The difference between drunks driving and people texting while driving is the drunk is normally looking out of the windscreen and trying to drive where the idiot texting is normally looking down at their phone and have no idea where they are going.
In my opinion, drunks drugs or texting while driving should all be treated the same, and banned or jailed for more serious offences, they are all a menace on our roads
Tony - 14 years ago
Whereas we all know that using a mobile phone can cause accidents, so does bad driving and there are thousands of people out there that under those basis should not be on the road, accidents do happen, but we seem to be living in a society where everyone wants revenge and someone to be accountable. The police certainly looks for evidence to blame someone, pitty they can't apply the same principles when its their own that commit the offences, its not the first time that I have seen police drivers with their phones whilst driving, and if it is talking and listening to a conversation that is distracting so why do police drivers constantly listen through their earpieces to the police bands. Lord Amhed did cause someone's death and I am sure that is something that he has to live with for the rest of his life, which in itself is punishment enough in most cases, accidents do happen, and looking at the same hard line comments in this blogg, I would like to remind everyone that any of us can be in the same situation including the idiot that claims he stands by the road and in future will be taking photos of those using the phone, perhaps when he is doing that he will distract a driver watching him and cause a fatal accident. If putting Lord Amhed in prison is justice, because he took a life, perhaps the public should get a petition to put in jail the policemen responsible for putting 7 bullets in the head of an inocent man, Jean Charles de Menezes. British |Justice at its best...
Graham - 15 years ago
Whilst i do not condone texting whilst driving, it would apear that many who have left comments on here seem to forget the days before the law changed. How many used their phones before it became illegal? Some commented about it being the same as reading a book whilst driving... may i remind you of the days before satnav! How many looked at a map or A-Z whilst driving? How many have taken their eyes off the road to change a tape/cd or radio station whilst driving? Get a grip of reality people! It could have happened to anyone of us, and yes i do feel sorry for the family of mr Gumbar and my sympathy goes out to them. But what mindless idiot drives whilst drunk? Crashes then staggers about on the motorway trying to retieve his phone? I say free Lord Ahmed, and repect his honesty!
I think this poor guy will suffer enough just for the fact that it was his car that hit mr Gombar. A £60 fine and 3 points would be suficiant in this instance.
Im guesing next it will become illegal for taxi drivers to use their radio systems whilst driving!
Tony - 15 years ago
I am convinced that the majority of motorists are sanctimonious hypocrites. How can it be right morally or legally , to jail a person who had no control over the actions of a drunk ?The way people are being brainwashed is actually quite worrying.
It is a fact that telephone usage (in any form) is a known distraction whereas, funnily, usage of an RT (radio telephone) is not. Speaking on a cellphone and usage of radio transmissions uses quite separate parts of the brain.
That is why use of radio transmission whilst driving was specifically excluded from the Parliamentary Bill.
His use of his telephone was (is) illegal and we was properly dealt with.
I hope it serves a lesson to others.
[he was a bit of a clot ever to have admitted to having done so!]
If mobile phone use is banned on the ground that it interferes with the task of watching the road, should traffic lights, speed cameras and speed limits be banned for the same reason?
Mike Pritchard - 15 years ago
Having just read most of these comments many are stating that a large ammount of concentration goes to talking not driving, I think this depends on the person. I take it that these people do not realise that it is quite legal to talk on a two way radio such as a CB, HAM radio, ambulance, police car, water board, council, BT etc. most of which still use a hand held microphone. I have used these types of radio's over many years with no problems, the answer is to refrain from talking at key moments such as junctions narrow stretches etc., I do realise that these are easier as you can put the microphone down when listening, that used to be most of the time if my boss came on. People who are talking on mobiles seem to forget everything else, especially their driving and do not even notice the police there, they should be prepared to concentrate on driving even if they have to ask the other person to repeat what they said and even drop their phone if need be.
norman bennett - 15 years ago
police always use phones radios etc on the move no problem . they are trained, so are we they are experienced so are we . 25 years driving safe might i add . 20 year old cop can phone ,i cant one law common sense no jail for phone use how many people would feel the same if that guy was skint and white
Boris - 15 years ago
If you think Lord Ahmed was hard done by then you really don't know the full story.
Ordinary people get 21 months for the exact same offence of accidental killing *without the phone being a contributory factor but used as evidence anyway since it, by itself, is illegal*.
Lord Ahmed killed someone with dangerous driving. The phone is a factor only in that it is illegal, and the precedence is that this illegality makes the sentence harsher.
His sentence was postponed several times, his sentence was extremely light, the solicitor-general personally intervened in internet blogs, and the appeal was rushed through and the sentence postponed (quashed) in case the criminal conviction 'damaged his work for charity' - not because it was unjust.
His work for charity? Do a google on him and see.
This is a clear case of one law for the plebs who kill:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7865114.stm
and another for the idiots who are protected by the ruling party.
If you kill someone through active carelessness you should never be allowed to drive again. Phones are irrelevant - if you plough into a car on a motorway with 400 yards of visibility then you are not fit to drive.
However if your mates are powerful enough to get you out of jail and twist the facts then you, and them, are not fit to make laws in a just society.
Mark Gordon - 15 years ago
I am a great believer in letting the letter of the law stand before the spirit of the law. If the law is badly phrased it will eventually be changed to reflect the spirit intended.
Lord Ahmed may have been honest about his activities before the crash but he was also badly advised to pleading guilty. There were no witnesses I presume to say that his texting was causing him to drive dangerously. As previous corrrespondent says he should have received a fixed penalty and a fine. One can argue that driving and texting is dangerous (I agree) but you need to change the law first not just apply it arbitrarily. I suspect it was applied over harshly just because he IS a lord. Having said that I can also imagine that he does in fact feel a little guilt - maybe the guy wouldnt have died if he hadnt been texting 2 minutes before. But the law doesnt (it shouldnt anyway) work on maybes - it works (or it ought to) on the facts. How would he have felt if the texting had been 20 minutes before? Less guilt ? No guilt?
His prision sentence was OTT and if he hasnt already appealed he should. We should stay away from using his defence team!
Neil - 15 years ago
Texting while driving is clearly dangerous and should never be done. Had lord Ahmed crashed while texting, then a prison sentence may have been considered for his dangerous driving. In this case, he was not texting at the time of the accident and the texting played no part in the accident so it is irrelevent. The prison sentence is symptomatic of the histeria which surrounds so many issues these days. Common sense should have prevailed at the first hearing and not waited for an appeal judge to apply it.
Simon - 15 years ago
For all we know he might of been in the middle of yet another text at the time of his accident. Untill sent the message would not be saved or recorded anywhere. A very clear message needs to be heard that irresponsable acts like texting while driving deserve the harsher sentances or more innocent children, drivers or passengers will die. Next time it might be you or a loved one of yours.
shreen - 15 years ago
Lord Ahmed should have been punished for the texting alone, as the accident was not his fault. People who have caused death by dangerous driving do not seem to have sentences imposed on them, which can be said to be appropriate as they are rarely long enough. To my knowledge previous cases of death by dangerous driving prove that it is one year per life lost due to the dangerous driving. Any ordinary citizen caught using a mobile phone whilst driving would be fined and disqualified for a certain period from driving. I believe the law should be applied equally to all.
Andrew - 15 years ago
I accept that texting and driving is wrong and dangerous, however, in view of the facts and circumstances of this case, I think the punishment does not fit the crime. Lord Ahmed seems to have received a harsher penality simply because of his notoriety, perhaps because of his high public profile the judge wanted to make an example of him?
His texting was not directly related to the tragic and sad death of the Mr Gombar, although it could well have been.
I think Lord Ahmed should have received a community penality, fine, road safety course or perhaps a 3 or 6 month driving ban. That would have been harsh enough for a first time offence.
Had he caused the death of Mr Gumbar, then I would totally agree that he should receive a prison sentence and one substantially longer than 3 months.
It discredits the criminal justice system when judges choose to administer harsher sentences on the basis of the public profile of a case rather than the evidence / facts presented in court.
Jim - 15 years ago
There is absolutely no way that he should have been jailed. This is a miscarriage of justice. He was not even texting at the time of the accident. This was at least two minutes before the accident.
How about we jail all the idiots I see every morning and evening with either no lights on or perhaps a side light or two in the dark??
Comments please?
Brenda - 15 years ago
He admitted texting and should therefore be punished for this and this alone. However the system is not fair inasmuch if he was caught texting he may have been given a fine and have points put on his licence. We have to fair to all motorists and law must prevail for all motorists. He was very lucky he did not cause an accident it was just coincidental he was there at the time. So in essence, all drivers texting whilst driving which can be prove should face time in prison
Peter - 15 years ago
The crashed car was in the fast lane and, since Lord Ahmed hit it, he must have been in the fast lane too. But it is not the fast lane it is the overtaking lane. If he was overtaking that presupposes other traffic and surely their brake lights etc should have alerted him to something being wrong, so he can't have been paying attention. If he wasn't overtaking he shouldn't have been in that lane so he wasn't paying attention. Either way he should have been driving at such a speed that he could stop in the distance he could see to be clear.
The sentence is appropriate for the offence of causing death by careless driving, the offence which would seem to best fit the facts. As others have said the offence of texting whilst driving should have been dealt with separately, although it is certainly evidence that Lord Ahmed was giving inadequate attention to the driving task.
Wleed Haq - 15 years ago
This was the establishment trying toget back at Mr Ahmed for his outspoken attacks against the government in recent times. I don't think the same would have happened if Gorden Brown or David Cameron were involved in a similar accident; they would just have got a slap on the wrist. My advice is get blue tooth and get a good laywer
Mark - 15 years ago
Whilst Lord Ahmed was not responsible for the death of the man in question, he admitted having a sustained text message conversation lasting 15 minutes over a distance of 17 miles whilst driving on the motorway. Whilst I used to text whilst driving myself before the ban on using mobile phones became law, he should have been more responsible and dealt with his conversation after pulling over. I know people who have been stationary in traffic and caught making a call and prosecuted just by picking up their phone in sight of a policeman. In my opinion I think if the car is stationary a call can be made (how many times are we held up on the motorway and need to contact work to inform them of our delay but can't because we feel we'll be prosecuted). But trying to send text messages whilst driving is not on. I think Lord Ahmed was sent to prison because he is a person we should aspire to but he has let himself down in this instance. A text conversation of 15 minutes at motorway driving speeds is unacceptable and his prison sentance is valid as a lesson to all. If he was making a phone call at slower speeds then 3 points and fine.
If there was a whole 2 minutes between Ahmed's text and the subsequent accident the act of texting cannot be to blame for him killing the drunk fool trying to retrieve his phone from the fast lane. Whilst he should not have been texting on his phone when driving, period, the facts are unconnected and does not constitute causing death by dangerous driving. Madness. That should be points on his licence for the texts, that he didn't avoid the drunk is unfortunate. Death by misadventure.
jawdrop - 15 years ago
In response to Robb Collett, I think you'll find that women have been sent to prison: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/7896386.stm
jawdrop - 15 years ago
The fact that he was texting previoulsy indicates that he may well have been constructing a further text when the accident occured (Mobile phone records can show the time between texts, phone polling and the grid reference, not the current activity on the phonepad).
Anyone who is selfish enough to use their phone to text while driving should have their fingers chopped off so that from then on they can only use a hands-free kit. Anyone know how far a car (weighing a lethal 2 tonnes) travelling at 60 mph in the outside lane will travel in 5 seconds while the driver has his/her eyes on the phone display & keyboard?
Anyone thinking texting whilst driving is a 'let off' offence needs electric shock therapy to overcome their mental instability.
