Jet skier gets 6 months

S

Sea_dreamer

Well-Known Member
Joined
20 Nov 2004
Messages
180
Location
Scotland
www.sea-dreamer.com
I came across this news report .

A jet skiier crashed into another, was prosecuted, and received a 6 month custodial sentence. The other guy suffered serious head injuries.

A fair sentence? The judge's view was that a Jet Ski was a lethal weapon, and I tend to agree. But what if you collide with someone, through being careless - should you go to prison for 6 months?

John
 
Yes- fair sentence IMO. PWCs are proliferating like a virus and so there needs to be some widely publicised deterrant to encourage safe riding and considerate water use. I have no strong feeling against them and would rather like to have a go, but also feel the people riding them have to take responsibility. The fastest I can hit someone is at about 9-10 knots, and thats surfing down a wave. The fastest they can hit is 40. There was a girl in Cornwall killed last week in a similar situation.

What penalty would you get for severely injuring somebody on the road?
 
If your actions result in serious injury to, or WCS the death, of third party then IMHO the answer is yes! - just the same as if you were driving a car.
IIRC someone a few years ago fell asleep at the wheel and wound up on railway tracks causing a train crash and he was imprisoned. It really is a gray area though as there are so many scenarios, Kids faffing about in a dingy, you don't see them for whatever reason and they cut across your bows but don't quite make it - who's fault is it? At the present time we have a "always someone else's fault mentality" like the woman who spilt hot coffee in her lap and got "burnt" - she would have complained if the coffee was served cold! but instead sues IIRC MacDonald's or was that the one that got "burnt" when biting into a hot apple turnover.
----------
hammer.thumb.gif
“Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity”
Skype id:cliffillupo
 
[ QUOTE ]

IIRC someone a few years ago fell asleep at the wheel and wound up on railway tracks causing a train crash and he was imprisoned.

[/ QUOTE ] Not too far from where I used to live. It was where the M62 crossed the main East Coast railway line. Apart from the possibility that the driver wasn't fit to be on the road through exhaustion, the Armco around the bridge at that point didn't prevent his Landrover and car trailer from leaving the road and skating down the embankment onto the track because the end on the Armco was only a few feet from the carriageway and did not close off the access to the embankment. Consequentially his vehicle simply drove behind the Armco. and down onto the track. If the Armco was there to prevent that happening it was woefully inadequate.
No sign of a "corporate manslaughter" charge there though.
 
We hear people yelling for their freedoms all the time, yet rarely do we hear of someone demanding their responsibilities. So, little sympathy.

There's quite a lot of case law behind this 'responsibility' stuff ( viz. Lord Denning's 'man on the Clapham omnibus' judgement ), and I gather that the causing of injury by misuse of *any* vehicle attracts progressively-strong penalty.

This responsibility in law becomes much stronger where there is a degree of 'professional qualification*. Therefore, those amongst us who hold RYA/YM with Commercial Endorsement and/or who teach - even at night school - are in quite an exposed situation. All the more so, 'cos few such will have Public Liability Insurance.

Maybe a forumite 'legal beagle' can expand?
 
Setting aside natural antagonism toward Jetskis, I have never understood the concept of sentencing people on the outcome of their actions rather than the action itself. If the police saw me reach for a sweet whilst driving and my car wobbled I would expect 3 points and a £60 fine for carless driving. When an Oxford man did this and "wobbled" onto the opposite carriageway and killed 2 people he went to prison for 6 months. We would have both acted in the same irresposible way but received disparate sentences, based seemingly on whether we were lucky or not. This seems similar to throwing people into ponds to determine whether they are witches.
 
Driving penalties, to other drivers, always have that frisson of "there but for the grace of God go I". Jeremy Clarkson et al are probably the greatest examples of this.

Turn that sweet one the other way up and explain to anguished relatives (and some Max Clifford types in this modern world) why someone got a £60 fine and three points for running down and killing Granny.

Personally I'm fairly behind the idea that if you cause death as a result of your driving then an automatic lifetime ban is the starting point of your punishment, pour encourager les autres, but I don't drive and therefore have nothing at stake here. And to those who say "driving is my job", well perhaps that links to why hospital IT types don't surf patient records for fun, instant out the door stuff. Action:consequences if caught.

Admit it, you are a lot more careful when you go out boating aren't you. You plan, check the boat's safety gear and if things get hairy make every effort to get somewhere safe.

IIRC some magistrates require you to retake your driving test if you are found guilty of some offences. Maybe that is a way forward, with full P plate time and restrictions afterwards. That might give Mr Half Asleep rep something to think about.

Whoops, I appear to have ranted here, best have a drink when the sun gets up a bit:-)
 
[ QUOTE ]
hospital IT types don't surf patient records for fun, instant out the door stuff. Action:consequences if caught.

[/ QUOTE ] But that would be acting in the full knowledge that what you do is specifically against the rules.
I tend to agree that the outcome of a foolish action isn't the starting point but the intent in acting foolishly should be the deciding factor.
Hence in the case I responded to earlier, the driver fell asleep. He could have drifted to a halt, he could have hit a tree and killed himself or, as happened, he ended up on a railway line (and the road engineers must take some responsibility there) and caused a tragedy.
Surely the outcome was not his fault, but the act of putting himself in that position was.

(I have no connection at all with that case BTW)
 
ever had a near miss?

I once nearly backed a large motorboat over a tender with 2 people in it .(he was close to the transom in the blind spot) .Now I check more carefully.There but for the grace of god and all that.

burglars dont get sentences like that for a first time caught.

This kid made a mistake and deserved a second chance.

the blame and claim culture is slowly eroding our freedom .
 
All these posts illustrate the random nature of our so called "Justice " system. If you are going to injure someone in a powered vehicle just make sure its on the road (more common - less penalty) than on the water! Excuse my sarcasm for what must be a serios subject for those that have been injured.
 
So someone who steals £1 gets a small fine - should Brinks Mat thieves get get same sentence?


Err perhaps not.
 
[ QUOTE ]
So someone who steals £1 gets a small fine - should Brinks Mat thieves get get same sentence?

[/ QUOTE ] You've missed the point entirely. These two examples are scumbags who are thieving, one probably with more forethought and violence. The discussion is about the outcome of accidental mishaps or mistakes. I really don't suppose anyone thinks "I'm going to ride my jetski over my girlfriend's jetski" or "I'm going to fall asleep whilst driving this Landrover and trailer" they are misjudgements and should be treated as such.
 
Think the difference is whether he was careless or dangerous.
Don't think the report gives the full story , but as far as I can see the accident was deamed to be caused by dangerous behavoiur rather than by a misjudgement or a moment's inattention, although that would be always open to opinion
 
Yes that seems reasonable. Careless or dangerous are two ends of the spectrum. Certainly neither are the same as purposefully going out to commit a violent crime.
 
[ QUOTE ]


This responsibility in law becomes much stronger where there is a degree of 'professional qualification*. Therefore, those amongst us who hold RYA/YM with Commercial Endorsement and/or who teach - even at night school - are in quite an exposed situation. All the more so, 'cos few such will have Public Liability Insurance.



[/ QUOTE ]

Quite right! As an instructor, and commercially endorsed, there is clearly an onus on me. Only today I received a letter from a school I work for on a freelance basis outlining insurance issues. I have my own indemnity policy which, I hasten to add, increased by a massive 437% last year.

I think most people forget that an instructor has to go through a vigourus process to teach at each of the individual disciplines and the vast majority of us who do it for a "living" do so because we enjoy it. A recent post by another forumite said much the same; and when you consider that we are "supervising" on vessels of not inconsiderable sums so that the owners can feel a degree of confidence in moving their hard earned cash about, then I reckon we do bloody well!

I'd add that when we are out on our own boats we behave the same way as if we were teaching, and so we should. With the qualifications comes the responsibility! OK. so mistakes do happen, but a review of risk assement and, frankly, thinking at least 5 steps ahead of the average student means that actually very few "accidents" occur.
 
[ QUOTE ]
This kid made a mistake and deserved a second chance.



[/ QUOTE ]

So he can kill someone next time? /forums/images/graemlins/crazy.gif

This is part of the problem - nobody really gets taken to task! You see the same in the streets and on the road - make the punishment harsher and others will (might) think twice about it.

I've no doubt that the sentence was used as an example (and used to set a precedent), as was the case with the rib driver sentenced last week.

Too many Guardian readers on here me thinks /forums/images/graemlins/shocked.gif

PS: I found this on another forum: -

"A similar thing nearly happened to me today.

Happily leaving the harbour with a boat-load of passengers, when idiot on jetski/bike decides to accelerate across the channel without looking. On coming back into the harbour 35 minutes later, same idiot is floating around in the channel (so I slowed down) - as we approach, he decides to accelerate and then cut across right in front of me. When he finally sees me, he has such a shock he almost falls off. Luckily I had slowed down almost to a stop - so we drove round him. When we got back in, I found out that he had already been cautioned by the harbourmaster for being within the swim zone (yelloow buoys) along the beach.

While I don't neccesarily think that legislating people that drive boats/PWCs are licenced or should do some sort of test is the answer - but how do you get people to practice common sense?!? If I hadn't slowed down and hit him at any speed, the chances are he would be in a bad way (or dead) and I'd probably end up with a jail sentence (not to mention a concience)!!"
 
HiandDri - your logic is so wharped I can't even begin to respond.... then again maybe try this to point out how farcical it is.....

Scenario 1: I go down to shooting range, pull trigger on my gun, hit target.

Scenario 2: I go down to shooting range, pull trigger on my gun, hit person (accidently).

Under HiAndDri logic, the action of scenario 1 = action of scenario 2 => they should both be treated same i.e. I should either be imprisoned for manslaughter/murder for BOTH scenarios or walk away scott free, cos they both involved same action. Whereas outcome happened to be different simply cos I was a bit more 'unlucky' in scenario 2 (not to mention how unlucky my victim was).

Please don't ever stand for a position of power!

As for sentence, tis fair in my view.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top