Have we become a nation of cycle haters?

[Dammit]

Mybrainhurts- have a look in the news, you'll find that a) you'll be less ignorant and b) you'll look less silly

[Dammit]

Here's a great example- driver of a Porsche SUV tries to kill a cyclist, misses and wipes out a hairdressers: http://road.cc/content/news/120748-kingston-driver...

The Police, in a very rare example of "giving a flying --ck" charge her, but what with? Attempted murder, surely?

Nope - attempted GBH, which she'll probably skate on, or plead to that but keep her licence due to that old favourite "exceptional hardship".

[mybrainhurts]

Dammit said:

Mybrainhurts- have a look in the news, you'll find that a) you'll be less ignorant and b) you'll look less silly

Do enlighten me, dammit...

[grumbledoak]

Dammit said:

The Police, in a very rare example of "giving a flying --ck" charge her, but what with? Attempted murder, surely?

You know, I think a lot of the aggression you see in others is (psychological) projection.

[Dammit]

I wish that were the case!

[upsidedownmark]

Attempted murder would mean calculated intent to kill - that has to be provable.

If you put aside the hysteria, it's almost certain that the driver didn't intend to kill the cyclist, even highly likely it didn't occur to them, 'in the moment' that killing the cyclist was a likely outcome. You can't have attempted manslaughter by definition, there would have to be a body. Therefore attempted GBH seems like a pretty reasonable thing to charge them with.

Very rarely are things black and white, the whole world is not against you (mostly, it just doesn't care about you), nor cyclists in general.

(And yes, I'm a cyclist - in fact I do considerably more miles on my bike than I do by car or motorbike)

[Fugazi]

This is a couple of years old now, but does highlight the poor sentencing of those drivers causing death by dangerous driving.

http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/causi...

[walm]

upsidedownmark said:

If you put aside the hysteria, it's almost certain that the driver didn't intend to kill the cyclist, even highly likely it didn't occur to them, 'in the moment' that killing the cyclist was a likely outcome.

The sad thing is that many people hold this ridiculous opinion.
They get to sit on juries and let homicidal motorists off.

Just because you are such an utter moron that you don't realise that crushing someone under two tonnes of Audi will most likely kill them shouldn't really let you off should it?

I hope that people would scoff at a defence such as...
"When I swung the baseball bat at his head it didn't occur to me that I might kill him."

But when the weapon is a car, somehow the rules of common sense don't apply?

Reason - most drivers hate cyclists and probably want to drive over them every day.
They sit in the jury box, thinking "he probably deserved it, this driver needs a medal".

[Fugazi]

Have to echo the thoughts of a couple of previous posters with regards to the attitudes of drivers in 'Miseryside' . I commute a total of around 12 miles a day on the bike through Liverpool city centre to the suburbs and have only had one road rage incident caused by somebody trying to overtake me to turn left in roadworks. By and large drivers are courteous and if they feel held up they certainly don't let it show in their driving. However commuting by car is more stressful as everybody must get in front no matter what the situation, however outside of the rush hour, people go back to being patient drivers, on the way home today I even had a guy let me out onto a main road on the bike! A few miles away in Manchester and the driving is utterly chaotic, Cheetham Hill Road especially, and people would rather driver over you than wait for five seconds.

[80sMatchbox]

walm said:

TheInternet said:

When waiting at London traffic lights:
Red - Stop
Amber - Go
Green - Beep at person at front of queue if they still aren't going.

Comedy.
You realise that red comes after amber, right?

You do realise that a trafric light is red at the top....amber in the middle....you can guess the next one.

I guess that was his intent.

[upsidedownmark]

walm said:

The sad thing is that many people hold this ridiculous opinion.
They get to sit on juries and let homicidal motorists off.

Just because you are such an utter moron that you don't realise that crushing someone under two tonnes of Audi will most likely kill them shouldn't really let you off should it?

I hope that people would scoff at a defence such as...
"When I swung the baseball bat at his head it didn't occur to me that I might kill him."

But when the weapon is a car, somehow the rules of common sense don't apply?

Reason - most drivers hate cyclists and probably want to drive over them every day.
They sit in the jury box, thinking "he probably deserved it, this driver needs a medal".

That's quite a persecution complex you have there! Perhaps you ought to check out what the definition of 'Attempted Murder' is? Clue: Murder is not a synonym for killing someone.

Specifically attempted murder requires the existence of of an intention to kill - i.e. is pre-meditated. If intent cannot be proved, and someone is dead, then you're probably looking at (voluntary) manslaughter. There is no attempted manslaughter - 'attempted accidental killing' doesn't really make a whole lot of sense.

"I was scared of this angry person and just swung the baseball bat I was carrying home from the game, I didn't mean to kill him" might be a more effective way to phrase your defence..

[otolith]

Intention to cause grievous bodily harm is sufficient mens rea for murder - intent to kill is not necessary.

[upsidedownmark]

For murder, where someone is dead, yes. For attempted murder, no - at least by my understanding.

From a purely 'common sense' viewpoint, someone flipping out and running someone else off the road isn't necessarily an attempt to end their life even if it is reprehensible, stupid, and deserves severe consequences. Equally going around kicking the crap out of other people's cars ought to be criminal damage or something similar.

The 'everyone and everything is against me' mentality is frankly childish and rather ridiculous.

[Gruffy]

walm said:

TheInternet said:

** When waiting at London traffic lights: **
Red - Stop
Amber - Go
Green - Beep at person at front of queue if they still aren't going.

Comedy.
You realise that red comes after amber, right?

Whoosh. You realise that amber also comes after red?

I'm sure Mr Walm is more observant when actually driving

[otolith]

Yes, if you didn't kill them and it can't be proven that you meant to, it's not attempted murder. So if you do mean to murder someone, attacking them with an SUV will probably get you off attempted murder if it fails.

[Dammit]

Absolutely- if you want to kill someone and get away with it, the car is the perfect weapon by a country mile.

[Mave]

Gruffy said:

Whoosh. You realise that amber also comes after red?

I'm sure Mr Walm is more observant when actually driving

I suspect that walm's little dig was that it's red and amber after red, not just amber.

[Mave]

upsidedownmark said:

The 'everyone and everything is against me' mentality is frankly childish and rather ridiculous.

I think the point is, the consequences of losing your rag and nearly killing someone with a car are much less severe than doing so with something other than a car. What sentence would someone get for getting frustrated by someone walking in their way on a pavement, and picking up a brick and attacking them?

[WarrenG]

Mave said:

I suspect that walm's little dig was that it's red and amber after red, not just amber.

That depends what type of traffic lights they are. Junction control - correct. Pedestrian crossing - not so much.

[upsidedownmark]

Mave said:

I think the point is, the consequences of losing your rag and nearly killing someone with a car are much less severe than doing so with something other than a car. What sentence would someone get for getting frustrated by someone walking in their way on a pavement, and picking up a brick and attacking them?

Realistically I'd hope attempted / actual GBH?

Equally if someone finishes up dead, I'd personally (without reference to law) argue a clearer case for murder; it takes a more sustained and deliberate effort to kill someone with a brick while getting covered in blood than to have a moment of madness and swerve at someone without considering the consequences.

In case it's not obvious, I don't think the driver should get off scott free. I strongly suspect both persons involved were complete morons - being vulnerable doesn't give you the right to attack other people or their property, nor does that give anyone the right to run someone off the road whether you're attempting to kill them or not. Equally two wrongs don't make a right. As I originally said, I think attempted GBH sounds about right - IMHO both for the crime, and from a practical point of charging them with something that has a realistic chance of getting a conviction.

I do find the psychological side interesting. I've noticed a massive difference in how I personally (and others) treat confrontation from tin-top to convertible, to motorbike to cycling. Like it or not, being shut up in a tin box does 'abstract' / dehumanise the outside world. I'm not suggesting it's right, but the effect is there. I'd suggest 90% of folks get in a car without any consideration of how deadly it can be, it's just an (in)convenient means of getting from a to b.

Richmond park, saturday early afternoon, sunny day. I'm just back from a training ride, having a coffee. Group of MAMILs roll in tidily enough in a group of about 6, 2x2 with a few cars behind them. No issue.. Exhibit 1 sticks his bike in the back of an audi estate, pulls out of the carpark nearly flattening a cyclist. Pulls in behind and proceeds to honk and yell his head off about 'f***ing cyclists' etc.

Not sure what that proves, other than some people are just idiots. But I do find the 'them and us' mentality rather silly; most cyclists are also motorists, and plenty of motorists are cyclists, it just isn't that simple.