56% of drivers convicted of killing cyclists avoid prison
Discussion
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.
That is absolutely no excuse at all. It's not a tragic moment, it's gross negligence. If you are only blinded momentarily as you crest a hill, that means you have the entire approach to the hill to observe what it is in front of you. Few cyclists sit just over the crest of the hill waiting for traffic to hit them - they spend the preceding few minutes cycling slowly up the hill, during which time approaching traffic has ample time to observe them and anticipate what will happen. As a clue:It was just a tragic moment.
He wasn't driving along a busy road with zero visibility.
It was just a momentary thing.
1) Cyclist in the distance in front of you going up a hill
2) Cyclist disappears from view over hill
3) Chances are that as you crest that hill, cyclist will miraculously re-appear in front of you.
Are we really saying a careful and competent driver cannot anticipate that sequence of events?
Speedy11 said:
WinstonWolf said:
No, the picture is FROM the highway code.
Do you advocate passing closer than in the picture?
The writing in the picture advocates passing closer.Do you advocate passing closer than in the picture?
How much room would YOU give a cycle when you pass? Buzz 'em a bit, you know, for a laugh?
WinstonWolf said:
No, the picture, that they went to the trouble of staging, shows how to correctly pass a cycle. It's for those who struggle with words...
How much room would YOU give a cycle when you pass? Buzz 'em a bit, you know, for a laugh?
How much room would YOU give a cycle when you pass? Buzz 'em a bit, you know, for a laugh?
WinstonWolf said:
"Give vulnerable road users at least as much space as you would a car."
You either follow the writing or the picture, either the picture is wrong or the writing is wrong which one?Speedy11 said:
WinstonWolf said:
No, the picture, that they went to the trouble of staging, shows how to correctly pass a cycle. It's for those who struggle with words...
How much room would YOU give a cycle when you pass? Buzz 'em a bit, you know, for a laugh?
How much room would YOU give a cycle when you pass? Buzz 'em a bit, you know, for a laugh?
WinstonWolf said:
"Give vulnerable road users at least as much space as you would a car."
You either follow the writing or the picture, either the picture is wrong or the writing is wrong which one?Speedy11 said:
You either follow the writing or the picture, either the picture is wrong or the writing is wrong which one?
I know what you're saying and I agree that sometimes one might overtake a car with less separation than shown in the HC cyclist picture, although I also suspect the separation when overtaking a car is probably more than it might seem at the time. But the wording says (my emphasis) "...at least as much space as you would a car" so even if the picture shows more lateral separation than one might leave a car, the wording and the picture are not inconsistent.WinstonWolf said:
Semantics aside they agree, they also went to the trouble of staging a picture to demonstrate their intent. Would you pass closer than in the picture?
No they don't I would estimate that the gap in that picture is 1.4 meters, on a narrow B road ~5.5m a car overtaking another each in the middle of their lanes would leave a gap of ~ .75m which is ~ 0.65m less than that picture.Speedy11 said:
WinstonWolf said:
Semantics aside they agree, they also went to the trouble of staging a picture to demonstrate their intent. Would you pass closer than in the picture?
No they don't I would estimate that the gap in that picture is 1.4 meters, on a narrow B road ~5.5m a car overtaking another each in the middle of their lanes would leave a gap of ~ .75m which is ~ 0.65m less than that picture.SK425 said:
I know the outcome is, in fact, part of what determines the punishment and I don't imagine that will change any time soon, but when it comes to determining the sentence it is much more obvious to me what place the offender's actions and intent have in that than luck. If you and I both do the same stupid thing and, as it happens, through nothing but luck, I kill someone and you don't, I am not persuaded that that makes me a worse person than you, and I am not sure how much factors beyond how bad a person we each are should determine our relative sentences. I don't know what the purpose is supposed to be of determining sentences with reference to other factors than that.
I'm not sure about your last sentence. If you were to ignore outcome and determine punishment based on actions and intent only, the result would not be to punish everybody the same at either the top or bottom of the scale. You would look at how careless they had been - on a scale from the minimum error that could be considered an offence at all through to as careless as you can be without it being dangerous driving - and set the punishment accordingly. Which, as I understand it, is broadly how your actions are currently used to influence your sentence.
Indeed - but within that range (of action, ignoring consequence) how would you, for example, punish a missed mirror check? A slap on the wrist of a few years in prison?I'm not sure about your last sentence. If you were to ignore outcome and determine punishment based on actions and intent only, the result would not be to punish everybody the same at either the top or bottom of the scale. You would look at how careless they had been - on a scale from the minimum error that could be considered an offence at all through to as careless as you can be without it being dangerous driving - and set the punishment accordingly. Which, as I understand it, is broadly how your actions are currently used to influence your sentence.
It's not about you being a "worse person" - it's about (in part) the penalty reflecting the consequence of what you did. We could be equally good people, who make the same mistake, the consequences of each are hugely different. The penalties should reflect that.
SK425 said:
I agree that the fact that the victim is a cyclist should be irrelevant but it's only irrelevant in this scheme of ignoring outcomes that I am hypothesising. All that would be relevant in that scheme is how far up the scale of carelessness the driver's actions were. If they were very high up the scale, the punishment would be very high up the scale, whether the victim was a cyclist who died or another motorist who survived. When outcomes influence sentencing, the victim's chosen mode of transport ceases to be irrelevant because the same level of carelessness could attract a different sentence depending on whether the victim happened to be on on a bicycle or in a car.
Outcomes should influence sentencing - but not by way of mitigating them to say "the victim was a cyclist, he is easier to kill than a motorist, so the defendant shouldn't be held responsible for that death". Killing a cyclist is a reasonably foreseeable consequence of a minor driving error. Drivers need to remember that they are responsible for a lethal weapon and a minor error may have a major consequence. That needs to be reflected in the sentence.SK425 said:
There is a danger here of blurring two issues which I think it is very important to keep separate. The first, and what I'm discussing, is a relative question: on what basis should one offence be deemed more or less severe than another? The question that should be kept separate is an absolute one: how severe should the sentence be for a certain severity of offence?
Saying that if you make a basic error that kills someone you should receive a severe penalty (the implication being that someone who makes a comparable error and doesn't kill someone should be allowed a less severe penalty), seems in effect to be trying to drive the answer to the first question by what you want to see for the answer to the second. That's a muddling of the two questions that I am not at all comfortable with.
Why keep them separate? They both go into the matrix of determining penalty.Saying that if you make a basic error that kills someone you should receive a severe penalty (the implication being that someone who makes a comparable error and doesn't kill someone should be allowed a less severe penalty), seems in effect to be trying to drive the answer to the first question by what you want to see for the answer to the second. That's a muddling of the two questions that I am not at all comfortable with.
Error+consequence+/-aggravation/mitigation=sentence
A colossal error with no consequence is, in my view, less serious than a minor error that kills someone. Sure, I would prefer to punish the larger error more to act as a deterrent - but not if that meant handing out pathetic penalties for killer drivers.
Speedy11 said:
You either follow the writing or the picture, either the picture is wrong or the writing is wrong which one?
If you're not sure, maybe you should follow the one that is the safest to the more vulnerable road user.Why would the HC have that picture if what was intended by that rule is that you should leave less space than shown?
will_ said:
If you're not sure, maybe you should follow the one that is the safest to the more vulnerable road user.
Why would the HC have that picture if what was intended by that rule is that you should leave less space than shown?
That is fine, but if the HC wanted you to leave 1.4m as per the picture it should say that. Why would the HC have that picture if what was intended by that rule is that you should leave less space than shown?
This is a video posted on another forum last night, the incident occurred in Hungary but shows exactly why cyclists need space. I wouldn't in fact call this an accident and would think was a deliberate attempt by a bus driver to force a cyclist out of the way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puOXHOlBZqg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puOXHOlBZqg
Fugazi said:
This is a video posted on another forum last night, the incident occurred in Hungary but shows exactly why cyclists need space. I wouldn't in fact call this an accident and would think was a deliberate attempt by a bus driver to force a cyclist out of the way.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puOXHOlBZqg
"I've hit the barrier with my right chest, broke seven ribs, they pierced my lungs, got pneumothorax. I've spent 5 days in intensive care and then 3 weeks in hospital."https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puOXHOlBZqg
Is it really too much to ask to give cyclists a safe amount of room when you pass them?
MrTrilby said:
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.
That is absolutely no excuse at all. It's not a tragic moment, it's gross negligence. If you are only blinded momentarily as you crest a hill, that means you have the entire approach to the hill to observe what it is in front of you. Few cyclists sit just over the crest of the hill waiting for traffic to hit them - they spend the preceding few minutes cycling slowly up the hill, during which time approaching traffic has ample time to observe them and anticipate what will happen. As a clue:It was just a tragic moment.
He wasn't driving along a busy road with zero visibility.
It was just a momentary thing.
1) Cyclist in the distance in front of you going up a hill
2) Cyclist disappears from view over hill
3) Chances are that as you crest that hill, cyclist will miraculously re-appear in front of you.
Are we really saying a careful and competent driver cannot anticipate that sequence of events?
On a busy dual carriageway it's easy enough for cyclists to be hidden from viewby other traffic.
In this case the driver was not aware of the cyclist at all.
In this specific case, when presented with all the evidence, the driver was found not guilty.
In other cases, with different circumstances, drivers have quite rightly been found guilty.
Drivers who overtake too close or is stupid position are careless drivers.
Drivers who pull out of junctions with sun glare or without looking are careless or dangerous.
Drivers who hit cyclists on an otherwise clear road are dangerous.
Drivers on phones or with ices winscreens are dangerous.
But sometimes a driver is driving to a competent standard and is still involved in an accident.
This is one of those cases.
It's horrible, but it happens.
OTBC said:
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.
I was quoting a comment made in the court case, not voicing an opinion on overtaking.
You're so eager to look for ways to object your not actually reading what's been written.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff