In this case it would have been much better to give said person community service. The guy was hit while walking in the road at 4am which is a fairly risky thing to do when there is no pavement. No one knows where he was in the road and for all we know he was staggering in the middle of the lane rather than walking close to the verge.
If the tyres were bald and it was dry they would have actually provided better braking than tyres with tread, somebody tested it in a magazine I think. If the weather was wet then the reverse would be true. I am sure the inquest would have been capable of deciding whether the state of her vehicle contributed to the accident. Her car would have been damaged and from that you could probably make a good guess as to what actually happened without necessarily needing a witness.
teabelly
|
This thread has been an eye opener for me. That people can honestly argue against punishing someone because they cannot afford to pay the fine is mind-boggling. There is a new moniker for such people "Don't do the crime if you can afford to pay the fine".
That they can argue against putting that person in jail because they have children is just as unbelievable. Are they suggesting that the child would be better off being raised by a habitual criminal posing as a parent?. That is a great role model for the young ones. "Mum can break the law daily and get away with it because she is poor, so why shouldn't we steal these sweets, we have even less money than her!".
If the whole mess wasn't so sad I would be on the floor laughing right now.
|
Wonder if she'll manage to pay up, or become part of the statistic for however many millions it is in fines that go uncollected each year?
My two-ha'porth: if my finances, heaven forbid, got to the stage where I would have to drive illegally in a possibly unroadworthy vehicle, it would be bye-bye car, no question.
Sure, it'd be a hell of a nuisance, but my reasons for this are
1) I know that I would be the one who gets caught
2) If the car had e.g. duff tyres or knackered brakes, and an accident such as this was caused or contributed to because of it, I am not sure that I could live with that on my conscience.
It appears that our friend has sussed this out now, from the quote from her lawyer supplied by an earlier poster, but frankly it's a bit late.
|
|
|
It's absolutely disgusting that they have practically let her off this - they've let her out on the streets knowing that she will in the near future drive around without the necessary documentation.
Apart from the fact there's the moral obligation to ensure you and your vehicle are in a road-worthy condition, the grieving families have no comeback.
If she can't afford to run the car properly - don't get one!
|
|
|
This thread has been an eye opener for me. That people can honestly argue against punishing someone because they cannot afford to pay the fine is mind-boggling. There is a new moniker for such people "Don't do the crime if you can afford to pay the fine". That they can argue against putting that person in jail because they have children is just as unbelievable. Are they suggesting that the child would be better off being raised by a habitual criminal posing as a parent?. That is a great role model for the young ones. "Mum can break the law daily and get away with it because she is poor, so why shouldn't we steal these sweets, we have even less money than her!". If the whole mess wasn't so sad I would be on the floor laughing right now.
Well I guess they could save us all a lot of trouble and maybe just shoot her? And her kids too for having the audacity to be born to such a no hoper of a mum. in fact lets shoot her parents as well...
yeah that'll learn 'em.
No-one is suggesting she shouldn't be punished but the fact is you know only what has been reported, you do not the full circumstances so you are in no position to judge her or the sentence.
You may like to see your taxes being used to raise this womans children, I don't.
You may consider jail to be the only way to deal with people, I don't.
|
What I wrote had nothing to do with declaring the woman innocent or guilty, merely with the way someone, who had been found guilty of an offense, is dealt with. But you are right, I don't know the full circumstances, maybe she wasn't driving illegally and was just a helpless pawn in a grand conspiracy to stitch up the under-priviledged.
If she is that poor then its a high probability that our taxes are already being used to raise her children. Putting them in foster care might actually ensure that the taxes were used to care for the children and not to buy and run illegal cars.
Jail is the best way to deal with *some* people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dalglish
Thank you for associating me with the loony left. It had to happen sometime, I suppose, but it's never happened before!
To explain:
2. Even the Mirror article (that balanced report!) stated 'Matthews, who tested negative for drugs and alcohol,' so I think we can be fairly certain that the police caught up with her in time to be certain that she was not under the influence at the time of the accident. We can be certain that if the police could have thrown the book at her, they would.
5. The tyres were faulty. The conjecture is as to whether they might have reduced her breaking distance had they been in better condition. We can be fairly certain that (as another poster has stated) that if the police could have thrown the book at her, they would. F1 yawn-cars don't have any tread on their tyres, remember!
Essentially, yes she is beyond the laws of the land. Lock her up, and then it costs us a fortune (prison is £000s per week, care for the child etc.) A tricky one, but hanging would be a bit drastic!
|
F1 yawn-cars don't have any tread on their tyres, remember!
sorry, but they do, even dry tyres (used to be slicks) now have to have four grooves across the tyre width, but i agree with the rest of your post.
as for my two-cents worth, once again, the police and relatives have been let down by the bench, she can consider herself a very lucky woman, which she probably does.
|
The thing is though, she probably doesn't.
|
|
|
The whole use of fines is a bit of a farce it seems to me. If you have no money and you commit an offence (and get caught!) you can't afford to pay the fine, so don't have to. If you are rich, a fine hardly makes any difference to you, so it has no effect.
So if you get done for driving without insurance, because you couldn't afford to pay it in the first place; then fining someone more doesn't have much effect as they won't have the money to pay the fine. Having a fine less than the insurance premium is daft as it is no detterant to the crime in the first place.
What is needed is an alternative form of punishment, that is of benefit to society in some other way (i.e not sending them to prison, they are already too full). For example a motoring offensive might result in having to some unpaid labour in repairing roads. It doesn't cost the taxpayer anything, we get better roads from it for free, the offender is kept out of trouble by doing something to occupy them.
|
|
|
|
mapmaker:
a. i am not associating you with loony left or right or centre.
b. the woman tested negative after being tested several hours later. the article does not say when, but as it happens i know the time lag involved.
c. no one has said faulty tyres in this case meant no-tread. you and teabelly have made that conjecture.
d. re your claim - worn tyres being better - why are they illegal on our roads then? is it because public roads are not formula1 circuits?
e. your last point proves that the laws of the land are meant only for those who can afford to pay. people under a certain income level get all kinds of benefits, don't need to pay road tax, or mot, or insurance, or fines for that matter.
as trancer asks, where do you stop?
this case illustrates why a system that charges for mot, rfl, and insurance etc. through fuel taxes may be fairer to all motorists. it may not have stopped this accident, but at least the driver would have been paying a bit more of her benefit (i.e. taxpayers money) back to the government and then claimed back more in her further impoverished state.
ps. trancer: welcome to europe - as you have discovered, we have different concepts of human rights than the usa.
sorry mods, i promise no more mixing motoring with politics from me.
|
a. Sorry I was only teasing.
b. Whilst you say you know the lag, I'm fairly confident that if the Mirror could have gained some benefit from these assertions then they would & the police would too.
c. I struggle to imagine how faulty tyres could make a material difference to braking distance unless bald & in the wet.
d. Not better, just not necessarily worse.
e. Indeed.
I disagree strongly with charging for insurance through fuel taxes. The moment you take away the opportunity for people to shop around for their insurance and supply it centrally, the moment you end up with huge quantities of unnecessary waste. I am going to guess wildly and state my gut reaction that the cost of a Government-run third party insurance sytem will be more expensive than the current system of people like you & me paying out for uninsured drivers.
|
The moment you take away the opportunity for people to shop around for their insurance and supply it centrally, the moment you end up with huge quantities of unnecessary waste. I am going to guess wildly and state my gut reaction that the cost of a Government-run third party insurance sytem will be more expensive than the current system of people like you & me paying out for uninsured drivers.
Best close down the NHS then?
|
If she's so poverty-stricken that she can't afford to run a car legally, she should not have bought one.
Why not take the car from her, sell it, pay the fine, subtract the cost of all the things she should have shelled out to be legal but didn't, and give her any change back for her bus fare home.
|
Because the car is probably worth less than Patently minor's model 911. Probably have to pay to dispose of it, in fact.
Yes Patently, I would. Or at least I'd make it so that people like you & me pay to use it. (But here is not a place for that debate.)
|
As things stand we're possibly going to have to pay her fine for her, plus all the costs of trying to pursue her for payment.
Maybe the cost of scrapping the car would be worth it to get it (and her) off the road.
|
|
|
Because the car is probably worth less than Patently minor's model 911. Probably have to pay to dispose of it, in fact.
Yes - and if you know Clarkson himself then you can pick these up for £1.
Yes Patently, I would. Or at least I'd make it so that people like you & me pay to use it.
I didn't say it would be a bad idea ...
(But here is not a place for that debate.)
Sad but true. Sadder but truer is that there is nowhere for such a debate.
|
|
The Commons would be the best place for it.
|
Now there's an optimistic statement if I ever heard one.
None of them would dare.
|
|
|
|
>> The moment you take away the opportunity for people to shop >> around for their insurance and supply it centrally, the moment you >> end up with huge quantities of unnecessary waste. I am >> going to guess wildly and state my gut reaction that the >> cost of a Government-run third party insurance sytem will be more >> expensive than the current system of people like you & me >> paying out for uninsured drivers. >> Best close down the NHS then?
No - people are generally not wilfully negligent with their own health. Those that are - heavy smokers/drinkers are effectively funding their NHS treatment through alcohol/tobacco tax. However, remove the incentive to drive carefully (NCD, etc) which would disappear by paying for insurance through fuel duty and claims would shoot up. Park in a dodgy area? No problem. Aim for a small gap - easy!
--
Mattster
Boycott shoddy build and reliability.
|
Spot on, Mattster, well explained - though I think you would only get third party insurance on that basis. Exactly the same applies to the NHS. Make a service free at point of delivery, and suddenly demand increases. It's not a matter of wilful negligence with health.
But if you can get a hip replacement the moment you have a vague twinge, then you'll have one. Apply some rationing - through having waiting lists - and then it will cost us less without an appreciable difference to the health of anybody. (Some people will die, some decide they are not actually so ill as to need one, and others will go privately.)
|
Hmmm. I've seen film of a hip replacement operation and I'd stick with the twinge and wait til I'm immobile, thanks. It's not something to take on lightly.
Valid point, though, if somewhat on the heartless side.
|
Sorry, not meant to be heartless (I'm nice really). Just more easily illustrated with a more extreme example. I prefer the Merchant Ivory films myself - particularly those that star Helena B-C.
|
I prefer the Merchant Ivory films myself - particularly those that star Helena B-C.
Less blood & gore, certainly.
|
Ahem, motoring please.
DD.
|
I must ask the obvious question to the ones who advocate leniency and that its not worth pursuing someone who is unable to pay in realistic terms.
If the man who was killed was your father,son,brother etc.
Would you feel satisfied with the outcome of an £83 fine.?
|
Emotion isn't supposed to come into it though. The purpose of justice isn't retribution but punishment that puts off others and makes the guilty realise what they have done and actually be sorry. If this person never drives a car again then there is nothing more to be achieved. The dead person can't be brought back no matter what you do to the person that knocked them down.
Community service is much more constructive in this case and that person can be made to make amends with the people whose son she knocked down. If she has first hand experience of the pain they are going through then it is going to have a much more profound effect than any fine or even a spell in prison as it is all the more personal.
teabelly
|
Sorry but I can't agree with your definition of justice TB.
If it were true there would for instance no point in sending a person convicted of a domestic murder to prison. He is almost certain of never doing it again.
In my opinion justice applies equally to the victim and his family as well as the perp.
|
According to Google, "In society, punishment is the practice of imposing something unpleasant on a wrongdoer. Most often, criminals are punished by fines or prison."
The unpleasantness is for the offender AND the victim. Remember reading of the case in the Rochdale Observer of a young Asian man who crippled a young girl after driving with no tax insurance MOT etc, and banned for two years. Shortly later he killed an elderly lady, IIRC. Sentenced to community punishment and banned again. No doubt he's driving again now.
It's not beneficial to lock up this lady, on account of her child. It's probably not beneficial to fine her a huge amount as it's her child that will suffer as well. She should be given a fitting punishment to ensure she doesn't even THINK about driving uninsured etc again, and it should be obvious enough to put the same message across to her daughter. Perhaps taking them to meet their victim's family would be a good start. Let them look at the lives they've ruined.
|
Sorry, I only encountered this thread today, but three things strike me about the view that a single-mum (not necessarily this one) can't be given a spell in prison:
1) If a single-mum who runs someone over, killing them, drives off and dumps her car, can't go to prison because she has a child, how come a single-mum can be sent to prison just due to her own children truanting from school?
2) What if the person who got run over and killed hadn't been a bloke, but a single-mum? It'd just be tough luck for her kids then, eh?
3) When a mother drives uninsured, with illegal tyres, and drives off after running someone over, who is to say that her kids wouldn't be BETTER served being brought up by foster parents or a care home?
|
Surely jutice has also got to take into account the need to protect the community from people who commit crimes and may do so again?
I would argue that anyone driving with no MOT or insurance twice is a danger to society - repeat offences - and society should be protected from them.
Remorse is good. Prevention is better.
madf
|
I don't really want to get dragged through this again but I have to say, tunacat's comments couldn't describe the way I feel about it more accurately.
madf's comments are spot on too but I'm getting into again so I'll stop!
--
Adam
|
Was it her fault she ran them over ? It would be a bit mean to punish her if the pedestrian deliberately ran out in front of her.
Did anything about her car, or her behaviour, contribute to the accident or the severity of the accident ?
Or was she simply guilty of no MOT ? In which case, why should we punish her any differently to the people we get in here form time to time who want to know if they can chance it for a drive without an MOT ?
If you don't like the punishment that people get for no MOT and believe she should do jail time for it, then what about if you get stopped for no MOT ? Should you go to jail ?
In short, what was she being punished for ? It seems it wasn't death by dangerous driving, it was no MOT.
Can I suggest you need to find out what you're talking about, before you continue talking about it.
|
But I want to be judgemental and ill-informed.
--
Adam
|
|
Then you are in the right place.
|
I agree - I've jumped the gun and assumed that this woman is a no-hoper and set out to kill yadda yadda yadda.
I'm sorry I can't think any highly of her - she was uninsured and did drive away from the scene of an accident but yes - panic can do strange things.
Fortunately, I'm not a judge and the decisions for what happens to these people is not, and will never be placed in my control.
--
Adam
|
Driving off, leaving someone injured on the road, after you have hit them(whether or not is was their fault) is the real crime. How can this be excused, in ANY way? This, in my opinion, is the real crime. It's almost a crime against humanity. The rest is window dressing.
If a car owner cannot afford insurance, tax etc, then either just own it and keep it off the road or become an ex car owner.
|
So what's your issue ? The punishment she received or the offences she was charged with ?
The Chariman of the Bench said "An inquest has said this was not your fault, but there was a sense of irresponsible behaviour on your part."
Not quite the callous, vindictive and deliberate act that would make this story sufficiently sensational though, is it.
And are you receommending imprisonment for "irresponsible behaviour" ? And would that include speeding ?
If she wasn't charged with the offences that you believe she should have been, then she can hardly be punished for them.
I'd be more interested to know why she wasn't charged with something more appropriate rather than banging on about how people should be hanged for no MOT and irresponsible behaviour.
What can or cannot be excused is not the same as what is or is not illegal, punished, or even charged (at least in this case).
|
Mark, she left someone for dead. Regardless of what she was charged with, surely you must see why people are getting so worked up over it?
--
Adam
|
Quite right, Adam. I gave reference to neither the punishment she received nor the punishment I thought she should have received. People make mistakes. I gave my opinion that her worst mistake was leaving someone lying in the road and doing nothing about it. Whether instant action, calling for assistance, etc would have made any difference I don't know. In effect she did nothing. That cannot be right.
Mark, this is a discussion part of the forum, not a court of law. I will give my honest opinion and expect others to do the same.
|
I think the same applies for non-motoring "offences" too.
For example - if I saw someone get shot and not mention it, I think there should be some repercussions.
Obviously I can't stray too far down that avenue and obviously it's a lot different given that I wouldn't have shot the person but you see what I'm driving at.
--
Adam
|
>>I will give my honest opinion and expect others to do the same.
I was. Or do you not extend to me the same courtesy that you expect from me ? Or are you inferring, and implying, that my opinion is not honest ?
|
I agree with you for the most part Mark - after all, it was said to have been "not her fault". Obviously we don't know the full facts and I for one am guilty of jumping in after reading sensationalist headlines.
However,
I'm not sure I'd go as far as you in absolving her completely of guilt (not including what she was charged with).
It would be pretty boring if we agreed on everything though surely? Now that NW has gone, I need to test my debating skills with someone. Who better than the master of put downs? ;-)
--
Adam
|
I have never doubted your honesty, Mark. It was a general remark.
I would suggest that no-one knows the full story except those intimately involved in it.
Most of this thread has been about whether the woman should be hung drawn or quartered for various crimes, and what should happen to her offspring. My opinion was that leaving the person on the road and driving off was the worst of her "crimes".
|
|
|
|
|
|
