Fair Sentence for killing a cyclist, again.
Discussion
vonhosen said:
mdglen said:
Jasandjules said:
Why wasn't she wearing a helmet?
Because she didn't have to. There is no legal requirement for cyclist to wear one, and it's slightly worrying that the judge felt it necessary to mention it. The offence of death by careless driving suggests that the driving error was very minor, but had catastrophic consequences. If she had been wearing a helmet then this may not have resulted in a driving ban.
While any death is very sad, removing any responsibility from cyclists for accidents is a very daft idea IMO.
gazza285 said:
Jasandjules said:
Why wasn't she wearing a helmet?
Personal choice.Why wasn't he paying attention? That is what killed her.
If somebody were to knock you off wearing them, they are responsible for their actions but your choices have contributed to the seriousness of the outcome.
sugerbear said:
Do pedestrians get the same treatment because they don't wear helmets when they cross the road and then have the misfortune of being run down by someone not paying attention.
It depends what is considered reasonable (not only legal) precautions for people to take or not. If they were to walk in lane 3 of a dual carriageway A road at night in dark clothing then yes they'd get the same treatment. It's not illegal, but it's also not reasonable.the_lone_wolf said:
gazza285 said:
Why wasn't he paying attention? That is what killed her.
I didn't know not paying attention can cause death??I do know cracking your skull on something solid like a kerb stone can though, so I tend to protect my head with a helmet when I cycle...
As for your use of a helmet, that is entirely your personal choice, as it is mine as to whether I wear one or not whilst I cycle. Why the wearing or not of a helmet should influence the decision of the judge about another party's poor driving standard is more worrying.
Although nothing about that story is nice at all, it is nice to see someone in authority suggesting cyclists should perhaps look at contributing to their own safety, instead of leaving it to everyone else.
The quote from the cycling morons regarding encouraging cycling is somewhat predictable.
The quote from the cycling morons regarding encouraging cycling is somewhat predictable.
Nigel Worc's said:
Although nothing about that story is nice at all, it is nice to see someone in authority suggesting cyclists should perhaps look at contributing to their own safety, instead of leaving it to everyone else.
The quote from the cycling morons regarding encouraging cycling is somewhat predictable.
The quote from the cycling morons regarding encouraging cycling is somewhat predictable.
I disagree with you, Their is no legal requirement to wear a helmet, cyclists naturally take many efforts to ensure safety, Yes we know that wearing a helmet in some cases would be safer, just like cars would be safer if they only drove at 5 mph and a man walked in front with a red flag.
it is a balance of risk, this chap and this case highlights that accidents do happen, with tragic consequences.
Your post smacks of someone with a bitterness towards cyclists, we are all just trying to used the roads safely.
gazza285 said:
the_lone_wolf said:
gazza285 said:
Why wasn't he paying attention? That is what killed her.
I didn't know not paying attention can cause death??I do know cracking your skull on something solid like a kerb stone can though, so I tend to protect my head with a helmet when I cycle...
As for your use of a helmet, that is entirely your personal choice, as it is mine as to whether I wear one or not whilst I cycle. Why the wearing or not of a helmet should influence the decision of the judge about another party's poor driving standard is more worrying.
Nigel Worc's said:
Although nothing about that story is nice at all, it is nice to see someone in authority suggesting cyclists should perhaps look at contributing to their own safety, instead of leaving it to everyone else.
Of course! She was probably running red lights, bullying pedestrians and undertaking stationary traffic in a generally aggressive manner, same as every other cyclist. Most cycling accidents I see usually result in a scratched arse, knees, hands and elbows, it's only when other vehicles are introduced that head injuries become a major problem. That says to me that while the solution is a helmet, the problem is with the vehicle driver, so the wearing or not of helmets is not the issue. Too many crap drivers is the problem, with too little training and no assessment after the test is passed. Nobody in industry is allowed to use machinery without periodic assessment and training, so why is driving exempt?
gazza285 said:
Of course! She was probably running red lights, bullying pedestrians and undertaking stationary traffic in a generally aggressive manner, same as every other cyclist.
Most cycling accidents I see usually result in a scratched arse, knees, hands and elbows, it's only when other vehicles are introduced that head injuries become a major problem. That says to me that while the solution is a helmet, the problem is with the vehicle driver, so the wearing or not of helmets is not the issue. Too many crap drivers is the problem, with too little training and no assessment after the test is passed. Nobody in industry is allowed to use machinery without periodic assessment and training, so why is driving exempt?
Yet anyone can buy a bicycle, jump on and ride on the road with up to 44T vehicles that travel at up to 70mph and have no training or assessment at all! Just because cyclists are more vulnerable on the roads, they are not exempt from some responsibility.Most cycling accidents I see usually result in a scratched arse, knees, hands and elbows, it's only when other vehicles are introduced that head injuries become a major problem. That says to me that while the solution is a helmet, the problem is with the vehicle driver, so the wearing or not of helmets is not the issue. Too many crap drivers is the problem, with too little training and no assessment after the test is passed. Nobody in industry is allowed to use machinery without periodic assessment and training, so why is driving exempt?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff