56% of drivers convicted of killing cyclists avoid prison
Discussion
Pit Pony said:
gruffalo said:
Bit hacked off at being descibed as troll, on what evidence?
Posting was really just to start a debate, are there other specific areas of road deaths where there are stats I wondered and how do the typical penalties compare?
I don't think you is a troll. Posting was really just to start a debate, are there other specific areas of road deaths where there are stats I wondered and how do the typical penalties compare?
The courts decided that the accident was just an accident, and unfortunate, and/or there were reasons why even if found guilty, it might not benefit society to send the unfortunate driver to prison.
Having been in a car as a passenger, that left the road and killed a pedestrian, and being the only witness, I can safely say that my friend's life changed, and his personality significantly affected due to the guilt, even though the inquest deemed it a tragic accident, and the magistrates court deciding he was not guilty of careless driving.
Pit Pony said:
Having been in a car as a passenger, that left the road and killed a pedestrian, and being the only witness, I can safely say that my friend's life changed, and his personality significantly affected due to the guilt, even though the inquest deemed it a tragic accident, and the magistrates court deciding he was not guilty of careless driving.
I do have to wonder - how can you possibly leave the road by accident and how can it not be careless - unless there was a mechanical failure?OTBC said:
The legal system is infected with the same anti-cyclist ignorance we've seen on this thread.
I think that is what the article is driving at.It's going to be a tricky one to determine. However when you see the myriad of reasons that judges sometimes allow for drivers who kill, it does seem that killer drivers get let off lightly. When it comes to incidents involving cyclists that is even more stark (for reasons which are unclear, but it is a fact that a lower proportion of drivers who kill cyclists go to prison when compared to drivers who kill other motorists or pedestrians). Whilst the figures provided are not sufficiently detailed to draw any conclusion, it's not absurd to consider the possibility that there are judges who hold the same views on cyclists as many posters on PH do - i.e. "bloody cyclists" and that this is reflected in the sentences handed out.
A prosecution and sentencing concentrates on the culpability of the offender and the results of their actions. I don't see anything in the sentencing guidelines or in sentences being appealed to suggest the courts are biased against cyclists. I also fail to see how judges or magistrates being cyclists or enthusiastic cyclists would allow them to sentence offenders more objectively?
As an aside, in civil law, a car driver colliding with a pedestrian or cyclist can be held to have greater responsibility for the damage than for the accident that caused it, precisely because the heavier object colliding with the more vulnerable one is likely to come off best yet cause most damage to the other party (see 'causative potency').
It would seem strange to me if the criminal courts are somehow biased against cyclists, yet the civil ones not.
As an aside, in civil law, a car driver colliding with a pedestrian or cyclist can be held to have greater responsibility for the damage than for the accident that caused it, precisely because the heavier object colliding with the more vulnerable one is likely to come off best yet cause most damage to the other party (see 'causative potency').
It would seem strange to me if the criminal courts are somehow biased against cyclists, yet the civil ones not.
I'm reminded of the case where a cyclist cut up the inside of a lorry and the lorry then turned left with tragic consequences.
Iirc the driver was prosecuted for some sort of careless/dangerous driving.
But the cyclist was also given some blame.
In car crashes it's normal to apportion the blame as a percentage for insurance purposes.
If we did the same with car/bike crashes and then added a rule that said if the car driver is over 50% responsible then they go to jail, then we'd probably get fairly similar results.
A lot of the time crashes occur because BOTH parties are at fault to some degree.
Not ALL of the time of course, but certainly enough to explain some of the numbers.
Iirc the driver was prosecuted for some sort of careless/dangerous driving.
But the cyclist was also given some blame.
In car crashes it's normal to apportion the blame as a percentage for insurance purposes.
If we did the same with car/bike crashes and then added a rule that said if the car driver is over 50% responsible then they go to jail, then we'd probably get fairly similar results.
A lot of the time crashes occur because BOTH parties are at fault to some degree.
Not ALL of the time of course, but certainly enough to explain some of the numbers.
[quote=Snowboy
A lot of the time crashes occur because BOTH parties are at fault to some degree.
Not ALL of the time of course, but certainly enough to explain some of the numbers.
[/quote]
You're simply guessing, and with respect to crashes involving adult cyclists, you're completely wrong.
A lot of the time crashes occur because BOTH parties are at fault to some degree.
Not ALL of the time of course, but certainly enough to explain some of the numbers.
[/quote]
You're simply guessing, and with respect to crashes involving adult cyclists, you're completely wrong.
MrTrilby said:
[quote=Snowboy
A lot of the time crashes occur because BOTH parties are at fault to some degree.
Not ALL of the time of course, but certainly enough to explain some of the numbers.
You're simply guessing, and with respect to crashes involving adult cyclists, you're completely wrong.A lot of the time crashes occur because BOTH parties are at fault to some degree.
Not ALL of the time of course, but certainly enough to explain some of the numbers.
In collisions there are usually elements of blame on both parties. Criminal trials can only prosecute people who have committed offences (and are alive). Putting yourself in a stupid position on a pushbike is not necessarily an offence that can be prosecuted, however. If presented to a civil court you might find a percentage of the blame being placed on the 'victim'. A criminal court can achieve a similar effect by treating any poor behaviour (irrespective of legality) on behalf of the victim as mitigation for sentencing.
Steffan said:
Until the motoring law was beefed up recently on causing death whilst driving most driver who killed someone in a car were treated far too leniently. My policeman son in law occasionally reminds me that the method of killing someone you want out of the way which will give you the shortest time inside, if in fact you serve time, is to mow them down in a car and then be terribly apologetic. Unless the prosecution can prove intent and planning you would be out within a couple of years at the outside. So it is not just cyclists.
They might spend a tad more time looking in to it if you happened to mow down your estranged wife 
TX.
MrTrilby said:
[quote=Snowboy
A lot of the time crashes occur because BOTH parties are at fault to some degree.
Not ALL of the time of course, but certainly enough to explain some of the numbers.
You're simply guessing, and with respect to crashes involving adult cyclists, you're completely wrong.A lot of the time crashes occur because BOTH parties are at fault to some degree.
Not ALL of the time of course, but certainly enough to explain some of the numbers.
Have I misunderstood you; or are you saying that in every case where a car and adult cyclist have a crash where the driver is charged you believe the cyclist to be 100% innocent of any blame
Snowboy said:
Oh no I'm not.
Have I misunderstood you; or are you saying that in every case where a car and adult cyclist have a crash where the driver is charged you believe the cyclist to be 100% innocent of any blame
The link was posted: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/1...Have I misunderstood you; or are you saying that in every case where a car and adult cyclist have a crash where the driver is charged you believe the cyclist to be 100% innocent of any blame
>>Risky cycling rarely to blame for bike accidents, study finds
Cyclists disobeying stop signal or wearing dark clothing at night rarely cited in collisions causing serious injury<<
>> With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time.<<
heebeegeetee said:
>> With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time.<<
The Police's remit is to look at criminal responsibility. A cyclist can be negligent and their riding contributory to their injury or death without them being guilty of committing a criminal offence.heebeegeetee said:
The link was posted: http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/1...
>>Risky cycling rarely to blame for bike accidents, study finds
Cyclists disobeying stop signal or wearing dark clothing at night rarely cited in collisions causing serious injury<<
>> With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time.<<
What were those Percentage ranges ranged over?>>Risky cycling rarely to blame for bike accidents, study finds
Cyclists disobeying stop signal or wearing dark clothing at night rarely cited in collisions causing serious injury<<
>> With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time.<<
Is it over time? Or regions?
It's odd to get a range rather than a fixed value when looking at % of a dataset.
Regardless of journalistic reporting of numbers I think it broadly supports the point that it's not always the drivers fault.
If we're trying to justify why 56% of drivers don't go to jail then this might explain a good portion of them.
As far as I can see those stats support the idea that somewhere between 0 and 23% of accidents have joint blame.
Men.
Trying to interpret journalits stats is normally a waste of time.
Like several people have said.
If anyone wants to post a specific case that seems to have been judged unfairly we can talk about it.
But to argue bias without looking at facts is a waste of time.
Snowboy said:
Regardless of journalistic reporting of numbers I think it broadly supports the point that it's not always the drivers fault.
Everybody knows that, but that doesn't excuse an enormous bias or swing to one side. Plus, as these threads show, a great many motorists will cite cyclists rlj or not having lights as common cause of accidents yet when you get some actual evidence it shows a completely different picture.In other words, as usual, there is an enormous gulf between anecdotal evidence and reality.
As for specific cases thouigh, I dare say if you were to ask cyclist groups they'll furnish you with dozens, but here's some stuff that I think would trouble any right-minded person.
The guy who killed a mum-of-two and wasn't even fined: http://road.cc/content/news/28932-clubmates-cyclis...
1 in 10 London cycling deaths result in driver being jailed, says Evening Standard http://road.cc/content/news/105570-1-10-london-cyc...
Eight-month jail term for banned driver who injured cyclist in hit-and-run crash http://road.cc/content/news/28495-eight-month-jail...
In the latter case, a driver who was banned and uninsured and was driving a stolen car and had two previous d&d convictions, injured a cyclist in a hit-andrun job. If i understand correctly he got the prison sentence for the theft of the car. No action was taken over the hit and run involving a cyclist.
On top of all this it can be shown to be much harder to get a conviction in the first place when the victim is a cyclist; then there is quite a record of convicted drivers having their sentence reduced after a fatal collision. To me this shows that the court that declared the sentence must be in error very frequently, and that also the offenders aren't so devastated by their actions that they can't go about getting their life back on track as quickly as possible.
Edited by heebeegeetee on Wednesday 23 July 13:08
For very example of bad cycling, there are just as many examples of crap driving...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctsDl7g6a1w&fea...
Not sure what the cyclist could have done to avoid that - apart from not cycling...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctsDl7g6a1w&fea...
Not sure what the cyclist could have done to avoid that - apart from not cycling...
In the first story I agree that the sentence seems very light.
In that example I think there should have been a significantly higher punishment.
It's a 5 year old case now, and I'm having trouble finding much in the way of extra information.
I would guess that the (apoarent?) lack of witnesses meant that the cps decided to go for a charge that was easier to prove.
I wonder if there was some sort of plea bargain sort if thing.
I don't necessarily agree with jail as a punishment for non violent crimes.
But a 1 year ban and 30 days if community service does seem very low.
It's a good example for debate.
It highlights the difficulty in finding a punishment for a non-deliberate action. It's much the same discussion as happens with manslaughter cases.
It's normally a very sad story; and no amount of punishment will change what happened.
In that example I think there should have been a significantly higher punishment.
It's a 5 year old case now, and I'm having trouble finding much in the way of extra information.
I would guess that the (apoarent?) lack of witnesses meant that the cps decided to go for a charge that was easier to prove.
I wonder if there was some sort of plea bargain sort if thing.
I don't necessarily agree with jail as a punishment for non violent crimes.
But a 1 year ban and 30 days if community service does seem very low.
It's a good example for debate.
It highlights the difficulty in finding a punishment for a non-deliberate action. It's much the same discussion as happens with manslaughter cases.
It's normally a very sad story; and no amount of punishment will change what happened.
heebeegeetee said:
tenpenceshort said:
The Police's remit is to look at criminal responsibility. A cyclist can be negligent and their riding contributory to their injury or death without them being guilty of committing a criminal offence.
Was this report not done by the TRL?heebeegeetee said:
>> With adult cyclists, police found the driver solely responsible in about 60%-75% of all cases, and riders solely at fault 17%-25% of the time.<<
Even using your own figures, in more than a 1/3 of cases the Police didn't consider the motorist entirely at fault, perhaps explaining why drivers are not jailed as often for deaths involving cyclists?Edited by tenpenceshort on Wednesday 23 July 13:47
http://www.darkerside.org/2013/10/helen-measures-a...
A woman overtaking on a blind bend kills a cyclist coming the other way. Dr Helen Measures allowed her lawyer to lie about the dead victim and walks free from court.
Citing conviction rates doesn't tell us much, because a driver can kill a cyclist, claim the sun was in their eyes and get charged with..nothing.
http://lcc.org.uk/articles/cyclists-demonstrate-ag...
A woman overtaking on a blind bend kills a cyclist coming the other way. Dr Helen Measures allowed her lawyer to lie about the dead victim and walks free from court.
Citing conviction rates doesn't tell us much, because a driver can kill a cyclist, claim the sun was in their eyes and get charged with..nothing.
http://lcc.org.uk/articles/cyclists-demonstrate-ag...
0000 said:
walm said:
Don't you think the threat of prison acts as a deterrent?
For many crimes, to varying degrees, absolutely yes. For something people are already trying to avoid, where it's significantly less shattering than the act of killing someone else and where it can happen almost anytime and in an instant, no I don't think it's effective.How many of these drivers who aren't imprisoned go on to reoffend? I doubt it's significant.
But there still needs to be consideration for punishment.
Steffan said:
heebeegeetee said:
DuckDuck said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZAm-57WIVc
Sorry .........sorry couldnt resist. This is the kind of idiot we're dealing with (cyclist). The driver could easily have been one of the 44%
Why, what would the driver have been charged with, never mind found guilty of? Sorry .........sorry couldnt resist. This is the kind of idiot we're dealing with (cyclist). The driver could easily have been one of the 44%
The cyclist did make an error however by not seeing the turning vehicle and predicting the driver would swerve to the left.
But you can't deny the clear fact that the driver completely forgot highway code basics of mirror and signal before manouevre.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff