I AM incensed that a man who was once a mobile mechanic (D Cole-Wilkins, Letters, February 17) thinks that this qualifies him to suggest that a jury of his peers did not do their job properly in the case. Had he read the case well enough he should be abl
I AM incensed that a man who was once a mobile mechanic (D Cole-Wilkins, Letters, February 17) thinks that this qualifies him to suggest that a jury of his peers did not do their job properly in the case.
Had he read the case well enough he should be able to understand that all of the criteria for the charge of death by dangerous driving were clearly met and a custodial sentence for killing another human being was therefore appropriate. No amount of "looking around him" would have protected Gareth Rhys-Evans. He was riding sensibly, reasonably and within the law.
It is the legal duty of other road users to be aware of all road users, not just other cars. Fail to observe that duty and you have broken the law and must face the consequences.
Dale Hicks (Letters, February 17) rather ridiculously suggests that simply because he does not approve of a cyclists' right to use the public highway for a time trial (not a "race" as he wrongly labels it) that the organiser is responsible for what happened when a motorist broke the law. As for the rest of his naive comments, risk assessment is done to police satisfaction, lights are not required in broad daylight, nor would they make any difference when the driver simply does not pay attention to what she already sees and a fluorescent body number was already being worn by all riders. I know these things to be true as I was one of the other 119 riders in that time trial.
We might live in a safer society if people followed the law on our roads and other people stopped bleating when our legal system deals appropriately with those who do not and as a result kill others.