56% of drivers convicted of killing cyclists avoid prison
Discussion
will_ said:
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.Half of all road users have a below average IQ. That fact has kept me safe on cycles, bikes, and in cars, as long as you keep it in mind when on the road.
In the spirit of fair debate, I'll try to answer on more post, then I'm done with the thread - some posters are getting a little too blinkered and emotionally involved (not you), so it's best to call it a day.
OTBC said:
I know, but you didn't. The only way you can reduce driver culpability is if you include child injuries that don't involve vehicles. That's how you ended up with that figure. You're fiddling statistics.
Obvious troll is obvious.I also included those cyclists that kill themselves sans any other vehicle being involved. 3, verses 13 children. Adjusting the stats to reflect that makes a maximum swing if 6%. Now jog on wee man.
will_ said:
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.
will_ said:
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.will_ said:
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.
Is it meaningful to compare a civil liability like that to criminal sentencing? If I crash into another car and end up being prosecuted for careless driving, should it make a difference to my sentence whether I crashed into a million pound hypercar or a £500 shed?tenpenceshort said:
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.
I argue very strongly that a mistake that results in causing the death of someone cannot by definition be termed a "minor mistake". It's a catastrophic mistake. It might be an easy mistake to make, but it is very much not minor, and the sooner society and courts stop treating them as minor mistakes, the better for everyone. Turning across someone without looking properly is not a minor mistake - it's negligence.You appear to argue that if you make such a mistake, because there's a difference in risk of injury between hitting a cyclist or another car, the courts ought to treat "fairly" by being lenient on motorists who kill cyclists. You even suggest that it would discriminate against motorists if we did not. I would turn that completely on its head. You've already acknowledged that you're aware there is a higher risk of serious injury or death if a car hits a cyclist compared with another car. If that is the case, and you are aware of the increased risks, then you really ought to be showing greater care and attention whilst driving near cyclists - if you do not and you make a "minor" mistake that causes injury, I would suggest that you are guilty of negligence. With any other sort of accident (such as in the workplace) where your negligence results in serious injury or death, the courts take an exceptionally dim view. They do not say "there but for the grace of god go I, that could have been anyone kicking away the ladder that bloke was standing on" but instead ask why on earth you were taking risks around someone vulnerable up a ladder.
Why on earth is it "discriminating against drivers" if we seek to punish those who do not take extra care around more vulnerable road users? Surely it's basic common sense that if you're driving a 1.5 tonne vehicle at speed around someone massively more vulnerable than you, you wouldn't just expect them to take care around you but you'd take extra care around them too?
As to the suggestions that cyclists should take care around lorries... They should: going up the inside of a lorry indicating left is blatantly stupid. Cycling along a cycle lane past a lorry that is stuck in traffic on the other hand is pretty much inevitable given our road layouts. If that lorry chooses to turn left without signalling or looking really carefully and manoeuvring slowly, then the driver is seriously negligent. Yet the courts find lorry drivers not guilty, even when they drive across segregated cycle lanes without looking for cycles: http://road.cc/content/news/124586-guernsey-judge-...
And since this thread seems to like anecdotes, plenty of cars and lorries seem to think nothing of turning across bicycles and hoping for the best. Fortunately most of the time it doesn't result in serious injury or death. A great recent example is this one (turn the volume off if at work, contains rather understandable swearing):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctsDl7g6a1w
I am not suggesting leniency, that is you imposing your own prejudice over my opinion.
I am suggesting that courts should take into account the circumstances and sentence appropriately. For the avoidance of doubt, directly comparing imprisonment rates between deaths involving cyclists and those of other road users is futile because they are not the same situations. The circumstances in which a mistake is likely to kill a cyclist are not typically the same as those that would see a motorist killed.
Some on here seem to suggest that courts should blindly hand down equal sentences without regard to the differing circumstances of the incident, namely where the victim is a cyclist rather than a motorist. I don't agree that they should, as the circumstances that will kill one are unlikely to be the same where it would kill another.
Whilst sentencing should take into account the outcome, it should also reflect the culpability.
I am suggesting that courts should take into account the circumstances and sentence appropriately. For the avoidance of doubt, directly comparing imprisonment rates between deaths involving cyclists and those of other road users is futile because they are not the same situations. The circumstances in which a mistake is likely to kill a cyclist are not typically the same as those that would see a motorist killed.
Some on here seem to suggest that courts should blindly hand down equal sentences without regard to the differing circumstances of the incident, namely where the victim is a cyclist rather than a motorist. I don't agree that they should, as the circumstances that will kill one are unlikely to be the same where it would kill another.
Whilst sentencing should take into account the outcome, it should also reflect the culpability.
tenpenceshort said:
will_ said:
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.
tenpenceshort said:
We're discussing the sanction for that accepted liability. Where the victim has contributed to their own demise there can be an appropriate reduction in the blame apportioned to the guilty party. For example, a reduced, non-custodial sentence in a criminal court or a reduction in damages in a civil one.
Yes, I'm well aware thanks.What you appear to be saying is that cyclists should bear some of the "blame" when they get hit by drivers, just because they are cyclists and that is risky (ignoring the possible tautology of the argument that cycling is only risky because of all the cars). I'm sure you can see why that is a rather absurd line of argument to go down, whereby the "status" of the victim reduces the penalty of the offender. In fact it should be entirely the other way - you are obliged to take more care around those who are more vulnerable, and if you fail to do so you are more liable.
Of course if contributory negligence is established then it should mitigate the sentence or reduce the liability - I'm not sure that anyone is arguing anything different though. Just "being a cyclist" isn't, or shouldn't be, a reason to lower others' liability.
SK425 said:
Is it meaningful to compare a civil liability like that to criminal sentencing? If I crash into another car and end up being prosecuted for careless driving, should it make a difference to my sentence whether I crashed into a million pound hypercar or a £500 shed?
Maybe I'm not being clear, and for that I apologise. What you hit is irrelevant - how you hit it determines your guilt. If the victim contributed in some way then that mitigates the liability (civil or criminal).My point was, really, that just because someone decides to take on a level of risk (be that cycling on the road or using a Veyron) doesn't reduce the culpability of the offending party, unless the victim does something (other than existing) to cause that accident.
tenpenceshort said:
I am not suggesting leniency, that is you imposing your own prejudice over my opinion.
I am suggesting that courts should take into account the circumstances and sentence appropriately. For the avoidance of doubt, directly comparing imprisonment rates between deaths involving cyclists and those of other road users is futile because they are not the same situations. The circumstances in which a mistake is likely to kill a cyclist are not typically the same as those that would see a motorist killed.
Some on here seem to suggest that courts should blindly hand down equal sentences without regard to the differing circumstances of the incident, namely where the victim is a cyclist rather than a motorist. I don't agree that they should, as the circumstances that will kill one are unlikely to be the same where it would kill another.
Whilst sentencing should take into account the outcome, it should also reflect the culpability.
The "circumstances" shouldn't include the fact that someone is a cyclist and not a pedestrian.I am suggesting that courts should take into account the circumstances and sentence appropriately. For the avoidance of doubt, directly comparing imprisonment rates between deaths involving cyclists and those of other road users is futile because they are not the same situations. The circumstances in which a mistake is likely to kill a cyclist are not typically the same as those that would see a motorist killed.
Some on here seem to suggest that courts should blindly hand down equal sentences without regard to the differing circumstances of the incident, namely where the victim is a cyclist rather than a motorist. I don't agree that they should, as the circumstances that will kill one are unlikely to be the same where it would kill another.
Whilst sentencing should take into account the outcome, it should also reflect the culpability.
The fact that a small error is more likely to kill a cyclist rather than a motorist makes zero difference to the negligence. The same error has occurred, but the effect is potentially very different. The sentence needs to reflect that. That's not unfair on the motorist - it is holding the motorist to account for the consequences of their actions and not seeking to use the victim to vitiate the motorist's guilt. Only if the cyclist has done something to contribute to the accident should that be taken into account - ditto pedestrians, motorists or anyone else. The law should be blind on this, but I don't think it is.
LucreLout said:
Obvious troll is obvious.
I also included those cyclists that kill themselves sans any other vehicle being involved. 3, verses 13 children. Adjusting the stats to reflect that makes a maximum swing if 6%. Now jog on wee man.
So how does that support your claim that 'nearly all' cyclists are at fault in collisions? Can you finally admit you made that up?I also included those cyclists that kill themselves sans any other vehicle being involved. 3, verses 13 children. Adjusting the stats to reflect that makes a maximum swing if 6%. Now jog on wee man.
will_ said:
In fact it should be entirely the other way - you are obliged to take more care around those who are more vulnerable, and if you fail to do so you are more liable.
Is it not that way round already in a way? The same level of carelessness that might kill or seriously injure a cyclist could well result in nothing more than a bit of bent metal if the collision is instead between two cars. I'm sure my chances of getting away with careless driving (i.e. nobody bothers even trying to prosecute me) are a lot greater if all I've done is damaged someone's car than if I've killed or injured a cyclist.Edited by SK425 on Thursday 24th July 17:58
SK425 said:
will_ said:
In fact it should be entirely the other way - you are obliged to take more care around those who are more vulnerable, and if you fail to do so you are more liable.
Is it not that way round already in a way? The same level of carelessness that might kill or seriously injure a cyclist could well result in nothing more than a bit of bent metal if the collision is instead between two cars. I'm sure my chances of getting away with careless driving (i.e. nobody bothers even trying to prosecute me) are a lot greater if all I've done is damaged someone's car than if I've killed or injured a cyclist.Edited by SK425 on Thursday 24th July 17:58
Perhaps a better way of looking at it is - if you make an error, irrespective of what it is, should it matter that that error kills a motorist or a cyclist? Just because a cyclist is easier to kill doesn't mean the motorist shouldn't be as equally punished - the end result is the same, and you take your victim as you find them.
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.
Oh come on, we're back to that old one again. You are changing the subject, the subject is about what happens to drivers after they have killed, and the trend is that a) they get treated very leniently and b) they get treated even more leniently if the victim is perceived to be down the pecking order. This has never chan ged in my 30 odd years of driving.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.
As I said about the Petterson case, some culpability was placed on the cyclist because he could have taken an alternative route. This could be applied to every single collision, but at the end of the year you'd still have the same number of collisions.
In this case the driver got off because his tailgating meant he couldn't see the cyclist: http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/van-d...
In this case the driver admitted he couln't stop in the distance he could see to be clear: http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/carlisle-death-c...
Honestly, god knows what you have to do to get a conviction in the first place, and that's before the lenient sentence which will be reduced on appeal because it's inconvenient for the offender (and if you google about you'll find that's what's happening).
Edited by heebeegeetee on Thursday 24th July 18:28
will_ said:
I see what you are saying and in a way that is true, but by way of consequence rather than culpability. You're not punishing the motorist because they've hit a vulnerable road user, you're punishing them for an error that, as it happens, has killed someone.
Whilst I understand the principle, personally I am not overly comfortable with the "as it happens" part of that. I'm not sure that someone guilty of a similar error that, as it happens, has not killed someone should be given a particularly more lenient sentence.will_ said:
Perhaps a better way of looking at it is - if you make an error, irrespective of what it is, should it matter that that error kills a motorist or a cyclist? Just because a cyclist is easier to kill doesn't mean the motorist shouldn't be as equally punished - the end result is the same, and you take your victim as you find them.
I don't agree with that. Back in the beginning of the thread tenpenceshort described a spectrum of carelessness...tenpenceshort said:
...from almost wilfull incompetence bordering on Dangerous Driving, to a small and momentary error of judgement.
Generally speaking, it takes a level of carelessness further up that scale to kill someone who is inside another car than to kill someone who is on a bicycle. That's just a fact (albeit a generalisation). I don't think it's appropriate that someone who gets it badly enough wrong to kill another motorist only gets the same sentence as someone whose carelessness is further down the scale. That would be letting them off too lightly.will_ said:
I see what you are saying and in a way that is true, but by way of consequence rather than culpability. You're not punishing the motorist because they've hit a vulnerable road user, you're punishing them for an error that, as it happens, has killed someone.
And, equally, someone who drives wilfully recklessly, but, by some miracle, doesn't kill anyone, gets away with a slap on the wrist.Whatever happened to mens culpa?
What are we doing? Protecting the public, or exacting retribution?
And, as for punishing people harshly to "set an example", well, it seems to me that the prisons are overflowing with "examples"
Edited by Phatboy317 on Thursday 24th July 22:52
Phatboy317 said:
will_ said:
I see what you are saying and in a way that is true, but by way of consequence rather than culpability. You're not punishing the motorist because they've hit a vulnerable road user, you're punishing them for an error that, as it happens, has killed someone.
And, equally, someone who drives wilfully recklessly, but, by some miracle, doesn't kill anyone, gets away with a slap on the wrist.Whatever happened to mens culpa?
What are we doing? Protecting the public, or exacting retribution?
And, as for punishing people harshly to "set an example", well, it seems to me that the prisons are overflowing with "examples"
Edited by Phatboy317 on Thursday 24th July 22:52
The purpose of prison is largely threefold - protection, retribution (rebalancing the scales) and deterrence.
Whether dangerous or careless driving which results in no harm should be punished more to reflect the fact that it could is another debate entirely.
SK425 said:
will_ said:
I see what you are saying and in a way that is true, but by way of consequence rather than culpability. You're not punishing the motorist because they've hit a vulnerable road user, you're punishing them for an error that, as it happens, has killed someone.
Whilst I understand the principle, personally I am not overly comfortable with the "as it happens" part of that. I'm not sure that someone guilty of a similar error that, as it happens, has not killed someone should be given a particularly more lenient sentence.That's what happens now, of course, and it's difficult to see how else the punishment could be determined - do you ignore the consequence completely and thereby punish on only the top or bottom of the scale?
SK425 said:
will_ said:
Perhaps a better way of looking at it is - if you make an error, irrespective of what it is, should it matter that that error kills a motorist or a cyclist? Just because a cyclist is easier to kill doesn't mean the motorist shouldn't be as equally punished - the end result is the same, and you take your victim as you find them.
I don't agree with that. Back in the beginning of the thread tenpenceshort described a spectrum of carelessness...tenpenceshort said:
...from almost wilfull incompetence bordering on Dangerous Driving, to a small and momentary error of judgement.
Generally speaking, it takes a level of carelessness further up that scale to kill someone who is inside another car than to kill someone who is on a bicycle. That's just a fact (albeit a generalisation). I don't think it's appropriate that someone who gets it badly enough wrong to kill another motorist only gets the same sentence as someone whose carelessness is further down the scale. That would be letting them off too lightly.As far as I can see, the majority of 'death by driving' cases are treated fairly leniently for all cases.
There are a few notable cases that make the headlines or get profiled in blogs.
But that's true for killed pedestrians, bikers and drivers as well as cyclists.
The defence of the cyclist taking a dangerous/short journey seems absurd.
I'd be interested to read a bit more on that to understand it in context.
There are a few notable cases that make the headlines or get profiled in blogs.
But that's true for killed pedestrians, bikers and drivers as well as cyclists.
The defence of the cyclist taking a dangerous/short journey seems absurd.
I'd be interested to read a bit more on that to understand it in context.
Snowboy said:
As far as I can see, the majority of 'death by driving' cases are treated fairly leniently for all cases.
There are a few notable cases that make the headlines or get profiled in blogs.
But that's true for killed pedestrians, bikers and drivers as well as cyclists.
The defence of the cyclist taking a dangerous/short journey seems absurd.
I'd be interested to read a bit more on that to understand it in context.
If its this case its here: http://www.southamptoncyclingcampaign.org.uk/2014/...There are a few notable cases that make the headlines or get profiled in blogs.
But that's true for killed pedestrians, bikers and drivers as well as cyclists.
The defence of the cyclist taking a dangerous/short journey seems absurd.
I'd be interested to read a bit more on that to understand it in context.
Courtesy of this blog: http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/ scroll down for 'recent cases'.
All very interesting reading imo.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff