[url= http://road.cc/content/news/4157-judge-cites-victims-lack-helmet-mitigating-factor-sentencing-killer-driver ]Hmmmm[/url]
Apologies of we've done this already.
It sounds wrong to me - he's either to blame or he's not, culpability isn't a factor in mitigation.
It is interesting to compare the crash speed of (supposedly) 20mph with the 12mph speed after which helmets were thought to be ineffective in the PI case recently.
Judges have been using not wearing a seatbelt as a contributory factor in car accidents for years, even though they are only effective in certain circumstances. Seems only fair that bikes and helmets get the same treatment
Is that true? So once you've proved that death is caused by dangerous driving the sentence is reduced from what it otherwise would be because the victim was not wearing a seatbelt? Slightly surprising, I would have thought, but I agree that the helemt treatment here makes more sense if you're right.
There is a lot of debate on this one with some cases going one way and some the other. I think that will be appealed as a too light sentence. Unlicensed, uninsured, caused a death.
it does kind of make sense,
Imagine in a perfect black and white world...............
It would take two events to occur for a fatal head injury to be the result. The driver would have to be an idiot, and the cyclist would have to be helmet-less, any other combination results in a non fatal accident (helmet, idiot driver), or no accident (no helmet, idiot driver and helmet, idiot driver).
So in a perfect black and white world they are both to blame.
As the world is not black and white, the judge has to err on the side of giving him the benifit of the doubt.
Still manslaughter IMHO (his actions resulted in the cyclists death).
And no reputable scientist will state that a helmet would have prevented the death. this has been done in court many times. Neurosurgeon after neurologist will state that there is no way of knowing what would have happened with a helmet on.
Unlike seatbelts where the evidence was clear it is far from clear on cycle helmets.
I think it's a pretty bad judgement by the judge. I do actually think that people who don't wear helmets are a bit silly, and that the cyclist may have stood a better chance of surviving if he'd been wearing one.
But it's not against the law to ride helmetless, and if the cyclist was completely blameless in terms of his behaviour on the road (lane discipline, etc), and was completely visible, then it's pretty out of order.
Imagine if a pedestrian was walking along a country road in with no footpath, and were doing everything they're supposed to (walking on the correct side of the road, making sure they're visible if light is poor, etc), and a driver ploughed into and killed them due to 'a loss of concentration'. I doubt the judge would have said 'Never mind, they should have been wearing a helmet, or shouldn't have walked down a road without a pavement'.
I was out shooting game one day without a license for the firearm, i was near a road out in the countryside, a bunny by the low hedge row of the raised field i was on.
I saw no danger beyond the hedge so took my shot....
The man walking on tother side of hedge got hit and died from chest injuries.
If he was wearing a bullet proof vest he would not of died...
Sentence me.!
This is fictitious, made up and no bunnys or people were hurt in making up the story....well not that one.
Its simple, if you want to kill someone use a car to do it.
As a rider I choose to wear a helmet, or not, on the basis of what I am doing; e.g. riding rocky downhills = yes, taking 6 year old daughter to swingpark = no. I don't factor in unlicenced (therefore uninsured and downright stupid selfish ignorant) drivers to the equation. If I did I would fit rocket launchers to my bike. Sadly the Law (which is an Ass) does not encourage this option.
This sounds like the sort of judge who use to take into account 'she was dressed like she was asking for it' as mitigating circumstances in rape cases. I'd hoped we'd moved on a bit and all these old fart judges were dead and buried.
There is still a few of them about unfortunately. I would be pretty confident the CPS will appeal the sentence
I saw no danger beyond the hedge so took my shot....The man walking on tother side of hedge got hit and died from chest injuries.
If he was wearing a bullet proof vest he would not of died...
But its not a parallel is it? To the man walking his dog there would be no obvious or significant risk and mitigation.
A better comparison would be that of someone on a construction side walking around without a hard hat one - someone drops a lump hammer and it ****s him on the head killing him, now, a helmet might not have had a specification in the test to resist the impact of a 3lb hammer from 30 metres, and there was a fair chance, maybe 50:50 of him being killed by the impact even with a helmet on, however you'd still regard him as being reckless in not taking responsibility for his own safety by mitigating the risk as much as possible.
Zulu - thats not the way this works or should do. On a building site a hard hat is an essential piece of PPE - mandatory by law. A cycle helmet is of unproven efficiency and is not mandatory in law.
Quotes from http://www.ctc.org.uk/DesktopModules/Articles/ArticlesView.aspx?TabID=0&ItemID=168&mid=13641
My italics. It has been repeatedly tested in courts around the world an no experts will say conclusively that it can be shown that a helmet would have prevented or reduced injuries. Note that in this case the judge did not reduce compensation as it could not be shown that a helmet would have reduced injuries.. The case of Smith v Finch, in which a High Court judge indicated that cyclists who suffer head injuries when not wearing a helmet may not be entitled to full compensation [i][b]if it can be shown[/i][/b] that a helmet would have reduced or prevented their injuries.
However, after years of examining all the available research on helmets, we believe that there is no clear or conclusive evidence to support the view that compulsory helmet-wearing would either advance the cause of cycling, or necessarily improve cyclists’ safety on the roads.
Its attitudes like yours Zulu that lead to the court outcomes as in the OP. There is no proven benefit to wearing helmets in this sort of case. None.
however you'd still regard him as being reckless in not taking responsibility for his own safety by mitigating the risk [b]as much as possible.[/b]
yes he shouldn't have got out of bed, everyone knows construction sites are dangerous...
what a load of sh*te
What DOG?
bleeding thing must of ran orf.
This has gone to court before, but previously it's always been ruled that it can only be a mitigating factor if it can be proved that wearing a helmet would have prevented the injury/death, which is impossible. I wonder what was wrong with the prosecution here, they've ****ed up massively if they failed to make that case.