56% of drivers convicted of killing cyclists avoid prison

[Snowboy]

MrTrilby said:

Snowboy said:

You can be guilty and it can still be an unfortunate accident.

Describing it as an unfortunate accident is rather emotive and trivialises the fact that someone has died as a direct result of the driver's actions. It isn't "just one of those things" that the poor driver couldn't avoid: the court has declared that their driving fell below the standard expected of competent and reasonable driver, and someone died as a result.

Do you not think that if someone is killed because you were incompetent at a skilled and demanding task, it would be prudent to take some action beyond just slap some points on a licence and pay a fine? Maybe to try and improve that driver's ability behind the wheel so it doesn't happen again? Or are you just fine with incompetent drivers being freed to carry on as before?

I don't think it was an emotive or trivial phrase.
But, that's besides the point.

The point is that the law allows for different punishment based on the exact circumstance of the death.
The fact that 56% of deaths resulted in a prison sentence does not mean it's biased either way.
Instead it's just the measure of the different cases.

[Terminator X]

gruffalo said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/28345522

fair or not?

Accidents? Hardly the same as murder or indeed murder trumped up as manslaughter ... I'll stay off the roads on my bike just to be safe though.

TX.

Edit - appreciate that no one should die ideally however "The figures show that in the last seven years 148 people were charged with killing a cyclist." doesn't seem an awful lot vs how many millions of cars are on the road?

Edited by Terminator X on Tuesday 22 July 14:24

[MrTrilby]

0000 said:

I'm more inclined to think that where mixed modes of transport aren't segregated it's inevitable.

So you think that these crashes happen because we mix different modes of transport? Do you think that driving standards are as high as they could be, and there's nothing more that can be done to improve the standard of driving? Much as I'd like it, it's impossible to segregate traffic everywhere without bulldozing historic town and city centres, and rebuilding most junctions - which would be fantastically expensive. It seems more prudent to me that we ought to be segregating traffic where possible, and also looking to improve standards of driving and cycling - which could be via prison sentences, bans, or mandatory driver education/re-tests - but definitely won't happen simply by tutting and saying "there there, it could happen to anyone".

[MrTrilby]

Snowboy said:

The fact that 56% of deaths resulted in a prison sentence does not mean it's biased either way.
Instead it's just the measure of the different cases.

From the article linked at the very start of this thread:
44% of drivers convicted of killing a cyclist are given a prison sentence.
60% of drivers convicted of killing someone (pedestrian/driver/passenger/cyclist) are given a prison sentence.

So there is clearly a bias - you are much more likely to receive a prison sentence for killing a pedestrian or car occupant than you are a cyclist. The entire point of this thread was to consider whether that bias is a fair or reasonable. You appear to place a lot of faith in the sentencing imposed by courts - that sentences can be appealed by higher courts would suggest that they are not perfect at it, and it is right to question whether they get it right.

[Snowboy]

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'.

I would expect the former to get a harsher penalty than the latter.


Traffic accidents are inevitable.
Traffic accidents involving a cycle probably have a greater chance if fatality than those involving cars or motorbikes.

[0000]

MrTrilby said:

but definitely won't happen simply by tutting and saying "there there, it could happen to anyone".

I wasn't suggesting that.

As you say concede though, it's expensive to do something substantive rather than "tut, tut, it could only happen to you". *clink*

[walm]

Snowboy said:

Traffic accidents are inevitable.

Absolutely.
But I think that is slightly beside the point.

The drivers in question have been convicted of causing death by careless driving (or even dangerous driving).
That it isn't what I would class as an "inevitable accident".

If the driver had paid more attention/not been careless then the death would have been avoided.

So the current sentencing appears to suggest that careless driving around cyclists isn't all that bad.
It isn't a serious enough mistake to justify locking someone up.

And I am not sure that is right. After all you are supposed to pay EXTRA attention around vulnerable road users such as cyclists. These sentences show the opposite - you can pay less attention than a sensible driver around cyclists and just get off with a fine.

[Snowboy]

It says 44% went to prison.
It doesn't say how many had suspended sentences, fines, community service.

There are other punishments besides prison.


Also.
The stats say the driver was convicted of an offence.
It's not clear what the offence is.

These are not all drivers convicted if dangerous driving or causing death by careless driving.

These could have been crashes where the driver was convicted of speeding but the cyclist jumped acted light.

You're being given Bikini stats.
What they show is interesting.
But what they conceal us vital.

[BGarside]

Rather than taking extra care around cyclists, the converse seems to be true for many drivers.

Cyclists appear to be the target of extra aggression from a significsnat minority of drivers just for having the temerity to use 'their' road (that they pay for with 'road tax' innit?).

This sort of behaviour seems to be becoming more prevalent as the dangers to cyclists of increased traffic volumes, wider cars, speeding and roads narrowed parking and traffic calming measures increase. The car culture in the UK is becoming overwhelming and literally driving other road users off the roads but this gets no coverage in the media.

Sure, there are plenty of negligent cyclists out there just as there are hordes of incompetent drivers, but the specific aggression towards cyclists thing seems to be a peculiarly British attitude not shared by our European neighbours. Why is this?

[walm]

Snowboy said:

The stats say the driver was convicted of an offence.
It's not clear what the offence is.

These are not all drivers convicted if dangerous driving or causing death by careless driving.

I may well be wrong but I think that if you are convicted of killing a cyclist then it has to be through death by dangerous or death by driving without due care and attention (aka death by careless).

You can't be prosecuted for speeding and killing, as it were.

Speeding isn't an imprisonable offence on its own - you have to be really hammering it and then you get done for dangerous driving (on account of your speed).

Perhaps DVD or someone who knows what they are talking about can clarify.

This seems to agree with my thesis though there may be some unlicensed/uninsured or off-road guys in there I suppose:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/dangerous_d...

[tenpenceshort]

MrTrilby said:

Snowboy said:

The fact that 56% of deaths resulted in a prison sentence does not mean it's biased either way.
Instead it's just the measure of the different cases.

From the article linked at the very start of this thread:
44% of drivers convicted of killing a cyclist are given a prison sentence.
60% of drivers convicted of killing someone (pedestrian/driver/passenger/cyclist) are given a prison sentence.

So there is clearly a bias - you are much more likely to receive a prison sentence for killing a pedestrian or car occupant than you are a cyclist. The entire point of this thread was to consider whether that bias is a fair or reasonable. You appear to place a lot of faith in the sentencing imposed by courts - that sentences can be appealed by higher courts would suggest that they are not perfect at it, and it is right to question whether they get it right.

Claiming that there must be a 'bias' because the rates are different is illogical.

Cyclists are disproportionately likely to be involved in a moving traffic accident when compared to pedestrians (as cyclist share the same road space throughout the majority of their journey). When cyclists and cars collide it's an obvious likelihood that the cyclist is at serious risk of harm or death.

When a motorist collides with a cyclist, he is disproportionately likely to hurt or kill them compared to if he did the same with another motorist.

What this means is that cyclists are in harms way. When they collide with vehicles, they are more likely to be killed. This means that a small mistake by a motorist, causing a collision with a cyclist, can cause a disproportionate amount of damage to a cyclist.

In terms of culpability, unless there are special circumstances where motorists should be especially aware of cyclists, I don't think it would be right to discriminate against them simply because their mistake happened to involve a cyclist. Drivers who make mistakes that hurt others don't tend to choose their victims.

[SK425]

walm said:

Absolutely.
But I think that is slightly beside the point.

I think Snowboy's post was bang on the point. I would only expect the proportion of drivers convicted of going to prison for killing a cyclist to equal to proportion of drivers going to prison for killing another road user if sentencing was based solely on the outcome and didn't take account of the actions or intent. That's plenty of debate to be had over whether outcome or actions is what matters but in practice I think our criminal justice system tries to balance the two. So for example, if, as Snowboy postulates, it took an even more outrageous piece of carelessness to kill a pedestrian than to kill a cyclist, you would expect, on average, more severe punishment for careless pedestrian killers than for careless cyclist killers.

Whether the sentences given to careless cyclist killers are severe enough is a different question. I don't think the answer to that question is to be found in simply comparing with the sentences given to careless killers of other road users, unless you believe that sentencing should be determined by outcomes only.

[Snowboy]

walm said:

I may well be wrong but I think that if you are convicted of killing a cyclist then it has to be through death by dangerous or death by driving without due care and attention (aka death by careless).

You can't be prosecuted for speeding and killing, as it were.

Speeding isn't an imprisonable offence on its own - you have to be really hammering it and then you get done for dangerous driving (on account of your speed).

Perhaps DVD or someone who knows what they are talking about can clarify.

This seems to agree with my thesis though there may be some unlicensed/uninsured or off-road guys in there I suppose:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/dangerous_d...

The stats are for "incidents where a cyclist was killed in an accident involving a motor vehicle".
276 incident.
148 where the car driver was charged with an offence.

It does not say what the offence was.
It could have been driving with no insurance.

It doesn't say whether the cyclist would have been also charged with an offence.

The stats and comments hint towards certain things; but they let the reader fill in the gaps and make connection.


The last phrase ' just over a quarter of those convicted of killing a cyclist didn't get a driving ban at all.'
It's now saying the convictions are for killing a cyclist rather than anything else. But it's not clear exactly what the conviction is.

It's shoddy journalism.
Actually; it's good journalism in that it gets a response from the reader, but it's shoddy reporting of facts.

[walm]

SK425 said:

Whether the sentences given to careless cyclist killers are severe enough is a different question.

I think you are right. I was really addressing that.

Comparing vs. other road users doesn't make sense.

[Steffan]

Until the motoring law was beefed up recently on causing death whilst driving most driver who killed someone in a car were treated far too leniently. My policeman son in law occasionally reminds me that the method of killing someone you want out of the way which will give you the shortest time inside, if in fact you serve time, is to mow them down in a car and then be terribly apologetic. Unless the prosecution can prove intent and planning you would be out within a couple of years at the outside. So it is not just cyclists.

I think the sentencing and consequences are more serious now but this still remains the method least likely to result in incarceration. The law is ineffective in such circumstances. I regret every death on the roads and none more so than cyclists who are often put at risk by very silly impilsivenincondiderate and dangerous motorists and regreeably there are some about.
One of the many risks in taking to the roads on a bicycle in a very small and overpopulated island.

[walm]

Snowboy said:

It does not say what the offence was.
It could have been driving with no insurance.

It doesn't say whether the cyclist would have been also charged with an offence.

I'll give you the no insurance one!
Assuming these cases are all on road there are three options according to the link I posted.
1. Death by dangerous.
2. Death by careless.
3. Causing death while uninsured, unlicensed or disqualified.

(Perhaps 56% of those convicted were simply driving while uninsured and ran over a RLJing cyclist.
Seems a rather surprising proportion though.)

Nevertheless what offence do you think the cyclist would be charged with that somehow means the driver isn't to blame!!!?

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!

[heebeegeetee]

tenpenceshort said:

Claiming that there must be a 'bias' because the rates are different is illogical.

Cyclists are disproportionately likely to be involved in a moving traffic accident when compared to pedestrians (as cyclist share the same road space throughout the majority of their journey). When cyclists and cars collide it's an obvious likelihood that the cyclist is at serious risk of harm or death.

When a motorist collides with a cyclist, he is disproportionately likely to hurt or kill them compared to if he did the same with another motorist.

What this means is that cyclists are in harms way. When they collide with vehicles, they are more likely to be killed. This means that a small mistake by a motorist, causing a collision with a cyclist, can cause a disproportionate amount of damage to a cyclist.

In terms of culpability, unless there are special circumstances where motorists should be especially aware of cyclists, I don't think it would be right to discriminate against them simply because their mistake happened to involve a cyclist. Drivers who make mistakes that hurt others don't tend to choose their victims.

The law requires drivers to take extra care with vulnerable road users, so that cancels it out imo - it can't be used in mitigation.

[Snowboy]

walm said:

SK425 said:

Whether the sentences given to careless cyclist killers are severe enough is a different question.

I think you are right. I was really addressing that.

Comparing vs. other road users doesn't make sense.

That's a good question.
But we'd need to see specific cases to have our own judgements to see how our views compare with the real courts.

Someone suggested the penalties being good deterrents.
They won't be.
People who are cocks won't be deterred because they don't think.
People who have a genuine accident didn't need deterring because they are already 100% deterred from causing a crash - hence the term 'accident'.

[tenpenceshort]

heebeegeetee said:

The law requires drivers to take extra care with vulnerable road users, so that cancels it out imo - it can't be used in mitigation.

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?

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, the law and/or common sense. Where a cyclist's own poor riding contributes to the situation of their death, it is right that this is considered in mitigation towards a convicted driver.

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.

[MrTrilby]

You criticise the statistics, then come out with completely unsubstantiated armchair expert guff like this:

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"?

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.