Forum menu
Have you considered the fact you are still driving on the [same] roads with the same drivers and whilst your tin box might provide you with some extra protection it won’t guarantee a van driven by an inattentive driver doesn’t wipe you out? Have you considered whether by training your kids to believe that everybody gets driven everywhere and so if, like many, they stop actively pursuing “sport” as they get older you’ll have bread sedentary couch potatoes who face the life of health problems associated with an inactive lifestyle. Have you considered whether by keeping “our children” away from such places we help reinforce in their minds “that bikes don’t belong on roads” and they grow up to become the “you should pay roadtax” shouters of the future? By protecting them from a tiny catastrophic risk now are you exposing them to a much more likely one in many years time?
Drivers poor road manners to cyclists and general not giving a shit, and child obesity are all definitely my fault. I'll change my ways, thanks for the words of wisdom.
It seems to me that death has been caused by negligence/willful negligence and as such could be considered manslaughter.
Go back to the stuff chakaping posted, there are mentions of that point..
If I encountered someone cycling at night in black clothing with no lights, I’d think they were taking a stupid risk and behaving irresponsibly, but I’d hope they didn’t come to harm. I wouldn’t think they were “asking to be hit”
totally agree - I've seen it many times in fact and marvelled at the lack of self preservation instinct in such people. But they aren't asking to be hit - exactly the opposite in fact. Just like riders [i]with [/i] lights.
5plusn8 - where did I say that? try taking your kids on the road - I believe you'll find drivers manners are much better than you expect. But obviously if you want to assume your gut feel is right, and quell your eco-guilt by wagging your finger at all the other drivers when you are part of the problem then crack on. Obviously though - its actually the criminal justice system that is at fault - not your risk perception.
I've given up road riding - far too many broken bones at the hands of drivers. Even getting a snapped spine the driver didn't even get a telling off - the cops said 'your insurance will sort it' - permanent pain ! Cheers.
Killing people with a car is fine, cyclists, yeh take em all down. FFS
Absolutely ridiculous!
The cyclist was not wearing high-visibility clothing, the court was told.
Interesting that the Beeb chose to put this in the article as it sounds like an attempt to blame the cyclist (as they don’t mention that he was illegally lit and not wearing a helmet I’d assume that he was).
In fairness to the Beeb, they are simply reporting the fact that his lack of "Hi-Vis" was reported to the court. Presumably this was by the defence, to imply the lack of a yellow vest somehow reduces the defendant's level of responsibility for fleeing the scene of a road traffic collision.
The article doesn't make any point or inference in relation to this fact, so I'd say it qualifies as fair, dispassionate reporting. Any conclusions readers draw are really their own. TBH I think the press should report anything presented as evidence or testimony, certainly not self-censor just to avoid being accused of victim blaming…
But Yes, a scarily light sentence, worst of all the bloke doesn't live all that far from me, so once he gets his licence back, there's a fair chance He'll be barrelling round my area endangering the local Deer again...
where did I say that?
Initially implied, then confirmed by this:
you are part of the problem
I fail to see how by exercising freedom of choice to avoid cycling on he road, or risk my kids lives on the road then I am harming anyone. Other than the driving, which I held my hands up to. Can I just check, do you cycle only or do you have a car also?
Re the hi-viz, in court drivers & defence will say anything in court - a lorry driver reconned that a road sign had obstructed his view of the four motorcyclists heading straight towards him as he turned right onto a minor road - he only got a fine & 9pts for very nearly killing a friend of mine.
Plus in times of tradgedy it's very difficult to actually own up and admit you've done something as terrible as killing another human being so it's all too easy to try to justify ones actions and apportion blame elsewhere.
Stronger sentencing, stronger policing and more suitable infrastructure of our roads is what's needed - I'd go out of my way to avoid nsl dual carriageways and other busy nsl routes 😞
5plusn8 - i wrote you a lengthy reply then the forum binned it. It would probably have been wasted anyway since it seems you only wanted responses which agree that the ONLY rational conclusion from a seemingly lenient sentence for one person being killed in the dark on a dual carriageway is that you should never ride on or near roads.
Here's an alternative view though: https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaign/safety-in-numbers
Basically all I said was, I don't want to ride on roads, nor my kids. I never said the ONLY conclusion was anything. You have a reading comprehension, assumption and conclusion jumping to issue.
You do what you like. As can everyone else. I am happy other people choose to cycle on the roads. When I drive my car I take care to look after the other road users, especially the soft ones. With bikes I hang back, give plenty of room, won't overtake unless I can cross into the next carriageway, and often check myself to think if there might be bike inside me etc. In the car the kids are aware of this and often warn me of bikes, and other road users see what I do (mostly cos it pisses them off) and hopefully they will learn to respect bikes too. As it is my perception of risk is conservative, I can't see the harm.
To be honest you are pissing me off, I look after other road users and myself, I vote for pro cycling parties and support all efforts to make cycling safer. I don't see why I should increase my risk or my kids to satisfy a pretty crap way of putting things right. Try voting, or join sustrans, I do both.
I believe you’ll find drivers manners are much better than you expect.
Not where I live there aren't, around half of them are impatient and self entitled ****ers. If there is a car behind me coming up to a blind corner (there are many blind corners where I live) I would say there is around a 75% chance that they will overtake me. If there is a narrowing in the road (again, lots of narrowing in road where I live) I would say there is a 50% chance that the oncoming driver will race through forcing me to slow down just so they don't have to slow down.
And this is on roads where there are horses and cows strolling around, standing in roads on corners etc,.
Mmm, 1. Making people “report” everything rather than “stop” would not really help at the scene; 2. would clog up a resource strapped police with people reporting stuff like hitting a rabbit; 3. You’d like to have hoped that the investigating officer, or the CPS asked the questions “if you thought it was a deer, did you not think it would be sensible to stop and check if the deer was now blocking the carriageway and presumably a risk to other road users?
There is already a duty to report collisions with a wide range of animals:
If you hit an animal which is covered by The Road Traffic Act 1988 – namely, <b>dogs</b>, <b>goats</b>, <b>horses</b>, <b>cattle</b>, donkeys, mules, <b>sheep</b> and <b>pigs</b> you are legally required to report it to the police.
I don't have time to go through the Act like a Lawyer but I believe one is obliged to stop and report in these cases. Certain animals like foxes, cats and deer you don't have to report.
Clearly a large animal like a deer can provide reasonable doubt in case of actual collision with a human but a cat can't.
I’m fairly certain not everyone call a recovery truck for every deer v vehicle – there were no pics of the van in the article (and may not have been in court) which makes it hard to know how bad it was damaged.
The damage was bad enough for it to be put on a recovery truck and for the copper to see significant damage from the verge on the other carriageway. How much does a deer weight? 100-150 kg? Hit at 70 mph and that's 3000-4000 N of force. It's quite likely you won't actually be able to drive away.
In this case the Driver hit a cyclist say weighing 80 kg at say 50 mph closing speed = 1700 N of so. Enough to bounce the cyclist almost 50 m down the road. I'd say the vehicle was a bit more than scratched, hence "almost caved in" according to the Crown.
here did you see what he searched on the internet?
It's in the article
He searched for 'road closures' after the accident and 'contact police' the next day.
He wasn't convicted of failing to stop or failing to report, so the deer thing isn't really relevant. Presumably the CPS didn't pursue because the likelihood of a different sentence was low.
The court has clearly accepted the "momentary lapse" mitigation, although that "moment" must have lasted longer than 6 seconds for the rest of the evidence to fit.
He wasn’t convicted of failing to stop or failing to report, so the deer thing isn’t really relevant. Presumably the CPS didn’t pursue because the likelihood of a different sentence was low.
The deer thing IS the reason they didn't press charges even for failing to stop. Like I said it's a legal fiction which provides reasonable doubt.
I’d think they were taking a stupid risk and behaving irresponsibly, but I’d hope they didn’t come to harm. I wouldn’t think they were “asking to be hit”.
how about the physcological impact on the person who might hit them because they are riding with such little care ?
I say again - they are asking to be hit - just too bloody stupid to realise it.
So you'd drive into them if you saw them? You know "Hit me!" as you say, be the right thing to do wouldn't it?
FWIW I’ve never had a dodgy pass riding on the road with kids, and even people who have generally agree that drivers are far more courteous around children.
I wish that that was my experience. Most are ok, some especially patient (though several because they know who I am, and know that we're both heading for the same place at the same time for the same drop off, and that i *will* go speak to the calmly and politely about their woeful driving if they do barge past or cut me up).
however there are still the few who Must Get Past The Cyclist, those that can clearly see round blind corners, and those who seemingly can't think past their own bonnets or just assume I'll be afraid and leap out of their way, or teleport somehow to avoid delaying them for even a few seconds.
none of this will stop me riding, and using the roads with my kids, but I have bought a three seat tandem* to use for the school run to keep the small ones a little safer.
* it is also great to use, and hilarious to ride, btw
Not where I live there aren’t, around half of them are impatient and self entitled ****.
kerley - When you are riding with kids? or a are you just partially quoting me to make the point you want to make rather than the one I was making?
To be honest you are pissing me off,
5plusn8 - I seem to have hit a nerve, simply by asking some questions if you had considered a different side to the decision.
It’s in the article
He searched for ‘road closures’ after the accident and ‘contact police’ the next day.
rydster - thanks for that. It wasn't mentioned in the article in the OP, but that sheds some more light. Reading between the lines he'll have pled guilty on condition of the fail to report charge being dropped. Rightly or wrongly the prosecution frequently negotiate guilty pleas to avoid the cost, inconvenience to witnesses and the potential they screw up the case and he gets off with everything. If there is a possible defence then you can see how a prosecutor could reach the conclusion to drop it and move on. You are right adding deer to the list of reportable animals would close a possible "get out", although I think the reason for those animals being listed is that they have owners who might be entitled to compensation, not quite the same as saying every accident though. It doesn't stop the usual "I didn't even know there has been a collision" excuse (obviously a bit tricky with an "almost caved in windscreen" - whatever that actually means.
How much does a deer weight? 100-150 kg? Hit at 70 mph and that’s 3000-4000 N of force. It’s quite likely you won’t actually be able to drive away.
One of my work colleagues hit a deer on the A66 near Penrith - the car was undriveable and an insurance write off.
kerley – When you are riding with kids? or a are you just partially quoting me to make the point you want to make rather than the one I was making?
I am riding in the New Forest but not with kids. However having seen a lot of people riding with kids (it is a popular camping spot) they don't get treated any differently. The point you made was that drivers were better than people think, I am telling you that is not the case on the roads I ride on. Made worse by most of the roads being 40mph limit meaning a lot of the cars are doing 45mph as they pass too close, squeeze in before you, overtake on blind corners, blind brows of hills, overtake into oncoming cars etc, etc,.
the new forest can be quite bad, especially when it's busy and everyone is getting hacked off with caravans / tourists goggling horses and people on bikes. I even once had an Audi of some description drive straight at me, on the wrong side of the road and freak me out so I ended up crashing into the verge....
Southampton is atrocious at the moment, said works snarling up.the roads so everyone is bad tempered. I had 2 very close near misses despite being clearly visible. I've stopped commuting by bike just not worth it at the moment. so a other car on the road.
In fairness to the Beeb, they are simply reporting the fact that his lack of “Hi-Vis” was reported to the court. Presumably this was by the defence, to imply the lack of a yellow vest somehow reduces the defendant’s level of responsibility for fleeing the scene of a road traffic collision.
I'm a bit slow on the uptake and it's only just dawned on me that as the defendant pled guilty there wouldn't have been a trial and any arguments presented by the prosecution and defence; we're assuming then that the lack of hi-vis clothing was presented as mitigation to sentencing despite the fact that it's not a legal requirement (the lack of comment regarding lights and a helmet, I would assume meant, that they were in place)?
I've only skimmed through some of the stuff Chakaping link to, but the report that 5 in 6 drivers involved in fatal collisions avoid prison (with only a third losing their licences) is pretty shocking; it does rather suggest institutional victim blaming within the legal system to me.
When you can't stop cyclists from victim blaming what hope do we have with the population at large.
Asking for it? Honestly!!
Did people hear this BBC R4 programme earlier in the year? Very different case(s) than the one sparking this thread, and no judgement/criticism implied of the views expressed here - but an interesting listen.
how about the physcological impact on the person who might hit them because they are riding with such little care ?
Dunno, what's that got to do with suggesting people are "asking to be hit"?
I say again – they are asking to be hit – just too bloody stupid to realise it.
The problem with using this language is that it helps to normalise exactly what the driver got away with in this case. Forget about lights. I'll bet a lot of people reading that story would tell you the cyclist was "asking to be hit" just because he was on the road.
I don't know if you are a cyclist or not, but no one is "asking to be hit" when they ride a bike.
So you’d drive into them if you saw them? You know “Hit me!” as you say, be the right thing to do wouldn’t it?
of course I wouldn't if I saw them - and that is the point - if I saw them.
Riding with deficient lights, often seriously deficient and in combination with no reflectors to attempt to compensate, is incredibly negligent and self-entitled - as self-entitled as it seems a lot of people are on here.
I don’t know if you are a cyclist or not, but no one is “asking to be hit” when they ride a bike.
except that they are if they ride in the dark with deficient lighting and nothing to compensate - like reflectors.
how many bikes in the garage do I need to be counted as a cyclilst - if more than 4 then I am one...
If you really don't get it, go back to the point that was made by someone else earlier in the discussion, about how some people talk about rape cases. Do you think that women who wear short skirts and go out late at night are "asking to be raped"? Do you think it matters if people "explain" rape like this?
of course I wouldn’t if I saw them – and that is the point – if I saw them.
From the other drivers it seemed that some saw the cyclist whilst others didn't. That says to me that he was visible and anyone who didn't see him or saw him at last minute was simply not paying attention. If you are driving observantly you can see cars moving out a long way ahead even if you can't see the cyclist because the cars may be blocking the view.
You may be one of the poor drivers who didn't see him in which case that is 100% down to you and nothing to do with him "asking for it"
Hmm I am not sure it is comparable with rape victim blaming,
Rapists go looking for victims to rape.
Drivers do not go looking for cyclists to mow down.
Drivers do not go looking for cyclists to mow down
Why the **** not? They're asking for it aren't they? Just like them miniskirt wearing slags.
I was riding home once (years ago, but I remember it well) and my light battery ran out. Asking for it I was.
The type of rapist* you are referring to don't go out looking for people in short skirts to rape. They plan their attacks and either target specific victims or look for people alone in vulnerable / secluded areas where they can take advantage. They know what they are doing; are fully aware of their actions and consequences.
Drivers go out fully aware they are in 1500+ kg of fast moving metal that has through fair means or foul, through incapacity or inattention, through will or circumstance - the capability of killing or maiming in an instant. If a driver doesn't know that then they shouldn't be driving; they need to be fully aware of their actions and consequences.
In neither case is the victim 'asking for it', it's the responsibility of the rapist to not rape people and the driver to be fully aware and capable so they don't run innocent people over.
* for avoidance of doubt, not the too drunk to know whether the victim was willing or not rape, where desire may play a part. That's not the point here.
The type of rapist* you are referring
I am not referring to any type of rapist, that is your assumption or projection. I mean any rapist, they don't rape people by accident.
Drivers go out fully aware they are in 1500+ kg of fast moving metal that has through fair means or foul, through incapacity or inattention, through will or circumstance – the capability of killing or maiming in an instant. If a driver doesn’t know that then they shouldn’t be driving; they need to be fully aware of their actions and consequences.
I don't disagree, but there can easily be a scenario where an innocent careful driver might accidentally run over a cyclist who is drunk and wobbles out into the road from a dark hedgerow?
That is not in anyway the same as being drunk and accidentally wobbling into an opportunist rapist. The rapist is looking for the opportunity to commit his crime. Being drunk and getting raped is not the fault of the drunk person. Being drunk and getting run over might be the fault of the drunk person.
You are muddying the waters. Note I am not in anyway victim blaming cyclists, I am just pointing out that it is possible for a cyclist to contribute to their own misfortune, where the driver may be innocent.
If someone is raped, it isn't their fault, end of.
Things I would like to see:
drivers should be more careful, the legal system should put more onus on drivers to be careful, roads should be wide and well lit, cycle paths should be separate from the roads, cars should be speed restricted, safety technology should be mandatory etc etc.
Was going to dip my toe in again, now see it's all good a bit "rapey". Hmmm......
There needs to be a Godwins law equivalent of rapist mentions. I'll call it Dolbears 2nd Law seeing as the first is taken.
Was going to dip my toe in again
You're SICK man!
If you really don’t get it, go back to the point that was made by someone else earlier in the discussion, about how some people talk about rape cases. Do you think that women who wear short skirts and go out late at night are “asking to be raped”? Do you think it matters if people “explain” rape like this?
maybe a better comparison, for people not trying desperately to virtue signal, would be of people out hiking in the mountains and not properly equiped for the conditions, getting caught out and then relying on mountain rescue to save their arses.
because they went out ill-equiped the chances of something going wrong is increased, they are asking for trouble.
also with a similar sense of self-entitlement and not thinking of the consequenses to other people.
I don't think anyone's arguing that it isn't sensible to protect yourself, whether that be mountain walking, going for a night out with your friends or riding to work. You shouldn't have to, but the world isn't perfect.
But that's still a long way from 'asking for it' because you didn't.
...maybe a better comparison, for people not trying desperately to virtue signal...
Try again. It's really, really simple. No one is "asking for it".
because they went out ill-equiped the chances of something going wrong is increased, they are asking for trouble.
And if they didn't go out ill-equipped? The cyclist was visible to a number of motorists suggesting he wasn't ill-equipped. If anyone was ill equipped it was the driver of the van who was not able to see properly. So if someone hits me even though I am visible it is because I am "asking for it" ?
depends Kerley. Did you do absolutely everything you could? Hi Viz, multiple flashing lights that you checked from every angle for visibility? Are you sure you might not have deviated slightly from your path at the crucial moment the poor driver was checking his messages or lighting his cigarette. Pray for the poor driver, he's going to have to live with the consequences of his inattentiveness for ever (or until he gets his licence back, whichever comes first). You're dead, there's nothing left for you to worry about.
Asking for it, you were.
well, when you put it like that.
The cyclist was visible to a number of motorists suggesting he wasn’t ill-equipped.
maybe that cyclist was but I originally said that I see lots of cyclists out in dark clothing (of which I have no problem with) and with pathetic lights that look about 10 minutes away from the battery failing as they are so dim (the light, but also probably the rider).
Things I would like to see:
drivers should be more careful,
Agreed.
the legal system should put more onus on drivers to be careful,
What you actually need is to stop/catch, and prosecute the routine carelessness that happens everyday (including cyclists) not focus solely on the rare occasions when it results in a fatality. As you rightly say virtually nobody gets behind the wheel expecting to have a crash, never mind cause a death. It may be wrong to assume the problem lies with the "legal system" - it more likely is a decision about policing priorities, which is politically driven (better to make the public think they are chasing murderers even though more people are killed on the roads than murdered).
roads should be wide and well lit,
Whilst there are some bad roads, i'm not sure that the roads are the fundamental flaw. Nor is lighting necessarily the be all and end all. A well lit and reflective cyclist is potentially more visible against a dark background than a sea of street lights and signage.
cycle paths should be separate from the roads,
its obviously impossible to achieve and get 100% coverage; the downside is it reinforces driver mentality that cyclists dont belong on the roads, and of course they wont be maintained and 95% of them are designed really badly to either not give priority to the cyclist over crossing traffic or to mingle you in with dog walkers, badly placed street furniture and other hazards.
cars should be speed restricted,
in theory I agree, although I wonder if that would actually increase the number of zombies behind the wheel.
safety technology should be mandatory etc etc.
which safety tech?