Cyclist likely to be convicted of manslaughter..
Discussion
The Government are reviewing the law to analyse whether a comparable 'death by' law ought to apply to cyclists.
I struggle to see why not, other than cyclists are not obliged to undergo any kind of formal training or testing before cycling on the road. This leaves quite a disparity between the knowledge and skill levels of cyclists. For drivers, the standard driving test allows an objective standard to be defined, the notional competent and careful driver. An inexperienced driver can then be held to account in a similar way to an experienced one. This scenario doesn't exist (yet) for cyclists.
I struggle to see why not, other than cyclists are not obliged to undergo any kind of formal training or testing before cycling on the road. This leaves quite a disparity between the knowledge and skill levels of cyclists. For drivers, the standard driving test allows an objective standard to be defined, the notional competent and careful driver. An inexperienced driver can then be held to account in a similar way to an experienced one. This scenario doesn't exist (yet) for cyclists.
janesmith1950 said:
The Government are reviewing the law to analyse whether a comparable 'death by' law ought to apply to cyclists.
I struggle to see why not, other than cyclists are not obliged to undergo any kind of formal training or testing before cycling on the road. This leaves quite a disparity between the knowledge and skill levels of cyclists. For drivers, the standard driving test allows an objective standard to be defined, the notional competent and careful driver. An inexperienced driver can then be held to account in a similar way to an experienced one. This scenario doesn't exist (yet) for cyclists.
I have much sympathy with the view expressed by the victim's family lawyer in this respect. Namely that if the only legislation with which this person could be held to account was either manslaughter or a law designed for Victorian horse and carriage drivers, then there seems to be a gap in the middle.I struggle to see why not, other than cyclists are not obliged to undergo any kind of formal training or testing before cycling on the road. This leaves quite a disparity between the knowledge and skill levels of cyclists. For drivers, the standard driving test allows an objective standard to be defined, the notional competent and careful driver. An inexperienced driver can then be held to account in a similar way to an experienced one. This scenario doesn't exist (yet) for cyclists.
Sylvaforever said:
This woman sadly did contribute to her own demise by not ceding priority as she should
I would respectfully suggest you read the summing up.
I did, it's where I got it from. I would respectfully suggest you read the summing up.
I'm not saying she did what thousands, wouldn't, I'm not saying I haven't done the same myself, but she was in the road where traffic was approaching in both directions. It doesn't seem clear at all iirc that she was ever aware of the cyclist until possibly far too late.
Sad to say, but her fate was in her hands to quite a degree. I'm pretty certain that in the USA this would be classed as jay walking, and I note the husband of the deceased hasn't called for such laws to be introduced here, which may protect vulnerable road users from the more wayward.
Sylvaforever said:
This woman sadly did contribute to her own demise by not ceding priority as she should
I would respectfully suggest you read the summing up.
I think that you misunderstand how causation works. The incident was avoidable by the cyclist. The cyclist could and should have slowed down. He pressed on, telling for his path to be cleared. Yes, the pedestrian was careless, but that did not cause her death. The causes were (1) the way in which the cyclist rode (that apparently being influenced by his selfish attitude); and (2) the absence of a front brake (ditto).I would respectfully suggest you read the summing up.
A careful road user makes allowances for the mistakes made by others. Just as a good driver drives defensively, so should a good cyclist, especially in a built up area. Having the right of way is no excuse for whacking into somebody.
I still think, however, that undue attention is given to the few deaths caused by bad cycling and that arguably not enough is given to the many deaths caused by bad driving. Cars and lorries and buses are inherently more dangerous that bicycles, because the consequences of misuse of heavy and fast vehicles are greater than those for lighter and slower vehicles, but driver training is limited and there is no regular renewals training. Most people who operate dangerous machines have to re-validate their ability to do so at intervals, but because motoring is embedded in our culture we as motorists take minimal training and do one quite easy test just once (court ordered re-testing apart).
Driving is a bit like booze - culturally embedded and so allowed to get away with stuff that other drugs can't get away with. I write this as someone who likes driving and also booze (although not usually at the same time, as my cars are old and shaky and so they make my Martini spill, which is a bummer.)
Edited by anonymous-user on Thursday 21st September 09:57
Please let's not clamour for jay walking laws! The kneejerk "let's legislate" attitude of successive rubbish Governments has infected the public, alas. There is probably a case for a legislative change to make bicycling like a tit a crime, but let's stop there. Rather than curb freedom by adding a hard to enforce jaywalking law to the books, why not instead run a public education campaign to get pedestrians to pay attention? In any event, the main responsibility for road safety has to remain with those who are not on foot, as non-pedestrians are at the controls of machines (including bikes) which can kill.
Breadvan72 said:
I think that you misunderstand how causation works. The incident was avoidable by the cyclist. The cyclist could and should have slowed down. He pressed on, telling for his path to be cleared. Yes, the pedestrian was careless, but that did not cause her death. The causes were (1) the way in which the cyclist rode (that apparently being influenced by his selfish attitude); and (2) the absence of a front brake (ditto).
A careful road user makes allowances for the mistakes made by others. Just as a good driver drives defensively, so should a good cyclist, especially in a built up area Having the right of way is no excuse for whacking into somebody.
I still think, however, that undue attention is given to the few deaths caused by bad cycling and that arguably not enough is given to the many deaths caused by bad driving. Cars and lorries and buses are inherently more dangerous that bicycles, because the consequences of misuse of heavy and fast vehicles are greater than those for lighter and slower vehicles, but driver training is limited and there is no regular renewals training. Most people who operate dangerous machines have to re-validate their ability to do so at intervals, but because motoring is embedded in our culture we as motorists take minimal training and do one quite easy test just once (court ordered re-testing apart).
Driving is a bit like booze - culturally embedded and so allowed to get away with stuff that other drugs can't get away with. I write this as someone who likes driving and also booze (although not usually at the same time, as my cars are old and shaky and so they make my Martini spill, which is a bummer.)
Your first two paragraphs apply to both parties. The incident was avoidable by the pedestrian. It takes two to tangle, and in this case both parties failed to follow the HC, rules, laws and common sense. A careful road user makes allowances for the mistakes made by others. Just as a good driver drives defensively, so should a good cyclist, especially in a built up area Having the right of way is no excuse for whacking into somebody.
I still think, however, that undue attention is given to the few deaths caused by bad cycling and that arguably not enough is given to the many deaths caused by bad driving. Cars and lorries and buses are inherently more dangerous that bicycles, because the consequences of misuse of heavy and fast vehicles are greater than those for lighter and slower vehicles, but driver training is limited and there is no regular renewals training. Most people who operate dangerous machines have to re-validate their ability to do so at intervals, but because motoring is embedded in our culture we as motorists take minimal training and do one quite easy test just once (court ordered re-testing apart).
Driving is a bit like booze - culturally embedded and so allowed to get away with stuff that other drugs can't get away with. I write this as someone who likes driving and also booze (although not usually at the same time, as my cars are old and shaky and so they make my Martini spill, which is a bummer.)
It's also worth repeating that it's an extraordinarily rare event, and has generated three threads, headline news and so on.
I think it's worth repeating that 5,000 people are hurt and killed per annum just in London alone, just by hit and runs. This means there's been a sizeable number of people hurt and killed since this case occurred, indeed even since the case went to court.
But we're inured to these. We accept these, and there's been no interest whatsoever on this site or anywhere else in discussing what is going to be done about it.
Heaven knows what the figures are nationally.
These threads are totally lacking in balance and are all about attacking cycling.
Breadvan72 said:
Please let's not clamour for jay walking laws! The kneejerk "let's legislate" attitude of successive rubbish Governments has infected the public, alas. There is probably a case for a legislative change to make bicycling like a tit a crime, but let's stop there. Rather than curb freedom by adding a hard to enforce jaywalking law to the books, why not instead run a public education campaign to get pedestrians to pay attention? In any event, the main responsibility for road safety has to remain with those who are not on foot, as non-pedestrians are at the controls of machines (including bikes) which can kill.
Being in control of a lethal 50kg-100kg human carcass is a responsibility surely? If a pedestrian steps into the road without looking they are potentially and negligently hurling their carcass through the windscreen of an approaching car, or into the path of a cyclist, at the approach speed of the car/cyclist (relative velocity an' all that).Agree with not going ott with legislation but what's ott?
turbobloke said:
Breadvan72 said:
Please let's not clamour for jay walking laws! The kneejerk "let's legislate" attitude of successive rubbish Governments has infected the public, alas. There is probably a case for a legislative change to make bicycling like a tit a crime, but let's stop there. Rather than curb freedom by adding a hard to enforce jaywalking law to the books, why not instead run a public education campaign to get pedestrians to pay attention? In any event, the main responsibility for road safety has to remain with those who are not on foot, as non-pedestrians are at the controls of machines (including bikes) which can kill.
Being in control of a lethal 50kg-100kg human carcass is a responsibility surely? If a pedestrian steps into the road without looking they are potentially and negligently hurling their carcass through the windscreen of an approaching car, or into the path of a cyclist, at the approach speed of the car/cyclist (relative velocity an' all that).Agree with not going ott with legislation but what's ott?
Depending on circumstances, (he said), a jaywalker in Germany, who holds a driving licence, can have penalty points imposed on his licence, if found guilty of jaywalking.
heebeegeetee said:
It's also worth repeating that it's an extraordinarily rare event, and has generated three threads, headline news and so on.
I think it's worth repeating that 5,000 people are hurt and killed per annum just in London alone, just by hit and runs. This means there's been a sizeable number of people hurt and killed since this case occurred, indeed even since the case went to court.
But we're inured to these. We accept these, and there's been no interest whatsoever on this site or anywhere else in discussing what is going to be done about it.
Heaven knows what the figures are nationally.
These threads are totally lacking in balance and are all about attacking cycling.
It's easy to see why an extraordinarily rare event would get more people talking compared to an event that happens all the time.I think it's worth repeating that 5,000 people are hurt and killed per annum just in London alone, just by hit and runs. This means there's been a sizeable number of people hurt and killed since this case occurred, indeed even since the case went to court.
But we're inured to these. We accept these, and there's been no interest whatsoever on this site or anywhere else in discussing what is going to be done about it.
Heaven knows what the figures are nationally.
These threads are totally lacking in balance and are all about attacking cycling.
LocoCoco said:
heebeegeetee said:
It's also worth repeating that it's an extraordinarily rare event, and has generated three threads, headline news and so on.
I think it's worth repeating that 5,000 people are hurt and killed per annum just in London alone, just by hit and runs. This means there's been a sizeable number of people hurt and killed since this case occurred, indeed even since the case went to court.
But we're inured to these. We accept these, and there's been no interest whatsoever on this site or anywhere else in discussing what is going to be done about it.
Heaven knows what the figures are nationally.
These threads are totally lacking in balance and are all about attacking cycling.
It's easy to see why an extraordinarily rare event would get more people talking compared to an event that happens all the time.I think it's worth repeating that 5,000 people are hurt and killed per annum just in London alone, just by hit and runs. This means there's been a sizeable number of people hurt and killed since this case occurred, indeed even since the case went to court.
But we're inured to these. We accept these, and there's been no interest whatsoever on this site or anywhere else in discussing what is going to be done about it.
Heaven knows what the figures are nationally.
These threads are totally lacking in balance and are all about attacking cycling.
This thread is at least partly about cyclists involved in rare events causing serious injury / death and how to hold them properly to account, rather than ignore rare events (they still warrant attention in terms of responsibility and accountability).
donutsina911 said:
Indeed an excellent read, thanks for posting, including the way it deals with certain combative points frequently raised on this thread and others.Breadvan72 said:
Please let's not clamour for jay walking laws! The kneejerk "let's legislate" attitude of successive rubbish Governments has infected the public, alas.
We need more of those big steel barriers like they threw up along Westminster bridge to stop terrorist rammers. Put them right where she got killed and the problem is solved for ever more, surely?Knee jerk reactions are always the best, got to be seen to be doing something, the main rule of Health and Safety.
LocoCoco said:
It's easy to see why an extraordinarily rare event would get more people talking compared to an event that happens all the time.
Yeah. Stuff that "happens all the time"...http://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/14224291.Suspen...
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/my-brother-...
...terribly sad and all, but let's get back to the important stuff eh? New specific offences targeted at cyclists, and lynch mobs calling for life imprisonment when someone takes the life of another.
But wait! In those two cases, and many others like them, a life is taken by another, yet there is little to no punishment, and in many cases no charges are even brought.
The world has long since descended into madness I'm afraid. I think that in the case of Alliston, justice HAS been done. However, in many cases where pedestrians and cyclists have been killed by car drivers, justice has not been served. If this wasn't such a highly unusual case then I'd suggest the law would need looking at more closely, but we have laws designed to prevent drivers from harming more vulnerable road users already in place, yet they seem impotent at preventing absolute carnage on our roads.
So FFS, can somebody shut these threads down now. Some bad s
t happened, the legal system did it's job, and now we need to move on, because today, tomorrow, and every subsequent day, some more bad st WILL happen, and families will be left to grieve the loss of a loved one. The only difference is that these bad things yet to come will not create three parallel frothy-mouthed threads on PistonHeads, because the instrument of death will almost certainly be a motor vehicle. And so we'll all shrug our collective shoulders and say to ourselves "bad st happens, oh dear, how sad, move on..."King Herald said:
We need more of those big steel barriers like they threw up along Westminster bridge to stop terrorist rammers. Put them right where she got killed and the problem is solved for ever more, surely?
Knee jerk reactions are always the best, got to be seen to be doing something, the main rule of Health and Safety.
No good for cyclists when a car driver decide to give you -0.01cm passing space, as you have nowhere to go and can even end up bouncing off under the wheels of the next car/lorry.Knee jerk reactions are always the best, got to be seen to be doing something, the main rule of Health and Safety.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff