56% of drivers convicted of killing cyclists avoid prison
Discussion
CYMR0 said:
C
Therefore it is highly likely that relatively minor carelessness (sufficient for a charge) will kill some cyclists in circumstances .
I would suggest that if someone dies, that carelessness was not minor, and I think that sums up the general attitude to driving: it doesn't matter if we're a bit careless because it's the other person's fault for not driving am NCAP 5 star car if they get injured or killed. Therefore it is highly likely that relatively minor carelessness (sufficient for a charge) will kill some cyclists in circumstances .
It's out of kilter with the rest of the world. If someone dies in my workplace as a result of my carelessness, I can pretty much expect to go to gaol for it. So I try very hard not to be careless. Why should it be different for driving a car?
Who knows.
I can imagine where a cyclist is killed by a car without any obvious fault on the cyclist the car driver is going to get a conviction. Whether that means they did anything that warrants time inside is probably another thing entirely, it wouldn't surprise me though if half of all such scenarios quite reasonably wouldn't result in filling up our prisons further. Unfortunately, cars can squash cyclists very easily.
I can imagine where a cyclist is killed by a car without any obvious fault on the cyclist the car driver is going to get a conviction. Whether that means they did anything that warrants time inside is probably another thing entirely, it wouldn't surprise me though if half of all such scenarios quite reasonably wouldn't result in filling up our prisons further. Unfortunately, cars can squash cyclists very easily.
tenpenceshort said:
but the cyclist also bears a good chunk of responsibility for their demise (let's say, riding the wrong way up a one way street at dusk and a driver pulling out without seeing them properly).
Like this cycle lane in Liverpool, (which is used as parking space by the local taxis while they sit in the cafe). Have seen a few near misses from taxis darting into the kerb to park while somebody is coming down the road on a bike, against the flow of traffic. Whoever thought this was a good idea needs shooting. 
Just a bit of consideration and planning ahead would see a lot of these issues drop, in my experience the problems always stem from those cyclists/drivers who are the most impatient.
Edited by Fugazi on Monday 21st July 13:01
Dairymilk said:
Maybe 56% of cyclists contributed to their own death hence the non-custodial sentence.
Well, the driver was found guilty in each case.In a case I followed recently, one of the "The sun meant i couldn't see where I was going so I continued anyway and accidentally killed someone" cases, the cyclist was found to have contributed because he could have used another route for his journey.
The cyclist couldn't explain ('cos he was dead) that his route was the most direct and quickest to his destination. It took a solicitor to learn that after the case had been heard.
Another case I recall involved a young man killing a mother of two for no good reason whatsoever, yet didn't even receive a fine.
As the article says, a quarter of the killer drivers didn't even get a ban.
It really isn't good enough. Life is sacrosanct and should be treated as such, and I think that if you have taken a life without a very good reason indeed then you should be punished, and prison does the job nicely.
When I refer to "relatively minor carelessness" there is a difference in severity between failing to see a turn right arrow and going straight ahead, running over an unseen, filtering cyclist (which would be death by careless driving) and running a red light at 60 mph in a built-up area, knocking a cyclist off (which would be death by dangerous).
In the first scenario, a car driver would almost never be killed - in the second, the innocent victim could easily be in a car.
The cyclist is just as blameless and just as dead in either case but I don't think it's fair to say that the punishment should be equal in either scenario.
As an aside, the idea that a victim could be blamed because they "could have taken a different route" should surely be challenged by a competent prosecutor. While a deceased victim can't make that assertion, it's absurd to suggest that it would go unchallenged as a result. In fact it's an extremely high risk tactic by the defence, because it would be so easy to challenge and so easy for them to lose any residual sympathy of the court.
In the first scenario, a car driver would almost never be killed - in the second, the innocent victim could easily be in a car.
The cyclist is just as blameless and just as dead in either case but I don't think it's fair to say that the punishment should be equal in either scenario.
As an aside, the idea that a victim could be blamed because they "could have taken a different route" should surely be challenged by a competent prosecutor. While a deceased victim can't make that assertion, it's absurd to suggest that it would go unchallenged as a result. In fact it's an extremely high risk tactic by the defence, because it would be so easy to challenge and so easy for them to lose any residual sympathy of the court.
heebeegeetee said:
. Life is sacrosanct and should be treated as such, and I think that if you have taken a life without a very good reason indeed then you should be punished, and prison does the job nicely.
I agree with the sentiment, but feel that prison is not the appropriate punishment for this kind of thing. People take being allowed to drive for granted far too much. Penalty points and fines are pretty toothless - they annoy the offender more than solve any issues. Prison destroys lives, which might be retribution, but it does little to improve driving standards generally - everyone believes that it only happens to everyone else, and as the article shows, even then, not many people. Better to be more draconian with shorter driving bans. A minimum three week driving if you cause a crash, regardless of injury is enough to cause serious inconvenience and make you think about your driving, without costing you your job and home.
A much bigger driving ban for someone who kills through "a mistake" is more affordable to the country than throwing hundreds more into overcrowded prisons, and I suggest just as effect a deterrent to others, and likely to improve driving afterwards. And massively big driving bans for those convicted of death by dangerous driving, to the point where we should consider whether some can be fit to drive ever again after such a conviction.
Prison should be reserved for those who willfully set out to kill, and really ought to be removed from society for the protection of society.
CYMR0 said:
When I refer to "relatively minor carelessness" there is a difference in severity between failing to see a turn right arrow and going straight ahead, running over an unseen, filtering cyclist (which would be death by careless driving) and running a red light at 60 mph in a built-up area, knocking a cyclist off (which would be death by dangerous).
You're suggesting that speed kills, and killing someone by speeding is worthy of a greater punishment than killing someone because you didn't look where you're going?Good luck arguing that here.
Personally I'd say that both scenarios represent a poor judgement call by the driver, and are worthy of equal punishment.
heebeegeetee said:
jimbop1 said:
I would think this is likely the reason.
I totally disagree. Certainly out of the cases i read, it is rare that the cyclist has genuinely contributed. I'd say I don't eveb see 10% never mind 50%.IF the dead cyclist has contributed to the fatal cause then the sentence of the other involved driver will be reduced.
MrTrilby said:
I would suggest that if someone dies, that carelessness was not minor
I'm not sure if it's what you meant, but I don't think it makes sense to judge how minor or major someone's carelessness was simply by asking whether it resulted in a death or not.tenpenceshort nicely described a spectrum of carelessness: "from almost wilfull incompetence bordering on Dangerous Driving, to a small and momentary error of judgement", and carelessness anywhere from the minor end to the major end of that spectrum could result in a death.
Dairymilk said:
While you are entitled to that opinion you are most probably, forgive me if I have assumed incorrectly, not on the mailing list for every fatal accident report involving a cyclist so your 10% is imaginary at best.
As I said, it was based on the cases I've read about. In fact, I think my figure of 10% is OTT, and I certainly don't think Jimbob's figure of 56% will be accurate.Anyway, there's lots of meaty stuff here: http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/
Don't forget; these have all been through court systems with judges and lawyers.
It shouldn't be a case of asking if 56% is fair.
It's not a point for debate.
It is what it is.
100% of people who deserved to go to jail went to jail.
If there's a specific case where someone thinks there has been an injustice then it's worth duscussing.
But trying to argue national percentages without looking at details is only going to be based on personal propaganda.
It shouldn't be a case of asking if 56% is fair.
It's not a point for debate.
It is what it is.
100% of people who deserved to go to jail went to jail.
If there's a specific case where someone thinks there has been an injustice then it's worth duscussing.
But trying to argue national percentages without looking at details is only going to be based on personal propaganda.
jimbop1 said:
Spot on Snowboy.
Also using a cycling blog is always going to be bias.
He'd be right if nobody was showing any concern, but that's not the case.Also using a cycling blog is always going to be bias.
Leaving aside the massive bias shown on PH towards motorists, you're accusing a functionary of bias who works in the legal system which you say is not biased.
The cycling blog has a lot of very interesting stuff, and I think you'd be better informed for reading it.
Medic-one said:
I've been to a lot of car VS bike accidents, including several fatal ones, and i've seen a fair few where the car driver had done nothing wrong, wasn't speeding, was paying attention etc, but an accident could just not been avoided (bike with no light, in the dark, flying onto the road against traffic, or through a red light etc)
So despite them having then caused the death of the cyclist, the cyclist was at fault, and has brought it's own faith upon him/herself. Why should the car driver be jailed for that? Not really fair is it.
Where did this happen? Unlit cyclists feature in just 2% of KSI incidents. Usually when a car and cyclist collide it is the driver's fault.So despite them having then caused the death of the cyclist, the cyclist was at fault, and has brought it's own faith upon him/herself. Why should the car driver be jailed for that? Not really fair is it.
The lorry driver who killed cyclist Catriona Patel was drunk and chatting on a mobile.
The lorry driver who killed Eilidh Cairns had faulty eyesight (the police didn't even bother to discover this until the same driver killed another woman.)
The lorry driver who killed cyclist Brian Dorling turned across his path.
The lorry driver who killed cyclist Svetlana Tereschenko was in an unsafe lorry, failing to indicate and chatting on a mobile. The police decided to charge him with..nothing.
The lorry driver who killed cyclist Deep Lee failed to notice her and smashed into her from behind.
The lorry driver that killed cyclist Andrew McNicoll failed to notice him and side swiped him.
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.
Fugazi said:
As a cyclist/driver/motorcyclist and all round good egg, I do think that there is a general lack of tough sentences from vehicle crime depending on who is at fault. How many times do you see idiots on police tv shows get away with a tiny fine for driving without a licence and insurance? If I did that, as an engineer I assume that I'd get a massive fine and a lengthy ban. If I came in front of the court wearing trainers and drinking special brew then I'd probably get away with it.
If I crashed into a car and told the police I couldn't see it was stationary because the sun was low in the sky then I assume I'd get done for driving without due care, and rightly so. But a cyclist was killed a couple of years ago and the driver found not guilty after claiming the sun was too low and temporally blinded him.
My girlfriend is about to take her driving test at the grand old age of 28 years old, but judging by the amount of times we've been overtaken, abused and shouted at for the crime of being on the road at the speed limit is unbelievable. I often see this same aggression when I cycle into uni everyday, people carrying out a perfect overtake leaving me with loads of room just to join a queue of stationary traffic twenty feet in front of me. The standard of driving now is shocking and is only getting worse and the stats probably don't reflect this due to the increase of driver aids now available.
[edit due to the fact I can't multi-task)
Car driver at a junction pulled out from a minor road even though he couldn't see if the major road was clear, killed a motorcyclist: http://www.lincolnshireecho.co.uk/Driver-cleared-c...If I crashed into a car and told the police I couldn't see it was stationary because the sun was low in the sky then I assume I'd get done for driving without due care, and rightly so. But a cyclist was killed a couple of years ago and the driver found not guilty after claiming the sun was too low and temporally blinded him.
My girlfriend is about to take her driving test at the grand old age of 28 years old, but judging by the amount of times we've been overtaken, abused and shouted at for the crime of being on the road at the speed limit is unbelievable. I often see this same aggression when I cycle into uni everyday, people carrying out a perfect overtake leaving me with loads of room just to join a queue of stationary traffic twenty feet in front of me. The standard of driving now is shocking and is only getting worse and the stats probably don't reflect this due to the increase of driver aids now available.
[edit due to the fact I can't multi-task)
"I can't see, but I'll pull out anyway"
hora said:
Such drivers ^ are cleared because its the 'well it could happen to any of us' mentality in the same conditions.
I imagine with jail, they are looking for other supporting factors - malice or multiple counts of negligence - insurance/roadworthiness/what the driver was doing and/or speed.
I had a near miss last night on the Cheshire lanes. high trees/bushes (over head height)- tight right bend/30m's straight - tight right bend. Car decides to overtake me on the first bend- oncoming car hits horn and brakes- the car behind me is still in overtaking mode - as those his brain can't understand. Even though I'm still moving at circa 15mph he literally is moving forward towards the now stationary head on car.
Drugs and/or alcohol aside. Why do (some) drivers have the 'feel trapped/must squeeze through' mentality?
If the overtake had been a few seconds later he'd have sideswipped me off the road with something broken on me and carried on very quickly I imagine.
Because they don't plan their overtake, their minds cannot consider the "what if" possibility. Similar applies when similar drivers cut a right hand corner or right hand turn, this appears to be endemic: bigger cars? Poor visibility? Windows up, aircon on, music on?I imagine with jail, they are looking for other supporting factors - malice or multiple counts of negligence - insurance/roadworthiness/what the driver was doing and/or speed.
I had a near miss last night on the Cheshire lanes. high trees/bushes (over head height)- tight right bend/30m's straight - tight right bend. Car decides to overtake me on the first bend- oncoming car hits horn and brakes- the car behind me is still in overtaking mode - as those his brain can't understand. Even though I'm still moving at circa 15mph he literally is moving forward towards the now stationary head on car.
Drugs and/or alcohol aside. Why do (some) drivers have the 'feel trapped/must squeeze through' mentality?
If the overtake had been a few seconds later he'd have sideswipped me off the road with something broken on me and carried on very quickly I imagine.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff