56% of drivers convicted of killing cyclists avoid prison
Discussion
tenpenceshort said:
I would expect an occasion where all drivers heading towards the sun would be expected to come to a standstill would be exceptional.
I completely agree, to the extent that I think such excuses are entirely spurious and shouldn't be expected.tenpenceshort said:
I would also expect that, unless safe to do so, stopping on the carriageway because of bright sun would be in itself careless, as it would render a collision from behind as very likely.
I completely disagree. If you're genuinely blinded to the extent that you cannot spot obstacles directly in front of you, it's obvious that you should at the very least slow down to a speed at which you can stop within the distance you can see. If you persist in just ploughing on, I cannot see how that could be judged as driving "carefully" at all.tenpenceshort said:
A jury is going to find it hard to accept that the driving was careless purely because the driver didn't feel it necessary or safe to stop on the carriageway. The test is based upon what a careful and competent driver would do? Did the defendant's driving fall below or far below that standard?
I don't know what the law requires - is the test to see if the standard of driving falls below that of the average standard of the jury, or below the standard of a competent and careful driver? An important distinction, since there is no test to verify whether the judge and jury are themselves careful and competent drivers. I wouldn't expect the judge and jury to determine whether a surgeon operated in a careful and competent manner without expert help, so I don't see why they should be allowed to make pronouncements on driving standards, without expert advice. Just because society seems to accept "plough on and hope for the best" when they reach a hazard as common practice does not make it good practice, or the behaviour of someone who is competent and careful.tenpenceshort said:
If the advice in that section applies as common sense to drivers, it should also be common sense to other road users, including cyclists. If it is obvious that forward vision is so restricted as to require careful and competent driver to stop on the carriageway, it stands to reason you are at severe risk of being hit and you might be expected to take action to avoid yourself being so vulnerable. The cyclist doesn't remain immune to responsibility for his own safety.
Is very true, and depends very much on how poor visibility really is, as opposed to how poor the offending driver claims it is. As you began by stating, occasions when glare is so bad that you cannot see what is in front of you are so rare that I struggle to believe they ever occur to the extent that you genuinely need to stop - other than when the motorist has a very dirty windscreen, in which case they ought to stop and clean it, not just plough on and hope for the best.If everyone else is driving carefully and competently, there should be no risk that stopping on the carriageway will result in the motorist being rear ended - after all other drivers should also be driving within the distance in which they can see and stop.
OTBC said:
Petterson didn't even call the emergency services straight away. He called his father because he thought he had hit a bus stop. There are no bus stops on that road.
He just heard a bang without knowing what he'd hit.It seems to me there was denial, followed by panic, followed by wanting his dad to make it all better.
Followed by acceptance and calling the police.
He didn't deny what happened, didn't cover up anything.
I think that sort of initial response is quite common.
I think to clarify, if the dazzling is blinding, continuous and likely to be so for more than a few seconds, you should be looking to stop as soon as is practical (and I apply that logic to motorists and cyclists).
If it's a momentary blinding (as in two or three seconds), I'm not convinced it should be expected, from a careful and competent driver.
If it's a momentary blinding (as in two or three seconds), I'm not convinced it should be expected, from a careful and competent driver.
djstevec said:
Blog also says;
"Then, on day 4, the Police expert collision investigator (Ed Wilson - my add) was called and crumpled in cross-examination by the Defence with:
"Defence: What was effect of sun?
Witness: would have made cyclist virtually impossible to see."
Perhaps that admission by the Senior Investigating Officer (prosecution witness) may have been more pertinent to the jury's decision.
That witness was not at the scene. These witnesses were;"Then, on day 4, the Police expert collision investigator (Ed Wilson - my add) was called and crumpled in cross-examination by the Defence with:
"Defence: What was effect of sun?
Witness: would have made cyclist virtually impossible to see."
Perhaps that admission by the Senior Investigating Officer (prosecution witness) may have been more pertinent to the jury's decision.
Defence asked about affect of
the sun’s position on visibility and whether glare was a problem Witness said it was not. He also said
“I often see cyclists using this road in the morning”. Defence: “I would suggest they would be on the
cycle path” Witness:“No, I often see them. I saw one on the way home...”
Witness 4 Brenda Bullmer In Lane 2 as she approached Mountbatten Way and saw person lying in
the road. Stopped just past the white van, called 999 then went to see if she could help David. Saw
the two men treat David and noticed shoe, deodorant can and van wing mirror in road some distance
away. Defence asked if visibility was affected by low winter sun. Witness agreed that sun was low
but said visibility was fine.
tenpenceshort said:
When was the last time you came to halt on a live carriageway purely because you were dazzled by the sun?
It was the last time I was dazzled. There's a particular problem near where I live, especially when cold and the windscreen is freezing back up. I stop, 'cos I'm afraid that if I don't I'll hit something.Snowboy said:
Oh, and in this case, the driver said he was only blinded for a moment as he crested a hill on a bend.
It was just a tragic moment.
He wasn't driving along a busy road with zero visibility.
It was just a momentary thing.
Yet they discuss at some length the fact that vehicles in front were passing the cyclist and what the driver should have made of those, and why he may not have deduced at all that the vehicles ahead were passing something in the carriageway.It was just a tragic moment.
He wasn't driving along a busy road with zero visibility.
It was just a momentary thing.
heebeegeetee said:
Yet they discuss at some length the fact that vehicles in front were passing the cyclist and what the driver should have made of those, and why he may not have deduced at all that the vehicles ahead were passing something in the carriageway.
Yes.It was a good argument for the prosecution.
Although there was a comment that the lanes were wide enough that cars didn't need to pull out very far.
As I said, I'm glad I wasn't on the jury.
I don't know which was I would have gone.
On one hand someone has died and that normally means someone should be punished.
On the other hand the driver wasn't driving dangerously, and could be argued that he wasn't driving carelessly either.
Except that to hit a cyclist it's both dangerous and careless; but that sort of tautology doesn't stand up in court.
There are people on this thread who have a pro cycle attitude and aren't looking at this objectively, it's all a bit 'waving pitchforks'.
We know the driver killed the cyclist.
The question is whether it was due to careless driving or just a horrific accident based on circumstance.
Snowboy said:
Yes.
It was a good argument for the prosecution.
Although there was a comment that the lanes were wide enough that cars didn't need to pull out very far.
I would urgently recommend refresher driver training, especially HC Rule 163. That people as ignorant of the HC as you are driving on roads and sitting on juries is depressing.It was a good argument for the prosecution.
Although there was a comment that the lanes were wide enough that cars didn't need to pull out very far.
OTBC said:
djstevec said:
Blog also says;
"Then, on day 4, the Police expert collision investigator (Ed Wilson - my add) was called and crumpled in cross-examination by the Defence with:
"Defence: What was effect of sun?
Witness: would have made cyclist virtually impossible to see."
Perhaps that admission by the Senior Investigating Officer (prosecution witness) may have been more pertinent to the jury's decision.
That witness was not at the scene. These witnesses were;"Then, on day 4, the Police expert collision investigator (Ed Wilson - my add) was called and crumpled in cross-examination by the Defence with:
"Defence: What was effect of sun?
Witness: would have made cyclist virtually impossible to see."
Perhaps that admission by the Senior Investigating Officer (prosecution witness) may have been more pertinent to the jury's decision.
Defence asked about affect of
the sun’s position on visibility and whether glare was a problem Witness said it was not. He also said
“I often see cyclists using this road in the morning”. Defence: “I would suggest they would be on the
cycle path” Witness:“No, I often see them. I saw one on the way home...”
Witness 4 Brenda Bullmer In Lane 2 as she approached Mountbatten Way and saw person lying in
the road. Stopped just past the white van, called 999 then went to see if she could help David. Saw
the two men treat David and noticed shoe, deodorant can and van wing mirror in road some distance
away. Defence asked if visibility was affected by low winter sun. Witness agreed that sun was low
but said visibility was fine.
Edited by djstevec on Friday 25th July 15:58
OTBC said:
I would urgently recommend refresher driver training, especially HC Rule 163. That people as ignorant of the HC as you are driving on roads and sitting on juries is depressing.
According to the HC, a motorist passing a cycle need only give it as much room as he would overtaking a car. This is often misinterpreted as suggesting you leave a 'cars width'. On a road with ample width it may be that cycles can be passed in accordance with this rule without having to veer significantly to the offside, too.tenpenceshort said:
OTBC said:
I would urgently recommend refresher driver training, especially HC Rule 163. That people as ignorant of the HC as you are driving on roads and sitting on juries is depressing.
According to the HC, a motorist passing a cycle need only give it as much room as he would overtaking a car. This is often misinterpreted as suggesting you leave a 'cars width'. On a road with ample width it may be that cycles can be passed in accordance with this rule without having to veer significantly to the offside, too.
tenpenceshort said:
According to the HC, a motorist passing a cycle need only give it as much room as he would overtaking a car. This is often misinterpreted as suggesting you leave a 'cars width'. On a road with ample width it may be that cycles can be passed in accordance with this rule without having to veer significantly to the offside, too.
Seriously, you desperately need additional training;https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/stati...
May I ask when you passed your driving test and how much cycle training you've had? How can you be so ignorant about safe driving?
WinstonWolf said:
A picture explains it more clearly. "Give vulnerable road users at least as much space as you would a car." I think it is you who has misinterpreted it...
If you were right, and the room to be accorded the cyclist was as if it were a car in between you, the overtaker in your picture ought to be fully to the offside. Which he isn't. You will also note there isn't room between the cyclist and the car, for a car. So he is not a 'car's width' away, even in your picture.The rule is written in plain English with the effect of; leave the same room between you and a cycle as you would between you and a car.
If the rule writers had meant "leave a car's width", they would have said "leave a car's width".
But they didn't.
Perhaps it is these misunderstandings that fuel the (wrong) impression that it is the courts and juries who are evil cycle haters?
Edited by tenpenceshort on Friday 25th July 15:51
tenpenceshort said:
WinstonWolf said:
A picture explains it more clearly. "Give vulnerable road users at least as much space as you would a car." I think it is you who has misinterpreted it...
If you were right, and the room to be accorded the cyclist was as if it were a car, the overtaker in your picture ought to be fully to the offside. Which he isn't.The rule is written in plain English with the effect of; leave the same room between you and a cycle as you would between you and a car.
If the rule writers had meant "leave a car's width", they would have said "leave a car's width".
But they didn't.
Perhaps it is these misunderstandings that fuel the (wrong) impression that it is the courts and juries who are evil cycle haters?
tenpenceshort said:
If you were right, and the room to be accorded the cyclist was as if it were a car in between you, the overtaker in your picture ought to be fully to the offside. Which he isn't. You will also note there isn't room between the cyclist and the car, for a car. So he is not a 'car's width' away, even in your picture.
The rule is written in plain English with the effect of; leave the same room between you and a cycle as you would between you and a car.
If the rule writers had meant "leave a car's width", they would have said "leave a car's width".
But they didn't.
Perhaps it is these misunderstandings that fuel the (wrong) impression that it is the courts and juries who are evil cycle haters?
I agree. If the cyclist was a car the Audi wouldn't be taking that line.The rule is written in plain English with the effect of; leave the same room between you and a cycle as you would between you and a car.
If the rule writers had meant "leave a car's width", they would have said "leave a car's width".
But they didn't.
Perhaps it is these misunderstandings that fuel the (wrong) impression that it is the courts and juries who are evil cycle haters?
Edited by tenpenceshort on Friday 25th July 15:51
WinstonWolf said:
The picture is correct, passing any closer than that is incorrect. The wording is unambiguous and does not need interpreting. If you pass closer than in the picture you are a danger to more vulnerable road users...
How many feet and inches is that car from the cyclist?I'll save you the bother, you don't know.
Not that it matters.
Why?
Because it is a mere illustration. Not an instruction or definitive guidance on exactly how close or far you should be.
Why is that so obvious? Well for a start, 163 tells us to overtake leaving as much room for the cyclist as we would a car. The illustration shows us the bike being overtaken with an idea of an appropriate gap. However, if you took the picture literally, and swapped the cycle for a car, maintaining the distance between them, you'll realise there wouldn't be the width on the road for the overtaker. The intention of the picture isn't to suggest that overtaking a car on that road would be unsuitable due to insufficient width.
Why?
Because it is a mere illustration. To help you understand that it does not mean "leave a car's width" (because the width the car in the picture leaves, is not a car's width).
HTH
OTBC said:
tenpenceshort said:
According to the HC, a motorist passing a cycle need only give it as much room as he would overtaking a car. This is often misinterpreted as suggesting you leave a 'cars width'. On a road with ample width it may be that cycles can be passed in accordance with this rule without having to veer significantly to the offside, too.
Seriously, you desperately need additional training;https://assets.digital.cabinet-office.gov.uk/stati...
May I ask when you passed your driving test and how much cycle training you've had? How can you be so ignorant about safe driving?
tenpenceshort said:
WinstonWolf said:
The picture is correct, passing any closer than that is incorrect. The wording is unambiguous and does not need interpreting. If you pass closer than in the picture you are a danger to more vulnerable road users...
How many feet and inches is that car from the cyclist?I'll save you the bother, you don't know.
Not that it matters.
Why?
Because it is a mere illustration. Not an instruction or definitive guidance on exactly how close or far you should be.
Why is that so obvious? Well for a start, 163 tells us to overtake leaving as much room for the cyclist as we would a car. The illustration shows us the bike being overtaken with an idea of an appropriate gap. However, if you took the picture literally, and swapped the cycle for a car, maintaining the distance between them, you'll realise there wouldn't be the width on the road for the overtaker. The intention of the picture isn't to suggest that overtaking a car on that road would be unsuitable due to insufficient width.
Why?
Because it is a mere illustration. To help you understand that it does not mean "leave a car's width" (because the width the car in the picture leaves, is not a car's width).
HTH
Do you advocate passing closer than in the picture?
WinstonWolf said:
tenpenceshort said:
WinstonWolf said:
The picture is correct, passing any closer than that is incorrect. The wording is unambiguous and does not need interpreting. If you pass closer than in the picture you are a danger to more vulnerable road users...
How many feet and inches is that car from the cyclist?I'll save you the bother, you don't know.
Not that it matters.
Why?
Because it is a mere illustration. Not an instruction or definitive guidance on exactly how close or far you should be.
Why is that so obvious? Well for a start, 163 tells us to overtake leaving as much room for the cyclist as we would a car. The illustration shows us the bike being overtaken with an idea of an appropriate gap. However, if you took the picture literally, and swapped the cycle for a car, maintaining the distance between them, you'll realise there wouldn't be the width on the road for the overtaker. The intention of the picture isn't to suggest that overtaking a car on that road would be unsuitable due to insufficient width.
Why?
Because it is a mere illustration. To help you understand that it does not mean "leave a car's width" (because the width the car in the picture leaves, is not a car's width).
HTH
Do you advocate passing closer than in the picture?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff