To think this is unreasonable and this judge knowingly scentenced this man to death

[Sootyandsweep2019]

Just read a heartbreaking story in the paper about an 87 year old man, who given a 27 month prison sentence after he killed someone in a car accident. The judge was warned at the time by the man's doctors that this was highly likely to lead to his death; but went ahead and did it anyway. As predicted, he died nine days later. This was not murder, this was not malicious; it was a complete, tragic accident.

By all means ban him from driving if he was a danger, look at tightening the driving regulations around older drivers.

But our obsession with "making people pay," for genuine accidents has led to this utter tragedy .

The poor man must have been terrified. I really think this particular judge/ case needs urgent investigation; and we need a wider look at whether prison is always an appropriate response to car accident s like this.

Sadly I don't expect the judge/ CPS/ solicitors etc. Feel guilty at all.

Did the US lady not express remorse at all at any point? - I'm sure she was very sorry - but she ran away, so we won't ever see her in court, no doubt.

@HelloToMyKitty

You have not amswered the other questions?
Perhaps you do not have all the facts about the US case like the UK judge did about the UK man.

She didn’t have to, she wasn’t even arrested nor given a citation

Were you there? Do you know what was said? I bet if the scenario had been the same as the UK one she would not have walked away - but we will never know as they were totally different scenarios.

"Again....
It was his SECOND "accident" that caused the death and life changing injuries. He CHOSE to drive whilst in a confused/angry state."
He chose to drive while angry, he didnt know at that point that he would get confused over the pedals seconds later. I think the 2 incidents are separate. Being angry didnt then equate to the confusion over the pedals, one could have happened without the other. He didnt chose to drive whilst confused. As far as we know, the confusion came on once he was in the car. I believe an expect in the case said it was a classic case of pedal confusion.

"You can have pedal confusion in a non automatic surely."
Yes you can. I'm aware of quite a few cases of pedal confusion over a wide age range in non automatic cars. They put their foot on the accelerator rather than the brake, then when the car speeds off, believe their foot is on the brake again and push harder, making the car go faster. They get in a panic, and cant right the error before the car usually hits something. It all takes seconds unfortunately and there isn't enough time to correct it. Can happen to any one of us. Anything can cause it, from a momentary lapse in concentration, to driving a different car than usual, even to wearing different shoes.

This reminds me of an older lady who mistook the right of way at a mini roundabout (easily done as the layout had recently changed). I had right of way so kept going but had to brake suddenly. She put her foot on the accelerator by mistake and screamed into a lamppost narrowly missing a lady sitting on a bench situated near the roundabout. I though she was going to be killed.

The lady said she had been driving 60 years with an unblemished record but had recently changed to a small automatic.

Another local incident involved an elderly lady in an automatic who crushed her own sister to death in a car park while trying to park.

We are soon to get an automatic van I will be driving and I'll also be driving my manual car and I'm pretty much dreading it as I'll have to switch back and forth mentally every day. I've driven an automatic and it was lovely to drive but I know I'm going to have to be very focused.

I think the 2 incidents are separate

The experienced and qualified judge who was in possession of all of the witness statements, police reports, expert evidence and CCTV and not just a newspaper report disagreed with you. He also never apologised to the victims' families.

The judge said, ‘There is an aggravating factor of getting back into the car when you were still cross with yourself.’

It is sad he died in prison, but it is more sad he killed Jeanette Newman and permanently changed the life of Sarah Taylor. He did not have to get back in the car whilst angry.

"The experienced and qualified judge who was in possession of all of the witness statements, police reports, expert evidence and CCTV and not just a newspaper report disagreed with you. He also never apologised to the victims' families."

There was also an expert in the court who gave his advice that it was a clear case of pedal confusion. That's what someone said up thread anyway. I believe the pedal confusion could have happened even if the first incident didnt happen. It's easy to say one aggravated the other, it may have, just as much as it may have not. I'm not disagreeing with the outcome, just saying I understand pedal confusion. Some posters seem to think you get in the car knowing you are going to get pedal confusion, when that's not the case, it can be something that just starts at random and can happen to any one of us. He may have been angry because of the first incident, got in the car and drove sensibly home. Just because he was angry didnt mean he wanted to run someone over. It was still unintentional. However, the result was that he still had the accident, and someone died. I think a prison sentence is inevitable in cases of manslaughter. Noone has said whether he chose to give up his licence? I'd be interested to know if he did or not, as this may have had some bearing on the outcome.

Surely having three pedals, one for the left and two for the right is much the same a two for the right - unless the americans drive two footed with two pedals

Well, yes, pedal confusion could certainly happen, but it would be much more difficult to zoom forward or backward at speed. Wouldn’t it stall?

if the scenario had been the same as the UK one she would not have walked away - but we will never know as they were totally different scenarios

The point is that in the US we do not jail people for this sort of accident. It does not fall under dangerous driving. I’m astonished the UK jails people for it, tbh.

Anger triggers an adrenalin rush. An adrenalin rush makes you more likely to feel confusion and act more recklessly.

Of course it can't be said that the same wouldn't have happened if he hadn't had the first accident, but the point is that we are supposed to take steps to reduce our chances of causing an accident, and in this case, this means that he should have acknowledged that his anger was lucky to impact on his motor skills and as such putting himself and others at a higher risk of danger.

No one should drive when angry, coupled with reduced motor skills and slower reflexes makes anyone even more a liability .

The accident was avoidable.

A simple Google confirms that in the US vehicular manslaughter does exist:

Vehicular manslaughter charges are appropriate when the driver was under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or driving recklessly (or merely carelessly), or otherwise driving in an illegal manner—each state specifies the circumstances that will support charging this crime.

I would suggest having had one accident and within minutes getting back in the car whilst angry (and admitting this) he would have been prosecuted in the US.

That's what someone said up thread anyway They were wrongly quoted. It was corrected further down the posts. The expert disagreed with the account of the man and advised it was driver error AND pedal confusion together. The error being that he got back in the car.

They put their foot on the accelerator rather than the brake, then when the car speeds off, believe their foot is on the brake again and push harder, making the car go faster. They get in a panic, and cant right the error before the car usually hits something

Yes, this is the classic case. Also, upthread mandatory sentencing might be responsible for the judge’s decision.

It is sad he died in prison, but it is more sad he killed Jeanette Newman and permanently changed the life of Sarah Taylor

You know what is most tragic? That the one thing that Jeanette’s partner wanted, more stringent testing for older drivers, has been already dismissed by this government.

Jailing him does nothing to save future lives. And that’s what really should have been considered.

Also, I mentioned that pedal confusion happened to my friend in high school. You know what we did after my parents checked everyone was okay and waved away the property damage?

We got back in the car and she drove us to school.

Perhaps he was jailed as a warning to other elderly people who drive dangerously. The criminal justice system is sometimes used as a deterrent to other criminals or potential criminals. I hope this leads to people who are unable to drive safely (through no fault of their own) to get a voluntary retest, have some lessons, check with their doctor or optician or take any other precautions necessary in their situation.

Reacting to the sentence Jeanette's partner of 25 years, Andrew Roberts, 58, said: 'I was not expecting him to be jailed. It doesn't give me any pleasure, but it proves there is justice after all.'

You missed the part where he wanted increased testing of elderly drivers.

Deterrence has never been proven to work. Only preventative measures as I described earlier will prevent further death.

19 mph in a supermarket carpark? that alone is dangerous, even if you're driving forwards.

• Plus the fact that he'd already been careless enough to hit a bollard - should have realised at that point he wasn't in a fit state to drive.

In most roads in boroughs near me, 20 is the speed limit - and I tend to p people off when I'm away from home, because over the years it's become my normal urban driving speed.

No, I did not miss anything, thank you. He can have said both things.
The tragedy is people ignoring what he said in full.

He understood that justice was served and he is appealing for a mandatory practical test for all drivers when they reach 70 years of age - he is not asking for a change in sentencing laws.

As are you:

Mr Roberts, who is campaigning for Boris Johnson to introduce compulsory driving tests for motorists when they turn 70, said that he was told of Mr Heagren's death in jail by a police liaison officer just days before Christmas.

He said: "There are no winners in this situation.

"I said at the time he was jailed that he may not come out of prison, but I was still surprised by the news.

“I am a broken man since Jeanette was so violently and suddenly taken away”

He also apparently received a letter from Boris Johnson stating he had no plans to change the current law.

No good has come of this.

19 mph in a supermarket carpark? that alone is dangerous, even if you're driving forwards

Very easy to understand because it was pedal confusion. He was hitting the accelerator thinking it was the brake. Probably in a panic too. That only served to propel him further back even faster. It is common occurrence in young and elderly drivers.

I've got quite strong feelings about elderly drivers.

But that comes from nearly being killed by an 80yo woman, driving the WRONG WAY up the fucking motorway.. she got confused at an island and went an entire junction the wrong way before crashing.

It was a miracle she didnt kill anyone, thankfully that night, everyone had the presence of mind and the space to realise the headlights approaching were on our side of the road and move out of the fast lane.. but she missed me literally by SECONDS.. I can honestly say I have never been so fucking scared in my life.

Would you have said the judge was cruel if she'd caused a pile up on the motorway that day and been jailed?

If you're not capable of driving you shouldn't be behind the fucking wheel.

I never said you had missed anything but hour responses suggest you have as you continue to defend this man. Most posters disagree with you - not just me.

Comments made at time of sentencing versus comments made after the death of the man.

You clearly have a vested interest in this Hello so no point in arguing with your badly made points that ignore the facts of the actual case.

And. just on the judges don't know make mistakes post; why do we have an appeal court and an unduly leniant scentamce scheme if judges always get it right first time

Reversing 100 feet in a carpark with people around at 19mph is rediculously reckless even for a totally alert person with great reflexes.
Thats nearly 17 fullgrown 6ft men lying head-to-toe in a line, its a HUGE distance to reverse at full speed.

Most posters disagree with you - not just me

That doesn’t make them right either. But sure, think that harshly punishing this man will make your roads safer (hint: it won’t).