cyclist deaths & the law

Idiophreak

Two_Combs wrote: »

What about a pedestrian who is in dark clothing walking along an unlit road. They are struck and killed, should that drivers get five years?

Was the driver sending a text message at the time?
Would he have avoided the pedestrian if he wasn't?

custardy

Two_Combs wrote: »

He was found not guilty, so the jury have a different opinion to you.

Either the police failed to gather the evidence or there was reasonable doubt. If so not guilty is the correct result.

You keep digging these up, so what's your point?

well if you cant gather it from the thread
I'm cant really dumb it down far enough it seems

custardy

Two_Combs wrote: »

Your not happy with court results in a country you don't live in?

I don't live in the UK?
well that explains that big shiny thing in the sky

custardy

Two_Combs wrote: »

Low end death by careless is not a custodial matter. You fail to comprehend this.

You fail to comprehend the charge of....

been acquitted by a jury of causing their deaths by dangerous driving.

custardy

Two_Combs wrote: »

Well they failed to prove the drivers caused their death whilst driving far below the standard expected.

What should the court have done?

In which country?

custardy

Two_Combs wrote: »

Your not happy with court results in a country you don't live in?

Two_Combs wrote: »

Country is irrelevant, but lets stick to where it happened.

It is? You seem to have changed tack in a few posts

custardy

Two_Combs wrote: »

No.

Your in Scotland and you post English trials.

No,I post UK cases
I also understand you're incapable of reading a full thread

Idiophreak

Get the impression you two just aren't going to see eye-to-eye on this.

Maybe Two Combs can head off and start his own thread and post up all the cases where people get harsh (or even "fair") punishments for running over cyclists. It will be a short thread, but at least you can then agree to disagree amicably

Strider590

Two_Combs wrote: »

Cyclists sentencing is in line with other road deaths, so why would we need another thread?

It's clearly, not..... But you just can't accept it.

Cyclists are treated like second class citizens, the problem is as I described earlier, there are a minority that give drivers cause to hate them, but because all cyclists look the same to the average driver, their poor attitude is experienced by all on two wheels.

Not only this, but then factor in how many drivers drive about trying to enforce their own version of the highway code onto others....... When they do this to a cyclist, the results can be catastrophic.

I don't cycle very much, but recently I got new bike and have been training up for the 15 mile commute to work. I was filtering through traffic last week when a driver tried to squash me against a bus because as she put it, I was "queue jumping". Not only is she wrong, but she's made up a law that doesn't exist and then used lethal force to enforce it......

Johno100

Two_Combs wrote: »

Cyclists sentencing is in line with other road deaths, so why would we need another thread?

You don't seem to understand, this isn't about some alleged disparity in the way the courts deal with accidents between bi-cyclists and those of us in our 2 tonne killing machines. Custardy and his ilk want cyclists to receive special treatment because they are 'vunerable' road users. They want presumed/strict liability where the 'cager' is presumed liable for an accident with a bi-cyclist unless the driver can prove otherwise. That may be civil liability to begin with but we know what the next step will be.