Justice?

Message

Myrkk · #1 Post by **Myrkk** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 10:13 pm

A diabetic who blacked out at the wheel has been given four and a half years after mounting the kerb and killing someone.

When you think at the sentances handed out to joy riders who kill and main people it seems a lot........ or not? What do you think?

Aladinsaneuk · #2 Post by **Aladinsaneuk** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 10:28 pm

assuming this was not a newly diagnosed diabetic

guilty as charged - people are taught the warning signs etc - they ignore them, then so be it

(Sounds harsh, but is true)

TC · #3 Post by TC » Fri Dec 07, 2007 10:31 pm

It is very easy to pass judgement based on a press article, but we do not know and are unlikely to know the full facts.

Did the individual have a history of blacking out and therefore got into his vehicle knowing that there was a distinct possiblity that this could happen?

Was he/she driving against medical advice?

Unfortunately we are all guilty of passing a judgement based on a press article which is often beefed up or twisted in such a way so as to help sell more papers or whatever rather than make comment on the actual facts.

Samray · #4 Post by **Samray** » Fri Dec 07, 2007 10:34 pm

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/s ... th/1154552
He was certainly no more to blame than any drunk.
They also know the far more predictable results of their actions.

ligloo · #5 Post by **ligloo** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 5:40 pm

Aladinsaneuk wrote:assuming this was not a newly diagnosed diabetic

guilty as charged - people are taught the warning signs etc - they ignore them, then so be it

(Sounds harsh, but is true)

There arent always warning signs... you'd be as well jailing the doctors too as they give the ok and can inform the DVLA if they think someone is unfit to drive... He must have been deemed fit! It seems a harsh sentence to me, when many drunk and drugged up drivers get far less!

Aladinsaneuk · #6 Post by **Aladinsaneuk** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 6:32 pm

most type 1 diabetics do have warning signs - and:

admitted causing Mrs Meredith's death by dangerous driving

is a kicker - i strongly suspect that he was aware
the main downside to a hypoglycaemic attack is that often the individual concerned gets argumentative about how they are

and re the doctors - when they sign off someone as being safe to drive, they generally have all sorts of caveats to ensure that they are talking about compliance etc

ligloo · #7 Post by **ligloo** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 8:08 pm

I'm generally as low as he was before I get any warnings... last time I had a 'bad' hypo was infront of the doc at the clinic and I was just telling her I wasnt getting warning like I used to... then told her I felt wobbly there and then... she checked me and I was 1.9 mmol ... having a 'normal' convo with her and she hadnt realised I was hypoing either...

She told me she was worried about me driving as I can get that low... says it does happen to people that the warning signs disappear and now I check my blood every time before I get in the car. Touch wood never had a hypo whilst driving.... but stress can bring them on... so its only a matter of time, unless I kick the roadrage habit

ligloo · #8 Post by **ligloo** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 8:13 pm

Aladinsaneuk wrote:
is a kicker - i strongly suspect that he was aware
the main downside to a hypoglycaemic attack is that often the individual concerned gets argumentative about how they are

I blacked out once and wasnt aware it was going to happen... had he known I tend to think he would have stopped and seen to himself! As for becoming argumentative... not strictly true... you tend to become the opposite of how you normally are... I'm a gobby cow at the best of times and when I hypo I go very quiet and just don't speak.... on the other hand I've seen the most placid of men attack nurses whilst hypoing... there are no set rules... and it doesnt take away from the fact I think the sentence is VERY harsh!

It was an accident in the true sense of the word imo!

Would be interesting to know what the sentence would have been had it been a heart attack that caused it... no prior warning there either!

Paulh · #9 Post by **Paulh** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 8:44 pm

TC wrote:It is very easy to pass judgement based on a press article, but we do not know and are unlikely to know the full facts.

Did the individual have a history of blacking out and therefore got into his vehicle knowing that there was a distinct possiblity that this could happen?

Was he/she driving against medical advice?

Unfortunately we are all guilty of passing a judgement based on a press article which is often beefed up or twisted in such a way so as to help sell more papers or whatever rather than make comment on the actual facts.

Its all based on what is reported, but the keys to convicting him seems to have been that he knew of his condition and didnt bother to do anything about it

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_east/7133285.stm

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/u ... 680249.ece

based on those 2 reports I can see why he was convicted.

ligloo · #10 Post by **ligloo** » Tue Dec 11, 2007 9:02 pm

yep, if those reports are true then he deserves all he gets... tosser!