Forum menu
Are you agreeing with me? I think so, but [s]you[/s]we're being a bit too subtle.
@racer, yes just trying to put it as too many seem to think.
As for who is at fault in the example of the lorry and following car...
Both guilty of something, quite what not so sure.
Both guilty of something, quite what not so sure.
That would be for the courts to decide. The same courts who I suspect are heavily biased against the cyclist for "riding on a road that was obviously dangerous"*
*Now trade marked by the Petrol Lobby.
Completely tragic event but I don't see how anything other than total segregation would eliminate all risk of this happening again.
There is a third (and i think only realistic) option, and its Autonomous Driving. Everyones working on it.
Most of the advantages can be gained without full autonomy via "driver assist" systems. Cars and lorries will detect accidents before they happen and take avoiding action if the motorist doesn't do anything. This already exists for pedestrian detection and its being written into euro NCAP rules.
The word "assist" has been chosen carefully, because (at the moment) the driver still ultimately remains responsible for any collision. A lot of real world testing is done too, to ensure risk compensation doesn't remove any benefits.
someone blogged about a few drivers on a DC doing careless things and contriving to kill a cyclist. Think 1 driver swerved around a cyclist at last minute, next driver's mirror clipped a cyclist who got a wobble on and third driver behind who was too close ran the cyclist over. Pretty sure the verdict was accident, no one got "done" for it anyway IIRC.As for who is at fault in the example of the lorry and following car...
Both guilty of something, quite what not so sure.
put me off DC riding anyway.
[url= http://aseasyasridingabike.wordpress.com/2011/04/27/anatomy-of-the-death-of-a-cyclist-william-honour/ ]found it[/url], I didn't get the details correct but 3 drivers all thought they were driving carefully result 1 poor dead cyclist and "accidental death".
@ aracer
Who's fault are you suggesting such an incident was?
I don't know the full details of the accident, I was just using it as an example of the additional dangers of cycling on DC's & yes more than likely was a combination of the car & lorry drivers poor driving as illustrated above.
Re your comments about sensible cyclists, I'd like to class myself as one of those but just like every other human alive I am still prone to the odd error even when cycling.
One thing I do know for sure is that friends & relatives will want to know what really happened, rather than assumptions being made, to cause the death of their nearest & dearest. Whether they get closure or whether the lorry driver gives full & frank evidence, we have yet to see - again why I for one would like to see the rolling out of in cab/car cameras to get a better evidence in these tragic circumstances.
Let's not stop with cameras. We should have compulsory in-vehicle GPS systems linked to a "Black Box" recorder.
[url= http://www.aberdeen-asset.com/doc.nsf/Lit/PressReleaseGroupstatementfromAAMreAndrewMcMenigallandTobyWallace20130703 ]The Cyclists[/url]
It's mind boggling that this road was approved for bicycle use.
jasperb - Member
It's mind boggling that this road was approved for bicycle use.
What a stupid blody comment,2 people got killed you muppet,for the road to be banned to cycle usafe that would be up to the Department for transport to make an traffic regulation order and errect signage,as on motorways and the A55 in north wales in places,just perhaps how on a straight road with an overtaking lane the driver failed to slow down behind them or overtake.
So please show some respect for their families and freinds, and also the driver concernned who must be reliving the ordeal.
Are you drunk?
Yes, it was a tragic event and it was not my intention to disrespect anyone involved. How you got that impression though is beyond me.
Well I've been taken out (in my car) by a German lorry today. He decided to stay on the left of the roundabout to exit no.3 and T boned me as I left the roundabout in the Right lane at exit 2.
He "didn't see me" - I replied with some choice words explaining a) you shouldn't bloody drive if you can't see where you're going and besides b) it's traditional to use the right hand lane when turning right. Thank god I was in a sturdy (deceased) car. It was a graphic demonstration of lorry blind spots and how things can catch you out from nowhere. I really didn't see that happening until I was covered in glass.
Just goes to show you can't be too careful (apparently common accident with LHD trucks in UK).
Cycle safe and RIP to the riders.
It's mind boggling that this road was approved for bicycle use.
roads don't have to be 'approved' for bicycle use, by default they are all legal for bicycle use unless specifically exempted (ie: TRO or Mway).
lets not forget the roads were there before the cars.
I've said it before, I'll say it again, banning cyclists/horses/walkers whatever from roads does not make them safer.
You should look at this from the other angle, if a road is dangerous then you need to remove the cause of the danger, not the people in danger.
God bless. Awful, just awful
I've said it before, I'll say it again, banning cyclists/horses/walkers whatever from roads does not make them safer.
Motorways?
I didn't get the details correct but 3 drivers all thought they were driving carefully result 1 poor dead cyclist and "accidental death".
None of the drivers charged? Not even the first one, who clipped a cyclist as he was riding along? That is quite shocking - or at least it would be if it wasn't the norm, and what you kind of expect from our justice (sic) system. I do find it extremely hard to believe that they couldn't have convicted at least one of those drivers, if not all 3 of DBCD if they'd bothered to try (to be honest they were all guilty of DBDD but I'm not expecting miracles). Do you think that sort of endorsement of bad driving by the police and CPS really doesn't have an impact on people's attitudes to driving, poly?
Aracer - you are trolling on partial 3rd hand information about a hypothetical case, where you don't even know if it was police, cps or court that made the decision.Do you think that sort of endorsement of bad driving by the police and CPS really doesn't have an impact on people's attitudes to driving, poly?
BTW has anyone looked at his FB to see if he's a cyclist hater?
On a clear road there's no reason to drive close to a cyclist unless you want to "punish" them.
Oh, or unless you're too busy texting to see them...
Motorways?
nice of on the one not-really-relevant bit of my comment 😉
Bicycles have never been allowed on motorways (as far as I know?), their entire purpose is at odds with travelling bike bike/horse/on foot, they were built specifically for moving cars at high speed, most other roads pre-date cars and I was referring to removing bikes from roads that they are already allowed on that have been developed over time.
However, despite that my point still stands, banning them doesn't make them safer. It might reduce the number of deaths but only by reducing the number of users and that is not the same thing.
Treat the cause not the symptom.
Some roads are dangerous for vulnerable road users, the solution is to make them safer*, not remove the users, and its that fundamental point that people far and wide seem to be missing.
*primarily by the way we use them, not necessarily by material redesign.
Aracer - you are trolling on partial 3rd hand information about a hypothetical case, where you don't even know if it was police, cps or court that made the decision.
Not trolling, because I'm not trying to get a rise simply challenging your attitude to this. It would appear to be a real rather than hypothetical - [url= http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/local-news/cyclist-died-after-being-struck-4214530 ]here[/url] is the press report (I'm not sure what hand of information that counts as). I don't see how it's relevant which one of the police, CPS or court decided not to prosecute - all part of the system which is failing and I included both police and CPS in my comment (surely the court doesn't decide not to prosecute if the CPS wants to bring the case, but even if it does it makes no difference to my point). Oh, and I forgot to mention before that the coroner is quite clearly failing by calling for cyclists to wear helmets but not suggesting there is a problem with drivers passing too close or driving too close to the car in front.
The point is that such standards of driving are seen as normal and acceptable, with the endorsement of the justice system.
On a clear road there's no reason to drive close to a cyclist unless you want to "punish" them.Oh, or unless you're too busy texting to see them...
just a thought, in 2011 official figures i have seen say 636 people were murdered, and 1901 were killed on the roads.
If you want to stop uneccesary deaths where would you put the effort?
The point is that such standards of driving are seen as normal and acceptable, with the endorsement of the justice system.
the below sums up the above quite nicely i think.
[url= http://www.iam.org.uk/media-and-research/media-centre/news-archive/20240-male-drivers-fail-to-see-the-point ]http://www.iam.org.uk/media-and-research/media-centre/news-archive/20240-male-drivers-fail-to-see-the-point[/url]
[i]I've said it before, I'll say it again, banning cyclists/horses/walkers whatever from roads does not make them safer.[/i]
It makes them safer for the cyclists/horses/walkers that don't use them!
It makes them safer for the cyclists/horses/walkers that don't use them!
does it when they are forced to drive on those roads? Practical alternatives don't always exist. Sometimes the alternative isn't as safe as you would think.
Today i road in on a back road rather than the A46T, came round a corner and had two cars one on each side of the road coming towards me. glad there was a verge to use.
[url= http://road.cc/content/news/87423-ctc-deliver-damning-report-devon-and-cornwall-police-attitude-cyclists ]http://road.cc/content/news/87423-ctc-deliver-damning-report-devon-and-cornwall-police-attitude-cyclists[/url]
not sure about the timing but.
mrmo - Member
just a thought, in 2011 official figures i have seen say 636 people were murdered, and 1901 were killed on the roads.If you want to stop uneccesary deaths where would you put the effort?
An excellent question to put to your local Police Commisionaire
An excellent question to put to your local Police Commisionaire
I have emailed him and got no response.... make of that what you will for democratically elected police commissioners?
Aracer,
Does that not prove my point - in the first version of events and yours the story has changed - there's really no point in debating this unless you have all the facts. [i]"no one got "done" for it anyway IIRC"[/i] - might be right or might be someone assuming that a Coroner's verdict of Accidental Death means no prosecutions were brought.
I think it does matter which end of the system is apparently failing. Did the police not recognise a crime? Did the CPS not believe there was a reasonable prospect of conviction (with three people all to point there finget at each other I can see that bring possible) or did the courts have a trial and the jury found not guilty? Or as you've complained of before a guilty verdict got too lenient a sentence. You might see them all as the same thing - but they are 3 totally different organisations - if you knew which bit was failing you could see how to fix it.
I am intrigued what you think my attitude is you are trying to challenge. For the avoidance of doubt:
(1) I believe if you want to reduce accidents (including cyclists) you need to catch and prosecute more people doing minor things wrong (careless driving) before they have accidents. So there is a disincentive to driving badly not just driving badly and being unlucky enough to kill. I don't believe focussing on penalties for the few who actually kill someone is a real deterrent, for the many who are sure they will not have an accident today.
(2) When cases make it to court. USUALLY the court correctly applies the law as defined in statute. I think the word "Dangerous" is misleading to most people. It is hard for the layperson to see how you define bad driving that causes an accident as anything other than dangerous - but actually the definition, and case law, are not really about the consequences they are about the level of intent / awareness / recklessness involved. You have to "try" quite hard to get to the standard of driving the law considers "dangerous". If you don't like that its not the "Justice System" that is at fault it is Parliament.
In E&W there are approximately:
500 causing death by... cases each year of which over 70% are guilty.
7500 Dangerous Driving cases... about 1/2 of which are guilty verdicts.
230,000 Careless driving cases, 80% of which are fixed penalties, 75% of court cases are guilty.
@poly, the simple truth is the whole system is failing. Politicians won't bring in laws. You only have to look at their own driving records to see why. The CPS won't prosecute, The courts won't give maximal sentences, the police don't investigate. juries won't deliver guilty verdicts.
They are all car drivers and that is the problem, for the grace of god go i.
You might see them all as the same thing - but they are 3 totally different organisations - if you knew which bit was failing you could see how to fix it.
Is a fair point - I don't disagree with that, my point is simply that the system is failing somewhere, and which part is failing makes no difference to the fact it is failing. Neither do I disagree with your suggestion that it is important to convict for everyday bad driving which doesn't kill. The fact that doesn't happen because everyday bad driving is seen as normal is part of the problem. Which leads us on to where I think we have a difference of opinion - I don't believe that the standard for dangerous driving is being applied properly. IIRC the wording is something like "driving which falls far below the standard of a competent driver". Where is goes wrong is in defining a competent driver - it appears the standard used is actually that of an average driver, as all the members of the jury and the judge are equally incompetent ("could have been me"). Parliament have defined this correctly, it's the courts who get it wrong (and as a by product the CPS don't bring prosecutions they won't win). I mean if clipping a cyclist as you overtake or attempting to overtake a cyclist without moving out of the same lane (or for another recent well publicised case, travelling so closely behind a cyclist that you can't avoid running them over when they're knocked off by a door) isn't far below the standard of a competent driver then competent has a rather different definition to what I thought. Oh and of course I disagree with your assertion that not bringing the full weight of the law onto those who kill whilst driving doesn't have an effect on people's attitude to driving.
Awful for the families and friends of the men killed.
Aracer/MrMo,
Judges are specifically trained not to use "but for the grace of god go I / could have been me". Of course some may not heed the warning and some may subconsciously apply a bias. That is why their is an appeal court.
You are correct in your definition of dangerous driving, except that there is a second sentence. So it requires both of these criteria to be met:
[i](a)the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and
(b)it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.[/i]
In contrast careless driving only (a) applies and the word far is removed. Now when rather wooly terminology is used in legislation (common) it usually ends up with the Appeal courts determining where the line is drawn. That is what has happened here. Case law has helped define what is and is not one side of the line from the other. When parliament disagrees with the interpretation of the appeal court it can refine the law to make its intention clearer - it has not done so.
230,000 cases a year of people accepting they were caught driving below the standard suggest to me that its not about 'average drivers'. Those are just the ones who were caught.
clearly you have low morals if you will drive home tonight more recklessly than you need to because the sentencing is so light. That is the inevitable conclusion of an argument that sentencing needs to be tougher.Oh and of course I disagree with your assertion that not bringing the full weight of the law onto those who kill whilst driving doesn't have an effect on people's attitude to driving.
Firstly this is a tragic incident.
I cycle on a 40 mph road on which I live and its really scary when LGVs pass.
Devon & Cornwall Police seem to think the best solution is for cyclists to stay off the A30
(a)the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and
(b)it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.
and how many drivers will describe themselves an incompetent?
So what you have is clause a and b saying exactly the same thing, is s/he a worse driver than me? This applies to the jury, the judiciary, the police, cps, and politicians.
The whole system relies on interpretation there is nothing black and white. Consider the comments a few weeks ago by a barister? it could happen to anyone clipping a cyclist doesn't matter!
clearly you have low morals if you will drive home tonight more recklessly than you need to because the sentencing is so light. That is the inevitable conclusion of an argument that sentencing needs to be tougher.
have a read about how driver behave around cyclists, punshiment passes, the throwing of bottles and bricks, whippings etc. It is not uncommon. Then consider the trying to squeeze past at traffic islands that i would hope any person who sat down and thought about it would agree are dangerous, but no one actually sits down and thinks about it, the majority of drivers in my experience just do it. There are no consiquencies, there is no comeback. If your unlucky, oh well the courts won't ban you because it might cause hardship.
no they don't. Clause a says - you drive really badly and clause b says - and its obvious that driving that badly is dangerous.Mrmo - clause a and b saying exactly the same thing
And it certainly does rely on interpretation that is why we have courts - otherwise it would be a simple case of issuing tickets and getting the money... ...oh hang on thats what they are changing careless driving to. Expect the pepipo servers to go into overload when that goes live.
I don't need to I ride on the roads. There are some idiots out there, but actually the majority of drivers are not doing the things you list.have a read about how ....
Well actually I would suggest the bottles, bricks and whippings are pretty uncommon. Even intentional punishment passes are rate (I don't think I've ever been intentionally passed like that). I can also tell you with a fair degree of certainty that every stage from police, cps and courts would treat all of those very seriously.driver behave around cyclists, punshiment passes, the throwing of bottles and bricks, whippings etc. It is not uncommon.
you've got a particular chip about not being banned for hardship. There are some people with very high points who somehow have managed to argue their case, but its a small proportion - albeit the media love a story about a guy with 30 points. How many days have you spent in a court and seen how many hardship proofs are accepted? Hardship is not enough - it has to be exceptional hardship. I'm sure there are some very good lawyers with a very good story to tell who get clients off regularly - but most lawyers would tell you it is far from easy - 26387 people were banned under totting up provisions in E&W Mags Courts in 2006. A further 160,000 people were banned because their driving was so bad (not totting up) - about half were drink driving, but 10% of careless driving court convictions and all but one dangerous driving case got bans. Those numbers don't include new driver license revokes at 6pts either. I think you might be paying too much attention to the press and not enough to finding out the facts.If your unlucky, oh well the courts won't ban you because it might cause hardship.
There is a book that sets out how to drive, if you don't abide by it you are driving dangerously, the clauses you sight are open to interpretation by the person applying them. Who is deciding what a competent driver is, if you aren't driving by the highway code you are not a competent driver, quite simple really, but b is saying obvious to a competent driver, and most drivers are not competent! is that so hard to understand? There is no need to interpretate, did you overtake giving plenty of room, yes/no? did you cross a solid white line, yes/no.
Simple black and white, no need to interpretate, but that is not the point of the law, it exists to ensure people aren't punished. to fudge the issue.
you've got a particular chip about not being banned for hardship.
maybe when you know someone who run down by a drink driver who had been banned three times, and the the case was thrown out by cps and police incompetence it colours your view? he has been banned from driving since. each time served his ban, or at least wasn't caught driving whilst banned. Still hasn't been banned for life.
Having worked with someone who successfully argued hardship because he would loose his job. He was a crap driver before and a crap driver after, he lost his job anyway as he was deemed a liability for other reasons.
As for the punishment, had two on the way home today, for holding my line approaching a junction, details sent to Glos Pol, expection of action nill. Bottles, i complained to a school when a bottle got thrown out the back of a school minbus, heads response i don't give a ****.
Dreadful, just dreadful. I drove back from Penzance along that road a couple of weeks ago and passed a couple of touring cyclists who, one assumes, were also starting LEJOG. I'm a very experienced road cyclist and ride club runs along the A316 to the start of the M3 (as a group), but I would not ride on the A30. I watched the lorries passing too close.
If there is an alternative route that could be well-signposted, I'd be in favour of banning cyclists, personally. It makes decisions about where to ride that bit easier if you are unfamiliar with the area, an it is reasonable to assume that a lot of the cyclists starting out LEJOG won't be familiar with the road or any alternative. Of course that assumes there isn't some super fast 6AM Time Trial course along that stretch.
further, you mention that there are 500 cases of death by dangerous driving each year, but only 70% return a guilty verdict, ie 30% of those prosecutions fail. Someone is still dead though! and on the basis that the CPS don't bother bringing the charge if it will fail there must have been enough evidence to suggest the driver was as fault?
or 7500 cases of dangerous driving but 3500 were found to have been driving fine? were they really?
Clause a says - you drive really badly and clause b says - and its obvious that driving that badly is dangerous.
So is it not obvious to a competent driver that clipping a cyclists, or attempting to overtake one without changing lanes is dangerous? I mean that is hardly rocket science is it? Yet driving at that standard appears not to meet the criteria for dangerous driving. Something is wrong.
Now when rather wooly terminology is used in legislation (common) it usually ends up with the Appeal courts determining where the line is drawn. That is what has happened here. Case law has helped define what is and is not one side of the line from the other. When parliament disagrees with the interpretation of the appeal court it can refine the law to make its intention clearer - it has not done so.
How does clipping a cyclist come into that wooly area? So the courts are applying the law in a way which sets an extremely low standard for "competent driver" and parliament is populated by people who drive just as badly as the rest of the population, so hasn't seen fit to correct them. The current situation doesn't really reflect very favourably on any of the parties involved in our justice (sic) system.
clearly you have low morals if you will drive home tonight more recklessly than you need to because the sentencing is so light. That is the inevitable conclusion of an argument that sentencing needs to be tougher.
What's the point of long sentences for murder and manslaughter - I doubt anybody thinks of that when killing somebody (following the same logic)? What you're missing is that the sentencing regime might not have a direct effect on people's thinking, but it is part of a wider culture of acceptance of poor driving and placing a very low value on the lives of vulnerable road users. There certainly are plenty of people out there who appear to care very little about the wellbeing of cyclists. I mean you only have to look at the comments after any press article to find people suggesting cyclists deserve to be killed - that's in a dispassionate situation rather than the heat of the moment whilst driving, I doubt such people go out of their way to drive safely around cyclists. A tougher sentencing regime might just make them think that killing a cyclist whilst driving is rather more of a big deal than the current situation where it's seen as just "something which could have happened to anybody".
Judges are specifically trained not to use "but for the grace of god go I / could have been me".
Yet they still do whether or not they explicitly mention it, and such decisions don't always get appealed (in the case of them not mentioning it, I doubt very many do). I'm sure there was one very recently, will see if I can remember...
The thing is a dual carigeway is a safe road, two or more lanes to overtake into, and no on coming trafic,usually straight, unless yougo on the rock ferry bypass, now speed reduced to 50mph max, or lesowe bypass now 40 mph max, all it needs is for motorists who see a cyclist or cyclists in front of them check mirors, indicateif safe to do so and pull out, and hold the passing lane till youve passed them, if youre to close to them ask yourself why, and SLOW DOWN, then use the procedure above.
Its not rocket science is it,just basic driving skills.
[url= http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Barristers-protest-plan-bar-legal-aid/story-19190287-detail/story.html#axzz2YCuM9iRN ]this is the article i think your thinking of, or at least one press article refereing to[/url]
Aracer there is a an appeal in the Scottish Courts at the moment - although there was no mention of 'for the grace of god' - it will be interesting to see if the appeal court increases the sentence.
Personally I'd rather see longer bans rather than prison sentences. I'd also like to see more use of the retest to get license back rather than fill in a form.
As for the comments after the articles - some of them are almost certainly menacing communications and I'd be happy to see them prosecuted - perhaps needs someone to formally complain?
By definition murder is a premeditated action, therefore meriting a deterrent sentence. Manslaughter can have many circumstances but may well be premeditated with the intent to kill or a conscious blatant disregard.
Given the average "clearance" I get on the roads its clear that not everyone considers passing close to be 'obviously dangerous'. That may be wrong, and if I were on the jury I could be persuaded that a bad overtake so poorly judged was Dangerous - but you have to recognise that if the courts aren't coming to the conclusion you want the law needs clarification if the intent of parliament was that anyone not following the Highway Code was Dangerous rather than Careless then they should say so. Now add in the possibility that the defence use the "he wobbled" argument and suddenly you've planted some reasonable doubt.
I'm not sure how often, if ever, prosecutors call expert opinion to help the jury understand what a careful and competent driver might be expected to do. They could probably recruit experts from STW because everyone here is perfect 😉
Is that the link you meant to give, mrmo? I can't see the relevance to this discussion.