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.

Putting people in prison who drive whilst angry, subsequently killing someone is removing dangerous drivers from the road and making them safer.

I don't agree a mainstream prison is best for them but incarceration is appropriate of a different kind - perhaps with first time offenders only. I don't gave the answer to that.

There needs to be a deterrent that impacts anyone. Making the deterrent a ban/fine only makes it easier for the wealthiest to be undeterred.

It might not be a deterrent but it’s better than being able to run people over and just walk away.

I don’t think he was harshly punished, @HelloToMyKitty - I think he received a fair sentence for driving so dangerously that he nearly mowed down a father and his children, then hit two women, killing one and leaving the other with life long disabilities.

harshly punishing this man will make your roads safer (hint: it won’t)

That's not what prison is for. Hailing one person will do little. Letting every motorist know that if they drive like a cunt they'll be in prison till they die, might make some realise it's not worth it.

But sure, think that softer punishments for these drivers will make our roads safer (hint: it won’t and it makes you an idiot)

Jail time, for causing death by dangerous driving, isn't just about being a deterrent though, it's also in part punishment.

He was guilty of causing death by dangerous driving, and also of causing injury by dangerous driving. The families deserve justice for that, not for him to go home and face no punishment for what he did. Will it bring her back or take away the injuries? No, but can make family members feel that justice has been served.

Age is irrelevant. He killed someone. Caused serious life changing injuries to another by driving in a dangerous manner. A custodial sentence is fitting to that. Someone got the terrible news that their family member was dead, and another family is continuing to deal with the life changing injuries that their family member suffered. These people did nothing wrong, yet one was killed and another has to deal with the consequences of this mans actions, possibly for the rest of their life.

There is another similar case - older man killed two people in a supermarket and received a suspended sentence due to being the carer for his wife who was suffering from dementia. The families in that case criticised the judge as they felt their family members did not receive any justice. It is possible that the judge in this case considered that for this case. She did say that she agonised over sentencing, and took the time to consider the correct sentence in this case.

But sure, think that softer punishments for these drivers will make our roads safer (hint: it won’t and it makes you an idiot)

Personal attacks now, is it?

Harsh punishment does not have a deterrent effect. This has been demonstrated in study after study.

It will do nothing to stop the real problem: failure to stringently re-test older drivers. So be prepared to keep jailing people who are not criminals as such, but made a mistake at the wrong time.

Would you say that all cases of pedal confusion that causes death should result in jail time?

@HelloToMyKitty

I asked this question before but didn't get a reply. I'm interested in your opinion.

There is surely a point at which you realise you are going faster rather than stopping, so there is a point at which it stops being pedal confusion.
How far do you think you need to travel to reach this point or for how long?

@marcopront
The expert witness felt it was driver error and pedal confusion which confirms driver input to the incident - not this blameless tragedy that 3 posters would like us to believe and rewrite history on.

Would you say that all cases of pedal confusion that causes death should result in jail time?

Yes. Beyond question.
I don't give a shiny shite about the circumstances. You cause a death by dangerous, reckless, driving without due care and attention, drink driving etc etc. If I had my way, you'd not see the light of day again. Deaths that fall into a true accident category would have more leniency.

This old person put his foot on the accelerator, not for a split second, not for a couple feet, but long enough to reach speeds to take the Ife of a woman and cause severe injuries to another.

Think about that for a second.
Think about the time it took for the car to reach that speed. Think about the distance he travelled. Go get in your car, out it in reverse and see how long it takes to get into speed. It isn't a fraction of a second, it's several seconds. If he was so unable to realise what he was doing, if his reaction times were so slow, he shouldn't be driving.

Cars are several tons of deadly weapon, people would do well to remember that.

"Would you say that all cases of pedal confusion that causes death should result in jail time?"
I think that's a very difficult question and obviously one the the judge struggled with too. As I'm not a judge and dont have access to stats on this sort if thing, I would struggle to answer that. I'd like to know whether every case that results in death has led to the driver being imprisoned. Id also like to know more about the driver, did he surrender his licence after the event? What were his circumstances? Had he led a blameless sort of life? Did he have any caring duties of anyone etc.

@Tistheseason17
I know.
That is why I would like one of those who think he is blameless to tell us the distance they think would make it driver error.

There is surely a point at which you realise you are going faster rather than stopping, so there is a point at which it stops being pedal confusion. How far do you think you need to travel to reach this point or for how long?

In a lot of cases, a driver will panic and keep hitting the accelator in the mistaken belief they are braking. Until they hit someone or something. There was a sad case of a mother hitting her toddler accidentally this way on her property (the accelator pedal actually became broken because she hit it too hard trying to ‘brake’)

A situation like this wouldn’t typically be prosecuted in the States because you need intent—or, in the case of dangerous driving, knowingly engage in a behaviour that could result in death. Pedal confusion isn’t one of those. So I personally find it surprising.

I think Japan is designing cars with this issue specifically in mind, as they’ve had a spate of deadly accidents caused by the elderly (one was definitely pedal confusion). They talk about better braking technology, better testing, improved services for seniors and restricted licenses for impaired drivers.

asia.nikkei.com/Economy/Japan-plans-driver-s-license-for-seniors-as-accidents-rise

One thing not brought up? Jailing them.

Right hello. So if any of the gun owners I know get a bit of trigger confusion and kill someone and maim another because they forgot the safety was off, you think they should get away with it?

Where should the line be drawn for 'confusion' when angrily handling a potentially lethal weapon? One of my neighbours had his gun on a dog not too long ago, and it was only then the owners suddenly remembered it wasn't harmlessly playing with his sheep and recalled it. If he'd got a bit confused due to his justifiable anger and accidentally shot the owners, would that be ok?

What about if another person gets a bit confused about all the safety precautions the handler must take, and accidentally fires their gun the opposite way to the target killing someone, is that ok too?

Or do we just decide whether being angry, careless and 'confused' when handling a lethal weapon is worthy of prison based on the age of the perpetrator? And no, a gun is no different to a car in this scenario, they are both potentially deadly weapons.

Hello

You are deliberately failing to take note of the circumstances in this specific case.

It was not about throwing the book at an elderly driver due to pedal confusion.

The crux of the reason why a custodial sentence was imposed was because the incident was both foreseeable and preventable by virtue of what had preceded it and a distinct lack of remorse.

Had he got in the car and suffered pedal confusion in isolation then I expect many responses would have been different.

What did happen was having already caused an accident (this already brining his capacity to drive into question) and being angry (by his own admission) he got back in the car.

In other words he made the decision to drive when his ability to do so was obviously impaired. He made that decision despite of having the alternatives available to either wait /calm down or get his wife to park the car.

He then did not only confuse the pedals but also selected the wrong gear.

In other words poor decision, after poor decision that culminated in an serious collision and not a momentary lapse of judgement.

@HelloToMyKitty
Thank you for responding to my question but either you misunderstood it or deliberately ignored what I asked.

If someone traveled for a mile mistakenly accelerating rather than breaking would you still think that was pedal confusion?
If not there must be a distance at which you think it stops being pedal confusion, my question is what is that distance?

Who cares if it was peddle confusion or not? If it WAS peddle confusion, and this happened you would be beyond distraught at the result and acknowledge the pain and suffering of the person who had lost a loved one and the person who’s life was forever changed. This guy was not remorseful in the slightest, couldn’t care less about his victims. That’s the crime here and would have been a main factor in a custodial sentence.

He's off the roads. The roads are now safer. Job done. Age irrelevant. A crime is a crime is a crime.....

Op clearly related to the driver. No perspective.

He's off the roads. The roads are now safer.

Just a leetle tasteless given that he has died ...

Granted, but if he was still alive he'd be banged up. That works for me.

"This guy was not remorseful in the slightest, couldn’t care less about his victims. That’s the crime here and would have been a main factor in a custodial sentence."
The problem with this sort of sentence is that we dont know if that's true. At all.

"someone traveled for a mile mistakenly accelerating rather than breaking would you still think that was pedal confusion?
If not there must be a distance at which you think it stops being pedal confusion, my question is what is that distance?"
Of course a mile is not pedal confusion. I dont understand why you are asking this question as lay people like us on this thread wouldnt know the answer. The problem with pedal confusion is the person realises their mistake but panics and does it again, constantly pressing on the wrong pedal because they believe it it be the brake. Obviously as they do, the speed goes up and the car travels a distance. Noone can say what that distance might be as there are a lot of factors involved here. So noone can say pedal confusion is 5 yards only and anything over that is malicious. It could be 10 yards, 15 yards, 50 yards, 100 yards, who knows. Obviously a mile is too much.

If not there must be a distance at which you think it stops being pedal confusion, my question is what is that distance?"

The use of the word you in this question means I am not interested in the official answer but what people on this thread who are insisting it was an accident think.
The expert witness thought there was driver error, so for him/her 100 feet is too far. For you a mile is too far.

If it helps, I've just googled a couple of cases of pedal confusion, and one was 120m, but that's just at a random google.

"The expert witness thought there was driver error, so for him/her 100 feet is too far. For you a mile is too far."

I didnt think the expert said that.? Thought the driver error bit was related to him making the decision to drive whilst perturbed from the first bump? I didnt think the expert witness discussed how far the car travelled as a factor for pedal confusion. I understood he said it was a clear case of pedal confusion in addition to some driver error.

"so for him/her 100 feet is too far"
Did he/she actually say this? I didnt think they did?