14 yrs - Death by Careless Cycling

[Dingu]

The sentences for death by dangerous are patheticly light anyway.

[Graveworm]

Siao said:

Daveyraveygravey said:

I read somewhere recently that every cyclist that has killed someone has gone to jail. I haven't been able to verify this statement, but I know damn well that every motorist that kills someone has NOT gone to jail.
85 people a day are killed or seriously injured on our roads, most of them by drivers, and most of them avoidable. These people supposdely have passed a test, have insurance and make sure their vehicles are readworthy. Why are they not starting on the real problem?

This is a good article. 3 deaths by bikes in 2022. Only 3. About 5 per day killed by motor vehicles.

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/there-are-more-...

It's a harsh truth that the numbers are very low but cycling is only 1% of journeys by distance and cars are 86% so whilst you are definitely far more likely to be killed by a car, a bicycle is more dangerous. It's when they say only 4% of people killed or seriously injured by red light jumping, are hit by cyclists that again means for the same journey a cyclist is more than 4 times more likely to kill or seriously injure someone running a red light, than a car driver.
Those figures are also slightly disingenuous as despite being told many times they are not using the right figures cycling UK use the Stats19 figures, which only capture roads used by motor vehicles so exclude cycle paths, pavements, footpaths, bridleways etc.
Cycling is great and a real benefit, I love cycling but the resistance to anything negative about cycling or cyclists and the knee jerk "But others are worse" doesn't sit well with me. It's possible to promote cycling, whilst still wanting to see more done to improve road safety, for everyone, by improving the standards of drivers and cyclists.

Edited by Graveworm on Friday 17th May 10:11

[Random_Person]

Graveworm said:

Dangerous, careless and cycling and without due care have been offences for decades and have the same test as driving. Also like driving this is just about higher sentences if there are more severe outcomes. I understand the drivers for this but it's always seemed wrong to me that the driver/rider could have the same mindset, do exactly the same thing with no way of knowing what the outcome would be but we punish the outcome not the act or the intent.

Wanton and Careless cycling has been around for decades. And as is the case with many laws, does not correlate to modern day reality. Careless cycling or cycling whilst drunk is an old law that obviously remains relevant, but as the above, has changed.

The equivalent driving laws have been adapted and renewed, over the last decade.

[GravelBen]

Graveworm said:

...do exactly the same thing with no way of knowing what the outcome would be but we punish the outcome not the act or the intent.

Same thing in many areas though isn't it. H+S issues, drunken scuffle/fight, unsafe construction etc... It's often only a bad outcome that brings the act to the attention of the law, while a near miss doesn't have much impact.

[Forester1965]

monthou said:

Forester1965 said:

Random_Person said:

Careless is a very subjective term in the world of motoring and is defined by a standard of driving that falls below that of a careful and competent motorist.

It's an objective test.

Really? How do you measure it then?

Typically by reference to the highway code/traffic law and whether the driving breached it or was otherwise below the standard expected.

There's no intent required for careless driving.

It isn't a subjective test, i.e. what in the opinion of the defendant at the time or an individual judge/magistrate/jury member thought was ok in the circumstances. The notional 'competent and careful' driver is the only, objective measure.

Edited by Forester1965 on Friday 17th May 06:34

[monthou]

Forester1965 said:

Typically by reference to the highway code/traffic law and whether the driving breached it or was otherwise below the standard expected.

There's no intent required for careless driving.

It isn't a subjective test, i.e. what in the opinion of the defendant at the time or an individual judge/magistrate/jury member thought was ok in the circumstances. The notional 'competent and careful' driver is the only, objective measure.

Edited by Forester1965 on Friday 17th May 06:34

Nobody has mentioned intent. Someone has to look at the driving and form an opinion about it. Eg Was it below the standard of a reasonably competent driver?
That is a subjective test.
Contrast with speeding. You're either speeding or you're not - it can be measured, proven either way, no arguments or opinions required.
IANAL.

[Forester1965]

It is not a subjective test.

How can it be subjective (an individual's personal view) if it's viewed through the lens of a fixed standard (the careful and competent driver)?

The court asks itself, irrespective of defendents' opinion or intent, did the driving fall below the standard expected of a careful and competent driver?

[monthou]

Forester1965 said:

It is not a subjective test.

How can it be subjective (an individual's personal view) if it's viewed through the lens of a fixed standard (the careful and competent driver)?

The court asks itself, irrespective of defendents' opinion or intent, did the driving fall below the standard expected of a careful and competent driver?

It's fine. I knew you wouldn't agree.

Just one more time though - 'subjective' doesn't mean it's anything to do with what the defendant was thinking. No idea why you're fixated on that.

[funkstar1]

An excellent idea. Basically, everyone has a duty of care to each other on the roads and will help to get rid of the my group is better than your group attitude/entitlement.

[dontlookdown]

Graveworm said:

It's a harsh truth that the numbers are very low but cycling is only 1% of journeys by distance and cars are 86% so whilst you are definitely far more likely to be killed by a car, a bicycle is more dangerous. It's when they say only 4% of people killed or seriously injured by red light jumping, are hit by cyclists that again means for the same journey a cyclist is more than 4 times more likely to kill or seriously injure someone running a red light, than a car driver.
Those figures are also slightly disingenuous as despite being told many times they are not using the right figures cycling UK use the Stats19 figures, which only capture roads used by motor vehicles so exclude cycle paths, pavements, footpaths, bridleways etc.
Cycling is great and a real benefit, I love cycling but the resistance to anything negative about cycling or cyclists and the knee jerk but others are worse doesn't sit well with me. It's possible to promote cycling, whilst still wanting want to see more done to improve road safety for everyone by improving the standards of drivers and cyclists.

Edited by Graveworm on Thursday 16th May 23:20

Exactly my view, as both driver and central London cyclist for several decades. The fact that others are worse doesn't mean you don't need to improve yourself.

[Forester1965]

monthou said:

It's fine. I knew you wouldn't agree.

Just one more time though - 'subjective' doesn't mean it's anything to do with what the defendant was thinking. No idea why you're fixated on that.

It's not a subjective test at all. The court isn't asked 'do you view it as careful and competent'? That creates a lottery where a magistrate convicts on the basis he wouldn't have driven like that, whereas another doesn't. That would be subjective.

You have the careful and competent driver. Would *that* driver have driven like that? If yes (irrespective of how you would have driven), not guilty. If no (irrespective of how you would have driven), not guilty. That's an objective test.

[monthou]

Forester1965 said:

It's not a subjective test at all. The court isn't asked 'do you view it as careful and competent'? That creates a lottery where a magistrate convicts on the basis he wouldn't have driven like that, whereas another doesn't. That would be subjective.

You have the careful and competent driver. Would *that* driver have driven like that? If yes (irrespective of how you would have driven), not guilty. If no (irrespective of how you would have driven), not guilty. That's an objective test.

You don't understand the difference between objective and subjective.

Are there a significant number of cases that are put before a court where the accused is found not guilty? If yes, how can that be the case if there's an objective test? Wouldn't the prosecution have already measured against it and realised there was no offence?
Are there cases that could go either way?
If a jury was looking at evidence might they disagree on a verdict?
Might different magistrates come to different decisions looking at the same driving (in edge cases, obviously you'd hope for consistency)?
Now contrast with speeding. You're either speeding or you're not. It's measurable.

[Forester1965]

monthou said:

Are there a significant number of cases that are put before a court where the accused is found not guilty? If yes, how can that be the case if there's an objective test?

You go to court to establish the facts. Once the facts are established you go on to objectively measure them against the competent and careful standard. If the prosecution fails to establish beyond reasonable doubt the alleged facts or the driving otherwise falls below the objective standard, the defendent is not guilty.

[monthou]

Forester1965 said:

You go to court to establish the facts. Once the facts are established you go on to objectively measure them against the competent and careful standard. If the prosecution fails to establish beyond reasonable doubt the alleged facts or the driving otherwise falls below the objective standard, the defendent is not guilty.

You don't understand the difference between an objective and subjective test. You think you do, and any attempt to explain it is a waste of time. You haven't addressed the points I posed to try to show you the difference. So there's no point in me repeating them.

[Forester1965]

monthou said:

You don't understand the difference between an objective and subjective test. You think you do, and any attempt to explain it is a waste of time. You haven't addressed the points I posed to try to show you the difference. So there's no point in me repeating them.

It's most likely cross purposes.

You're confusing the test itself with the job of the decision maker.

In careless driving, the decision maker doesn't ask themselves, "do I think the driving was bad compared to what I would have done?". If they did, that would be a subjective test. You would be right. That isn't the law, though. The test is to ask, does the driving fall below that expected of a careful and competent driver? As decision maker, your job is to ask would a careful and competent driver have driven like that? That is objective rather than subjective.

The decision maker subjectively decides whether they believe, beyond reasonable doubt, the driving objectively fell below the standard.

Edited by Forester1965 on Friday 17th May 08:29

[monthou]

Forester1965 said:

It's most likely cross purposes.

You're confusing the test itself with the job of the decision maker.

I'm not.

[Forester1965]

In which case you're wrong.

[monthou]

Forester1965 said:

In which case you're wrong.

Sure.

[Graveworm]

monthou said:

Forester1965 said:

It's most likely cross purposes.

You're confusing the test itself with the job of the decision maker.

I'm not.

You are because literally the definition of a objective test is to determine as fact without reference to the individual subject. Its why the law was changed to reflect driver training as an objective test had to ignore that.
So the court determines, as a matter of fact, was the standard below that of a competent and careful driver. That is an objective test as it is independent of the person who is accused (Subject) .
People performing the objective test are people so decide how much weight to give to anything in making the decision - that process is subjective but that doesn't make the test itself subjective.

Edited by Graveworm on Friday 17th May 08:56

[Siao]

numtumfutunch said:

Siao said:

Daveyraveygravey said:

I read somewhere recently that every cyclist that has killed someone has gone to jail. I haven't been able to verify this statement, but I know damn well that every motorist that kills someone has NOT gone to jail.
85 people a day are killed or seriously injured on our roads, most of them by drivers, and most of them avoidable. These people supposdely have passed a test, have insurance and make sure their vehicles are readworthy. Why are they not starting on the real problem?

This is a good article. 3 deaths by bikes in 2022. Only 3. About 5 per day killed by motor vehicles.

https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/there-are-more-...

Cows kill approximately double that number per year

Whats Rishi and the Daily Mail going to do about that?
Besides turning them into steaks obvs

Cheers

I take it you didn't even read the article. This is literally the title of it...