We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
cyclist deaths & the law
Comments
-
Cornucopia wrote: »The key comment from the Birmingham case is this:-
The implication being that she moved out into traffic after the truck began moving and in such a position that the driver could not see her.
It's tragic, but I honestly don't see the argument for punishing drivers for things that are beyond their reasonable control.
Oh, and they don't just throw these cases together, they have forensic accident investigations. They know the facts of the accidents in significantly greater detail than will ever get reported in the press.
look over the cases in the thread.
things beyond their contol seems to cover the sun being the in the sky.
As i posted before. road positioning at the crossing could have negated the blind spot at the crossing.
not even keying in his likely lack of attention by his recorded phone use.
cant be proven but I would say its likely he was using/paying attention to the phone,not the road.
only he will know this of course.0 -
look over the cases in the thread.
things beyond their contol seems to cover the sun being the in the sky.
As i posted before. road positioning at the crossing could have negated the blind spot at the crossing.
not even keying in his likely lack of attention by his recorded phone use.
cant be proven but I would say its likely he was using/paying attention to the phone,not the road.
only he will know this of course.
Could it, you know that junction do you?0 -
look over the cases in the thread.
things beyond their contol seems to cover the sun being the in the sky.
As i posted before. road positioning at the crossing could have negated the blind spot at the crossing.
not even keying in his likely lack of attention by his recorded phone use.
cant be proven but I would say its likely he was using/paying attention to the phone,not the road.
only he will know this of course.
This is just embarrassing now.
It appears Commissioner Custardy is advocating a wholesale change in the British legal system to reflect his guilty until proven innocent ethos (but only in the case of motorists).
Heaven forbid there are any mitigating circumstances to a tragic accident. Another case of Custardy's black and white view of thwe world.0 -
look over the cases in the thread.
things beyond their contol seems to cover the sun being the in the sky.
As i posted before. road positioning at the crossing could have negated the blind spot at the crossing.
not even keying in his likely lack of attention by his recorded phone use.
cant be proven but I would say its likely he was using/paying attention to the phone,not the road.
only he will know this of course.
Our legal system requires that (a) the defendant is to blame, and (b) there is evidence to support the defendant being to blame.
I don't know all of these cases inside-out, but certainly the Birmingham one fails on those two factors.
I think it would be great to clamp down on poor driving, and I think that typical standards of driving of lorries are well below what is required for vehicles with such destructive potential.
However, I am not convinced that cyclist accidents would reduce much through such measures, or that many cyclists are not partly responsible for many incidents and accidents in which they find themselves involved.
The only answer is properly segregated cycle space on the roads - and even then, you'd probably need legislation to force some cyclists to use it.0 -
Cornucopia wrote: »Our legal system requires that (a) the defendant is to blame, and (b) there is evidence to support the defendant being to blame.
I don't know all of these cases inside-out, but certainly the Birmingham one fails on those two factors.
I think it would be great to clamp down on poor driving, and I think that typical standards of driving of lorries are well below what is required for vehicles with such destructive potential.
However, I am not convinced that cyclist accidents would reduce much through such measures, or that many cyclists are not partly responsible for many incidents and accidents in which they find themselves involved.
The only answer is properly segregated cycle space on the roads - and even then, you'd probably need legislation to force some cyclists to use it.
arent many car drivers partly responsible for car incidents too?
however that could be as simple as not allowing for the other party's poor choice of manoeuvre
However as usual its always good to ensure some blame floats around. like the mention of a helmet in fatality ensuring some element of blame is transferred to the deceased,regardless of evidence or legal requirement.
If segregated cycle space and legislation to 'force' cyclists to use it (you realise nearly all cyclist would use practical and safe infrastructure?) then how do other more cycle centric countries manage it?
Anyway we seem to once again be moving on to what cyclists should be doing etc. The fact remains that cyclists can do everything in their powers to be safe,be killed and yet its seen as just one of those things it appears.
Have a butchers at this one (its already in the thread with many more)
http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/carlisle-death-crash-bus-driver-cleared-of-charges-1.967743
Wasnt dangerous,wasnt careless,so just one of those things?0 -
arent many car drivers partly responsible for car incidents too?
however that could be as simple as not allowing for the other party's poor choice of manoeuvre
However as usual its always good to ensure some blame floats around. like the mention of a helmet in fatality ensuring some element of blame is transferred to the deceased,regardless of evidence or legal requirement.
If segregated cycle space and legislation to 'force' cyclists to use it (you realise nearly all cyclist would use practical and safe infrastructure?) then how do other more cycle centric countries manage it?
Anyway we seem to once again be moving on to what cyclists should be doing etc. The fact remains that cyclists can do everything in their powers to be safe,be killed and yet its seen as just one of those things it appears.
Have a butchers at this one (its already in the thread with many more)
http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/carlisle-death-crash-bus-driver-cleared-of-charges-1.967743
Wasnt dangerous,wasnt careless,so just one of those things?
Do you notice something in that case?
A jury, 12 people think different to you having heard all the evidence yet they are wrong in your view.
You really are of the opinion that every motorist involved in a collision is automatically guilty of an offence.
Too much time spent reading your favourite reference material the daily mail.0 -
well thats an assumption.
looking over past cases it would seem facts are missed in most,or it could just be that realistic sentences arent handed out.
thees one theory that in most cases the judge/sheriff can empathise with the driver and the momentary lapse in concentration' (as above)and treats the case accordinglyDo you notice something in that case?
A jury, 12 people think different to you having heard all the evidence yet they are wrong in your view.
You really are of the opinion that every motorist involved in a collision is automatically guilty of an offence.
Too much time spent reading your favourite reference material the daily mail.
Which would tie in nicely with the theory then.
You are always quick to dismiss my opinion Mark.
feel free to disagree. However you could try not to do it with being dismissive.
I chose the Mail link as the 1st hit.
Would you like it from a different paper?
Always guilty? no.
However it seems all to often it is seen as one of those things. Something you seem fine with. Its called disagreeing.
So do you see there's no issue in that case?0 -
Which would tie in nicely with the theory then.
You are always quick to dismiss my opinion Mark.
feel free to disagree. However you could try not to do it with being dismissive.
I chose the Mail link as the 1st hit.
Would you like it from a different paper?
Always guilty? no.
However it seems all to often it is seen as one of those things. Something you seem fine with. Its called disagreeing.
So do you see there's no issue in that case?
I disagree with you as you are bind to the obvious facts.
You don't understand, the points to prove, rules of evidence and sentencing guidelines.
If you took any time to consider those three points it would make your opinion valid. However you keep on posting half truths as reported in the media.
You don't offer a balance argument either do you? I don't see one link from you where the judge has got it right in similar circumstances.0 -
I disagree with you as you are bind to the obvious facts.
You don't understand, the points to prove, rules of evidence and sentencing guidelines.
If you took any time to consider those three points it would make your opinion valid. However you keep on posting half truths as reported in the media.
You don't offer a balance argument either do you? I don't see one link from you where the judge has got it right in similar circumstances.
Look at the Carlisle bus case then?
If you cant see where you are going and drive over 2 people
There is no legal outlet?
If you want a balanced argument then provide it. You go and find the cases0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 351.7K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454K Spending & Discounts
- 244.6K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.3K Life & Family
- 258.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards