A bus driver mistook the accelerator for the brake and crushed a man to death after her No42 careered for 50 yards and mounted a pavement.Whoops!
Doris Osei, 44, took a sharp bend rapidly and rammed into Newell Lewis, 65, who was trapped in the railings of Burgess Park, Camberwell, in January last year. Osei, of Camberwell, a bus driver for a year, had received just 30 minutes' driver training by employer Go Ahead in the new model before starting her shift.Ooooh, long sentence for her and huuuuuuuuge insurance payout and maybe even an appearance in the dock for the directors, right?
Wrong.
She admitted causing death by careless driving and was sentenced to 12 months suspended for two years at Blackfriars crown court.There…are...no...words.
I accept that she didn't mean to kill anyone. But nothing? Nothing, at all, for not being in control of a multi-tonne vehicle?
Judge Aidan Marron told Osei he was taking into account she had a baby in suspending the sentence, adding: "I look at you as a woman who is consumed with regret and guilt." She got a two-year driving ban and was ordered to do 150 hours' community service.The family of the pedestrian believe the bus company should be in the dock too. As do I.
23 comments:
" .. if I want to kill people with impunity, I don’t need to become a ninja or an assassin for a shadowy government organisation. Just a bus driver" ..
Or a British Prime Minister, that way, not only do you get to cause the deaths of your "enemies" .. but you also get to inflict death & disablement on your own side too ..
Sorry, can't agree on this one. As you say, there is no mens rea in cases of this kind. If there is no evidence of behaving in a reckless manner then you are effectively seeking to bang someone up simply for having made a mistake. In my view the punishment given is appropriate.
If the accident did result from unfamiliarity with the vehicle controls then the operating company is more culpable than the driver.
Sorry but I disagree. Why on earth should the company be in the dock? The bus driver is the guilty party not the directors.
IF she was incapable or felt unsure about driving the new model then SHE had a responsibility NOT to drive it.
It's that simple. Even if refusing to drive had cost her her job.
And anyways, what was soooo different about the new model? Were the pedals not where they always are, FFS!?
The driver of a bus is a 'captain', the same way a pilot or marine captain is. He carries the burden of responsibility for his passengers and crew.
No one would have any sympathy for a pilot who took off while feeling incapable of safely flying the jumbo.
There's a lot of `corporate` contributory negligence out there. Not wanting to minimise this case by any means but, by way of example, the only time a driver is compelled to take an eyesight test is when they sit their driving test - and eveni then you can hardly call it an eyesight test. Thereafter its all down to their own judgment and integrity - until they start walking/running/driving/crashing into solid objects.
I might go along with that, JuliaM.
Well, so far as I could embrace the belief of Hunter S Thompson and UK State Police, that everybody is guilty of something.
I'm mostly with Curmudgeon here. Mens rea is important, or at least it was once thought important in the days before Britain had so many summary offences. There's also the point that one of the main functions of prison is to prevent crime by physically preventing criminals from committing them, thus giving law abiding society a bit of a break from that individual crim. In this case it's so unlikely to happen again any time soon (because she's banned from driving and because who's going to hire her as a bus driver now anyway?) that prison doesn't actually add anything. Prison as punishment? Yeah, sure, and I'm for that for real criminals, but this woman could be punished on the outside and free up a place for some violent psycho bitch who really does need to be locked up. I'd agree Osei got off too lightly but being pragmatic about it banging her up is a waste of a prison place. If there hadn't been anyone on the pavement nobody would be talking about prison and probably everyone would have been happy with a big fine and firing her, yet that would be an even bigger let-off because the mistake she made would have been exactly the same one that killed Mr Lewis. IMO big fine with earnings attached if necessary, big ban with retest at the end, lots of community service since punishment for such as her might as well serve a purpose, and suspended sentence (probably longer than she got) just in case the silly cow disobeys the driving ban.
I'd also agree that the company has some questions to answer over its training. I agree with SBC that she had a responsibility to raise the matter if she wasn't confident she could drive the new vehicle safely, but it doesn't say that she did feel unsure. There's such a thing as being unconsciously incompetent and she could have believed she knew what she was doing and simply been wrong about it. I've watched someone who was unconsciously incompetent risk removing his toes with a shotgun because he was closing and mounting it wrong, but because he was obeying the basic safety rules (such as finger off trigger, which is why he still had all his toes) and was breaking a few clays he didn't realise. And that's why the company should be explaining what it does to ensure that its drivers really do know what they're doing rather than just think they do. Perhaps they were and there really wasn't a case for a corporate prosecution - that report is pretty short on details.
