Can cyclists answer me why??

custardy

Tilt wrote: »

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.

I have no doubt the driver wouldnt have been

http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/showthread.php?t=4046427&highlight=

Plenty here to chew over


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-west-wales-19473319

A particular highlight here
9 months
Didnt stop at the scene either

brat

Tilt wrote: »

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

I responded to the emboldened phrase in your post which talked about sentencing, rather than the offence used.

So, the sentencing is approximately the same.

Marco_Panettone

We need more appropriate charges and better sentencing for road killings. Vehicular Manslaughter would be a start. Assault with Vehicle would be good too.


Courts need to remove 'accident' from their vocabulary for the vast majority of road deaths - someone is in control of the vehicle. It is their responsibility to operate it safely. Drivers have been specially trained to do so, and have the required licence to be allowed to operate the machinery in a public environment. Why are cars seen as different from other (less dangerous) machines?

brat

Marco_Panettone wrote: »

We need more appropriate charges and better sentencing for road killings. Vehicular Manslaughter would be a start. Assault with Vehicle would be good too.


Courts need to remove 'accident' from their vocabulary for the vast majority of road deaths - someone is in control of the vehicle. It is their responsibility to operate it safely. Drivers have been specially trained to do so, and have the required licence to be allowed to operate the machinery in a public environment. Why are cars seen as different from other (less dangerous) machines?

'Accident' has an important meaning in law, and I think we need to keep it for that reason. But over the last decade RTA has largely been replaced by RTC in police jargon, and it's filtering out into the wider community. The law is slowly but surely placing greater value on human life, but it's such a difficult balance to draw.

skintpaul

I am surprised that bikes are sold without lights as standard, these days..

armyknife

Holy thread necromancy, Batman.

Enterprise_1701C

I wear a helmet, I also have lights, and when I am cycling I wear a high vis top suitable for the weather, be it a vest, jacket or whatever.

That does not stop people totally missing seeing me.

One example was that a woman pulled out of a side road and nearly took me off, I managed to stop about an inch before her car door. The colour drained from her face, and I am pretty sure she will look properly before she pulls out in future.

There is a road to a local supermarket off the road that leads to the road to our house. You have a choice, either turn sharp left into the supermarket car park or simply left into the road. The main part of the road leads up to the road we live on. Several hundred people live up there. Unfortunately the people pulling out of the supermarket see the traffic lights on the main junction and think they are for them, they do not look left and many do not look right. The only reason there has not been a major accident there is that the residents know about the idiots.

I have had several incidents there, once I was turning into the road, indicating left as it is a left turn, and tried to continue up the road, an idiot in a car had a go at me for indicating left and trying to go up the road. As it happens I indicate left but need both hands to make the turn, and use that to indicate that I am going up the road (not indicating as soon as I am on the road) but this guy could not understand how I could have the cheek to try to go up the road rather than into the supermarket, especially as he had elected to try to go round me rather than waiting 2 seconds for me to continue my manoeuvre. Another one was that someone was trying to pull out of the road when I was riding up it and had a go at me for cutting across him, I just told him to look at the road markings (I was on the "main" part of the road. This is only two of many events on this road and as a consequence I use the path at this junction unless it is very quiet. I simply cannot risk one of the idiots going a little further.

It is worth mentioning that the same thing applies to this junction in a car, the fact is that the drivers coming out of the car park simply do not look. Only the other day a bloke came out of the junction when I was in the van with my husband and pulled out right in front of us staring at the lights. He did not look left and did not look right, even when we pulled right up to his door.

agarnett

I think a main point has been missed in this thread (I have read about a third of it so apologies if I am wrong).

A responsible government should be encouraging cycling and running and walking, and much less so motoring.

None of these things mix without adequate space and rules.

Basic start point default rules (no matter what) are:

• Motor vehicles should give way to cycles who should give way to pedestrians.
• Cyclists cannot expect to be seen - they must make a constant effort to check that they are being seen.
• Runners cannot expect others to anticipate much at all about what the runner will do next, so they should constantly be prepared to have to stop running.
• Pedestrians -most of us hope pedestrians don't do anything unpredictable, but if they do, then others need to be ready for it.

Now then, the above unwritten rules (according to yours truly!) are invariably not adhered to by everyone, sometimes because they disagree, sometimes because mistakes and concentration lapses prevent compliance, and sometimes because people deliberately break them aiming for for some quick advantage (like the 12 month jailed cyclist mentioned). The non-adherence will even vary even among the same individuals from day to day, because we are human.

If we see no consequence from deliberate rule-breaking or lack of vigilance then we may fool ourselves that the rule doesn't apply or the risks and consequences doesn't exist. So until something happens to reinforce the rules, we are all likely to steadily get worse at complying within our own little daily routines and scenarios.

This doesn't matter where infrastructure creates clear guides and boundaries (e.g. there are no cycle routes or footpaths on motorways).

It doesn't matter much if a cyclist has no lights if they are on a dedicated cycle path (is that the right word for it? - I don't know because the UK is new to such infrastructure and most of us might have to engage in a conversation if we were trying to accurately describe a dedicated cycle path as opposed to a parallel pavement footpath and parallel road which is how it is in many places in Europe).

Of course if that dedicated cycle path is no more than a whitelined 120cm corridor on a main London street, then circumstances are different - but if the street is well lit - a fluorescent vest is probably more important than lights! If however we are in a poorly lit London suburb, then the same sort of cycle "lane" would demand good lights after dark and perhaps in the rain. This is UK for you - too many variations of inadequate infrastructure.

So, rather than try to argue the general toss between lights and helmets and daft cyclists and daft motorists I'd like to see more said about daft politics that sees so many people dying early not because they smoke, but because they sit around all day, and eat too much, and are generally afraid to try cycling or running for fear of coming to harm from others.

I sit around too much. I eat too much. I run (not often enough), I cycle almost every day even when it is raining and with my car easier to step into than my cycle gear. I drive a lot too on longer journeys. I drive faster than average. I check my tyres and oil and have my car particularly brakes serviced better than average.

I make mistakes. I haven't killed or maimed anyone yet but I have had shunts that were my fault in the past and about an equal number that were not my fault.

I do not wear a helmet but I have fallen off my bike twice in the last year after slipping on black ice so I probably really should wear a helmet.

We can only live fulfilling lives if we take some things for granted. If we as road users constantly have to worry about deep potholes, or a rash of unpoliced joyriding in our area, or crazy roadworks diversions and narrowed or blocked rights of way, life becomes a nuisance. We have local government and policing to keep these things at an acceptable standard or level.

Increased local government investment into the type of constant infrastructure which motorists, cyclist, pedestrians and runners can all take for granted is what makes life sweeter for all of us. I suggest that is far more productive socially than arguing the toss on which skinflint/unfortunate (depending on your outlook) should have spent a whole hour's worth of his national minimum wage on a new backlight or half a cycle helmet to deal with the encountered vagaries of UK cycling.

Just my two-pennorth!

Tobster86

Jesus Christ. Anyone else want to hand in their essay two years late?

esuhl

Tobster86 wrote: »

Jesus Christ. Anyone else want to hand in their essay two years late?

Where's Vic Reeves when you need him, eh?