury.

“Vernon drove for over a quarter of a mile through the village with the bicycle trapped under his car, but at no point did he stop to check if the cyclist was still underneath, which shows a complete disregard for the safety of other road users,” he added.

https://road.cc/content/news/drunk-driver-drove-home-childs-bike-wedged-under-car-283521

On 21/05/2021 11:34 am, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:

> A drunk driver who ran over a 10-year-old cyclist in West Sussex then drove home with the youngster’s bike wedged under his car has been jailed for two and a half years (link is external).
> The victim, from Pulborough, was cycling along Church Street, West Chiltington, with his father and another rider when the local resident, 76 year old Keith Vernon, who lives in the village, struck him from behind.
> The child was thrown over his bike’s handlebars and onto the road, with Vernon continuing to drive over him despite shouts from the two other cyclists as well as members of the public for him to stop.
> He then reversed over the boy, destroying his cycle helmet – as shown in the picture below, supplied by Sussex Police – before driving away.
> Keith Vernon case - victim's cycle helmet (via Sussex Police)
> The incident happened at around 10.20pm on 6 October last year, with the victim sustaining a broken collarbone, fractured vertebrae, a fractured pelvis, a dislocated hip and facial injuries.
> Police officers went to the address of the registered keeper of the Renault Twingo car involved in the crash and found it unattended, with the driver – subsequently identified ads Vernon – having mounted a kerb and with the bike still wedged underneath the vehicle.
> Vernon, who is retired, was breathalysed and found to be more than twice the legal limit for drink-driving, returning a reading of 77mcg of alcohol per 100ml of breath in his system. The legal limit is 35mcg.
> He pleaded guilty in February at Worthing Magistrates’ Court to causing serious injury by dangerous driving, drink-driving and failing to stop after a road traffic collision.
> Yesterday, he was sentenced at Hove Crown Court to two and a half years in jail and was also banned from driving for four and a half years.
> Jailing Vernon, Judge Shani Barnes said that he had made a conscious decision to drive despite being drunk, and rejected his claim that he had not seen the cyclists, and that he did not know the victim was under his car.
> She said that he had sought to protect himself over anyone else, deciding to go home and making no attempt to call 999 nor to return to the scene.
> Senior Investigating officer, Sergeant Richard Hornsey of Sussex Police said: “Vernon was driving home after drinking in a local pub and was over the drink-drive limit when he collided with the cyclist. This was clearly a traumatic incident for those directly involved, but it has also affected the wider community.
> “Vernon ignored the pleas of the bystanders, which included the child’s father, and they described the wheels of the car spinning as Vernon tried to drive away while the child and the bicycle were trapped underneath.
> “The child was wearing a cycle helmet which received significant damage but protected him from a more serious head injury.
> “Vernon drove for over a quarter of a mile through the village with the bicycle trapped under his car, but at no point did he stop to check if the cyclist was still underneath, which shows a complete disregard for the safety of other road users,” he added.
>
> https://road.cc/content/news/drunk-driver-drove-home-childs-bike-wedged-under-car-283521

QUOTE:
“The child was wearing a cycle helmet which received significant damage
but protected him from a more serious head injury".
ENDQUOTE

That's interesting, if possibly also a little controversial.

The follow-up comments are of additional interest, with many
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.

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.

On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 11:34:57 AM UTC+1, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
Stephan Matthiesen | 155 posts | 2 hours ago
3 likes

The report doesn't say if the driver had any points on the license (sic) or a previous history of bad driving. 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.

We really need to catch bad drivers before they cause harm like this.

In the villages I know it's not unusual that everybody knows that someone always drives drunk, but "fortunately the police are lenient around here because they know you can't live here without a car" (real quote).

There's a lot of social pressure in the wrong direction, and for a local pub landlord it's not actually so easy to stop a drunk unless he's already a total outsider. In the end we need enforcement from police there and can't rely on social control alone.
There was a story on one of those Police-Speed-Interceptors-Traffic-Cops shows, I think it was an old episode (they usually are).

A "member of the public" had phoned in to say that "Bob" was in the local pub, had driven there, and usually drives home again after he'd had a skinful. So 'Our Policeman' was sent to hang around nearby in a marked car while another policeman sat in the pub car park in an unmarked car.

It took about ten minutes before 'Our Policeman' said to camera, "That woman has walked past twice now", and another ten before he got a call from headquarters saying that the local FB page had a warning that the police were hanging around to 'entrap' people...

Both police cars had to leave, their covers blown, because people were more concerned about 'entrapment' than about someone drunk driving...

The segment ended with them going past a little later, noticing that the vehicle they were looking for had moved and tracked it down, finding the owner locking it up and walking into his house. He was three times over the limit.

>
> https://road.cc/content/news/drunk-driver-drove-home-childs-bike-wedged-under-car-283521

On Friday, May 21, 2021 at 11:34:57 AM UTC+1, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
panda replied to Jenova20 | 12 posts | 2 hours ago
2 likes
This must have caused circuit-failure in the typical daily mail reader's brain. On the one hand the response to any article about sentencing has to be outrage at the leniency and a call for a return to the halcyon days of capital punishment, but on the other hand he was an elderly gent going about his constitutional right to drive home from his local after a skinful and doing the world a favour by reducing the number of cyclists on the road by 1.. Which side to come down on?

More importantly, does anyone have a medical update on the young lad.

QUITE.
> https://road.cc/content/news/drunk-driver-drove-home-childs-bike-wedged-under-car-283521

On 21/05/2021 12:39, JNugent wrote:
> On 21/05/2021 11:34 am, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> https://road.cc/content/news/drunk-driver-drove-home-childs-bike-wedged-under-car-283521
>>
>
> The follow-up comments are of additional interest, with many
> 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?

> 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.

On 22/05/2021 12:28 pm, TMS320 wrote:

> On 21/05/2021 12:39, JNugent wrote:
>> On 21/05/2021 11:34 am, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>> https://road.cc/content/news/drunk-driver-drove-home-childs-bike-wedged-under-car-283521
>>>
>>
>> The follow-up comments are of additional interest, with many
>> 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.

>> 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.

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, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>> https://road.cc/content/news/drunk-driver-drove-home-childs-bike-wedged-under-car-283521
>>>>
>>>
>>> The follow-up comments are of additional interest, with many
>>> 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
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
external (and possibly extraneous) issues can be different.

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, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://road.cc/content/news/drunk-driver-drove-home-childs-bike-wedged-under-car-283521
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The follow-up comments are of additional interest, with many
>>>> 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
> 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
> external (and possibly extraneous) issues can be different.

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

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.

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, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://road.cc/content/news/drunk-driver-drove-home-childs-bike-wedged-under-car-283521
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The follow-up comments are of additional interest, with many
>>>>> 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
>> 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
>> 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.

> 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.

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, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>>>>>> https://road.cc/content/news/drunk-driver-drove-home-childs-bike-wedged-under-car-283521
>
>>>>>> The follow-up comments are of additional interest, with many
>>>>>>  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
>>>  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
>>>  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 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.

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).

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 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, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> https://road.cc/content/news/drunk-driver-drove-home-childs-bike-wedged-under-car-283521
>>
>>
>>>>>>> The follow-up comments are of additional interest, with many
>>>>>>>  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
>>>>  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
>>>>  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 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, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>> https://road.cc/content/news/drunk-driver-drove-home-childs-bike-wedged-under-car-283521
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>> The follow-up comments are of additional interest, with many
>>>>>>>>  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
>>>>>  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
>>>>>  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 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, swldx...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://road.cc/content/news/drunk-driver-drove-home-childs-bike-wedged-under-car-283521
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The follow-up comments are of additional interest, with many
>>>>>>>>>  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
>>>>>>  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
>>>>>>  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, swldx...@gmail.com 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.