Dead cyclist worth 240 hrs community service

Hang on a minute. If it's OK to mow down cyclists and get away with it, why hasn't anyone done it to Dave or Boris?

Thanks for posting that link james-o, a very interesting article.
Another, non-cycling, example of the car culture here.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8662249.stm
To summarise, old boy gets fed up with having to walk along this road…

…so gets some friends to help him push the button on the pedestrian crossing as often as possible to slow the traffic down.

"Any sensible bench would conditionally discharge him and say grow up."

Alright, the drivers mentioned didn't mean to kill anyone, so I can kind of understand why they weren't jailed. But a kill should equal an automatic lifetime ban, simple. It really worries me that these people will be back on the road in 12-18 months.

So a kid walks out straight in front of you, and the inevitable happens. Despite being deeply traumatised for life, you now can never drive again. Nice…

I guess it's not black and white, but in this instance the guy wasn't just driving along when somebody walked out in front of him. He was speeding on the wrong side of the road, which is something he decided to do. He wasn't a victim of circumstances, he made those circumstances so he shouldn't be allowed to drive.

That's not what you said originally…

That's not what you said originally…

Who, me?

the debate on involuntary manslaughter and how it applies to this case is the point i'm getting at by posting that lawyer's article – something that explains it better and with more insight than i ever can. as cyclists we should all read it.

it seems to me that the courts often go easy on the driver on the basis of 'there but for the grace of god go i'. driving is something that most of us do and the freedom to do it must be maintained it seems.

i'd say that it should be made more clear that if you drive carelessly for the conditions or drive an unsafe / poorly loaded / dangerously bull-barred etc vehicle and you cause an accident causes injury or death in which any of those factors contribute, you are held fully accountable as it was an AVOIDABLE outcome that you should have forseen, in law ignorance is usually no defence. intent is not the point here, it's about taking responsibility for yours and other people's safety.

it's simple really – driving is potentially lethal and that needs to be understood everytime we get in the car. if you can't acceot this level of responsibility, don't drive. i think it's gone way beyond the time that this should have been enforced.

Militantgraham, that's amusing… it highlights how defenceless people can feel against the rise of motorised transport. good on the old chap for doing what he could and highlighting the problem )

"to me (layman) it suggests that harm was intended to the victim, though not death"

Well you're wrong too then

"Not really, you're just getting over-excited and assuming things about these drivers that are not commonly true and VERY hard to prove"

Well that's clearly not what I said you were wrong about – changing your argument when proved wrong?

In any case, the argument is that the drivers killing cyclists on the road is gross negligence with criminal disregard for others – this even applies to TJ's young mum getting distracted by the kids. It's simply that the car culture deems this acceptable.

aracer
Well that's clearly not what I said you were wrong about – changing your argument when proved wrong?

Hello again 😉

I'd prefer to think of it as expanding; it's difficult to do a legal concept full justice (no pun intended, your honour) in 9 words.
For me though, there IS something essentially willful about behaving with utter disregard for "others" and so I'll stick by the spirit of what I wrote, especially when viewed in the context of RTCs and dead cyclists