56% of drivers convicted of killing cyclists avoid prison

[OTBC]

Worth noting too that three of the victims were in their sixties. Hardly BMX Bandit types.

[heebeegeetee]

jimbop1 said:

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?

Can you give us any example where that has ever happened?

I'm sure we can give you plenty of examples of where a cyclist was just plain ran down from behind. We can probably give you plenty where this happened and the driver didn't go to prison. What are the chances of a driver going to prison in the circumstances you describe.

I see far more cars weaving through traffic than cycles, for example Saturday last I saw BMW Park Lane's i8 weaving through lanes of traffic at well over the speed limit on the A40 in London, so even professional drivers do it.

The two cases I'm thinking of, already mentioned - the young man who wasn't even fined for killing a mum-of-two in conditions of perfect visibility; and the Petterson case where the driver drove blind yet found not guilty after the jury were directed by the judge to ignore HC advice on driving in dazzling sunlight.

[jimbop1]

oyster said:

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.

Does he ask lots of questions as to why cyclist are getting knocked off their bikes? Do you also drill it in to him that no matter what the cyclist has done, it's always the drivers fault?

Think about that.

[Snowboy]

It's not always the drivers fault.
There were stats posted earlier of cyclist death.
Roughly 60% driver fault, 20% cycle fault and 20% mix of two.
Or something close to that.

This thread started out looking at what happens to those 60%/80% and what punishment they received.

Where the cyclist is 100% to blame I would expect no punishment to the driver.
Where there is a mix of blame or the driver was 100% at fault I'd expect a mix of careless and dangerous charges and a nix of punishments.

[jimbop1]

Snowboy said:

It's not always the drivers fault.
There were stats posted earlier of cyclist death.
Roughly 60% driver fault, 20% cycle fault and 20% mix of two.
Or something close to that.

This thread started out looking at what happens to those 60%/80% and what punishment they received.

Where the cyclist is 100% to blame I would expect no punishment to the driver.
Where there is a mix of blame or the driver was 100% at fault I'd expect a mix of careless and dangerous charges and a nix of punishments.

Totally agree.

[LucreLout]

will_ said:

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.

I'm not sure anyone suggested the cyclist would always be at fault, nor the driver likewise. Unless zero trucks indicate, and zero trucks arrive at a junction before a cyclist undertakes them, then greater than zero fatalities are caused by the cyclist. That isn't being acknowledged by many of the more emotive posters here.

A mistake by either the truck driver or the cyclist will kill the cyclist. Surely the answer then us not to put yourself in that position. A simple shoulder check will show if the vehicle behind is a truck, if it is, jump the lights. If the vehicle in front is a truck, wait behind it. Too easy?

[OTBC]

Any regular cyclist knows that very often a vehicle draws level then indicates left- a left hook. Or the driver is chatting on a mobile, implicated in more cycling fatalities than injudicious filtering on the part of the cyclist.

[will_]

LucreLout said:

I'm not sure anyone suggested the cyclist would always be at fault, nor the driver likewise. Unless zero trucks indicate, and zero trucks arrive at a junction before a cyclist undertakes them, then greater than zero fatalities are caused by the cyclist. That isn't being acknowledged by many of the more emotive posters here.

A mistake by either the truck driver or the cyclist will kill the cyclist. Surely the answer then us not to put yourself in that position. A simple shoulder check will show if the vehicle behind is a truck, if it is, jump the lights. If the vehicle in front is a truck, wait behind it. Too easy?

I'm not suggesting that one or other party will always be at fault.

What you said was:
"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."

It implies that only a "few" adult cycle deaths are caused by the driver. I've not seen anything to support that. Indeed the figures repeated on this thread show that drivers are more likely to be liable than cyclists, contrary to your assertion. Now it may be that the position reverses with respect to HGVs but I've not seen anything to support that either.

As for suggesting that cyclists jump the lights if there is a truck behind them - well, that cannot be a serious suggestion.

There is no doubt that some cyclists put themselves in very dangerous positions, and only the skills and patience of the HGV driver prevent them being killed. There is equally no doubt that there are some very dangerous, aggressive and impatient HGV drivers who drive dangerously and would easily kill cyclists were it not for the cyclist taking evasive action.

[LucreLout]

OTBC said:

Any regular cyclist knows that very often a vehicle draws level then indicates left- a left hook. Or the driver is chatting on a mobile, implicated in more cycling fatalities than injudicious filtering on the part of the cyclist.

And any regular driver knows that very often cyclists ignore indicating vehicles as they try to undertake the queue of traffic to get to the front.

Fine, until the queue moves where they hadn't expected it, and a driver that had no cyclist on their left when they indicated now has one he can't see.

You need to take on board the idea that cyclists are wholly or partly to blame for their deaths nearly half the time. I understand that fact doesn't fit you world view and may be uncomfortable for you, but it is still a fact.

There is no excuse for drinking alcohol or using the phone behind the wheel or while cycling. On that, I think we may agree?

[LucreLout]

will_ said:

I'm not suggesting that one or other party will always be at fault.

What you said was:
"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."

It implies that only a "few" adult cycle deaths are caused by the driver. I've not seen anything to support that. Indeed the figures repeated on this thread show that drivers are more likely to be liable than cyclists, contrary to your assertion. Now it may be that the position reverses with respect to HGVs but I've not seen anything to support that either.

As for suggesting that cyclists jump the lights if there is a truck behind them - well, that cannot be a serious suggestion.

There is no doubt that some cyclists put themselves in very dangerous positions, and only the skills and patience of the HGV driver prevent them being killed. There is equally no doubt that there are some very dangerous, aggressive and impatient HGV drivers who drive dangerously and would easily kill cyclists were it not for the cyclist taking evasive action.

Hmm. I think we're closer to agreement than you may realise.

Not being alongside an indicating truck would save the cyclist whether it was their mistake or the drivers, or both.

I did say sneak, but that was just me being lazy rather than listing possible ways to come alongside a truck without the driver seeing you, or having the truck do the same.

I definitely would skip a light if I wasn't sure the truck driver had seen me, and I couldn't get on the footpath, provided I considered the junction safe to cross against red. Some are, some aren't, sometimes.

As a driver, I'd rather be annoyed at you jumping a light than sickened by you being crushed. As a cyclist, if it's annoy you or die, well...

[walm]

jimbop1 said:

Do you also drill it in to him that no matter what the cyclist has done, it's always the drivers fault?

Do you always come on cycling threads and post a pathetic straw man no one suggested, even remotely (cyclists can do no wrong)?

Answer - yes.

To everyone else - DNFTT.

[heebeegeetee]

will_ said:

As for suggesting that cyclists jump the lights if there is a truck behind them - well, that cannot be a serious suggestion.

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

>>The high incidence of women killed by lorries has come to the attention of the authorities before.
In 2007, an internal report for Transport for London concluded women cyclists are far more likely to be killed by lorries because, unlike men, they tend to obey red lights and wait at junctions in the driver's blind spot.
This means that if the lorry turns left, the driver cannot see the cyclist as the vehicle cuts across the bike's path.
The report said that male cyclists are generally quicker getting away from a red light - or, indeed, jump red lights - and so get out of the danger area.<<

[heebeegeetee]

LucreLout said:

You need to take on board the idea that cyclists are wholly or partly to blame for their deaths nearly half the time. I understand that fact doesn't fit you world view and may be uncomfortable for you, but it is still a fact.

Yet the stats say that drivers are solely to blame 60-75% of the time. Show us where your fact is supported. The majority of deaths are accused by being run down from behind, followed by drivers pulling out of junctions. The majority of cyclist deaths are caused by drivers failing to look.

And that's it. No amount of obfuscation will change that.

Drivers failing to look properly is probably at the route of nearly all collisions.

[walm]

LucreLout said:

You need to take on board the idea that cyclists are wholly or partly to blame for their deaths nearly half the time. I understand that fact doesn't fit you world view and may be uncomfortable for you, but it is still a fact.

Please back that up with evidence.
Because so far that sounds preposterously made up.

Why would it be 20% for all accidents and suddenly >50% in fatalities?

That makes no sense.

OTBC said:

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.

Oh look - you are just posting total bks...

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

"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."

I think it is clear whose world view needs to change.

[will_]

LucreLout said:

Hmm. I think we're closer to agreement than you may realise.

OK, but you haven't really responded to the request to support your position that there would only be a "few" adult cyclist deaths if cyclists didn't "sneak" up the inside of indicating lorries. I'd be really interested in what there is to support that, because it's quite a strong position to take.

I take issue with that simply because I don't believe it to be true (anecdotally, but given some of the driving I see every day around cyclists); it blames the victim who may be unable to explain what happened; and it seeks to defend drivers who may use any number of half-baked excuses and, as set out earlier in this thread, receive next to no punishment. So if it's right, I'd be grateful to understand that.

You've also said "cyclists are wholly or partly to blame for their deaths nearly half the time." Again, I don't know where you got that from but I would be interested to know.

What is not explained (by anyone) is why construction vehicles are so massively disproportionately involved in cycling fatalities - 10 times their proportion on the road. There are other big vehicles in London so it can't just be the fact that they are HGVs. So either (1) cyclists throw themselves under tipper trucks moreso than other vehicles; (2) tipper trucks, when involved in a collision with a cyclist, are particularly dangerous by way of their design (when compared to, say, a bus); or (3) construction trucks are particularly badly driven. (1) doesn't bear much scrutiny, so it comes down to (2) and (3) to explain the distinction (in my view).

[will_]

heebeegeetee said:

will_ said:

As for suggesting that cyclists jump the lights if there is a truck behind them - well, that cannot be a serious suggestion.

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

>>The high incidence of women killed by lorries has come to the attention of the authorities before.
In 2007, an internal report for Transport for London concluded women cyclists are far more likely to be killed by lorries because, unlike men, they tend to obey red lights and wait at junctions in the driver's blind spot.
This means that if the lorry turns left, the driver cannot see the cyclist as the vehicle cuts across the bike's path.
The report said that male cyclists are generally quicker getting away from a red light - or, indeed, jump red lights - and so get out of the danger area.<<

If I jumped every red light that I came to because there was a truck behind me I wouldn't stop for any of them.

That article (which you'll note I linked to earlier) just indicates that space is required for cyclists at junctions so that they do not need to stop in a danger zone.

However the idea that cyclists should be jumping red lights to avoid being hit by trucks is bonkers - either get well ahead or stay well behind.

[will_]

oyster said:

Think about that.

I think I've spotted a flaw in your plan.

[OTBC]

LucreLout said:

And any regular driver knows that very often cyclists ignore indicating vehicles as they try to undertake the queue of traffic to get to the front.

You keep saying that, I keep asking you for an example. If it's so common how come you can't find any examples?

[will_]

OTBC said:

LucreLout said:

And any regular driver knows that very often cyclists ignore indicating vehicles as they try to undertake the queue of traffic to get to the front.

You keep saying that, I keep asking you for an example. If it's so common how come you can't find any examples?

It also ignores the fact that an indicator is nothing more than that - an indication. It's not sensible to head up the inside of an indicating vehicle, but nor is it acceptable to indicate and turn without actually checking that it's safe to do so.

[heebeegeetee]

will_ said:

or stay well behind.

There is that one, which was not suggested in the article.