cyclist deaths & the law

Cornucopia

If telling cyclists what they are doing wrong saves lives, is that okay?

Mark_Mark

custardy wrote: »

unlike some I don't make it personal. As your post following this one proves you are incapable of.
You and your ilk are best sticking to telling cyclists what they are doing wrong.

I ain't got a problem with any of the court cases, unlike you. Your the one making it personal.


Let me ask you again.


Murder a common law offence where intent to kill must be proved. Life but many are out after 9 years.


Death by dangerous, maximum sentence 14 years, no need to prove any intent to kill.


What do you think should be changed?


I mean you have a crash and you could in theory do five years more than if you just stabbed them.

custardy

Cornucopia wrote: »

If telling cyclists what they are doing wrong saves lives, is that okay?

Who are you telling it to?
We have a thread here I posted to discuss the cases that go by and see drivers given no or light sentencing for killing people.
So telling cyclists what is perceived to be their errors isn't the reason for the thread.
Had it been created when I posted this,it would be on the cycling board(apparently some members felt they didnt belong in the motoring board which is sadly apt for real life)
So if you have advice that stops a car/bus/HGV driving over somebody on a straight road then Im sure the world would welcome it.

Mark_Mark

So Custardy despite all your ranting you don't have the answer or the slightest suggestion on what should be done.

brat

Mark_Mark wrote: »

I ain't got a problem with any of the court cases, unlike you. Your the one making it personal.


Let me ask you again.


Murder a common law offence where intent to kill must be proved. Life but many are out after 9 years.


Death by dangerous, maximum sentence 14 years, no need to prove any intent to kill.


What do you think should be changed?


I mean you have a crash and you could in theory do five years more than if you just stabbed them.

Theory is different from practice.

A person convicted of murder will generally serve a much greater sentence than someone convicted of death by dangerous.
Granted, there will be the occasional exception, but they are very occasional.

Mark_Mark

brat wrote: »

Theory is different from practice.

A person convicted of murder will generally serve a much greater sentence than someone convicted of death by dangerous.
Granted, there will be the occasional exception, but they are very occasional.

I know that but custardy can't accept that these are people going about their day to day business when these collisions occur. They didn't set out to kill anyone and there sentences are in no way different had they killed another motorist instead of a cyclist.


He also can't understand why a jury think different to him.

brat

Cyclists are not well protected by law, and unfortunately there is little that can be done in law to protect the cyclist.

The level of negligence required to kill a cyclist is often minimal, and usually the drivers involved in fatal cycling collisions will have been driving normally up to that point. This is in sharp contrast to the type of driving that kills other motorists, which is usually a much higher degree of negligence.
Jurors are human, and when they hear explanations of how a cyclist was killed, they will think to themselves, "I might have done that too". This will often lead to a juror making a more lenient judgement against the killer of a cyclist than many think appropriate.

brat

Mark_Mark wrote: »

I know that but custardy can't accept that these are people going about their day to day business when these collisions occur. They didn't set out to kill anyone and there sentences are in no way different had they killed another motorist instead of a cyclist.


He also can't understand why a jury think different to him.

My last post and yours crossed, and we were making more or less the same point.
however, are the jurors right to be sympathetic to the driver? Should his negligence not be viewed more dispassionately, and more objectively?
I think it probably should.

custardy

Mark_Mark wrote: »

So Custardy despite all your ranting you don't have the answer or the slightest suggestion on what should be done.

Once more. no civility.
I think you and John should continue your love in as people die.
Nothing I post will meet your exacting standards and you are happy to dismiss anything put forward.

Mark_Mark

custardy wrote: »

Once more. no civility.
I think you and John should continue your love in as people die.
Nothing I post will meet your exacting standards and you are happy to dismiss anything put forward.

While you keep putting forward biased media reports what do you expect?


You wont even tell us what you feel appropriate sentencing is, every time you are asked something about facts all you do is come back with what do you think.


You don't really give a toss about what I or anyone else thinks unless it agrees with your point of view.