cyclist deaths & the law

Options
1…2425272930…50

Comments

  • Strider590
    Strider590 Posts: 11,874 Forumite
    Options
    Two_Combs wrote: »
    What's your point with the two posts?

    The point is that even the law is clouded by the "them and us" between cyclists and drivers.
    “I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an a** of yourself.”

    <><><><><><><><><<><><><><><><><><><><><><> Don't forget to like and subscribe \/ \/ \/
  • custardy
    custardy Posts: 38,365 Forumite
    Name Dropper Photogenic First Post First Anniversary
    Options
    Two_Combs wrote: »
    One jailed for using a phone, which is against the law. The other was distracted by a satnav which is legal to use as you drive.

    I don't get what he's trying to prove.
    150

    There is a danger of driver distraction being caused by in-vehicle systems such as satellite navigation systems, congestion warning systems, PCs, multi-media, etc. You MUST exercise proper control of your vehicle at all times. Do not rely on driver assistance systems such as cruise control or lane departure warnings. They are available to assist but you should not reduce your concentration levels. Do not be distracted by maps or screen-based information (such as navigation or vehicle management systems) while driving or riding. If necessary find a safe place to stop.
    Laws RTA 1988 sects 2 & 3 & CUR reg 104

    So you can just plough through a stop line and kill someone.
    As long as its not a phone?
  • custardy
    custardy Posts: 38,365 Forumite
    Name Dropper Photogenic First Post First Anniversary
    Options
    Two_Combs wrote: »
    Not you can't that why he was convicted. At the sentence is inline with guidelines and the evidence prevented to the court.
    Causing death by careless driving carries a maximum sentence of 5 years’ imprisonment, while the more serious offence of causing death by dangerous driving can result in a maximum jail term of 14 years.

    So 5 years from a possible 14 for the truck driver
    0 from a possible 5 for the car driver
  • Johno100
    Johno100 Posts: 5,259 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Options
    Strider590 wrote: »
    The point is that even the law is clouded by the "them and us" between cyclists and drivers.

    Well cycling can be dangerous, soft squashy objects versus big metal objects moving at a greater speed is not a good recipe. Best to stick to the car me thinks:D
  • custardy
    custardy Posts: 38,365 Forumite
    Name Dropper Photogenic First Post First Anniversary
    Options
    Two_Combs wrote: »
    Sounds about fair, do you know what band each fell into according to the judge?

    fair? You realise we are talking about someone being killed by someone's complete lack of control of their vehicle?
  • custardy
    custardy Posts: 38,365 Forumite
    Name Dropper Photogenic First Post First Anniversary
    Options
    Johno100 wrote: »
    Well cycling can be dangerous, soft squashy objects versus big metal objects moving at a greater speed is not a good recipe. Best to stick to the car me thinks:D

    Is that the 'answer'?
  • Johno100
    Johno100 Posts: 5,259 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Options
    custardy wrote: »
    Is that the 'answer'?

    Yep. Well I suppose there is the bus as well.
  • Nilrem
    Nilrem Posts: 2,565 Forumite
    First Anniversary First Post
    Options
    custardy wrote: »
    So 5 years from a possible 14 for the truck driver
    0 from a possible 5 for the car driver

    I'm guessing that one of the reasons for the differences in the sentences would be due to the lorry driver having an easily provable record of repeatedly doing something that is specifically banned in law (the records from the tacho and phone apparently showed he'd broken the law something like 100 times in 3 days).
    Whilst the car driver may have had one lapse of concentration (a very big one).

    The law, and the Judges have to take into account that sort of thing when deciding on a sentence, almost any offence that you can prove the offender did repeatedly will lead to a stiffer sentence (although not stiff enough imo), than one where you only have proof of one instance.
    This is doubly so when one case involves someone deliberately breaking a specific law and that results in a death, than one where the person was not breaking a specific law deliberately.
  • Cornucopia
    Cornucopia Posts: 16,166 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Photogenic
    Options
    The big question is: do people think that higher sentences for drivers will result in fewer cyclist/pedestrian casualties or is bad driving an inevitable feature of our roads?
  • theclonetrooper
    theclonetrooper Posts: 99 Forumite
    Options
    Only today I witnessed a male cyclist jump off the pavement in front of the car that was in front of me, on a busy main street in rush hour traffic, then riding across the opposite side of the road in front of oncoming cars and jumping onto the opposite pavement just missing a pedestrian and continued to ride down the pavement.
    Nothing new you may think but he had a large Tesco's shopping bag in the one hand that was on the handle bar and he was talking on his mobile phone with the other :eek:.
    My wife commented about "what a clucking mick", at least I think that's what she said........
    Begs the question if he was knocked off his bike & seriously injured or killed who would be blamed ????
    "Silence, Reverend Supermarket"
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.4K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.8K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.5K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 608.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173.2K Life & Family
  • 248.1K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards