56% of drivers convicted of killing cyclists avoid prison
Discussion
heebeegeetee said:
Cyclists are being held to blame for not wearing a helmet when they're run down from behind. Reasons to blame are being apportioned to cyclists that you'd never dream of applying to cyclists.
Because, in my view, judges and juries understand the position from the perspective of a driver, and have no understanding of the perspective of a cyclist. They see someone in the dock who has done something that any driver might have done, and they sympathise with that driver and look for excuses not to convict or severely punish him or her.I can think of no other explanation for some of the perverse verdicts and sentences.
walm said:
LucreLout said:
And I didn't say most, I said many. You've slipped back into making stuff up mode again.
No, you said "vast majority".LucreLout said:
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.
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.
40% are killed by a left turning vehicle. 20% by leaving the path in front of a vehicle, 10% by turning across the path of a vehicle, 10% due to door openings and swerving, 10% hit from behind, 10% head on. These are for London. They are stats, they don't give names. TFL accident analysis, for those that wish to read it.
More than half of truck drivers aren't charged, meaning insufficient evidence of blame exists.
heebeegeetee said:
Where do those figures come from, given that drivers are solely to blame up to 75% of the time?
Where do you get your stat of cyclists failing to look for 43% of the time?
An example: in the Pettrerson case when the cyclist was run down from behind, he was deemed to be partly at fault for failing to take a longer, slower route to his destination, so cyclists can be held at fault for reasons other than not looking. How on earth do you know what part the cyclists hold (and would our imaginations be good enough to match the excuses the courts are coming up with?).
Cyclists are being held to blame for not wearing a helmet when they're run down from behind. Reasons to blame are being apportioned to cyclists that you'd never dream of applying to drivers.
ROSPA. And you?Where do you get your stat of cyclists failing to look for 43% of the time?
An example: in the Pettrerson case when the cyclist was run down from behind, he was deemed to be partly at fault for failing to take a longer, slower route to his destination, so cyclists can be held at fault for reasons other than not looking. How on earth do you know what part the cyclists hold (and would our imaginations be good enough to match the excuses the courts are coming up with?).
Cyclists are being held to blame for not wearing a helmet when they're run down from behind. Reasons to blame are being apportioned to cyclists that you'd never dream of applying to drivers.
Edited by heebeegeetee on Thursday 24th July 15:42
Citing conviction rates is laughable, even when the police are handed video evidence of dangerous driving they do nothing.
http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/insuf...
http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/insuf...
LucreLout said:
walm said:
LucreLout said:
And I didn't say most, I said many. You've slipped back into making stuff up mode again.
No, you said "vast majority".LucreLout said:
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.
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.
40% are killed by a left turning vehicle. 20% by leaving the path in front of a vehicle, 10% by turning across the path of a vehicle, 10% due to door openings and swerving, 10% hit from behind, 10% head on. These are for London. They are stats, they don't give names. TFL accident analysis, for those that wish to read it.
LucreLout said:
More than half of truck drivers aren't charged, meaning insufficient evidence of blame exists.
No, meaning that there isn't sufficient evidence to believe that a case will be proven beyond reasonable doubt - a high standard, and obviously higher than balance of probabilities. Not being charged is not the same as being innocent. Nor is it evidence that the cyclist necessarily did anything wrong.will_ said:
Of course it happens. It is no doubt a factor in some incidents.
But you seem to have a very clear position that cyclists are often to blame when they are killed, despite statistics showing that cyclists are (generally) not to blame, and I wonder if there is any independent evidence to support it. Is your position that the other studies are wrong, or that there is something peculiar when it comes to fatal accidents?
rospa stats are the basis for my numbers, combined with tfl cyclist accident analysis.But you seem to have a very clear position that cyclists are often to blame when they are killed, despite statistics showing that cyclists are (generally) not to blame, and I wonder if there is any independent evidence to support it. Is your position that the other studies are wrong, or that there is something peculiar when it comes to fatal accidents?
Please do note though, that partly or wholly to blame simply means they could have made other choices that may have saved them.
If I'm in my truck and we crash, you die. I may be 10% responsible or 90%, but in the latter case, that 10% culpability on your part may have avoided my mistake that killed you had you given me more space. Some cyclists seem intent on refusing to see that.
I never really understand why these threads descend into motorists vs cyclists?
After all, I imagine the vast majority of cyclists are in fact motorists themselves.
There is a greater risk of getting hurt or being killed if, as a cyclist rather than a motorist, you collide with another motorist. For any given mistake by a motorist, resulting in a collision, there is a higher chance of serious injury or death of the other party if they are a cyclist rather than another motorist.
The risks of cyclists being involved in collisions on the road are not analogous with pedestrians, as they typically share the same road space with motorists, whereas pedestrians generally do not. Nor is it analogous with other motorists (perhaps excluding motorcyclists), as the protection offered by a modern vehicle means the error required to kill or seriously injure another motorist is typically several degrees higher than that required to kill or injure a cyclist.
Therefore, for the same level of culpability, a minor mistake that would otherwise have ended injury free were it to have been between two motorists, may even become a fatality if the other party is a cyclist. Same mistake, different outcome.
If the risks of cyclists being involved in an accident are higher and then, the risk of serious injury or death if and when an accident occurs is also higher, it stands to reason there is a tangible difference in what you are assessing between that and accidents involving only motorists or motorists and pedestrians. It is unfortunate that you are more vulnerable as a cyclist on the roads, however that is to some extent a risk you choose to take.
It is a natural consequence of accepting those differing circumstances and risks (compared to motorist only accidents), that the culpability attributed to the motorist for the severity of the injury or death to a cyclist, might be reduced. If the law were not to take that properly into account, it would be discriminating against those who happen to have accidents with cyclists, rather than treating them fairly.
After all, I imagine the vast majority of cyclists are in fact motorists themselves.
There is a greater risk of getting hurt or being killed if, as a cyclist rather than a motorist, you collide with another motorist. For any given mistake by a motorist, resulting in a collision, there is a higher chance of serious injury or death of the other party if they are a cyclist rather than another motorist.
The risks of cyclists being involved in collisions on the road are not analogous with pedestrians, as they typically share the same road space with motorists, whereas pedestrians generally do not. Nor is it analogous with other motorists (perhaps excluding motorcyclists), as the protection offered by a modern vehicle means the error required to kill or seriously injure another motorist is typically several degrees higher than that required to kill or injure a cyclist.
Therefore, for the same level of culpability, a minor mistake that would otherwise have ended injury free were it to have been between two motorists, may even become a fatality if the other party is a cyclist. Same mistake, different outcome.
If the risks of cyclists being involved in an accident are higher and then, the risk of serious injury or death if and when an accident occurs is also higher, it stands to reason there is a tangible difference in what you are assessing between that and accidents involving only motorists or motorists and pedestrians. It is unfortunate that you are more vulnerable as a cyclist on the roads, however that is to some extent a risk you choose to take.
It is a natural consequence of accepting those differing circumstances and risks (compared to motorist only accidents), that the culpability attributed to the motorist for the severity of the injury or death to a cyclist, might be reduced. If the law were not to take that properly into account, it would be discriminating against those who happen to have accidents with cyclists, rather than treating them fairly.
OTBC said:
Citing conviction rates is laughable, even when the police are handed video evidence of dangerous driving they do nothing.
http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/insuf...
I agree, which is why I used arrest rates. I further gave your view benefit of the doubt and assumed arrest equals conviction, which it doesn't.http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/insuf...
LucreLout said:
rospa stats are the basis for my numbers, combined with tfl cyclist accident analysis.
Please do note though, that partly or wholly to blame simply means they could have made other choices that may have saved them.
If I'm in my truck and we crash, you die. I may be 10% responsible or 90%, but in the latter case, that 10% culpability on your part may have avoided my mistake that killed you had you given me more space. Some cyclists seem intent on refusing to see that.
I know you can't do it now, but in due course I'd appreciate a link to the TFL stats to which you refer. The study into fatal cycling accidents in London from 2009 to which I refer doesn't tally with the figures you mention. You'll find it under the October 2009 section of this page:Please do note though, that partly or wholly to blame simply means they could have made other choices that may have saved them.
If I'm in my truck and we crash, you die. I may be 10% responsible or 90%, but in the latter case, that 10% culpability on your part may have avoided my mistake that killed you had you given me more space. Some cyclists seem intent on refusing to see that.
http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/how-we-w...
As to the culpability percentages, I'm not sure that your example works. If I could have done something to avoid the accident, then my culpability would most likely be higher than 10% - that's what % of blame reflects.
will_ said:
No, meaning that there isn't sufficient evidence to believe that a case will be proven beyond reasonable doubt - a high standard, and obviously higher than balance of probabilities. Not being charged is not the same as being innocent. Nor is it evidence that the cyclist necessarily did anything wrong.
Sorry for short quote, mobile site...Whom is passing whom isn't stated, I agree. As a driver/cyclist, you can only control who you pass. Taking the primary position, even if you need to queue behind something to do it, makes it less likely you'll get hit.
If you're not being passed, you won't get sideswiped easily.
I used arrest rate, because while the bar for prosecution is high, the hurdle for arrest is low.
LucreLout said:
I agree, which is why I used arrest rates. I further gave your view benefit of the doubt and assumed arrest equals conviction, which it doesn't.
You said charged rates?Arrest doesn't equal charged, charged doesn't equal conviction and none of them indicate that the cyclist was necessarily to blame given the high criminal threshold.
What I'd be interested in seeing is what proportion of drivers involved in fatal accidents with cyclists have a claim made against their insurance (i.e. the civil balance of probabilities test). That would be a better indicator of liability than the criminal threshold. Anyone know?
OTBC said:
So, to aid establishing the fault of drivers in RTCs involving cyclists you consider it helpful to include child stats, which don't involve motor vehicles?
You're trolling again.The rospa stats break out child fatalities. Though why you seem not to care about child deaths is a matter for your conscience. Perhaps you're a sociopath? Either way you are a troll, and this is your final feed.
LucreLout said:
Sorry for short quote, mobile site...
Whom is passing whom isn't stated, I agree. As a driver/cyclist, you can only control who you pass. Taking the primary position, even if you need to queue behind something to do it, makes it less likely you'll get hit.
If you're not being passed, you won't get sideswiped easily.
As we both know, taking the primary position isn't always going to stop a determined overtake particularly on multi-lane roads.Whom is passing whom isn't stated, I agree. As a driver/cyclist, you can only control who you pass. Taking the primary position, even if you need to queue behind something to do it, makes it less likely you'll get hit.
If you're not being passed, you won't get sideswiped easily.
Again, I'm not saying you're wrong, but I'm yet to see anything that supports your position with respect to the victim having done anything wrong in the "vast majority" of cycling deaths.
LucreLout said:
I used arrest rate, because while the bar for prosecution is high, the hurdle for arrest is low.
True, but again not conclusive of the cyclist being at fault - just not sufficient evidence that the driver is.tenpenceshort said:
It is a natural consequence of accepting those differing circumstances and risks (compared to motorist only accidents), that the culpability attributed to the motorist for the severity of the injury or death to a cyclist, might be reduced. If the law were not to take that properly into account, it would be discriminating against those who happen to have accidents with cyclists, rather than treating them fairly.
Egg shell skull rule? You take your victim as you find them. Cyclists are particularly vulnerable, so they should be given particular care. Breach of that duty of care should be an aggravating factor with respect to cyclists but the sentences handed out show the opposite to be true.If you have a Veyron and someone crashes into it, you don't have to pay for some of the repairs yourself just because it's an expensive car.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff