cyclist deaths & the law

Idiophreak

Johno100 wrote: »

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.

I think you missed the point, slightly.

You drive blindly into the sun and knock another car's wing mirror off, you don't expect to be prosecuted for dangerous driving.

If you do exactly the same thing and hit and kill a cyclist, you can wind up facing "causing death"...for exactly the same actions...and people see that.

Like I said, most jurors will view it as "unlucky" that you happened to hit a cyclist...we all do these "risky" things a lot of the time and they hardly ever result in hitting and killing a cyclist...The reality, of course, is that you're lucky every time you do something like that and you don't hit a cyclist. If you clip a wing mirror of a car that you couldn't see because of the sun, surely you think "Jeez...that could have been worse".

There's a bunch of things that people view as "normal driving" that can "accidentally" kill cyclists. Rather than not punishing people for doing it, because it's "just normal" behaviour, we should be throwing the book at people who do them, so people think more carefully about the risks they take when they drive. This includes:

* Not slowing down enough when dazzled by the car, oncoming headlights, reflections etc.

* Not slowing down enough for poor visibility, wet roads, ice etc

* Changing lanes or turning off roads without checking mirrors and/or indicating.

* Driving too fast on dipped-beam after night fall.

* Fiddling with phones, radios and GPS. Being distracted by kids. Eating, drinking, smoking behind the wheel.

* Driving too fast round corners.

* Opening car doors without checking mirrors while stopped.

...the list goes on. A lot of minor stuff that holds little or no danger most of the time for other motorists - but is life and death to cyclists.

Johno100

Idiophreak wrote: »

I think you missed the point, slightly.

You drive blindly into the sun and knock another car's wing mirror off, you don't expect to be prosecuted for dangerous driving.

If you do exactly the same thing and hit and kill a cyclist, you can wind up facing "causing death"...for exactly the same actions...and people see that.

Like I said, most jurors will view it as "unlucky" that you happened to hit a cyclist...we all do these "risky" things a lot of the time and they hardly ever result in hitting and killing a cyclist...The reality, of course, is that you're lucky every time you do something like that and you don't hit a cyclist. If you clip a wing mirror of a car that you couldn't see because of the sun, surely you think "Jeez...that could have been worse".

There's a bunch of things that people view as "normal driving" that can "accidentally" kill cyclists. Rather than not punishing people for doing it, because it's "just normal" behaviour, we should be throwing the book at people who do them, so people think more carefully about the risks they take when they drive. This includes:

......etc.


...the list goes on. A lot of minor stuff that holds little or no danger most of the time for other motorists - but is life and death to cyclists.

It is also life and death for pedestrians, horseriders, motorised wheelchair users etc.

We can continue the age old debate as to whether you should be punished primarily for your actions or the consquences of those actions. Or for a combination of the two as at present, but I am not sure that will get us anywhere.

However, I am still not convinced that in identical circumstances the court treats an accident involving a cyclist less seriously than say a collision with a horserider (and horse of course )

Johno100

Two_Combs wrote: »

Which emergency service do you refer to?

All of them, the fancy word is now collisions, even when a single vehicle overturns on a motorway and doesn't interact with the barriers or other vehicles it is still a collision, go figure :mad:

Two_Combs wrote: »

They have not been called accidents for years and the fact prosecutions happen shows they are not treated as 'accidents'.

The emergency services may not call them accidents, the general public do. Most of them are accidents and don't lead to prosecution. But I suppose the old adage 'Where there’s blame there’s a claim' is now the mantra for many people who see the £ sign in any incident and seek to apportion blame even when there is none.

Cornucopia

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 a really good example of the problem.

Cyclist is riding too fast (as fast as the bus). He is not riding defensively (wrong position on the road, failing to properly occupy a lane). He is effectively trying to overtake on the inside, and should at least have exercised caution when doing so. There would have been no collision if he had observed these rules.

The driver was careless in maneouvering the vehicle without checking nearside mirror (although it may have been that the cyclist was traveling too fast for any meaningful mirror-check).

Thankfully no one was hurt.

Idiophreak

Cornucopia wrote: »

That's a really good example of the problem.

Cyclist is riding too fast (as fast as the bus). He is not riding defensively (wrong position on the road, failing to properly occupy a lane). He is effectively trying to overtake on the inside, and should at least have exercised caution when doing so. There would have been no collision if he had observed these rules.

The driver was careless in maneouvering the vehicle without checking nearside mirror (although it may have been that the cyclist was traveling too fast for any meaningful mirror-check).

Thankfully no one was hurt.

The more you look at it, the more stupid it becomes.

So before the lights there's a bus lane and a "car lane". After the lights, there's a single lane for both....So the cyclist knows that 2 lanes are merging into one and sticks himself between a car and a bus...really predictable outcome.

Out of curiosity, though, I've never used them, but are the buses supposed to drive over the CSHs? Seems like if the bus wasn't driving all over it, the cyclist may have used that in the first place.

Cornucopia

Idiophreak wrote: »

Out of curiosity, though, I've never used them, but are the buses supposed to drive over the CSHs? Seems like if the bus wasn't driving all over it, the cyclist may have used that in the first place.

Depends on the road markings. In the first part of the video, there is no white line between the CSH and the Bus lane, therefore they are the same lane.

In the second part, it looks like there are hazard lines between them - indicating caution to be used when crossing the line.

Cycrow

if theres a solid white line for the cycle path, then they are mandatory and cars or buses shouldn't be driving in them. (but they still do)

unfortunately most of the CSH are not like that so they are not mandatory

Idiophreak

Cornucopia wrote: »

Depends on the road markings. In the first part of the video, there is no white line between the CSH and the Bus lane, therefore they are the same lane.

In the second part, it looks like there are hazard lines between them - indicating caution to be used when crossing the line.

Cycrow wrote: »

if theres a solid white line for the cycle path, then they are mandatory and cars or buses shouldn't be driving in them. (but they still do)

unfortunately most of the CSH are not like that so they are not mandatory

Oh...well that pretty much defeats the purpose then, doesn't it

custardy

http://road.cc/content/news/99401-cyclist-knocked-bus-guilty-threatening-behaviour

No swearing please
Feel free to hit someone with a bus though

District Judge Tim Pattinson handed Mr Lee a six month discharge. He was ordered to pay £35 costs and a £15 victims’ surcharge.

so who was the victim?

Paradigm

custardy wrote: »

http://road.cc/content/news/99401-cyclist-knocked-bus-guilty-threatening-behaviour

No swearing please
Feel free to hit someone with a bus though



so who was the victim?

Victim? The bus driver obviously