Kroker gets 10 years..

http://metro.co.uk/2016/10/31/lorry-driver-jailed-for-10-years-for-killing-f...

Will be out in 5.

I usually never sweat the small stuff as life is too short and all of that, but one thing that always annoys me without fail is when I see people driving whilst on the phone or texting, they are idiots. I think this does send out a stronger message than usual though.

3 kids killed because somebody couldn't go  without using a phone for an hour or two

do you remember Luke McCormick, killed two kid and severely injured their parents when doing 100mph when pissed in the early hours of the morning, got 7 years done 4.

Yep.

I'm a hard man when it comes to sentencing; so i won't get many agreeing with me but i'd have given him 20 (if i could) Children not having lived any life should always include harsher sentences IMHO.I don't know whether he's shown any contrition; contacted the family etc, so if he hasn't i would have given him another 5 for that..

Going to be in the firing line here, but I think the sentence is a bit harsh

a) Apparently admitted to charges, was remorseful and didn't try to wriggle out of it.
b) No signs of drink or drugs
c) Under speed limit
d) Changing music, not 'on' the phone (most of us have done it)
e) Was not overdoing work hours etc on the road.

The 10 years seems harsh when compared to many other horrific acts,
where contemptuous actions beforehand have led to death and destruction.

Admitted to charges? He had no choice, couldn't have tried to have wriggled out of anything as there were two cameras inside his truck that showed what happened crystal clear, one camera on him playing with his phone the other pointing towards the road.

not much for 4 deaths

No drink at all driving should be the law
Also with no smoking
Also no video interviews like you see on boxing channels etc
Changing music is not needed

People wonder why there is so much crashed

I know people on the road who could never have passed a test that involves skill so how the theory test is strange.

Agree with SH.

Shouldn't get credit for a guilty plea when he had a 0% chance of being found not guilty.

Also he signed an agreement with his employer that morning that he would not use his phone in the truck.

There is no justice. Complete joke of a sentence.

Poor innocent victims don't get a second chance, but then again, they wouldn't give a shitt about that.

Life sentence.

Poppydog.
Poppydog. 31 Oct 16 12:59 Joined: 07 Sep 01 | Topic/replies: 14,887 | Blogger: Poppydog.'s blog
Going to be in the firing line here, but I think the sentence is a bit harsh

a) Apparently admitted to charges, was remorseful and didn't try to wriggle out of it.
b) No signs of drink or drugs
c) Under speed limit
d) Changing music, not 'on' the phone (most of us have done it)
e) Was not overdoing work hours etc on the road.

The 10 years seems harsh when compared to many other horrific acts,
where contemptuous actions beforehand have led to death and destruction.

So that makes it ok then to distract yourself for long enough to destroy a families life. As long as he's changing music. May I ask if you have any kids of your own? And if you do, perhaps you'd still think 10 years was "harsh" if they were killed in this way?

laughable.

in my opinion any chance this moron has of living his life should be taken away and used as an example to other drivers- look him up for good.

point is he was careless & stupid

never set out to kill

Jeez - it's like the Daily Mail in here and that's saying something.

10 years compared to the 5 1/2 years of banned driver in a stolen car, way over alcohol limit and high on crack.
Running someone over and then fleeing the scene and denying all knowledge

The problem is that you never see any police doing checks on people using phones. I go walking every morning and the number I see on phones in cars is staggering.

If there were more police out there trying to catch them it would happen less.

Fine them a grand if caught using one.

Money hurts eejits more than anything..

Four people dead and the killer gets 5 years in jail.

Seems incredible that life is so cheap on the roads of Britain.

So what message does that send out to other people who drive and mess with stuff like phones at the same time?

Especially drivers of heavy vehicles.

That you have to kill someone before the authorities take the offence seriously, and even then it won't be the end of the world for you.

They did a quick roadside survey on LBC this morning, of people on the phone whilst driving.
I think they saw 8 in two minutes.

The law is simply being ignored.

his sentence is more than enough ,too long in fact -a longer sentence  will not bring the victims back sadly. There would be no point.
The  penalties for playing with phones etc however should be harsh .

an immediate driving ban  and community service should be the minimum .

you need a deterrent of sorts .

maybe that's the point of the long sentence, to send out a message 

I don't think I can be accused of being a Daily mail reader!

But this one thing, is something that seems to be taken lightly with soft punishments when the act itself is extremely dangerous, being willfully distracted whilst driving a powerful piece of machinery weighing 40 odd tonnes at 70mph means you should be dealt with as severely as what the outcome of your crime was.

I agree that being caught driving whilst on the phone should incur a very heavy fine, there's no doubt that would prevent a lot of deaths. 3 points and a hundred quid as standard is an insult, should be minimum 5 grand. Do you think people would so casually talk on a hand held phone whilst in the car now if that was the punishments? no chance.

The law is so slow to implement simple life saving measures. Too busy seeking out rent boys.

If it happened in China and he was Chinese, he would have been quietly executed in secret with no press and the execution would have been denied by the authorities with his ashes scattered to the wind so as not to leave any evidence of his previous existence behind. That happens a lot in places like China and North Korea with the world turning a blind eye!

some of the comments on here take my breath away. Apparently you have to be a daily mail reader to be appalled by the length of the sentence.

If it's "harsh" and "tough" to ask for a longer sentence for this prat, then it's equally harsh to be crushed into a tin can when waiting in a sitting car by a moron fiddling with his music.

It's a paltry sentence, 25 years would be nearer the mark.

the act is more mindless than it is sinister . The bloke is clearly a (mindless) selfish barsteward - plenty of them around .

Too severe a sentence and it puts cell phones and cars in a more dangerous category than knives,guns and rifles which require action with ill intent .

licence taken away - lifetime driving ban for offenders - otherwise this WILL happen again

I apologise for comparing fellow forumites to 'Daily Mail' readers
If I get a ban for it, then rightly so.
It was a heartless line to take.
Hold my hands up. Sorry.

The deterrent effect of harsh sentences, is the most powerful and cheapest tool that the authorities have.

So why don't they implement them and save lives!

For starters; caught using a phone at the wheel - Two years ban and a heavy fine.
That would stop 95% of people doing it overnight.

I remember a documentary about Russia many years ago. They were talking about the heaving drinking culture over there.
When it got around to drinking and driving they discovered that it was almost unheard of in Russia.

The reason; anyone caught doing it would be given two years jail with hard labour.

Coachbuster 01 Nov 16 17:41 Joined: 08 Apr 06 | Topic/replies: 35,047 | Blogger: Coachbuster's blog
the act is more mindless than it is sinister . The bloke is clearly a (mindless) selfish barsteward - plenty of them around .

Too severe a sentence and it puts cell phones and cars in a more dangerous category than knives,guns and rifles which require action with ill intent


I don't see how it does. Kill three people with a gun and you'd get 30 years inside. The sentence is not too severe, it's too lenient. He'll be out in six, his victims rotting in their coffins as hes free to go about his daily business. Please explain to me how this is justice?

Killing someone by shooting them with a gun isn't accidental though, this was.

Very negligent of course but he never set out to kill, big difference.

because you have to try to decide who and for how long to fill prison cells - if you give this bloke longer do you give an armed robber who kills someone less time than his life sentence  for example  .
Unless you overcrowd prisons ,or bring in a death sentence .

Similarly someone who kills someone with a punch in the head ,or an old lady who kills someone because she wasn't fit to drive ,or someone who drives and kills without wearing glasses ...this case was clearly  driving without due care and attention  . These are all selfish actions .

Not outright intentional evil ,or intent to go on a killing mission

although obviously not nice for folk related to the victim .

Coachbuster misses the point of harsh sentences.

They're there to deter. If the sentence doesn't deter then it's not harsh enough.

Until people fear going to prison for what will happen to them when they get there, the prisons will continue to be full.

DR - if i had my way there would be more prisons and more blokes like this would be in them - but it's a logistics problem as far as i can see - you can't incarcerate everyone. 

and i have said already  Doctor, harsher penalties should be handed out to texters  .


a new harsher law  would also be of some comfort to the family - why allow it happen again ?

same for old folk who are unfit to drive - take the licence away . they're a menace

I don't want to see anyone go to prison.

I want people to think that the time isn't worth the crime and simply not offend.

You won't get people thinking like that until going to jail is a more of a deterrent than it is now.

take the buggers off the roads  - thats a fairly good deterent

Absolutely Coachbuster.

He was using the phone. Music or not, His attention and eyes were looking at his phone.

Dr Crippen -

'heaving drinking culture'

What, both heaving AND drinking, both at the same time? Sounds nasty and very unpleasant to me! :)

On Sunday I asked a minicab driver to pull over to play with the satnav on the phone. One problem is that while it is generally accepted that you should not use your phone while driving, people don't extend that to include satnavs or (as in this case) music -- setting both of which can take at least as much attention as phoning or texting.

Rather than harsher sentences, I'd like to see more targeted advertising aimed at making these other things socially unacceptable -- that's what more-or-less wiped out drink-driving and not wearing seatbelts, not draconian sentences.

People will carry on using phones, satnavs and generally fannying around at the wheel of a car until it is instilled in the public consciousness that driving a motorised vehicle is actually the most dangerous thing we do in our every day lives, not just for ourselves and passengers but for pedestrians and other road users, and should be treated with the appropriate respect.

Meanwhile car manufacturers are trying to make the ergonomics of driving into a similar experience to sitting down in a heated, reclining armchair in your living room, favourite music blaring out and playing a video game where the worst that can happen to you is you get a little vibration when you go off the track and you can always have another go if you feck up.

Rather than harsher sentences

So the slaughter on the roads will continue, until the public decide using a phone whilst driving is not the thing to do?
Your dreaming.

Drinking and driving has dropped off. This is due to people losing their licences when caught not because they think it's unacceptable.

Also use of taxis has increased along with fewer people going out to drink.

It's seems I wasn't quite right when I mentioned of drink driving.
If you look at the figures for drinking and driving offences over the last ten years the conviction rate certainly fallen.
Yet is mainly due to the reduced number of tests performed on motorists. Which one would expect if the police are testing fewer people.

A 10 year sentence seems about right for death by dangerous driving.

The gross train weight of articulated vehicles varies depending on the number of axles it has, but the speed limit does not.

The maximum speed limit is 60 mph on motorways, 50 mph on dual carriageways and 40 mph on all other roads.

To correct an earlier post

A 10 year sentence seems about right for death by dangerous driving.

That'll be 40 years then? Sounds about right..

Around 15 months for each of his victims, law needs changing, the 10 years should be per victim, its almost like they are saying six years for the first death four for the next & we will throw the other two in for nothing, I know its not done like that but time served makes this a pathetic & paltry sentence for the destruction & grief  he has & will continue to cause for years to come.