John - 15 years ago
Got FAR less than he deserved and weasled out of most of that. Should have had to serve at LEAST 12 months! And a CONSIDERALBE ban + Fine
Walter - 15 years ago
He should have lost his license for ten years as well as the tiny prison sentence, we can do without ignorant idiots endangering us all on motorways by selfishly texting and doing goodness knows what else, I take my children in my car and god help us with people like this also on the roads.
Chris - 15 years ago
Could you please explain to me why a person on a invalidity vehicle that is motorised and drives it in public places is alllowed to drink have no insurance and the vehicle is exempt from tax and having mot. Surely they are more likely to run someone over whilst driving on the pavement or crossing a road under the influence of drink. In one of my local pubs we have several of these vehicles inside the premises and most of the drivers have at least double the alcohol limit and can do so without prosicusion, but, if I drive a vehicle on the road with tax mot and insurance but over the prescibed alcohol limit I receive a fine and a ban from driving yet these people do it every day of the week. Surely the law needs to be looked at.
Chris - 15 years ago
Whilst I agree texting when driving is wrong I do believe that the sentance should not have been jail but should have been a heavy fine. The reason for this is because he was not court texting and did not cause any accident while texting. They should have charged him with driving without due care and attention, there is no way you could fail to see a car facing the wrong way on the motorway unless he was speeding to extreme or not watching where he was going.
Richard M - 15 years ago
Various comments need to be corrected,
1. Hand held is more distracting than hands free because one hand is not on the wheel but holding the phone, the other hand can't operate the steering wheel correctly because the driver has to pass the wheel from one hand to the other whilst steering which is impossible if the other hand is holding a mobile phone.
2. There have been many studies into using a hand held phone and all say that the driver's concentration is reduced by at least 50%, even using hands free must reduce concentration to a certain extent otherwise the driver wouldn't be taking in what the other person is saying, also the other person doesn't know if there is a hazard or even a minor occurence ahead that needs the drivers full attention.
3. Tuning a radio should take place when the road is clear, when full concentration on the road is not as important as when there are events happening ahead.
4. Accidents don't just happen they are caused by people, the majority of accidents aren't accidental, they are avoidable if people are in a fit state and concentrating on the job in hand. The Lord Amed should have been concentrating more on the road ahead, many vehicles ahead of him managed to avoid the stranded vehicle, was he composing another text as has been suggested by other correspondents?
Amed hadn't just been sending one text message, there had been a few so there is a good possibilty he was preparing another, which presumably couldn't be detected by the police investigating the RTC (Road Traffic Collision not "Accident") Therefore he deserves what he got.
tim miller - 15 years ago
Driving is difficult enough these days without TEXTING! His Lordship should be banned from driving for life, put in the stocks and the offense should be treated as murder where the intended victim is not known. Five years jail sounds entirely resonable... This activity is asking for trouble and I am really pleased that in this case he got what he asked for. There are far too many morons using handheld devices while driving and the more the book is thrown at those who care nothing for the rest of us the more they might actually think before using any handheld. He might as well be reading the paper. I have difficulty feeling sorry for the drunk too.
Whilst driving, a person can listen to the radio/CD, light and smoke a cigarette, eat a sandwich, drink from a cup and even, if they pay attention, use a mobile phone in talk mode. BUT, texting takes far too much attention away from driving as does tuning a digital radio, trying to reset a Tom-tom, reading a map/directions or tying up your shoes!
In fact, anything and everything that requires more than just a glance away from the road ahead and particularly on a motorway should automatically carry a prison sentence. Talking on a telephone on a motorway is easy; texting is impossible.... if respect for the lives of others is included in the equation. That said, if Lord Ahmed had re-arranged his genitalia to become a woman, he would not have been imprisoned (honestly, check the CPO stats. No woman has been prosecuted; ALL men have been). Interesting, eh?
Robert - 15 years ago
He got what he deserved,.
What astonishes me is the number of voters in this poll who think texting and driving should be condoned .
Automatic 3 month jail sentence and a three year ban should be statutory
for idiots who text and drive , no excuses for the ignorant selfish bastards.
Lock em up.
John - 15 years ago
Lee wrote
"When you are talking to someone on the phone your mind spits in half. 50% on the road ahead and 50% trying to communicate with the person on the other end. Your trying to hear them clearly, maybe trying to imagine and set the scene they are talking from then BANG !!!"
But it's OK if you are "hands free".
And the difference between hand held and blue tooth is what exactly?
The phone call is no more distracting hand held than it is hands free. Yet one is legal and the other is not! Go figure!
Stuart - 15 years ago
Texting whilst driving ? I have problems texting whilst sat in an armchair! Could cause chaos but in no way should he be allowed to become a cause celebre. He has wife and mother in the car with him, why couldn't he dictate what he wanted to say and have them input it into the phone? Lack of common sense and the sentence allows time for reflection, which is what prision should do. (He could have lied but that would easily be proved by questioning his wife/mother.)
Rasheed Tegally - 15 years ago
Yes Lord Ahmed should know better than using mobile phone whilst driving. He probably was one of the lord who voted for the bill to be made law stopping drivers from using mobilephone whilst driving.I think the sentence was too lenient for him .
Shaun Reynolds - 15 years ago
Having a son who has been charged and convicted of dangerous driving recently. I can see why this man has been imprisoned. The level of corruption to the laws by this government and the way that the whole law industry now work, makes it near impossible to be given a fair hearing. You are bribed by both to courts and the solicitors that by pleading guilty you will be better off! Not only that, but once they con you into this mindset anything that anybody has said against you is automatically believed as fact (no matter how implausible it is. This is then used to sentence you by the courts. At no time are you allowed to put up any argument! The police make statements which are believed absolutely as if they were there! I see why he pleaded guilty, this is just a small sample of the gross abuse of the law against the people in this country that is being carried out daily. God forbid that this is the same system that people would be exposed to if hanging was reintroduced tomorrow!
Peter D - 15 years ago
The judge did the correct thing as far as I am concerned, I get fed up of seeing drivers even today driving with NO hands whilst texting or using a mobile. Somebody has to be made an example off and the more they 'go down' for their foolishness the better for ALL.
glen maddison - 15 years ago
the law has been in place a while now and clearly states do not i repeat do not use a mobile phone while driving end of arguement
steve - 15 years ago
He should have received the highest possible penalty. He is a member of the Lords & as such must set the correct example. Strip him of his title now.
william mcaneaney - 15 years ago
it is a bit silly texting while driving especially if you got people in the car who could it for you and even a direct call would halve the risk but i cannot understand why people dont just scoot down the shops and buy a cheap hands free they cost very little and work really well and at the moment are still legal it would save a £60 fine and 3 points and maybe someones life but sending the guy to prison was way over the top. i bet he has got one now and wondering why he didnt do this before.
bob wilkinson - 15 years ago
For crying out loud! For all the control he had of a 2 ton projectile, why not watch TV, read a book, or get 40 winks? It's contributory negligence.
The law (quite rightly) feels that talking on a mobile is sufficiently distracting to be a punishable offence. If you do it and get away with it, you're still a menace to road users.
If you cause injury or death because of reckless and irresponsible behaviour, then you pay. Drivers must recognise that they have a responsibility every time they get behing the wheel.
When you're driving concentrate on that. Texting is a total distraction and you have to be very skilled indeed to do it without looking at the equipment. But Prison? When we're so short of space for the regular offenders? Come off it...
Using a mobile weather texting or just talking is against the law.He was harshly treated he did not cause the accident and should have been given 3 points and a £60 fine period.
Terry Brooks - 15 years ago
If it had been a white English driver it would had been a case of "serve your time" ....He has been treated differently because he is
[a] Muslim [we British of "Anglo Saxon" stock cant upset our fellow "countrymen" can we?] .
[b] A Lord [?] .....[Really?]
[c] Could aford a good [?] solicitor [Steve Smith? ...well? ....yeah,obviously he's "good" ...he got him outa jail ....I hope I can afford to hire him if ever I get in trouble]
[d] Has "agreeed" do community service educating people in road safety....[I'll believe that when I see it]
[e] He's a member of the House of Lords [I was under the impression that any member convicted was automatically barred ...obviously,I'm mistaken]
tbh,IMO he sould have been left in jail until his time was served ....Oh ..btw,I'm a Rotherham resident....and I cant quite work out how "Lord Ahmed" could text whilst driving ....I've always found it difficult to even talk on a phone & drive at the same time.
T.
Mike pritchard - 15 years ago
I think it is disgusting that he was jailed, had he committed any number of other motoring offences including drink driving he would not have been jailed. I agree that it is impossible to drive and send a text, receiving is much easier I know I have done it but at a very slow speed on a country lane, however there are also other acts that are just as dangerous such as doing makeup and drink driving or driving with faulty headlights but except in very large ammounts of drink nobody gets jailed.
I see the last person thinks whisky will ignite from a cigarette, he should try it, it puts it out.
mark - 15 years ago
I live near rotherham and i feel any person driving and text should be banned from driving, if i did it i myself would expect the same.
my comments are no because he is a lord or he is a labour party member.
i think he should have known better and the prison he should have been made to serve and banned from the labour party.. but like for the boys a few months from now he will be back at work and doing the same again..
what a load of crap on tv saying he does a lot for charity ect,ect,ect thats wath i call a wimp, the accident may have been a few mins later but he could have wiped out a family. at least people speeding my be doing some thing wrong but they do watch the road around them ? ..
HE IS A FOOL PUT HIM BACK IN PRISON AND THROW AWAY THE KEY..
Count Rollo - 15 years ago
To send or even try to send txts while driving is imbecilic and deserves a big fine. However, as the accident was entirely unrelated, and Ahmed did what he could to minimise the already serious outcome, maybe a pat on the back for 'doing what he could', and then rapped knuckles for being a prize idiot earlier.
EthanZag - 15 years ago
I'd like the lock him up forever brigade to consider this hypothetical situation.
............ It is against the law to smoke in a public place such as a restaurant. Imagine that you decide to ignore this law and smoke anyway. A drunk bangs into you dropping his glass of Whisky on the floor and knocking the cigarette from your hand. It lands on the whisky soaked carpet and catches fire. The resulting blaze kills a young women.......................????????????Question???????????? should you the smoker that broke the law that resulted in the death of a young innocent women go to prison?
EthanZag - 15 years ago
First let us remind ourselves what the report actually said:
"It is widely accepted that the accident was in no way Ahmed's
fault and the court accepted that the texting and accident were
un-related events."
So all the idiots that say something like " he killed a man end of. He should be locked up for 10 years" prove that they are complete moron's themselves. The accident was not his fault, was not caused by texting or any other fault of Ahmed's.
Where everyone agrees Ahmed was at fault was some minutes earlier where it was proved he was texting. This is illegal and stupid and as such he should be given the penalty for texting while driving. I understand this is 3 points and a fine. It is a joke to give him a much harsher sentence because later he was involved in something that the court admits was not his fault, but which unfortunately resulted in the death of a drunk idiot standing in the middle of the motorway trying to pick up his phone, after just crashing.
He should not have gone to prison full stop. Yes he "had" been texting prior to the accident but was not texting when he had the accident. Let’s send everyone to prison that had sent a text minutes before getting into a car and driving. Come on get real everyone. We should not text at all whilst driving, but to go to prison for having texted!! The texting and accident was two separate incidents and should have been treated as such.. Hope I never have to rely on the justice system we have these days, it's a farce even more so with some of you as the jury
Alec - 15 years ago
As a member of the government he should have been aware of the law. I'm sure it was an accident that could have happened to any one of us. However I would ask the question - was he keeping an eye on his phone waiting for a reply to his latest message? A seconds glance at a mobile at a critical moment could have made all the difference in this situation - I hope he can sleep at night.
