A Call To Action

This is a Call to Action to all fellow RADers. This guy
(http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_ne...879867,00.html) is
getting screwed.

First of all Andrew is a very young man. Who among us didn't do some
pretty stupid things when we were 20 years old.

Secondly, it wasn't Andrew's fault. The trees came from out of
nowhere.

Thirdly, why is Andrew responsible for his girlfriend. Couldn't she
have dialed 999?

Fourthly, even if Andrew had made the call, there is a 15% chance that
she would have died anyway. So what is the big deal?

What to do: Call or write your MP and tell them that motorists
shouldn't be responsible for the people they kill. That would be like
holding George W. Bush responsible for the actions of the Executive
Branch of the U.S. government.

========================================
Young killer driver reignites safety debate

Mark Townsend, legal affairs correspondent
Sunday September 24, 2006
The Observer

The debate over the punishment of dangerous drivers who kill will flare
up again this week when a young male motorist who had never held a
driving licence is sentenced over the death of his girlfriend.

Andrew Lloyd Bennett, 20, failed to call an ambulance after his teenage
girlfriend was thrown through the windscreen and seriously injured when
his Subaru Impreza collided with a row of trees. It is almost certain
he will be jailed.

The case comes amid fresh criticism that road casualty figures are
under-estimated and that decreases announced by the government are
questionable. This week, the government is expected to claim that the
number of people killed or seriously injured a year on Britain's roads
has fallen to 32,200, a reduction from 47,700 in the mid-1990s. However
the Statistics Commission has voiced concern that the figures are based
solely on police data, which may understate the scale. If hospital
figures are used, the number of deaths has remained broadly the same.

It was reported yesterday that, under police figures, 54 people per
100,000 are killed or seriously injured on Britain's roads, down from
80 per 100,000 ten years ago. If hospital figures are used, the numbers
remain stable at about 90 per 100,000. The higher figures would mean
the government has missed its road safety target, which was to reduce
the number of road deaths and serious injuries by 40 per cent by 2010.
It would also throw into doubt the effectiveness of measures such as
speed cameras and traffic calming.

The Bennett case is likely to lead to fresh calls for action on
dangerous and young drivers. Instead of dialling 999, Bennett arranged
for the body of his girlfriend, Kirsty Cash, to be driven from the
scene, on the outskirts of Sheffield, to his home and went on the run.
Police said it was up to 40 minutes before the emergency services were
called.

Officers believe that Cash would have had an 85 per cent chance of
survival had she received immediate medical attention. 'All Bennett had
to do was dial 999 and Kirsty would still be alive,' her father,
Stanley, said. 'Our lives have just been ripped apart. All we do now is
go to work, come home and visit her grave.'

Bennett, who was also charged with driving while disqualified, has
admitted manslaughter and will be sentenced at Sheffield Crown Court
this week, along with two associates and his mother, who are charged
with conspiracy.

The case comes amid mounting calls for harsher penalties against
dangerous drivers. Campaigners are demanding that the driving age be
raised to 18, with a one-year minimum training period. Men aged 17 to
20 account for three per cent of drivers but make up a third of
convictions for dangerous driving.

On Tuesday, the charity Roadpeace, which represents road crash victims,
will meet officials from the Crown Prosecuting Service to discuss ways
to ensure dangerous drivers who kill or seriously injure are punished
condignly.

One of the topics under discussion is the CPS classification of
'nearest and dearest' cases, where families or close friends are
involved in the crash. It is a distinction which safety campaigners
claim allows dangerous motorists to escape harsh sentences, even though
they have killed fellow passengers through reckless driving.

Current CPS advice recommends that prosecutors should, if there are no
aggravating factors such as whether the driver has been drinking, give
'careful consideration... as to whether there is a need for any
prosecution at all'.

This month, The Observer revealed that the CPS had ordered the 3,000
prosecutors in England and Wales to stop 'undercharging' dangerous
drivers, amid concern that motorists who kill are escaping with lenient
sentences. A Home Office spokesman said it 'shared the public's
concerns about bad driving' and had included two new offences - causing
death by careless driving and by driving while unlicensed - in the Road
Safety Bill.

Furious George wrote:
> This is a Call to Action to all fellow RADers. This guy
> (http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_ne...879867,00.html) is
> getting screwed.
>
> First of all Andrew is a very young man. Who among us didn't do some
> pretty stupid things when we were 20 years old.
>
> Secondly, it wasn't Andrew's fault. The trees came from out of
> nowhere.
>
> Thirdly, why is Andrew responsible for his girlfriend. Couldn't she
> have dialed 999?
>
> Fourthly, even if Andrew had made the call, there is a 15% chance that
> she would have died anyway. So what is the big deal?
>
> What to do: Call or write your MP and tell them that motorists
> shouldn't be responsible for the people they kill. That would be like
> holding George W. Bush responsible for the actions of the Executive
> Branch of the U.S. government.

<snip>

I sincerely hope you're being sarcastic. While lots of RAD regulars
have argued against punshing people for victimless "crimes," I don't
think anyone is in favor of letting someone actually responsible for a
death off with only a slap on the wrist.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

On 24 Sep 2006 05:23:02 -0700, "Furious George" >
wrote:

>
>This is a Call to Action to all fellow RADers. This guy
>(http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_ne...879867,00.html) is
>getting screwed.
>
>First of all Andrew is a very young man. Who among us didn't do some
>pretty stupid things when we were 20 years old.
>
>Secondly, it wasn't Andrew's fault. The trees came from out of
>nowhere.
>
>Thirdly, why is Andrew responsible for his girlfriend. Couldn't she
>have dialed 999?
>
>Fourthly, even if Andrew had made the call, there is a 15% chance that
>she would have died anyway. So what is the big deal?
>
>What to do: Call or write your MP and tell them that motorists
>shouldn't be responsible for the people they kill. That would be like
>holding George W. Bush responsible for the actions of the Executive
>Branch of the U.S. government.
>
>========================================
>Young killer driver reignites safety debate
>
>Mark Townsend, legal affairs correspondent
>Sunday September 24, 2006
>The Observer
>
>The debate over the punishment of dangerous drivers who kill will flare
>up again this week when a young male motorist who had never held a
>driving licence is sentenced over the death of his girlfriend.
>
>Andrew Lloyd Bennett, 20, failed to call an ambulance after his teenage
>girlfriend was thrown through the windscreen and seriously injured when
>his Subaru Impreza collided with a row of trees. It is almost certain
>he will be jailed.
>
>The case comes amid fresh criticism that road casualty figures are
>under-estimated and that decreases announced by the government are
>questionable. This week, the government is expected to claim that the
>number of people killed or seriously injured a year on Britain's roads
>has fallen to 32,200, a reduction from 47,700 in the mid-1990s. However
>the Statistics Commission has voiced concern that the figures are based
>solely on police data, which may understate the scale. If hospital
>figures are used, the number of deaths has remained broadly the same.
>
>It was reported yesterday that, under police figures, 54 people per
>100,000 are killed or seriously injured on Britain's roads, down from
>80 per 100,000 ten years ago. If hospital figures are used, the numbers
>remain stable at about 90 per 100,000. The higher figures would mean
>the government has missed its road safety target, which was to reduce
>the number of road deaths and serious injuries by 40 per cent by 2010.
>It would also throw into doubt the effectiveness of measures such as
>speed cameras and traffic calming.
>
>The Bennett case is likely to lead to fresh calls for action on
>dangerous and young drivers. Instead of dialling 999, Bennett arranged
>for the body of his girlfriend, Kirsty Cash, to be driven from the
>scene, on the outskirts of Sheffield, to his home and went on the run.
>Police said it was up to 40 minutes before the emergency services were
>called.
>
>Officers believe that Cash would have had an 85 per cent chance of
>survival had she received immediate medical attention. 'All Bennett had
>to do was dial 999 and Kirsty would still be alive,' her father,
>Stanley, said. 'Our lives have just been ripped apart. All we do now is
>go to work, come home and visit her grave.'
>
>Bennett, who was also charged with driving while disqualified, has
>admitted manslaughter and will be sentenced at Sheffield Crown Court
>this week, along with two associates and his mother, who are charged
>with conspiracy.
>
>The case comes amid mounting calls for harsher penalties against
>dangerous drivers. Campaigners are demanding that the driving age be
>raised to 18, with a one-year minimum training period. Men aged 17 to
>20 account for three per cent of drivers but make up a third of
>convictions for dangerous driving.
>
>On Tuesday, the charity Roadpeace, which represents road crash victims,
>will meet officials from the Crown Prosecuting Service to discuss ways
>to ensure dangerous drivers who kill or seriously injure are punished
>condignly.
>
>One of the topics under discussion is the CPS classification of
>'nearest and dearest' cases, where families or close friends are
>involved in the crash. It is a distinction which safety campaigners
>claim allows dangerous motorists to escape harsh sentences, even though
>they have killed fellow passengers through reckless driving.
>
>Current CPS advice recommends that prosecutors should, if there are no
>aggravating factors such as whether the driver has been drinking, give
>'careful consideration... as to whether there is a need for any
>prosecution at all'.
>
>This month, The Observer revealed that the CPS had ordered the 3,000
>prosecutors in England and Wales to stop 'undercharging' dangerous
>drivers, amid concern that motorists who kill are escaping with lenient
>sentences. A Home Office spokesman said it 'shared the public's
>concerns about bad driving' and had included two new offences - causing
>death by careless driving and by driving while unlicensed - in the Road
>Safety Bill.

Stop coddling these killers on the hghways. If people knew that
vehicular manslaughter carried a mandatory sentence of 20 years or
more, they'd drive carefully. Problem solved.

"Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" > wrote in
message news
> On 24 Sep 2006 05:23:02 -0700, "Furious George" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>This is a Call to Action to all fellow RADers. This guy
>>(http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_ne...879867,00.html) is
>>getting screwed.
>>
>>First of all Andrew is a very young man. Who among us didn't do some
>>pretty stupid things when we were 20 years old.
>>
>>Secondly, it wasn't Andrew's fault. The trees came from out of
>>nowhere.

Bull****. Stationary trees do not "come from out of nowhere". The trees were
in the same place before the accident, as well as after.

<quote>
The debate over the punishment of dangerous drivers who kill will flare up
again this week when a young male motorist who had never held a driving
licence is sentenced over the death of his girlfriend.
<end quote>

Does this not seem a likely response to HIS behavior? NO LICENSE.
Then why was he driving to begin with?

<quote>
Bennett, who was also charged with driving while disqualified, has admitted
manslaughter and will be sentenced at Sheffield Crown Court this week, along
with two associates and his mother, who are charged with conspiracy.
<end quote>

A fitting sentence would also include denied driving privileges for life.
Had he simply called for assistance, the charges against him would not
include manslaughter, nor conspiracy charges on his family. And his
girlfriend would be alive. He chose his own fate. Now he has to live with
it.
Who's to blame? He is.

<quote>
Men aged 17 to 20 account for three per cent of drivers but make up a third
of convictions for dangerous driving.
<end quote>

While the same thing could probably be said about women of the same age.