http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/lancashire/8194600.stm
http://www.pendletoday.co.uk/nelsonnews/Driver-jailed-for-death-of.5540406.jp
http://www.thisislancashire.co.uk/news/4538458.Man_jailed_for_hit_and_run_death_of_Nelson_mum/

Death caused by dangerous driving.
Doing 60 in a 30.
Failure to stop.
No attempt made to call for an ambulance or check on the person he had hit.
3 years for a guilty plea, with 5yr ban.

Will there ever be an apetite for punitive/substantial sentences for causing death by dangerous driving?

Average sentences for manslaughter currently around 5-6 years.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/vo060720/text/60720w1849.htm

Would manslaughter be a fairer comparison for sentencing guidelines?
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Involuntary+Manslaughter

In most states involuntary manslaughter results from an improper use of reasonable care or skill while performing a legal act, or while committing an act that is unlawful but not felonious.

Does the ubiquity of car driving make lower sentences a social neccessity?

In many jurisdictions death that results from the operation of a vehicle in a criminally negligent manner is punishable as a separate offense. Usually it is considered a less severe offense than involuntary manslaughter. These jurisdictions usually call the offense reckless homicide, negligent homicide, or vehicular homicide. One reason for this lesser offense is the reluctance of juries to convict automobile drivers of manslaughter.

And if SFB wanders in here with his "eye for an eye" quote again I'll be very rude.

Will there ever be an apetite for punitive/substantial sentences for causing death by dangerous driving?

In a word, No.

Does the ubiquity of car driving make lower sentences a social neccessity?

Necessity is the wrong word here, reality is.

For what it's worth, I think this is guidelines issue rather that a jury issue, I think juries are quite happy to convict and see imprisoned drivers who disregard the law to an extent such as this. Sentencing should be in line with manslaughter, is there an appetite in Parliament to make those changes, I don't see it coming. I still think (rightly or wrongly) the onus is still largely and unfairly on us as cyclists to make sure we are safe.

Make bike awareness part of the driving test? Make car drivers spend a week commuting or cyclist on the road a compulsory event?

Dunno, the more people that cycle, the less this will happen.

While agree with the cyclist viewpoint, in this case its an unlucky pedestrian.

Didn't read links, just presumed. 😳

Nil points

A more suitable sentence would have been life imprisonment.

what with this, the Baby P parent ID thread and bike thieves posting on ebay thread, I can sense the moral STW massive becoming restless with indignation.

Isn't it about time we had a meeting to form our National Vigilante Death Squad (Bicycle Division)?
It's the way forward.

A more suitable sentence would have been life imprisonment.

A more suitable sentence would to be hold his head under water to see if he can breathe like the fishes.

Will there ever be an apetite for punitive/substantial sentences for causing death by dangerous driving?

Nope. Society as a general views the number of deaths as a price worth paying for vehicular transport.

I know this was a pedestrian but if you have a look at the comments on any news story where a cyclist is killed you see the same comments.
– They are scum and deserve to be killed for slowing us down.
– They are scum and deserve to be killed for jumping red lights.
– They are scum and deserve to be killed for being smug and not paying for road tax and petrol.
– They are scum and deserve to be killed because.

Anyone idiot can drive a car, its a pretty simple test. Idiots in cars will continue to kill people.

And dont get me started on f*cking private hire taxis. Been knocked down twice so far this year by private hire taxis that didn't stop.

And rant off.

Are you looking at sentencing as a punishment, rehabilitation period or a deterrent?

or a mix?

Test is waaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyyyyyyy to easy and folk need to be restested every couple of years – but that's a different debate.

What really needs to be addressed is the shit competitive attitude that folk have when they are driving.

People in this country think they are the best drivers in the world, when in reality they are amongst the worst. Incompetent to the point of ridiculousness.

What would a test every two years prove? How much disruption to delivery, peoples commute to work etc would you like to inflict on our economy?

Would there be exceptions to this rule? Emergency service drivers/bus/transport etc?

Funnily I defend drivers of a certain ethnic background to my girlfriend all the time (who is convinced young drivers of a certain type drive Lexus/Mercedes etc etc at unbalanced speeds with little ability. Maybe we should retest those particular drivers more? 😉

What would a test every 2 years prove? Simple – that people could drive to a certain standard.

No exceptions permitted.

The higher standards of driving this would bring about would more than pay for themselves in an economic sense.

Also – life shouldn't be all about money either.

What would a test every two years prove?

Well it would prove they are safe to be on the roads, and haven't forgotten what the rules/conditions of owning a license are.

Other than that nothing, I suppose ……………..

People in this country think they are the best drivers in the world, when in reality they are amongst the worst. Incompetent to the point of ridiculousness.

No doubt we'll have the worst accident figures as a result then?

oh hang on a minute ………….

I was trying to get stats to prove that the UK sucks at driving but they actually look okay!

http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/datatablespublications/accidents/casualtiesmr/rcgbmainresults2008

The number of pedal cyclists killed fell by 15 per cent from 136 in 2007 to 115 in 2008. The number of seriously injured rose by 1 per cent to 2,450. The total casualties among pedal cyclists rose by 1 per cent to 16,297.

Less people dying, slightly more injured. Perhaps what you expect from people being forced to drive slower?

Also:

In 2008, the number of people killed or seriously injured was 40 per cent below the 1994-98 average; the number of children killed or seriously injured was 59 per cent below the 1994-98 average; and provisional estimates show the slight casualty rate was 36 per cent below the 1994-98 average.

Thats not to shabby actually.

I do however think professional drivers (taxi's, buses, etc) should be tested every two years and normal drivers every ten.

Well it would prove they are safe to be on the roads

Nope. It will prove they can pass a test.
A person doing 60mph in a 30mph isn't doing that because they've forgotten what the law is. They know exactly what it is and choose to ignore it.

I do however think professional drivers (taxi's

Taxi drivers. I actually think they should have speed limiters around Manchester.

It would be an utter breach of patient confidentiality (and whatever ethical code you should care to deploy), but I sometimes wonder whether twunts of this persuasion should be forced to attend A+E Majors/ITU – as observers. Horrendous polytrauma being a ****ing sobering sight, and all.

It could be worse, you could live in Belgium.

A Charleroi man was sentenced to six months in jail and received an 18-month suspended sentence for killing three after running a red light while intoxicated and on drugs. The driver first insisted that he was being chased at the time, but a police patrol that happened to witness the accident refuted the claim. He then said that he was simply in a hurry to get home. He was also banned from driving for five years.

I got knocked off my (motor) bike ten years ago by a woman that pulled out of a junction in front of me then declared 'sorry, I didnt see you'.
I broke my pelvis in five places, broke three ribs and had a heart attack due to trauma at the scene of the accident.
I was off work for a year, then subsequently had to leave my job in the NHS due to mobility problems, etc, which then resulted in my pension going tits up. I suffered with post traumatic stress disorder and severe depression for the next four years.
I did, however, eventually recieve compensation for personal injury and loss of earnings, etc.
The woman that pulled out in front of me was 'advised' by the police to attend a two day driver awareness course, and that was it – no charges, points on license, nothing.

Bleeding heart liberals, like me, are often misunderstood, and I myself have argued in the past that a custodial sentence for manslaughter, or indeed death by dangerous driving, is potentially unnecessary as the perpetrator may already be suffering sufficiently knowing the consequences of their (in)actions. Put bluntly, it's not necessarily about what you did, it's whether you gave a sh*t afterwards.

In this case though, it's not the fact that the accident happened due, probably, to excessive speed that angers me. It's the complete disregard for the well-being of the pedestrian after the fact. A custodial sentence is well deserved, and longer than the one given.

IHN – I agree with your sentiments.

Now we just need a scientific test for levels of remorse. A bit like an empathy test. The lower your remorse score or empathy score the longer you stay in the nick 🙂

For me there is big difference between what happened to barnsleymitch and what happened in the incident highlighted by the OP. What happened to barnsleymitch gives me great sympathy for him but sounds like it was caused by an error of judgment. How many of us could honestly say hand on heart that they have never changed lanes on a motorway and started to pull out of a junction only to realise that there was someone in your blindspot or we missed for some reason? Most of us get away with it thankfully and go away from the incident with a "must try harder" jolt to the system.

As soon as you start to drive a speeds significantly higher than the speed limit, fail to stop or drive in an aggressive manner likely to cause injury for me it's a totally different matter as a consious decision is being made to endanger the life of others whilst in control of a lethal devise. In that case I would be more than happy for them to feel the full weight of an enhanced law.

I dont think the test is too easy specifically, or rather I'm not sure how they'd make it harder, the test covers physical realities of driving and will always be passable by someone expecting a test. If you fail the driving test you REALLY shouldnt be on the road at all, if you fail more than once I'd be seriously concerned about having you on the road at all – it really isnt that hard and failure suggests you're seriously lacking in either physical or mental (spatial) coordination (or you collapse under pressure).

The problem is how people behave when they are not being watched. I passed my test with flying colours after 13 50 minute lessons. I then spent the next few years learning how people REALLY drive in real world situations, rather than quiet test roads. At any point I could have done something nuts (and probably did) that would fail me a test – but no-one was watching and I got away with them so it didnt matter. It's this that makes driving dangerous and people poor drivers, not the quality of the initial test. People rapidly forget the basic rules of the road and get set in their ways regarding other aspects, and will often enter into road rage incidents based on incorrect "knowledge". I've lost count of the number of times when I've seen people assume something is wrong and get angry about it, and when people just blindly drive about without thought to the rules.

95% of the time I'm sure accidents are caused by people just not thinking, not being out there to violently drive over cyclists or peds. This can't be stopped by stricter testing. Maybe with more road safety campaigning with shock tactics? Maybe with repeated tests every X years?

But ultimately you can't force a bad/indifferent driver to care about driving. And, god help me for saying this, but Top Gear have a very good point – people who are not interested in driving, who dont enjoy driving and enjoy being good at driving TEND to be the ones who blindly criss cross lanes, sit in middle lanes, do the stupid stuff that injurs peolpe. Of course there's the people on the other extreme who think they're ace and drive like nuts too – but I dont think they necessarily enjoy driving for drivings sake, but more for the thrill of going fast. Roadcraft is a skill thats fun to perfect.

Thanks for the sympathy mate, but there really is no need. I suppose I just wanted to raise the issue that death or serious injury caused by drivers is generally viewed as a motoring offense and for some unfathomable reason not taken as seriously, and if youre on two wheels, youre gonna be seen as somehow culpable. At the time of my accident, the police that interviewed me accused me of 'taking the piss' when I informed them I had been travelling at 30 MPH when the driver pulled out in front of me, and appeared determined to prove that I had either been speeding or was somehow at fault.

In general, the Feds HATE (motor)bikers. So we'll always be in the wrong when it comes to RTA's no matter what scenario

Last week we had an accident where a bus pulled across a junction and hit the back of a girls truck, flipping it over and killing her in the process. Driver was done for death by dangerous driving – which is quite sobering when you consider he did it while at work and 'merely' mistimed a junction.

You can take your bike test and pass and on the same day buy a 1000cc sportsbike and ride it in the wet at night with a pillion on board, none of which featured in your test. Frightening

How many of us could honestly say hand on heart that they have never changed lanes on a motorway and started to pull out of a junction only to realise that there was someone in your blindspot or we missed for some reason?

I did it a while ago… pulled away from the roundabout outside work to turn right like I do everyday… looked and looked again like I always do.. all of a sudden I heard a screech of tyres… looked right again rather sharpish and there was a silver bonnet about 12in away from my kneecap… I was on my treddar 😯

mitch – thats probably because a vast majority of bikers drive like nut-jobs (as do a large number of car drivers) but are much more visible as their antics are louder and more visible than a car. while you might have been doing 30, you can guarantee that its not common. When I crashed my car I was doing 35-40 in a 60 through the welsh hills. It didn't go through the police fortunately, but no-one involved believed me when I said I wasn't speeding, even my family still don't believe me despite my other half confirming my speed. I made a mistake of observation and overshot a junction into a field, hurting no-one but my car and pride fortunately. So I know what its like to have people out to prove you're lying,but I can see why they do – a vast number of 18 year old peugeot 205 drivers drive them like idiots.

matter as a consious decision is being made to endanger the life of others whilst in control of a lethal devise

Not quite, even when driving like a nut I doubt anyone is thinking "I'm going to endanger others" – they're just misjudging the likelyhood of an accident. They are aware it's more likely, but if you asked anyoen they'd not think the difference was that great, and so scale their response to the threat accordingly – ie very little.

What is inexcusable is a lack of remorse, and not changing behaviour. It doesnt help anyone injured but it at least shows they now think about it seriously.

Had an interesting heated debate at the weekend with a close non-(but by no means anti-) cycling friend about cycling on the roads in general, and was quite taken aback by his vehement insistence that cyclists should be insured.

The scenario he described to illustrate his point was one whereby a cyclist suddenly pulls out or swerves in front of him, causing him to swerve in turn and cause a fatal accident involving a nearby pedestrian or other road user. "Why should my life be ruined by an incident caused by the cyclist?" was the underlying injustice.

I argued that the cyclist's action was a hazard he (the hypothetical driver) had failed to deal with properly, which he would have been able to, had due care and attention been paid, and also pointed out that while being the driver causing a death would be far from pleasant, someone else's life would be ruined to a greater degree, and that regardless of who's insured and who isn't, accidents sometimes happen.

It then descended into some bickering about how impractical the idea would be, "guns don't kill people, people do"-style facetiousness regarding the role of the car and so on, but I did find it a revealing insight into the priorities of an otherwise sensible non-cycling motorist.

The car definitely imbues the driver with an inflated sense of control, or entitlement, but seemingly without a corresponding measure of responsibility in many cases. I drive as well as cycle, so I hope I can understand to some degree the mindset of the average non-lunatic driver, but it was an eye-opener all the same.

I'm a committed cyclist and driver, they're my two favourite pass-times/hobbies. I too can see the reasoning behind wanting cyclists insured. The policing and efficacy of it would of course be questionable at best, but from a hypothetical position I too have been put in some very dangerous situations by erratic cyclists with no idea about road use, and had I had to take evasive action due to their actions, I do not see why my insurance should be the one to cover the costs. As a cyclist I have also been in the cyclists position, having made a stupid mistake and hit a car. Fortunately I didn't cause significant damage and was able to pay for it, but had I killed someone? Had I left someone maimed? Had I done more damage than I had cash spare? It's just as applicable as it is to cars.

While the cyclists action may have been a hazard incorrectly dealt with, you could say that of anything – a motorbike pulling out on you at the last second is also a hazard you couldnt deal with (as a car driver) and so may take the exact same action with something other than a bike as the hazard – should motorbikes not need insurance either? Accidents do indeed happen and thats why insurance exists – so neither party personally loses a lot of cash due to being fully or partially at fault for a very expensive incident.

If insurance was needed for cyclists, we'd have it already.

Not having insurance doesn't stop you being sued if you cause an accident, it just means you have to pay yourself. If it was the case that there were anything more than a tiny amount of serious accidents where cyclists caused car drivers to crash into 3rd parties, or cyclists crashed into cars and it was entirely their fault, then it would become a big enough risk that to cycle you'd have to have insurance if you didn't want to have to pay out tons of your own money. The fact that hardly anyone has this insurance suggests that it isn't really that high a risk. Whereas cars crash into people tons, and cause far more damage than cyclists, so it is worth your while having insurance.

Joe

nothing will change until people are punished for incompetant driving. My mate was killed riding his bike in a completely normal manner in good conditions and the van driver who claimed he didnt see him didnt even get charged with careless driving.

Maybe the punishment for dangerous/careless/thoughtless driving should be a beating administered with a track pump by several cyclists. 🙂
I'm of the opinion that any death you cause on the road should cause you to forfeit the right to drive ever again plus an appropriate civic restitution.
More rigourous use of the failing their duty in a public office should be visited on those policemen who do nothing about injury accidents to pedestrians/cyclists/motorcyclists caused by the four wheeled.
A reduction of those retards on the road who don't think or concentrate could be achieved by a rigid enforcement of driving standards in town by our police service. Run 4 amber lights that's you off the road for 3 to 6 months. Stop over the stop line or in a box junction, have 3 points and a £60 invoice.
Watch the standard of driving and courtesy improve on a monthly basis. (It may well be carnage on the country roads for a while but with a bit of luck it will be the muppets that kill themselves).

i've got insurance ….

for cycling, I mean …peace of mind thing

@ Joe "so it is worth your while having insurance" it's a legal requirement mate 😉

joemarshall – it's not insignificant, it's just that more often than not any damage caused by a cyclist is simply accepted with frustration by the driver who knows he will spend more time and money trying to fight a case than it's worth for the majority of impacts. Also, generally, people who hit bikes and actually have a conscience will just be happy the person is alive, regardless of fault. I know its not NEEDED legally, but when in the context of 2tyred post, you see that it is just as applicable. Because the risk of an incident is small it isnt worth legislating about, it doesnt mean it isnt a problem to those involved.

Sandwich – nice thoughts, however I'm fairly sure that you can't say you concentrate 100% of the time on your driving/cycling and never make mistakes – to take drastic action on first offence would get you nothing but lack of public support – ultimately the public regulate their own fines by accepting or ignoring the laws. Ban lots of people for minor offences and they'll just start driving without. You'll have to much "crime" to cope with and it'll cost too much to police.

And if SFB wanders in here with his "eye for an eye"

I've just read this, and am puzzled by what it means. I don't think I've ever proposed "an eye for an eye", though I wouldn't rule it out if someone ever killed a loved one of mine…

Because the risk of an incident is small it isnt worth legislating about, it doesnt mean it isnt a problem to those involved.

Yup, in the hypothetical situation described above, where someone cycling causes someone else to do something dangerous, which itself causes a crash, it would be a bummer. But that kind of situation is going to be incredibly rare. Even if it is common that cyclists cause cars to do emergency stops or whatever, which is itself pretty doubtful( except when a car is overtaking the cyclist dangerously), then you'd have to add to that the likelihood of it occurring right next to a third person, which makes the overall thing you're suggesting insurance against incredibly unlikely.

It is the same reason cyclists don't need insurance for directly crashing into people – it is incredibly rare for someone to cause serious damage or injury on a bike (it does happen a few times a year, but when it does, it gets into the national press, which kind of shows how rare it is).

Joe

Joe, I think you're missing the point – it's not as rare as you make out and bikes DO cause significant damage when they hit people and cars. In my own family alone I know of 3 incidents of cyclists falling into the side of cars and doing hundreds in body damage. I personally have ridden into a car by accident, fortunately for some odd reason the car owner apologised for parking in a parking bay in my way and helped me on my way. There's no way for the car owners to claim that back, if he doesnt know the cyclist there is no way to track him down, no way to recover hundreds in repairs, no reason that the cyclist should stick around as it's not legally required for them to produce documents/insurance etc. Who is he going to claim against? His own insurance, and pay a penalty for it in coming years? Ignore it and make do with a damaged vehicle?

A car that hit a cyclist, written off:

Now obviously we don't know the circumstances of it, but since twice this year I've nearly killed a cyclist who ran a red light in front of me, this sort of damage is far from unlikely. But some people wish for drivers to be entirely responsible for accidents with bikes, regardless of actual fault (a la other countries) – wouldnt this case be entirely unfair? For every one that gets into the papers there are DOZENS that go unreported.

I have insurance for when i am cycling through the CTC, which also covers my daughter when in her trailer in the event of me having an accident (my fault) and her getting hurt etc..
I think that a lot of the problem on our roads is the "i must get past this…." and the "i need to be there" mentallity that goes on.