56% of drivers convicted of killing cyclists avoid prison
Discussion
OTBC said:
LucreLout said:
No he's not. In London the vast majority of cyclists killed are passing a vehicle on the side to which its turning.
If they'd learn that they need to wait behind an indicating vehicle instead of sneaking up the side of it, then there would be very few adult cycle deaths.
This is not true. Most rtcs take place at junctions, but the single most common collision is the cyclist hit from behind.If they'd learn that they need to wait behind an indicating vehicle instead of sneaking up the side of it, then there would be very few adult cycle deaths.
This is also a dishonest claim because it describes a cyclist using a near-side cycle lane as 'sneaking' along. Loaded terminology.
"Heavy good vehicle or bus or coach was turning left or changing lane to the left and struck pedal cyclist".
Of those, 22 were HGVs and 1 was a bus.
Strikes from the rear made up 11 of the 92 fatalities.
What is less clear is whether this is due to cyclists "sneaking" or trucks turning across cyclists they've overtaken, or veering into cyclists that may be alongside. It is impossible to ride in London and not potentially find yourself alongside vehicles - all the cycle lanes are to the left and traffic is often dense.
What is beyond doubt is that trucks are disproportionately dangerous to cyclists. To my mind this is in part due to their design - high cab, high front bumper, tight turning circle. But there is obvious benefit in seeking to educate cyclists to be particularly careful around HGVs.
That's not to say, in any way, that cyclists are usually or always to blame for fatal accidents with HGVs. There are plenty of examples where they were clearly not.
Edited by will_ on Thursday 24th July 10:04
That cartoon fundamentally misses the point.
It's about intent.
If someone accidently killed someone with a gun it's manslaughter.
They probably wouldn't go to jail (50%?)
If someone deliberately killed a person with a car that's murder.
Probably a life sentence.
Glib cartoons like that really don't help the cyclist argument.
As for the rest of the post.
There is a world of different between discussing whether cyclists are annoying on certain roads vs accusing judges and magistrates and juries of bias.
I am satisfied there is no bias in sentencing.
The depressing fact is that cyclists are a lot more likely to die in small collisions.
And there has to be consideration in sentencing of cause as well as effect.
So, a bit of inconsiderate driving that might result in a nudge of a car may result in the death of a cyclist.
There are absurd cases which appear to have very poor sentencing, some have been linked.
But there are plenty of cases where car drivers have been killed and the driver to blame has not gone to jail too.
It's about intent.
If someone accidently killed someone with a gun it's manslaughter.
They probably wouldn't go to jail (50%?)
If someone deliberately killed a person with a car that's murder.
Probably a life sentence.
Glib cartoons like that really don't help the cyclist argument.
As for the rest of the post.
There is a world of different between discussing whether cyclists are annoying on certain roads vs accusing judges and magistrates and juries of bias.
I am satisfied there is no bias in sentencing.
The depressing fact is that cyclists are a lot more likely to die in small collisions.
And there has to be consideration in sentencing of cause as well as effect.
So, a bit of inconsiderate driving that might result in a nudge of a car may result in the death of a cyclist.
There are absurd cases which appear to have very poor sentencing, some have been linked.
But there are plenty of cases where car drivers have been killed and the driver to blame has not gone to jail too.
walm said:
Likewise the judges handing down sentences might well be biased.
A jury of your peers? Yes - a bunch of ignorant prejudiced drivers.
Cyclists are a minority group and it wouldn't be the first time that minorities were treated appallingly badly by the state.A jury of your peers? Yes - a bunch of ignorant prejudiced drivers.
The fact is, very few judges or juries will be regular cyclists. They are much more likely to be regular drivers. It is inevitable that people sympathise with people like them - everyone who is a driver has had a "there by the grace of god" moment.
The attitudes to cyclists displayed here and elsewhere are shameful. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if such attitudes did have an effect on convictions and sentencing. How else do you explain perverse decisions such as a sat-nav not marking a junction allowing the driver to ignore road signs and cross a major road, killing a cyclist? Or the aforementioned "blinded by the sun" excuses? Or a woman found not guilty of killing a cyclist by overtaking on a blind bend, because she went to church and had a good character - how is that possibly relevant to whether she was negligent?
As someone said earlier - would you be happy for a driver to avoid liability if they smashed into the back of your car because they couldn't see where they were going? It's absurd, and drivers are let off for the most spurious of reasons.
And even when a conviction is secured the sentencing is often insignificant as shown by the article that started this thread.
The victim being a cyclist should be an aggravating factor - not a mitigating one. Cyclists are vulnerable road users and the Highway Code provides that particular care should be taken with them. The opposite appears to be the case when it comes to sentencing.
will_ said:
walm said:
Likewise the judges handing down sentences might well be biased.
A jury of your peers? Yes - a bunch of ignorant prejudiced drivers.
Cyclists are a minority group and it wouldn't be the first time that minorities were treated appallingly badly by the state.A jury of your peers? Yes - a bunch of ignorant prejudiced drivers.
The fact is, very few judges or juries will be regular cyclists. They are much more likely to be regular drivers. It is inevitable that people sympathise with people like them - everyone who is a driver has had a "there by the grace of god" moment.
The attitudes to cyclists displayed here and elsewhere are shameful. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if such attitudes did have an effect on convictions and sentencing. How else do you explain perverse decisions such as a sat-nav not marking a junction allowing the driver to ignore road signs and cross a major road, killing a cyclist? Or the aforementioned "blinded by the sun" excuses? Or a woman found not guilty of killing a cyclist by overtaking on a blind bend, because she went to church and had a good character - how is that possibly relevant to whether she was negligent?
As someone said earlier - would you be happy for a driver to avoid liability if they smashed into the back of your car because they couldn't see where they were going? It's absurd, and drivers are let off for the most spurious of reasons.
And even when a conviction is secured the sentencing is often insignificant as shown by the article that started this thread.
The victim being a cyclist should be an aggravating factor - not a mitigating one. Cyclists are vulnerable road users and the Highway Code provides that particular care should be taken with them. The opposite appears to be the case when it comes to sentencing.
I agree the cartoon isn't particularly pertinent - I apologise for the distraction.
But Snowboy - you have identified what we need to do to identify bias and then completely ignore your own advice to reach a conclusion based on nothing but your own opinion.
That seems a rational way to go about it.
(Your points about the relative vulnerability of cyclists are irrelevant since that simply adds to the number rather than changing the ratios.)
YET!!!!
But Snowboy - you have identified what we need to do to identify bias and then completely ignore your own advice to reach a conclusion based on nothing but your own opinion.
Snowboy said:
I think the discussion might have a lot more agreement and a lot less venom and bile if we looked at all sentences for causing deaths by driving rather than just looking at cyclists.
i.e. we need to compare sentences drivers vs. pedestrians, cyclists and other drivers to tell if there is any bias.That seems a rational way to go about it.
(Your points about the relative vulnerability of cyclists are irrelevant since that simply adds to the number rather than changing the ratios.)
YET!!!!
Snowboy said:
I am satisfied there is no bias in sentencing.
So - where is the data you looked at to reach that conclusion??WinstonWolf said:
The most pertinent question for the anti's is "would you be happy to see a driver go unpunished if they killed a member of your family"?
Would you like to see a member of your family go to prison for killing a cyclist that was riding in a dangerous manner, weaving in and out of traffic, not doing any checks and squeezing through gaps? jimbop1 said:
WinstonWolf said:
The most pertinent question for the anti's is "would you be happy to see a driver go unpunished if they killed a member of your family"?
Would you like to see a member of your family go to prison for killing a cyclist that was riding in a dangerous manner, weaving in and out of traffic, not doing any checks and squeezing through gaps? OTBC said:
He claims most cyclist deaths could be avoided if cyclists moderated their behaviour. This is completely wrong.
The facts disagree with you.Go read the ROSPA report based on TRL data. Then have a think about it objectively, as your posts regarding a handful of fatalities are a tad emotional.
walm said:
So - where is the data you looked at to reach that conclusion??
Well, there's data in this thread showing that roughly 50% of drivers who cause deaths don't go to jail; regardless of whether it's a cyclist, pedestrian or driver that is killed. (Give or take 15%).Very generally speaking it appears that dangerous driving gets a prison sentence but careless driving does not.
I think it's fair to say that careless driving has slightly more chance to kill a cyclist than a pedestrian or other driver.
A driver who mounts a pavement is more likely to be dangerous driving.
A driver driving fast enough to kill another driver through airbags and crumple zones is a bit more likely to be considered to be driving dangerously.
So taking into acount all of that I don't see any bias from the courts.
There is a mathematical bias or trend, but I don't think that's what's being duscussed, and that trend is based on circumstance rather than court opinion.
I'm not dismissing the situation.
I think causibg death by driving should have greater punishment.
But, I don't see that cyclists victins have a worse situation than drivers, bikers or pedestrians.
jimbop1 said:
WinstonWolf said:
The most pertinent question for the anti's is "would you be happy to see a driver go unpunished if they killed a member of your family"?
Would you like to see a member of your family go to prison for killing a cyclist that was riding in a dangerous manner, weaving in and out of traffic, not doing any checks and squeezing through gaps? jimbop1 said:
I don't think I will be getting involved in cycle threads from now on.
WinstonWolf said:
The most pertinent question for the anti's is "would you be happy to see a driver go unpunished if they killed a member of your family"?
I kind of know what you're getting at, but as I haven't just had a member of my family killed on the road I can answer that question easily: it would depend on the circumstances. If I had just had a family member killed, I have no idea whether I'd be able to remain dispassionate.SK425 said:
Not sure what you mean by that. If I want to drive across a cycle lane, I have to wait until it's clear of cyclists. That's fairly simple and I don't see how someone established in their lane would not have priority over someone looking to cross that lane. The difficulty probably comes when the cycle lane ceases to exist at the turning. If there is, say, a side road on the left, a nearside cycle lane would generally just stop rather than continuing across the mouth of the junction (at least that's what happens with cycle lanes I'm familiar with). In that case, at the point I (driving) actually want to turn into the side road across the cyclist's path, there is no second lane giving the cyclist priority.
The second half of your post is pretty close to what I'm thinking, but it gets worse still at T junctions or intersections, where the 'lane' just ends.Only an idiot would pass a vehicle to the side its indicating, betting their life that a bit of coloured road paint will protect them. You almost never see a biker do it.... Wonder why?
SK425 said:
WinstonWolf said:
The most pertinent question for the anti's is "would you be happy to see a driver go unpunished if they killed a member of your family"?
I kind of know what you're getting at, but as I haven't just had a member of my family killed on the road I can answer that question easily: it would depend on the circumstances. If I had just had a family member killed, I have no idea whether I'd be able to remain dispassionate.If the repeated discussions mean a few more drivers take a little more care around cyclists then it's worth putting up with the trolls.
Jimbo would do well to read the prison thread, I suspect he'd be a little less of a troll if he did...
hy comments is spoiling what is otherwise an interesting a well mannered discussion.Objectively, you're more likely to be killed at the beach than on a bike.
80% of cyclist casualties are male, which is a strong indicator that testosterone fuelled risk taking is a factor. Adult male cyclists make up only about half of all cyclists, so either their behaviour is a factor, or motorists are targetting male cyclists. Which do you think is more likely?
75% of accidents happen at junctions, particularly T junctions and roundabouts. So, turning vehicles can be seen to be a primary issue.
The second most common contributory factor attributed to cyclists was entering the road from the pavement, which comes right after failed to look properly, which was the leading factor for both cyclists and drivers alike.
20% of London cycling fatalities occurred when a truck was turning left at a junction. Given the likelihood of the truck indicating prior to turning, it is probable that in most cases the cyclist arrived unseen at the left side of the truck after it began signalling. Those fatalities could easily have been avoided had the cyclist waited behind the signalling vehicle (be it truck, car, bus, motorbike, whatever).
Trucks and cyclists don't mix well, and I suspect they never will. Truck drivers simply can't always see cyclists due to large blind spots on their vehicles, and cyclists are too poorly trained to avoid them. That's not to blame cyclists, but I've not had any cycle training since I did my cycling proficiency test back in junior school, and that didn't cover lorries! No other vehicle is allowed on the roads without training, testing, and licencing, so perhaps this forms part of the solution? Obviously, it could only realistically be applied to the over 16's.
It may well be that the pragmatic solution, at least within cities, is to bar trucks from the road between 8am and 10am, and 5pm and 7 pm, and bar cyclists from the road between 10am and 5pm. Not popular with anyone, I'd imagine, but popularity and effectiveness have never been the same thing.
80% of cyclist casualties are male, which is a strong indicator that testosterone fuelled risk taking is a factor. Adult male cyclists make up only about half of all cyclists, so either their behaviour is a factor, or motorists are targetting male cyclists. Which do you think is more likely?
75% of accidents happen at junctions, particularly T junctions and roundabouts. So, turning vehicles can be seen to be a primary issue.
The second most common contributory factor attributed to cyclists was entering the road from the pavement, which comes right after failed to look properly, which was the leading factor for both cyclists and drivers alike.
20% of London cycling fatalities occurred when a truck was turning left at a junction. Given the likelihood of the truck indicating prior to turning, it is probable that in most cases the cyclist arrived unseen at the left side of the truck after it began signalling. Those fatalities could easily have been avoided had the cyclist waited behind the signalling vehicle (be it truck, car, bus, motorbike, whatever).
Trucks and cyclists don't mix well, and I suspect they never will. Truck drivers simply can't always see cyclists due to large blind spots on their vehicles, and cyclists are too poorly trained to avoid them. That's not to blame cyclists, but I've not had any cycle training since I did my cycling proficiency test back in junior school, and that didn't cover lorries! No other vehicle is allowed on the roads without training, testing, and licencing, so perhaps this forms part of the solution? Obviously, it could only realistically be applied to the over 16's.
It may well be that the pragmatic solution, at least within cities, is to bar trucks from the road between 8am and 10am, and 5pm and 7 pm, and bar cyclists from the road between 10am and 5pm. Not popular with anyone, I'd imagine, but popularity and effectiveness have never been the same thing.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff