Joke justice.

[Dokko]

A Portuguese lorry driver has been sentenced to three years in jail for causing the deaths of a family of six in a crash on the M6.

 

Paulo Jorge Nogueira da Silva killed the Statham family, of Llandudno, when his 40-ton Daf lorry ploughed into their car and pushed it under a Volvo lorry.

 

David and Michelle Statham died instantly along with their sons Reece, 13, Jay, nine, and Mason, 20 months, and 10-week-old baby daughter Ellouise.

 

They were returning home after visiting relatives in Birmingham when their people carrier was involved in the pile-up near Sandbach, Cheshire, on October 20 last year.

 

Portuguese lorry driver Paulo Jorge Nogueira da Silva

 

Da Silva at court

 

Da Silva, 46, of Murcia, in Spain, was convicted at Chester Crown Court of six counts of causing death by careless driving.

 

Trial judge Mr Justice Irwin jailed him for three years on each count, to run concurrently, and told him he would serve 18 months in custody before being allowed out on licence.

 

He added: "This was one of the most serious offences of its kind."

 

Da Silva had failed to pay proper attention to the road for around a minute before hitting the Stathams' car, chief crown prosecutor Ian Rushton said.

 

Cheshire Police said he was using a laptop in the cab of his vehicle, possibly to plan his route.

 

The evidence showed that the Stathams' car was crushed between a large lorry, which had been queuing in a long tailback due to an earlier accident, and da Silva's lorry.

 

"Da Silva admitted in court that he had seen the electronic signs warning that the M6 was closed ahead and that queues were likely," Mr Rushton said.

 

"He said that he reduced his speed but could not explain how the collision happened."

 

Da Silva was also disqualified from driving for three years.

 

His defence had claimed the family may already have been dead as a result of Mrs Statham driving her Toyota into the Volvo moments before it was struck by the Daf lorry.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6 lives, three years...disgusting.

 

Hope he gets true justice in jail.

[Pilko]

Those three years disqualified from driving had better come into effect when he leaves jail, otherwise it's even worse.

[Guest diddimz]

3 years prison, 3 years of disqualification from driving, 6 dead, you really have to wonder about the legal system at times like this.

[AyeDubbleYoo]

The only thing I always wonder about is how sentences run 'concurrently'.

 

Surely sentences should run one after the other, so 3 X 6 = 18 years?

 

I don't get the idea behind it at all, if you're going to commit one crime you may as well commit loads? Any legal brains have info on the idea behind it?

 

Edit, just looked some of this up:

 

 

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/pbd_policy.html#07

 

Causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving (see note 5)

 

Section 2B of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (see note 6) provides that this offence is committed when the driving is without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other road users; and the driving has caused the death of another person.

 

The offence can be tried either in a magistrates' court or in the Crown Court. On indictment it carries a maximum sentence of 5 years' imprisonment.

Disqualification from driving for a minimum of 12 months is mandatory.

 

 

 

Banks on Sentence Update

 

http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:wps9QY1IjPQJ:www.banksr.com/updates/Concurrent_or_Consecutive_sentences_16_August_08.doc+concurrent+consecutive+sentences&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=5&gl=uk

 

37.1 Basic rule and principles

 

Magistrates’ Courts Sentencing Guidelines 2008 Sentencing for multiple offences

 

While concurrent sentences are generally to be preferred where the offences arose out of a single incident, consecutive sentences may be desirable in some circumstances.

R v Tamby 2008 2 Cr App R (S) 366 The defendant was convicted of assault by penetration and rape. He put his finger and then his penis in her vagina.  Held. Consecutive sentences were not justified.

 

[80]

Can't see what relevance the number of people in the car has to his sentence, myself.

[Dokko]

Can't see what relevance the number of people in the car has to his sentence, myself.

 

Tell that to remainder of the family...if there's any left.

 

 

[Segun Oluwaniyi]

Can't see what relevance the number of people in the car has to his sentence, myself.

 

Tell that to remainder of the family...if there's any left.

 

 

The thing is...if just the father were in the car, this story would not make anyone's news, and you would not be calling for this man on a internet forum.

[80]

Can't see what relevance the number of people in the car has to his sentence, myself.

 

Tell that to remainder of the family...if there's any left.

 

 

 

You've raised a point actually - if we're judging crimes on their outcomes like that, maybe it's not so bad if you wipe them out and leave no one to grieve. As far as I'm concerned, he should've gotten sentenced based on his negligence causing the crash etc. By that same token, I don't think someone equally negligent should get away with it just because they were lucky enough not to kill (many) people.

[Dokko]

Can't see what relevance the number of people in the car has to his sentence, myself.

 

Tell that to remainder of the family...if there's any left.

 

 

 

You've raised a point actually - if we're judging crimes on their outcomes like that, maybe it's not so bad if you wipe them out and leave no one to grieve. As far as I'm concerned, he should've gotten sentenced based on his negligence causing the crash etc. By that same token, I don't think someone equally negligent should get away with it just because they were lucky enough not to kill (many) people.

 

It's a fair enough POV, but i don't agree with it. 6 lives were taken due to his negligence and he should serve 6 life sentences, my opinion of course.

[Dokko]

Can't see what relevance the number of people in the car has to his sentence, myself.

 

Tell that to remainder of the family...if there's any left.

 

 

The thing is...if just the father were in the car, this story would not make anyone's news, and you would not be calling for this man on a internet forum.

 

It's not my fault what does and doesn't make the news. a family of 6 dead is a tragedy, getting only 3 years for it is another one.

[Nobody]

Can't see what relevance the number of people in the car has to his sentence, myself.

 

Tell that to remainder of the family...if there's any left.

 

 

 

You've raised a point actually - if we're judging crimes on their outcomes like that, maybe it's not so bad if you wipe them out and leave no one to grieve. As far as I'm concerned, he should've gotten sentenced based on his negligence causing the crash etc. By that same token, I don't think someone equally negligent should get away with it just because they were lucky enough not to kill (many) people.

Agree.

[Segun Oluwaniyi]

Can't see what relevance the number of people in the car has to his sentence, myself.

 

Tell that to remainder of the family...if there's any left.

 

 

 

You've raised a point actually - if we're judging crimes on their outcomes like that, maybe it's not so bad if you wipe them out and leave no one to grieve. As far as I'm concerned, he should've gotten sentenced based on his negligence causing the crash etc. By that same token, I don't think someone equally negligent should get away with it just because they were lucky enough not to kill (many) people.

 

It's a fair enough POV, but i don't agree with it. 6 lives were taken due to his negligence and he should serve 6 life sentences, my opinion of course.

That's absolutely ridiculous. I would say that maybe he should banned from driving for much longer though.

[Dokko]

Can't see what relevance the number of people in the car has to his sentence, myself.

 

Tell that to remainder of the family...if there's any left.

 

 

 

You've raised a point actually - if we're judging crimes on their outcomes like that, maybe it's not so bad if you wipe them out and leave no one to grieve. As far as I'm concerned, he should've gotten sentenced based on his negligence causing the crash etc. By that same token, I don't think someone equally negligent should get away with it just because they were lucky enough not to kill (many) people.

 

It's a fair enough POV, but i don't agree with it. 6 lives were taken due to his negligence and he should serve 6 life sentences, my opinion of course.

That's absolutely ridiculous. I would say that maybe he should banned from driving for much longer though.

 

No it's not.

 

If your family was wiped out by some moron behind a wheel, would 3 years be enough in terms of justice for you?

 

[Segun Oluwaniyi]

Can't see what relevance the number of people in the car has to his sentence, myself.

 

Tell that to remainder of the family...if there's any left.

 

 

 

You've raised a point actually - if we're judging crimes on their outcomes like that, maybe it's not so bad if you wipe them out and leave no one to grieve. As far as I'm concerned, he should've gotten sentenced based on his negligence causing the crash etc. By that same token, I don't think someone equally negligent should get away with it just because they were lucky enough not to kill (many) people.

 

It's a fair enough POV, but i don't agree with it. 6 lives were taken due to his negligence and he should serve 6 life sentences, my opinion of course.

That's absolutely ridiculous. I would say that maybe he should banned from driving for much longer though.

 

No it's not.

 

If your family was wiped out by some moron behind a wheel, would 3 years be enough in terms of justice for you?

 

No. He shouldn't serve any kind of life sentence though. This isn't malice or acting with the intent to kill or harm. This is negligence. This is someone being at fault for a tragic accident. Punishment is deserved, but not the kind of punishment for murderers or even attempted murderers or those who purposely inflict severe physical harm. I personnally believe in forgiveness, but even disregarding personal beliefs, there is a clear difference between this and murder or even voluntary manslaughter.

[Guest lankybellwipe]

Can't see what relevance the number of people in the car has to his sentence, myself.

 

Tell that to remainder of the family...if there's any left.

 

 

 

You've raised a point actually - if we're judging crimes on their outcomes like that, maybe it's not so bad if you wipe them out and leave no one to grieve. As far as I'm concerned, he should've gotten sentenced based on his negligence causing the crash etc. By that same token, I don't think someone equally negligent should get away with it just because they were lucky enough not to kill (many) people.

 

It's a fair enough POV, but i don't agree with it. 6 lives were taken due to his negligence and he should serve 6 life sentences, my opinion of course.

That's absolutely ridiculous. I would say that maybe he should banned from driving for much longer though.

 

No it's not.

 

If your family was wiped out by some moron behind a wheel, would 3 years be enough in terms of justice for you?

 

 

you also have to consider the already overcrowded prison debate! That sort of sentence implemented as standard just would not work!

[indi]

Can't see what relevance the number of people in the car has to his sentence, myself.

 

Tell that to remainder of the family...if there's any left.

 

 

 

You've raised a point actually - if we're judging crimes on their outcomes like that, maybe it's not so bad if you wipe them out and leave no one to grieve. As far as I'm concerned, he should've gotten sentenced based on his negligence causing the crash etc. By that same token, I don't think someone equally negligent should get away with it just because they were lucky enough not to kill (many) people.

 

It's a fair enough POV, but i don't agree with it. 6 lives were taken due to his negligence and he should serve 6 life sentences, my opinion of course.

That's absolutely ridiculous. I would say that maybe he should banned from driving for much longer though.

 

No it's not.

 

If your family was wiped out by some moron behind a wheel, would 3 years be enough in terms of justice for you?

 

 

Never used a mobile whilst driving? Lit a fag, changed the cd/radio, looked at a map, had a conversation with the person next to you and looked at them, had an argument with someone whilst driving, driven after drinking (even the morning after), had a spliff before driving, been tired behind the wheel, broke the speed limit, etc, etc, etc?

 

This was a tragic accident, yeah the bloke was negligent to quite a degree, but if it had been a sat-nav rather than a laptop then it would appear less-so because lots of people do that, even though it's probably harder than using a laptop. Apart from anything, it seems that there's a chance the family were already dead due to having driven into the back of another truck anyway, is anyone slating the driver (Mum or Dad) for being negligent, of course they aren't.

 

People love to jump on these kind of stories because it allows them to get all high an mighty about it, yet as is usually the case when people get like that they do the exact same thing themselves all the time, they're just lucky enough to get away with it.

 

I'm not necessarily talking about you TT, you may be the exception to the rule if you don't do any of the things that I mentioned above, but I suspect most of the people who've slated this bloke do.

[Dokko]

Can't see what relevance the number of people in the car has to his sentence, myself.

 

Tell that to remainder of the family...if there's any left.

 

 

 

You've raised a point actually - if we're judging crimes on their outcomes like that, maybe it's not so bad if you wipe them out and leave no one to grieve. As far as I'm concerned, he should've gotten sentenced based on his negligence causing the crash etc. By that same token, I don't think someone equally negligent should get away with it just because they were lucky enough not to kill (many) people.

 

It's a fair enough POV, but i don't agree with it. 6 lives were taken due to his negligence and he should serve 6 life sentences, my opinion of course.

That's absolutely ridiculous. I would say that maybe he should banned from driving for much longer though.

 

No it's not.

 

If your family was wiped out by some moron behind a wheel, would 3 years be enough in terms of justice for you?

 

 

Never used a mobile whilst driving? Lit a fag, changed the cd/radio, looked at a map, had a conversation with the person next to you and looked at them, had an argument with someone whilst driving, driven after drinking (even the morning after), had a spliff before driving, been tired behind the wheel, broke the speed limit, etc, etc, etc?

 

This was a tragic accident, yeah the bloke was negligent to quite a degree, but if it had been a sat-nav rather than a laptop then it would appear less-so because lots of people do that, even though it's probably harder than using a laptop. Apart from anything, it seems that there's a chance the family were already dead due to having driven into the back of another truck anyway, is anyone slating the driver (Mum or Dad) for being negligent, of course they aren't.

 

People love to jump on these kind of stories because it allows them to get all high an mighty about it, yet as is usually the case when people get like that they do the exact same thing themselves all the time, they're just lucky enough to get away with it.

 

I'm not necessarily talking about you TT, you may be the exception to the rule if you don't do any of the things that I mentioned above, but I suspect most of the people who've slated this bloke do.

 

 

I'm a decent person who thinks of others, so maybe yes, i am an exception to the rule, tbf its not hard to be the exception and be decent in today's society.

 

PS: Using a laptop is less dangerous than using a sat nav while driving? (sorry but) What drivel, looking down at a laptop, using the internet (or some other program) to plan a route while using the touchpad with buttons while looking at the screen, while trying to drive...its the biggest case of distraction i've ever heard of.

 

 

[DJ_NUFC]

Can't see what relevance the number of people in the car has to his sentence, myself.

 

Tell that to remainder of the family...if there's any left.

 

 

 

You've raised a point actually - if we're judging crimes on their outcomes like that, maybe it's not so bad if you wipe them out and leave no one to grieve. As far as I'm concerned, he should've gotten sentenced based on his negligence causing the crash etc. By that same token, I don't think someone equally negligent should get away with it just because they were lucky enough not to kill (many) people.

 

It's a fair enough POV, but i don't agree with it. 6 lives were taken due to his negligence and he should serve 6 life sentences, my opinion of course.

That's absolutely ridiculous. I would say that maybe he should banned from driving for much longer though.

 

No it's not.

 

If your family was wiped out by some moron behind a wheel, would 3 years be enough in terms of justice for you?

 

No. He shouldn't serve any kind of life sentence though. This isn't malice or acting with the intent to kill or harm. This is negligence. This is someone being at fault for a tragic accident. Punishment is deserved, but not the kind of punishment for murderers or even attempted murderers or those who purposely inflict severe physical harm. I personnally believe in forgiveness, but even disregarding personal beliefs, there is a clear difference between this and murder or even voluntary manslaughter.

 

Well put.

 

The initial reaction from anyone when they read this piece is one of disgust and horror, but crimes are judged on motive as well, and negligence is something that can be weighed by its own gravity. Didn't Kluivert kill someone and he was jailed for only a year or two? Same with whats-his-face, the charv from WBA?

[Guest Howaythetoon]

I was stuck in the traffic jam that followed that accident, shocking stuff. Not being funny but a lot of them foreign HGV drivers are lunatics on our roads. I wonder whether half of them have the right kind of GB motorway experience needed to be honest, a good number of them seem quite young.

[indi]

Can't see what relevance the number of people in the car has to his sentence, myself.

 

Tell that to remainder of the family...if there's any left.

 

 

 

You've raised a point actually - if we're judging crimes on their outcomes like that, maybe it's not so bad if you wipe them out and leave no one to grieve. As far as I'm concerned, he should've gotten sentenced based on his negligence causing the crash etc. By that same token, I don't think someone equally negligent should get away with it just because they were lucky enough not to kill (many) people.

 

It's a fair enough POV, but i don't agree with it. 6 lives were taken due to his negligence and he should serve 6 life sentences, my opinion of course.

That's absolutely ridiculous. I would say that maybe he should banned from driving for much longer though.

 

No it's not.

 

If your family was wiped out by some moron behind a wheel, would 3 years be enough in terms of justice for you?

 

 

Never used a mobile whilst driving? Lit a fag, changed the cd/radio, looked at a map, had a conversation with the person next to you and looked at them, had an argument with someone whilst driving, driven after drinking (even the morning after), had a spliff before driving, been tired behind the wheel, broke the speed limit, etc, etc, etc?

 

This was a tragic accident, yeah the bloke was negligent to quite a degree, but if it had been a sat-nav rather than a laptop then it would appear less-so because lots of people do that, even though it's probably harder than using a laptop. Apart from anything, it seems that there's a chance the family were already dead due to having driven into the back of another truck anyway, is anyone slating the driver (Mum or Dad) for being negligent, of course they aren't.

 

People love to jump on these kind of stories because it allows them to get all high an mighty about it, yet as is usually the case when people get like that they do the exact same thing themselves all the time, they're just lucky enough to get away with it.

 

I'm not necessarily talking about you TT, you may be the exception to the rule if you don't do any of the things that I mentioned above, but I suspect most of the people who've slated this bloke do.

 

 

I'm a decent person who thinks of others, so maybe yes, i am an exception to the rule, tbf its not hard to be the exception and be decent in today's society.

 

PS: Using a laptop is less dangerous than using a sat nav while driving? What drivel.

 

 

 

Way to avoid saying whether any of that applied to you.

 

I didn't ask if you were a decent person or not and you don't know if that truck driver is a decent person or not either, but you're willing to judge him over this mistake he's made.

 

So you think that trying to type in an address on a tiny little touch screen like they have on a sat-nav requires less concentration than typing something on the keyboard of a laptop? Ever heard of touch typing? They both distract the person's attention from the road, yet one is seen as a disgrace worthy of a triple life-sentence and the other is okay, it seems?

[Guest Howaythetoon]

I have to say, Indi is right like. Everyone on those roads has at some point or another been negligent whether intentional or otherwise and for as long as you drive you will be susceptible to all kinds of negligences. I've seen countless people fiddle on with their sat navs, swaying towards another lane, or texting, or on the phone, all kinds. Thankfully 99.9% of the time nothing bad results, but every now and again something bad does happen and while the HGV driver was obviously at fault and therefore to blame, that isn't to say he himself caused the accident, his actions did, actions that all drivers make at some point or another during their driving lives.

[Dokko]

Can't see what relevance the number of people in the car has to his sentence, myself.

 

Tell that to remainder of the family...if there's any left.

 

 

 

You've raised a point actually - if we're judging crimes on their outcomes like that, maybe it's not so bad if you wipe them out and leave no one to grieve. As far as I'm concerned, he should've gotten sentenced based on his negligence causing the crash etc. By that same token, I don't think someone equally negligent should get away with it just because they were lucky enough not to kill (many) people.

 

It's a fair enough POV, but i don't agree with it. 6 lives were taken due to his negligence and he should serve 6 life sentences, my opinion of course.

That's absolutely ridiculous. I would say that maybe he should banned from driving for much longer though.

 

No it's not.

 

If your family was wiped out by some moron behind a wheel, would 3 years be enough in terms of justice for you?

 

 

Never used a mobile whilst driving? Lit a fag, changed the cd/radio, looked at a map, had a conversation with the person next to you and looked at them, had an argument with someone whilst driving, driven after drinking (even the morning after), had a spliff before driving, been tired behind the wheel, broke the speed limit, etc, etc, etc?

 

This was a tragic accident, yeah the bloke was negligent to quite a degree, but if it had been a sat-nav rather than a laptop then it would appear less-so because lots of people do that, even though it's probably harder than using a laptop. Apart from anything, it seems that there's a chance the family were already dead due to having driven into the back of another truck anyway, is anyone slating the driver (Mum or Dad) for being negligent, of course they aren't.

 

People love to jump on these kind of stories because it allows them to get all high an mighty about it, yet as is usually the case when people get like that they do the exact same thing themselves all the time, they're just lucky enough to get away with it.

 

I'm not necessarily talking about you TT, you may be the exception to the rule if you don't do any of the things that I mentioned above, but I suspect most of the people who've slated this bloke do.

 

 

I'm a decent person who thinks of others, so maybe yes, i am an exception to the rule, tbf its not hard to be the exception and be decent in today's society.

 

PS: Using a laptop is less dangerous than using a sat nav while driving? What drivel.

 

 

 

Way to avoid saying whether any of that applied to you.

 

I didn't ask if you were a decent person or not and you don't know if that truck driver is a decent person or not either, but you're willing to judge him over this mistake he's made.

 

So you think that trying to type in an address on a tiny little touch screen like they have on a sat-nav requires less concentration than typing something on the keyboard of a laptop? Ever heard of touch typing? They both distract the person's attention from the road, yet one is seen as a disgrace worthy of a triple life-sentence and the other is okay, it seems?

 

None of it applies to me, i'd never dream of endangering my life like that never mind others around me.

 

They both distract, but a laptop on a seat will distract more than a sat nav on the windscreen, simple as. Neither should be used while travelling to find a route, its criminal, and deserves more than 3 years when you kill 6 people.

[elonex]

Can't see what relevance the number of people in the car has to his sentence, myself.

 

Tell that to remainder of the family...if there's any left.

 

 

 

You've raised a point actually - if we're judging crimes on their outcomes like that, maybe it's not so bad if you wipe them out and leave no one to grieve. As far as I'm concerned, he should've gotten sentenced based on his negligence causing the crash etc. By that same token, I don't think someone equally negligent should get away with it just because they were lucky enough not to kill (many) people.

 

It's a fair enough POV, but i don't agree with it. 6 lives were taken due to his negligence and he should serve 6 life sentences, my opinion of course.

 

Rediculous, why should he get to live 6 times as long as anyone else? [/viz]

[Dokko]

I have to say, Indi is right like. Everyone on those roads has at some point or another been negligent whether intentional or otherwise and for as long as you drive you will be susceptible to all kinds of negligences. I've seen countless people fiddle on with their sat navs, swaying towards another lane, or texting, or on the phone, all kinds. Thankfully 99.9% of the time nothing bad results, but every now and again something bad does happen and while the HGV driver was obviously at fault and therefore to blame, that isn't to say he himself caused the accident, his actions did, actions that all drivers make at some point or another during their driving lives.

 

I can see that point, more should be done against those who distract themselves from the road, the amount of times i see near misses due to people doing so drives me mad, makes me want to get out the car and bat the living shit out of them.

 

But for those who endanger the lives of others; when something does happen, should receive greater punishment than 3 years for 6 lives.

 

Lets hope none of these minor incidents everyone does leads to a major accident, or any kind of accident.

 

 

[indi]

Can't see what relevance the number of people in the car has to his sentence, myself.

 

Tell that to remainder of the family...if there's any left.

 

 

 

You've raised a point actually - if we're judging crimes on their outcomes like that, maybe it's not so bad if you wipe them out and leave no one to grieve. As far as I'm concerned, he should've gotten sentenced based on his negligence causing the crash etc. By that same token, I don't think someone equally negligent should get away with it just because they were lucky enough not to kill (many) people.

 

It's a fair enough POV, but i don't agree with it. 6 lives were taken due to his negligence and he should serve 6 life sentences, my opinion of course.

That's absolutely ridiculous. I would say that maybe he should banned from driving for much longer though.

 

No it's not.

 

If your family was wiped out by some moron behind a wheel, would 3 years be enough in terms of justice for you?

 

 

Never used a mobile whilst driving? Lit a fag, changed the cd/radio, looked at a map, had a conversation with the person next to you and looked at them, had an argument with someone whilst driving, driven after drinking (even the morning after), had a spliff before driving, been tired behind the wheel, broke the speed limit, etc, etc, etc?

 

This was a tragic accident, yeah the bloke was negligent to quite a degree, but if it had been a sat-nav rather than a laptop then it would appear less-so because lots of people do that, even though it's probably harder than using a laptop. Apart from anything, it seems that there's a chance the family were already dead due to having driven into the back of another truck anyway, is anyone slating the driver (Mum or Dad) for being negligent, of course they aren't.

 

People love to jump on these kind of stories because it allows them to get all high an mighty about it, yet as is usually the case when people get like that they do the exact same thing themselves all the time, they're just lucky enough to get away with it.

 

I'm not necessarily talking about you TT, you may be the exception to the rule if you don't do any of the things that I mentioned above, but I suspect most of the people who've slated this bloke do.

 

 

I'm a decent person who thinks of others, so maybe yes, i am an exception to the rule, tbf its not hard to be the exception and be decent in today's society.

 

PS: Using a laptop is less dangerous than using a sat nav while driving? What drivel.

 

 

 

Way to avoid saying whether any of that applied to you.

 

I didn't ask if you were a decent person or not and you don't know if that truck driver is a decent person or not either, but you're willing to judge him over this mistake he's made.

 

So you think that trying to type in an address on a tiny little touch screen like they have on a sat-nav requires less concentration than typing something on the keyboard of a laptop? Ever heard of touch typing? They both distract the person's attention from the road, yet one is seen as a disgrace worthy of a triple life-sentence and the other is okay, it seems?

 

None of it applies to me, i'd never dream of endangering my life like that never mind others around me.

 

They both distract, but a laptop on a seat will distract more than a sat nav on the windscreen, simple as. Neither should be used while travelling to find a route, its criminal, and deserves more than 3 years when you kill 6 people.

 

The way I see it, the only people who could credibly deny ever having done any of the things I listed are non-drivers, so if you don't drive then fair enough, but if you do and you're seriously trying to make me believe that you've never taken your attention away from the road then you're on to a loser because everyone does.

 

What sentence do you think people should get for not paying attention to the road when it doesn't result in a death? A life sentence for using your sat-nav, perhaps? 40 years for changing the CD? Death for using your phone?

 

The way I look at it, the only difference between this guy and everyone else is luck. They've get away with it (so far) and he didn't.