Buck - 15 years ago
If Lord Ahmed had been a white British lorry driver he would have got life but no he's a Labour peer he's just the same as the rest of the ruling elite of this country UNTOUCHABLE he killed a man LIFE end of story
Keith - 15 years ago
If you ever watch 'Road Wars' on TV you see insane driving without any 'due care' or concern for others and yet they seem either to get minor penalties or often they get off scot free.
Lord Ahmed is being punished because of who he is and not for the offence of texting whilst driving. I don't even think he should be held responsible for the drunk driver's death - have any of the people who are condemning him ever come across an unlit car sideways on in the outside lane of a motorway at night? Come on, be fair.
I do think however the death penalty should be brought in for the following road crimes:
1. using rear fog lights in visibility greater than 300 metres.
2. sitting in the middle lane of a motorway when the inside lane is empty for a good distance ahead.
3. for failing to indicate on leaving a roundabout - have they not been helped by seeing others indicating left on leaving a roundabout?
4. for indicating right when leaving a roundabout - why do the do that?
5. tailgating
6. stopping inches away from the car in front in jams, or at traffic lights
7. driving with 'parking' lights on (Range Rovers and Toyota sports car drivers are common offenders) Have they ever looked at how dim these lights are? The clue is in the name - parking lights.
8. failing to indicate when changing lanes on motorways - why do they do that? Do they think they are saving indicator bulbs (mainly BMW drivers - and yes, I have owned a BMW) Many motorway accidents are caused by people failing to indicate when moving to the left whilst someone else fails to indicate whilst moving right - it happened in front of me yesterday on the M1. And yes, one was a BMW driver and the other was an almost white van. Perhaps indicators are optional extras on BMWs - the CD player was an option in 1996 when I bought my last BMW 5 series!!!!
9. failing to say thank you when I give way to oncoming traffic or let someone out of a side road - manners cost nothing.
10. using a car sound system such that it can be heard outside of the car. What are their ear druims like? Why is their music such c##p.
11. parking across the front of my security gates as some idiot did this morning. Another idiot yesterday got out ogf his car and left the driver's door wide open blocking my way (into The Park, Nottingham) - when I tooted him, he got upset and did not apologise - prat.
I have used a mobile phone in a car in the past but have seen the error of my ways and now even try avoid using my hansfree - but is it any worse than listening to the radio or changing a CD.
"I think driving whilst smoking showd be treated and fined the same way as using a mobile yet it seems to be ignored by our police force."
Hell, why not make smoking completely illegal? Followed by alcohol? Prohibition works, as history shows.
Of course it's ignored by our police force, there is no law that covers it - it can be perfectly safe to smoke a cigarette while driving. More to the point, we don't need a law to cover it or even mobile phones - our existing laws already cover the important aspect - it's called driving without due care and attention. And you can be guilty of that with both hands on the steering wheel.
Some of the comments in this thread beggar belief. No wonder this country is the way it is.
Talent - 15 years ago
Ahmed should have spent all the sentence in jail. He's an idiot. There's a good chance he was in the process of making another text when the crash happened, he'd been sending a few on the journey. It would only show up if it had been sent. Adam says he is trying to get a good price for a Parrot setup. It won't help the morons who want to text though!!
Ted Costello - 15 years ago
If it had been Joe Bloggs he would still be in prison
JonC - 15 years ago
I wonder how many of the contributers here can type replies when it is obvious they have not read or understood the news report. Lord Ahmed was NOT texting when he joined an accident that was already happening before he got there, he WASN'T texting immediatly beforehand either.
Texting while driving is both illegal and stupid, but it did NOT contribute to this unfortunate death in any way.
Keith Mather - 15 years ago
If he hadn't been texting he might have avoided the collision. End of.....
Why do people continue to break the law and drive dangerously when a simple bluetooth handsfree which plugs into the cigar lighter costs less than £10 on ebay????
Pathetic.
David - 15 years ago
What he did was illegal, forget the fatal accident........he was/is a Lord, and as such needs to set an example to everyone else. If he can't do that, and it's patently obvious that he cannot, then HE needs to be made an example of himself !
Personally, I believe that ANY person of rank, be it Lord, Sir, whatever, who is convicted of a criminal offence, should automatically lose his/her title.....no exceptions!
ste - 15 years ago
yesterday I saw a women driving with one hand holding her mobile and in the other "free" hand a lighted cigerette.
I think driving whilst smoking showd be treated and fined the same way as using a mobile yet it seems to be ignored by our police force.
Surely a lighted object held in your hand is far more dangerous than a mobile ?
Texting is purely irresposible.
Apparently the amount of texts received / sent was Lord Ahmed downfall
Robin Lathwell - 15 years ago
Try this next time you sit in your car. Text a friend, now start stopwatch, look to see if text sent, check forward and back view, look to see if phone turned off, now turn phone to stand by, now put phone on seat, NOW LOOK UP TO SEE SOME JACKASS STANDING IN MIDDLE OF ROAD and now try to stop from 70+ mph.
Have watched a woman texting as I crossed the road on a light controled crossing. She drove off, looked down to put phone away and ran straight into the island 50 yards further on.
Texting involves the use of one hand, which means you are unable to control the lights or gears, your eye focus is down to less than your arms length and you are distracted, trying to remember how many times you have pressed the keys.
Texting whilst driving should have a much heavier penalty. 9 points + £500 or time.
As for drunk driving, mandatory, immediate 6 month detention before trial, followed by minimum 3 year ban. Tagging compulsory, to check on possible dissqualified driving offence. One day in final two weeks of ban spent in company of emergency services.
I spent 28 years as mobile service engineer, done 1 or 2 miles in that time, never more than 1 pint if driving. Hit once by drunk on motorbike, I stopped he diddn't. Dragged child from car as drunk dad died behind wheel. Seen 3 pedestrians knocked over, 1 fatal.
chris - 15 years ago
at 70mph you would cover approx 2.5 miles on the motorway in 2 min so to say texting contributed to this accident is stretching a point although i agree that texting while driving is mad locking him up was just another of this countries waysof dealing with things mug some one and you get comunity service the drunken idiot driving the car that crashed and ultimatly died holds all the blame for me by the way i drive for a living
Ron - 15 years ago
Using a mobile is a questionable fixed penalty offence when you take into account some of the other distractions and the level of ability of the driver together with how he/she is actually carrying out the 'offence' However, texting is a different matter altogether. Only a totally irresponsible lunatic would even consider that. Also, all drivers should drive at a speed and with a level of attention that allows them to stop safely when something unexpected happens. Colliding with a stationary vehicle is inexcusable irrespective of where it is.
It is often claimed that it is not speed that kills. It is simply the inability to react safely to the unexpected and that is most definitely related to speed.
He deserved the sentence but so do a great many more who never get to court or have a clever lawyer. In that way alone he can claim to have been unlucky.
W Bundy - 15 years ago
The law is quite clear - You do not uses your mobile phone for any reason(s) whilst you are driving a motor vehicle. Any one doing so is disregarding the law and must be delt with acordingly. Lord Ahmed, because of his status, will now have difficulty in having any credibility not only in my eyes but many others. He should give God thanks that he and his family have not joined the deceast.
Frank K Mugford - 15 years ago
Talking on a mobile is no more distracting than adjusting or listening to a radio, checking the speedo or any other instrumentation, considering a SatNav or dealing with any passengers in the car, particularly children. Punching in the numbers certainly is distracting and texting is plain stupid.
Ahmed did not deserve a custodial sentence but some sort of salutary experience to set him straight and send a message to others.
David Johns Burcombe - 15 years ago
I used to be employed by a road safety media organisation and even before I was employed by them I have always been apposed to idiots holding and talking on a mobile phone. It still goes on I stood beside a busy road last week and counted 18 drivers out of 100 still holding and using. Yesterday on another busy road it was 26 out of 100 cars checked. WARNING next time I am out checking cars I will photo the fools holding and talking or even texting and fotrward them to the police. I want to keep death off the road and proven tests have shown that drivers talking on a mobile loose from 50% to 90% of their concentrtation. texting and the driver has less than 5% concentration
Dave - 15 years ago
Texting while driving is against the law as it requires the use of a hand held mobile phone. By what right the police got the information that he had sent texts is another matter. I presume that the police had a look at the log on his mobile phone and got the data from there. It would be interesting to know if PACE gives the police a rignt to carry out this search. Was he prosecuted for hitting the other car or only using the phone?
charles edmead - 15 years ago
While i think some laws like smoking in a pub are wrong, i do think texting or recieving calls people should be jailed, you cannot expect to consentrate it doing these things, i would'nt do it, theres no need to, bluetooth steros, bluetooth sat navs and hands free kits are there for a reason, if they want you that bad phone when you get back, sorry i can't find any sympophy for these people especially if one knocked my children down
Stuart - 15 years ago
No. Lord Ahmed did not deserve prison for texting whilst driving as it was not related to the accident and occurred many miles apart. That offence demands 3 points and a fine. However the accident as described, whereby his car caught Mr Gombars car door and as a result killed him is obviously what swayed the decision. Dont forget this was in darkness and Lord Ahmed probably had little or no time to react before the impact. It was not pre-meditated, not dangerous driving and arguably not even manslaughter but just an unavoidable accident.
I travel motorways every day and find the most dangerous practice is actually the drivers who go straight to the right hand lane and just sit there, totally disregarding cars behind them. The drivers lose concentration, fall asleep or just get mesmerised following another car closely. I was taught by a police sergeant to accelerate quickly past the obstruction and pull into the left hand lane before reducing speed to suit. It used to be the law that it was the overtaking lane, but now it causes almost 80% of the car accidents on motorways. The rest are caused by, mobile phone usage as well as; adjusting the stereo/ipod/satnav etc, drinking, talking (and I agree that some people cannot avoid looking at the person they are talking to, so maybe they should they be banned from talking?), and my personal hate - smoking.
I have seen two accidents as a result of smoking and nearly had one myself many times when I smoked. If a lit cigarette sticks to your lips, or flick it, or you catch it on the wheel the result is the 'red' ash falling down between your legs. I can assure everyone that your concentration immediately changes from the road to 'hunt the red end'. It causes so many swerves that any following or alongside car has no chance.
What we really need is lane discipline and courtesy on the road. That will save more lives and result in less accidents than any high profile prosecutions that have become impartial for the wrong reasons. March 17th.
Irrespective of the events, anyone texting whilst driving should be jailed. You are not only distracted from concentrating on the road, but are also not even looking. Even typists still look at the keyboard when typing, so I do not believe anyone can send a text message without looking at their mobile.
Steve - 15 years ago
It is impossible to concentrate on both driving and any other activity at the same time, even legal activities but what he did was illegal and he should pay the consequences.
Peter Hill - 15 years ago
If you are driving your car, you are driving your car, NOT sending or receiving text messages, some might think it clever to multi task like this, but I for one don't. All right the other guy was drunk, but that dosn't make it OK. Two wrongs don't make a right. There's one good thing to come out of this and that is he will more than likley not do it again, so hopefully a spell in jail will have had the desired effect.
Geoff - 15 years ago
The use of the mobile phone may not be directly related to the accident, but it is still in itself a serious offence and he is therefore still a danger to other road users.
A man in his position should have known better
Rob Ceuppens - 15 years ago
John said -
"I don't have a problem with people using a hand held phone while driving. I don't believe it to be any more dangerous than listening to the radio or talking to your passengers."
John, I drive in and around London all the time and when someone is on a hand held phone in front of me I can tell by the way they are driving even before I see the phone. When people use a hand held phone it is very dangerous as they are trying to drive with one hand and they are concentrating on a phone call too. Hands free is the way to go - I don't think there is any excuse not to use one now as they are pretty cheap. Rob.
Gerry - 15 years ago
I voted YES though I actually don't think jail was the right punishment. I do however think that anyone who tries to read a text whilst driving is foolish - to write one make you a total moron - a very dangerous total moron. I see a lot of dangerous total morons on the road.
arthurt - 15 years ago
I would send every driver who talks on the mobile phone or texts whilst driving to prison. The amount of people who are still driving whilst holding a phone to their ear, is as bad as being under the influence of drugs or alcohol because neither have got the control of their vehicles and when they kill somebody all hell breaks loose.How can say he was not at fault he certainly was not in control of his vehicle.
Ian - 15 years ago
Yes! he killed a man he should have seen had he been paying sufficient attention to the road and driving at a speed consistent with the distance he could see.
The texting is utterly irrelevant. The fact the victim was drunk is irrelevant. Lord Ahmed hit and killed him, end of story.
Peter - 15 years ago
The sentence may seem harsh, but no one with an ounce of common sence if they consider what driving entails would not even consider it
I have already got the Parrot Hands free kit fitted and I only use the phone if it is extremely urgent and cannot stop to take the call i.e. Motorways.
All 'tarred' with the same brush.... - 15 years ago
All 'tarred' with the same brush....lowest common denominator!
Everyone has the right to an opinion..............such comments do not make any or all of us RIGHT or WRONG!
Of the comments that I have read, clearly this is a very much disputed issue, not helped by a lack of quality detail and fact. (I wonder how *experienced - in *life and *driving] some of you commentators actually are to express such judgement?
Government, local authorities, the Police (it suits their purposes) all of them, to continue to apply means by which to extract money from the motorist.
Motorists, (yes like myself) who have, like many others, driven thousands of miles over the years (typically 40,000+ per year currently) continue to maintain a CLEAN driving license. (do I carryout some of the actions described above, make your own mind up) But to be brow beaten by those local authorities, the Police 'Camera Safety Partnerships' who seem to delight in spending our money on anything that IMPACTS upon the MANY drivers, due to the idiocy of the few, beggars belief!
Of course I don't condone some drivers actions that are commonly reported in the media, this DOES NOT MEAN we are all as bad as each other, or more to the point, as INCOMPETANT, and should be penalised as accordingly!!!
Right time.....and right place spring to mind.........but the 'authorities just go for the easy answer; the one that generates the most cash for them!
They say for us to re-engage with politics......they say that *we are (*the government) we run a DEMOCRACY; yeh! Well me ......I'm a monkeys uncle!
There those who are skilled in driving, and those who are not. What else can I say?
I will finish as I began....... we're all 'tarred' with the same brush....!
Ricardus - 15 years ago
It was`n`t for texting he was prosecuted!
See the case as reported
ashar rashid - 15 years ago
he should not have used the mobile phone but i think jail for this too much because this accident was not his fault
Bob Heyhoe - 15 years ago
I think anybody in charge of a motor vehicle caught texting, which is worse than answering or talking in a phone, should be jailed. Texting involves concentration ( taken away from driving) also dexterity of using the hands/fingers again which detracts from the driving ability.
Two unrelated events. He was not guilty of causing the accident. He was sentenced for another "crime" that he wasn't even being tried for. This is such a ridiculous sentence it is laughable. Of course texting while driving deserves punishment - 3 points and £60 fine. Some people don't need to use a phone to be bad drivers - bad driving should be punished as such, the cause (phone, choosing music, talking to passenger) should be irrelevant. In this case, there is absolutely no legal proof that there was bad driving involved (just circumstantial evidence - a good driver would have seen and avoided a stationary vehicle on the motorway, whether or not it was in an "expected" place, and whether or not it had reflectors... Do deer have reflectors?).
Colin Cummings - 15 years ago
The offence is using the phone. With all his money he ought to be able to afford a hands free kit for calls but he could not possibly be in control of his car when sending texts. Almost everybody will have experienced some problem with a person using a mobile whilst driving eg swerving about, not signalling, holding the phone in a way which restricts visibility - all these can contribute to an accident and I for one don't want to be on the receiving end of a car crash.
Gary Haynes - 15 years ago
Was he texting when he hit the man? No - so why is this anything to do with what happened? The real question is "was he distracted at the moment of the accident - was he driving in a dangerous or reckless manner at the time?". I agree he should never have been texting whilst driving but is it possible to prove this had any impact on the accident, I think not!!
w - 15 years ago
Yes, the judge done good, but I would have give him ten years because he killed someone by his no sence driving. Everone with symphathy for this gezza should concider, it could have been one of their family he killed, how would they comment then.
Darran Gill - 15 years ago
At the end of the day, Some people just can't drive. Women do not get fined for applying makeup ( of which has caused many accidents) several asylum seekers have been caught driving without licences, people who are unconfident and hesitant that also cause accidents do not get punished. I'm fully in the belief that some people just cannot drive and therefor should not get a driving licence. sooner or later they will ban radios from cars. ( why is it ok to look for tracks on an IPod and not text?) The law is trying to protect everyone. Its about time they just let life take its course and stop trying to MOLLY CODDLE everyone. that was our parents job, not the governments. we are old enough and ugly enough to make decisions now. If the texting caused the accident then yes he should be sent to jail but in this instance he seems to have been made a scapegoat and therefore very very wrong. The world is not pink and fluffy. You cannot stop accidents happeing. Its just life. Sooner or later the preventative measures are going to get ridiculous ( The speed camera on the M4 that was put there because 3 accidents happened in a year even though the accidents were caused by people comitting suicide off a bridge).
Lake - 15 years ago
Nobody should send or read texts while driving. Thugs with knives get a slap on the wrist. Had this happened to any ordinary Joe Soap, then I doubt that they would have been given a custodial sentence.
I don't think everyone caught texting is jailed. Therefore unless the accident had been in any way connected with texting he shouldn't have been jailed.
Even if he was distracted by the received message 2 minutes previous to the accident, the texting can't been blamed as communications in many forms are allowed, which may relay distracting news. What then: No talking in the car? No car radio? No Mobile phone. All communication with outside world to cease for 5 minutes before driving a car with the interval being used for transindental meditation to purge distracting thoughts from the mind ?
I think texting while driving is very dangerous, and he should have been proscuted. However if texting in this case had no bearing on the accident he should not have been jailed , unless that is the norm, although jailing seems excessive for this.
roy willis - 15 years ago
What a load of crap this questionaire is.
Lord ahmed, or whatever he is called should not have been driving in this country. He should have been in his own country.
Don't forget what Bernard Manning said, "If a dog is born in a stable, it doesn't mean it can claim to be a fuckin' Horse"
I cannot disagree that taking eyes off the road for any purpose beyond a very few seconds is dangerous. However, imprisonment is NEVER a solution to ANY bad behavior. Consider:
- if there was a victim (in this case there was not) there is no possibility of making restitution while the aggressor is behind government bars. Restitution should be the sole purpose of a justice system - making the victim whole
- if there was not a victim, then there is no aggression involved and no cause to waste the time of a proper justice system.
This is of course radical, and inverts most of the drivel we have been taught about law and order. Nonetheless, it makes rational sense.
BTW, kudos to David, with his accurate perception of the Nanny State.
david finley - 15 years ago
A drunk driver crashes, and then undertakes dangerous activities on the motorway.
We jail the next driver that comes along!
WTF !!!!!
What next?
Will we jail those who smoked a cigarette 3 mins before, or changed the radio station, or ate a piece of chocolate?
And look at the intolerant attitude of the comments here.
This vindictive, intolerant, dictatorial government is dividing us all, we become like them, and reason goes out the window.
Welcome to Nazi Britain.
David - 15 years ago
What a ridiculous nanny state we have become. Even real people seem to believe the state fed garbage, which is a tremendously sad indictment upon the generally OK standard of driving out there, at least during the week. Speed cameras, nanny obsessions et all really do not cure plain bad driving, which there is no attempt whatsoever to deal with. Deaths are caused by lorries or dangerous drivers, which is not the same thing as someone smoking whilst driving or even texting etc. Why no statistics I wonder? Because what we are told (and many of us seem to mistakenly believe) is simply wrong.
Mike H-R - 15 years ago
We have no justice in this country, we only have laws and if you break the law and get caught, you will be sentenced, what sentence you get will be decided by the person or persons you are standing before. So if texting whilst on the move you could get off or go down and any where in between.
We do need a fairer system.
Richard (Brentwood) - 15 years ago
Oh, and as an addition to the last comment, I too see drivers regularily using their fones whilst driving. Held to the side of their heads like they have earache. With the cost of BlueTooth dongles and car kits and hands free kits all below £30.00 They are within the reach of all but the poorest of people.
There is no excuse. Even my wife "forgets" to charge her one and makes the excuse "it's only for a few minutes - what can happen?" READ THE ABOVE...
Use bluetooth or don't use the phone... Simple!
Richard (Brentwood) - 15 years ago
Quote From ANOther Richard: "If the question had been "Should people be prosecuted for texting while driving" then perhaps the survey would have come out more strongly as "Yes". Personally I don't think he should have gone to prison as it sounds as if he had very little to do with the accident and he even risked his safety by trying to warn other motorists of the accident. I do think that people should not text while driving - it is patently dangerous - people are dangerous enough anyway without being distracted by it"
This says it all... The law is draconian, but until people realise that driving is a skill and a privelege, they must be punished for breaking the law whether it is acceptable or not. Just because we all do it, does not make it right.
Paul - 15 years ago
In response to Sebs comment ( It cant be proved) Oh yes it can and the first thing the Police will do in the event of a serious or Fatal collision is seize your mobile and have it investigated so beware!! As regard the circs of the question I think Lord Ahmed was quite properly jailed for a short term.
He did collide with another person and that person died..That is fact
Also for all those who think he should not have been jailed you would all be thinking differently if it was one of your family that he had killed.
I would have hoped that this jali term would have served as a reminder to all those who continue to flout the law but sadly only today i have seen several people using their mobiles whilst driving heading to the scene of the next fatal crash
Mike R - 15 years ago
No way can you be in control of a car if your texting! My life was wrecked by a drunk driver, not the same thing, but still amounts to not being in control Idiotic and criminal, I'd have given him 12 months!
Matt C - 15 years ago
I think the main point here is that the court distinguished that the texting and accident were un-related. Lord Ahmed should have been punished for texting while driving, which I believe is 3 points and a £60 fine. There have been a number of prisin sentences for 'death by careless driving' recently, which are all unfair in my opinion - if it can't be proved that a driver was doing something illegal at the moment the accident happened, then the driver can't be punished. People have to accept that 'accidents' (clue's in the title.....) happen and sometimes there's no-one specifically to blame. And before you start pointing fingers, I lost an 18 year old cousin in a car crash. It was an accident. These things happen.
JetmanF135 - 15 years ago
There is a significant time gap between the records concerning the text messages and the time of impact with the drunk's stationary vehicle in the outside lane. Unless Lord Ahmed was preparing a text message for sending at that point or immediately prior to it, then texting and the the fatal impact are unrelated.
Of course texting whilst driving is undoubtedly extremely dangerous and arguably even more so than speaking on the mobile, but if the police and the CPS prosecute everyone who is distracted whilst driving by smoking, eating, drinking, reading a map, a book or anything else, playing with their satnav or radio, looking at a TV etc.etc., (I've seen all of these and more including a lorry driver with a burger in one hand, a can of coke in the other resting his forearms on the top of the steering wheel and reading a map) the courts would grind to a halt. This would be a good case for every motorist getting a parking or speeding ticket to appeal - the legal system would fall apart.
What is sadly lacking in this coutry is ongoing education of road users - we used to do it years ago using TV, radio, newspapers etc., of how to negotiate roundabouts and actually indicate left immediately before the exit and not all the way around, join the motorway to merge with the traffic and not force them to swerve or brake, don't block yellow box junctions, stop at an AMBER traffic light before it changes to red, it goes on and on.
It is a sad fact that the standard of driving in this country is steadily deteriorating. Once a person has passed the minimum requirements necessary, they are thrown to the wolves and then start making up their own rules.
Whilst I agree that any form of using a mobile whilst driving is dangerous, irresponsible and should be banned, fined, points etc I don't agree with the prison sentence. The simple fact that neither the accident or the death of mr gombar was caused by the texting means this should be dealt with in the normal route aka points and fine.
Why should this case be any different to the countless £60 fine, 3 points affair that goes on for other drivers? It is just unfortunate that in this one instance the accident occoured fairly soon after a txt was sent. If the accdient and/or death was caused by the texting then that opens up a different debate, but in this case it didnt.
What will prison achieve? nothing! a simple fine and points would of held the justice system, given normal citizens some faith and saved us taxpayers some money and prison room for a person who truly deserves to go there
Steve B - 15 years ago
Totally over the top and typical of the System in the UK today.
The next thing will be a prison sentence for talking to someone else in the car...
on the other hand maybe that would be more justified, bearing in mind the women who have to look at each other to speak.
Also of course that would mean the Police could not speak on their radios , so a bonus there.
The difference between drunks driving and people texting while driving is the drunk is normally looking out of the windscreen and trying to drive where the idiot texting is normally looking down at their phone and have no idea where they are going.
In my opinion, drunks drugs or texting while driving should all be treated the same, and banned or jailed for more serious offences, they are all a menace on our roads
Whereas we all know that using a mobile phone can cause accidents, so does bad driving and there are thousands of people out there that under those basis should not be on the road, accidents do happen, but we seem to be living in a society where everyone wants revenge and someone to be accountable. The police certainly looks for evidence to blame someone, pitty they can't apply the same principles when its their own that commit the offences, its not the first time that I have seen police drivers with their phones whilst driving, and if it is talking and listening to a conversation that is distracting so why do police drivers constantly listen through their earpieces to the police bands. Lord Amhed did cause someone's death and I am sure that is something that he has to live with for the rest of his life, which in itself is punishment enough in most cases, accidents do happen, and looking at the same hard line comments in this blogg, I would like to remind everyone that any of us can be in the same situation including the idiot that claims he stands by the road and in future will be taking photos of those using the phone, perhaps when he is doing that he will distract a driver watching him and cause a fatal accident. If putting Lord Amhed in prison is justice, because he took a life, perhaps the public should get a petition to put in jail the policemen responsible for putting 7 bullets in the head of an inocent man, Jean Charles de Menezes. British |Justice at its best...
Whilst i do not condone texting whilst driving, it would apear that many who have left comments on here seem to forget the days before the law changed. How many used their phones before it became illegal? Some commented about it being the same as reading a book whilst driving... may i remind you of the days before satnav! How many looked at a map or A-Z whilst driving? How many have taken their eyes off the road to change a tape/cd or radio station whilst driving? Get a grip of reality people! It could have happened to anyone of us, and yes i do feel sorry for the family of mr Gumbar and my sympathy goes out to them. But what mindless idiot drives whilst drunk? Crashes then staggers about on the motorway trying to retieve his phone? I say free Lord Ahmed, and repect his honesty!
I think this poor guy will suffer enough just for the fact that it was his car that hit mr Gombar. A £60 fine and 3 points would be suficiant in this instance.
Im guesing next it will become illegal for taxi drivers to use their radio systems whilst driving!
I am convinced that the majority of motorists are sanctimonious hypocrites. How can it be right morally or legally , to jail a person who had no control over the actions of a drunk ?The way people are being brainwashed is actually quite worrying.
It is a fact that telephone usage (in any form) is a known distraction whereas, funnily, usage of an RT (radio telephone) is not. Speaking on a cellphone and usage of radio transmissions uses quite separate parts of the brain.
That is why use of radio transmission whilst driving was specifically excluded from the Parliamentary Bill.
His use of his telephone was (is) illegal and we was properly dealt with.
I hope it serves a lesson to others.
[he was a bit of a clot ever to have admitted to having done so!]
If mobile phone use is banned on the ground that it interferes with the task of watching the road, should traffic lights, speed cameras and speed limits be banned for the same reason?
Having just read most of these comments many are stating that a large ammount of concentration goes to talking not driving, I think this depends on the person. I take it that these people do not realise that it is quite legal to talk on a two way radio such as a CB, HAM radio, ambulance, police car, water board, council, BT etc. most of which still use a hand held microphone. I have used these types of radio's over many years with no problems, the answer is to refrain from talking at key moments such as junctions narrow stretches etc., I do realise that these are easier as you can put the microphone down when listening, that used to be most of the time if my boss came on. People who are talking on mobiles seem to forget everything else, especially their driving and do not even notice the police there, they should be prepared to concentrate on driving even if they have to ask the other person to repeat what they said and even drop their phone if need be.
police always use phones radios etc on the move no problem . they are trained, so are we they are experienced so are we . 25 years driving safe might i add . 20 year old cop can phone ,i cant one law common sense no jail for phone use how many people would feel the same if that guy was skint and white
If you think Lord Ahmed was hard done by then you really don't know the full story.
Ordinary people get 21 months for the exact same offence of accidental killing *without the phone being a contributory factor but used as evidence anyway since it, by itself, is illegal*.
Lord Ahmed killed someone with dangerous driving. The phone is a factor only in that it is illegal, and the precedence is that this illegality makes the sentence harsher.
His sentence was postponed several times, his sentence was extremely light, the solicitor-general personally intervened in internet blogs, and the appeal was rushed through and the sentence postponed (quashed) in case the criminal conviction 'damaged his work for charity' - not because it was unjust.
His work for charity? Do a google on him and see.
This is a clear case of one law for the plebs who kill:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7865114.stm
and another for the idiots who are protected by the ruling party.
If you kill someone through active carelessness you should never be allowed to drive again. Phones are irrelevant - if you plough into a car on a motorway with 400 yards of visibility then you are not fit to drive.
However if your mates are powerful enough to get you out of jail and twist the facts then you, and them, are not fit to make laws in a just society.
I am a great believer in letting the letter of the law stand before the spirit of the law. If the law is badly phrased it will eventually be changed to reflect the spirit intended.
Lord Ahmed may have been honest about his activities before the crash but he was also badly advised to pleading guilty. There were no witnesses I presume to say that his texting was causing him to drive dangerously. As previous corrrespondent says he should have received a fixed penalty and a fine. One can argue that driving and texting is dangerous (I agree) but you need to change the law first not just apply it arbitrarily. I suspect it was applied over harshly just because he IS a lord. Having said that I can also imagine that he does in fact feel a little guilt - maybe the guy wouldnt have died if he hadnt been texting 2 minutes before. But the law doesnt (it shouldnt anyway) work on maybes - it works (or it ought to) on the facts. How would he have felt if the texting had been 20 minutes before? Less guilt ? No guilt?
His prision sentence was OTT and if he hasnt already appealed he should. We should stay away from using his defence team!
Texting while driving is clearly dangerous and should never be done. Had lord Ahmed crashed while texting, then a prison sentence may have been considered for his dangerous driving. In this case, he was not texting at the time of the accident and the texting played no part in the accident so it is irrelevent. The prison sentence is symptomatic of the histeria which surrounds so many issues these days. Common sense should have prevailed at the first hearing and not waited for an appeal judge to apply it.
For all we know he might of been in the middle of yet another text at the time of his accident. Untill sent the message would not be saved or recorded anywhere. A very clear message needs to be heard that irresponsable acts like texting while driving deserve the harsher sentances or more innocent children, drivers or passengers will die. Next time it might be you or a loved one of yours.
Lord Ahmed should have been punished for the texting alone, as the accident was not his fault. People who have caused death by dangerous driving do not seem to have sentences imposed on them, which can be said to be appropriate as they are rarely long enough. To my knowledge previous cases of death by dangerous driving prove that it is one year per life lost due to the dangerous driving. Any ordinary citizen caught using a mobile phone whilst driving would be fined and disqualified for a certain period from driving. I believe the law should be applied equally to all.
I accept that texting and driving is wrong and dangerous, however, in view of the facts and circumstances of this case, I think the punishment does not fit the crime. Lord Ahmed seems to have received a harsher penality simply because of his notoriety, perhaps because of his high public profile the judge wanted to make an example of him?
His texting was not directly related to the tragic and sad death of the Mr Gombar, although it could well have been.
I think Lord Ahmed should have received a community penality, fine, road safety course or perhaps a 3 or 6 month driving ban. That would have been harsh enough for a first time offence.
Had he caused the death of Mr Gumbar, then I would totally agree that he should receive a prison sentence and one substantially longer than 3 months.
It discredits the criminal justice system when judges choose to administer harsher sentences on the basis of the public profile of a case rather than the evidence / facts presented in court.
There is absolutely no way that he should have been jailed. This is a miscarriage of justice. He was not even texting at the time of the accident. This was at least two minutes before the accident.
How about we jail all the idiots I see every morning and evening with either no lights on or perhaps a side light or two in the dark??
Comments please?
He admitted texting and should therefore be punished for this and this alone. However the system is not fair inasmuch if he was caught texting he may have been given a fine and have points put on his licence. We have to fair to all motorists and law must prevail for all motorists. He was very lucky he did not cause an accident it was just coincidental he was there at the time. So in essence, all drivers texting whilst driving which can be prove should face time in prison
The crashed car was in the fast lane and, since Lord Ahmed hit it, he must have been in the fast lane too. But it is not the fast lane it is the overtaking lane. If he was overtaking that presupposes other traffic and surely their brake lights etc should have alerted him to something being wrong, so he can't have been paying attention. If he wasn't overtaking he shouldn't have been in that lane so he wasn't paying attention. Either way he should have been driving at such a speed that he could stop in the distance he could see to be clear.
The sentence is appropriate for the offence of causing death by careless driving, the offence which would seem to best fit the facts. As others have said the offence of texting whilst driving should have been dealt with separately, although it is certainly evidence that Lord Ahmed was giving inadequate attention to the driving task.
This was the establishment trying toget back at Mr Ahmed for his outspoken attacks against the government in recent times. I don't think the same would have happened if Gorden Brown or David Cameron were involved in a similar accident; they would just have got a slap on the wrist. My advice is get blue tooth and get a good laywer
Whilst Lord Ahmed was not responsible for the death of the man in question, he admitted having a sustained text message conversation lasting 15 minutes over a distance of 17 miles whilst driving on the motorway. Whilst I used to text whilst driving myself before the ban on using mobile phones became law, he should have been more responsible and dealt with his conversation after pulling over. I know people who have been stationary in traffic and caught making a call and prosecuted just by picking up their phone in sight of a policeman. In my opinion I think if the car is stationary a call can be made (how many times are we held up on the motorway and need to contact work to inform them of our delay but can't because we feel we'll be prosecuted). But trying to send text messages whilst driving is not on. I think Lord Ahmed was sent to prison because he is a person we should aspire to but he has let himself down in this instance. A text conversation of 15 minutes at motorway driving speeds is unacceptable and his prison sentance is valid as a lesson to all. If he was making a phone call at slower speeds then 3 points and fine.
If there was a whole 2 minutes between Ahmed's text and the subsequent accident the act of texting cannot be to blame for him killing the drunk fool trying to retrieve his phone from the fast lane. Whilst he should not have been texting on his phone when driving, period, the facts are unconnected and does not constitute causing death by dangerous driving. Madness. That should be points on his licence for the texts, that he didn't avoid the drunk is unfortunate. Death by misadventure.
In response to Robb Collett, I think you'll find that women have been sent to prison: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/7896386.stm
The fact that he was texting previoulsy indicates that he may well have been constructing a further text when the accident occured (Mobile phone records can show the time between texts, phone polling and the grid reference, not the current activity on the phonepad).
Anyone who is selfish enough to use their phone to text while driving should have their fingers chopped off so that from then on they can only use a hands-free kit. Anyone know how far a car (weighing a lethal 2 tonnes) travelling at 60 mph in the outside lane will travel in 5 seconds while the driver has his/her eyes on the phone display & keyboard?
Anyone thinking texting whilst driving is a 'let off' offence needs electric shock therapy to overcome their mental instability.
Got FAR less than he deserved and weasled out of most of that. Should have had to serve at LEAST 12 months! And a CONSIDERALBE ban + Fine
He should have lost his license for ten years as well as the tiny prison sentence, we can do without ignorant idiots endangering us all on motorways by selfishly texting and doing goodness knows what else, I take my children in my car and god help us with people like this also on the roads.
Could you please explain to me why a person on a invalidity vehicle that is motorised and drives it in public places is alllowed to drink have no insurance and the vehicle is exempt from tax and having mot. Surely they are more likely to run someone over whilst driving on the pavement or crossing a road under the influence of drink. In one of my local pubs we have several of these vehicles inside the premises and most of the drivers have at least double the alcohol limit and can do so without prosicusion, but, if I drive a vehicle on the road with tax mot and insurance but over the prescibed alcohol limit I receive a fine and a ban from driving yet these people do it every day of the week. Surely the law needs to be looked at.
Whilst I agree texting when driving is wrong I do believe that the sentance should not have been jail but should have been a heavy fine. The reason for this is because he was not court texting and did not cause any accident while texting. They should have charged him with driving without due care and attention, there is no way you could fail to see a car facing the wrong way on the motorway unless he was speeding to extreme or not watching where he was going.
Various comments need to be corrected,
1. Hand held is more distracting than hands free because one hand is not on the wheel but holding the phone, the other hand can't operate the steering wheel correctly because the driver has to pass the wheel from one hand to the other whilst steering which is impossible if the other hand is holding a mobile phone.
2. There have been many studies into using a hand held phone and all say that the driver's concentration is reduced by at least 50%, even using hands free must reduce concentration to a certain extent otherwise the driver wouldn't be taking in what the other person is saying, also the other person doesn't know if there is a hazard or even a minor occurence ahead that needs the drivers full attention.
3. Tuning a radio should take place when the road is clear, when full concentration on the road is not as important as when there are events happening ahead.
4. Accidents don't just happen they are caused by people, the majority of accidents aren't accidental, they are avoidable if people are in a fit state and concentrating on the job in hand. The Lord Amed should have been concentrating more on the road ahead, many vehicles ahead of him managed to avoid the stranded vehicle, was he composing another text as has been suggested by other correspondents?
Amed hadn't just been sending one text message, there had been a few so there is a good possibilty he was preparing another, which presumably couldn't be detected by the police investigating the RTC (Road Traffic Collision not "Accident") Therefore he deserves what he got.
Driving is difficult enough these days without TEXTING! His Lordship should be banned from driving for life, put in the stocks and the offense should be treated as murder where the intended victim is not known. Five years jail sounds entirely resonable... This activity is asking for trouble and I am really pleased that in this case he got what he asked for. There are far too many morons using handheld devices while driving and the more the book is thrown at those who care nothing for the rest of us the more they might actually think before using any handheld. He might as well be reading the paper. I have difficulty feeling sorry for the drunk too.
Whilst driving, a person can listen to the radio/CD, light and smoke a cigarette, eat a sandwich, drink from a cup and even, if they pay attention, use a mobile phone in talk mode. BUT, texting takes far too much attention away from driving as does tuning a digital radio, trying to reset a Tom-tom, reading a map/directions or tying up your shoes!
In fact, anything and everything that requires more than just a glance away from the road ahead and particularly on a motorway should automatically carry a prison sentence. Talking on a telephone on a motorway is easy; texting is impossible.... if respect for the lives of others is included in the equation. That said, if Lord Ahmed had re-arranged his genitalia to become a woman, he would not have been imprisoned (honestly, check the CPO stats. No woman has been prosecuted; ALL men have been). Interesting, eh?
He got what he deserved,.
What astonishes me is the number of voters in this poll who think texting and driving should be condoned .
Automatic 3 month jail sentence and a three year ban should be statutory
for idiots who text and drive , no excuses for the ignorant selfish bastards.
Lock em up.
Lee wrote
"When you are talking to someone on the phone your mind spits in half. 50% on the road ahead and 50% trying to communicate with the person on the other end. Your trying to hear them clearly, maybe trying to imagine and set the scene they are talking from then BANG !!!"
But it's OK if you are "hands free".
And the difference between hand held and blue tooth is what exactly?
The phone call is no more distracting hand held than it is hands free. Yet one is legal and the other is not! Go figure!
Texting whilst driving ? I have problems texting whilst sat in an armchair! Could cause chaos but in no way should he be allowed to become a cause celebre. He has wife and mother in the car with him, why couldn't he dictate what he wanted to say and have them input it into the phone? Lack of common sense and the sentence allows time for reflection, which is what prision should do. (He could have lied but that would easily be proved by questioning his wife/mother.)
Yes Lord Ahmed should know better than using mobile phone whilst driving. He probably was one of the lord who voted for the bill to be made law stopping drivers from using mobilephone whilst driving.I think the sentence was too lenient for him .
Having a son who has been charged and convicted of dangerous driving recently. I can see why this man has been imprisoned. The level of corruption to the laws by this government and the way that the whole law industry now work, makes it near impossible to be given a fair hearing. You are bribed by both to courts and the solicitors that by pleading guilty you will be better off! Not only that, but once they con you into this mindset anything that anybody has said against you is automatically believed as fact (no matter how implausible it is. This is then used to sentence you by the courts. At no time are you allowed to put up any argument! The police make statements which are believed absolutely as if they were there! I see why he pleaded guilty, this is just a small sample of the gross abuse of the law against the people in this country that is being carried out daily. God forbid that this is the same system that people would be exposed to if hanging was reintroduced tomorrow!
The judge did the correct thing as far as I am concerned, I get fed up of seeing drivers even today driving with NO hands whilst texting or using a mobile. Somebody has to be made an example off and the more they 'go down' for their foolishness the better for ALL.
the law has been in place a while now and clearly states do not i repeat do not use a mobile phone while driving end of arguement
He should have received the highest possible penalty. He is a member of the Lords & as such must set the correct example. Strip him of his title now.
it is a bit silly texting while driving especially if you got people in the car who could it for you and even a direct call would halve the risk but i cannot understand why people dont just scoot down the shops and buy a cheap hands free they cost very little and work really well and at the moment are still legal it would save a £60 fine and 3 points and maybe someones life but sending the guy to prison was way over the top. i bet he has got one now and wondering why he didnt do this before.
For crying out loud! For all the control he had of a 2 ton projectile, why not watch TV, read a book, or get 40 winks? It's contributory negligence.
The law (quite rightly) feels that talking on a mobile is sufficiently distracting to be a punishable offence. If you do it and get away with it, you're still a menace to road users.
If you cause injury or death because of reckless and irresponsible behaviour, then you pay. Drivers must recognise that they have a responsibility every time they get behing the wheel.
When you're driving concentrate on that. Texting is a total distraction and you have to be very skilled indeed to do it without looking at the equipment. But Prison? When we're so short of space for the regular offenders? Come off it...
Using a mobile weather texting or just talking is against the law.He was harshly treated he did not cause the accident and should have been given 3 points and a £60 fine period.
If it had been a white English driver it would had been a case of "serve your time" ....He has been treated differently because he is
[a] Muslim [we British of "Anglo Saxon" stock cant upset our fellow "countrymen" can we?] .
[b] A Lord [?] .....[Really?]
[c] Could aford a good [?] solicitor [Steve Smith? ...well? ....yeah,obviously he's "good" ...he got him outa jail ....I hope I can afford to hire him if ever I get in trouble]
[d] Has "agreeed" do community service educating people in road safety....[I'll believe that when I see it]
[e] He's a member of the House of Lords [I was under the impression that any member convicted was automatically barred ...obviously,I'm mistaken]
tbh,IMO he sould have been left in jail until his time was served ....Oh ..btw,I'm a Rotherham resident....and I cant quite work out how "Lord Ahmed" could text whilst driving ....I've always found it difficult to even talk on a phone & drive at the same time.
T.
I think it is disgusting that he was jailed, had he committed any number of other motoring offences including drink driving he would not have been jailed. I agree that it is impossible to drive and send a text, receiving is much easier I know I have done it but at a very slow speed on a country lane, however there are also other acts that are just as dangerous such as doing makeup and drink driving or driving with faulty headlights but except in very large ammounts of drink nobody gets jailed.
I see the last person thinks whisky will ignite from a cigarette, he should try it, it puts it out.
I live near rotherham and i feel any person driving and text should be banned from driving, if i did it i myself would expect the same.
my comments are no because he is a lord or he is a labour party member.
i think he should have known better and the prison he should have been made to serve and banned from the labour party.. but like for the boys a few months from now he will be back at work and doing the same again..
what a load of crap on tv saying he does a lot for charity ect,ect,ect thats wath i call a wimp, the accident may have been a few mins later but he could have wiped out a family. at least people speeding my be doing some thing wrong but they do watch the road around them ? ..
HE IS A FOOL PUT HIM BACK IN PRISON AND THROW AWAY THE KEY..
To send or even try to send txts while driving is imbecilic and deserves a big fine. However, as the accident was entirely unrelated, and Ahmed did what he could to minimise the already serious outcome, maybe a pat on the back for 'doing what he could', and then rapped knuckles for being a prize idiot earlier.
I'd like the lock him up forever brigade to consider this hypothetical situation.
............ It is against the law to smoke in a public place such as a restaurant. Imagine that you decide to ignore this law and smoke anyway. A drunk bangs into you dropping his glass of Whisky on the floor and knocking the cigarette from your hand. It lands on the whisky soaked carpet and catches fire. The resulting blaze kills a young women.......................????????????Question???????????? should you the smoker that broke the law that resulted in the death of a young innocent women go to prison?
First let us remind ourselves what the report actually said:
"It is widely accepted that the accident was in no way Ahmed's
fault and the court accepted that the texting and accident were
un-related events."
So all the idiots that say something like " he killed a man end of. He should be locked up for 10 years" prove that they are complete moron's themselves. The accident was not his fault, was not caused by texting or any other fault of Ahmed's.
Where everyone agrees Ahmed was at fault was some minutes earlier where it was proved he was texting. This is illegal and stupid and as such he should be given the penalty for texting while driving. I understand this is 3 points and a fine. It is a joke to give him a much harsher sentence because later he was involved in something that the court admits was not his fault, but which unfortunately resulted in the death of a drunk idiot standing in the middle of the motorway trying to pick up his phone, after just crashing.
He should not have gone to prison full stop. Yes he "had" been texting prior to the accident but was not texting when he had the accident. Let’s send everyone to prison that had sent a text minutes before getting into a car and driving. Come on get real everyone. We should not text at all whilst driving, but to go to prison for having texted!! The texting and accident was two separate incidents and should have been treated as such.. Hope I never have to rely on the justice system we have these days, it's a farce even more so with some of you as the jury
As a member of the government he should have been aware of the law. I'm sure it was an accident that could have happened to any one of us. However I would ask the question - was he keeping an eye on his phone waiting for a reply to his latest message? A seconds glance at a mobile at a critical moment could have made all the difference in this situation - I hope he can sleep at night.
If Lord Ahmed had been a white British lorry driver he would have got life but no he's a Labour peer he's just the same as the rest of the ruling elite of this country UNTOUCHABLE he killed a man LIFE end of story
If you ever watch 'Road Wars' on TV you see insane driving without any 'due care' or concern for others and yet they seem either to get minor penalties or often they get off scot free.
Lord Ahmed is being punished because of who he is and not for the offence of texting whilst driving. I don't even think he should be held responsible for the drunk driver's death - have any of the people who are condemning him ever come across an unlit car sideways on in the outside lane of a motorway at night? Come on, be fair.
I do think however the death penalty should be brought in for the following road crimes:
1. using rear fog lights in visibility greater than 300 metres.
2. sitting in the middle lane of a motorway when the inside lane is empty for a good distance ahead.
3. for failing to indicate on leaving a roundabout - have they not been helped by seeing others indicating left on leaving a roundabout?
4. for indicating right when leaving a roundabout - why do the do that?
5. tailgating
6. stopping inches away from the car in front in jams, or at traffic lights
7. driving with 'parking' lights on (Range Rovers and Toyota sports car drivers are common offenders) Have they ever looked at how dim these lights are? The clue is in the name - parking lights.
8. failing to indicate when changing lanes on motorways - why do they do that? Do they think they are saving indicator bulbs (mainly BMW drivers - and yes, I have owned a BMW) Many motorway accidents are caused by people failing to indicate when moving to the left whilst someone else fails to indicate whilst moving right - it happened in front of me yesterday on the M1. And yes, one was a BMW driver and the other was an almost white van. Perhaps indicators are optional extras on BMWs - the CD player was an option in 1996 when I bought my last BMW 5 series!!!!
9. failing to say thank you when I give way to oncoming traffic or let someone out of a side road - manners cost nothing.
10. using a car sound system such that it can be heard outside of the car. What are their ear druims like? Why is their music such c##p.
11. parking across the front of my security gates as some idiot did this morning. Another idiot yesterday got out ogf his car and left the driver's door wide open blocking my way (into The Park, Nottingham) - when I tooted him, he got upset and did not apologise - prat.
I have used a mobile phone in a car in the past but have seen the error of my ways and now even try avoid using my hansfree - but is it any worse than listening to the radio or changing a CD.
"I think driving whilst smoking showd be treated and fined the same way as using a mobile yet it seems to be ignored by our police force."
Hell, why not make smoking completely illegal? Followed by alcohol? Prohibition works, as history shows.
Of course it's ignored by our police force, there is no law that covers it - it can be perfectly safe to smoke a cigarette while driving. More to the point, we don't need a law to cover it or even mobile phones - our existing laws already cover the important aspect - it's called driving without due care and attention. And you can be guilty of that with both hands on the steering wheel.
Some of the comments in this thread beggar belief. No wonder this country is the way it is.
Ahmed should have spent all the sentence in jail. He's an idiot. There's a good chance he was in the process of making another text when the crash happened, he'd been sending a few on the journey. It would only show up if it had been sent. Adam says he is trying to get a good price for a Parrot setup. It won't help the morons who want to text though!!
If it had been Joe Bloggs he would still be in prison
I wonder how many of the contributers here can type replies when it is obvious they have not read or understood the news report. Lord Ahmed was NOT texting when he joined an accident that was already happening before he got there, he WASN'T texting immediatly beforehand either.
Texting while driving is both illegal and stupid, but it did NOT contribute to this unfortunate death in any way.
If he hadn't been texting he might have avoided the collision. End of.....
Why do people continue to break the law and drive dangerously when a simple bluetooth handsfree which plugs into the cigar lighter costs less than £10 on ebay????
Pathetic.
What he did was illegal, forget the fatal accident........he was/is a Lord, and as such needs to set an example to everyone else. If he can't do that, and it's patently obvious that he cannot, then HE needs to be made an example of himself !
Personally, I believe that ANY person of rank, be it Lord, Sir, whatever, who is convicted of a criminal offence, should automatically lose his/her title.....no exceptions!
yesterday I saw a women driving with one hand holding her mobile and in the other "free" hand a lighted cigerette.
I think driving whilst smoking showd be treated and fined the same way as using a mobile yet it seems to be ignored by our police force.
Surely a lighted object held in your hand is far more dangerous than a mobile ?
Texting is purely irresposible.
Apparently the amount of texts received / sent was Lord Ahmed downfall
Try this next time you sit in your car. Text a friend, now start stopwatch, look to see if text sent, check forward and back view, look to see if phone turned off, now turn phone to stand by, now put phone on seat, NOW LOOK UP TO SEE SOME JACKASS STANDING IN MIDDLE OF ROAD and now try to stop from 70+ mph.
Have watched a woman texting as I crossed the road on a light controled crossing. She drove off, looked down to put phone away and ran straight into the island 50 yards further on.
Texting involves the use of one hand, which means you are unable to control the lights or gears, your eye focus is down to less than your arms length and you are distracted, trying to remember how many times you have pressed the keys.
Texting whilst driving should have a much heavier penalty. 9 points + £500 or time.
As for drunk driving, mandatory, immediate 6 month detention before trial, followed by minimum 3 year ban. Tagging compulsory, to check on possible dissqualified driving offence. One day in final two weeks of ban spent in company of emergency services.
I spent 28 years as mobile service engineer, done 1 or 2 miles in that time, never more than 1 pint if driving. Hit once by drunk on motorbike, I stopped he diddn't. Dragged child from car as drunk dad died behind wheel. Seen 3 pedestrians knocked over, 1 fatal.
at 70mph you would cover approx 2.5 miles on the motorway in 2 min so to say texting contributed to this accident is stretching a point although i agree that texting while driving is mad locking him up was just another of this countries waysof dealing with things mug some one and you get comunity service the drunken idiot driving the car that crashed and ultimatly died holds all the blame for me by the way i drive for a living
Using a mobile is a questionable fixed penalty offence when you take into account some of the other distractions and the level of ability of the driver together with how he/she is actually carrying out the 'offence' However, texting is a different matter altogether. Only a totally irresponsible lunatic would even consider that. Also, all drivers should drive at a speed and with a level of attention that allows them to stop safely when something unexpected happens. Colliding with a stationary vehicle is inexcusable irrespective of where it is.
It is often claimed that it is not speed that kills. It is simply the inability to react safely to the unexpected and that is most definitely related to speed.
He deserved the sentence but so do a great many more who never get to court or have a clever lawyer. In that way alone he can claim to have been unlucky.
The law is quite clear - You do not uses your mobile phone for any reason(s) whilst you are driving a motor vehicle. Any one doing so is disregarding the law and must be delt with acordingly. Lord Ahmed, because of his status, will now have difficulty in having any credibility not only in my eyes but many others. He should give God thanks that he and his family have not joined the deceast.
Talking on a mobile is no more distracting than adjusting or listening to a radio, checking the speedo or any other instrumentation, considering a SatNav or dealing with any passengers in the car, particularly children. Punching in the numbers certainly is distracting and texting is plain stupid.
Ahmed did not deserve a custodial sentence but some sort of salutary experience to set him straight and send a message to others.
I used to be employed by a road safety media organisation and even before I was employed by them I have always been apposed to idiots holding and talking on a mobile phone. It still goes on I stood beside a busy road last week and counted 18 drivers out of 100 still holding and using. Yesterday on another busy road it was 26 out of 100 cars checked. WARNING next time I am out checking cars I will photo the fools holding and talking or even texting and fotrward them to the police. I want to keep death off the road and proven tests have shown that drivers talking on a mobile loose from 50% to 90% of their concentrtation. texting and the driver has less than 5% concentration
Texting while driving is against the law as it requires the use of a hand held mobile phone. By what right the police got the information that he had sent texts is another matter. I presume that the police had a look at the log on his mobile phone and got the data from there. It would be interesting to know if PACE gives the police a rignt to carry out this search. Was he prosecuted for hitting the other car or only using the phone?
While i think some laws like smoking in a pub are wrong, i do think texting or recieving calls people should be jailed, you cannot expect to consentrate it doing these things, i would'nt do it, theres no need to, bluetooth steros, bluetooth sat navs and hands free kits are there for a reason, if they want you that bad phone when you get back, sorry i can't find any sympophy for these people especially if one knocked my children down
No. Lord Ahmed did not deserve prison for texting whilst driving as it was not related to the accident and occurred many miles apart. That offence demands 3 points and a fine. However the accident as described, whereby his car caught Mr Gombars car door and as a result killed him is obviously what swayed the decision. Dont forget this was in darkness and Lord Ahmed probably had little or no time to react before the impact. It was not pre-meditated, not dangerous driving and arguably not even manslaughter but just an unavoidable accident.
I travel motorways every day and find the most dangerous practice is actually the drivers who go straight to the right hand lane and just sit there, totally disregarding cars behind them. The drivers lose concentration, fall asleep or just get mesmerised following another car closely. I was taught by a police sergeant to accelerate quickly past the obstruction and pull into the left hand lane before reducing speed to suit. It used to be the law that it was the overtaking lane, but now it causes almost 80% of the car accidents on motorways. The rest are caused by, mobile phone usage as well as; adjusting the stereo/ipod/satnav etc, drinking, talking (and I agree that some people cannot avoid looking at the person they are talking to, so maybe they should they be banned from talking?), and my personal hate - smoking.
I have seen two accidents as a result of smoking and nearly had one myself many times when I smoked. If a lit cigarette sticks to your lips, or flick it, or you catch it on the wheel the result is the 'red' ash falling down between your legs. I can assure everyone that your concentration immediately changes from the road to 'hunt the red end'. It causes so many swerves that any following or alongside car has no chance.
What we really need is lane discipline and courtesy on the road. That will save more lives and result in less accidents than any high profile prosecutions that have become impartial for the wrong reasons. March 17th.
Irrespective of the events, anyone texting whilst driving should be jailed. You are not only distracted from concentrating on the road, but are also not even looking. Even typists still look at the keyboard when typing, so I do not believe anyone can send a text message without looking at their mobile.
It is impossible to concentrate on both driving and any other activity at the same time, even legal activities but what he did was illegal and he should pay the consequences.
If you are driving your car, you are driving your car, NOT sending or receiving text messages, some might think it clever to multi task like this, but I for one don't. All right the other guy was drunk, but that dosn't make it OK. Two wrongs don't make a right. There's one good thing to come out of this and that is he will more than likley not do it again, so hopefully a spell in jail will have had the desired effect.
The use of the mobile phone may not be directly related to the accident, but it is still in itself a serious offence and he is therefore still a danger to other road users.
A man in his position should have known better
John said -
"I don't have a problem with people using a hand held phone while driving. I don't believe it to be any more dangerous than listening to the radio or talking to your passengers."
John, I drive in and around London all the time and when someone is on a hand held phone in front of me I can tell by the way they are driving even before I see the phone. When people use a hand held phone it is very dangerous as they are trying to drive with one hand and they are concentrating on a phone call too. Hands free is the way to go - I don't think there is any excuse not to use one now as they are pretty cheap. Rob.
I voted YES though I actually don't think jail was the right punishment. I do however think that anyone who tries to read a text whilst driving is foolish - to write one make you a total moron - a very dangerous total moron. I see a lot of dangerous total morons on the road.
I would send every driver who talks on the mobile phone or texts whilst driving to prison. The amount of people who are still driving whilst holding a phone to their ear, is as bad as being under the influence of drugs or alcohol because neither have got the control of their vehicles and when they kill somebody all hell breaks loose.How can say he was not at fault he certainly was not in control of his vehicle.
Yes! he killed a man he should have seen had he been paying sufficient attention to the road and driving at a speed consistent with the distance he could see.
The texting is utterly irrelevant. The fact the victim was drunk is irrelevant. Lord Ahmed hit and killed him, end of story.
The sentence may seem harsh, but no one with an ounce of common sence if they consider what driving entails would not even consider it
I have already got the Parrot Hands free kit fitted and I only use the phone if it is extremely urgent and cannot stop to take the call i.e. Motorways.
All 'tarred' with the same brush....lowest common denominator!
Everyone has the right to an opinion..............such comments do not make any or all of us RIGHT or WRONG!
Of the comments that I have read, clearly this is a very much disputed issue, not helped by a lack of quality detail and fact. (I wonder how *experienced - in *life and *driving] some of you commentators actually are to express such judgement?
Government, local authorities, the Police (it suits their purposes) all of them, to continue to apply means by which to extract money from the motorist.
Motorists, (yes like myself) who have, like many others, driven thousands of miles over the years (typically 40,000+ per year currently) continue to maintain a CLEAN driving license. (do I carryout some of the actions described above, make your own mind up) But to be brow beaten by those local authorities, the Police 'Camera Safety Partnerships' who seem to delight in spending our money on anything that IMPACTS upon the MANY drivers, due to the idiocy of the few, beggars belief!
Of course I don't condone some drivers actions that are commonly reported in the media, this DOES NOT MEAN we are all as bad as each other, or more to the point, as INCOMPETANT, and should be penalised as accordingly!!!
Right time.....and right place spring to mind.........but the 'authorities just go for the easy answer; the one that generates the most cash for them!
They say for us to re-engage with politics......they say that *we are (*the government) we run a DEMOCRACY; yeh! Well me ......I'm a monkeys uncle!
There those who are skilled in driving, and those who are not. What else can I say?
I will finish as I began....... we're all 'tarred' with the same brush....!
It was`n`t for texting he was prosecuted!
See the case as reported
he should not have used the mobile phone but i think jail for this too much because this accident was not his fault
I think anybody in charge of a motor vehicle caught texting, which is worse than answering or talking in a phone, should be jailed. Texting involves concentration ( taken away from driving) also dexterity of using the hands/fingers again which detracts from the driving ability.
Two unrelated events. He was not guilty of causing the accident. He was sentenced for another "crime" that he wasn't even being tried for. This is such a ridiculous sentence it is laughable. Of course texting while driving deserves punishment - 3 points and £60 fine. Some people don't need to use a phone to be bad drivers - bad driving should be punished as such, the cause (phone, choosing music, talking to passenger) should be irrelevant. In this case, there is absolutely no legal proof that there was bad driving involved (just circumstantial evidence - a good driver would have seen and avoided a stationary vehicle on the motorway, whether or not it was in an "expected" place, and whether or not it had reflectors... Do deer have reflectors?).
The offence is using the phone. With all his money he ought to be able to afford a hands free kit for calls but he could not possibly be in control of his car when sending texts. Almost everybody will have experienced some problem with a person using a mobile whilst driving eg swerving about, not signalling, holding the phone in a way which restricts visibility - all these can contribute to an accident and I for one don't want to be on the receiving end of a car crash.
Was he texting when he hit the man? No - so why is this anything to do with what happened? The real question is "was he distracted at the moment of the accident - was he driving in a dangerous or reckless manner at the time?". I agree he should never have been texting whilst driving but is it possible to prove this had any impact on the accident, I think not!!
Yes, the judge done good, but I would have give him ten years because he killed someone by his no sence driving. Everone with symphathy for this gezza should concider, it could have been one of their family he killed, how would they comment then.
At the end of the day, Some people just can't drive. Women do not get fined for applying makeup ( of which has caused many accidents) several asylum seekers have been caught driving without licences, people who are unconfident and hesitant that also cause accidents do not get punished. I'm fully in the belief that some people just cannot drive and therefor should not get a driving licence. sooner or later they will ban radios from cars. ( why is it ok to look for tracks on an IPod and not text?) The law is trying to protect everyone. Its about time they just let life take its course and stop trying to MOLLY CODDLE everyone. that was our parents job, not the governments. we are old enough and ugly enough to make decisions now. If the texting caused the accident then yes he should be sent to jail but in this instance he seems to have been made a scapegoat and therefore very very wrong. The world is not pink and fluffy. You cannot stop accidents happeing. Its just life. Sooner or later the preventative measures are going to get ridiculous ( The speed camera on the M4 that was put there because 3 accidents happened in a year even though the accidents were caused by people comitting suicide off a bridge).
Nobody should send or read texts while driving. Thugs with knives get a slap on the wrist. Had this happened to any ordinary Joe Soap, then I doubt that they would have been given a custodial sentence.
I don't think everyone caught texting is jailed. Therefore unless the accident had been in any way connected with texting he shouldn't have been jailed.
Even if he was distracted by the received message 2 minutes previous to the accident, the texting can't been blamed as communications in many forms are allowed, which may relay distracting news. What then: No talking in the car? No car radio? No Mobile phone. All communication with outside world to cease for 5 minutes before driving a car with the interval being used for transindental meditation to purge distracting thoughts from the mind ?
I think texting while driving is very dangerous, and he should have been proscuted. However if texting in this case had no bearing on the accident he should not have been jailed , unless that is the norm, although jailing seems excessive for this.
What a load of crap this questionaire is.
Lord ahmed, or whatever he is called should not have been driving in this country. He should have been in his own country.
Don't forget what Bernard Manning said, "If a dog is born in a stable, it doesn't mean it can claim to be a fuckin' Horse"
I cannot disagree that taking eyes off the road for any purpose beyond a very few seconds is dangerous. However, imprisonment is NEVER a solution to ANY bad behavior. Consider:
- if there was a victim (in this case there was not) there is no possibility of making restitution while the aggressor is behind government bars. Restitution should be the sole purpose of a justice system - making the victim whole
- if there was not a victim, then there is no aggression involved and no cause to waste the time of a proper justice system.
This is of course radical, and inverts most of the drivel we have been taught about law and order. Nonetheless, it makes rational sense.
BTW, kudos to David, with his accurate perception of the Nanny State.
A drunk driver crashes, and then undertakes dangerous activities on the motorway.
We jail the next driver that comes along!
WTF !!!!!
What next?
Will we jail those who smoked a cigarette 3 mins before, or changed the radio station, or ate a piece of chocolate?
And look at the intolerant attitude of the comments here.
This vindictive, intolerant, dictatorial government is dividing us all, we become like them, and reason goes out the window.
Welcome to Nazi Britain.
What a ridiculous nanny state we have become. Even real people seem to believe the state fed garbage, which is a tremendously sad indictment upon the generally OK standard of driving out there, at least during the week. Speed cameras, nanny obsessions et all really do not cure plain bad driving, which there is no attempt whatsoever to deal with. Deaths are caused by lorries or dangerous drivers, which is not the same thing as someone smoking whilst driving or even texting etc. Why no statistics I wonder? Because what we are told (and many of us seem to mistakenly believe) is simply wrong.
We have no justice in this country, we only have laws and if you break the law and get caught, you will be sentenced, what sentence you get will be decided by the person or persons you are standing before. So if texting whilst on the move you could get off or go down and any where in between.
We do need a fairer system.
Oh, and as an addition to the last comment, I too see drivers regularily using their fones whilst driving. Held to the side of their heads like they have earache. With the cost of BlueTooth dongles and car kits and hands free kits all below £30.00 They are within the reach of all but the poorest of people.
There is no excuse. Even my wife "forgets" to charge her one and makes the excuse "it's only for a few minutes - what can happen?" READ THE ABOVE...
Use bluetooth or don't use the phone... Simple!
Quote From ANOther Richard: "If the question had been "Should people be prosecuted for texting while driving" then perhaps the survey would have come out more strongly as "Yes". Personally I don't think he should have gone to prison as it sounds as if he had very little to do with the accident and he even risked his safety by trying to warn other motorists of the accident. I do think that people should not text while driving - it is patently dangerous - people are dangerous enough anyway without being distracted by it"
This says it all... The law is draconian, but until people realise that driving is a skill and a privelege, they must be punished for breaking the law whether it is acceptable or not. Just because we all do it, does not make it right.
In response to Sebs comment ( It cant be proved) Oh yes it can and the first thing the Police will do in the event of a serious or Fatal collision is seize your mobile and have it investigated so beware!! As regard the circs of the question I think Lord Ahmed was quite properly jailed for a short term.
He did collide with another person and that person died..That is fact
Also for all those who think he should not have been jailed you would all be thinking differently if it was one of your family that he had killed.
I would have hoped that this jali term would have served as a reminder to all those who continue to flout the law but sadly only today i have seen several people using their mobiles whilst driving heading to the scene of the next fatal crash
No way can you be in control of a car if your texting! My life was wrecked by a drunk driver, not the same thing, but still amounts to not being in control Idiotic and criminal, I'd have given him 12 months!
I think the main point here is that the court distinguished that the texting and accident were un-related. Lord Ahmed should have been punished for texting while driving, which I believe is 3 points and a £60 fine. There have been a number of prisin sentences for 'death by careless driving' recently, which are all unfair in my opinion - if it can't be proved that a driver was doing something illegal at the moment the accident happened, then the driver can't be punished. People have to accept that 'accidents' (clue's in the title.....) happen and sometimes there's no-one specifically to blame. And before you start pointing fingers, I lost an 18 year old cousin in a car crash. It was an accident. These things happen.
There is a significant time gap between the records concerning the text messages and the time of impact with the drunk's stationary vehicle in the outside lane. Unless Lord Ahmed was preparing a text message for sending at that point or immediately prior to it, then texting and the the fatal impact are unrelated.
Of course texting whilst driving is undoubtedly extremely dangerous and arguably even more so than speaking on the mobile, but if the police and the CPS prosecute everyone who is distracted whilst driving by smoking, eating, drinking, reading a map, a book or anything else, playing with their satnav or radio, looking at a TV etc.etc., (I've seen all of these and more including a lorry driver with a burger in one hand, a can of coke in the other resting his forearms on the top of the steering wheel and reading a map) the courts would grind to a halt. This would be a good case for every motorist getting a parking or speeding ticket to appeal - the legal system would fall apart.
What is sadly lacking in this coutry is ongoing education of road users - we used to do it years ago using TV, radio, newspapers etc., of how to negotiate roundabouts and actually indicate left immediately before the exit and not all the way around, join the motorway to merge with the traffic and not force them to swerve or brake, don't block yellow box junctions, stop at an AMBER traffic light before it changes to red, it goes on and on.
It is a sad fact that the standard of driving in this country is steadily deteriorating. Once a person has passed the minimum requirements necessary, they are thrown to the wolves and then start making up their own rules.
Whilst I agree that any form of using a mobile whilst driving is dangerous, irresponsible and should be banned, fined, points etc I don't agree with the prison sentence. The simple fact that neither the accident or the death of mr gombar was caused by the texting means this should be dealt with in the normal route aka points and fine.
Why should this case be any different to the countless £60 fine, 3 points affair that goes on for other drivers? It is just unfortunate that in this one instance the accident occoured fairly soon after a txt was sent. If the accdient and/or death was caused by the texting then that opens up a different debate, but in this case it didnt.
What will prison achieve? nothing! a simple fine and points would of held the justice system, given normal citizens some faith and saved us taxpayers some money and prison room for a person who truly deserves to go there
Totally over the top and typical of the System in the UK today.
The next thing will be a prison sentence for talking to someone else in the car...
on the other hand maybe that would be more justified, bearing in mind the women who have to look at each other to speak.
Also of course that would mean the Police could not speak on their radios , so a bonus there.