"There's such a thing as being unconsciously incompetent"
Not legally there isn't...or rather that is 'mitigation', a reason to lessen punishment, not a reason not to hold her guilty.
To continue with your weapons grade analogies: I used to work Hi-End Armed Security -not so much 'rent a cop' as 'rent a psycho'. If my boss had suddenly decided to arm us with bolt action 303 Enfields instead of handguns then legally I would have to have refused to carry one until such time as I had been trained.
Did I know how to use a 'long' rifle? Yes. Would I have been 'safe' to carry one? Yes. Would I have been safe to carry one in the eyes of the law? No. There would have been a risk that I was 'unconsciously incompetent'.
The bus driver must have known she wasn't safe. If she didn't then she had no business driving a bus at all.
[way off topic but going back to my previous post]
Anyone here experienced with the old WW1 type 303 Lee Enfields? Capt H?
If so, am I right in assuming that there is some design flaw or feature that has the potential to cause the injury to oneself or anyone else around? BEYOND the fucking obvious of course!
If there is something I have learned about all firearms is that there is always SOMETHING..."this gun is safe to carry UNLESS it's the second tuesday in the November of a leap year and it's rained in which case the..."
Like cars.
Like women.
Not legally there isn't...or rather that is 'mitigation', a reason to lessen punishment, not a reason not to hold her guilty.
Never said it was. Just said that it's a possibility that she didn't know how dangerous she was.
The bus driver must have known she wasn't safe. If she didn't then she had no business driving a bus at all.
Sorry, you might be right and she just wanted the paycheque, but I don't see how you get there from the little information in the article. There just isn't enough for me to rule out unconscious incompetence. The second bit, well obviously yes in an ideal world where everyone judges their abilities accurately, but it isn't and we can't, especially at the stage of learning where we think we understand a lot better than we do. That's why we don't expect people to teach themselves driving the way they can be self taught on the guitar or something, and why the bus company should be explaining what the hell was going on there. Again, the lack of info in the article could well mean they did and we just don't know. It's amazing how much doesn't get reported after a court case - I went to one a while back and from the difference between what the media reported and what was in the actual summing up you'd think I was in a different courtroom. This seems a particularly good example of surface scratching reporting, and perhaps like the bus driver (massive emphasis on 'perhaps') we don't know how much we don't know.
Anyone here experienced with the old WW1 type 303 Lee Enfields? Capt H?
If so, am I right in assuming that there is some design flaw or feature that has the potential to cause the injury to oneself or anyone else around? BEYOND the fucking obvious of course!
My first gun love was and always will be the No.4, the rifle with which I popped my centre fire cherry, though it's been a few years and I've fired guns that are technically much better in all sorts of ways since. Don't think I've ever fired an older model though I vaguely recall hearing something like you're saying about one of them, possibly the Smellie. I have a feeling it was something about it being possible to reassemble it incorrectly in such a way that the bolt could come flying out into your face when it was fired, but unless that rings bells with anyone I might be thinking of a completely different rifle.
"I have a feeling it was something about it being possible to reassemble it incorrectly in such a way that the bolt could come flying out into your face when it was fired,"
That's what I was talking about. Thanks and yes you're probably right that we just don't have enough information.... now excuse me please, i need to stable my high horse.
Don't forget that there has been active campaigning for women not to be sent to prison...for any crime !!!
If it was a man, i would have expected prison for him.
Bus Driver Of No Appearance?
@ SBC & AE ..
My experience of .303 rifles is limited to the No 4 too .. though I have heard that because the bolt-head screwed into position, it was possible for the grooves on the bolt & in the weapon not to align correctly, thus leaving a "free" bolt ..
That said, I once had a 9mm Browning Hi-Power jam on me, the action being totally siezed .. when examined by the Armourer, he told me I'd been exceptionally lucky, as the lug at the base of the breech-end of the barrel was almost completely sheared .. and had the weapon re-cycled once more, I'd probably have ended up with a face full of hot working parts ..
But, as the mantras of my old weapon training instructors went .. "The most dangerous part of any firearm, is the nut behind the trigger" ..
And "nothing is fool-proof to the expert fool" ..
@ Gallovidian ..
I wondered about that too ..
""The most dangerous part of any firearm, is the nut behind the trigger" ..
LOL yes. My German instructor-a former Legionnaire and as with all former legion men totally clinically insane- started my lessons by asking me if I knew how to 'handle a handgun'. When I replied 'of course' he said "You do know that the colors on safetys here [on the Continent] are the other way round, don't you?
I didn't. So much for my being 'safe' to carry a gun without further training.
>Anyone here experienced with the old WW1 type 303 Lee Enfields? Capt H?
Yessah. No 4, didn't get an SLR until 1977.
A custodial sentence would be over the top. I'd have gone in harder on the driving ban.
If she's been checked out on driving that variety of the vehicle, the company can't be held responsible, apart from a poor hiring policy.
SBC makes a good point, but there's a bit of a gap between a Nigel and a Doris.
"Mistook the accelerator for the brake"
Surely I can't be the only one who immediately thought of Bob Newhart?
Sorry, but the blame here stays with the driver.
While just 30 minutes training might seem wanting to many; there is little you can do with a new vehicle. It was almost certainly of the same class she was used to (and licensed to drive) so beyond showing her where the headlamp switch was and how to adjust the seat I can't see what else they could do. In any event, I doubt the best, most rigorous and intensive training in the world would have gone as far as pointing out that the peddles were in precisely the same position as every other motor vehicle on the planet!
I'm not saying it's not the driver's fault. But she didn't do it deliberately, she committed an error of judgment. Thus the charge of "causing death by careless driving" is appropriate, as is the sentence.
Don't forget that "causing death by careless driving" is a relatively recent offence. Until a few years ago, if the court judged that she had been guilty of careless as opposed to dangerous driving, all they could have done was impose a fine and a driving ban.
Given the lack of mens rea in the vast majority of motoring offences, the whole application of the criminal law to them is questionable, and very often seems to reflect a desire for revenge rather than anything resembling justice.
SBC: there have been headspace problems due to wear on some of the actively used Lee Enfields. That's why the forward end of the bolt could be rotated and why it was so important to armorers to gauge headspace on weapons under their control. Headspace is more important than you'd normally thing. It's the chief reason, for example, that gunsmiths will insist on a distinction between NATO 7.62×51mm and Win .308. NATO headspace rules and SAAMI headspace rules are sufficiently different to make mixing the near-identical cartridges a dicey proposition.
"Or a British Prime Minister..."
Good point!
" As you say, there is no mens rea in cases of this kind. If there is no evidence of behaving in a reckless manner then you are effectively seeking to bang someone up simply for having made a mistake."
A 'mistake' that cost someone's his life. By sheer luck, it was only ONE person...
"And anyways, what was soooo different about the new model? Were the pedals not where they always are, FFS!?"
That bugged me, too. I've driven quite a few cars, and while the dashboard layout was always different, the pedals stayed where they were...
"...but, by way of example, the only time a driver is compelled to take an eyesight test is when they sit their driving test..."
I remember it well! If a traffic cop has suspicions about someone they've stopped, though, they can do a quick 'field test', though, can't they?
"In this case it's so unlikely to happen again any time soon (because she's banned from driving and because who's going to hire her as a bus driver now anyway?)..."
I'd like to think 'no-one', but...
" Perhaps they were and there really wasn't a case for a corporate prosecution - that report is pretty short on details."
That's indeed often the case with newspaper reports, isn't it?
"If it was a man, i would have expected prison for him."
Much was made of the fact she had a child, I note..
"...it being possible to reassemble it incorrectly in such a way that the bolt could come flying out into your face when it was fired..."
Now there's progress! A weapon almost as dangerous to the wielder...
"A custodial sentence would be over the top. I'd have gone in harder on the driving ban."
Or community penalty?
"Surely I can't be the only one who immediately thought of Bob Newhart?"
Love that one! :)
"It was almost certainly of the same class she was used to (and licensed to drive) so beyond showing her where the headlamp switch was and how to adjust the seat I can't see what else they could do."
It is a puzzle, isn't it? Maybe she was an accident waiting to happen in any vehicle?
Post a Comment