This drives me mad
Discussion
TheInsanity1234 said:
Manslaughter would be unintentional taking of life.
Murder would be planned taking of life.
What I'm saying is, it is possible to make a honest mistake and end up killing someone as a result.
Negligence can be a honest mistake.
I was responding to someone who said that a mistake that takes a life is not innocent.
I was showing him it is possible to make an innocent mistake, and cause a loss of life as a result.
That's fine but why should you get a lesser sentence depending on the vehicle of choice of the victim?Murder would be planned taking of life.
What I'm saying is, it is possible to make a honest mistake and end up killing someone as a result.
Negligence can be a honest mistake.
I was responding to someone who said that a mistake that takes a life is not innocent.
I was showing him it is possible to make an innocent mistake, and cause a loss of life as a result.
Motorbikes are harder to see than cars, so when a driver just pulls out on a bike, we shouldn't let the driver off because his victim wasn't as easy to see as a car - that is irrelevant.
Everybody knows that you can miss a motorbike when pulling out of a junction so therefore you ram home to people that they must look, and if they don't look then they should go to prison imo.
Likewise with cyclists. I recall one incident when a young man killed a mother-of-two on a time trial, he didn't even get a fine imo.
What could be more precious than a mum of two? You just can't go around killing these people for no reason (and the young man had no explanation for failing to see the cyclist in perfect conditions).
We shouldn't be blaming the victims - we should be focusing solely on the driving of the offender, and the sentences should be the same for whoever they've killed.
Laser Sag said:
aka_kerrly said:
He does have a point, if you are looking at the road ahead there is almost certainly a chance that some part of the bike for example the rims, possibly chrome look brakes, pedals, or other metal components will reflect light.
I did see the episode of police camera action with the girl who crashed her Mini into the cyclist on a motorway bridge and dare I say it, would she have been treated differently as a bloke? Yes it's an awful thing to go through, I certainly wouldn't wish it on someone but I don't believe bikes and people really become completely invisible to car headlights - especially modern cars.
Have you ever really thought of how much distance you cover in a few seconds when you come round a slight bend in a country road at night and what can happen.Potentially the trees have obscured the view of the left side of the road as they have cut out the light from your modern headlights but you have picked up on the wheelie bin on the right which is perhaps taking too much of your attention along with the kids screaming in the back and then there is a dark shape that's about to hit your bonnet.I did see the episode of police camera action with the girl who crashed her Mini into the cyclist on a motorway bridge and dare I say it, would she have been treated differently as a bloke? Yes it's an awful thing to go through, I certainly wouldn't wish it on someone but I don't believe bikes and people really become completely invisible to car headlights - especially modern cars.
I'm not saying they become completely invisible but as much as we all like to think we are driving carefully we all make mistakes, mostly they only end up with a raised heart rate, occasionally a bit of damage to the car but very rarely something much worse.
The cyclist with good lights and reflective clothing will help themselves to avoid becoming one of those statistics, that is just pure logic.
Even at 40mph you can cover around 20metres every second where as the average cyclist is travelling at much closer to 10mph so yes it is possible to come across a cyclist on a corner in that situation but in most situations on a straight bit of road I would hope the driver could do better.
On a side note, I must admit I get very tired of hearing the excuse of "kids in the back" if your kids are distracting you PULL OVER and deal with them!
TheInsanity1234 said:
Negligence can be a honest mistake.
I was responding to someone who said that a mistake that takes a life is not innocent.
I was showing him it is possible to make an innocent mistake, and cause a loss of life as a result.
I disagree. Negligence is worse than a genuine error. Have a gander here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC357605...I was responding to someone who said that a mistake that takes a life is not innocent.
I was showing him it is possible to make an innocent mistake, and cause a loss of life as a result.
Honest mistakes would be running all available medical tests on someone leading to no clear diagnosis and then choosing the wrong course of treatment.
That's a mistake. Punishing that person would serve no purpose and has no deterrent effect.
Not running all the available tests is negligent. Punishing someone who does that would serve a purpose - it would encourage others to run all the tests!
Falling asleep on the job is negligent. Your conduct has fallen below an acceptable standard.
In this case the standard is that of a reasonable and careful driver. (Or reasonable and careful ferry operator.)
Reasonable and careful drivers don't fell asleep behind the wheel, for example.
That's negligent.
heebeegeetee said:
That's fine but why should you get a lesser sentence depending on the vehicle of choice of the victim?
Motorbikes are harder to see than cars, so when a driver just pulls out on a bike, we shouldn't let the driver off because his victim wasn't as easy to see as a car - that is irrelevant.
Everybody knows that you can miss a motorbike when pulling out of a junction so therefore you ram home to people that they must look, and if they don't look then they should go to prison imo.
Likewise with cyclists. I recall one incident when a young man killed a mother-of-two on a time trial, he didn't even get a fine imo.
What could be more precious than a mum of two? You just can't go around killing these people for no reason (and the young man had no explanation for failing to see the cyclist in perfect conditions).
We shouldn't be blaming the victims - we should be focusing solely on the driving of the offender, and the sentences should be the same for whoever they've killed.
I'm not suggesting we change the types of sentence depending on the choice of transport of the victim.Motorbikes are harder to see than cars, so when a driver just pulls out on a bike, we shouldn't let the driver off because his victim wasn't as easy to see as a car - that is irrelevant.
Everybody knows that you can miss a motorbike when pulling out of a junction so therefore you ram home to people that they must look, and if they don't look then they should go to prison imo.
Likewise with cyclists. I recall one incident when a young man killed a mother-of-two on a time trial, he didn't even get a fine imo.
What could be more precious than a mum of two? You just can't go around killing these people for no reason (and the young man had no explanation for failing to see the cyclist in perfect conditions).
We shouldn't be blaming the victims - we should be focusing solely on the driving of the offender, and the sentences should be the same for whoever they've killed.
I'm not suggesting we blame the victims.
I'm suggesting that we show a tad more compassion towards people who are genuinely remorseful and are extremely affected by the incident.
In fact, I've diagnosed the exact thing that irritates me.
The article demands that car drivers are given tougher penalties for killing a cyclist, but there is no apparent consideration given to drivers who are a victim of bad cycling. It doesn't suggest anything towards improving the standards of cycling and driving.
It just comes across as "Well, anyone who runs over a cyclist is automatically at fault, even if the cyclist swerved in front of them with no signal or anything."
walm said:
I disagree. Negligence is worse than a genuine error. Have a gander here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC357605...
Honest mistakes would be running all available medical tests on someone leading to no clear diagnosis and then choosing the wrong course of treatment.
That's a mistake. Punishing that person would serve no purpose and has no deterrent effect.
Not running all the available tests is negligent. Punishing someone who does that would serve a purpose - it would encourage others to run all the tests!
Falling asleep on the job is negligent. Your conduct has fallen below an acceptable standard.
In this case the standard is that of a reasonable and careful driver. (Or reasonable and careful ferry operator.)
Reasonable and careful drivers don't fell asleep behind the wheel, for example.
That's negligent.
So drivers who don't do the 6-point check before pulling away are negligent?Honest mistakes would be running all available medical tests on someone leading to no clear diagnosis and then choosing the wrong course of treatment.
That's a mistake. Punishing that person would serve no purpose and has no deterrent effect.
Not running all the available tests is negligent. Punishing someone who does that would serve a purpose - it would encourage others to run all the tests!
Falling asleep on the job is negligent. Your conduct has fallen below an acceptable standard.
In this case the standard is that of a reasonable and careful driver. (Or reasonable and careful ferry operator.)
Reasonable and careful drivers don't fell asleep behind the wheel, for example.
That's negligent.
Does that mean if you run over a cyclist because you failed to check your blind spot, you would accept an long prison sentence, because you made one mistake?
TheInsanity1234 said:
This leads to a view where "someone is always to blame".
In cases where someone is found guilty of having committed an offence, that person is obviously to blame. That is why they are found guilty.TheInsanity1234 said:
I find it surprising that you consider a mistake that takes a life is not innocent.
A mistake that kills someone cannot be considered "innocent". It does not need to be deliberate - it can be negligent. But being "only" negligent does not make it innocent.I cannot correlate the word "innocent" with a negligent action that leads to someone's death. That, to me, is perverse.
TheInsanity1234 said:
What you are suggesting, by saying that, is that the man deliberately fell asleep in order to take lives.
I simply cannot understand how you have come to that conclusion from what I have said.What I would say is that falling asleep is negligent, and negligence has consequences. Sometimes they are fatal, and if so, that drastic consequence calls for a significant penalty. That not only reflects the harm done but acts as a deterrent to minor negligence, whilst also highlighting the impact that such minor negligence can have.
Is your position that minor negligence should never be punished, regardless of the consequence? Should your ferry operator face no punishment at all to reflect the lives his mistake has taken?
TheInsanity1234 said:
It just comes across as "Well, anyone who runs over a cyclist is automatically at fault, even if the cyclist swerved in front of them with no signal or anything."
The point that you are making is flawed given that we're exclusively discussing cases where the driver was found to have committed a driving offence which caused a death. No-one is automatically at fault, they have been found to have been at fault. People who are the "victim" of bad cycling are not going to be convicted of a driving offence causing a death.The thing that irritates me is when people start a thread on an article they haven't properly understood.
How about we just have similar penalties for all people who kill? Or how about we at least have similar penalties for those who kill other road users, that doesn't appear to present a bias against cyclists when it comes to punishing killer drivers?
TheInsanity1234 said:
Again, I've obviously missed that in the article.
I do need to learn to read properly :lol:
Thanks for taking the time and trouble to help me set my thoughts properly
My post crossed with yours.I do need to learn to read properly :lol:
Thanks for taking the time and trouble to help me set my thoughts properly
My tone is somewhat abrupt for shortness of time and for that I apologise.
However it is an interesting debate to have. The basis of "justice" and punishment is a very interesting topic and there is no "right" or "wrong" answer. That particularly applies to road-based deaths because, as you rightly say, it is often a matter of luck. However, to my mind, that "bad luck" does not mitigate the need for punishment - but that punishment is a degree lower than manslaughter which itself is a degree lower than murder (for example).
heebeegeetee said:
TheInsanity1234 said:
but there is no apparent consideration given to drivers who are a victim of bad cycling.
Blimey. Can you show me one of them?What would probably help the entire matter is to educate people.
At the moment, there's no provision within education to teach students how to ride a bike safely, and how to be a good and courteous pedestrian.
I'd like to have spent my PE lessons learning how to ride a bike safely and in a responsible manner, rather than jumping about and playing football.
will_ said:
My post crossed with yours.
My tone is somewhat abrupt for shortness of time and for that I apologise.
However it is an interesting debate to have. The basis of "justice" and punishment is a very interesting topic and there is no "right" or "wrong" answer. That particularly applies to road-based deaths because, as you rightly say, it is often a matter of luck. However, to my mind, that "bad luck" does not mitigate the need for punishment - but that punishment is a degree lower than manslaughter which itself is a degree lower than murder (for example).
No problem, at least I'm able to admit I'm wrong My tone is somewhat abrupt for shortness of time and for that I apologise.
However it is an interesting debate to have. The basis of "justice" and punishment is a very interesting topic and there is no "right" or "wrong" answer. That particularly applies to road-based deaths because, as you rightly say, it is often a matter of luck. However, to my mind, that "bad luck" does not mitigate the need for punishment - but that punishment is a degree lower than manslaughter which itself is a degree lower than murder (for example).
TheInsanity1234 said:
At the moment, there's no provision within education to teach students how to ride a bike safely, and how to be a good and courteous pedestrian.
I'd like to have spent my PE lessons learning how to ride a bike safely and in a responsible manner, rather than jumping about and playing football.
The insanity continues! I'd like to have spent my PE lessons learning how to ride a bike safely and in a responsible manner, rather than jumping about and playing football.
My kids (5&7) have received green-cross-code lessons or whatever it is called these days (rural state school).
Also, plenty of schools sign up for this:
http://bikeability.dft.gov.uk/
And many councils offer FREE bike training for adults - it's never too late!
walm said:
TheInsanity1234 said:
At the moment, there's no provision within education to teach students how to ride a bike safely, and how to be a good and courteous pedestrian.
I'd like to have spent my PE lessons learning how to ride a bike safely and in a responsible manner, rather than jumping about and playing football.
The insanity continues! I'd like to have spent my PE lessons learning how to ride a bike safely and in a responsible manner, rather than jumping about and playing football.
My kids (5&7) have received green-cross-code lessons or whatever it is called these days (rural state school).
Also, plenty of schools sign up for this:
http://bikeability.dft.gov.uk/
And many councils offer FREE bike training for adults - it's never too late!
Signing up is not a requirement, is it?
I think level 1 should be compulsory, as much as English and PE are compulsory.
Just to help people on their way to being good cyclists and drivers.
aka_kerrly said:
Laser Sag said:
aka_kerrly said:
He does have a point, if you are looking at the road ahead there is almost certainly a chance that some part of the bike for example the rims, possibly chrome look brakes, pedals, or other metal components will reflect light.
I did see the episode of police camera action with the girl who crashed her Mini into the cyclist on a motorway bridge and dare I say it, would she have been treated differently as a bloke? Yes it's an awful thing to go through, I certainly wouldn't wish it on someone but I don't believe bikes and people really become completely invisible to car headlights - especially modern cars.
Have you ever really thought of how much distance you cover in a few seconds when you come round a slight bend in a country road at night and what can happen.Potentially the trees have obscured the view of the left side of the road as they have cut out the light from your modern headlights but you have picked up on the wheelie bin on the right which is perhaps taking too much of your attention along with the kids screaming in the back and then there is a dark shape that's about to hit your bonnet.I did see the episode of police camera action with the girl who crashed her Mini into the cyclist on a motorway bridge and dare I say it, would she have been treated differently as a bloke? Yes it's an awful thing to go through, I certainly wouldn't wish it on someone but I don't believe bikes and people really become completely invisible to car headlights - especially modern cars.
I'm not saying they become completely invisible but as much as we all like to think we are driving carefully we all make mistakes, mostly they only end up with a raised heart rate, occasionally a bit of damage to the car but very rarely something much worse.
The cyclist with good lights and reflective clothing will help themselves to avoid becoming one of those statistics, that is just pure logic.
Even at 40mph you can cover around 20metres every second where as the average cyclist is travelling at much closer to 10mph so yes it is possible to come across a cyclist on a corner in that situation but in most situations on a straight bit of road I would hope the driver could do better.
On a side note, I must admit I get very tired of hearing the excuse of "kids in the back" if your kids are distracting you PULL OVER and deal with them!
Reference the kids in the car, not an excuse but an observation, again in the real world parents have to get kids to and from school in poor visibility at various times, if they stopped every 100 yards to tell off a screaming child they wouldn't get to their destination.
Not having kids its not a problem I suffer with but then I am one of those drivers who rarely talks when they are driving so probably wouldn't be a problem for me anyway. You do however follow people down the road who are constantly swivelling their head to look at the passenger while holding a conversation, how can they be concentrating on the road around them?. Again you are not going to stop that type of behaviour but surely logic says if you're lit, brightly clothed you have a better chance of being spotted on the occassions their eyes are on the road than if you are attempting to camoflauge yourself into the monochrome background.
Many of us, especially the bikers amoung us, have been taught or learnt through experience to ride/drive defensively to me having lights on your bike and reflective clothing is a first step in defensive riding on a push bike just the same as on a motorbike.
I expect the worst of every driver around me at all times and try to be on the lookout for it, doesn't mean I dont have a go at them when it happens, unfortunately a fact of life but when your mode of transport offers no protective against 1.5 tons plus of vehicle you have to do exactly the same.
I still think that every case needs to be looked at seperately and the level of fine, ban or imprisonment should be based on level of fault and if that is at odds with others on here then so be it.
heebeegeetee said:
Blimey. Can you show me one of them?
Yep. Or a very near one, anyway. This morning driving through St Leonards on the way to Hastings, a lycra kitted out cyclist doing a full on bike all over the place sprint in heavy traffic veered right across the lane (two lanes, approaching traffic lights at green) causing the little yellow car in front of me to have to swerve to avoid him. There was a gap in the traffic coming in the opposite direction, so no harm done. Interesting dilemma though, what would you have done in the drivers place had there been traffic coming the other way? Hit the cyclist or hit the oncoming car?McSatan said:
Yep. Or a very near one, anyway. This morning driving through St Leonards on the way to Hastings, a lycra kitted out cyclist doing a full on bike all over the place sprint in heavy traffic veered right across the lane (two lanes, approaching traffic lights at green) causing the little yellow car in front of me to have to swerve to avoid him. There was a gap in the traffic coming in the opposite direction, so no harm done. Interesting dilemma though, what would you have done in the drivers place had there been traffic coming the other way? Hit the cyclist or hit the oncoming car?
Braked?TheInsanity1234 said:
I've witnessed a few examples of poor cycling, and a few near-misses, especially as a result of cyclists that don't think red lights apply to them. So, according to the law of probabilities, there must be a few cases where the cyclist should shoulder a large proportion of the blame for the collision.
There have, as shown in the links posted - in 2% of the cases where cyclists were killed or injured the cyclist had jumped a red light.In up to 75% of cases where a cyclist was a KSI the driver had failed to look properly.
But despite this enormous disparity drivers will continue to obsess over cyclist rlj.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff