aP,
OK I'll bite.
If I were doing 30 in a 40 and I didn't touch the brakes as I run into you I I reckon you'd be in much the same state as if I were doing 60 20 yards before and slammed on the brakes – i.e. mush.
It's not the speed that kills, it's the transfer of kinetic energy. Matey boy in the article would have been fine if he had been in a tank and not on a bike.
[/troll]

http://www.thanhniennews.com/2010/Pages/20100429173746.aspx

And he was lucky not to get a bullet behind his left ear… not every country treats idiot drivers as kindly as they do in your fine land.

Id make an example of her with a public flogging – we need to restore some medieval methods!

There are cases of accidents happening with things happening out side of drivers/cyclists controls and these can happen to the best/most careful of drivers so i think its right to go through the courts but as soon as people are doing things that would get them punishment any way and they have an accident then they should have the full punishment avalible as they have made the desicion to act they way.

Alright, the drivers mentioned didn't mean to kill anyone, so I can kind of understand why they weren't jailed. But a kill should equal an automatic lifetime ban, simple. It really worries me that these people will be back on the road in 12-18 months.

Alright, the drivers mentioned didn't mean to kill anyone, so I can kind of understand why they weren't jailed.

Neither do the people getting 10 year sentences for manslaughter.

The courts have to have some say in the sentencing.

My aunt was knocked down and killed and the driver suffered horribly. He nigh-on had a complete mental breakdown over it.
It was not his fault per se. She’d gone to walk “home”, forgetting she was by that time in a home, and her home she remembered was on the other side of a newly constructed dual carriageway.

Extreme case I know, but judges that I have “met” in court have been extremely smart, well informed and experienced. Often their hands are tied and must weigh up both sides of the arguments before making decisions & quite often just reading a new organisation’s strapines doesn’t really give us the full body of evidence.

I’m not saying it’s right, just tipping the balance a little the other way as the post is starting to look like a witch hunt!

To be fair I think that people should at least get a lifetime ban if convicted of careless driving.

A woman who killed a cyclist in a time trial event in Cambridgeshire was given 21 months in jail.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8529091.stm

Suggests sentencing is not uniform across the country?

One caveat is if alcohol is involved.
If we had a Zero Tolerence in force where drinking (any drugs)& driving was involved I'd vote for that.

Our law is based around trying people for their actions not for the consequences of those actions

And how many amateur mechanics get a 2 year sentence for carrying out substandard repairs on their own car ?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lincolnshire/7846801.stm

I think a general increase in fines/bans/points all round for driving offences would be part of the answer & tightening of the laws too – we all see the amount of poor driving involving deliberate use of mobile phones & flouting of road markings etc but most road policing relies on the easy targeting of speeding & parking – I mean £50 fine for overstaying a 2hr limit in the local Sainsburys carpark v £30 plus 3(?) points for use of mobile phone whilst driving just doesn't add up.
Having been the witness to a serious rta 18 months ago I was shocked at how little resources were put into the police investigation – the most important piece of evidence presented in court was the map I drew of the crash scene & the driver only got convicted because there had been a full survey of the junction after a death there the previous year. If you ever have the misfortune to be a witness of such an event & however callous it may seem get your camera out & take photos photos & more photos

I am surprised that the fact that one tried to transfer blame and the other, though hysterical called for a lift and went home for a bit, didn't seem to have any effect on the sentances.

I'm likewise confused why doing 60 in a 40, then losing control of the vehicle and killing someone isn't considered "reckless driving".

Seems pretty reckless to me. Fetches the dictionary:

reckless: marked by defiant disregard for danger or consequences.

You can't even use the argument that he was speeding ,but it was safe to do so.

Our law is based around trying people for their actions not for the consequences of those actions

TJ, I have to take issue with you over this statement. It is clearly not the case. Did Peter Sutcliffe get charged with hammering bits of wood into his victims bodily orifices? Did he get charged with whacking a prossy over the head with a hammer? No he got charged with Murder, which was self evidently the outcome of those actions.

I have no idea at all where you could draw that conclusion from, nor how you might apply it to this situation. Obviously, killing someone whilst driving carelessly and speeding is more serious than simply driving carelssly or speeding without incident, and sentencing will generally reflect that. It is utter tosh to say otherwise….. except it would appear when it applies to cyclists being hit by cars.

For my money the law is a reflection of the population that it applies to, and their predjudices, needs and views. In this instance, it is simply that the vast majority of the population are drivers, and to penalise drivers heavily is very politically unpopular. On the opposite side of the coin, whislt there are at least as many cyclists if not more, they are not a cohesive group, nor represented by big business interests such as the motor companies. Not only that, even within their own community there are those who seek to justify and maintain this clear and obvious inequity.

In short, until cyclists actually get together and become a cohesive and powerful voice frankly nobody in authority gives damn, and statements like that above just exacerbates that situation……

…….and breath

Bermbandit – that is my understanding of how the law works.

Sutcliffe – it could reasonably be assumed he intended to kill hence murder. However if you kill by being inattentive in a car there is no intent to kill hence it is not murder. You get tried for what you did – IE being innatentive in the car.

Its about what your intent is

Look up mens rea

Edit -Here is a ref http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea

From what I read, driving a car is seen almost as a human right these days with its withdrawal for piffling amounts of time considered a tough sentence in itself. A strong message from the top to re-inject some form of realisation into the general populous that driving a vehicle is a privilege and a significant responsibility cannot come too soon. I for one would happily vote tomorrow for a party that had some such pledge in its manifesto.

To kill another person through a tragic accident whilst in every other way behaving responsibility must be a terrible thing but is a sad part of living in the real world. Once one steps out of considered cultural norms of behaviour and your lack of consideration to others either inflicts injury or could inflict injury I'm not sure society could do enough in retribution or make too much of an example of you to make it clear to others that there are personal consequences to the perpetrator as well as he victim of unsociable behaviour.

I can do Wiki too 🙂

TJ : Manslaughter…. The whole premise of which is its not intentional

How about they oblige drivers to have a sign, like an L plate but on each side plus front & back. For ever. Penalty for driving a car without them – permanent DQ / fine / loss of car

One for causing death by careless driving

One for conviction dangerous driving

One for conviction drink driving

One for losing your licence for other reasons (accumulating points etc)

That'd be fun, I think

driving a car is seen almost as a human right these days with its withdrawal for piffling amounts of time considered a tough sentence in itself. A strong message from the top to re-inject some form of realisation into the general populous that driving a vehicle is a privilege and a significant responsibility cannot come too soon.

Exactly. I'm sure the judge knows what he's doing in terms of the sentence and that there are guidelines he has to follow that might not be obvious to the rest of us but the idea that the drivers in these cases deserves to drive again is astonishing in my view.

Do you remember this case?

I found this one a little tricky – the difference between intent/action and consequences. I can't find the link now but according to police records there were 7 drivers that day (or week, I forget) who fell asleep at the wheel and fell off the road. Unfortunately for Hart, the ditch he fell off the road into was full of train and 10 people died. The other 6, by chance, found nice empty ditches to fall into. None of the other 6 went to prison. My problem with that is that essentially all 7 committed the same crime, it was just the consequences for one of them were higher. All equally stupid, one just more unlucky. Should prison sentences be handed out by luck?

It's almost impossible to prove that someone fell asleep so the best you've got is a trial by jury, which I imagine are quite expensive. I guess it's felt to be uneconomic to do this in most cases.

(but I agree with you – it's hard to imagine he's more guilty than he would've been if he'd crashed 20 secs earlier into the verge/barriers)

While the chap looks like a pleasant law abiding citizen 😯 and certainly 60 in a 40 is "not on", being on the "wrong side" of the road is not illegal (unless there's solid white lines) regardless of cause, unless something makes it dangerous and the possible presence of a cyclist apparently with no lights on first thing in the morning isn't really something you'd expect. I suspect the court has looked on this as someone speeding at night rather than someone driving like a loon all over the road and losing control.

Local press report says he was doing 50, not 60 – how many of us never, ever travel at speed limit +10?
Also mentions "pendulum effect" of tools in back of the car causing him to lose control and cross to other side of the carriageway, which I think the beeb neglected to mention.
Still way too trivial a sentance to act as a disincentive to other drivers.

absolutely shocking. that guy needed a custodial sentence to sort him out. does the fact that he lied at the scene not go against him!! 240 hrs comm serv is a poor sentence and truely does not reflect the crime!

Also mentions "pendulum effect" of tools in back of the car causing him to lose control and cross to other side of the carriageway, which I think the beeb neglected to mention.

Though that means he was travelling too fast for the load he was carrying TBH. I've never had the pendulum effect despite having had a near overloaded estate driving about the alps.

cycling against the car culture
this article by a lawyer explains a lot about the judiciary's pathetic attitude to road safety in the uk.

i've posted the link before but if you've not read it it's worth 10 mins of your time. sometimes there seems like little point debating how/whys of these seemingly lenient sentances – there's a fairly simple reason why there's little incentive for drivers to take real resopnsibility when in control of a ton or more of high speed metal and this article sums it up.

change has to start with the government and the judiciary – unlikely now that so much of the population and the economy rely on cars and elections come down to popularity contests. it's take some real balls for a politician to argue for an effective clamp-down in this area – "war on the motorist" etc etc. damn right, the lack of responsibility among some drivers is something that needs to be fought against.

My mate at this very moment in time is trying to understand why the hit and run driver who killed his cyclist dad was givent a paltry six month suspended sentence. TJ you really are an idiot of the highest order.

Talkemada – Member

'Genuine Accident'. See, this is the bit I have trouble with. If someone is driving within the Law, then fair enough. If they're over the speed/alcohol limit, then it should be considered a reckless and potentially dangerous act.

A report in the local paper today – a pedestrian was hit and killed by a driver as the pedestrian stepped out into a dual carriageway. Apparently the driver could have done nothing to avoid the pedestrian.

However, the driver was over the limit and was driving without licence or insurance.

The court seems to have been told to ignore that….

scaredypants – Member
How about they oblige drivers to have a sign, like an L plate but on each side plus front & back. For ever. Penalty for driving a car without them – permanent DQ / fine / loss of car

One for causing death by careless driving

One for conviction dangerous driving

One for conviction drink driving

One for losing your licence for other reasons (accumulating points etc)

That'd be fun, I think

Huge signs painted onto the side of the car – absolutely fantastic!

enfht – thats a bit out of order, I think TJ's comments are fair and put forward a good point.

'Genuine Accident'. See, this is the bit I have trouble with. If someone is driving within the Law, then fair enough. If they're over the speed/alcohol limit, then it should be considered a reckless and potentially dangerous act.

But not tending to a screaming kid, or fighting with the CD player / sat nav? Why the black and white thinking? They'd be driving within the law to some extent – due care and attention is usually a bit tricky to prove…

Alright, the drivers mentioned didn't mean to kill anyone, so I can kind of understand why they weren't jailed. But a kill should equal an automatic lifetime ban, simple. It really worries me that these people will be back on the road in 12-18 months.

So a kid walks out straight in front of you, and the inevitable happens. Despite being deeply traumatised for life, you now can never drive again. Nice…

One caveat is if alcohol is involved.
If we had a Zero Tolerence in force where drinking (any drugs)& driving was involved I'd vote for that.

Human biochemistry not your strong point then? Have you any idea how long it takes a healthy adult to completely remove the residue of one pint from the body? And on any drugs, I assume you never touch coffee or tea either?

OP – negligence of one party directly resulted in death of another, yet negligent party only get 240 hours CS. Unprecedented in every other legal scenario except those where a cyclist has been killed.

Once you get on that bike folks your life is not worth much more than a dog's.

Once you get on that bike folks your life is not worth much more than a dog's.

Except some people get more upset on here if you kick a dog…

The disparity in sentencing is truly shocking, I had not appreciated the extent of the inequality.

IMO one of the problems is this NCAP safety rating thing, it promotes the idea that cars are safe. Thing is, they're only safe for the people inside. That encourages people inside cars to go faster and take more risks. Which makes things a sh1tload more dangerous for those who are not inside.

Modern cars are very fast and very affordable, and in most of them there is little concept of speed.

Footballers, politicians and other rich, famous (important) people have car accidents, get caught speeding and employ fancy lawyers to get them off. This demonstrates that it's ok to break the law if you are rich or famous, turn it around: to emulate the rich and famous you need to drive unsafely.

At the bottom of all this is class. If you ride a bike you're, well, you know, a bit thick perhaps, or poor, yes you sad litle bike-rider, you can't even afford a car! Why should you live? Perhaps you are too stupid to pass the (ridiculously easy) driving test? You deserve to be mown down by clever me in my nice shiny car – don't bleed on it though or I'll kick your peasant head in for good measure.

I think TJ's comments are fair and put forward a good point.

I agree, but he's wrong. Worse than that, he appears to be deliberately ignoring the point and putting up the "murder" strawman, when we're actually suggesting manslaughter.

aracer, I think you're wrong in suggesting manslaughter

to me (layman) it suggests that harm was intended to the victim, though not death (or else diminished responsibility etc)

I doubt many cyclist deaths (though some, maybe 😥 ) are in any way intentional, so that leaves you with care/attention or dangerous driving

to me (layman) it suggests that harm was intended to the victim, though not death

Well you're wrong too then.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter_in_English_law#Involuntary_Manslaughter

Well you're wrong too then.

Morning!

Not really, you're just getting over-excited and assuming things about these drivers that are not commonly true and VERY hard to prove

OK, you prove gross negligence or a criminal disregard for other road users on any driver's behalf and I'm with you. I imagine these to be fundamentally different to temporary inattention and more in line with Sheriff Mcthingy's line to the plumber/psycho about "if you'd been REALLY speeding …"

(edit/add)
remember that Scottish woman who killed someone in her Porsche while looking in the footwell for a CD (or something) ?
SHe "got off" too and the comment was that she'd never done this before… (ie no blatant disregard).
(AT the time, was implied that it helped a tiny bit that she had some pretty solid connections with the legal system in Scotland)

The real point here is the message that is sent out regarding how people drive. I am old enough to remember the time when drinking and driving was not seen to be anything other than a bit of a laugh as long as you didn't overdo it…(i.e. kill someone). That attitude has been turned on its head by the Government becuase the law was stiffened up etc etc.

The current situation with cyclists is the same as the old drinking situation, it is seen to be acceptable. As long as that is the case, you will have drivers overtaking you on every blind corner etc ad infinitum. That is the point, and it needs dealing with. Currently cyclists are fair game on the road and its simply not good enough. That will not change until it is politically expedient to deal with it in law. As long as cyclists argue amongst themselves about, what is in my view, a clear inequity then nothing will happen.