cyclist deaths & the law

Mark_Mark

custardy wrote: »

And once more you miss the point.
If the law isnt fit to protect cyclists and provide a decent deterrent,then it isnt fit for purpose.
If so many cases result in no or little punishment. Then where's the deterrent?
If you can kill 2 cyclists in your driving lifetime,and its still not worthy of a custodial sentence. Then what is?
People are being killed and being maimed for life,often for the sake of a driver showing a little bit of thought for another persons life.

The moped rider didn't kill anyone.

No laws are fit for purpose by your standard then.

Maybe I am missing the point or maybe you don't have one.

custardy

Mark_Mark wrote: »

The moped rider didn't kill anyone.

No laws are fit for purpose by your standard then.

Maybe I am missing the point or maybe you don't have one.

So death is the only benchmark?
No endangerment?

Did you bother to read the article?

In January 2012 we reported how motorist Scott Lomas was convicted of a public order offence after he threatened cyclist Martin Porter who was riding to work.

The Metropolitan Police only referred the matter to the Crown Prosecution Service after Porter had twice complained about their initial decision not to take action. despite his having provided them with helmet camera footage.

The fact that Porter is a Queen's Counsel, making him more suited than most to negotiating the criminal justice system, is likely to have been a factor in the case reaching its eventual conclusion.

So what happened here?
Or is threatening with words an offence,but physically threatening someone not?

Mark_Mark

custardy wrote: »

And once more you miss the point.
If the law isnt fit to protect cyclists and provide a decent deterrent,then it isnt fit for purpose.
If so many cases result in no or little punishment. Then where's the deterrent?
If you can kill 2 cyclists in your driving lifetime,and its still not worthy of a custodial sentence. Then what is?
People are being killed and being maimed for life,often for the sake of a driver showing a little bit of thought for another persons life.

If you wish to dissect the video,then you can clearly see the cyclists hand go up in a 'what the hell movement'. It doesnt stretch out to the rider.
You will also note the HGV passing just before the moped driver pulls his ridiculous undertake.
That could easily have ended in a fatality without him/her kicking out

Is that what you interprets what happens or is that fact?

I see a hand go back on the bars but not what happens before. Maybe he had a swing at the moped rider.

Mark_Mark

custardy wrote: »

So death is the only benchmark?
No endangerment?

Did you bother to read the article?



So what happened here?
Or is threatening with words an offence,but physically threatening someone not?

You brought the death aspect into the handbags video not me. I read the article and quite right it is too. Why should the police waste time and money on something that's going nowhere.

custardy

Mark_Mark wrote: »

Is that what you interprets what happens or is that fact?

I see a hand go back on the bars but not what happens before. Maybe he had a swing at the moped rider.

Maybe he did,but as you know we cant be second guessing the evidence.
Can we?
We can only go on what we see,which is the rider undertaking and kicking at the cyclist.
I'm sure with a bit of work an independent tech could clean up the audio too.
Perhaps we could say the cyclist felt threatened and was driven to striking out if you wish.
That was the counter argument for the Audi driver punching a cyclist recently wasnt it?

People often lament cyclists for not being registered,passing tests and having compulsory insurance.
Going by this it would seem it wouldn't really matter.

custardy

Mark_Mark wrote: »

You brought the death aspect into the handbags video not me. I read the article and quite right it is too. Why should the police waste time and money on something that's going nowhere.

and your statement means no death no foul.

Mark_Mark

custardy wrote: »

Maybe he did,but as you know we cant be second guessing the evidence.
Can we?
We can only go on what we see,which is the rider undertaking and kicking at the cyclist.
I'm sure with a bit of work an independent tech could clean up the audio too.
Perhaps we could say the cyclist felt threatened and was driven to striking out if you wish.
That was the counter argument for the Audi driver punching a cyclist recently wasnt it?

People often lament cyclists for not being registered,passing tests and having compulsory insurance.
Going by this it would seem it wouldn't really matter.

Going off what we see does the moped rider pass on the left or dies the cyclist rum out of speed on his overtake? Who knows yet again a biased film clip edited to make a media story.

custardy

Mark_Mark wrote: »

Going off what we see does the moped rider pass on the left or dies the cyclist rum out of speed on his overtake? Who knows yet again a biased film clip edited to make a media story.

Well I'm sure the rider has a far longer clip for the Police. Why wouldnt he?

So what's the answer?
A bus driver can drive through 2 cyclists and get no punishment.
Cyclists are being killed.
So where does it end? The law doesnt seem to address the issue. Even when a law is created to address the seriousness of injured peds/cyclists. The courts drop the charge to a lesser count.
http://road.cc/content/news/109980-lorry-driver-who-crushed-boris-bike-rider-fined-£620
So even with a law in ploace,its still no good.
You will note 10 months later the cyclist is still receiving treatment and a defective vehicle merits a third of the relatively small fine.
You can get up to £1000 for simply not taxing your vehicle

Mark_Mark

custardy wrote: »

Well I'm sure the rider has a far longer clip for the Police. Why wouldnt he?

So what's the answer?
A bus driver can drive through 2 cyclists and get no punishment.
Cyclists are being killed.
So where does it end? The law doesnt seem to address the issue. Even when a law is created to address the seriousness of injured peds/cyclists. The courts drop the charge to a lesser count.
http://road.cc/content/news/109980-lorry-driver-who-crushed-boris-bike-rider-fined-£620
So even with a law in ploace,its still no good.
You will note 10 months later the cyclist is still receiving treatment and a defective vehicle merits a third of the relatively small fine.
You can get up to £1000 for simply not taxing your vehicle

Well why isn't the rest of the clip on YouTube?

Does it show the cyclist doing something wrong?

Yet again you get bogged down with what the media want you to believe. If it were the cyclist kicking out at the moped rider you'd have a different opinion about it again. The fact is that video you posted is a non event or it doesn't show the full story.

custardy

Mark_Mark wrote: »

Well why isn't the rest of the clip on YouTube?

Does it show the cyclist doing something wrong?

Yet again you get bogged down with what the media want you to believe. If it were the cyclist kicking out at the moped rider you'd have a different opinion about it again. The fact is that video you posted is a non event or it doesn't show the full story.

The media?
You make quite a generalisation there.
I work on knowing people who have submitted video evidence to the Police here in Edinburgh.
I get to see the behaviour demonstrated on the roads most days whether I be on the bike or in the car.