cyclist deaths & the law

custardy

Cornucopia wrote: »

I think it's worse than that.

I think he genuinely believes that cyclists are being killed and injured on the roads because drivers are willfully negligent - to the extent that "proper" punishment might change their behaviour, and the behaviour of other drivers and prevent cyclist injuries.

It seems to me that there is no evidence to support that argument whatsoever.

So how does one drive through two cyclists without negligence?

custardy

Mark_Mark wrote: »

What do you want, article 6 of the human rights act removed?

So no answer.
you either do or dont feel the driver was at fault?

Mark_Mark

Cornucopia wrote: »

I think it's worse than that.

I think he genuinely believes that cyclists are being killed and injured on the roads because drivers are willfully negligent - to the extent that "proper" punishment might change their behaviour, and the behaviour of other drivers and prevent cyclist injuries.

It seems to me that there is no evidence to support that argument whatsoever.

There are three largely unrelated questions here:-

1. Is the safety system on the roads failing cyclists?

2. Does cycling and/or driving culture (ie. behaviour and attitudes) contribute to failures of the safety system?

3. Is the law dealing effectively with drivers who collide with cyclists?

custardy wrote: »

So how does one drive through two cyclists without negligence?

I've highlighted the important word you missed out.

Cornucopia

custardy wrote: »

So how does one drive through two cyclists without negligence?

Who says that is what happened?

Mark_Mark

custardy wrote: »

So no answer.
you either do or dont feel the driver was at fault?

As already said by another member.

Cornucopia wrote: »

There isn't enough information on the accident to draw any conclusions.

Mark_Mark

Cornucopia wrote: »

Who says that is what happened?

Custardy


Its all there in the press report. (If you read between the lines)

custardy

Cornucopia wrote: »

Who says that is what happened?

Well if you drive over 2 cyclists and didnt see them.
whats left
The driver was driving on the road and said the sun blocked his vision.
So does the sun blocking your vision means no blame?

custardy

Mark_Mark wrote: »

I've highlighted the important word you missed out.

well its wilful to drive on when you cant see.

Mark_Mark

custardy wrote: »

well its wilful to drive on when you cant see.

You come over the brow of a hill at 30mph driving a car on a wet road with the national speed limit in force. You are instantaneously blinded by a low sun.


The highway code allows you 75 feet to stop at that speed on a dry road. You are saying in that distance you are wilfully driving yet the reference book that would be referred to says you can't stop.


Is that below the standard expected of a competent driver?

Mark_Mark

custardy wrote: »

Well if you drive over 2 cyclists and didnt see them.
whats left
The driver was driving on the road and said the sun blocked his vision.
So does the sun blocking your vision means no blame?

In that case the jury decided YES.