Forum menu
Does anyone know how many Highway Code rules you have to breach before your actions, leading to the death of another road user, are considered to be [i]"careless or inconsiderate driving"[/i]?
Or is it determined some other way?
I think there's a key difference in that the sole function of a gun is to kill and maim; whereas the function of a car is to provide transport, and it just happens to be able to kill and maim.
Extremely few people people have cause to use a gun to fulfil their work or leisure needs; whereas very many have cause to use cars, hammers, knives, chainsaws and all manner of other potentially lethal things.
Guns are a poor analogy.
I think there's a key difference in that the sole function of a gun is to kill and maim; whereas the function of a car is to provide transport, and it just happens to be able to kill and maim.
Ah, but the function of my shotgun is to kill rabbits and pigeons, not people, so you can't go round claiming it's just doing what it was designed to. Plenty of pigeons to kill in my town centre.
Though if you like, how about if I'm using my chainsaw to chop down a tree and don't notice somebody walking by as I swing it around?
Guns are a poor analogy.
though it is still
wilful recklessness?
Is it not?
Though if you like, how about if I'm using my chainsaw to chop down a tree and don't notice somebody walking by as I swing it around?
Not the same because you did not see the person so you would not have to adjust your behavior to protect the person.
Try
Though if you like, how about if I'm using my chainsaw to chop down a tree and [s]don't[/s] I notice somebody walking by as I swing it around and continue to do so regardless?
"Until people in this country bother to understand how the legal system works threads like this are bound to be full of this sort of drivel."It's true that some people are seeing the coroner's verdict in an ill-informed light, but I think focusing on that completely misses what's going on here.
The sequence of events is fairly clear, and it would appear that no blame has at any stage been laid at the driver's feet (literally, in this case).
Let me pick some quotes from the article to illustrate what reaction of The Powers That Be (media, police, local authority etc) actually gave:
"Motorist Joseph Strong was driving behind him and saw him pull out, prompting him to pull over to give the vicar enough room."
Here we have the media painting the driver in a positive light despite the events showing beyond any argument that the vicar didn't have enough room.
"But a central reservation caused the road to narrow, and Mr Strong’s Skoda car clipped the kerb of the reservation as he tried to pass. His car turned slightly towards Mr Malleson, an experienced cyclist, and lightly clipped his handlebars. The “scuff” prompted Mr Malleson, who was not wearing a cycle helmet, to lose his balance and fall to the ground."
Here some inanimate object has intervened, seemingly unpredictably, whereupon a series of minor and by implication excusable events have occurred - just a clip, a turn and a light clip. The cyclist, for his part was "prompted to lose his balance". Not "knocked off his bike" but "prompted", as if by some benign power of mild persuastion.
"PC Stuart Cockburn told the hearing he was concerned by cars being allowed to park where the road narrows."
I don't know about you but I couldn't give a flying fig about that. There's nothing unsafe about inanimate cars and inanimate traffic islands here, given that the driver has observed the cyclist from well before each of them reached the line of cars.
The PC chooses not to apportion blame with the driver but with the parking.
"He told the inquest: 'I don’t think that area of road is appropriate for parking. I have made enquiries with Newcastle City Council’s Highways Department and told them of my concerns.'"
That's as may be, and it may be perfectly fair, but to consider it relevant in this case is a clear demonstration of how reluctant the police are to put these things down to poor driving and human error.
The PC continues in a fashion that blatantly and shamelessly excuses the motorist entirely:
"Mr Strong has observed Rev Malleson ahead of him. He observed Rev Malleson had to move out in the carriageway to overtake the parked cars and he decided to give him plenty of room. Unfortunately, Mr Strong’s wheel hit the kerb of the reservation and it caused the car to go slightly to the left as Rev Malleson was coming slightly to the right. That’s caused the two of them to come together and the car has scuffed Rev Mallesons’s handlebars."
Every single phrase in there is toe-curlingly favourable to a motorist who clearly failed to judge the scenario in an even remotely safe manner. Despite all this apparent observation, they still collided. The PC says that the driver "decided to give him plenty of room" yet they still collided, despite his car going only "slightly to the left". If that is plenty of room then my cock is eight feet long. Objects do not collide if there is "plenty of room" between them - I think we can agree this is basic physics. What the PC says is indefensible horse manure, yet in legal terms it carries immense weight.
"Returning a verdict of accidental death, coroner David Mitford said neither Mr Strong, who was not speeding in the 30mph zone, nor Mr Malleson were at fault. He said: 'I have been concerned about the situation with the parked cars and I have noted that the Cockburn took it upon himself to go to the local authority.'"
The coroner has not simply returned a verdict of accidental death. He has (apparently) explicitly said that neither road user was at fault. Quite how two road users can collide fatally without either of them doing anything wrong is of course unfathomable to most of us, but Mitford agrees with the PC that the root of all trouble in this instance is a row of parked cars. He implies that the correct response to all this is to ask for some yellow paint. Not to address dangerous and negligent driving, but to apply some paint.
"'The local authority have said they will make changes to the road. They’re going to be made as soon as possible but in accordance with financial constraints. 'I think life is more important that finance but at least those steps are being taken'."
And then, despite the entire of the blame for someone's wholly unnecessary death being apportioned to the absence of two strips of paint, there's a palpable sense of casualness about the whole remedial process.
Now, if you want to get hung up on the points of what technical verdicts a coroner can return, then fine. But, let's be honest, it's irrelevant (unless a verdict of accidental death precludes certain prosecutions, in which case hell yeah it's important, and hell yeah we should be pissed off).
Here someone has died because a motorist has driven unsafely, and not one person has been found to be at fault. No-one at all. There is no trial, no conviction, no appropriate sentence. There is no comment made about why this insidious type of careless driving is so dangerous. The problem is, apparently, parked cars.
Every single aspect of this case, the way it has been dealt with, and the way in which it has been reported, is sickening in the way it demonstrates that vulnerable road users will stay vulnerable for some time, and that most people are absolutely fine with that.
And it's about time most people weren't fine with that.
I just wanted to repost this before it gets drowned in a sea of the usual drivel. Spot on.
Bez gets it.
Analogies like these are pointless really as it's so easy to distinguish them from the RTC in question.
EDIT back to the thread title - is there a consistent stream of "accidental death" verdicts for cyclists killed in RTCs?
"[i]Ah, but the function of my shotgun is to kill rabbits and pigeons, not people[/i]"
But your job doesn't require you to kill rabbits or pigeons and if you were interested in that as a leisure activity then there are very specific points of legislation relating to it, which are not related to cars.
"[i]Not the same because you did not see the person so you would not have to adjust your behavior to protect the person.[/i]"
That's SMIDSY then. Your responsibility is to see people as well as to act when you see them.
Can we just not bother with analogies? They don't work here. The problem is not one which can be served by such an inherently simplistic approach.
The European Assumed liability referred to above would not have any relevance in this as its simply about civil liability -other than it sets a tone. it does not apply to criminal cases.
So in this instance the family could claim damages under assumed liability and the driver would have to show it was not his fault - which the coroners verdict would help him to do. It would make no difference to the chances of criminal charges
As TJ says, "Strict liability" is not the same as "presumption of guilt". Criminal cases wouldn't be affected by it at all.
http://www.roadpeace.org/change/safer_streets/stricter_liability/
Apparently most people in the Netherlands don't even know what this is; it's more applicable to countries which have better safety than the UK, but still don't have the necessary separate infrastructure to get cyclist casualties down to the mere handful each year that happen in NL.
"necessary separate infrastructure"...or driver awareness/education?
I dno't like bike paths...
"necessary separate infrastructure"...or driver awareness/education?
I dno't like bike paths...
back to the thread title - is there a consistent stream of "accidental death" verdicts for cyclists killed in RTCs?
There certainly seems to be, anecdotally at least, from stories reported here and in other cycling forums and press. And [url= http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/causing-death-by-careless-driving-some.html ]the sentences of those that are convicted often seem overly lenient too[/url].
As others have pointed out, the possible coroner verdicts are limited so a ruling of "accidental death" is perhaps not [i]quite[/i] as apologetic as I first assumed - on its own - but the case seems to have provoked little more than a collective shrugging from the police, coroner and journalist involved.
So, ballbags to arguing about this and that.
What gives? If we assume the legal framework is fundamentally capable of supporting vulnerable road users (even if sentencing guidelines and police powers might need tweaking) then what could be done to address the culture of inattentive and blinkered road use?
Headway? Brake? CTC? - Are any of their campaigns really aligned with this? Many discussions are focused on infrastructure or on sentencing in severe or fatal incidents, but [url= http://www.stewartpratt.com/?p=556 ]I'm more interested in how you stop the rot before someone gets killed[/url].
Would be good to see some stats on coroner's verdicts, and also prosecutions/sentences for RTCs invloving deaths of peds and/or drivers too.
I don't like bike paths...
A feeling shared by a lot of people. However, it's hard to get away from the conclusion that countries with decent quality separate cycle infrastructure (not white lines painted on the road) such as Denmark, the NL and Germany are safer places to cycle.
In the meantime, it's really good to see people like [url= http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/ ]Martyn Porter[/url], [url=www.roadpeace.org/]Roadpeace[/url], Sustrans and Carlton Reid trying to change society's attitudes.
But I can't help feeling that unless some top-down intervention takes place, we'll be stuck on the margins forever.
We all know that speeding is illegal, and most people would accept that it makes driving more dangerous, but conviction rates for it were woeful until the right to trial by jury was abolished.
Oh I can see that MrA, I guess like many I'd rather see cyclists retain a right to use roads and that drivers are punished/educated properly, rather than get segregated...bike paths seem the thin end of a wedge in that regard.
necessary separate infrastructure
Yes, let's not bother improving road safety, we'll just move bikes off our roads.
This way drivers can continue not paying proper attention to other road users, and can drive about dangerously, relaxed in the knowledge that they can go about their business without the inconvenience of needing to have consideration for anyone other than themselves.
Perhaps more attention should be given to those cases where the cyclist is "only" injured- but could easily have been killed e.g. http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/Careless-driver-fined-for-injuring-cyclist-in-collision-17042012.htm- the fine is laughably small and the words of the driver "I touched the cyclist with my wing mirror and she fell" sound chilling- as if he is surprised at this outcome.
Anyone following the select commitee hearings on cycle safety today? For a summary see twitter @CTC_Cyclists
Some encouraging some, some stuff to make you dispair.
"[i]Anyone following the select commitee hearings on cycle safety today?[/i]"
Same old same old from most of the participants. Infrastructure and segregation, not changes in behaviour and respect. Very city-focused.
what could be done to address the culture of inattentive and blinkered road use?
There isn't a quick fix, is there?
In the book "Traffic" by Tom Vanderbilt, he cites studies which found that drivers can fail to register up to 1/3 of the things they see when behind the wheel. You can't force drivers, doing the same lengthy commute in and out, every day, to become more attentive.
Another classic there squadra. (extra dash at the end of your link by the way)
SUV driver attempts to overtake a cyclist on the brow of a hill, surprised to find traffic coming the other way and thus runs the cyclist off the road.
I see he even used the old "blinded by the low sun" defence, even though it was 1pm.
"[i]There isn't a quick fix, is there? [/i]"
Of course there is: Paint. And cameras on trucks.
Except they're not fixes, they're just quick and they look like fixes. Paint just makes things worse.
No, there's no quick fix.
GrahamS - going back a couple if hours (I've been out) to the question of prosecutions after inquests, I wonder if if is not absolutely set in stone. I'm just thinking of PC Harwood who is now being prosecuted for manslaughter, a decision made after, and to some extent as a result of evidence heard at, Ian Tomlinson's inquest. Doesn't mean it'll happen here, but suggests the holding and conclusion of an inquest does not prohibit a criminal prosecution. I wouldn't be surprised if public opinion had some bearing on the CPS's change of heart in that case (although evidence heard at that inquest was, I think, the official reason for the review). I doubt this case will attract the same publicity, but who knows?
I guess like many I'd rather see cyclists retain a right to use roads and that drivers are punished/educated properly, rather than get segregated...bike paths seem the thin end of a wedge in that regard.
This is veering into a whole other thread now, but the assumption that countries with lots of cycle infrastructure somehow marginalise cyclists is wrong.
If, as in some countries, 1 in 5 people cycle, it means that more people know a cyclist, work with a cyclist, and feel outraged when something bad happens to a cyclist.
I've seen Dutch reports of less serious collisions which couldn't contrast more with the typical UK press story. Drivers called reckless, murderers, etc. Not really very helpful but it indicates a completely different underlying attitude to the sort of stuff the UK press dishes up.
fair enough MrA, but with some of (I have no idea how many) the UK's drivers seemingly thinking they own the roads and cyclists shouldn't be there, I think bike-paths could take on a different role here.
The starting culture re. cyclists in those countries is very different from the start.
what could be done to address the culture of inattentive and blinkered road use?
Punitive sentences combined with the driver-presumed-guilty rule. Being a pinko liberal, I'd normally be against this sort of thing but it really is the only quick solution. I'd suggest handing down an automatic life driving ban for anyone who seriously injures or kills a cyclist due to careless driving, accompanied by a lengthy prison sentence for dangerous driving.
Ironically car travel is safer now than it's ever been, due to roads being increasingly designed for idiots. The prime example is motorways, which I believe have the lowest accident rate per mile of any type of road. They're wide, straight, featureless and even the markings on them are designed specifically to make you feel that you're going slower than you really are.
So while car travel is getting safer, it's not being done in a way that makes drivers more alert to more vulnerable road users, or more amenable to driving slower, or changing their lifestyle so commuting diatnces are shorter.
I doubt this case will attract the same publicity, but who knows?
I've so far seen it discussed (in appalled tones) here, on the [url= http://newcycling.org ]Newcastle Cycling Campaign[/url], by Carlton Reid, and the Cycling Silk. Even the comments on the newspaper article question the sense of it.
But sadly I doubt it registered at all outside the cycling community. 🙁
The starting culture re. cyclists in those countries is very different from the start.
A key difference was the way they campaigned for road safety. Campaigns like the Times one are focused on "cyclists", but "cyclist" in the UK is synonymous with "slightly odd man in hideous static-electric clothing". The NL's campaign was specifically focused around children, and the numbers killed in cycling accidents.
Nothing against segregated bike paths here.
I'm very happy that my commute to work is almost entirely on segregated cycle paths taking a nice direct route through the country park and alongside the Tyne with no greater hazard than suicidal wildlife and the odd dog egg. ([i]*whisper* I don't even wear a helmet for it[/i])
I would not commute by bike if I had to mix it up on the A-road - it is scary enough by car some mornings.
But segregation isn't a full answer. Bike paths can't go everywhere. Sooner or later you have to use the road.
Waht the experience of toehr coutries seems toshow is that tehr eare a number of strands to making cycling a safer - based around a rebalancing of priorities away from cars and towards cyclists and pedestrians
Road engineering solutions including segregated cycleways in appropriate places,
20 mph urban limits with cyclists having priority enshrined in law in appropriate places
Assumed liability that the least vulnerable in an RTC is assumed at fault for civil liability unless they can show otherwise
More rigorous enforcement of driving law
Waht the experience of toehr coutries seems toshow is that tehr eare a number of strands to making cycling a safer - based around a rebalancing of priorities away from cars and towards cyclists and pedestrians
Road engineering solutions including segregated cycleways in appropriate places,
20 mph urban limits with cyclists having priority enshrined in law in appropriate places
Assumed liability that the least vulnerable in an RTC is assumed at fault for civil liability unless they can show otherwise
More rigorous enforcement of driving law
It is a fallacy to believe this can be done without taking road space and convenience away from car drivers.
"[i]fair enough MrA, but with some of (I have no idea how many) the UK's drivers seemingly thinking they own the roads and cyclists shouldn't be there, I think bike-paths could take on a different role here. The starting culture re. cyclists in those countries is very different from the start. [/i]"
This. The British are very good at pointing at arbitrarily drawn lines and citing their rights whilst pointing to them - and in Britain we're also very good at putting lines in without really thinking too hard about their effects (when was the last time you saw a cycle lane that was as wide as you'd like it to be?). In mediterranean areas drivers often pretty much ignore the paint on the road and IME there's much less bullishness about owning designated patches of tarmac.
Also, infrastructure requires money and land. In rural areas of England it's very hard to see how any beneficial infrastructure could be added in most locations.
Any solution which enables road users to share existing space in safety is universally applicable to all locations.
Blimey, are we all agreeing, and on topic? 😮
Also, infrastructure requires money and land. In rural areas of England it's very hard to see how any beneficial infrastructure could be added in most locations.
You have to take a bit of the road away to provide space for cyclists. thats what they did in the Netherlands. either literally by separating a piece of road with lines or kerbs - or metaphorically with 20 mph limits where the cyc list has priority
Cycle campaigning in the UK has traditionally settled for token concessions like those awful dotted optional lanes because that's all we thought we could get.
There's also a dearth of expertise and knowledge at the planning level, with odd, wonky solutions being implemented when they should be aiming for best practice or nothing.
Looking at my Twitter feed there now seems to be a lot more confidence, more ability to campaign effectively ([url= http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/london/300-cyclists-stage-diein-at-minicab-firm-7674969.html ]the "die in" at Addison Lee[/url] will have garnered a lot more coverage than a petition with 300 signatures) and more understanding of why countries with high cycling levels are they way they are (i.e. not just going [url=
]"But there's no hills in Holland"[/url])
Any one heard of [url= http://www.roadpeace.org/change/ ]Road Peace?[/url]
In rural areas of England it's very hard to see how any beneficial infrastructure could be added in most locations
Well the National Cycle Network is a bit of a mixed bag, but it stretches over 13,000 miles. If a charity and a few apathetic local authorities can create something as extensive, imagine what a mandatory allocation of part of the Treasury's infrastructure budget could do.
You have to take a bit of the road away to provide space for cyclists.
Agreed - but very hard to implement in many areas.
e.g. round my way the rural bits have plenty of narrow NSL roads where there just isn't sufficient tarmac to pinch any space for a cycle lane.
Whereas in the city the main problem tends to be parked cars taking up road space and complicated junctions with no easy solution for bikes.
Any solution which enables road users to share existing space in safety is universally applicable to all locations.
I have to disagree there, in some places shared space is very effective, in others it appears that cyclists and pedestrians get drafted in as human traffic calming measures. Even if these spaces are safer, it can be hard for people to perceive them as such.
A cycle path doesn't have to be a strip up the side of a road.
Car parking on the street is not a god-given right. In some places it's quite an outrageous use of free public space. If you plonked a caravan or a speedboat on the road outside your house, you'd rightly be shoed.
GrahamS - MemberYou have to take a bit of the road away to provide space for cyclists.
Agreed - but very hard to implement in many areas.
e.g. round my way the rural bits have plenty of narrow NSL roads where there just isn't sufficient tarmac to pinch any space for a cycle lane.
Then the road ends up as a single track road with passing places. and a 30 mph limit and yo take the bikes along that one leaving an alternative route bike free for cars to whizz along
which is again where you need the rebalance - you remove the parked cars from the dangerous places, you take some road from cars and give it to bikes, you re engineer the junctions to make them safer for bikes
Whereas in the city the main problem tends to be parked cars taking up road space and complicated junctions with no easy solution for bikes.
it can all be done with teh politicalwill.
An example of the first - cars drive along it as if its single track road using the cycle lanes to pass another car coming the other way - but obviously the cycles have priority in the cycle lanes
http://g.co/maps/hyevs
An example of the second - complex junction with trams main roads and bikes - along most of the road leading to the junction there is a cycle lane in the raodway - at the the junction the cyclists are taken onto a separate lane separated by kerbs and controlled separately from the cars.
http://g.co/maps/6my6e
"[i]You have to take a bit of the road away to provide space for cyclists.[/i]"
That's not viable IMO. Very few roads have enough space for two vehicular lanes plus two cycle lanes. You end up either losing segregation in at least one direction or you end up (as is normally the case) with all the lanes being a bit too narrow for each of their users. The sad thing is that for the most part the road has to deal with only one vehicle in each direction at a time - an overtake is an exception rather than the rule - and in this context again it makes more sense not to segregate.
"[i]I have to disagree there, in some places shared space is very effective, in others it appears that cyclists and pedestrians get drafted in as human traffic calming measures.[/i]"
Possibly, but again - as I interpret it - that's a fairly infrastructure-oriented response.
In some places shared space doesn't work; the main example IMO being dual carriageways. But my point is that if a shift in attitudes and consideration can be achieved then this benefits everyone. This is quite different from a solution based on infrastructure and segregation, which benefits people only where such measures can be applied (generally cities, primarily because of the cost/benefit ratio) and, I believe, is actually detrimental to those in areas where they are not applied.
"[i]Well the National Cycle Network is a bit of a mixed bag, but it stretches over 13,000 miles.[/i]"
My experience is that the NCN is either just bog standard roads with some blue signs (ie nothing to give additional defence from motorists), mostly via circuitous backstreets; or it's unmetalled surfaces with lots of gates and pedestrians.
Either way the routes often aren't ideally suited to making rapid progress and so are generally poorly suited to what most of us would perceive as "road riding". Great for days out with the kids and stuff, or shorter commutes, but not for everything.
That's all just IME, of course.