Ahhhhhh

It couldn't have happened to a nicer ferret faced piece of scum. IMHO he should have got 12 months in pokey - any normal citizen would have.

Fair justice?

Why did the lorry death driver get 3 years and a peer only 12 weeks?

Seems resonable

12 weeks for killing someone. And who says the law isn't fair?

12 Weeks?

For a maximum sentence of 14 years, how such a low sentence for causing death by dangerous driving?

12 weeks, short ban and a small fine?

Is that all? For killing someone in a way that verges on manslaughter? No wonder driving standards are so low in this country. He should have faced 5 years minimum, a life ban and had his peerage stripped. As for fine, none needed with a sentence like that.

Drivers need to be made to understand that their vehicle is a deadly weapon. They only way to do that is to hammer transgressors *hard*. I see about 5 drivers using their mobile every morning on my short commute. The police don't care.

This killer will be back in the Lords in a few weeks, head in tax-money trough, having us pay for his new chauffeur and not giving two shits about what he's done. He'll probably get to vote on bills about road safety! Just you watch.

The difference between "Them" and "Us"

Enough said!

12 weeks?

I was on a jury where a couple of lads were found guilty of GBH with intent. They got 28 months.

How, in the name of all that is fair and just, does somebody get 12 WEEKS, 6 points, and a *£500* fine for causing DEATH by dangerous driving?

Oh yeah, he's a Peer.

As a pedestrian...

I'd love to see a law that replaced air-bags with huge bloody spikes. Then at least the roads would be emptier of one idiotic driver after every crash.

Shame! Ha ha!

While to my knowledge he didn't kill anyone, the accident had already happened when he hit the car, he is still a piece of vile scum, simply for using a phone while driving! I cannot tell you the hatred I feel for pieces of putrid rectum that put other's lives at risk because chatting to their mates is far more important than my safety! I have been narrowly missed at least 3 times in the last 2 years by these selfish f**kups!

The quicker captial punishment is introduced for "phone-driving" the better!

Hold on

It says texting was not connected to the accident. Why was there a car facing the wrong way in the fast lane of a motorway. A horrendous event for everyone concerned. If I hit a car which has gone spinning out of control on the motorway moments after receiving a text message even if the phone was in the glove box but after the event I pick up the phone to dial 999 should I expect to go to prison? Yes I know it says he was sending one but where do they draw the line?

Did anyone else read this article

Did any of the above commentards read the article.? He was not found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving. It was just dangerous driving. There was no evidence linking the crash and the texting. Just read it FFS.

I have no sympathy with the retard and would have thrown the book at him anyway. As far as I'm concerned, the only difference between someone texting at 60mph who then kills someone and another person who was texting at 60mph and didn't kill someone is pure luck and law shouldn't differentiate between the lucky and unlucky.

But he was convicted of Dangerous Driving, in which case 12 weeks, a 12 month ban and (relatively) big fine is quite a heavy sentence.

As I say, I don't agree with it, but please read the fecking article before starting your down trodden masses speeches. You sound like a Monty Python parody!

@ Ian C

That's just about the most stupid thing I've heard in ages. Suppose I'm driving my car and through no fault of my own, I'm hit by a drunk driver or some idiot speeding? Should I be impaled to death by those huge bloody spikes too because of someone else's mistake?

Try thinking that not every driver involved in an accident is to blame for Christ's sake!

Another thing

Not that I'm in any way defending this man but he pleaded guilty and the lorry driver pleaded innocent. This could have something to do with it. Is everyone a Daily Mail reader on here now? Where's the reasoned debate?

@Trevor et al the hang'em flog 'em

"For a maximum sentence of 14 years, how such a low sentence for causing death by dangerous driving?"

He wasn;t convicted of causing death by dangerous driving. His texting (which was dangerous driving and which is why he was jailed) was not related to the death of the driver who was killed.

He had no chance of avoiding collision with the stationary car in the fast lane.

That said, I am not defending texting while driving - it is wrong and contemptible, but he did not cause death by dangerous driving - he drove dangerously for which he has been jailed and was subsequently involved in an accident.

Actually...

at the risk of inducing a torrent of abuse, I suspect that the light sentence had more to do with a lack of speed on odious lords part rather than because he's a lord, although I imagine it helps...

<flameproof suit on>

Why only 12 weeks?

Wouldn't have anything to do with his self proclaimed ability to organise a protest by 10,000 supporters, would it?

One law for the "Righteous" and another for the rest of us!

"There was nothing he could do"

If I saw a car in the same lane as me, facing in my direction there would be something I'd be doing... slowing down and getting out of the way! For the judge to say that the text messages didn't contribute to the fatal crash is farcical. He obviously wasn't paying attention to what was on the road. For him to say "there was nothing I could do" is an insult to the chap he killed.

Remember that comment made about offenders being forcibly raped in prison (yep it was a dumb comment). I for one wouldn't give two fucks if Ahmed got gang-banged every day for the rest of this pathetically small sentence.

I agree with the other comments. When he gets out he won't have 'changed'. He'll still be a pompous shit head. Look at the way he threatened to mobilise 10,000 folks onto the streets of London in protest at Geert Wilders being invited to the House of Lords. He's a pompous, bullying, taxpayer-funded little shit.

From one AC to another

"Is that all? For killing someone in a way that verges on manslaughter?"

Really? Do you honestly think that? An accident caused by a car being stationary in the outside lane of a motorway and you think this is the fault of the driver that hit it because sometime in the preceding 3 miles he sent a text?

Yes using a mobile while driving is dangerous, hence the custodial sentence but as the trial judge recognized this was not the cause of the accident. It's hardly like had he not used his phone before the incident occurred he suddenly would have been gifted the driving ability of a young Ayrton Senna and deftly swerved around the car inconveniencing no-one (apart perhaps from the driver behind who then would have had the accident...)

DD, not D by DD

As I read it, he was convicted of dangerous driving but _not_ of causing death by dangerous driving (as all the other recent cases have been). Hence the short jail term in comparison.

Though I fail to see any significant differences between recent cases. All dangerous driving, shortly followed by an avoidable accident. Cause and effect presumed, and a jail sentence measured in years follows for most.

But officer...

my wife was the one texting while I drove.

Only a Peer couldn't have thought his way out of that one

@ As a pedestrian...

Little extreme, don't you think? I was hit head on last year by a young girl who came over the center line. It was snowy and she lost control. The collision set off MY airbag (or in your world, a "huge bloody spike"), and I hadn't done anything wrong.

I agree this story is sad, and punishment laughable. He should spend about 2-3 years in the pokey and never have a license again.

some detail

Check the Telegraph online: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/4804702/Labour-peer-Lord-Ahmed-jailed-for-motorway-texting.html

Essentially: Court told Audi driver had been drinking and had crashed his car into the central reservation in total darkness. Another car had clipped its wing mirror and a further vehicle had collided with the central reservation after taking avoiding action. The Audi was facing the wrong way, straddling the two outermost lanes, when Ahmed crashed into it. Audi driver thought to have returned to car to collect mobile when Ahmed crashed. Ahmed's text messaging session ended two minutes before the collision.

I think the road laws are wrong headed, as are the comments so far on this story. In general, whatever the road or speed, if you can clearly see there's nothing ahead or to the side of you within your braking distance, then you have brief moments of time which are enough to text/set tomtom/turn around to talk to passengers/flick radio stations and so on. There is no benefit from unstintingly scanning the open road when you can see there's nothing on it, but doing anything else has become a taboo. As always this leads to worse behaviour: when holding a mobile to your ear was deemed unsafe, before it was even illegal, every safety conscious person went out and bought a bluetooth headset. Blocking out half your hearing by wearing a bluetooth headset, imo, does a far better job of interfering with your faculties than holding a phone to your ear. I find them unusable.

I regularly text and speak on the phone while I drive, and have the naus to do it only when it's safe. I am coordinated and can manage this perfectly well. I have 12 years no claims and have acquired a total of 3 points in 14 years of driving - I'm a good driver. Having said that, I have had a couple (i.e. twice in a decade) of low-speed near misses while texting. I would love to try out the driving simulators used to show texting to be dangerous and see how I fare, and wonder if I'd have the option to decide not to text as I go through a blind corner.

Blanket banning specific activities whilst driving is weak, negative law. It's made on the basis that if some of society can't be trusted to do something, then it's banned for us all. People don't respect laws like that. Keep the existing careless and dangerous driving charges, which are more principles-based, allow them to be aggravated (by texting etc.) but don't ban the activities themselves. Arrived at a red light? Why not send a text?

In the Ahmed case, he could equally have been preparing another text, eyes down, when he crashed (ban texts), or, having finished his text session (during which he was also concentrating on the road), relaxed into the drive too much (ban texts?). Or the Audi could have been just over a hill and an accident waiting to happen come what may (ban driving?). If Ahmed hadn't texted at all during his journey, would the outcome be any different?

Dangerous Driving

If you can't see to the end of your stopping distance, you're going too fast. End of. Excess speed is never excusable (note "excess"). 12 weeks is a joke. Dangerous driving should carry minimum served of 6 months. As someone else said, a ban is a waste of time.

Paris 'cos the worst case of speeding I ever endured was in a taxi there.

@Sarah Bee

I totally agree. I wonder how it got through the moderation process here?...........

Off now to climb into a flame and vitriol proof hole and pull it in after me.

@ Sarah Bee

Ignore him? Come on....we need flame fodder!!!

Fast lane?

Is now a good point to remind people it's officially known as the *overtaking* lane?

Mine's the one with the (1986) copy of the Highway Code in it...