56% of drivers convicted of killing cyclists avoid prison

[heebeegeetee]

7thCircleAcolyte said:

Objectively, you're more likely to be killed at the beach than on a bike.

80% of cyclist casualties are male, which is a strong indicator that testosterone fuelled risk taking is a factor. Adult male cyclists make up only about half of all cyclists, so either their behaviour is a factor, or motorists are targetting male cyclists. Which do you think is more likely?

75% of accidents happen at junctions, particularly T junctions and roundabouts. So, turning vehicles can be seen to be a primary issue.

The second most common contributory factor attributed to cyclists was entering the road from the pavement, which comes right after failed to look properly, which was the leading factor for both cyclists and drivers alike.

20% of London cycling fatalities occurred when a truck was turning left at a junction. Given the likelihood of the truck indicating prior to turning, it is probable that in most cases the cyclist arrived unseen at the left side of the truck after it began signalling. Those fatalities could easily have been avoided had the cyclist waited behind the signalling vehicle (be it truck, car, bus, motorbike, whatever).

Trucks and cyclists don't mix well, and I suspect they never will. Truck drivers simply can't always see cyclists due to large blind spots on their vehicles, and cyclists are too poorly trained to avoid them. That's not to blame cyclists, but I've not had any cycle training since I did my cycling proficiency test back in junior school, and that didn't cover lorries! No other vehicle is allowed on the roads without training, testing, and licencing, so perhaps this forms part of the solution? Obviously, it could only realistically be applied to the over 16's.

It may well be that the pragmatic solution, at least within cities, is to bar trucks from the road between 8am and 10am, and 5pm and 7 pm, and bar cyclists from the road between 10am and 5pm. Not popular with anyone, I'd imagine, but popularity and effectiveness have never been the same thing.

I forget the figure but the/one of the biggest cause(s) is that the car simply ran down the cyclist from behind, and you haven't even mentioned that.

[anonymous-user]

WinstonWolf said:

Where are those stats from? I thought the majority of casualties were women?

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/adviceandinformation/cycling/facts-figures.aspx

[walm]

heebeegeetee said:

Snowboy said:

But, I don't see that cyclists victins have a worse situation than drivers, bikers or pedestrians.

But the statistic says they do.

Which statistics? (Genuine question.)

[Snowboy]

heebeegeetee said:

Snowboy said:

But, I don't see that cyclists victins have a worse situation than drivers, bikers or pedestrians.

But the statistic says they do.

Your attributing a trend of circumstance to a bias of the court.

You've quoted me somewhat out of context.
To clarify.
Statisticly cyclists have a worse situation, but that's not due to unfair courts.
It's down to other factors.

Those stats mix careless and dangerous driving charges.
I'd be interested to see those broken down.
See how may dangerous drivers avoid jail.
See how many careless drivers cause deaths of pedestrians, cyclists, bikers and other drivers.

[walm]

But Snowboy - as you point out - and I missed the stats but I assume you read them right! - 50% convicted (of either death by dangerous or careless) of killing (regardless of their victim's means of transport) - went to prison.

So for it to be 44% when it's cyclists is about right, and would argue against my "paranoia" of bias.
(Although it says nothing about potential bias in convictions themselves or even in the CPS who choose when to prosecute.)

[7thCircleAcolyte]

heebeegeetee said:

I forget the figure but the/one of the biggest cause(s) is that the car simply ran down the cyclist from behind, and you haven't even mentioned that.

Agreed completely HBGT. I was posting in regard to lorries, as living in London, that's one of the biggest killers.

As far as I'm aware its 53% that are hit from behind, and mostly on rural roads. Its very difficult to imagine that more than a small fraction of those could be the fault of the cyclist, and I'd personally considered that statistic unworthy of genuine debate.

I'll make this my last post on the topic, barring specific questions addressed to me, as it's already spanning a number of pages. So I'll leave with this...

It's very difficult to get justice in Britain these days, regardless of what type of crime you find yourself victim to. While I'd prefer not to consider the scenario, a previous poster enquired of another poster how they'd feel had their family member been killed while riding a bike, only to watch the driver walk free without prison. Personally speaking, no punishment could ever be enough for taking my children from me, so jailed for a year, two, ten, isn't going to matter. Were I to do the PBPHD (Powerfully built pistonheads director) thing and take the law into my own hands, I rather suspect that I'd still not feel a sense of justice, only perpetual loss.

[LucreLout]

WinstonWolf said:

Where are those stats from? I thought the majority of casualties were women?

I thought that was fatalities?

Most fatalities are women, most accidents are men?

The SI bit of KSI. I could be wrong.

[WinstonWolf]

LucreLout said:

WinstonWolf said:

Where are those stats from? I thought the majority of casualties were women?

I thought that was fatalities?

Most fatalities are women, most accidents are men?

The SI bit of KSI. I could be wrong.

I *thought* the majority of fatals were women getting caught at junctions. Perhaps the numbers have changed.

[OTBC]

7thCircleAcolyte said:

20% of London cycling fatalities occurred when a truck was turning left at a junction. Given the likelihood of the truck indicating prior to turning, it is probable that in most cases the cyclist arrived unseen at the left side of the truck after it began signalling. Those fatalities could easily have been avoided had the cyclist waited behind the signalling vehicle (be it truck, car, bus, motorbike, whatever).

Pure supposition unsupported by any known facts.The lorry driver that killed cyclist Daniel Cox was in a truck which did not have the correct mirrors and whose driver had pulled into the ASL on a red light and was indicating in the opposite direction to which he turned.

