[Closed] Driver cleared of causing cyclist's death

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.

imo I think you have got that 100% the wrong way around. I am aware of motorist going to prison for texting whilst driving and causing an acident. I am not aware of anyone going to prison for a (not so) comedy Laurel and Hardy style package swinging incident.

If enough motorists are punished and if they are punished in the right way is open for debate but your analogies are not good.

Ok my analogies are not good. Fine, accepted. Do you agree that motoring accidents are treated lightly?
More to the point. Have you got any ideas about what to do about it - or are you just content to argue on a forum?

Karinofnine - I think actually you have your likely outcomes for (1) and (2) the wrong way round. (1) Would, assuming there is enough evidence, be prosecuted as causing death by dangerous driving. Ordinarily that would result in a prison sentence (albeit a short one). If it was 'careless' driving (not paying attention rather than using a phone or shouting at the kids) then it might not. (2) Might well be seen as simply an accident - I think the chances of a Jail sentence for accidentally hitting someone on the head whilst walking down the street is pretty low.

I think we agree drivers get off lightly - I was just getting legal on your examples.

I may start wearing a helmet cam on my commutes!

Aha, and that is precisely the point. Car deaths are seen as an "accident" - that's the culture.
Anyway, who has got some positive ideas on how to change this?

Do you agree that motoring accidents are treated lightly?

Certainly, but as in my post some pages back I would like to see the action set the punishment tariff, not the outcome of the action. As per your example, texting whilst driving is really bad news but punish all who commit it the same way, don't just come down hard of the few "unlucky" ones who do the crime and cause the crash/death. This would probably mean a sentence that will seem draconian to those that are caught when there has been no incident and might look lenient when there has been an incident.

I mentioned in another thread... But one way to reduce collisions involving cyclists in bus lanes is to let motorbikes/ptws into them. Counterintuitive, but all the studies have shown little or no impact (so to speak) on ptw vs cyclist collisions, but a significant reduction in collisions overall (11% of reported collisions)

It's not the most positive change tbh, since it's not working on attitudes to cyclists at all, but it's an effective one (the reason it works does seem to be that knobbers will happily step out in front of cyclists/open car doors into them/pull out in front of them, and so don't look, but are less inclined to do so with a motorbike)

convert - hmmmm, thing is if eg you text while driving and hit someone you should be punished.
So, you are in your car, you want to send a text. How do you know that nothing or no-one will get in your way while you are doing so? Crystal ball?
That's why there's a blanket NO TEXTING (phoning etc etc) because we can't see into the future.
It has been demonstrated many times on here that there is a dichotomy in sentencing.
Has anyone got any positive ideas on what to do about it?

Is there this dichotomy though?

If you are done for texting while driving, without causing any collision, wee fine?

If you cause some's death in a collision then you get done for careless/dangerous driving also.

Seems reasonable to me, I think.

Have you got any ideas about what to do about it - or are you just content to argue on a forum?

Another counter intuitive suggestion (that won't be very popular). Make cycles carry the same road tax (or vehicle excise duty if you must) discs as motorised users. Let us pay the same as other low emission vehicles (i.e. nothing!). Why not have a licence plate too (it would have to be small mind- which might be an issue)?

Just get the daft arguments out of the way about not having a proper place on the road. Is that giving in - some would certainly think so but I'd rather have the issue removed and fight the battle of road safety on a more equal foot in the eyes of non cyclists than we are currently are able to.

convert - hmmmm, thing is if eg you text while driving and hit someone you should be punished.
So, you are in your car, you want to send a text. How do you know that nothing or no-one will get in your way while you are doing so? Crystal ball?
That's why there's a blanket NO TEXTING (phoning etc etc) because we can't see into the future.

I don't think you got my point.

The dichotomy has been demonstrated many times on here.
But, if people on a cycling forum are happy that there is no problem I will not pursue it.

[quote=Karinofnine ]
Has anyone got any positive ideas on what to do about it?
Who makes the decisions on road layouts, traffic laws, sentencing etc? Politicians. If you really want to change things, go into politics. That could be at local council level or at national level. get enough cyclists elected and you could start to turn things around.

Now then - who cares enough to take that step?

If you are done for texting while driving, without causing any collision, wee fine?

If you cause some's death in a collision then you get done for careless/dangerous driving also.

Seems reasonable to me, I think.

To me though - both were careless/dangerous driving. Both deserve significant punishment. The fact that some folk hit and kill people when texting is proof that it's a dangerous thing to do. What they actually did was no different to hundreds of thousands who do it and luckily don't have a cyclist get in their way whilst they are not paying attention. The act was identical, it's only the outcome that differs. One thing's for sure - if everyone who was caught texting whilst driving got a £2K fine or 3months inside the number of people who would risk it who rapidly dwindle - which is rather the point.

Karinofnine - I think actually you have your likely outcomes for (1) and (2) the wrong way round. (1) Would, assuming there is enough evidence, be prosecuted as causing death by dangerous driving.

But back in the real world, it's not is it? See http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/causing-death-by-careless-driving-some.html for examples of actual sentences for causing death with your vehicle when distracted.

Karinofnine - I agree with you, but should point out this is a forum for people who drive to trail centres in their audis, not a cyclists forum (before anybody complains, check any previous car/cyclist thread for the anti-cyclist sentiment - eg all the people on http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/psa-war-on-britains-roads-on-bbc1 who think the cyclist concerned deserves to get knocked off).

[quote=convert ]
To me though - both were careless/dangerous drive. Both deserve significant punishment. The fact that some folk hit and kill people when texting is proof that it's a dangerous thing to do. What they actually did was no different to hundreds of thousands who do it and luckily don't have a cyclist get in their way.
Same as speeding - but it's an argument that holds little sway on STW where it seems most folk think it's OK to "drive according to the conditions". Personally, I'd have average speed cameras everywhere or compulsory tracking.

i wounder what religion the jury was hmmm let me think

❓

The fact that some folk hit and kill people when texting is proof that it's a dangerous thing to do. What they actually did was no different to hundreds of thousands who do it and luckily don't have a cyclist get in their way. One thing's for sure - if everyone who was caught texting whilst driving got a £2K fine or 3months inside the number of people who would risk it who rapidly dwindle - which is rather the point.

Quite.
It is my position (open to challenge) that we need a sea-change in attitude. This could come from government via advertising and politians'/celebrities' behaviour. Politicians could cycle more to set an example and speeding/drunk driving celebs should get majorly punitive sentences and fine. Majorly. To set an example.
Adverts on the tv could clarify that no one group has a "right", that there is no such thing as "road tax" and that everyone pays for the roads. That alone would make a massive difference. I can't count the number of times I've heard "get a car - pay tax" shouted.

Licence plates - I wouldn't mind. But, like others, I have a number of bikes. Some of which only go on the road to join up bridleways. What would you do about children's bikes?

I don't want to get into local government thanks, but I would get a petition together/perhaps organise a rally/demo at No 10?

 

druidh - Member
Same as speeding

I don't see that it is. Nor the phone example. Some folk get away with both because they do it on quiet or quieter roads. It's the loons that do it where they can kill that should get the heavier sentences (due to their acts then being dangerous driving) - though of course hardly any do.

[quote=Karinofnine ] speeding/drunk driving celebs should get majorly punitive sentences and fine. Majorly. To set an example.
Are you proposing some sort of phone-in where the public get to decide who is most famous and therefore "deserves" the same punishment? It should be the same for everyone.

I don't want to get into local government thanks, but I would get a petition together/perhaps organise a rally/demo at No 10?

Licence plates - I wouldn't mind. But, like others, I have a number of bikes. Some of which only go on the road to join up bridleways. What would you do about children's bikes?

With a shed of (sigh) 9 bikes to my name I know what you mean but I'd go along with it if improved our standing. Kid's bikes - it would have to be tough love - if it's going on the road it gets a plate.

Massive amount of bureaucracy that would be totally pointless unless it did start to melt attitude towards bikes mind.

[quote=cynic-al ] druidh - Member
Same as speeding
I don't see that it is. Nor the phone example. Some folk get away with both because they do it on quiet or quieter roads. It's the loons that do it where they can kill that should get the heavier sentences (due to their acts then being dangerous driving) - though of course hardly any do.
So it's OK to speed on a quieter road?

No, the public should not decide, but celebs/influential people should be made an example of.
Speeding on "quiet roads"? This really boils my piss. How do you know what's round the corner? Could be a family on bikes, a tractor, a broken down car, a herd of cows or sheep, stray dog, badger - ye gods, the list is endless. You know what? The speed limit is the maximum, not the minimum. It's the maximum speed you can go at in perfect conditions, when you can see other (possibly more vulnerable) road users. This is the attitude that needs to change.
And to aracer - yes, I agree with you. There again, perhaps these are the very people whose attitudes should be challenged?

Have to agree, petitions/rallys/hand wringing on an internet forum will never achieve anything. Cycling need friends in high places. You get that by either getting more cyclists into politics or more politicians into cycling. Subversive persuasion of sleazy tory MPs to get into biking rather than getting their rocks of spanking call girls is probably your best course of action Karinofnine!

druidh - Member
So it's OK to speed on a quieter road?

If you say so 🙄

convert - Member

Have to agree, petitions/rallys/hand wringing on an internet forum will never achieve anything.

If it raises awareness/changes views, that's something - and there are plenty here who have the endemic driver-bias.

Aracer - But back in the real world, it's not is it? See http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/causing-death-by-careless-driving-some.html for examples of actual sentences for causing death with your vehicle when distracted.

I would of thought being careless enough to kill someone was pretty dangerous.

Convert,

You might be interested to know that generally offences are sentenced on the crime not the consequences (e.g. a normal careless driving charge is no less serious even if you don't crash). However offences are sentenced taking into account all the circumstances of the offence and the offender. I'd guess that even if £1000 was the "normal" fine for a mobile phone while driving charge, >90% of offenders in front of the court would be presenting evidence that they could not afford such a penalty. Certainly it would increase the number of people going to court (at your/my expense) to either argue a legal technicality or financial mitigation. If loss of liberty was a likely outcome then those people all have to get the right to fair legal representation and that means you/I are funding their Legal Aid bill too.

Where careless / dangerous driving does result in a death it does carry higher penalties, but then if you think that the origin of the charge was to try and make it easier to prosecute than manslaughter it probably should. Would you send everyone who got in a tussle outside a pub to prison for years (again at our expense, and with potentially huge consequences for wives, children, employees)? Yes in some cases that tussle might result in a death and manslaughter is an appropriate charge.

Karinofnine - it hardly seems just to sentence "celebrities" more toughly than "joe public", that implies its more acceptable for me to commit crime because I am unknown. Sentencing for fines does already take into account ability to pay - and therefore high earners (not all of whom are celebrities) would expect to pay more than low earners (not all of whom are necessarily unknown).

You may not agree with how sentencing works but it has been well thought out and evolved over the years. In my experience apparent anomalies usually have rational explanations if you bother to look at all the facts.

For those talking about texting/phone use while driving, did anyone see this article very recently?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-20713930

I'm just wondering what the sentence would have been if she'd run over a cyclist...

It's taken 20 years for drink-driving to get to the point where it is actually regarded by the majority as being unacceptable and (mostly) adhered to.
I reckon it'll be another 20 before phone use is thought of in the same way. Everyone knows it's wrong, there's no excuse for using a phone at the wheel. But a large majority of drivers admit to it.

It's changing that culture and the idea that other road users (cyclists in particular) are somehow second class citizens that we need to work on. IMO, the best thing to do would be to introduce Presumed Liability whereby the dominant vehicle is held to be at fault in any collision unless specifically proven otherwise.

I don't know if this comparison has been made already but: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-20339630

A railway guard has been jailed for five years for causing the death of a 16-year-old girl who went under a train at a Liverpool station.

Georgia Varley died when she fell between the carriage and platform at James Street station in October 2011.

Christopher McGee, 45, had denied manslaughter but was found guilty at Liverpool Crown Court on Wednesday.

Sentencing him, Mr Justice Holroyde said McGee had taken a "terrible risk" with Georgia's safety.

McGee signalled for the driver to depart as Georgia, who was drunk, stood on the platform leaning against the train.

He told the jury he did not know how drunk she had been and thought she was moving away from the train when he gave the signal to depart

versus running over a cyclist who's visible in your tipper truck's windscreen while you're on the phone, and getting a fine and an 8 month driving ban.

Go back and read what I wrote, and read your link

I read what you wrote - did you read and understand what I wrote? I know my link refers to causing death by careless driving - that's not an accident. Because that's all a distracted driver who killed a cyclist would be charged with. Maybe in your utopia they would find evidence for a dangerous driving charge, but back in the real world, that's not what happens is it? Just check out the cases in the link I gave, and tell me why they involve less driver culpability than karinofnine's example? Or maybe find me an example of where a driver has been convicted of causing death by dangerous driving in similar circumstances.

I am familiar with this case via the bbc website although I have not thoroughly read this thread (cba). The issue here is that the OP has referred to the 'driver' and this is where this case fell down. The person who opened his door was not driving his car hense can not be considered, in the eyes of the law, as a 'driver'.

Just my observation.

aracer - I read what your wrote. I understand the words you wrote. I am not psychic though so I have no way of knowing what is going on in your head.

CARELESS DRIVING and DANGEROUS DRIVING are different levels of offence. To be convicted of DANGEROUS driving [i]"Dangerous driving is defined as driving in a manner which falls [b]FAR[/b] below that of a competent driver"[/i]

whilst to be convicted of CARELESS driving it requires the driving is [i] below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver[/i]

You may not like the definitions, you may even thing the words are odd (which I agree with as being careless in a car is usually dangerous - but the law makes a distinction). The fact that the law defines both offences of death by dangerous, and death by careless means it is clear that the legislature considered that the fact someone is killed does not automatically mean it must be dangerous. The CPS guidance is absolutely explicit on this point: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/road_traffic_offences_guidance_on_prosecuting_cases_of_bad_driving/

Generally speaking the distinction adopted in Dangerous / Careless cases (when not resulting in death) is that Careless cases are momentary lapses of attention whilst dangerous case are prolonged or considered actions.

Karinofnine's examples were cases where (assuming there is evidence) the culpability is clear. Using a phone, turning round to shout at kids or adjusting the radio is proactively doing something to be distracted from driving. Mobile phone use is probably easiest to prove (witnesses, phone records, usually more than a fraction of a second etc):

So hear are some general Death by DANGEROUS driving cases involving mobile phones:
http://www.****/news/article-1029749/Hands-free-phone-driver-convicted-causing-death-dangerous-driving.html [despite claiming to be hands free]
http://www.edp24.co.uk/news/driver_darren_harris_jailed_for_causing_death_by_dangerous_driving_1_1331635

These are just some quick examples google found (which means there needs to have been a story in the press - and therefore usually a trial)

There are roughly 200 convictions for Death by Dangerous Driving each year (of which over 90% get a custodial sentence). There are roughly a similar number for Death by Careless Driving (buy only about 25% go to prison).

A DBDD case with a bike but not involving a phone:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8483446.stm
http://road.cc/content/news/69667-driver-car-chase-left-teenage-cyclist-dead-has-sentence-more-doubled-after
http://www.****/news/article-2161163/Leonard-Jones-Leanne-Burnell-face-jail-Amy-Hofmeister-mowed-staged-81mph-car-race.html

Which one of the offences in the cycling silk article had evidence of being distracted because I couldn;t see anyone alleged to have been using a mobile phone or facing the wrong way shouting at kids. You may not see them as any more serious than "not seeing" but it seems the courts do.

The only case I can find involving evidence of specific distraction and a bike - ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/nov/18/lorry-driver-killed-cyclist-hangover) also included drink... and got a 7yr sentence.

There is outrage on here about once a month as someone gets a less serious sentence (or found not guilty) than people think they should have; that means "we" all have a skewed perception of the 'failings' of the justice system - but guilty pleas, and non-contentious cases rarely get reported (and generate much less fury on sites like this) which means unless you are close to the justice system you assume everyone gets off. 4 people a week are going to jail though.

Congratulations on finding some cases where drivers have been convicted of DBDD for killing cyclists whilst driving at almost 3 times the speed limit, or whilst over the drink drive limit. I note you've also found an anomalous one where somebody got convicted of DBDD despite not having any causes of distraction. So not a single case of a driver killing a cyclist when simply distracted being convicted of DBDD (not even when using a mobile phone which you reckon is easy to prove)? Even your non-cyclist cases have additional contributory factors (though even if they didn't non-cyclists being killed don't count, given that cyclist appear to have a special status of being less important).

You may not see them as any more serious than "not seeing" but it seems the courts do.

That is the whole point isn't it? How on earth is running into the back of a cyclist in clear visibility in daylight (when other drivers have seen the cyclist before the collision) not "driving in a manner which falls FAR below that of a competent driver"? Though in one case it appears that the court did seem to consider simply not seeing the cyclist as being that serious (thanks to whoever provided this link for disproving your point http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8483446.stm 😉 ) - the question then is why aren't all cases judged in the same way?

guilty pleas, and non-contentious cases rarely get reported

I must be imagining these then:
http://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/9470538.Student_admits_blame_for_cyclist___s_road_death/
http://www.chichester.co.uk/news/chichester-man-given-community-order-after-tragic-road-accident-1-3636438

given that cyclist appear to have a special status of being less important).

the question then is why aren't all cases judged in the same way?

when simply distracted being convicted of DBDD

I must be imagining these then:

because fortunately the judicial system in this country is run on the basis of hearing all the relevant evidence and then deciding not simply picking examples from the media that sound similar.

Oh - so you do think that mowing down a cyclist from behind because you "didn't see them" isn't "driving in a manner which falls FAR below that of a competent driver"? However if you do that because you were fiddling with your radio it is? Can you explain to me how exactly [url= http://www.chichester.co.uk/news/chichester-man-given-community-order-after-tragic-road-accident-1-3636438 ]failing to see a cyclist which your passenger has seen[/url] is not FAR below that of a competent driver? If it really is the position of the judiciary that being distracted by fiddling with a radio falls FAR below the standard of a competent driver (despite that being something most drivers have probably done at some point), but failing to see a cyclist until you drive into the back of them (something most drivers haven't done) isn't? If so, that position sucks - driving into the back of a vulnerable road user without any attempt to brake or swerve because you "did not see" them before the crash should be sufficient proof of dangerous driving in itself (by the definition you give for dangerous driving).

Would you suggest that 2 cases, reported in local media out of over 200 a year is "common"?

Well they were just the first 2 cases I looked for reports of, so that's a 100% hit rate so far. In any case I was only looking for guilty pleas which are presumably rather less than the 200 total, and also only for cases involving cyclists, which are doubtless a huge amount less than the 200 total. How many cases of DBCD a year involving cyclists and guilty pleas do you reckon there are? Shall we revisit our definition of "rarely"?

Your examples might have been better if they had been mobile phone users killing cyclists and getting off with a slap on the wrists as you suggest happens all the time

Putting words into my mouth then? I thought you might have noticed by now that I consider the use of mobile phone an irrelevance - if anything plowing into the back of a cyclist you didn't see without the excuse of being distracted by something makes you more culpable, not less.

Aracer I'm not going to waste my time arguing the toss with you, its like having a discussion with TJ. Unless you were in court to hear the evidence in each of those cases you are speculating on what did or did not cause or contribute to the accident, and how or why a particular verdict has been reached. We agree that killing cyclists with cars is bad. We appear to disagree on how road traffic offences are in general dealt with by the judicial system. Your knowledge appears to be based on media reports, which are subject to conformational bias. I have a somewhat wider experience of the 'reality' although I accept it is also not without its biases. If you want to analyse the stats they are on the web - although I don't think they are granular enough to identify cyclist casualties.

The whole point of the post we were "arguing" about is that accidentally striking someone whilst a pedestrian is not treated more seriously than accidentally striking someone whilst driving a car. Now you can argue about individual cases till the cows come home, but in general that assertion is wrong. [Now had Kof9 said injuring someone in a workplace it may have been different; and in my personal opinion not enough is made of employers who allow, or even encourage, a culture where their staff drive tired, on phones, distracted etc.]

both CPS and the sentencing guidelines make clear that incidents involving "vulnerable road users" should carry higher tariffs.

So how come that is being so routinely ignored? Don't tell me you haven't noticed how the vast majority of the cases involving cyclists result in sentences from the lowest category possible for the offence, right at the bottom of the tariff range available. I'm talking reality here, not what you consider should theoretically happen. Not only are the drivers who plow into the back of cyclists not being convicted of DBDD, the sentences they're getting for DBCD suggests the judge sees it as being not even anywhere near DBDD.

Higher tariffs for incidents involving vulnerable road users? My ribs are hurting, please stop.

So how come that is being so routinely ignored? Don't tell me you haven't noticed how the vast majority of the cases involving cyclists result in sentences from the lowest category possible for the offence, right at the bottom of the tariff range available. I'm talking reality here, not what you consider should theoretically happen. Not only are the drivers who plow into the back of cyclists not being convicted of DBDD, the sentences they're getting for DBCD suggests the judge sees it as being not even anywhere near DBDD.

Higher tariffs for incidents involving vulnerable road users? My ribs are hurting, please stop.

aracer - I share your sentiments about wanting to see more done (as I suspect do most people who visit a site like this). Looking at the links you have put up I suspect that like me your knowledge of what is going on in our courts is filtered by what makes it to the press and how it is presented is "spun" by whatever angle the media chose to put on the case (what the driver got away, how light the sentence was etc). I suspect poly (and noid above who answered a few thoughts of mine) have a better and less "filtered" understanding of what passes through our courts than you and I do. What makes it to the press and therefore easy to acccess internet pages is far from the totality. Sometimes to become a mature debater you need to recognise that a rounded and reasoned argument is not always put together from your angry armchair and acccess to google and others may have a better handle on the information than us.

its like having a discussion with TJ.

Is that a compliment?

Unless you were in court to hear the evidence in each of those cases you are speculating on what did or did not cause or contribute to the accident, and how or why a particular verdict has been reached.

So are you. The thing is, if there wasn't a pattern to this you might have a point. But there is a pattern which suggests that the offences motorists who kill cyclists are being charged with and the sentences being handed down to them when convicted are unduly lenient.

Your knowledge appears to be based on media reports, which are subject to conformational bias.

Are you now suggesting that the media reports are inaccurate? Did the driver of the taxi not really say he "didn't see him" before he hit the cyclist? Did the passenger of the taxi not actually call out a warning to the driver having seen the cyclist? Exactly what is it the media report is missing here that makes driving along and failing to see a cyclist your passenger has seen not dangerous driving (by the legal definition)? What is it that makes this offence so far from dangerous driving that the judge sticks it in the lowest possible category when determining the tariff?

I have a somewhat wider experience of the 'reality'

Oh, so how many cases of DBDD or DBCD involving a cyclist have you been directly involved with?

aracer - Member

Not only are the drivers who plow into the back of cyclists not being convicted of DBDD, the sentences they're getting for DBCD suggests the judge sees it as being not even anywhere near DBDD.

Death by dangerous driving carries an incredibly high burden of proof, that is it is very difficult to convict someone of the offence.
Death by careless driving is a very new offence which was introduced specifically to allow a conviction to occur more easily (which would have been far less likely with DBDD) and provide the courts the ability to impose harsher sentences than those afforded to lesser charges.
That doesn't suggest that everything is being done to protect guilty drivers now, does it?
If you think judges are ignoring sentencing guidelines for specific offences, I suggest you contact your local MP.

Looking at the links you have put up I suspect that like me your knowledge of what is going on in our courts is filtered by what makes it to the press and how it is presented is "spun" by whatever angle the media chose to put on the case (what the driver got away, how light the sentence was etc). I suspect poly (and noid above who answered a few thoughts of mine) have a better and less "filtered" understanding of what passes through our courts than you and I do. What makes it to the press and therefore easy to acccess internet pages is far from the totality.

Spun? Those articles are hardly opinion pieces. I ask again, exactly what other information could there possibly be to make running into the back of a cyclist because you didn't see them not at least very close to dangerous driving? Yes I am basing my comments on the reported information, but unless the reporters are lying then it's hard to see what information we're missing. You don't have to be a professional to read and understand the sentencing guidelines, and it's clear that no amount of mitigation and previous good character of the defendant could possibly result in the low sentences being given unless the judge considered the offence itself to be of the lowest possible level for the offence the motorist was charged with.

BTW it's not just me with this opinion - others with legal training and access to far more details of the cases have the same opinion.

Yes I am basing my comments on the reported information, but unless the reporters are lying then it's hard to see what information we're missing.

What we might well be missing is the fact that the cases that make it to press "[b]might*[/b]" be a small fraction of the ones that are in court. And the reason they are making it to press is because they are newsworthy. And the reason they are considered newsworthy (by the media) is because very often they are scandelous. And the reason they are scandelous is often because they are too lenient a sentence from a lay person's perpective. I'm not contesting that on the face of it the cases you read about in the press are not dubious in terms of sentencing; but rather what you read in the press is not the outcome of every case - just the chosen ones, the reporting of which sells newspapers.

imo - to truely believe that what you read in the press acturately reflects everything that goes on in UK courts in terms of proportion and outcome would be misguided.

* - the reason I say "might" is because like you I only know about those ones and what fraction they make up of all the cases going through UK courts - I guess you would need to be in the business to have a genuine handle on the numbers.

Aracer - I wrote you a long reply but I think its best summed up as: spend some time in courts listening to trials it will open your eyes. If you sit through a full trial you will probably have heard more than any journo who might report on it. If you can't / won't do that then have a look here: http://ybtj.justice.gov.uk/ - although I don't think there are any DBDD cases, you might be surprised how often the sentences the public pick agree with the judiciary; despite what the media might imply.

DBDD was invented because Manslaughter was too hard to prove. DBCD was invented because DBDD was too hard to prove.

poly - I'm not suggesting that sentences in general are too lenient, just that sentences for killing cyclists with a car are too lenient (when compared to sentencing guidelines). Hence it's pretty pointless sending me to that site - I had a look at a few and agreed with the sentences given, which didn't surprise me in the least - nothing I saw there is news to me. I might not have sat through a court case but I do know rather more about the justice system than you seem to think - I'm well aware of sentencing guidelines, mitigation factors, aggravating factors etc. The point remains that judges consistently select the lowest category when sentencing (before considering any mitigating factors, as it would not be possible to give a sentence that low if the judge had selected a higher category) in DBCD cases involving cyclists. We come back to the same point - is running down a cyclist because you didn't see them really not "driving in a manner which falls FAR below that of a competent driver"? Or at the very least "Careless or inconsiderate driving falling not far short of dangerous driving", which is what a judge could decide given a DBCD guilty verdict and use the highest category. Instead judges consistently consider such action to be "Careless or inconsiderate driving arising from momentary inattention with no aggravating factors" - despite the very obvious aggravating factor you mention that the victim was a vulnerable road user around whom drivers are expected to take extra care (the cases on that site you linked to makes it clear that the status of the victim can be an aggravating factor). Given that judges are at the least ignoring the "vulnerable road user" issue it is clear that the system isn't working properly is it?

Nor is it reporting bias as has been suggested - I've followed enough cases from before the sentencing and seen the sentences given for that not to be the case.

DBDD was invented because Manslaughter was too hard to prove. DBCD was invented because DBDD was too hard to prove.

Too hard to get a jury to return a guilty verdict on maybe, which might be "hard to prove" in a strict legal sense. The problem though is that juries appear to apply a different standard of "reasonable doubt" in such cases. Not something we're going to change any time soon, and I understand the need for DBCD and the reason why people are charged with that. Though there appears to be no reason not to charge people with both DBDD and DBCD if the CPS are unsure about getting a conviction on the higher charge - which gives the lie to the claim sometimes made that a DBDD charge is not brought as they want to get a conviction for something. The point is still that judges who should be above such issues don't even generally consider cases to be "almost" DBDD when any properly objective test would determine the actions of the driver to be dangerous driving (even if a jury would be unlikely to return a guilty verdict for DBDD).

Oh and well done Bradley!

We appear to disagree on how road traffic offences are in general dealt with by the judicial system. Your knowledge appears to be based on media reports, which are subject to conformational bias. I have a somewhat wider experience of the 'reality' although I accept it is also not without its biases. If you want to analyse the stats they are on the web - although I don't think they are granular enough to identify cyclist casualties.

There does seem to be a consistent trend though - it's not like there are a lot of other cases where the courts are passing down long sentences that are not getting reported. [url= http://ibikelondon.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/in-courts-youre-on-your-own-our-laws.html ]In case after case where drivers kill or seriously injure the courts are unable to convict or hand down derisory punishments[/url]

I think alot of road cyclists are really unaware of how to get from A to B without getting knocked off.

I wonder how many have heard of a lifesaver? I rekon a huge number of deaths could be avoided with some sort of awareness campaign on the telly like the ones we have for motorcyclists.

no you're not allowed on the pavement but **** it, I'm on my way to B and I'll be needing every limb when i get there.

amedias - Member
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

Amen.

I'd like to pick up on this... "[i]He had had the windows of his car coated with a dark plastic film which reduced visibility in and out of the car to 17%, the Old Bailey heard.[/i]".

That's obviously illegal, but looking (or not in this case) in a mirror through a tinted window would reduce that figure dramatically, making the mirrors redundant (extra illegal). To me, this modification was the reason the door had to be opened in the first place.

@carltonreid: RT @BBCNWT: Lancashire dentist Kay Nolan, who killed a pedestrian after losing control of her car while texting, walks free from court.

Are we seeing a trend yet?

Here's the news report that simons-nicolai refers to ^^:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-20756689

Bez has written some good stuff on his blog about the recent high profile cases of drivers being let off or handed down pathetic punishments on his blog:
http://singletrackworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/an-open-letter-to-the-british-judicial-system-by-stewart-pratt/

There really needs to be a masisve culture change regarding driving and a change in the law regards sentencing.
At the moment, anyone could go out and run someone over and probably get away with murder. Why bother with the mess and hassle of a knife or gun? 🙁

On the other hand, what's the betting that the media will be baying for the cyclists blood on this one:
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Man-dies-collision-country-lane/story-17609643-detail/story.html?utm_medium=twitter&utm_source=twitterfeed

For whatever difference it makes- in the Stuart Mather/Kay Nolan case, the court found that she wasn't texting when she hit him. She had pulled in to write the text, pulled away before pressing send (why?) but had finished before the collision.

I wanted to say somewhere thanks to Bez/Stewart for the blog article and to those who commented on it about Early Day Motion 679 and writing to our MP's about these issues. (Can't comment on that page as I'm not a *premier* so this thread seems appropriate...)

It has resulted in me indulging in a little single-issue politics and I have written to my MP to pester him about signing that EDM and to ask him to consider how we can make the roads safer, and to support any measures that seek to do that.

Drivers need to be reconnected with the potential consequences of their actions, and these lightweight sentences are doing precisely the opposite.