Driver hits cyclist, left for dead. Let off in court.
Comments
-
It was too lenientStrider590 wrote: »The problem with stuff like this AND with our legal system, is that one is judged by a jury of ones peers and not by the law as such. This means that all sorts of social nonsense makes it's way into the whole process and because most drivers hate cyclists, the cyclist is screwed right from the start.
I don't think that "most drivers hate cyclists". However, I do think that there is a big element of 'there but for the grace of God go I' when juries try motoring offences.
I seem to remember reading, back when the death penalty was being abolished, that the severity of the punishment has little effect on the offender; what really matters is the likelihood of being caught. In other words, doubling the sentences for murder won't make much difference to the murder rate, but doubling the chances of being caught would.I doubt it will ever happen but I think more detection is key with the hope that some of these offences would have never happened in the first place.
Which is why the move to increase the number of speed cameras and reduce the number of traffic officers on the roads was such a great idea.If someone is nice to you but rude to the waiter, they are not a nice person.0 -
It was too lenientIn other words, doubling the sentences for murder won't make much difference to the murder rate, but doubling the chances of being caught would.
Which is why the move to increase the number of speed cameras and reduce the number of traffic officers on the roads was such a great idea.
...which will be why the road fatality statistics went pear shaped when speed cameras were introduced.
Quantity does not equate to quality, especially when you are enforcing a 'gauche' control placed on a skill based activity.Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.0 -
It was too lenient
As I understand it, as cameras were introduced in the 90s the KSI rates changed very little. The issue was that from the 60s onwards, accidents and deaths had been on a consistent downward trend, and this came to a halt. Individual cameras could always show they had reduced accidents (due to regression to the mean), but the overall stats hardly moved, when they should have continued moving downwards....which will be why the road fatality statistics went pear shaped when speed cameras were introduced.
And when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.Quantity does not equate to quality, especially when you are enforcing a 'gauche' control placed on a skill based activity.If someone is nice to you but rude to the waiter, they are not a nice person.0 -
It was too lenient
You're right. From the mid nineties to about 2003/4 was the period where camera prosecution expanded exponentially year on year. It was also the period where the UK experienced a significant negative deviation to the steady, almost predictable trend of fatality reduction.As I understand it, as cameras were introduced in the 90s the KSI rates changed very little. The issue was that from the 60s onwards, accidents and deaths had been on a consistent downward trend, and this came to a halt. Individual cameras could always show they had reduced accidents (due to regression to the mean), but the overall stats hardly moved, when they should have continued moving downwards.
It would of course be impossible to single out speed cameras as the cause of that loss of trend of fatality reduction; but significant loss of trend (as this was) must be attributable to some extraordinary change in impact factors. The speed camera experiment and its supporting safety propaganda offered the police the opportunity to decimate their road policing departments, and those two factors must sit alongside any other factors that could be considered to be responsible for the trend loss.
Regarding RTTM, this is a statistical anomaly which was knowingly abused to show that cameras were responsible for reducing collisions and saving lives, but the figures produced were totally and knowingly false. The DfT stated that over 100 lives a year were being saved through the placement of speed cameras, and this was a provable lie manufactured through the abuse of the RTTM phenomenon.
Surprisingly, these totally discredited figures are still being used, as on the ROSPA site below.ROSPA wrote:Cameras Save Lives
The number of people killed or seriously injured fell by 42% at camera sites. This means there were 1,745 fewer people being killed or seriously injured at the camera sites per year – including 100 fewer deaths per year.
It's easy to make a prima facie case that cameras will reduce fatalities, after all reducing speed of impact will reduce the likelihood of injury. But there is serious doubt that they have any real beneficial effect, and much analysis and anecdotal evidence that they create and engender a less safe driving environment.Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler.0 -
It was too lenient
Precisely. No-one is saying that speed cameras caused extra deaths. But at the same time road policing was reduced (it's expensive, while cameras are cheap) and I'm sure that is the main reason why the KSI stats stopped falling.It would of course be impossible to single out speed cameras as the cause of that loss of trend of fatality reduction; but significant loss of trend (as this was) must be attributable to some extraordinary change in impact factors. The speed camera experiment and its supporting safety propaganda offered the police the opportunity to decimate their road policing departments, and those two factors must sit alongside any other factors that could be considered to be responsible for the trend loss.
A speed camera can capture a driver's speed to a million decimal places, and the ease of automating the subsequent prosecution process makes it possible to detect and prosecute every single speeding motorist at a specific site if desired. But no camera in the world can detect the drunk driver, the bald tyres, the unroadworthy car, the driver on the edge of sleep, the aggressive and the incompetent. Police traffic officers were detecting and dealing with those issues for years until they were put on other duties. And, crucially, they did it with a degree of discretion, which meant that they retained a solid amount of support from most drivers. A couple of times I was stopped to 'have a word', and it modified my driving habits (and made me think) far more than an automated NIP dropping on the mat, which is just an annoyance.If someone is nice to you but rude to the waiter, they are not a nice person.0 -
-
It was too lenientHowever the accident occurred and whatever factors were in play, it's the leaving someone for dead aspect that I struggle with. I could never live with myself if it was me.
I would actually rather be fined/banned/whatever (not that I would drive under the influence anyway) than have someone else's suffering on my conscience.0 -
It was too lenientI was just reading about this driver who got caught doing 154mph!!! He got banned for less than 2 months (and a tiny £365 fine that doesn't come close to the cost of prosecution; his crime has been subsidised by the taxpayer).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-36953439
It's insane. At least it was on a motorway with no pedestrians or cyclists, but still... It illustrates how socially acceptable dangerous driving is. People just aren't safe on the roads.0 -
It was too harshI was just reading about this driver who got caught doing 154mph!!! He got banned for less than 2 months (and a tiny £365 fine that doesn't come close to the cost of prosecution; his crime has been subsidised by the taxpayer).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-36953439
It's insane. At least it was on a motorway with no pedestrians or cyclists, but still... It illustrates how socially acceptable dangerous driving is. People just aren't safe on the roads.
But clearly a decision was taken by the police/CPS based on the available evidence to prosecute for speeding and not for Dangerous Driving. Accordingly he was sentenced for the offence he pleaded guilty to.0 -
But clearly a decision was taken by the police/CPS based on the available evidence to prosecute for speeding and not for Dangerous Driving. Accordingly he was sentenced for the offence he pleaded guilty to.
The sentence was a very lenient one for speeding - a 56 day ban is as far as the magistrates guidelines go for up to 110 mph but it's not a limit on the sentence and they could have given a longer ban. I don't know why they weren't charged for dangerous driving either as is normal for that sort of speed nor seen any explanation how their ban was so lenient.
John0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.6K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.8K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards