cyclist deaths & the law

Idiophreak

custardy wrote: »

http://road.cc/content/news/85744-£55-fine-and-three-points-driver-who-left-cyclist-broken-leg-elbow-weeks-hospital

_pale__pale__pale__pale__pale__pale_

arcon5

Richard53 wrote: »

It's an interesting thought ... you kill someone with a gun, you're a murderer and you go down for life*. You kill someone with a car, you get a few hundred quid fine and possibly banned from driving for a few months.

Hardly comparable! For a starters, there's not many reasons you'd point a gun at somebody in the first place - and when you pull that trigger there really is very few possible outcomes.

facade

arcon5 wrote: »

Hardly comparable! For a starters, there's not many reasons you'd point a gun at somebody in the first place - and when you pull that trigger there really is very few possible outcomes.

The Law, in my opinion rightly, punishes intent rather than just consequence.

In road "accidents" where an error of judgement has resulted in death or injury, what do you want?

Will a 50 year sentence bring back the dead cyclist?
Will a 50 year sentence mean the driver won't do it again? I would suggest that the memory of what happened will haunt the driver and he won't repeat that course of action.
Will a 50 year sentence mean other drivers won't make the same mistake? I seriously doubt it.

On the other hand, if the driving that lead upto the incident is dangerous, then it is dangerous, and I don't see why dangerous driving that results in death or injury should be treated differently from dangerous driving that doesn't, as when it is we are punishing a consequence, which you could say is misfortune.


Bringing back the gun example, you fire a gun at someone because you want them to die. If they don't die, it is attempted murder, murder if they do die, so why are these treated differently? That I don't understand as the intent is the same in both cases.

facade

Yes, I'm with the discouragement idea, but in both cases, the trigger was pulled. I can see that if someone was only wounded, you would want to discourage a second shot though!

silverwhistle

vax2002 wrote: »

The best I have seen was a female driver turning left off a dual carriageway when Mr Militant decides to undertake and he ends up grabbing the mirror and hurling abuse, to which she shouted at the top her voice.
You sir are going to end up as a F****ing stain on the road if you keep riding like that.
Classic line.

Are you that was the true situation?It's only that I've had far more experience of motorists overtaking and then braking to turn across me (or other people), instead of just waiting a second and dropping behind. If the cyclist was doing a reasonable speed it might have 'looked' like undertaking...

Richard53

arcon5 wrote: »

Hardly comparable! For a starters, there's not many reasons you'd point a gun at somebody in the first place - and when you pull that trigger there really is very few possible outcomes.

Well, I could say that the victim is just as dead in either case.

I know the cases aren't comparable, and I wasn't seriously suggesting that they were. But look at it this way: if a person is carrying a loaded firearm around, they are very aware of the consequences (to themselves) if they misuse it and kill someone - probably a life sentence. Kill someone through careless driving, though, and the personal consequences are relatively minor. Which is the bigger incentive to make sure that people are not harmed by our actions?

Tilt

eeyore123 wrote: »

I'm all for the helmet camera and the passive aggressive attitude that comes with those cameras. Riding up to motorists windows and citing the highway code to them make excellent entertaining videos for YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8cmyJuwQuRg

lulz

Quite.

It's amazing how many police officers go round on 'patrol' on bicycles disguised as ordinary members of the public these days to catch motorists out.

custardy

Tilt wrote: »

Quite.

It's amazing how many police officers go round on 'patrol' on bicycles disguised as ordinary members of the public these days to catch motorists out.

Maybe its just me,but I never understand why cyclists in this position stay straddled on the bike
get off the bike and get a god solid base,if troubles coming then be ready
It also has the psychological effect of I'm not a victim and ready to rock

Norman_Castle

Cyclists should just use the pavements, lot safer for them.

But its not safer for pedestrians and it shouldn't be necessary.

Tilt

custardy wrote: »

Maybe its just me,but I never understand why cyclists in this position stay straddled on the bike
get off the bike and get a god solid base,if troubles coming then be ready
It also has the psychological effect of I'm not a victim and ready to rock

Well as most of the clips on you tube seem to portray cyclists who simply go out to seek confrontations with motorists (even those who make the smallest mistake), I couldn't agree more.

Look at the clip below for example. The car driver 'obey's' the cyclist but and yields at the pinch point still gets 'advice'. In fact this particular poster is exactly what i'm talking about.

http://youtu.be/LJ7n7ez3fBk