This story appears in all regional and tabloid press.
Woman allegedly sent text messages before colliding with a broken down car.
She killed another young lady. She had a broken arm. Despite spinning into a lorry.
She (aged 24 years) was banned for three years and jailed for 21 months for killing a 21 year old. She denied using the phone at point of impact but accepted sending text messages whilst driving.
The bereaved family .. far from impressed here.
I happen to agree on this one,. TEXTING
FFS
No LENIENT .. absurdly so..
Especially when you take into account the sentence imposed on one woman who may or may not have been texting when she went through a traffic signal of green . but killed a cyclist who ignored a red light.
Now .. I do not think I AM wrong on this one.
I do not .. and never would condone using hand held phone to chat. I certainly would never contemplate sending a text when fully "at ease and at one peace" wiht my harem of cars /..
But somehow I think a jail term of 4 years when colliding with another who ignored the law seems very OTT in harshness when compared with one who texted at 70 mph and hit a stationary car as a result.. killing another young lady// but gets a derisory sentence by comparison of danger and legality of each party involved.
Cyclists. do NOT try to misinterpret. Both me .and Wildy and the geared up one condemned that texting woman at the time. We did comment on the legality of that cyclist at the time. Two wrongs can never ever make a right. All of us have a responsibility to each other out there.
But I am trying to place into context . as to who was the greater danger here.
I am saying in reality that this woman has received too light a sentence.
Her ban should start on her release. It should only be reduced if she satisfies an eaxminer of IG's calibre that she is able to drive in redeemed COAST course input .. in all reality. (and whilst the geared up guy appears to be a cuddly squishy doughnut.. he has a rock hard centre
)
Kid you not. I do not like him as a passenger. He nit picks.
Like him .. love him as a rock to depend on though. As a pal..
to me.
As crtique on my driving. he notices far too much
for my comfort and ego at times.
But I do disagree with the sentence. Put into context with other cases.. she got off too lightly really .
I will never ever understand the slavery to phone.
I agree 100% with my wife.
We do use handy phones. We never ever use if driving EVER.
The gadget records a message or tells us of a missed call.
We can reply accordingly on that basis. Our lives do not revolve around mobile phones . nor internet chatrooms.
We enjoy a real life . a family life. with REALITY and not some non-life as equated with anorak wearers who eat mushy peas and look like the Spitting Image of John Major as PM in the 90s
I am saying that our lives relax in our home and professions. We donate some time to this forum and the PH forum. We use the smilies.
That smilie use gets read by pals/family. They pay up for what they think fair abuse.. and fine us posters for using for the sake of it.
It means our time on line blends in with the ethic of our families. that we do not harm folk knowingly. do not hurt folk knowingly and seek always to help others in need.
But some do indeed abuse us. No matter. Their loss .. their stupidity. But their charity defence .. FUNDED by us.
And we donate to BRAKE and the CTC too. .. so we keep it all fair
So think hard before replying on any site with abuse to Swiss mob. Not illegal . .but fair minded.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
