56% of drivers convicted of killing cyclists avoid prison

[Snowboy]

heebeegeetee said:

jimbop1 said:

Spot on Snowboy.

Also using a cycling blog is always going to be bias.

He'd be right if nobody was showing any concern, but that's not the case.
Leaving aside the massive bias shown on PH towards motorists, you're accusing a functionary of bias who works in the legal system which you say is not biased.

The cycling blog has a lot of very interesting stuff, and I think you'd be better informed for reading it.

Of course a car forum is biased towards car drivers.
But cycle forums and blogs are biased towards cyclists.

The main difference though is that PH is an open forum with lots of people posting opinions but those blogs are just one person pretending to impartial.

Bias of opinion is just fine so long as it's recognised as such.
It gets silly when those cycle blogs pretend they aren't biased.

[heebeegeetee]

Snowboy said:

Of course a car forum is biased towards car drivers.
But cycle forums and blogs are biased towards cyclists.

The main difference though is that PH is an open forum with lots of people posting opinions but those blogs are just one person pretending to impartial.

Bias of opinion is just fine so long as it's recognised as such.
It gets silly when those cycle blogs pretend they aren't biased.

How are they pretending to be impartial? It's absolutely clear where their interests lie.

However you are acknowledging that the legal system is biased towards car drivers which is reflected in the stats, which is what the thread is about.

[SK425]

hora said:

Why do (some) drivers have the 'feel trapped/must squeeze through' mentality?

When overtaking anything, what one ought to do is gather all the necessary information and then decide whether to commit to the overtake or not. When it comes to overtaking cyclists, I think some people basically commit to the overtake before they even get into the car.

[Snowboy]

heebeegeetee said:

How are they pretending to be impartial? It's absolutely clear where their interests lie.

However you are acknowledging that the legal system is biased towards car drivers which is reflected in the stats, which is what the thread is about.

No, the stats are not biased at all.
The 56% stat is not biased. It is fact. It is what it is.
It is legally correct.

Arguing that more drivers should be in jail without looking at specific cases is absurd.
You can't base sentencing decisions on quotas or expected national results.

"Sorry Mr Smith, but while we agree that it was an unfortunate accident we're actually only at 60% incarceration rate and your our last case for the day so we have to send you to jail."

It's that sort of daft thinking that leads to the stupid target lead policing.

[Hackney]

Last night on the way home I had just pulled out of a side street behind a slightly nervous looking female cyclist.
She was approaching a bus which was at a stop.

I held back and eventually stopped, waiting for her to look around, realise this and pull around the bus. Just to be safe and also give her some protection.
She eventually turned, and pulled out. While I waited to pull around the bus (I would have had to cross into the opposite side of the road) a male cyclist approached on my left. He started to swerve around the bus (there was space, the female cyclist had gone through), then slowed a bit, then stopped just in time to avoid going into the back of the bus. In all this time I hadn't moved.

I then went around the bus (accelerating as the bus started to indicate) and joined a queue at some lights about 150m up the road.
The male cyclist passed me on my left; shouted something at me about indicating and then cycled through a red light.

I had to laugh.

Not sure how my indicating or not had an influence on him nearly crashing into a bus. But I'd love to have a conversation with him about why me indicating is so important when he can cycle through a red light.

Back on topic.

[oyster]

Medic-one said:

I've been to a lot of car VS bike accidents, including several fatal ones, and i've seen a fair few where the car driver had done nothing wrong, wasn't speeding, was paying attention etc, but an accident could just not been avoided (bike with no light, in the dark, flying onto the road against traffic, or through a red light etc)

So despite them having then caused the death of the cyclist, the cyclist was at fault, and has brought it's own faith upon him/herself. Why should the car driver be jailed for that? Not really fair is it.

If the car driver was not at fault at all then why would they be convicted of killing cyclists?

[oyster]

MrTrilby said:

CYMR0 said:

C
Therefore it is highly likely that relatively minor carelessness (sufficient for a charge) will kill some cyclists in circumstances .

