[Closed] Driver cleared of causing cyclist's death

Can you ride your bike in a bus lane?

**Be gentle - i've never ridden my bike on a road before**

EDIT: nevermind: http://ukcyclerules.com/2011/11/22/cycling-bus-lanes/

I saw this and was about to post. Blacked out windows down to 17% visibility, not sure, but fairly certain thats not legal. Can't make it out, but sounds like he'd stopped in a bus lane...then opens a door with out looking... then claims that the cyclist had 'lost control'. So what, he opens the door into his path anyway??? Look after yourself out there kids.

Not the first smidsy case today;
[i]
The lorry driver who knocked down the Times journalist Mary Bowers as she cycled to work was cleared today of dangerous driving and fined £2,700.

Petre Beiu, 40, a Romanian citizen, had admitted that he had not been paying enough attention when his lorry dragged Ms Bowers, 28, under his Tipper lorry in November last year.

Jurors took one hour to clear him of dangerous driving but found him guilty of the lesser charge of careless driving.

Beiu, who has previously admitted a series of tachograph offences, including driving a lorry for 20 hours in one day when the maximum is 9 hours, said in the witness box that he was full of remorse over the incident, which resulted in horrendous injuries to Ms Bowers. [/i]

[url= http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3631594.ece ]http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3631594.ece[/url]

Disgusting.

I reckon you'd have to shoot a cyclist at point blank range with the judge as a witness before having any chance of being convicted, and even then I wouldn't bet on it

Out of order.

I thought the rozzers were hot on cyclists being doored? I suppose the jury...of drivers...thought it could happen to any of them.

Why do some people want darkened windows, they must be so ugly they dont want to scare the children, or want to perv over women, could be a couple of reasons,not based on any scientific reasoning.

The driver was parked in a layby, adjoining a bus lane, the cyclist and bus where in the cycle /bus lane, so tragic for the cyclists family and the proffesional bus driver who could not stop in time.

There is also a charge that could have been laid against the driver of deliberately or maliciously opening a vehicle door.

I reckon you'd have to shoot a cyclist at point blank range with the judge as a witness before having any chance of being convicted, and even then I wouldn't bet on it

i've come to the conclusion, that in the eyes of the police and legal system, were second class citizens.
i keep hearing political types, judges, police say that something will be done about cyclist safety, but it's all a load of ****ing bollox.

Although I disagree with the verdict and am IN NO WAY implying the cyclist is to blame (it is 100% on the car users to look) tragedies like this can probably be avoided by simply not cycling in the "door zone". It makes me cringe when I see cyclists going along 2 inches from the kerb or whatever thinking they are "staying out of trouble". Take the lane. It's the safest thing to do in virtually every instance.

But the guy who defaced a Rothko at the Tate was sent down for two years. Something very very wrong with the way the law treats motorists

Jeez. How sad is that? I MTB regularly, ride on the road only occassionally and it scares the bejeezuz out of me.

The judge, Mr Justice Saunders, told the jury: "This is a case where there are no winners. Everyone is a loser."

I'd say the guy who opened the door will be reckoning he had a win out of it...

The driver was parked in a layby, adjoining a bus lane, the cyclist and bus where in the cycle /bus lane, so tragic for the cyclists family and the proffesional bus driver who could not stop in time.

Sounds to me like the bus driver failed to leave enough room and is every bit as responsible as anyone else here. The guy opening the door didn't kill anyone. He just started the chain of events.

A drunk in chester a few weeks ago, who ran accross the road, and pushed a cyclist off his bike, and almost causing a car to hit him, was sentanced to 7 months prison yesterday.

All caught on cctv, police even chased the bus he was on and arrested him.

http://www.chesterfirst.co.uk/news/118297/drunken-yob-s-prank-nearly-killed-cyclist.aspx

What simons nicolai-uk said ^^^
There is something seriously out of kilter with these verdicts. People are getting away with manslaughter purely because the deceased was riding a bicycle.

[quote=diawl2 ]What simons nicolai-uk said ^^^
There is something seriously out of kilter with these verdicts. People are getting away with manslaughter purely because the [s]deceased was riding a bicycle[/s] accused was driving a car.

The fact that he died has to be separated from the intention and actions of the motorist when sentencing.

[quote=fourbanger ]The fact that he died has to be separated from the intention and actions of the motorist when sentencing.
Isn't that why we differentiate between manslaughter and murder?

Yep. hold up a boat race, go to prison.
Kill a cyclist, slap on the wrist.

There really are some utter simpletons on this site. I was one of the officers who dealt with the initial response to this tragic incident. This guy was found not guilty AT COURT by a JURY. The fact he was let off has nothing to do with the police. Sufficient evidence was gathered to charge him with manslaughter. You perhaps need to understand the judicial system a little better. And have a thought for the poor guy who died and the witnesses and emergency services who have to deal with incidents as harrowing and tragic as this on a daily basis.

Rant over.

I just read that on roadCC.

Sad, all this bollock about changing attitudes and you clear anyone who kills/injures a cyclist.

He had tinted windows FFS .

From RoadCC:

[i]

The verdict has been returned on the same day that the lorry driver in the Mary Bowers case was found not guilty of dangerous driving, but guilty of careless driving, in connection with the incident last November that left the Times journalist with life-changing injuries.

Drivers 2, Cyclists [i] f*** off and die, you're not wanted or protected[/i]

well said druidh

Surely in these cases there needs to be a jury which includes cyclists and motorists, maybe if the driver in question had to go and meet injured cyclists and be forced to watch crashes involving cyclists in some sort of Clockwork Orange scenario.

Clearly there is not a strong enough message getting through to drivers and with sentences non existent something needs to be done.

As a cyclist and a driver I don't ride to work every day but when I drive in I definitely feel that I drive with a higher awareness for cyclists.

it is unfortunately another tragedy and another episode of "getting away with it"

@ Nonsense

Then how are JURY's being put together and being allowed to pass non guilty verdicts with supporting evidence to the contrary?

gah! is this one of those situations where by going for a manslaughter conviction they took a risk where a lesser charge might have stood more of a chance of sticking??
can he be charged with something else so that he at least gets a conviction, even if it involves just a fine and community service?

oliverholder - Member
@ Nonsense

Then how are JURY's being put together and being allowed to pass non guilty verdicts with supporting evidence to the contrary?

Isn't down to the CPS or whoever selects the jury,, which isn't the Police.

You can't blame this one on the Met.

Words fail me.

It actually makes me depressed that these outcomes were decided to be just.

The real tragedy here (beside the unnecessary death of Sam Harding), is the seeming apathy of posters on this site to improving the situation for cyclist on the UK roads.

For instance, this thread:

http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/lobby-europe-to-include-cycling-in-major-transport-plans

which got 2 replies....

another bad day for cyclists.

@ Fourbanger

I am all for improving the situation and signed and sent a letter.

Drivers attitudes towards cyclists in London is horrendous, you take your life in a drivers hands when you ride.

A tragedy but it was avoidable by the cyclist not riding in the doorzone. On [url= https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Jackson+Road,+London&hl=en&ll=51.554022,-0.113742&spn=0.000677,0.001725&sll=51.556225,-0.117237&sspn=0.021666,0.055189&oq=jackson&hnear=Jackson+Rd,+London+Borough+of+Islington,+London+N7,+United+Kingdom&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=51.554012,-0.114007&panoid=XyH3Ne6G7yQSUBBSpxqEnQ&cbp=12,324.41,,0,0 ]google maps[/url] the bus lanes on both sides of the road are full width. If I was using a bus lane like that I would be right in the center of it so it wouldn't matter if a car door opened. I don't understand cyclists who ride close to parked cars.

oliverholder, agreed. The situation will change if people fight to make it change, but it won't happen by itself.

Just to make it a bit easier, send this:

[i]Email Subject Line: European Transport Policy Ignores 100 Million Citizens. [/i]

Dear Mr Simpson
There are 35 million citizens cycling every day. There are more than 100 million Europeans that cycle regularly. Yet cycling is in danger of being left out of important European transport funding and policy.
In December 2011, the European Parliament showed that it saw potential for significant growth in cycling and that it was a priority case for European investment by recommending that the European Cycle Route Network, EuroVelo and associated cycling facilities should be included in the Trans-European Transportation Network (Ten-T) strategic transport network.
Just one year later, we feel that the European institutions are ignoring, forgetting and failing the millions of European citizen cycling in Europe. As a democratically elected body, European Parliament must listen to its citizens.
We call on you, as our representative in the Transport Committee to respect 100 million European citizens and the actions of the parliament by restoring cycling to its appropriate place in the Ten-T guidelines.
If you do not, you are disrespecting the needs of 100 million citizens and the huge potential for economic growth, carbon reduction and reduced congestion that investing in cycling can bring.
In the vote on the 18th December, please vote the amendments with the following content:
Integrate EuroVelo, the European cycle route network, into the Trans European Transportation Network (TEN-T)
Improve, develop the road infrastructure / conditions of cycle routes that run along the TEN-T Corridors
Implement safe (grade separate) intersections when TEN-T infrastructure corridors cross local, regional, national cycle routes.

