This drives me mad

[kambites]

will_ said:

kambites said:

Because many of the latter are probably innocent of any crime.

The article isn't concerned with innocent drivers, only those who have been convicted.

Of what? "Killing a cyclist", as stated in the article, is not the name of a crime.

If 45% of people convicted of causing the death of a cyclist by dangerous driving are getting custodial sentences, that's quite surprising. However, I'm not sure that's what the article is saying? It does mention careless and dangerous driving, but doesn't explicitly state that's what the statistic refers to as far as I can see.

Edited by kambites on Tuesday 22 July 08:28

[heebeegeetee]

Laser Sag said:

Interesting little video of Lee's cycle to work in that article, steady state cycling until it is apparent he can arrive alongside the parked car at around the same time as the car coming the other way if he accelerates a bit which he then does. What looks to be a reasonable gap left for him as well. Not saying the driver is right or wrong to go past the parked vehicle but if Lee had eased up a little then there would have been no incident at all but that wouldn't be good for the camera or is that the cynic in me.
There are good and bad drivers and good and bad cyclists, wife was recently hit in the rear while stationary by a good cyclist apparently, well according to him it was the other car drivers around them in 3 lanes of stop start traffic that caused the problem.

This is nonsense. The cyclist is accelerating from 3 seconds in. At 9 seconds the car should be pulling in behind the parked car.

There is no doubt in my mind that this site has become an apologist for numpties which I guess is down to sheer weight of numbers.

The majority of drivers are numpties and this is going to translate through into websites like this and indeed onto juries.

[Urban Sports]

Why should road tax paying motorists face jail? Cyclists are essentially guests on the road and should be much more careful, if they paid tax to use them then maybe roads could be made in to a safer environment for them.

[will_]

TheInsanity1234 said:

My apologies for not responding.

What he said is more or less my view on the matter.

I also wish to add:

Those drivers who have killed a cyclist while they were driving dangerously and were aware of the possible consequences that their actions might have on vulnerable road users, and after the event, appear to be unaffected by what just happened? They deserve to rot in hell.

What I find annoying are those who, say, go on their morning commute to work, and they're driving along, no problem, then they turn left without checking their blind-spot. A mistake they've made for a few years now, with no consequence, and suddenly the driver has killed a cyclist.

Do they deserve to go to prison?

The fact they're going to have the scenario constantly replayed in their head, the fact they might lose friends and their world might come crumbling down around them because they're unable to cope with the thought they've killed someone by accident. In my eyes, that's punishment enough.

Banning them from driving, sending them to prison, punishing them. Yeah, of course that will change their driving.
But it's going to destroy their life.

Yes, I can see how punishing the driver at fault would serve to ease the pain of the family and friends of the lost one, but you're going to destroy the driver's family. You'll deprive the driver's children of a parent by sending them to prison, all for a simple, innocent mistake?

That, my friends, is what annoys me.

If the risk of a lifelong guilty conscience was sufficient deterrent to poor driving there wouldn't be any such "accidents".

Sadly it appears that the thought of killing someone isn't sufficient to ensure that people check their mirrors, don't use their phones, and look before pulling out of side roads. Hopefully well reported examples of drivers being held to account for such "innocent" mistakes will focus others' minds better. It's sad that that is required.

It is not justice for you to make an error, kill someone, and receive no punishment. How does that sit with the rights of the victim or their families? Do you not think they'll go through worse than the driver? And to add insult to injury, there is no punishment for such negligence that ends someone's life?

They must live with the consequences of their actions. When it comes to driving, that includes punishment by way of going to prison. It is not just the error that is punished - the penalty must also reflect the consequences of the error otherwise the scales of justice are not balanced. Exactly the same as if you punch someone and they hit their head on the kerb and die - however unlucky "you" are, that death is still as a result of your action and the punishment must reflect the crime. And you're much luckier than your victim.

You appear to be of the view that prison is only to protect people - it isn't. It's to reflect the harm done and it is a form of retribution. I have little sympathy for someone whose life is wrecked by their own actions which involves killing another person. The fact that this also affects the killer's family should not be held against the victim or their family - it is another foreseeable result from the killer's actions.

Everyone on the road should be well aware that they are responsible for a vehicle which can kill someone. It should be treated as such. If, cocooned in their sealed box, people forget the risk that they pose to others, fail to pay attention and end up killing someone they are not deserving of sympathy and it's bizarre to think that they should be.

This country has a poor record of penalising drivers who kill others - it's easily the least punished form of killing. Drivers already receive significant discounts compared to those who kill in other ways e.g. manslaughter.

You call a mistake that takes a life "innocent" - that shows an extraordinary mindset. It is so far from innocent.

[will_]

kambites said:

will_ said:

kambites said:

Because many of the latter are probably innocent of any crime.

The article isn't concerned with innocent drivers, only those who have been convicted.

Of what? "Killing a cyclist", as stated in the article, is not the name of a crime.

If 45% of people convicted of causing the death of a cyclist by dangerous driving are getting custodial sentences, that's quite surprising. However, I'm not sure that's what the article is saying? It does mention careless and dangerous driving, but doesn't explicitly state that's what the statistic refers to as far as I can see.

Edited by kambites on Tuesday 22 July 08:28

Sure - the point I was making, however, was that the article and this thread are not discussing drivers who are involved in fatal accidents but which are innocent of any crime.

[will_]

petej said:

By rites, I should be in prison by now if it wasn't for my reactions.. I recently had a roady turn right on me without looking, warning or indication just as I was passing him. He just swerved from the near side to make the move. A half metre difference either way and I'd have put him over my bonnet or under my wheels.

What crime would you have been sent to prison for?

[kambites]

will_ said:

Sure - the point I was making, however, was that the article and this thread are not discussing drivers who are involved in fatal accidents but which are innocent of any crime.

Yeah fair enough, but it still makes the statistic largely meaningless.

[will_]

kambites said:

will_ said:

Sure - the point I was making, however, was that the article and this thread are not discussing drivers who are involved in fatal accidents but which are innocent of any crime.

Yeah fair enough, but it still makes the statistic largely meaningless.

Well not really - you know that (a) all the drivers involved in these accidents were found guilty of a crime which caused a death; and (b) a majority of them do not face a custodial sentence. I agree that a breakdown and analysis of the details would be of more interest but the headline position is pretty simple.

[stu67]

danjama said:

I commute by cycle to work most days. 8 mile journey each way, straight down some of the busiest roads in the city. My personal opinion is that we will always have cyclists being killed for various reasons, and although it would probably get me shouted at by friends and family directly affected by a cyclists death, I think number of deaths is at a very reasonable level considering the number of vehicles in London, and journeys made.

The good news is, as a cyclist your survival is generally in your hands. I am armed with good knowledge as a driver and cyclist. I ride extremely defensively and have no problem with taking primary if I think it's necessary. Situational awareness is also the key to uneventful journeys. I think if drivers see this confidence they will be patient and know they are dealing with an experienced cyclist, and give room and time.

I am extremely aware of how lightly some drivers get off after killing cyclists. This is just one more weapon in my armory, which keeps me alert and on my toes.

More cyclists need to stop being lazy and open your eyes when riding. Be more aware and proactive. It will save your life.

Couldn't agree more. As someone who does a similar journey into London by bike each day I can say that the general standard of both motorists and cyclists is bloody awful. If getting to work 5 minutes quicker means that much to you, you will have an accident. It has to be dealt with on a case by case basis. Only this morning a cyclist in front of me positioned themselves on the inside of a tipper lorry stationary at lights. This lorry was turning left, had all the indicators (including side) on and the vocal warnings going, I mean what more can you do? people are just thick.

[kambites]

I'd have at least liked to see a list of the offences they're referring to.

[walm]

Urban Sports said:

Why should road tax paying motorists face jail? Cyclists are essentially guests on the road and should be much more careful, if they paid tax to use them then maybe roads could be made in to a safer environment for them.

Page 3??
You are losing your touch!

[thetrash]

heebeegeetee said:

Laser Sag said:

Interesting little video of Lee's cycle to work in that article, steady state cycling until it is apparent he can arrive alongside the parked car at around the same time as the car coming the other way if he accelerates a bit which he then does. What looks to be a reasonable gap left for him as well. Not saying the driver is right or wrong to go past the parked vehicle but if Lee had eased up a little then there would have been no incident at all but that wouldn't be good for the camera or is that the cynic in me.
There are good and bad drivers and good and bad cyclists, wife was recently hit in the rear while stationary by a good cyclist apparently, well according to him it was the other car drivers around them in 3 lanes of stop start traffic that caused the problem.

This is nonsense. The cyclist is accelerating from 3 seconds in. At 9 seconds the car should be pulling in behind the parked car.

There is no doubt in my mind that this site has become an apologist for numpties which I guess is down to sheer weight of numbers.

The majority of drivers are numpties and this is going to translate through into websites like this and indeed onto juries.

I agree, replace the bike in the video for a car and the oncoming vehicle would have waited and not tried to plough through risking a collision. But fk 'em it's only a bike, they can move over.

[jimbop1]

thetrash said:

I agree, replace the bike in the video for a car and the oncoming vehicle would have waited and not tried to plough through risking a collision. But fk 'em it's only a bike, they can move over.

I wouldn't have thought twice about going through that gap on a motorbike, it's easily big enough. A car on the other hand wouldn't fit through as it's abit larger than a bike.

[Laser Sag]

thetrash said:

heebeegeetee said:

Laser Sag said:

Interesting little video of Lee's cycle to work in that article, steady state cycling until it is apparent he can arrive alongside the parked car at around the same time as the car coming the other way if he accelerates a bit which he then does. What looks to be a reasonable gap left for him as well. Not saying the driver is right or wrong to go past the parked vehicle but if Lee had eased up a little then there would have been no incident at all but that wouldn't be good for the camera or is that the cynic in me.
There are good and bad drivers and good and bad cyclists, wife was recently hit in the rear while stationary by a good cyclist apparently, well according to him it was the other car drivers around them in 3 lanes of stop start traffic that caused the problem.

This is nonsense. The cyclist is accelerating from 3 seconds in. At 9 seconds the car should be pulling in behind the parked car.

There is no doubt in my mind that this site has become an apologist for numpties which I guess is down to sheer weight of numbers.

The majority of drivers are numpties and this is going to translate through into websites like this and indeed onto juries.

I agree, replace the bike in the video for a car and the oncoming vehicle would have waited and not tried to plough through risking a collision. But fk 'em it's only a bike, they can move over.

Strange response, on a road approximately 8m wide there is a large difference between fitting 2 cars at 2m wide each and a bike at 0.5m wide and 3 cars at 2m wide
Maybe the motorist in the clip should have slowed but by the same mark when I learnt to ride motorbikes I was taught to ride defensively and not to put myself in a situation where I could become the very vulnerable party in an accident.
As for from 3 seconds in the cyclist is accelerating, why?, the cynic would say to put himself in harms way so he can make a point which he then does. Why does self preservation not take over in this obviously highly intelligent individuals brain and suggest to him to slow slightly to avoid any possible accident. he could still have remonstrated with the driver if he wanted to make a point but would then have been less likely to have been involved in an accident where he would loose out.

The vast majority of drivers are numpties, so why do you come on a motoring web site where the vast majority will be numpties?

[grayze]

Forgetting the article - again what the OP is arguing is that if a driver causes an accident that kills a cyclist, they should be counselled not imprisoned, what I and most mature minded people in this debate think is that hanging a lengthy prison sentence over a drivers head as the ultimate sanction for causing a death will act as a deterrent and focus their mind on driving, i.e concentrating on the road, their speed and observation and not their phone or ipod.

Kambites I do take your point about the stats, they are not likely to get a prison sentence if they are involved in a fatal accident that is not their fault but they were charged with an unrelated offence like a mis-spaced number plate or they gobbed off to the copper that stopped them, but that is not what is being argued.

[Swanny87]

Bradley1500 said:

It should be handled on a case by case basis.

I remember watching a Police, Camera, Action type program where a young women hit a cyclist on an unlit A road. The cyclist was in dark clothing with no reflectives or lights. The women thought she had hit an animal or similar so didn't stop, it was only when her father saw the damage and thought it would be a good idea to report the incident to the Police they found out she had hit and killed the cyclist. A very sad mistake but one which could of been avoided if the cyclist had taken the appropriate precautions to make himself visible!

I remember that one. Was it a black Mini? She thought she hit a deer or something. What I found odd was that she found it OK to continue driving with half a shattered windscreen. It reminds me of the time I saw a cyclist on a DC with no vis gear and dark clothes on on the edge of lane one. Luckily I had my full beams on and saw him. The mind boggles, unless these people are suicidal...

[billy939]

Last year I witnessed a cyclist get hit by a car from behind at 60 on an NSL road. Luckily for all parties the cyclist survived with 2 broken legs and a broken rib, still not nice but landing on a soft grassy verge and wearing a helmet certainly saved his life.
The girl who hit the cyclist came round a corner to have glaring sun in her eyes, in was summer evening so the sun was low. When I passed her going in the other direction she was pulling her visor down to help block the sun, she already had sunglasses on. But in those few seconds between the corner and pulling down the visor she drove straight through the cyclist. The first she noticed the cyclist was there was when his body hit her windscreen.

She stopped immediately and helped until the ambulances came. She was literally inconsolable, driving home from work and a few seconds of glaring sun had caused her to nearly take someone's life. Speaking to the Police a few weeks later and they said she had been offered an awareness course but had instead said she would prefer not to drive again as she couldn't handle driving ever again.

This is an instance where I think that if the boy had died, then a prison sentence would not have been appropriate but a ban would. Yes she should have been more prepared for the sun with her visor, but who hasn't had to adjust their visor whilst driving? She was not speeding or driving erratically and sending someone to prison for a genuine accident is not right.

[thetrash]

Laser Sag said:

Strange response, on a road approximately 8m wide there is a large difference between fitting 2 cars at 2m wide each and a bike at 0.5m wide and 3 cars at 2m wide
Maybe the motorist in the clip should have slowed but by the same mark when I learnt to ride motorbikes I was taught to ride defensively and not to put myself in a situation where I could become the very vulnerable party in an accident.
As for from 3 seconds in the cyclist is accelerating, why?, the cynic would say to put himself in harms way so he can make a point which he then does. Why does self preservation not take over in this obviously highly intelligent individuals brain and suggest to him to slow slightly to avoid any possible accident. he could still have remonstrated with the driver if he wanted to make a point but would then have been less likely to have been involved in an accident where he would loose out.

The vast majority of drivers are numpties, so why do you come on a motoring web site where the vast majority will be numpties?

He's accelerating because it's a downhill section! There was no danger until the car came round the bend and committed to passing the parked car. The cyclists self preservation works because he does brake when the danger presents itself.
I don't understand why you are questioning of the cyclist when it's obvious that the oncoming car is in the wrong?


I am on this website because I like cars, there are many threads on here about numpty drivers. So I don't think I'm alone here on that point.

[McSatan]

I've run over two cyclists, both in Oxford, one of the UK's premier cities for cycling tw*ttishness. First one was at the top of St Giles, a student jumped the red light at speed from between two buses, just as I was accelerating away from the lights which had just gone green, on an FJ1200. My bike barely even twitched as it folded his in half. A fraction of a second either way and we'd both have been seriously hurt. Second time was at the bottom of St Giles. Lights went green, I pulled away (In a Celica GT4 this time) and a hippy on an ancient sit up and beg pushbike sailed through the red lights and went over my bonnet. I got out, the hippy (who looked like Jesus and still had a dirty great spliff hanging out of his gob)was sitting in the road next to his buckled wheel bike and started asking me for insurance details. With that, the taxi driver (from the car behind me) started kicking his arse and swearing at him, until the hippy got up and wobbled off on his bent bike. "The bds try it on all the time here, he's one of the regulars!" This was twenty years ago. I live in East Sussex now, and I'm a regular driver, biker, and cyclist. IMHO, cyclists are more of a danger (mostly to themselves) now than they've ever been. Largely due to the rise of the 'militant' cyclist. These are the ones who honestly believe they have more of a right to use the highways than anyone else (including pedestrians) and happily ride three abreast, ignore traffic signs and lights, change lanes and turn without warning or looking, and worst of all, often resemble dayglo lycra rubber johnnies overfilled with custard. And turn motorists against the rest of us 'normal' cyclists.

[Hackney]

McSatan said:

I've run over two cyclists, both in Oxford, one of the UK's premier cities for cycling tw*ttishness. First one was at the top of St Giles, a student jumped the red light at speed from between two buses, just as I was accelerating away from the lights which had just gone green, on an FJ1200. My bike barely even twitched as it folded his in half. A fraction of a second either way and we'd both have been seriously hurt. Second time was at the bottom of St Giles. Lights went green, I pulled away (In a Celica GT4 this time) and a hippy on an ancient sit up and beg pushbike sailed through the red lights and went over my bonnet. I got out, the hippy (who looked like Jesus and still had a dirty great spliff hanging out of his gob)was sitting in the road next to his buckled wheel bike and started asking me for insurance details. With that, the taxi driver (from the car behind me) started kicking his arse and swearing at him, until the hippy got up and wobbled off on his bent bike. "The bds try it on all the time here, he's one of the regulars!" This was twenty years ago. I live in East Sussex now, and I'm a regular driver, biker, and cyclist. IMHO, cyclists are more of a danger (mostly to themselves) now than they've ever been. Largely due to the rise of the 'militant' cyclist. These are the ones who honestly believe they have more of a right to use the highways than anyone else (including pedestrians) and happily ride three abreast, ignore traffic signs and lights, change lanes and turn without warning or looking, and worst of all, often resemble dayglo lycra rubber johnnies overfilled with custard. And turn motorists against the rest of us 'normal' cyclists.

I think it's a toss up between who is more dangerous, the militants or the uncomprehending. The polar opposite of the militants, they don't get mad at "cyclist stay back" signs; they don't see the TFL advice on the new Bow Roundabout layout, they don't think they're invincible it just hasn't crossed their minds that they're not.

I cycle a lot, and consider myself a relatively inexperienced cyclist with 25 years experience of road use.