56% of drivers convicted of killing cyclists avoid prison

[tenpenceshort]

heebeegeetee said:

The article referred to cases that had gone to court, I suspect the majority will involve adult cyclists, up to 75% it seems were totally fault free in their demise.

You don't have the information to hand to describe them as fault free. The Police may decide no criminal liability lay at their door, but that is nit the same as 'fault free'. A criminal court in sentencing and a civil court in apportioning liability for damage can both apply some level of liability on the injured party despite them not committing any offence.

[OTBC]

Published: 03 May 2013

Two-thirds of collisions between vehicles and cyclists in central London are the fault of the driver, research revealed today.

Westminster council found that drivers were to blame in 68 per cent of incidents while cyclists were responsible for 20 per cent. In the remainder of cases, both were to blame or the cause could not be attributed.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/drivers-to-b...

It revealed there were 133 collisions between cyclists and pedestrians in the past three years, with 60 per cent attributable to pedestrians and 40 per cent to cyclists.

Only eight per cent of incidents were down to cyclists ignoring red lights.

[DuckDuck]

oyster said:

Take another look. This time watch the line of the cyclist compared to the side of the bus. And watch the bus relative to the kerb. The cyclist didn't swerve at the car. The cyclist didn't misjudge the space overtaking.

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.

I didn't deny it if you read my posts. The cyclist still put himself in a stupid position giving the driver milliseconds to react and is far to close!! The cyclist should shoulder a considerable amount of blame in my opinion. The cyclist is in a much better position to see what's going on. The driver is having to make decisions and can't see everything at the same time.

I get the feeling you don't drive a car very often and certainly not in a city

Edited by DuckDuck on Wednesday 23 July 20:17

[SK425]

OTBC said:

LucreLout said:

No he's not. In London the vast majority of cyclists killed are passing a vehicle on the side to which its turning.

If they'd learn that they need to wait behind an indicating vehicle instead of sneaking up the side of it, then there would be very few adult cycle deaths.

This is not true. Most rtcs take place at junctions, but the single most common collision is the cyclist hit from behind.

This is also a dishonest claim because it describes a cyclist using a near-side cycle lane as 'sneaking' along. Loaded terminology.

Not sure about your second bit. Whatever flaws there might be in LucreLout's claim, he didn't specify how many of this vast majority of cyclists were nearside or offside, nor did he say they were necessarily in a cycle lane.

[OTBC]

The main flaw in his post is that it's nasty, victim-blaming rubbish, and insulting to the dead cyclists I listed, none of whom did anything wrong, but got killed by drivers who weren't paying attention.

[LucreLout]

OTBC said:

The main flaw in his post is that it's nasty, victim-blaming rubbish, and insulting to the dead cyclists I listed, none of whom did anything wrong, but got killed by drivers who weren't paying attention.

I didn't blame the victims. You're making things up.

There's no conspiracy of motorists. The courts aren't out to get you.

Accidents happen, and cycle paths most certainly don't convey any right to pass a vehicle part way through the MSM process. Even if they did, it's be the height of stupidity to try to enforce it against 30 tonnes of metal, knowing the driver may not have seen you.

[OTBC]

LucreLout said:

No he's not. In London the vast majority of cyclists killed are passing a vehicle on the side to which its turning.

If they'd learn that they need to wait behind an indicating vehicle instead of sneaking up the side of it, then there would be very few adult cycle deaths.

Which dead or injured cyclist are you referring to? Injudicious filtering is not what's killing cyclists, so what are you basing your claims on?

[jimbop1]

OTBC said:

The main flaw in his post is that it's nasty, victim-blaming rubbish, and insulting to the dead cyclists I listed, none of whom did anything wrong, but got killed by drivers who weren't paying attention.

But he's not referring to the small group that you have mentioned. They obviously where victims of bad driving.

When some cyclists realise that their own riding can cause accidents, due to riding in a dangerous manner, accident levels may drop.

I really do not understand why they think they can do no wrong.. That in itself is dangerous.

[OTBC]

He claims most cyclist deaths could be avoided if cyclists moderated their behaviour. This is completely wrong.

[jimbop1]

In your opinion. I take it you cycle?

[Pit Pony]

heebeegeetee said:

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?

Well, my mate's barrister (in a magistrates court), had a great deal of case law to quote, but it boils down to if there is a reasonable 'excuse' offered.

In this case, the road was the M42, to A45 Roundabout, coming off the M42 from the South West, and going right to head towards Coventry. The speed limit at the time was NSL and 60 mph, the road was damp, and we were keeping up with traffic at about 40 mph, as we left the roundabout. The car suddenly started to slide, possibly diesel, possibly the change in camber, but not helped by the fact that the car was a marina 1.3 coupe auto, which was well maintained (words of the police in court) and with good tread on decent tyres.

As matey desperately tried to steer into the skid, the car started to come back into line, only it was a new line, heading for the pavement, where we hit the back of a pedestrian (a man who had been dropped off at the roundabout, and was walking to the bus stop) and the back of the car bounced off a lamp post and was flipped into the ditch.

The not guilty of driving without due care, comes because the speed would not be considered excessive, but the type of car, would not be forgiving once the rear started to slide, and the police were able to explain 2 or 3 reasons why this might happen, (The road camber, the damp, possible oil, type of car). Also I think the fact that he tried to control the car, went in his favour despite the sad fact that if he'd actually done nothing, he would have missed the pavement and ended up going backwards up the slip road.

As a aside, I once saw an avenger, do a full 360 on the Coventry Ring Road in the wet, in the rush hour and across 3 lanes, and still avoid any damage.

[OTBC]

Not my opinion;

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/1...

Also not the case in any of the London fatalities. So claiming that most cyclists' deaths are their own fault is nasty, dishonest rubbish.

[jimbop1]

OTBC said:

Not my opinion;

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/1...

Also not the case in any of the London fatalities. So claiming that most cyclists' deaths are their own fault is nasty, dishonest rubbish.

That study was done by a cyclists' lobby group.. Just saying.

It was not the case in ANY of the London fatalities?! Ok, but as I said believing that cyclists can and do no wrong is just dangerous.

[OTBC]

jimbop1 said:

That study was done by a cyclists' lobby group.. Just saying.

what are you talking about?

[jimbop1]

OTBC said:

jimbop1 said:

That study was done by a cyclists' lobby group.. Just saying.

what are you talking about?

Ahh it wasn't, so apologies for that.

Rest of my post still stands though.

[SK425]

LucreLout said:

Accidents happen, and cycle paths most certainly don't convey any right to pass a vehicle part way through the MSM process.

Not sure what you mean by that. If I want to drive across a cycle lane, I have to wait until it's clear of cyclists. That's fairly simple and I don't see how someone established in their lane would not have priority over someone looking to cross that lane. The difficulty probably comes when the cycle lane ceases to exist at the turning. If there is, say, a side road on the left, a nearside cycle lane would generally just stop rather than continuing across the mouth of the junction (at least that's what happens with cycle lanes I'm familiar with). In that case, at the point I (driving) actually want to turn into the side road across the cyclist's path, there is no second lane giving the cyclist priority.

[heebeegeetee]

tenpenceshort said:

You don't have the information to hand to describe them as fault free. The Police may decide no criminal liability lay at their door, but that is nit the same as 'fault free'. A criminal court in sentencing and a civil court in apportioning liability for damage can both apply some level of liability on the injured party despite them not committing any offence.

Isn't the word 'solely' a clue?

[Snowboy]

Back to the topic.

I don't think it's bias at all.
I think it's just 'light' sentencing guidelines.

Car crash deaths used to be classed as manslaughter.
For various reasons this was changed to 'causing deaths be careless/dangerous driving."

In the majority (or all) of the cases there's a question of intent and semantics.
Is an 'accident' the same as being 'not deliberate'.
Is blame the same as fault.
When do reasons become excuses and when do either become mitigating factors.

Then there's the question of whether it was dangerous driving or careless or inconsiderate driving.

A quick Google shows the sentencing stats for deaths if cyclists, bikers, drivers or pedestrians are pretty much the same give or take 15%.
I don't think it's bias, I think it just because cyclists have less crash protection than other road users so are more likely to die even relatively small collisions.

I think the discussion might have a lotore agreement and a lot less venom and bile if we looked at all sentences for causing deaths by driving rather than just looking at cyclists.

[Johnnytheboy]

That's all some posters care about, so I wouldn't hold my breath.

[walm]

Snowboy said:

Back to the topic.

I don't think it's bias at all.
I think it's just 'light' sentencing guidelines.

I agree wholeheartedly on your guidelines comment, but I believe fairly strongly that there is a bias.

Drivers REALLY REALLY hate cyclists.
There is overwhelming evidence for this (not just on PH) try googling for "hate cyclists" and enjoy the rabid frothing at the mouth.

More clinically there is research such as Basford and Reid in 2002), which showed that motorists perceive that there is a ‘social norm’ for motorists to pass cyclists even if they do not think it is safe to do so.

The DfT found that "evidence suggests a failure in the culture of road sharing, with a lack of consensus about whether, and how, cyclists belong on the roads."

Read that again... "whether cyclists belong on the roads".
Drivers don't even believe that cyclists should be there.
Astonishing.

So given all the ignorance and irrational hate AND given that only 5% of people cycle - I believe is it HIGHLY LIKELY that in a jury situation, that jury will be absolutely biased against the cyclist.
Likewise the judges handing down sentences might well be biased.

As a result we can have cases such as David Irving killed by Steven Petterson who claimed he was blinded by the sun. NOT GUILTY OF BEING CARELESS.

Driving while blind is apparently fine.

Part of the defence relied on the fact that the cyclist could have chosen a different (longer) route to work.
So obviously it the cyclists fault for daring to be on the road.

A jury of your peers? Yes - a bunch of ignorant prejudiced drivers.