Taxi driver freed after killing Bournemouth University student (From Bournemouth Echo)

what a joke!! i wonder if the sentance is yet another example of the "i am so out of touch with reality" brigade? the laws in this country stink! he should have been found guilty of death by dangerous driving. and locked up for a very long time. how the hell does that judge,let alone the murdering piece of scum, sleep at night?

The lack of comments would suggest most people are speechless and i dont know where to begin.No Justice,Rough Justice?????

The cheeky chappy who drove up Snowdon was jailed for 22 months..

mmmmmmm wrote:
The cheeky chappy who drove up Snowdon was jailed for 22 months..

yes. and that is just one example of the corrupt judges in this country being out of touch with reality!!!!

paulthefish wrote:
what a joke!! i wonder if the sentance is yet another example of the "i am so out of touch with reality" brigade? the laws in this country stink! he should have been found guilty of death by dangerous driving. and locked up for a very long time. how the hell does that judge,let alone the murdering piece of scum, sleep at night?

Whilst the sentence is an outrage in relation to crime, we must be careful in our response. Murder is a premeditated act; there is no indication that the offender deliberately set out to kill the victim. Sometimes accidents can happen and we really are unaware as to what blame can be apportioned to either party. A loss of a young life is incredibly tragic; however, that life can not be compensated for in the prosecution of an individual for a crime they did not commit. For the offender to be prosecuted for death by dangerous driving there must me sufficient evidence to show that the offender was driving in a dangerous fashion.

Mikeyunibournemouth wrote:

paulthefish wrote:
what a joke!! i wonder if the sentance is yet another example of the "i am so out of touch with reality" brigade? the laws in this country stink! he should have been found guilty of death by dangerous driving. and locked up for a very long time. how the hell does that judge,let alone the murdering piece of scum, sleep at night?

Whilst the sentence is an outrage in relation to crime, we must be careful in our response. Murder is a premeditated act; there is no indication that the offender deliberately set out to kill the victim. Sometimes accidents can happen and we really are unaware as to what blame can be apportioned to either party. A loss of a young life is incredibly tragic; however, that life can not be compensated for in the prosecution of an individual for a crime they did not commit. For the offender to be prosecuted for death by dangerous driving there must me sufficient evidence to show that the offender was driving in a dangerous fashion.

whilst you would normally be entirely justified in your response - in this case I belive you have missed an important details in-so-far as guilt was admitted ( driving without due care). Clearly this is trajic - but of someone admits liability 3points and a negligable fine is quite literally a travesty of justice.

Mikeyunibournemouth wrote:

paulthefish wrote:
what a joke!! i wonder if the sentance is yet another example of the "i am so out of touch with reality" brigade? the laws in this country stink! he should have been found guilty of death by dangerous driving. and locked up for a very long time. how the hell does that judge,let alone the murdering piece of scum, sleep at night?

Whilst the sentence is an outrage in relation to crime, we must be careful in our response. Murder is a premeditated act; there is no indication that the offender deliberately set out to kill the victim. Sometimes accidents can happen and we really are unaware as to what blame can be apportioned to either party. A loss of a young life is incredibly tragic; however, that life can not be compensated for in the prosecution of an individual for a crime they did not commit. For the offender to be prosecuted for death by dangerous driving there must me sufficient evidence to show that the offender was driving in a dangerous fashion.

The offender hurtled on for 90 m demolished traffic signs and ended up against a tree,sufficient evidence to show the offender was driving in a dangerous manner me thinks

Unbelievable verdict. You get 3 points & £60 fine for speeding.
Utterly speakless!

if the taxi driver were named Tom Ridgway and the victim named Ichhapel Bhamra would your anger be quite so red hot?

Disgusting verdict. It makes me feel ashamed to be a taxi driver but was the driver actually a Hackney Carriage driver as in Birmingham they have to be LTI black cabs & this guy was driving a saloon car which makes me think that he could well have been a Private Hire driver or even unlicensed.
Personally l think the latter as he seemed determined to drive away after the initial accident.
What are your thoughts? Sadly the media always tarnishes Private Hire & unlicensed cabs as TAXIS.
One day the media might just get it right!!!

Firstly, I am so sorry for the family of this student, and having a daughter who is studying away from home cannot imagine what they are going through.

Secondly, how did it take 90 metres to stop, and then by hitting a tree?

I don't know what the speed limit was where this incident occurred was, neither do I know what speed the taxi was travellling at.

The Government website suggests that the total braking distance at 40mph is 36 metres and even at 60mph is 73 metres.

The driver was not charged with speeding, only undue care and attention.

The law surrounding such incidents needs to be reviewed.

Sorry if all this sounds too analytical but it's a disgrace that someone can cause so much misery and mayhem and walk away with such a pathetic 'punishment'.

beachcomber1 wrote:
if the taxi driver were named Tom Ridgway and the victim named Ichhapel Bhamra would your anger be quite so red hot?

And that comment makes you a racist.

well said beachcomber1

Mikeyunibournemouth wrote:

paulthefish wrote:
what a joke!! i wonder if the sentance is yet another example of the "i am so out of touch with reality" brigade? the laws in this country stink! he should have been found guilty of death by dangerous driving. and locked up for a very long time. how the hell does that judge,let alone the murdering piece of scum, sleep at night?

Whilst the sentence is an outrage in relation to crime, we must be careful in our response. Murder is a premeditated act; there is no indication that the offender deliberately set out to kill the victim. Sometimes accidents can happen and we really are unaware as to what blame can be apportioned to either party. A loss of a young life is incredibly tragic; however, that life can not be compensated for in the prosecution of an individual for a crime they did not commit. For the offender to be prosecuted for death by dangerous driving there must me sufficient evidence to show that the offender was driving in a dangerous fashion.

the poor lad was carried 90 metres down the road on the bonnet. what part of that do you regard as an accident?

paulthefish wrote:

Mikeyunibournemouth wrote:

paulthefish wrote:
what a joke!! i wonder if the sentance is yet another example of the "i am so out of touch with reality" brigade? the laws in this country stink! he should have been found guilty of death by dangerous driving. and locked up for a very long time. how the hell does that judge,let alone the murdering piece of scum, sleep at night?

Whilst the sentence is an outrage in relation to crime, we must be careful in our response. Murder is a premeditated act; there is no indication that the offender deliberately set out to kill the victim. Sometimes accidents can happen and we really are unaware as to what blame can be apportioned to either party. A loss of a young life is incredibly tragic; however, that life can not be compensated for in the prosecution of an individual for a crime they did not commit. For the offender to be prosecuted for death by dangerous driving there must me sufficient evidence to show that the offender was driving in a dangerous fashion.

the poor lad was carried 90 metres down the road on the bonnet. what part of that do you regard as an accident?

sorry. i read the story wrong. he did not carry the lad on his bonnet. however i still say it cannot be called an accident because it does not take that sort of distance to stop after hitting someone! it is death by dangerous driving by definition of the law.

Ichhapel Bhamra
you are a disgrace to this country and your own
please feel free to leave when ever you want,your not welcome
same apply s to those 7 from oxford

Here's the full article from Birmingham with more facts than the Echo seemed fit to print. Yes, he was carried on the bonnet for 90 metres. He handed in his taxi licence; oh good!

http://www.birmingha
mmail.co.uk/news/tax
i-driver-fined-35-fo
r-killing-1218497

paulthefish wrote:

Mikeyunibournemouth wrote:

paulthefish wrote:
what a joke!! i wonder if the sentance is yet another example of the "i am so out of touch with reality" brigade? the laws in this country stink! he should have been found guilty of death by dangerous driving. and locked up for a very long time. how the hell does that judge,let alone the murdering piece of scum, sleep at night?

Whilst the sentence is an outrage in relation to crime, we must be careful in our response. Murder is a premeditated act; there is no indication that the offender deliberately set out to kill the victim. Sometimes accidents can happen and we really are unaware as to what blame can be apportioned to either party. A loss of a young life is incredibly tragic; however, that life can not be compensated for in the prosecution of an individual for a crime they did not commit. For the offender to be prosecuted for death by dangerous driving there must me sufficient evidence to show that the offender was driving in a dangerous fashion.

the poor lad was carried 90 metres down the road on the bonnet. what part of that do you regard as an accident?

If the offender did not intend for the collision to occur and did not intend to harm or kill the victim then by definition it is accident? Accidents can happen and the loss of life is a terrible consequence; however, it is not the consequences of an act that determine whether the act itself was intentional or accidental. What people are seeing in this story is that a lost young life = £35 fine and three points. The problem is that none of us know the full circumstances of the case. The CPS more than likely chose to charge the offender with driving without due care based on the evidence available and circumstances of the case. We cannot automatically condemn the offender without knowing the full details of the case. That is all I am saying.

Mikeyunibournemouth wrote:

paulthefish wrote:

Mikeyunibournemouth wrote:

paulthefish wrote:
what a joke!! i wonder if the sentance is yet another example of the "i am so out of touch with reality" brigade? the laws in this country stink! he should have been found guilty of death by dangerous driving. and locked up for a very long time. how the hell does that judge,let alone the murdering piece of scum, sleep at night?

Whilst the sentence is an outrage in relation to crime, we must be careful in our response. Murder is a premeditated act; there is no indication that the offender deliberately set out to kill the victim. Sometimes accidents can happen and we really are unaware as to what blame can be apportioned to either party. A loss of a young life is incredibly tragic; however, that life can not be compensated for in the prosecution of an individual for a crime they did not commit. For the offender to be prosecuted for death by dangerous driving there must me sufficient evidence to show that the offender was driving in a dangerous fashion.

the poor lad was carried 90 metres down the road on the bonnet. what part of that do you regard as an accident?

If the offender did not intend for the collision to occur and did not intend to harm or kill the victim then by definition it is accident? Accidents can happen and the loss of life is a terrible consequence; however, it is not the consequences of an act that determine whether the act itself was intentional or accidental. What people are seeing in this story is that a lost young life = £35 fine and three points. The problem is that none of us know the full circumstances of the case. The CPS more than likely chose to charge the offender with driving without due care based on the evidence available and circumstances of the case. We cannot automatically condemn the offender without knowing the full details of the case. That is all I am saying.

A person took somebodys life away at a cost of £35 what bit dont you understand?

retry69 wrote:

Mikeyunibournemouth wrote:

paulthefish wrote:

Mikeyunibournemouth wrote:

paulthefish wrote:
what a joke!! i wonder if the sentance is yet another example of the "i am so out of touch with reality" brigade? the laws in this country stink! he should have been found guilty of death by dangerous driving. and locked up for a very long time. how the hell does that judge,let alone the murdering piece of scum, sleep at night?

Whilst the sentence is an outrage in relation to crime, we must be careful in our response. Murder is a premeditated act; there is no indication that the offender deliberately set out to kill the victim. Sometimes accidents can happen and we really are unaware as to what blame can be apportioned to either party. A loss of a young life is incredibly tragic; however, that life can not be compensated for in the prosecution of an individual for a crime they did not commit. For the offender to be prosecuted for death by dangerous driving there must me sufficient evidence to show that the offender was driving in a dangerous fashion.

the poor lad was carried 90 metres down the road on the bonnet. what part of that do you regard as an accident?

If the offender did not intend for the collision to occur and did not intend to harm or kill the victim then by definition it is accident? Accidents can happen and the loss of life is a terrible consequence; however, it is not the consequences of an act that determine whether the act itself was intentional or accidental. What people are seeing in this story is that a lost young life = £35 fine and three points. The problem is that none of us know the full circumstances of the case. The CPS more than likely chose to charge the offender with driving without due care based on the evidence available and circumstances of the case. We cannot automatically condemn the offender without knowing the full details of the case. That is all I am saying.

A person took somebodys life away at a cost of £35 what bit dont you understand?

Sadly it is you who does not understand. The CPS tried the offender for a very minor offence. This is probably due to insufficient evidence or maybe because the victim was at fault as well. The offender then received a sentence that I would consider quite normal given the offence he was found guilty of. If we knew the details of the case then maybe we would be better placed to comment. What you don't understand is that the offender was not prosecuted for harming or killing the victim; therefore, he cannot then be given a sentence that would reflect that. What I get from the story is that a collision occurred that resulted in a fatality. One of the individuals involved in the incident was found to be guilty of driving without due care and attention at the time the incident occurred.

I am lost 4 words how the hell did he get away from it any 1 can get taxi liecence Bournemouth town got lot to answer 4 check all the taxi drivers 4 visa

Any deaths caused by a road traffic incident (the police no longer all them accidents as all accidents are preventable) should be classed as manslaughter and carry the same sentence plus a life-time driving ban.

Mikeyunibournemouth wrote:

retry69 wrote:

Mikeyunibournemouth wrote:

paulthefish wrote:

Mikeyunibournemouth wrote:

paulthefish wrote:
what a joke!! i wonder if the sentance is yet another example of the "i am so out of touch with reality" brigade? the laws in this country stink! he should have been found guilty of death by dangerous driving. and locked up for a very long time. how the hell does that judge,let alone the murdering piece of scum, sleep at night?

Whilst the sentence is an outrage in relation to crime, we must be careful in our response. Murder is a premeditated act; there is no indication that the offender deliberately set out to kill the victim. Sometimes accidents can happen and we really are unaware as to what blame can be apportioned to either party. A loss of a young life is incredibly tragic; however, that life can not be compensated for in the prosecution of an individual for a crime they did not commit. For the offender to be prosecuted for death by dangerous driving there must me sufficient evidence to show that the offender was driving in a dangerous fashion.

the poor lad was carried 90 metres down the road on the bonnet. what part of that do you regard as an accident?

If the offender did not intend for the collision to occur and did not intend to harm or kill the victim then by definition it is accident? Accidents can happen and the loss of life is a terrible consequence; however, it is not the consequences of an act that determine whether the act itself was intentional or accidental. What people are seeing in this story is that a lost young life = £35 fine and three points. The problem is that none of us know the full circumstances of the case. The CPS more than likely chose to charge the offender with driving without due care based on the evidence available and circumstances of the case. We cannot automatically condemn the offender without knowing the full details of the case. That is all I am saying.

A person took somebodys life away at a cost of £35 what bit dont you understand?

Sadly it is you who does not understand. The CPS tried the offender for a very minor offence. This is probably due to insufficient evidence or maybe because the victim was at fault as well. The offender then received a sentence that I would consider quite normal given the offence he was found guilty of. If we knew the details of the case then maybe we would be better placed to comment. What you don't understand is that the offender was not prosecuted for harming or killing the victim; therefore, he cannot then be given a sentence that would reflect that. What I get from the story is that a collision occurred that resulted in a fatality. One of the individuals involved in the incident was found to be guilty of driving without due care and attention at the time the incident occurred.

I think you may find your opinion will be in the minority i can only put your comments down to being naive or misunderstanding the other comments ,probably intentionally.A person lost their life through the actions of another and that person should have been charged differently,the fault may lie with the CPS or the police but reading the other article in another paper the facts are fairly clear.On a seperate note it would be interesting to know what you are studying at uni?

There are quite a few uninformed comments above, EGHH seems to think you should be guilty before trial if you have an accident, whatever the circumstances, Hunter 1234 appears to believe Bournemouth Council are responsible for Birmingham "Taxi" Drivers and a number of others border on racist.
-
I wonder if their is much point in charging a driver with Careless Driving in cases where death results, the sentence is usually a derisory fine and certainly in cases such as this one, which on the face of it stand a chance of a successful conviction for Death by Dangerous Driving should for the sake of justice be tested by the courts.
-
That would in all probability mean long and expensive trials for persons who would eventually be found not guilty through lack of evidence, but it would be more apparent that the justice process had been fully used.

I am unsure whether he should go to jail. However, I am sure that he should never be allowed to drive again. People can drive on the roads under licence: it is not a right. And this person clearly is not fit to be in charge of a vehicle.

I personally would be in favour of anyone killing someone else in a road "accident" to be banned for life.

FNS-man wrote:
I am unsure whether he should go to jail. However, I am sure that he should never be allowed to drive again. People can drive on the roads under licence: it is not a right. And this person clearly is not fit to be in charge of a vehicle.

I personally would be in favour of anyone killing someone else in a road "accident" to be banned for life.

About time you showed up, even though i am a little confused by your comment as you are usually more explicit in cases such as this

Interesting that I can't find a single report naming the magistrates involved.

I'd be interested to know the ethnicity and religion of the magistrates in this case.

Mikeyunibournemouth wrote:

paulthefish wrote:

Mikeyunibournemouth wrote:

paulthefish wrote:
what a joke!! i wonder if the sentance is yet another example of the "i am so out of touch with reality" brigade? the laws in this country stink! he should have been found guilty of death by dangerous driving. and locked up for a very long time. how the hell does that judge,let alone the murdering piece of scum, sleep at night?

Whilst the sentence is an outrage in relation to crime, we must be careful in our response. Murder is a premeditated act; there is no indication that the offender deliberately set out to kill the victim. Sometimes accidents can happen and we really are unaware as to what blame can be apportioned to either party. A loss of a young life is incredibly tragic; however, that life can not be compensated for in the prosecution of an individual for a crime they did not commit. For the offender to be prosecuted for death by dangerous driving there must me sufficient evidence to show that the offender was driving in a dangerous fashion.

the poor lad was carried 90 metres down the road on the bonnet. what part of that do you regard as an accident?

If the offender did not intend for the collision to occur and did not intend to harm or kill the victim then by definition it is accident? Accidents can happen and the loss of life is a terrible consequence; however, it is not the consequences of an act that determine whether the act itself was intentional or accidental. What people are seeing in this story is that a lost young life = £35 fine and three points. The problem is that none of us know the full circumstances of the case. The CPS more than likely chose to charge the offender with driving without due care based on the evidence available and circumstances of the case. We cannot automatically condemn the offender without knowing the full details of the case. That is all I am saying.

So if I unintentionally stray over the speed limit and get flashed by a speed camera does that mean I have a defence against paying the fine and points on my licence.

At the very least he should have received a lifetime driving ban.

No one who drives 90m (nearly 300 feet) after hitting a person has any place on our roads.

Must have been a very crowded Court Room, so many people who obviously know far more than was given in the very brief Echo write-up.

polblagger wrote:
At the very least he should have received a lifetime driving ban.

No one who drives 90m (nearly 300 feet) after hitting a person has any place on our roads.

100% correct. and if he claimed he did not realise he hit someone, then even more reason to get him off the roads!

Cyclists are so vulnerable and especially
when colliding with a speeding taxi!

So is this the worth of a human life just£35 and 3 points on a license...the judge should hang...along with the driver.

And a cyclist would be fined by a court the sum of £30 for cycling on the pavement regardless of wether or not he put a pedestrians life at risk.

retry69 wrote:

Mikeyunibournemouth wrote:

retry69 wrote:

Mikeyunibournemouth wrote:

paulthefish wrote:

Mikeyunibournemouth wrote:

paulthefish wrote:
what a joke!! i wonder if the sentance is yet another example of the "i am so out of touch with reality" brigade? the laws in this country stink! he should have been found guilty of death by dangerous driving. and locked up for a very long time. how the hell does that judge,let alone the murdering piece of scum, sleep at night?

Whilst the sentence is an outrage in relation to crime, we must be careful in our response. Murder is a premeditated act; there is no indication that the offender deliberately set out to kill the victim. Sometimes accidents can happen and we really are unaware as to what blame can be apportioned to either party. A loss of a young life is incredibly tragic; however, that life can not be compensated for in the prosecution of an individual for a crime they did not commit. For the offender to be prosecuted for death by dangerous driving there must me sufficient evidence to show that the offender was driving in a dangerous fashion.

the poor lad was carried 90 metres down the road on the bonnet. what part of that do you regard as an accident?

If the offender did not intend for the collision to occur and did not intend to harm or kill the victim then by definition it is accident? Accidents can happen and the loss of life is a terrible consequence; however, it is not the consequences of an act that determine whether the act itself was intentional or accidental. What people are seeing in this story is that a lost young life = £35 fine and three points. The problem is that none of us know the full circumstances of the case. The CPS more than likely chose to charge the offender with driving without due care based on the evidence available and circumstances of the case. We cannot automatically condemn the offender without knowing the full details of the case. That is all I am saying.

A person took somebodys life away at a cost of £35 what bit dont you understand?

Sadly it is you who does not understand. The CPS tried the offender for a very minor offence. This is probably due to insufficient evidence or maybe because the victim was at fault as well. The offender then received a sentence that I would consider quite normal given the offence he was found guilty of. If we knew the details of the case then maybe we would be better placed to comment. What you don't understand is that the offender was not prosecuted for harming or killing the victim; therefore, he cannot then be given a sentence that would reflect that. What I get from the story is that a collision occurred that resulted in a fatality. One of the individuals involved in the incident was found to be guilty of driving without due care and attention at the time the incident occurred.

I think you may find your opinion will be in the minority i can only put your comments down to being naive or misunderstanding the other comments ,probably intentionally.A person lost their life through the actions of another and that person should have been charged differently,the fault may lie with the CPS or the police but reading the other article in another paper the facts are fairly clear.On a seperate note it would be interesting to know what you are studying at uni?

Even If I am a minority of one, truth is still the truth.

Mohandas Ghandi

Mikeyunibournemouth wrote:

retry69 wrote:

Mikeyunibournemouth wrote:

retry69 wrote:

Mikeyunibournemouth wrote:

paulthefish wrote:

Mikeyunibournemouth wrote:

paulthefish wrote:
what a joke!! i wonder if the sentance is yet another example of the "i am so out of touch with reality" brigade? the laws in this country stink! he should have been found guilty of death by dangerous driving. and locked up for a very long time. how the hell does that judge,let alone the murdering piece of scum, sleep at night?

Whilst the sentence is an outrage in relation to crime, we must be careful in our response. Murder is a premeditated act; there is no indication that the offender deliberately set out to kill the victim. Sometimes accidents can happen and we really are unaware as to what blame can be apportioned to either party. A loss of a young life is incredibly tragic; however, that life can not be compensated for in the prosecution of an individual for a crime they did not commit. For the offender to be prosecuted for death by dangerous driving there must me sufficient evidence to show that the offender was driving in a dangerous fashion.

the poor lad was carried 90 metres down the road on the bonnet. what part of that do you regard as an accident?

If the offender did not intend for the collision to occur and did not intend to harm or kill the victim then by definition it is accident? Accidents can happen and the loss of life is a terrible consequence; however, it is not the consequences of an act that determine whether the act itself was intentional or accidental. What people are seeing in this story is that a lost young life = £35 fine and three points. The problem is that none of us know the full circumstances of the case. The CPS more than likely chose to charge the offender with driving without due care based on the evidence available and circumstances of the case. We cannot automatically condemn the offender without knowing the full details of the case. That is all I am saying.

A person took somebodys life away at a cost of £35 what bit dont you understand?

Sadly it is you who does not understand. The CPS tried the offender for a very minor offence. This is probably due to insufficient evidence or maybe because the victim was at fault as well. The offender then received a sentence that I would consider quite normal given the offence he was found guilty of. If we knew the details of the case then maybe we would be better placed to comment. What you don't understand is that the offender was not prosecuted for harming or killing the victim; therefore, he cannot then be given a sentence that would reflect that. What I get from the story is that a collision occurred that resulted in a fatality. One of the individuals involved in the incident was found to be guilty of driving without due care and attention at the time the incident occurred.

I think you may find your opinion will be in the minority i can only put your comments down to being naive or misunderstanding the other comments ,probably intentionally.A person lost their life through the actions of another and that person should have been charged differently,the fault may lie with the CPS or the police but reading the other article in another paper the facts are fairly clear.On a seperate note it would be interesting to know what you are studying at uni?

Even If I am a minority of one, truth is still the truth.

Mohandas Ghandi

A uni friend?

ShuttleX wrote:

beachcomber1 wrote:
if the taxi driver were named Tom Ridgway and the victim named Ichhapel Bhamra would your anger be quite so red hot?

And that comment makes you a racist.

How on earth is that even remotely racist?

I do not wish to pass comment on this case as there is too little information to make an informed view of the Courts decision.
Suffice though that there is an offence of Death by Careles driving. However this is an emotive area because every accident that occurs involves an element of carelessness on one part or another.
Anyone who has had a bump in their car where little or no injury will think nothing of it once the dust settles. But from just a little kncock someone dies and you are deemed at fault then Death by Careless and possible prison could await anyone of us, from something that until it happened we could never have forseen.
Cyclists too can break the law by riding without due care.
During the heavy snow in Poole I was carefully negotiating a hazardous stretch of pavement covered in ice, snow and slush. It was treacherous under foot and a number of pedestrians were struggling to keep balance, as was I.
Low and behold a yoof on a cycle comes bombing along the pavement weaving in and out of people who were all alarmed at the suddeness of his unheard approach and presence.
I told the yoof without swearing, to get off the bike as it was dangerous to be met with a torrent of foul abuse as he pedalled on. Who ever holds him accountable.
All drivers have a reponsibility on the road to drive with the correct level of care and attention.
So too must cyclists.
The poor cyclist subject of this article may well have cycled lawfully and correctly at the time of his tragic death, but many cyclists do not. They cycle without lights, on the pavement (with no approved cycle lane provided), in a feckless & reckless manner, without suitable attire, on bikes that sometimes are not roadworthy AND then suddenly when something happens its everyone elses fault.
But having said that this driver was a taxi driver and I am aghast at the substandard level of driving of taxi drivers in Bournemouth who call themselves professional drivers on the basis that all they do is drive for a living. But undertaking at excess speed in a Bus/Taxi lane, stopping without consideration for others in the middle of the road, roof lights illuminating a street (usually my bedroom when trying to sleep) for their convenience and generally cutting corners on the road in the name of making a further penny, all become right apparently because they believe they can.

paulthefish wrote:

polblagger wrote:
At the very least he should have received a lifetime driving ban.

No one who drives 90m (nearly 300 feet) after hitting a person has any place on our roads.

100% correct. and if he claimed he did not realise he hit someone, then even more reason to get him off the roads!

Were they going at speed and was there a truck behind? Did he make a judgement call(?!?) that it was safer for the majority to drive for a distance rather than stop dead?

Tragic to have a loss of life BUT none of those commenting know any/many of the actual facts because of the poor reporting of something which should (by now) be a matter of public record.

Shame the Echo didn't report with full facts and that some of the commenters didn't insist on those before passing judgement.

beachcomber1 wrote:
if the taxi driver were named Tom Ridgway and the victim named Ichhapel Bhamra would your anger be quite so red hot?

Yes, whats the difference?

Marksimmo wrote:
I do not wish to pass comment on this case as there is too little information to make an informed view of the Courts decision.
Suffice though that there is an offence of Death by Careles driving. However this is an emotive area because every accident that occurs involves an element of carelessness on one part or another.
Anyone who has had a bump in their car where little or no injury will think nothing of it once the dust settles. But from just a little kncock someone dies and you are deemed at fault then Death by Careless and possible prison could await anyone of us, from something that until it happened we could never have forseen.
Cyclists too can break the law by riding without due care.
During the heavy snow in Poole I was carefully negotiating a hazardous stretch of pavement covered in ice, snow and slush. It was treacherous under foot and a number of pedestrians were struggling to keep balance, as was I.
Low and behold a yoof on a cycle comes bombing along the pavement weaving in and out of people who were all alarmed at the suddeness of his unheard approach and presence.
I told the yoof without swearing, to get off the bike as it was dangerous to be met with a torrent of foul abuse as he pedalled on. Who ever holds him accountable.
All drivers have a reponsibility on the road to drive with the correct level of care and attention.
So too must cyclists.
The poor cyclist subject of this article may well have cycled lawfully and correctly at the time of his tragic death, but many cyclists do not. They cycle without lights, on the pavement (with no approved cycle lane provided), in a feckless & reckless manner, without suitable attire, on bikes that sometimes are not roadworthy AND then suddenly when something happens its everyone elses fault.
But having said that this driver was a taxi driver and I am aghast at the substandard level of driving of taxi drivers in Bournemouth who call themselves professional drivers on the basis that all they do is drive for a living. But undertaking at excess speed in a Bus/Taxi lane, stopping without consideration for others in the middle of the road, roof lights illuminating a street (usually my bedroom when trying to sleep) for their convenience and generally cutting corners on the road in the name of making a further penny, all become right apparently because they believe they can.

Anybody else you would like to have a moan at, or have you covered the whole WORLD, look into the mirror you SAD person.

mike in florida wrote:
Ichhapel Bhamra
you are a disgrace to this country and your own
please feel free to leave when ever you want,your not welcome
same apply s to those 7 from oxford

No reporting of this story mentions that he was not British.

mikey2gorgeous wrote:

mike in florida wrote:
Ichhapel Bhamra
you are a disgrace to this country and your own
please feel free to leave when ever you want,your not welcome
same apply s to those 7 from oxford

No reporting of this story mentions that he was not British.

Really is that the best we can expect from the Chairperson of a bournemouth cycling forum?

Marksimmo wrote:
I do not wish to pass comment on this case as there is too little information to make an informed view of the Courts decision. Suffice though that there is an offence of Death by Careles driving. However this is an emotive area because every accident that occurs involves an element of carelessness on one part or another. Anyone who has had a bump in their car where little or no injury will think nothing of it once the dust settles. But from just a little kncock someone dies and you are deemed at fault then Death by Careless and possible prison could await anyone of us, from something that until it happened we could never have forseen. Cyclists too can break the law by riding without due care. During the heavy snow in Poole I was carefully negotiating a hazardous stretch of pavement covered in ice, snow and slush. It was treacherous under foot and a number of pedestrians were struggling to keep balance, as was I. Low and behold a yoof on a cycle comes bombing along the pavement weaving in and out of people who were all alarmed at the suddeness of his unheard approach and presence. I told the yoof without swearing, to get off the bike as it was dangerous to be met with a torrent of foul abuse as he pedalled on. Who ever holds him accountable. All drivers have a reponsibility on the road to drive with the correct level of care and attention. So too must cyclists. The poor cyclist subject of this article may well have cycled lawfully and correctly at the time of his tragic death, but many cyclists do not. They cycle without lights, on the pavement (with no approved cycle lane provided), in a feckless & reckless manner, without suitable attire, on bikes that sometimes are not roadworthy AND then suddenly when something happens its everyone elses fault. But having said that this driver was a taxi driver and I am aghast at the substandard level of driving of taxi drivers in Bournemouth who call themselves professional drivers on the basis that all they do is drive for a living. But undertaking at excess speed in a Bus/Taxi lane, stopping without consideration for others in the middle of the road, roof lights illuminating a street (usually my bedroom when trying to sleep) for their convenience and generally cutting corners on the road in the name of making a further penny, all become right apparently because they believe they can.

The idiot that drove off and left my son to die after a RTC got six weeks imprisonment - he was a disqualified driver and only got jailed because he was caught driving whilst disqualified again before the last Hearing - muppet - what goes around comes around!

lelbel wrote:
well said beachcomber1

Why is it well said?

As none of us know the full details of this tragic accident none of us are qualified to pass judgement

A 35 pound fee is what a White man's life is worth to this gov?

Noted. You ready for when it's your son?
You'll get enough to pay an overdraft fee on your credit card.

Anti-racist is nothing but a code for Anti-White.

grazzer wrote:
As none of us know the full details of this tragic accident none of us are qualified to pass judgement

Unless this person had a gun at his head, there is absolutely no reason on gods earth for driving 300 feet down the road after you've hit someone.

There are only two reasons for doing so, indecision about fleeing the scene or unawareness that you've just killed someone.

Either way this person has no right to be in charge of any vehicle on UK roads.