[anonymous-user]

LucreLout said:

WinstonWolf said:

Where are those stats from? I thought the majority of casualties were women?

I thought that was fatalities?

Most fatalities are women, most accidents are men?

The SI bit of KSI. I could be wrong.

Consistently most casualties male, most fatalities male.

[LucreLout]

OTBC said:

Pure supposition unsupported by any known facts.The lorry driver that killed cyclist Daniel Cox was in a truck which did not have the correct mirrors and whose driver had pulled into the ASL on a red light and was indicating in the opposite direction to which he turned.

Long or wide vehicles often turn opposite to their signal initially in order to get around a corner.

You keep brining up the same handful of fatalities over and over as though nobody heard you the first time.

Perhaps you're emotionally invested in one or more of them and struggling for objectivity?

I too live in London and while I forget which year it was, most cyclists killed that year in London were hit by a left turning truck.

7CA could be making stats up, but they certainly sound about right, verses the handful of exceptions you lean on like a crutch.

[LucreLout]

djstevec said:

Consistently most casualties male, most fatalities male.

st. I got something wrong on the internet. Keep this up and it'll be full of garbage

[will_]

LucreLout said:

I too live in London and while I forget which year it was, most cyclists killed that year in London were hit by a left turning truck.

The problem is, whilst you are correct that a significant number of cyclists are killed by turning or veering trucks, your supposition that this must be due to the cyclist doing something wrong or stupid is (currently) unsupported.

Perhaps you can provide some evidence that the cyclist is usually to blame in these scenarios?

It is categorically not always the case that a cyclist killed by a turning truck has done anything wrong.

[will_]

WinstonWolf said:

LucreLout said:

WinstonWolf said:

Where are those stats from? I thought the majority of casualties were women?

I thought that was fatalities?

Most fatalities are women, most accidents are men?

The SI bit of KSI. I could be wrong.

I *thought* the majority of fatals were women getting caught at junctions. Perhaps the numbers have changed.

You're right when it comes to trucks - women cyclists are disproportionately more likely to be killed by lorries than men:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8296971.stm

[anonymous-user]

LucreLout said:

djstevec said:

Consistently most casualties male, most fatalities male.

st. I got something wrong on the internet. Keep this up and it'll be full of garbage

Just trying to help correct some misconceptions.

Edited by djstevec on Thursday 24th July 13:23

[Speedy11]

OTBC said:

7thCircleAcolyte said:

20% of London cycling fatalities occurred when a truck was turning left at a junction. Given the likelihood of the truck indicating prior to turning, it is probable that in most cases the cyclist arrived unseen at the left side of the truck after it began signalling. Those fatalities could easily have been avoided had the cyclist waited behind the signalling vehicle (be it truck, car, bus, motorbike, whatever).

Pure supposition unsupported by any known facts.The lorry driver that killed cyclist Daniel Cox was in a truck which did not have the correct mirrors and whose driver had pulled into the ASL on a red light and was indicating in the opposite direction to which he turned.

Wasn't Daniel killed because he was in a ASL and thus in a lorry's blind spot not because of the lorry turning left or right?

[OTBC]

7thCircleAcolyte said:

Adult male cyclists make up only about half of all cyclists

Women make only 28% of the UK's cycling journeys.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8296971.stm

[oyster]

I think the below list shows the real problem.

2013 in London:
Fatality 1: Cyclist hit by a car.
Fatality 2: Cyclist hit by construction HGV.
Fatality 3: Cyclist hit by a car.
Fatality 4: Cyclist hit by construction HGV.
Fatality 5: Cyclist hit by construction HGV.
Fatality 6: Cyclist hit by construction HGV.
Fatality 7: Cyclist hit by construction HGV.
Fatality 8: Cyclist hit by construction HGV.
Fatality 9: Cyclist hit by construction HGV.
Fatality 10: Cyclist hit by bus
Fatality 11: Cyclist hit by bus
Fatality 12: Cyclist hit by construction HGV.
Fatality 13: Cyclist hit by construction HGV.
Fatality 14: Cyclist hit by construction HGV.

Spot the pattern?

[tenpenceshort]

oyster said:

I think the below list shows the real problem.

2013 in London:
Fatality 1: Cyclist hit by a car.
Fatality 2: Cyclist hit by construction HGV.
Fatality 3: Cyclist hit by a car.
Fatality 4: Cyclist hit by construction HGV.
Fatality 5: Cyclist hit by construction HGV.
Fatality 6: Cyclist hit by construction HGV.
Fatality 7: Cyclist hit by construction HGV.
Fatality 8: Cyclist hit by construction HGV.
Fatality 9: Cyclist hit by construction HGV.
Fatality 10: Cyclist hit by bus
Fatality 11: Cyclist hit by bus
Fatality 12: Cyclist hit by construction HGV.
Fatality 13: Cyclist hit by construction HGV.
Fatality 14: Cyclist hit by construction HGV.

Spot the pattern?

You spend ages waiting for a bus, then 2 come along all at once?

[oyster]

jimbop1 said:

WinstonWolf said:

The most pertinent question for the anti's is "would you be happy to see a driver go unpunished if they killed a member of your family"?

Would you like to see a member of your family go to prison for killing a cyclist that was riding in a dangerous manner, weaving in and out of traffic, not doing any checks and squeezing through gaps?

When I get home tonight, my pre-school son will ask a more educated question than that. Granted he'll ask some daft ones too. But I guarantee he will ask at least one that is more intelligent than yours.

Think about that.