Cyclist likely to be convicted of manslaughter..

[ReineKurokawa]

Fat Fairy said:

I drive, and I cycle. I understand that neither is a natural state, and I am in control of a piece of machinery that will bloody well hurt, at the least, if I hit someone.

If I then have a stinky attitude, and try to blame anyone but myself, it should not surprise me if the rest of civilisation disagrees with me.
FF

we need more road users like you
people seem to forget the responsibility of controlling a machine that could cause serious injury to other road user
defensive driving, plan ahead, predict and caution driving seem to be diminishing

[heebeegeetee]

turbobloke said:

Breadvan72 said:

This is fun -

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/04/08/you-call...

Are we having a laugh over some heart-rending cases? I know we're all inured to tragedy when it involves motorists, but come on...

[turbobloke]

heebeegeetee said:

turbobloke said:

Breadvan72 said:

This is fun -

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/04/08/you-call...

Are we having a laugh over some heart-rending cases? I know we're all inured to tragedy when it involves motorists, but come on...

Are we?

[AJL308]

vivalebeaver said:

I can't help but think that if a pedestrian stepped off a pavement without looking, went into the middle of the road and then stepped backwards into the path of a car going at 12mph then a motorist wouldn't have been jailed for the same offence.

If the motorist had been driving a vehicle which had had it's front brakes illegally disconnected, had made zero effort to stop and had instead shouted foul-mouthed abuse (twice) at the pedestrian before hitting her then he would be doing more jail time than this particular oxygen thief.

[heebeegeetee]

turbobloke said:

heebeegeetee said:

turbobloke said:

Breadvan72 said:

This is fun -

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/04/08/you-call...

Are we having a laugh over some heart-rending cases? I know we're all inured to tragedy when it involves motorists, but come on...

Are we?

Seems to be fun and smilies all round.

[AJL308]

fido said:

heebeegeetee said:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/motorist-who...

It was the jury who found him not guilty - shocking really given his windows were illegal.

It amazes me that the excessive tinting of side windows is completely ignored by the police and MOT testers. I mean, it's even an offence to apply the tint commercially if you are aware that the customer intends to drive the car away from your premises, yet it obviously still happens.

The same issues are going to arise soon with the bell-ends who think it's a brilliant idea to have a massive Sat-Nav or phone stuck right in the centre of their windscreen - it massively obscures your vision and will cause fatalities in the near future. Anyone who does that obviously has no clue about how to safely operate a motor vehicle and should receive an instant ban.

[Angrybiker]

Breadvan72 said:

Watch two skiers collide on piste. Then during the recriminations the uphill skier (especially if he or she is a Millennial) may say "you got in my way". That skier has not learned a basic rule - the uphill skier must avoid the skier downhill, and that means anticipating the chance of a sudden crazy move (or a tumble) by the downhill skier. Much the same when it comes to being on a road - we are supposed to be ready to react if another road user does a daft thing.

Edited by Breadvan72 on Thursday 21st September 12:34

This was a road, not a ski slope. Different rules. You're also supposed to be aware of the impact that your actions will have on other road users. Hence the stuff about not doing things that will cause others to brake; mirror signal manoeuvre, etc.

[AJL308]

heebeegeetee said:

This is all about attacking cycling, and desperately trying to suggest that this tt on his fixie is representative of anything beyond himself.

He is representative of a lot of cyclists though. Not all by any means but a significant proportion. Whichever way you look at it there are a lot of arrogant, ignorant and generally unpleasant cyclists out there who think they have the right to do whatever they want - running red lights is the common one and the recent video of the bell-ends on bikes going straight on in a left turn only lane and nearly getting wiped out by an HGV which was being legally driven in the correct lane is another. They even had the audacity to call out the truck driver as "...everyone does it in London...". Total arrogance on their part.

Edited by AJL308 on Thursday 21st September 14:56

[turbomoped]

while this seems like a soft punishment at least its in borstal which looks like a madhouse on that im the daddy film.
All this crap about people shouldn't step in the way . He had no brakes really so what if there was a 10 foot deep ditch
he suddenly came across?

[AJL308]

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.

Leaving aside the idea of testing (although I do agree with it) it has always puzzled me as to why cyclists aren't required to have any form of third party insurance. I fail to see any possible reasonable objection to it, quite frankly.

[heebeegeetee]

AJL308 said:

If the motorist had been driving a vehicle which had had it's front brakes illegally disconnected, had made zero effort to stop and had instead shouted foul-mouthed abuse (twice) at the pedestrian before hitting her then he would be doing more jail time than this particular oxygen thief.

Maybe, but not much evidence that he'd get much more:

Drunk, killed victim in a hit and run, continued to drink at home: 2 years. http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/drun...

Drunk, hit and run, changed clothes, drove 130 miles from the scene, lied, did not admit guilt until 6 months later, judge was so moved by the injuries his victim suffered that he promised to visit him at home - 3 years. http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/hull-east-york...

[turbobloke]

At least there's the option of a decent sentence reflecting the level of culpability in terms of cycling well below the standard that a reasonable person aka a Court would expect.

The max for the offence he was guilty of is 2 years.

Edited by turbobloke on Thursday 21st September 14:43

[anonymous-user]

turbomoped said:

while this seems like a soft punishment at least its in borstal which looks like a madhouse on that im the daddy film....

Borstals were abolished ages ago. Now we have YOIs, which are more like regular prisons, but a bit different. They are still pretty grim places. I have been inside a prison, and a YOI, and an immigration detention centre (all whilst working). They are not fun places.

PS: That was Ray faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaackin Winstone, that was.

[ralphrj]

heebeegeetee said:

AJL308 said:

If the motorist had been driving a vehicle which had had it's front brakes illegally disconnected, had made zero effort to stop and had instead shouted foul-mouthed abuse (twice) at the pedestrian before hitting her then he would be doing more jail time than this particular oxygen thief.

Maybe, but not much evidence that he'd get much more:

Drunk, killed victim in a hit and run, continued to drink at home: 2 years. http://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/drun...

Drunk, hit and run, changed clothes, drove 130 miles from the scene, lied, did not admit guilt until 6 months later, judge was so moved by the injuries his victim suffered that he promised to visit him at home - 3 years. http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/hull-east-york...

Neither of those cases are directly comparable with the one we are discussing.

In both cases the victim survived so the driver was prosecuted for causing serious injury by dangerous driving which carries a maximum prison sentence of 5 years.

If the victims had died then the charge would have been causing death by dangerous driving which carries a maximum prison sentence of 14 years*.

• The Government is currently consulting on increasing the maximum sentence for death by dangerous driving to life imprisonment.

[FiF]

heebeegeetee said:

turbobloke said:

heebeegeetee said:

turbobloke said:

Breadvan72 said:

This is fun -

https://thesecretbarrister.com/2016/04/08/you-call...

Are we having a laugh over some heart-rending cases? I know we're all inured to tragedy when it involves motorists, but come on...

Are we?

Seems to be fun and smilies all round.

The article in question is not discussing any genuine heart rending case, it's rather mildly taking the mick out of another barrister who has publicly presented a rather dubious argument, it's then dissecting that argument and pointing out the failure points. Which is, frankly, amusing. LoL indeed, just for the extra heebee annoyance factor.

The only possibly heart rending case involved is that where a litigant, having decided to go against CPS opinion, then proceeded to lose and incurred the presumably heart rending costs of over £22,000, though my heart won't suffer much from his plight.

Frankly, in your quest to repetitively grind the same old axe, these latest posts make yourself look even sillier than many already think. Sorry if the truth hurts.

[Ali G]

SCUM

http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0079871/

Edited by Ali G on Thursday 21st September 14:58

[anonymous-user]

Angrybiker said:

This was a road, not a ski slope. Different rules. You're also supposed to be aware of the impact that your actions will have on other road users. Hence the stuff about not doing things that will cause others to brake; mirror signal manoeuvre, etc.

I was talking about principles, not rules. The point of anticipating what the more vulnerable person may do holds good for skier vs skier as it does for vehicle vs pedestrian, or big vehicle vs small vehicle etc. Saying "the Highway Code says that X must not do Y" does not help. Reality indicates that X might sometimes do Y.

Also, simple self preservation may suggest that hazard avoidance trumps entitlement -

"Here lies the body of William Jay
Who died maintaining his right of way -
He was right, dead right, as he sped along,
But he's just as dead as if he were wrong."

[heebeegeetee]

turbobloke said:

At least there's the option of a decent sentence reflecting the level of culpability in terms of cycling well below the standard that a reasonable person aka a Court would expect.

The max for the offence he was guilty of is 2 years.

Edited by turbobloke on Thursday 21st September 14:43

I know. In the second case I posted he could have got 14 years, I believe. It was a terrible case, but he still only got 3.

Another case I read, but didn't link too - drunk, speeding, hit and run, killed someone - she was initially sentenced to 6 years which was reduced at the trial to 4 because she plead guilty, and was out in two. The mother of the victim was frustrated because apparently, such was the evidence that "she couldn't do anything other than plead guilty".

So there is the leeway to sentence drivers for a lot more (after all they can and do do a lot more harm) but there's little evidence that the penalties are used. There was a really bad case discussed on PH a while back, can't remember what is was now - might have been the Bath tipper truck case - either way, it was a really, really bad case involving multiple deaths, and still the sentences were way short of the maximum, and I just remember a PHer asking "what would you actually have to do to get the 14 years"?

[Angrybiker]

Breadvan72 said:

Angrybiker said:

This was a road, not a ski slope. Different rules. You're also supposed to be aware of the impact that your actions will have on other road users. Hence the stuff about not doing things that will cause others to brake; mirror signal manoeuvre, etc.

I was talking about principles, not rules. The point if anticipating what the more vulnerable person may do holds good in skier vs skier as it does in vehicle vs pedestrian, or big vehicle vs small vehicle etc. Saying "the Highway Code says that X must not do Y" does not help. Reality indicates that X might do Y.

Also, simple self preservation may suggest that hazard avoidance trumps entitlement -

"Here lies the body of William Jay
Who died maintaining his right of way -
He was right, dead right, as he sped along,
But he's just as dead as if he were wrong."

Same applies to self entitled and wilfully unaware cyclist

[AJL308]

Question: Obviously, there is no "cycling" licence to take away to prevent someone convicted of a cycling offence (or other traffic offence) from using a bike in the same way that can be imposed in relation to motor vehicles. However, does a court have the power to impose such a ban as part of the sentence in a case like this?