56% of drivers convicted of killing cyclists avoid prison
Discussion
Snowboy said:
People who have a genuine accident didn't need deterring because they are already 100% deterred from causing a crash - hence the term 'accident'.
Right but those people don't get prosecuted and convicted of causing death by careless driving (let alone dangerous!).(Again - assuming that happened in some of the cases here.)
gruffalo said:
racist!i'm late to the party and 'troll' has already gone
tenpenceshort said:
I would hazard a guess that, a greater proportion of cyclist deaths caused by mortorists' careless driving involve the cyclist's own poor riding as a contributory factor in the death, than in cases involving pedestrians and other motorists.
For adults, that assertion is not backed up by statistics. They show quite the opposite. It's a slightly different picture for children who do make more mistakes that contribute to them being involved in crashes - yet another reason for driving with particular care around children.For interest, and I don't have a link to the statistics to back this up, but I'm sure you can Google it up pretty quickly if it does interest you, most crashes involving adult cyclists and cars occur in good weather, during daylight, on or very near a junction. I don't know if there is more up to date research that has been published for public access, but this makes for interesting reading: http://www.trl.co.uk/online_store/reports_publicat...
tenpenceshort said:
1. If you don't know that road user is there, for example you fail to take a proper look when pulling out of a junction, how can you take extra care with them?
2. Without especially criticising cyclists, it must also be said that, like motorists, cyclists are known to use the roads in a manner contrary to the Highway Code,
3. I would hazard a guess that, a greater proportion of cyclist deaths caused by mortorists' careless driving involve the cyclist's own poor riding as a contributory factor in the death, than in cases involving pedestrians and other motorists.
1. because you *know* they might be there, and you have to be sure before pulling out. You know that the vulnerable road user might be there.2. Without especially criticising cyclists, it must also be said that, like motorists, cyclists are known to use the roads in a manner contrary to the Highway Code,
3. I would hazard a guess that, a greater proportion of cyclist deaths caused by mortorists' careless driving involve the cyclist's own poor riding as a contributory factor in the death, than in cases involving pedestrians and other motorists.
2. Which makes them the same as everyone under the sun, so that rules that one out imo.
3. Based on my observations over 35 years, I totally, 100% disagree with that.
On the case I highlighted earlier, one of the reason the driver got off was because it was stated that the cyclist could have used an alternative route. Have you ever heard that one for anyone else? That could be applied to every single road user for every collision, but the only time I've ever heard it used was for a cyclist.
The driver in this case claimed he couldn't see and didn't know that he'd hit and actually run over the cyclist, and was found not guilty.
IIRC the judge advised the jury that they could ignore the guidance given in the HC, and it also seemed (I'd need to check this again) that the witnesses who were there at the time, some of whom had had no trouble in seeing and overtaking the cyclist, had reported that conditions of visibility were good/perfect. But the expert witness, who wasn't there at the time of the collision, said it would have been impossible to see the cyclist (even though others had seen him) and so the driver got off.
Where there are likely to be vulnerable road users then I agree that it should be considered an aggravating feature of the offence. It is also possible that a cyclist or pedestrian will be killed where they are not especially likely or expected. It will depend on the circumstances when deciding how much weight should be placed on the vulnerability.
Equally, where the actions of the victim contributed to their demise, this should be taken into account as a mitigating feature.
In deciphering the differences in imprisonment rates between deaths involving cyclists and other road users, you have to consider there will be a whole host of reasons that contribute towards them. For example, do we know the difference (if any) in the percentage of defendants who plead guilty in each case (as this materially affects the sentence)?
What we do know, is that the sentencing guidelines do not discriminate against cyclists (quite the opposite), and it's unrealistic to suggest the judiciary is in some way anti-cyclist. So there must be other reasons for the difference in sentencing. Like it or not, some of that difference is going to involve the culpability of the victims.
Equally, where the actions of the victim contributed to their demise, this should be taken into account as a mitigating feature.
In deciphering the differences in imprisonment rates between deaths involving cyclists and other road users, you have to consider there will be a whole host of reasons that contribute towards them. For example, do we know the difference (if any) in the percentage of defendants who plead guilty in each case (as this materially affects the sentence)?
What we do know, is that the sentencing guidelines do not discriminate against cyclists (quite the opposite), and it's unrealistic to suggest the judiciary is in some way anti-cyclist. So there must be other reasons for the difference in sentencing. Like it or not, some of that difference is going to involve the culpability of the victims.
MrTrilby said:
You criticise the statistics, then come out with completely unsubstantiated armchair expert guff like this:
Slowing down and taking a bit more time and care around hazards ought to be the norm, not the exception. People talk on here all the time about "driving to the conditions" but that's rarely what I see on the road. If people spent a tiny bit more time really looking at what was going on, and then modifying their driving speed and position to account for it, crashes, not "accidents", would be far less inevitable.
The big difference being my comments are off the cuff opinions whereas the BBC stats are supposed to be factual journalism.Snowboy said:
I think it's fairly easy to explain the split.
If a driver hits a pedestrian there's a good chance they've mounted a kerb or jumped a red light.
If a driver hits a cycle then it's likely to be a 'road accident'.
That's massively hypocritical of you. You're simply guessing at reasons, and I've no idea what you really mean by "it's likely to be a road accident"? If a driver hits a pedestrian there's a good chance they've mounted a kerb or jumped a red light.
If a driver hits a cycle then it's likely to be a 'road accident'.
Snowboy said:
Traffic accidents are inevitable.
They are whilst appallingly cavalier attitudes such as yours survive. I for one do not think that "I didn't see him because the sun dazzled me" style excuses are acceptable or should mean we treat crashes that kill people as inevitable. As a society we seem to have this weird attitude that when things get a bit iffy on the road, ploughing on and hoping for the best is an acceptable response, rather than hitting the brakes, slowing down to check out what is going on, and maybe even coming to a stop for a bit. Heaven forbid that we lose precious seconds on our vital journey. After all if we make a mistake, it's someone else that dies, and we only risk an increased insurance premium.Slowing down and taking a bit more time and care around hazards ought to be the norm, not the exception. People talk on here all the time about "driving to the conditions" but that's rarely what I see on the road. If people spent a tiny bit more time really looking at what was going on, and then modifying their driving speed and position to account for it, crashes, not "accidents", would be far less inevitable.
You're also misrepresenting my comments and jumping to dodgy conclusions.
Saying that 'accidents happen' is not cavalier; it's just acceptance of the truth.
The alternative is to say that accidents don't happen. Which is nonsense.
You could say that 'accidents shouldn't happen' which is at the same time 100% true and 100% wishful thinking that'll never happen.
I agree that sun dazzle excuses are on the face of it ridiculous and should not be mitigating, but nor is it agrivating.
Compare it to the person who caused a death while racing or practising handbrake turns.
You seem to be under the impression that I in some way condone dangerous driving or don't think careless drivers should be punished.
You are wrong on both counts.
I' m just taking a realistic and pragmatic view of the situation.
tenpenceshort said:
Equally, where the actions of the victim contributed to their demise, this should be taken into account as a mitigating feature.
That would be taken into account.That is how you defend against such charges.
Yet these people were convicted.
You make good points on the guilty pleas though
I'm not sure about this...
That is how you defend against such charges.
Yet these people were convicted.There are two factors: the yes/no decision of whether to convict or not, and the more complex decision of what sentence to impose. If the decision whether to convict is a 'yes', that doesn't mean factors like whether or how much the victim contributed to their own demise are irrelevant when it comes to sentencing.
walm said:
Red light jumping for example isn't chargeable - it's a FPN.
Likewise no lights or "salmoning".
Obviously these factors would be part of the defence to a charge of death by careless or death by dangerous.
The simple fact is that the drivers WERE STILL CONVICTED (despite any of these potentially mitigating circumstances).
Their driving fell below a certain standard no matter what the unfortunate cyclist was up to - that was taken into account in the conviction - that's how the law works!
and this...Likewise no lights or "salmoning".
Obviously these factors would be part of the defence to a charge of death by careless or death by dangerous.
The simple fact is that the drivers WERE STILL CONVICTED (despite any of these potentially mitigating circumstances).
Their driving fell below a certain standard no matter what the unfortunate cyclist was up to - that was taken into account in the conviction - that's how the law works!
walm said:
tenpenceshort said:
Equally, where the actions of the victim contributed to their demise, this should be taken into account as a mitigating feature.
That would be taken into account.That is how you defend against such charges.
Yet these people were convicted.
tenpenceshort said:
and it's unrealistic to suggest the judiciary is in some way anti-cyclist. So there must be other reasons for the difference in sentencing. Like it or not, some of that difference is going to involve the culpability of the victims.
The link I provided re the cycling lawyer showed examples of how courts are inexperienced with cases involving cyclists. I don't agree at all that the significant difference in prison sentences reflect degrees of culpability. Practically every car driver breaks at least one law on every journey he or she makes. Illegal behaviour such as parking on the pavement (thus driving on the pavement) is so common place that it is regarded as legal and is all but totally ignored by the police. A court room will be populated by people almost all of whom drive and thus almost all of whom will break the law on a regular basis. I'd suggest that drivers simply have no right to point the finger at others on this matter.
The idea that cyclists are worse than drivers is ridiculous imo. They may be both as bad as each other, but one is in charge of a tonne or tow of machinery.
Apparently each year cyclists kill as many people as are killed by golf balls.
SK425 said:
There are two factors: the yes/no decision of whether to convict or not, and the more complex decision of what sentence to impose. If the decision whether to convict is a 'yes', that doesn't mean factors like whether or how much the victim contributed to their own demise are irrelevant when it comes to sentencing.
You are absolutely right.The point I was failing to make is that no matter how bad the cyclist was, the driving was poor enough to merit a conviction. Which must mean that driving was PRETTY BAD! (IMHO.)
Of course you need to take into account how bad when sentencing and a big part of that could well be the cyclists behaviour... that's fair. I hadn't thought about it quite like that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZAm-57WIVc
Sorry .........sorry couldnt resist. This is the kind of idiot we're dealing with (cyclist). The driver could easily have been one of the 44%
Sorry .........sorry couldnt resist. This is the kind of idiot we're dealing with (cyclist). The driver could easily have been one of the 44%
DuckDuck said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZAm-57WIVc
Sorry .........sorry couldnt resist. This is the kind of idiot we're dealing with (cyclist). The driver could easily have been one of the 44%
Why, what would the driver have been charged with, never mind found guilty of? Sorry .........sorry couldnt resist. This is the kind of idiot we're dealing with (cyclist). The driver could easily have been one of the 44%
heebeegeetee said:
DuckDuck said:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZAm-57WIVc
Sorry .........sorry couldnt resist. This is the kind of idiot we're dealing with (cyclist). The driver could easily have been one of the 44%
Why, what would the driver have been charged with, never mind found guilty of? Sorry .........sorry couldnt resist. This is the kind of idiot we're dealing with (cyclist). The driver could easily have been one of the 44%
Steffan said:
Can only agree what exactly did the driver do wrong. Seems to me the cyclist misjudged the space overtaking on the inside.
What I'm trying to say here is that with the best will in the world a cyclist will do stupid things and could be considered to have contributed to there own misfortune. But with today's attitude towards cars I think it's likely that the driver would have been charged with something ;just read some of the comments. Some would have you believe that the driver should have known the cyclist was so close and should have hit the van instead!!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.some people erroneously believe it can, usually until they make such a mistake themselves
these same people claim the ' slices of swiss cheese' model for why some things happen and why sometimes they don;t is just excuses by incompetent people ... again until they make such a mistake
In motor vehicle/cyclist collisions it is usually the driver who is at fault. Risky or illegal behaviour by cyclists is not a significant causal factor in ksi rtcs.
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/1...
The legal system is infected with the same anti-cyclist ignorance we've seen on this thread.
http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/dec/1...
The legal system is infected with the same anti-cyclist ignorance we've seen on this thread.
gruffalo said:
Bit hacked off at being descibed as troll, on what evidence?
Posting was really just to start a debate, are there other specific areas of road deaths where there are stats I wondered and how do the typical penalties compare?
I don't think you is a troll. Posting was really just to start a debate, are there other specific areas of road deaths where there are stats I wondered and how do the typical penalties compare?
The courts decided that the accident was just an accident, and unfortunate, and/or there were reasons why even if found guilty, it might not benefit society to send the unfortunate driver to prison.
Having been in a car as a passenger, that left the road and killed a pedestrian, and being the only witness, I can safely say that my friend's life changed, and his personality significantly affected due to the guilt, even though the inquest deemed it a tragic accident, and the magistrates court deciding he was not guilty of careless driving.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff