Can cyclists answer me why??

simonhunter87

As there are lots of cyclists... And road users concerned for safety... U might be interested in signing and sharing this petition :-)

http://petitions.manchester.gov.uk/petitions.ti/cycling

Tilt

brat wrote: »

We are absolutely on the same page. I just didn't want you to believe that the Road Traffic Act doesn't apply to cyclists on paths or pavements. Or that it applies to pedestrians.

The CTC data is indeed clear, 22 pedestrians killed by cyclists in 10 years is a very low figure, not low enough, but zero is almost impossible. Other data indicates that only 3 of those fatalities were on the pavement. Given that approximately 30,000 people died in road traffic collisions over the same period, there is much more effective prevention work to be done than to worry too much about
a) Cyclists on pavements - 3 pedestrian deaths in 10 years, and
b) Cyclists going though red lights - 0 pedestrian deaths in 10 years.

This incident nearly changed that statistic apparently;

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2526504/Hit-run-CYCLIST-ran-girl-30mph-ignoring-red-light-pedestrian-crossing-jailed-NINE-MONTHS.html?login#readerCommentsCommand-message-field

Had it been a motorist, he probably would of been jailed for a lot longer as the penalties are far more severe than they are for a cyclist. Maybe this incident will change that. 12 months in this case is a joke, especially as the to**er left the girl for dead.

brat

Tilt wrote: »

This incident nearly changed that statistic apparently;

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2526504/Hit-run-CYCLIST-ran-girl-30mph-ignoring-red-light-pedestrian-crossing-jailed-NINE-MONTHS.html?login#readerCommentsCommand-message-field

Had it been a motorist, he probably would of been jailed for a lot longer as the penalties are far more severe than they are for a cyclist. Maybe this incident will change that. 12 months in this case is a joke, especially as the to**er left the girl for dead.

Each individual event is a traumatic event for those concerned, and no one can or should defend such dreadful behaviour.
For every pedestrian death, 13 are seriously injured.

But in the same 10 year period approximately 300,000 cyclists, pedestrians and other motorists were killed or seriously injured by motorists in the UK. That should be the significant target for your and my concern, rather than the 'risk from cyclists' side show that certain people take perverse and mistaken pleasure in making centre stage.

Tilt

I think you are missing the point.

The penalty issued here is ridiculous and no doubt would of been far more severe had it been a car the idiot was driving. The law being used is draconian and totally inappropriate for today's traffic conditions.

It's his actions that should be taken into account, not what he was in control of.

hugheskevi

The penalty issued here is ridiculous and no doubt would of been far more severe had it been a car the idiot was driving

I don't think this is a safe assumption - penalties for car drivers can be erratic and very lenient too.

There was a quite high profile case recently where a driver drove into the back of a cyclist, killing the cyclist, but only received a driving ban and community service (eg, report here). The Crown appealed the sentence for undue leniency, but was not successful.

The defence argued the driver had momentarily lost concentration, which is similar to the arguments I'd expect the cyclist in this case to be putting forward.

brat

Tilt wrote: »

I think you are missing the point.

The penalty issued here is ridiculous and no doubt would of (have) been far more severe had it been a car the idiot was driving. The law being used is draconian and totally inappropriate for today's traffic conditions.

It's his actions that should be taken into account, not what he was in control of.

No, it's similar.

A couple of years ago, I dealt with a motorist who killed a 92 year old lady who was walking across a road in a recognised crossing. She underestimated the speed of the vehicle which was accelerating towards her. The driver failed to see her and had plenty of time to stop, but didn't and drove straight into her, killing her. He was given 200 hours community service.

More recently I reported on a young lad who caused the death of a pedestrian by dangerous driving, by losing control of his vehicle at speed causing it to climb onto a pavement killing the pedestrian. He was found guilty at court, and got 18 months.

Another I reported on pleaded guilty to causing the death of an elderly pedestrian by dangerous driving by reversing into her as she was crossing a pedestrian crossing. He got 16 months.

Those I have recently dealt with for causing serious injury by dangerous driving have had 12 months jail (for seriously injuring a motor cyclist) and 200 hours community service for seriously injuring another motorist.

So the sentences are on a par.

brat

hugheskevi wrote: »

I don't think this is a safe assumption - penalties for car drivers can be erratic and very lenient too.

There was a quite high profile case recently where a driver drove into the back of a cyclist, killing the cyclist, but only received a driving ban and community service (eg, report here). The Crown appealed the sentence for undue leniency, but was not successful.

The defence argued the driver had momentarily lost concentration, which is similar to the arguments I'd expect the cyclist in this case to be putting forward.

I've said many times that the manner of driving negligence required to kill a cyclist is often way less than that required to kill a motorist. This unfortunately means that not only in the cyclist less protected physically, but s/he is underprotected by the sentencing threat too.
It's a double whammy that should be urgently tasking the minds of those whose task it is to improve vulnerable road user safety.

Marco_Panettone

It also shows just how lenient our laws are when it comes to dangerous road use. If you want to get away with murder, do it on the road.

hugheskevi

It also shows just how lenient our laws are when it comes to dangerous road use.

They do seem surprisingly lenient.

In some cases you may have sympathy/benefit of the doubt in an accident - the consequences may have been tragic, but they may have been caused by an error that was only a little careless.

But then you get cases such as this one - driving whilst banned, driving whilst drunk, driving an unlicensed vehicle, driving whilst uninsured, breaking road rules, causing an accident, causing death, and fleeing the scene. Hard to think of any mitigating circumstances (although a guilty plea reduces sentence). The maximum possible sentence was 14 years.

Penalty is 6 years in jail (so probably about 3 in practice) and a 3 year driving ban. I wonder what you have to do to get more than half the maximum penalty if that little lot isn't enough.

Tilt

brat wrote: »

No, it's similar.

A couple of years ago, I dealt with a motorist who killed a 92 year old lady who was walking across a road in a recognised crossing. She underestimated the speed of the vehicle which was accelerating towards her. The driver failed to see her and had plenty of time to stop, but didn't and drove straight into her, killing her. He was given 200 hours community service.

More recently I reported on a young lad who caused the death of a pedestrian by dangerous driving, by losing control of his vehicle at speed causing it to climb onto a pavement killing the pedestrian. He was found guilty at court, and got 18 months.

Another I reported on pleaded guilty to causing the death of an elderly pedestrian by dangerous driving by reversing into her as she was crossing a pedestrian crossing. He got 16 months.

Those I have recently dealt with for causing serious injury by dangerous driving have had 12 months jail (for seriously injuring a motor cyclist) and 200 hours community service for seriously injuring another motorist.

So the sentences are on a par.

How can they be? The cyclist was ultimately convicted of GBH. I doubt that would of been the charge had he been driving a car!

The point i'm trying to make (and it is obvious if you read the report correctly), is that available charges applicable to cyclists are dated back over a hundred years. As such, there were limits on the charges bought in this case thus the lenient sentence.

The law as far as cyclists are concerned are totally inadequate and need updating.