56% of drivers convicted of killing cyclists avoid prison
Discussion
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?
Troll is a convenient accusation unfortunately.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?
It does need more facts to make a judgement.
People make mistakes on the road every day. You bump into another car at 30mph and you've got a bent car and insurance claim coming.
Make a similar mistake and hit a cyclist and they are dead.
Same mistake but only one has a tragic outcome.
We do need better facilities for cyclists to keep they away from danger.
People make mistakes on the road every day. You bump into another car at 30mph and you've got a bent car and insurance claim coming.
Make a similar mistake and hit a cyclist and they are dead.
Same mistake but only one has a tragic outcome.
We do need better facilities for cyclists to keep they away from danger.
As the 56% of drivers have been found guilty of causing a persons death but not given a custodial sentence, there must be some stats about drivers who have been found guilty of causing a death of some others and the typical sentence.
I do appreciate that the article is very light on detail and each case would have specific circumstances, I was just looking for trends from people on here who have access to proper data and their views.
I do appreciate that the article is very light on detail and each case would have specific circumstances, I was just looking for trends from people on here who have access to proper data and their views.
As a cyclist/driver/motorcyclist and all round good egg, I do think that there is a general lack of tough sentences from vehicle crime depending on who is at fault. How many times do you see idiots on police tv shows get away with a tiny fine for driving without a licence and insurance? If I did that, as an engineer I assume that I'd get a massive fine and a lengthy ban. If I came in front of the court wearing trainers and drinking special brew then I'd probably get away with it.
If I crashed into a car and told the police I couldn't see it was stationary because the sun was low in the sky then I assume I'd get done for driving without due care, and rightly so. But a cyclist was killed a couple of years ago and the driver found not guilty after claiming the sun was too low and temporally blinded him.
My girlfriend is about to take her driving test at the grand old age of 28 years old, but judging by the amount of times we've been overtaken, abused and shouted at for the crime of being on the road at the speed limit is unbelievable. I often see this same aggression when I cycle into uni everyday, people carrying out a perfect overtake leaving me with loads of room just to join a queue of stationary traffic twenty feet in front of me. The standard of driving now is shocking and is only getting worse and the stats probably don't reflect this due to the increase of driver aids now available.
[edit due to the fact I can't multi-task)
If I crashed into a car and told the police I couldn't see it was stationary because the sun was low in the sky then I assume I'd get done for driving without due care, and rightly so. But a cyclist was killed a couple of years ago and the driver found not guilty after claiming the sun was too low and temporally blinded him.
My girlfriend is about to take her driving test at the grand old age of 28 years old, but judging by the amount of times we've been overtaken, abused and shouted at for the crime of being on the road at the speed limit is unbelievable. I often see this same aggression when I cycle into uni everyday, people carrying out a perfect overtake leaving me with loads of room just to join a queue of stationary traffic twenty feet in front of me. The standard of driving now is shocking and is only getting worse and the stats probably don't reflect this due to the increase of driver aids now available.
[edit due to the fact I can't multi-task)
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.
Don't get me started on the amount of idiots I see on my commute that have taken to wearing headphones - not earphones. Usually seen on a cheap bike shaped object with full suspension with no lights sailing across red lights. Although I have seen people driving into the uni car parks on a few occasions wearing earphones... Never underestimate stupidity.
I've never seen the point of imprisoning people who've simply made a stupid mistake. Ban them from driving, yes, but what's the point of putting someone in prison where their life is likely to have already been ruined by the simple fact that they've killed someone?
Obviously if the driver is drunk/driving extremely recklessly then that's completely different, but I'd imagine that very few cyclist deaths are caused by such drivers.
Obviously if the driver is drunk/driving extremely recklessly then that's completely different, but I'd imagine that very few cyclist deaths are caused by such drivers.
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.
That's a specious point because those drivers wouldn't be convicted of an offence. The article is discussing convicted drivers not being jailed. The not-being-jailed point is the one being queried.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.
gforceg said:
That's a specious point because those drivers wouldn't be convicted of an offence. The article is discussing convicted drivers not being jailed. The not-being-jailed point is the one being queried.
My apologies, i must admit i only skimmed over the news article, but have just reread it and see your point now. I stand corrected.
Cyclists are a special category of road users.
To kill another driver, you have to overcome the safety features of that driver's car - and survive yourself. That will reduce the numbers who can be charged, both in terms of seriousness of the offence and the fact that many people whose dangerous driving causes the death of a driver, are themselves dead.
To kill a pedestrian and be charged, you generally have to do something recognisably dangerous - plough through a pedestrian crossing, mount the pavement, etc.
Killing a cyclist can happen when driving is careless but the cyclist is (quite legitimately) sharing the road space with the car, or truck unlike a pedestrian (and is relatively faster moving), without the benefit of the crash protection of that car or truck.
Therefore it is highly likely that relatively minor carelessness (sufficient for a charge) will kill some cyclists in circumstances that would not lead to charges of either dangerous driving (because the standard merely fell below, not far below, that of a careful and competent driver), nor would death by careless driving be appropriate if the person had not been a cyclist, because the accident would not have been fatal if it occurred at all.
What I am saying is that if there is a discrepancy in sentencing outcomes, it does not prove that there is bias against cyclists. The fact that the victim is a cyclist is not a mitigating factor, but the nature of the driving that caused the offence may make some offences less serious than others.
To kill another driver, you have to overcome the safety features of that driver's car - and survive yourself. That will reduce the numbers who can be charged, both in terms of seriousness of the offence and the fact that many people whose dangerous driving causes the death of a driver, are themselves dead.
To kill a pedestrian and be charged, you generally have to do something recognisably dangerous - plough through a pedestrian crossing, mount the pavement, etc.
Killing a cyclist can happen when driving is careless but the cyclist is (quite legitimately) sharing the road space with the car, or truck unlike a pedestrian (and is relatively faster moving), without the benefit of the crash protection of that car or truck.
Therefore it is highly likely that relatively minor carelessness (sufficient for a charge) will kill some cyclists in circumstances that would not lead to charges of either dangerous driving (because the standard merely fell below, not far below, that of a careful and competent driver), nor would death by careless driving be appropriate if the person had not been a cyclist, because the accident would not have been fatal if it occurred at all.
What I am saying is that if there is a discrepancy in sentencing outcomes, it does not prove that there is bias against cyclists. The fact that the victim is a cyclist is not a mitigating factor, but the nature of the driving that caused the offence may make some offences less serious than others.
Death by Careless Driving can encompass an awful lot of poor driving, from almost wilfull incompetence bordering on Dangerous Driving, to a small and momentary error of judgement. The death by element requires only that the driving was a cause of death rather than the cause of death.
I personally think it inappropriate to send people to prison for slight driving errors that result in serious injury or death; on another day that same error may have avoided the vulnerable road user and only resulted in 3 points and £100 fine.
Also, as has been said, there will be cases where the careless driving was a cause of death, but the cyclist also bears a good chunk of responsibility for their demise (let's say, riding the wrong way up a one way street at dusk and a driver pulling out without seeing them properly).
I personally think it inappropriate to send people to prison for slight driving errors that result in serious injury or death; on another day that same error may have avoided the vulnerable road user and only resulted in 3 points and £100 fine.
Also, as has been said, there will be cases where the careless driving was a cause of death, but the cyclist also bears a good chunk of responsibility for their demise (let's say, riding the wrong way up a one way street at dusk and a driver pulling out without seeing them properly).
Johnnytheboy said:
otolith said:
I would like to see the stats for the % of drivers convicted of killing other road users.
Same here.If there's a difference then that's newsworthy.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff