Lord Ahmed

[Everhelpful]

12 WEEKS jail for killing someone while sending and receiving texts while driving on the M1. You couldn't make it up!!!!! Open Prison for 6 weeks,no doubt.!!

[birdie1971]

Barmaid � Clearly you have a certain amount of empathy for this chap, having had a near miss yourself. I can quite understand where you're coming from.

But in a way, you've demonstrated why Ahmed should have been sent down.

As you say, �... it was pitch black, the car was black, it had no lights on and I missed it only with inches to spare...�

But you did miss it though � thereby demonstrating that you were clearly paying attention to the road ahead of you. It may have been close, but you managed to avoid a collision � something that Ahmed failed to do and which resulted in a man's death.

[no-knowledge]

A text message was allegedly sent from the peer's phone three minutes before it was used to call the emergency services.
..........................................................
who is to say he wasn't in mid text when the crash occurred?

that would not show up on his phone records

[fredpuli47]

Birdie, this man Ahmed did NOT cause anyone's death. Why do you persist in the belief that he did? Everhelpful started this thread with" 12 weeks jail for killing someone while sending and receiving texts".That was wrong. The man didn't. He didn't kill anyone. He wasn't charged with killing anyone by dangerous driving. He couldn't have been.The death was not a result of his driving. The death occurred separately as the result of someone else's driving . The fatality had nothing to do with him or his driving. His collision was with a car which had already been involved in an accident and which was then stationary (apparently across two carriageways).

Dangerous driving it was. Causing death by dangerous driving it was not.

[socket2008]

The interesting thing here is that the police seem to automatically have checked the guys phone records to see if he was texting.

What if you and I pulled over in a safe place, made a text, drove off, a reply was received whilst we were driving then a minute later we had an accident.

WE would have to prove that the text messaging did not interfere with our competence to drive. Either way, the prosecution would look at it as an argument in convicting US.

[Oneeyedvic]

fredpuli47The death was not a result of his driving. The death occurred separately as the result of someone else's driving . The fatality had nothing to do with him or his driving. His collision was with a car which had already been involved in an accident and which was then stationary (apparently across two carriageways).

Have you got a link to this?

BBC site http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorks hire/7759093.stm

Mr Gombar, a Slovakian who was living at the time in Leigh, Greater Manchester, died when Lord Ahmed's Jaguar was in collision with an Audi car which had stopped in the outside lane of the motorway, the court heard.

Also
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/south_yorks hire/7909510.stm
One motorist had already clipped his car and another had to take evasive action to avoid it.

It seems other people (who presumably were paying full attention to the road ahead) were able to not hit the stationary car.

Lord Ahmed did hit the car and as a result Mr Gombar died.

[libertie]

Interesting that mobile phones were central to this whole sorry story!! Lord Ahmed using his just prior to the accident and Mr Gombar who was safely on the hard shoulder killed trying to retrieve his from his crashed car...he had also been drinking!

[libertie]

Forgot to add this link:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime /article5805123.ece

[Oneeyedvic]

Also bear in mind that whilst there is no proof that he was texting, I don't think that you can prove this one way or the other. Texting is not like a phone call - it take a while to tap out the message - and this cannot be logged by a mobile phone operator.

I would suspect that he may well have been texting when he had the crash - but there is no proof either way on this.

I didn't realise that Mr Gombar was going back to the car when he was hit - something that was not well reported in other media.

[gina32]

actually a text is logged because when my daughter has lost her mobile on several occassions when i have phoned the provider they have cancelled the sim and i have asked when the last text was sent or last phone call made to see if it has been used they always tell me be it call or text

[Quinlad]

There may well be proof.

Cameras are stationed on every motorway bridge. If he goes past one and has both hands on the wheel, it's fair to assume he's not texting anyone.

I think we're better leaving that one to the court.

[Whickerman]

let's analyse this objectively:

Was he texting whilst driving? Yes.
Did he get caught and sentenced for this? Yes
Was the sentence lenient? Don't know
Was he speeding? No. As proved in court.

Did the texting cause the accident? NO
Did the judge specifically say this? Yes
"Mr Justice Wilkie told Ahmed that he accepted there was �no causal link� between his texting and the accident. "

Was the dead man in fact the cause of the accident? Yes
Had he, in fact, been drinking? Yes

"Mr Gombar, who had been drinking, made his way to the hard shoulder, but decided to go back to the wrecked car to collect his mobile phone. It was dark, there was no motorway lighting and police later concluded that it would have been almost impossible for an approaching motorist to see the stranded vehicle until the last moment.

Two vehicles reached the crash scene before Ahmed's. One clipped the Audi's wing mirror. Another swerved at the last moment and hit the reservation. "

Did Lord Ahmed actually act heroically? Yes
"Jeremy Baker, QC, in mitigation, said that Ahmed was briefly knocked unconscious but then telephoned the emergency services and put himself in danger by warning other motorists who were approaching the scene. "

Were the two issues unrelated? Apprently so.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime /article5805123.ece

Could the Daily Mail "make it up"? Of course they could.

[anotheoldgit]

It would seem that the exciting legislation is not working regarding the use of mobile phones in cars,

The time has come to make the interiors of cars capable of scrambling the signals. The scrambled signal could in turn activate a warning light on the dashboard, informing the driver that he had a message.

The driver could then pull over when safe to do so to read the message, and take the appropriate action.

[dot.hawkes]

Mobiles should be switched off in cars, especially if noone but the driver is in the car. That should be the law. handfree kits are fine, but can be a distraction. That should be the law , no phones on in cars, unless it is a passengers.

[Quinlad]

"The time has come to make the interiors of cars capable of scrambling the signals. The scrambled signal could in turn activate a warning light on the dashboard, informing the driver that he had a message."

The UK car industry is on its knees. The solution? Make new cars less desirable and more expensive.

Can't see it happening, AOG.

[Everhelpful]

Thank you all for your comments,both FOR and AGAINST me. We seem to be divided on this issue. We live in a Democracy and EVERYONE has the right to their opinion.