I would suggest that if someone dies, that carelessness was not minor, and I think that sums up the general attitude to driving: it doesn't matter if we're a bit careless because it's the other person's fault for not driving am NCAP 5 star car if they get injured or killed.

It's out of kilter with the rest of the world. If someone dies in my workplace as a result of my carelessness, I can pretty much expect to go to gaol for it. So I try very hard not to be careless. Why should it be different for driving a car?

This.

For some reason our society allows 'mistakes' to be made with 2 ton lumps of metal capable of very high speed. Not being able to see a cyclist because the sun is low is not a mistake, it's a complete failure to drive to the conditions. After all, the sun doesn't get low all of a sudden.

My opinion applies equally to deaths to other car drivers/passengers, pedestrians as well as cyclists.

[0000]

oyster said:

For some reason our society allows 'mistakes' to be made with 2 ton lumps of metal capable of very high speed.

I'd be fascinated to hear how society can stop mistakes from being made.

[MrTrilby]

Snowboy said:

"Sorry Mr Smith, but while we agree that it was an unfortunate accident we're actually only at 60% incarceration rate and your our last case for the day so we have to send you to jail."

No. You've completely misunderstood the thread. Did you read the article linked to, or just jump in with comments? We're not talking about drivers being jailed after "unfortunate accidents", we're talking about the number of drivers who are jailed after being convicted of a driving offence that killed someone. 26% of those drivers didn't even receive a ban - just the lightest slap on the wrists, for killing someone as a result of driving bad enough that the courts felt there was enough evidence to convict them of an offence.

[walm]

0000 said:

oyster said:

For some reason our society allows 'mistakes' to be made with 2 ton lumps of metal capable of very high speed.

I'd be fascinated to hear how society can stop mistakes from being made.

One way to reduce them would be to encourage people to pay more attention while they pilot powerful, fast-moving lumps of metal around.

Locking people up who make mistakes is pretty strong encouragement I would think...
I certainly paid more attention to my driving after reading about 10PS's experience.

On the other hand, convicting them of a crime and giving them a nominal fine seems to suggest "mistakes happen" and that society is perfectly happy with the current rate of mistakes killing people.

[0000]

You'd be less likely to drive over a cyclist if you thought you'd definitely go to prison?

[Snowboy]

MrTrilby said:

Snowboy said:

"Sorry Mr Smith, but while we agree that it was an unfortunate accident we're actually only at 60% incarceration rate and your our last case for the day so we have to send you to jail."

No. You've completely misunderstood the thread. Did you read the article linked to, or just jump in with comments? We're not talking about drivers being jailed after "unfortunate accidents", we're talking about the number of drivers who are jailed after being convicted of a driving offence that killed someone. 26% of those drivers didn't even receive a ban - just the lightest slap on the wrists, for killing someone as a result of driving bad enough that the courts felt there was enough evidence to convict them of an offence.

The law allows for different sentencing options based on different factors.
Even if someone is convicted there are still various sentencing options based on circumstances.
You can be guilty and it can still be an unfortunate accident.

If there are 4 crashes and two receive a custodial sentence and two don't how can you possibly say it's biased without knowing the circumstances of each case.

[heebeegeetee]

Snowboy said:

No, the stats are not biased at all.
The 56% stat is not biased. It is fact. It is what it is.
It is legally correct.

Not sure what you mean by legally correct, but of course the stat is not biased but it shows the bias in the legal system.

30 years ago I became aware of the shockingly lax penalty handed out to those killing bikers. 30 years on I reckon nothing has changed and it's probably been the same for cyclists all along too.

The stat shows that the penalty levied to a killer driver may well depend on the type of vehicle the victim was using, which in itself may go against the highway code.

[walm]

0000 said:

You'd be less likely to drive over a cyclist if you thought you'd definitely go to prison?

Before reading about 10PS's experience, I hadn't paid much attention to my spirited driving.
I hadn't really thought about the consequences of what might happen if something went wrong.
Usually just me in the car - if I get hurt then it's my own fault.
I hadn't realised how an everyday screw up such as crossing the dotted line or exceeding an arbitrary limit could easily put you in prison.

When I did realise that, I slowed down. I paid more attention. Which probably would make me less likely to drive over a cyclist - yes.

So, what I am suggesting is that if it is well publicised that barreling into a low winter sun and killing someone in front of you leads to a prison sentence then some people (not all, just a few) might, you know, lower their visor BEFORE going round the corner into the sun.
Or SLOW DOWN before ploughing headlong into a space which they can't possibly tell is clear or not.

Don't you think the threat of prison acts as a deterrent?

[MrTrilby]

Snowboy said:

You can be guilty and it can still be an unfortunate accident.

Describing it as an unfortunate accident is rather emotive and trivialises the fact that someone has died as a direct result of the driver's actions. It isn't "just one of those things" that the poor driver couldn't avoid: the court has declared that their driving fell below the standard expected of competent and reasonable driver, and someone died as a result.

Do you not think that if someone is killed because you were incompetent at a skilled and demanding task, it would be prudent to take some action beyond just slap some points on a licence and pay a fine? Maybe to try and improve that driver's ability behind the wheel so it doesn't happen again? Or are you just fine with incompetent drivers being freed to carry on as before?

[0000]

walm said:

Don't you think the threat of prison acts as a deterrent?

For many crimes, to varying degrees, absolutely yes. For something people are already trying to avoid, where it's significantly less shattering than the act of killing someone else and where it can happen almost anytime and in an instant, no I don't think it's effective.

How many of these drivers who aren't imprisoned go on to reoffend? I doubt it's significant.

[heebeegeetee]

0000 said:

For something people are already trying to avoid,

Going by what you see going on out there, do you think enough people are trying hard enough?

[BMWBen]

0000 said:

walm said:

Don't you think the threat of prison acts as a deterrent?

For many crimes, to varying degrees, absolutely yes. For something people are already trying to avoid, where it's significantly less shattering than the act of killing someone else and where it can happen almost anytime and in an instant, no I don't think it's effective.

How many of these drivers who aren't imprisoned go on to reoffend? I doubt it's significant.

The point of the deterrent is not just about the original offender. It also deters *others* from doing the same thing.

And I would say that there are varying degrees of "trying to avoid". There's:

"I'd rather not kill a cyclist/biker"

...but driving in such a way that you very well might and not really being bothered enough to change it. And then there's:

"I'm definitely not going to kill a cyclist/biker so I'm going to drive in such a way that I definitely won't and take care not to"

Harsh penalties that reflect the seriousness of the "mistakes" would go some way to pushing people from the first frame of mind to the second.

The fact is though, that nobody cares enough to do anything. The fact that it's socially acceptable to laugh at someone who has been on the wrong side of one of these accidents and say things like "****ing cyclist, I'd have run him over too, ho ho ho ho" is illustrative of that. Can you imagine it being ok to say the same about a sexual assault? A mugging?

[0000]

MrTrilby said:

Do you not think that if someone is killed because you were incompetent at a skilled and demanding task, it would be prudent to take some action beyond just slap some points on a licence and pay a fine? Maybe to try and improve that driver's ability behind the wheel so it doesn't happen again? Or are you just fine with incompetent drivers being freed to carry on as before?

That's fine if you think there's a very few incompetent drivers who just need a bit of thinking time, education, or even outright banning and once they're dealt with the problem won't be seen again.

I'm more inclined to think that where mixed modes of transport aren't segregated it's inevitable. More than that, I suspect the next driver to kill a cyclist is more likely to be one that hasn't done it before - so perhaps we should start by banning a driver who hasn't killed a cyclist? You could go first. Of course, it's much easier and cheaper to point and label other people than segregate traffic so I'm sure this debate will continue.

[0000]

heebeegeetee said:

0000 said:

For something people are already trying to avoid,

Going by what you see going on out there, do you think enough people are trying hard enough?

On the whole, I think they try about as well as can be expected and that cyclists get a lot more grace than other car drivers. They won't be trying hard enough until a car never hits a cyclist again though and I don't think that can be achieved by having people try harder.