Yours sincerely,
Insert NAME/ORGANISATION

to:

brian.simpson@europarl.europa.eu

Edit to add source: [url= http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/campaigning/article/camp20121212-campaigning-news-Get-the-EU-to-include-cycling-in-major-infrastructure-schemes-0?dm_i=BM6,12NU2,62TK87,3B9VA,1 ]British Cycling link[/url]

and credit MrGreedy as OP

I think it is the way people drive that needs to change, I do not think roads should be dangerous. Accidents will always happen but most are caused because of the dangerous way people drive around cyclists (as well as some total tits on bikes) I dont know whether it is mainly a lack of awareness, the tolerance of a low standard of driving, or just lack consideration (as a passenger in friends cars I have seen all of these). I think trying to separate cars from bikes especially out of town is impractical and not the answer.

Pretty shocking read really. Two immediate thoughts are the guy in the car can't have looked properly especially with his illegally tinted windows (windscreen must let at least 75% of light through and the front side windows 70%, BBC said he had 17% visibility), and the buss driver must have been too close to hit the guy on the bike.

It's pretty sad how us cyclists generally feel like second class citizens as soon as we get on a bike. The same abuse and treatment from motorists wouldn't be tolerated in any other scenario. If a motorist is involved in an incident would it not be beneficial to get them on a bike for a period of time to get a cyclists perspective. I'm not saying cyclist don't cause incidents or create there own problems but it seems to lean toward the motorists in most cases.

Should the bus have been able to stop in time? Following vehicle keep clear and all that...

Then how are JURY's being put together and being allowed to pass non guilty verdicts with supporting evidence to the contrary?

What do you suggest ? juries are handpicked to arrive at a predetermined verdict. what kind of justice system would that be.

Should the bus have been able to stop in time? Following vehicle keep clear and all that...

Could have been in the processs of overtaking and the rider was thrown across the road into it's path. Or even that the cyclist had just undertaken the bus. Not enough info to judge in that article.

Again, as someone above said, I wouldn't dream of blaming the cyclist but parked up cars need a wide birth at all costs(especially occupied ones - but I guess with the blacked up windows that would have been hard to determine). It might be their fault and you might be entirely innocent but you end up dead so its a situation to avoid putting yourself in if at all possible.

i've come to the conclusion, that in the eyes of the police and legal system, were second class citizens.
i keep hearing political types, judges, police say that something will be done about cyclist safety, but it's all a load of **** bollox.

The CPS could have decides to pursue lesser charges, e.g. C&U regs for the window tint, or Opening Door of a Motor Vehicle so as to cause harm etc. Then the cycling community would be up in arms for the trivial nature of the offence. In reality a tragic set of circumstances combined to result in the death of an innocent cyclist. That is sad but it isn't necessarily manslaughter.

In reality a tragic set of circumstances combined to result in the death of an innocent cyclist. That is sad but it isn't necessarily manslaughter

A criminal offence was committed which DIRECTLY lead to a death.

I think the jury disagree with that.

There really are some utter simpletons on this site. I was one of the officers who dealt with the initial response to this tragic incident. This guy was found not guilty AT COURT by a JURY. The fact he was let off has nothing to do with the police.

Fine. But you can't honestly believe that the police do all they can for cyclists.

I accept that the legal system's a joke when it comes to drivers, but the number of times I've spoken to police who just don't care...

A criminal offence was committed which DIRECTLY lead to a death.

What was the criminal offense?

Pretty shocking read really. Two immediate thoughts are the guy in the car can't have looked properly especially with his illegally tinted windows (windscreen must let at least 75% of light through and the front side windows 70%, BBC said he had 17% visibility), and the buss driver must have been too close to hit the guy on the bike.

Aye he got the tint added and without it he would not have had to open the door to see and witnesses disagreed with his account of how far he opened it, if he has legal windows.

I am not sure it is practical to ride down that section in the middle of the road just in case a driver opens a door - if that is your view it puts the bus across two lanes whilst it does the same.

There is no law regarding this [cyclists being out/in the car door zone] but there is regarding opening doors and window tints

I do agree a jury of car drivers seems to lead to a scenario where it is nigh on impossible to get a conviction and this is what needs addressing

Sounds a clear case of negligence by the driver, but difficult to say without all the evidence. As we all know reporters have a knack of only reporting part of the story. Very sad case and one from which lessons must be learned.

zilog - A criminal offence was committed which DIRECTLY lead to a death. How can that not be manslaughter?

However, even if you determine that there was an offence and it did lead to death that does not automatically mean manslaughter - otherwise we wouldn't need offences of "Causing death by dangerous/careless driving".

A criminal offence was committed which DIRECTLY lead to a death. How can that not be manslaughter?

Are you refering to his blacked out windows when you talk of a criminal act or the opening a door into the path of a cyclist or both? I think I'd be happier with a legal system that punished the act rather than the consequence. i.e. if blacking out the windows of your car could lead to serious harm it should get a much bigger punishment than the £60 odd fine it does now but I think I'd feel happier if this bloke got the same new harsher punishment too (for that section of breaking the law).

It's a bit like that bloke in Selby that fell asleep at the wheel and fell off the road causing a fatal train crash and got 5 years in prison. There was that statistic about the number of people that also fell off the road that month in a sleep deprived state and all the others just got a wrap on the knuckles. They all did the same daft thing; the only thing was the ditch he fell into had a couple of trains in it. I'd have been happier to see them all treated the same - be that all getting 5yrs or all getting another, lesser punishment. Punishment should fit the crime not the consequence imho.

parked up cars need a wide birth at all costs

It's not helped by the fact that cycle lanes are often placed in the door zone. It takes awareness and confidence to move out of a marked cycle lane into a busy traffic lane. e.g. http://goo.gl/maps/6ADe9

What was the criminal offense?

Road Vehicle Regulations Reg.105 – “No person shall open, or cause, or permit to be opened, any door of a vehicle on a road so as to injure or endanger any person”

Are you refering to his blacked out windows when you talk of a criminal act or the opening a door into the path of a cyclist or both?

No court has determined that - so it is only alleged that an offence took place.

It's not helped by the fact that cycle lanes are often placed in the door zone. It takes awareness and confidence to move out of a marked cycle lane into a busy traffic lane

Very true - nothing set to anger motorists more. And then you face potential road rage. You can't win 🙁 . To be honest I try to choose a different route if that's possible when faced with two such delightful choices, even if it's further - although some ardent cycle rights types would call that giving in.

What was the criminal offence that was committed? remember the jury is "12 resonable men and women" and remember it's not 12 people have found him not guilty it's that 9-3 couldn't decide so you may well have 3 who said he's not guilty but you need at least the majority verdict. Serious cases every day end in not guilty verdicts you're all just jumping on this one as it involves a cyclist, we have rapists get off rape on a daily basis etc etc!

unfortuately have to suck it up as it's the way our criminal justice system works whether you like it or not!

The responses on this thread are almost as moronic as the sensationalist responses you get on Road CC.

People going on about jury's and judicial system after skim reading some badly reported piece on the BBC/Road CC website.

Our judicial/jury system is revered all over the world and works. Do you not think the judge will have given guidance to the jury, focus on the facts presented and distance yourself from the emotion.

yes we know that but that does not mean they reached the correct verdict

Would really love to know how the defence got a jury to believe this though. Especially with the eye-witness evidence of the people on the bus.

Clearly none have you have ever sat in a court and listened to the BS taht defence barristers come out with! remember you only need that element of doubt and they get to go last, as already said it may only be 3 people who don't think he did it. Try getting 12 people on THIS forum to agree on something, guess what IT WOULDN'T HAPPEN!

zilog6128 - Member

Road Vehicle Regulations Reg.105 – “No person shall open, or cause, or permit to be opened, any door of a vehicle on a road so as to injure or endanger any person”

So what's the criminal offense?

Should the bus have been able to stop in time? Following vehicle keep clear and all that...

Could have been in the processs of overtaking and the rider was thrown across the road into it's path. Or even that the cyclist had just undertaken the bus. Not enough info to judge in that article.

I could be imagining this, but I'm sure the highway code used to say, that when overtaking, you should leave cyclists enough room to fall in the road. Which, whilst almost as vague as it is now, it generates a good picture in most peoples' minds, as well as the potential consequences. I prefer that description. And it sounds like one that the bus driver didn't adhere to ... but as you say, we don't know the facts.

As for the tinted windows, perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see anywhere in that article where it stated which windows were tinted. Normal protocol would be to do the rears only, and there would be no offence there at all.

This case makes me very sad, and I feel for everyone involved (yes even the guy who opened the door).

The reality is several people made mistakes of varying degrees on that day.

A man* riding a bike was not giving enough room when passing parked cars.
A man* getting out of his car didn't check it was clear.
A man* driving a bus was driving close enough that he was not able to stop.

In isolation none of these things would have caused this chain of events, and the same mistakes are made time and time again by people every day with no consequences at all.

But on this day they all happened together, in the same place, at the same time, and a man lost his life.

It is very very sad in every respect.

* I refuse to label them as cyclist, motorist etc, they were people going about their daily business, and the more we can drum into everyone that we are all people sharing the roads the better

The problem is juries. Specifically, juries are made up of people who probably drive a car. So of course they say "that could have been me" - and they're not talking about the cyclist when they say that.

I'm pretty angry about this, it's a disgrace. The driver lied, he said the cyclist lost control of his bike. Maybe because you opened your car door on him you stupid idiot. As for bus drivers, some of them shouldn't be allowed to ride a moped never mind drive a huge bus.

I'm pretty angry about this, it's a disgrace. The driver lied, he said the cyclist lost control of his bike. Maybe because you opened your car door on him you stupid idiot. As for bus drivers, some of them shouldn't be allowed to ride a moped never mind drive a huge bus.

Sorry, your anger is based on a bunch of assumptions made from a heavily abbreviated press report. We don't know the context that the driver said the cyclist lost control - he could well have said just exactly what you said. You might have some beef about bus drivers in general but I don't see you have anything but loose assumptions from what you can read about this case here that give you reason to feel aggrieved about them now.

I think sad rather than angry is a better human response from what you actually [u]know[/u] rather than can attempt to assume here. Focus on the loss rather than the blame that I'm not sure you are qualified to judge.

This case makes me very sad, and I feel for everyone involved (yes even the guy who opened the door).

The reality is several people made mistakes of varying degrees on that day.

A man* riding a bike was not giving enough room when passing parked cars.
A man* getting out of his car didn't check it was clear.
A man* driving a bus was driving close enough that he was not able to stop.

In isolation none of these things would have caused this chain of events, and the same mistakes are made time and time again by people every day with no consequences at all.

But on this day they all happened together, in the same place, at the same time, and a man lost his life.

It is very very sad in every respect.

* I refuse to label them as cyclist, motorist etc, they were people going about their daily business, and the more we can drum into everyone that we are all people sharing the roads the better

Most sensible post ever on Singletrack?

edited because it will probably get me arrested.

A man* driving a bus was driving close enough that he was not able to stop.

Load of rubbish , if someone falls off the pavement in front of you as youre overtaking them at 30 mph or even less, and they fall without warning, how are you supposed to stop, human reaction time , brake efficency, road conditions , wet dry etc, or even the state and make of the tyres.

Buses weigh about 1 tons plus , then there are the passengers to add extra weight.

Sadly tragic accidents happen,get investigated, and sometimes the wrong verdict is given to people who just want a result, but thats how things happen.

Just remember next time youre in your car,(along with your passengers) or van, look for cyclists, and always give us room when passing us.

Rest in peace fellow cyclist, and condolances to his family and freinds.

Load of rubbish , if someone falls off the pavement in front of you as youre overtaking them at 30 mph or even less, and they fall without warning, how are you supposed to stop, human reaction time , brake efficency, road conditions , wet dry etc, or even the state and make of the tyres.

You shouldn't really be that close to them in the first place. Or you should be adjusting your speed accordingly.

bencooper - Member
The problem is juries. Specifically, juries are made up of people who probably drive a car. So of course they say "that could have been me" - and they're not talking about the cyclist when they say that.

mmm.... most people agree juries are appropriate for the most serious offences. However it would be a little unusual if all 12 people on a Jury were car drivers and none ever rode a bike - especially in London.

34 Million people with a full driving license in the UK, or around 49 million adults = c. 70%. Not all license holders regularly drive, 42% of London households report not having regular access to a car.

32% of the adult population report cycling once a year (on or off road). 11% of people in Greater London cycle on the road at least once a month, with that rising to 30% is some London boroughs.

So an "average" London jury would contain something like:

8 drivers (with licenses)
5 people who never drive a car
4 people who cycle at least occasionally
and 1-4 who cycle regularly.

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20732883 ]Gap in the UK's law on cycling? - BBC[/url]

So why is the bus driver not getting prosecuted?

Presumably because the police/prosecutors decided it wasn't his fault/had insufficient evidence.

What was the criminal offense?

This is what I don't understand. Please clear this up for me. If this tinting is illegal then is the vehicle still allowed on the road?

If it's not, then isn't the criminal act the driver just being there?

Also just trying to think what it's like to check your wing mirror through tinted windows.

As for the tinted windows, perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see anywhere in that article where it stated which windows were tinted. Normal protocol would be to do the rears only, and there would be no offence there at all.

Some of the coverage definitely says it was between a and b pillars - ie was an offence. There are loads around like this now - yet another law the Police seem not to bother enforcing.

Our judicial/jury system is revered all over the world and works. Do you not think the judge will have given guidance to the jury, focus on the facts presented and distance yourself from the emotion.

But it repeatedly fails cyclists. Even when there is a guilty plea or a jury finds guilty the sentences are [url= http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/causing-death-by-careless-driving-some.html ]derisory [/url]

More here now

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20732883

Good article (linked to by ebygomm also earlier).

You'd think it [i]should[/i] also raise issues re. drivers tailgating cyclists* and cyclists taking their lane to avoid doorings...one step at a time I guess.

*I find buses really bad for this...is the 2 second rule meant to apply in town?

project - Member

Load of rubbish , if someone falls off the pavement in front of you as youre overtaking them at 30 mph or even less, and they fall without warning, how are you supposed to stop, human reaction time , brake efficency, road conditions , wet dry etc, or even the state and make of the tyres.

Not what happened though is it- the bus was driving behind the bike, in a stream of traffic.

This is pretty basic stuff tbh. "In slow-moving traffic. You should never get so close to the vehicle in front that you cannot stop safely"

Not the bus driver's fault- he didn't cause the initial crash- but I can't see any way that he's not contributory, if he'd allowed a suitable gap he'd have stopped, and it'd "just" be another car-door incident.

but [b]I can't see any way[/b] that he's not contributory

I've read nothing anywhere to say he wasn't in the process of overtaking the cyclist rather than holding station behind the cyclist. He should of course be leaving a good gap to the right of the cyclist but if the rider "lost control" as the motorist described and veered hard right as he clashed into/avoided the door I can see how there is a way he is not contributory.

In general I agree though - too many motor vehicles of all flavours think it's acceptable to tailgate a bike and this could have happened here. Pure speculation though unless you were at the trial (and the right question was asked).

OK, that's a good point and well made.

Few thoughts on this one..

I still cant quite see how you can open a drivers door into a bus lane? Was there parking to the left of the lane?

Also having watched the fathers statement, I thought he should massive reserve and strength to so calmly summarise the case and the law.

In my experience the police do not rush to prosecute drivers, in this case they thought he was guilty which is telling.

IanW - Member

Few thoughts on this one..

I still cant quite see how you can open a drivers door into a bus lane? Was there parking to the left of the lane?

Yes, in a layby IIRC.

I'm a cyclist, pedestrian and motorist.
I say this to establish that I'm not biased towards any one group.
It certainly seems that if you hurt someone (cyclist or pedestrian) with your car you can rely on a light/no sentence and a minimal fine.
Consider:
1. I am in my car, I'm texting/changing the cd/turning round to look at the kids in the back and I hit a pedestrian with my bumper. It causes brain damage and they die.
2. I am walking along with a replacement bumper for my car over my shoulder (for the purposes of this illustration pretend I do not have a bad back). I hear a text arrive in my phone and I reach for my pocket, the bumper slips around a bit and hits someone on the head, it causes brain damage and they die.
In (1) it will be considered an 'accident' and I will receive a derisory fine and possibly a short ban.
In (2) I would probably go to jail.
You know what? Something needs to be done about this. I'm going to have a think about what.
Suggestions welcome. (Positive please).
I'm quite unwell and already have a full life, but I feel strongly that this issue should be highlighted to the Prime Minister. Yes, I do. How? 38 degrees?

Karinofnine - Member

2. I am walking along with a replacement bumper for my car over my shoulder (for the purposes of this illustration pretend I do not have a bad back). I hear a text arrive in my phone and I reach for my pocket, the bumper slips around a bit and hits someone on the head, it causes brain damage and they die.

In (2) I would probably go to jail.

I don't think that's right at all.

So what do you think is right? Can you not see a vast dichotomy in the way these things are treated?