cyclist deaths & the law

custardy

Johno100 wrote: »

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.

custardy wrote: »

http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/local/10443173.Killer_driver_who_jumped_red_light_jailed/

6 years for jumping a red light,hitting a car and killing the driver

http://www.eastlondonlines.co.uk/2013/05/family-of-cyclist-olatunji-tj-johnson-adeyanju-killed-on-deptford-church-street-say-4-years-for-the-driver-is-not-enough/

4 years for jumping a red light,killing a cyclist and leaving the scene

theres a 2 year disparity

Johno100

Strider590 wrote: »

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......

This wasn't you was it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZAm-57WIVc

If not, it seems very similar to what you describe.

custardy

Johno100 wrote: »

This wasn't you was it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZAm-57WIVc

If not, it seems very similar to what you describe.

Thats not filtering

Johno100

custardy wrote: »

theres a 2 year disparity

Your first link does not work and I am certainly not going to make judgment on a sentence passed based on local newspaper reports.

Johno100

custardy wrote: »

Thats not filtering

Enlighten me, what do you want to call it? Overtaking, Lane Splitting or total idiocy?

custardy

Johno100 wrote: »

Your first link does not work and I am certainly not going to make judgment on a sentence passed based on local newspaper reports.

well given many deaths dont make it beyond local level,what do you suggest?

http://www.theboltonnews.co.uk/news/10443173.Killer_driver_who_jumped_red_light_jailed/

custardy

Johno100 wrote: »

Enlighten me, what do you want to call it? Overtaking, Lane Splitting or total idiocy?

a stupid and unnecessary manoeuvre
I wouldn't be expecting a cyclist in that space as a driver

Strider590

Johno100 wrote: »

This wasn't you was it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZAm-57WIVc

If not, it seems very similar to what you describe.

That's not filtering, not even sure how the hell that one happened.......

I'm talking congested dual lane ring road with stop/start traffic all heading to a large roundabout.

She saw me coming and turned sharply toward the bus before she had to stop for the car in front, so I nipped behind her and went round the other side, I didn't want to stop to argue with another stupid person about "road tax", I heard "queue jumping" screeched out at me as I rode on. It was a small KIA or Hyundai IIRC.

Idiophreak

Johno100 wrote: »

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.

Ha, you're funny.

There are far more drivers than there are cyclists.
Therefore, the probability of having a jury full of drivers is significantly greater than the probability of having a jury full of cyclists.

What does that matter? You ask....it's not "us" and "them" right?

Sadly, basically, it is. You need look no further than this thread to find numerous examples of juries that have let motorists off on the basis of "it could happen to anyone". You know, the sun's in your eyes and you keep driving..."could happen to anyone". You know, momentary lapse of concentration, run a cyclist over..."could happen to anyone".

The problem is that a lot of these accidents that are car vs bike end up being fatal, whereas the same accident car vs car would just be a "bump"....so something that isn't a big deal when you do it and a car gets hit is very much a big deal when you hit a cyclist instead...but the law just doesn't see things that way, it's viewed as the driver being "unlucky" if they happento hit a cyclist.

Johno100

Idiophreak wrote: »

Ha, you're funny.

Thank you, I like to think I have my moments:T

Idiophreak wrote: »

There are far more drivers than there are cyclists.
Therefore, the probability of having a jury full of drivers is significantly greater than the probability of having a jury full of cyclists.

What does that matter? You ask....it's not "us" and "them" right?

Sadly, basically, it is. You need look no further than this thread to find numerous examples of juries that have let motorists off on the basis of "it could happen to anyone". You know, the sun's in your eyes and you keep driving..."could happen to anyone". You know, momentary lapse of concentration, run a cyclist over..."could happen to anyone".

Yes, juriers are members of the public and no doubt the thought, "There but for the grace of God, go I" passes through their mind. I can't see how you can prevent this from happening unless you have a jury of non-cyclists and drivers. Trials such as those you refer to will have plenty of reference to "your average driver", "would a competent driver have done that?". So it is no wonder juries rely on their own experiences.

Idiophreak wrote: »

The problem is that a lot of these accidents that are car vs bike end up being fatal, whereas the same accident car vs car would just be a "bump"....so something that isn't a big deal when you do it and a car gets hit is very much a big deal when you hit a cyclist instead...

As I said in a previous post, soft squashy things versus larger faster moving metal objects, there is only going to be one winner unless the laws of physics change. It is certainly a "bigger deal" for the cyclist.

Idiophreak wrote: »

but the law just doesn't see things that way, it's viewed as the driver being "unlucky" if they happen to hit a cyclist.

I do not accept that. There are no separate, lesser offences, of causing the death of a cyclist by careless or dangerous driving. The evidence requirement for conviction are identical be it another vehicle, a pedestrian or a cyclist involved.

And despite what the personal injury claims industry and the emergency services would have us believe their are still things called 'Accidents' that happen every day and there is not always blame to be aportioned.