[Closed] Tougher sentences = safer roads

Lets get a cyclist hit squad together, you knock a cyclist over and a group of hit-men on bikes show up and shoot you in the face.

I read today of a lorry driver who killed TWICE and still did not receive a ban

If a driver KNEW he/she would go to jail for killing or injuring someone, they would keep a wide berth - no doubt!

While tougher punishments would act as a warning it wouldn't solve the underlying causes. Poor awareness, poor road design, poor education.

To make progress we must:
Educate all road users - that is the people regardless of the vehicle they operate.
Look at road design to remove the areas of conflict - cycle lanes with parked cars etc. Cycle lanes that just end spitting people out into mental traffic etc.
Cyclists need to do their bit with viability too clothing/lights etc and with things like RLJ

It's a tough point to take but as the ones who come off worst we have to also look after ourselves. Not get into situations where the only outcome is contact etc. - This is not saying it's all our fault but to try and make everyone more aware and safer.

(and wear a lid)

Tougher sentences = safer roads
3 posts & 3 voices | Started 4 hours ago by spxxky | Latest reply from mikewsmith
Add this topic to your favorites (?)

I have been commuting to work through my small town for over 30yrs and only had 1or2 near misses in all that time. Watching some people on the roads especially the more obvious CTW bike scheme riders they can be positively dangerous both to themselves and others 🙄

mikewsmith - Member

Very emotive - what was the judgement in the cases? Who was at fault. It is far to easy (especially in a cycling forum) to overlook that the cyclist may be at fault.

Comments like that, when the case referred to above has been splashed all over cycling campaign blogs and specialist media, are bordering on inexcusable. This is a report from the sentencing hearing following conviction for the second fatality (this time an elderly woman using a pedestrian crossing):

The simplified facts were that Lopes did not see Ms Gutmann on the pedestrian crossing when he moved off once the lights had changed in his favour. He was not wearing the glasses that he was required to wear as a condition of his licence following his conviction of driving with uncorrected defective vision which resulted from the investigation, such as it was, that followed the death of Eilidh in February 2009.

When the police drove the lorry away from the accident scene they noticed that the tachograph had been induced to record that the vehicle was at rest. This had the effect of disabling both the speedometer and the milometer and would have prevented the brakes from applying automatically in the event of an emergency. Chillingly the magnet was then stolen from the lorry when it was in the police compound, though there is no way of knowing whether Lopes or his employer was responsible for this.

http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/joao-lopes-sentence.html

Familiarise yourself with the facts, please, before trying to say this person's victims may have been responsible for their deaths.

Until drivers actually get meaningful sentences they will continue to take chances with pedestrians and cyclist

The process starts even earlier, with proper police investigation into accidents and reports of dangerous driving. If you read Martin Porter QC's blog above, you'll find countless examples of the Met showing no interest in dangerous drivers - even where he has video evidence of them driving dangerously and threatening to kill him.

Better enforcement of road rules does make a difference to safety. Accident rates in France, for example, dropped greatly once the practice of paying off the police was put a stop to. It used to be a running joke that if you were stopped by French police and asked to produce your drivers licence and passport, you should slip a 100-franc not into the pages and you'd be sent on your way.

I don't think tougher sentences will make a jot of difference, per se. We all know we could go to prison if we were to cause the death of someone through our own driving. That's the last thing going through your mind when you're on your way to work in the morning.

However, I do like the idea of changing the hierarchy on the roads, so that bicycles have right of way, and any accidents are assumed to be the fault of the larger vehicle until proven otherwise.

The very act of having that change in place sends an important message as to how you should be driving on the roads, rather than saying you will be punished if you're a naughty boy.

Most problems at the moment are caused by the opposite scenario, that motorists assume right of way and thus in their minds rightfully charge past. It's ridiculous how many people have turned left across my path at a junction even though I have reached the junction first. That kind of behaviour shows a severe lack of understanding in how to treat bikes on the road, and that is what needs to be changed.

It's no good worsening punishments if people are not famniliar with the crimes they commit.

Familiarise yourself with the facts, please, before trying to say this person's victims may have been responsible for their deaths.

Mr Agreeable I would like to familiarise myself with the facts but when presented with

I read today of a lorry driver who killed TWICE and still did not receive a ban

Comments like that, when the case referred to above has been splashed all over cycling campaign blogs and specialist media, are bordeing on inexcusable. This is a report from the sentencing hearing following conviction for the second fatality (this time an elderly woman using a pedestrian crossing):

To the Thread title it will take a lot more than tougher sentences to change driver behaviour. Just take a look at death row in the states, they keep filling the slots in the queue.

I was also making the general point that in a number of cases the cyclist/pedestrian had some degree of fault.

After the last thread I read some of the reports on cycle deaths on the roads. It doesn't make good reading for cyclists.

[i] just drive your car at them and say you never saw them[/i]

Yep, that seems to work.

I think too many on here are motorists first and cyclists second to get into the debate though.

I think too many on here are motorists first and cyclists second to get into the debate though.

Ok, human being first, motorist second and cyclist third 🙄

Educate all road users - that is the people regardless of the vehicle they operate

How? Make everyone re-take their test?

I don't think tougher sentences will make a jot of difference, per se.

it worked with drink driving.

Dont think tougher sentencing will really help. But longer/complete driving bans might help. Still wont effect thoose who are happy to drive illegally.

As a fan of harsh sentencing, i have been shot down several times on this forum for my views....i have been told that the US is a good example of somewhere with harsh punishments that make very little difference to the crime statistics....i am also informed during these arguments that the death penalty for example provides very little deterrent.

Interesting to now see a thread on here suggesting tougher sentences for motorists when its a crime against cyclists!

I don't think tougher sentences will make a jot of difference, per se.

it worked with drink driving.

This is different. It's very easy to prosecute someone for drink driving. You're either drunk, or you're not. Which can be tested at the roadside, and again at the station. A failure of that test is pretty much a one way ticket.

To do that for accidents involving cyclists, you would have to have the driver to be assummed at fault first. Otherwise most cases are going to be thrown out at the first hurdle without substantial evidence/witnesses.

Let's be honest, we can't even agree on this forum what is correct etiquette for cyclists on the road, but we all know exactly how much we can drink.

Hierarchy needs to be updated first. Only then tougher sentencing might have an effect.

My view on this is simple. If a driver kills or injures another road user due to poor/dangerous driving they should be automatically be given an extremely lengthy ban. Say something like 10 years for a first offence depending on the seriousness, followed by an obligatory advanced training course and test to regain their license. Repeat offenders should be given automatic life bans, with no exceptions. This should be complemented by a prison sentence if malice, intent or recklessness is also proven.

it worked with drink driving.

Eventually.
It took 10 years of concerted effort to get us to the stage where it's now (almost) socially unacceptable to drink and drive. It hasn't (yet) worked with mobile phone use - the number of people I see every day driving while texting or on the phone is unbelievable. I got overtaken a few days ago by a guy using his iPad! He had it propped between his knees and the steering wheel.

And sadly, at the moment, killing a cyclist is still at the stage where drink driving was 10 years ago. Basically it's OK if you can say the sun was in your eyes. 🙁 Same as with drink driving where the old standard excuse was "oh I just had a couple..."

Yawn.... last time the gov did the figures (around 2010), cyclists were at least partly responsible for 40% of accidents involving a car and bike.

Yes some car drivers shouldn't be on the road. We know this, they are also a danger to other drivers and pedestrians. Changing laws has not stopped them driving drunk, carelessly, uninsured etc. It's because they are ****s basically and nothing to do with the fact they are driving a car. Same as the ****ers who are riding bikes - they are just ****ers on bikes.

Changing the law changes nothing if those people don't respect it in the first place. So, wear a helmet and keep your wits about you.

Educate all road users - that is the people regardless of the vehicle they operate
How? Make everyone re-take their test?

I don't think tougher sentences will make a jot of difference, per se.
it worked with drink driving.

Drink driving also had a huge amount of EDUCATION put into it.

Like the Saint/Satan Tony Blair once said Education Education Education

You either give up on a generation of people or start with good media campaigns, Driver Re-Ed programmes for those pulled up for bad driving (along with any punishments) couple that with some proper thinking in road design as there is a chance.

Simply having a headline sentence that will hardly get passed and be very hard to prove in the majority of cases (and I would have to say that is where the problem is not in the headline friendly cases).

One of the reasons the murder rates in the USA aren't going down is the easy access to guns, and the lack of vetting before you're allowed to own one. You can be schizophrenic, or alcoholic, or a Neo-Nazi, and still walk in off the street and buy a gun.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/aug/09/how-many-killings-serious-about-gun-control?newsfeed=true

One of the reasons Joao Lopes was able to kill again is that, following a death in which he pleaded guilty to driving with uncorrected defective vision, he was still allowed to drive his HGV.

The courts are very reluctant to ban anyone from driving, for any substantial length of time, particularly if their livelihood depends on it.

I'd say there's a definite parallel between letting mentally unstable people buy handguns, and letting people with piss-poor eyesight and a history of appalling driving retain their licences.

We need assumed liability, and I think the sentences are there we just need judges willing to use them.

To do that for accidents involving cyclists, you would have to have the driver to be assummed at fault first. Otherwise most cases are going to be thrown out at the first hurdle without substantial evidence/witnesses.

Yes, that's the criminal justice process. Some cases will inevitably falter given a lack of evidence against the accused, whereas others will be well investigated and well supported.

What is shocking is the number of cases where, even given the strength of the evidence against the driver, the courts have given out a ridiculously light sentence.

http://www.newlawjournal.co.uk/nlj/content/culture-clash

Lifer, the maximum sentence for dangerous driving, which covers a lot of "road rage" incidents, is a poxy two years. One judge, sentencing a driver who'd deliberately run down a cyclist, called the legal maximum "absurdly low and incomprehensible".

As is often said, if you're gonna murder someone, run them over in a car.

The courts are very reluctant to ban anyone from driving, for any substantial length of time, particularly if their livelihood depends on it.

I'd say there's a definite parallel between letting mentally unstable people buy handguns, and letting people with piss-poor eyesight and a history of appalling driving retain their licences.

But once it comes to sentencing a bad driver it's too late. Yes prevent a second but what about the first.
We can catch Drunk Drivers
We can catch people speeding
How do you spot the guy who loses concentration or just has been lucky enough not to hit someone yet.
99% of bad drivers think they are good drivers

Education, Road Design and Luck is all we are left with.

I'm affraid there is no Single measure, blanket solution for better cycling safety on UK roads. Road safety for cyclists needs to be tackled on several fronts really ...

Threatening drivers with harsher senteces (If they are found to be at fault or worse yet have malicious intent) may have some effect, but it needs to go hand in hand with other measures some of which will apply to cyclists, some to motorists and some to both...

Mr Agreeable - Member
Lifer, the maximum sentence for dangerous driving, which covers a lot of "road rage" incidents, is a poxy two years. One judge, sentencing a driver who'd deliberately run down a cyclist, called the legal maximum "absurdly low and incomprehensible".

I stand corrected (said the man in the orthopaedic shoes)

Hang on a minute, I'm sure driver's (mostly) aren't deliberaltey driving into cyclists, i'm sure they aren't actively trying to kill us?

A bit of education, maybe some TV adverts telling people not to overtake and turn left, or overtake with inches to spare at 60mph, for example would be nice.

But I doubt anyone ever looks at a cyclists and thinks "i'm going to kill them and get a £200 fine so I'll do it anyway".

How do you spot the guy who loses concentration or just has been lucky enough not to hit someone yet.
99% of bad drivers think they are good drivers

If they can't ban a driver who has already killed or injured once, because he won't stop drinking or wear a pair of specs, we have a long way to go.

Of course tougher investigation and sentences aren't the only solution. No-one said they were.

"Strict liability" in Denmark and the Netherlands has no effect on criminal law, it only kicks in at the civil stage when the insurance companies are wrangling about the payout.

It might make a small difference, but as this article points out, the criminal law needs enforcing too:

http://www.boltburdonkemp.co.uk/en/sitecore/content/BBK/Global/Blogs/Stricter%20Law%20Enforcement%20not%20Strict%20Liability.aspx

Hang on a minute, I'm sure driver's (mostly) aren't deliberaltey driving into cyclists, i'm sure they aren't actively trying to kill us?

A bit of education, maybe some TV adverts telling people not to overtake and turn left, or overtake with inches to spare at 60mph, for example would be nice.

But I doubt anyone ever looks at a cyclists and thinks "i'm going to kill them and get a £200 fine so I'll do it anyway".

sounds far to sensible and proportionate, foaming at the mouth angry shouting from all parties will solve the issue. We'll have none of these intelligent thought through suggestions thankyou very much!!...

On the education front are there any stats regarding the impact 'think bike' adverts had on motorbike casualties?

A bit of education, maybe some TV adverts telling people not to overtake and turn left, or overtake with inches to spare at 60mph, for example would be nice.

The problem is, these adverts would have to be competing against all the other adverts saying driving is fun and sexy, cars are magical perfumed wish-fulfilment chariots, plugging the latest Fast and Furious film, and what have you. I don't think The Cycle Show will be overtaking Top Gear in the ratings any time soon.

You also end up showing cycling as an activity which leaves you at serious risk of being reduced to a mangled pulp. Which equals fewer cyclists, which equals fewer people who work with, are related to, or expect to see cyclists.

How do you spot the guy who loses concentration or just has been lucky enough not to hit someone yet.

Trouble is it's not usually about a momentary loss of concentration, but a wilful and habitual refusal to do basic things like looking where they are going. I'm sure we've all lost count of the number of drivers who don't do this one simple thing, and I'm pretty sure this is the cause of most collisions.

Not hitting someone has got nowt to do with luck. It's a simple function of looking where you're going, being able to operate a vehicle, and not doing anything stupid or reckless. If a driver can't do these very basic things then it seems obvious to me that they shouldn't be driving.

First off, I don't think that legislation will make a massive difference. The main problem is down to the "Me, Me, Me" society that we live in. I've seen it loads of times where a car will squeeze past just to turn left immediately so shave a couple of seconds of their journey. How many times have you been riding and had a car get within centimeters of you as you both squeeze through traffic calming measures just so they don't have to wait? The fact is a good chunk of people on the roads (people - not motorists) don't give a hoot about anyone else whether in cars or on bikes. I drive a lot for work and am constantly amazed by the selfish, petty attitudes of a lot of people in cars. It's just when you are on a bike you are much more vulnerable and there's the rub.

What we need is a public awareness / education. Something along the lines of imagining that a person on a bike is your son/brother/daughter/sister kind of thing. Obviously if you dislike your sibling / offspring then it kind of falls down but you get the idea. If you can educate and improve even a small percentage it's worth it.

On the subject of legislation I would introduce a sliding scale of bans. Let's face it £60 and 3 points is hardly a massive inconvenience. For a first offence of using a mobile in a car, lets say a 2 week ban, 3 points and £100 fine. It will have a reasonable impact on most but won't result in losing your job etc. 2nd offence, 6 week ban, 3 points and £200 fine. If you've still not got the message then go heavier with 6 month bans.

Finally, death by dangerous driving. Make it equivalent to manslaughter. Let's keep in mind that despite any exceptional circumstances, emotional distractions etc, someone has lost their life. A family has lost a loved one. Obviously there is no one case fits all but DDD needs to be taken far more seriously than incurring a fine, suspended sentence etc.

thisisnotaspoon - Member
Hang on a minute, I'm sure driver's (mostly) aren't deliberaltey driving into cyclists, i'm sure they aren't actively trying to kill us?

This.

Those who are foaming at the mouth wanting motorists effectively punished for murder are conveniently forgetting that there has to be intent for that sort of charge to stick.....and as you so eloquently put it, there arent hordes of motorists out there intentionally trying to kill cyclists.

If we all cycled around, drove around and even walked around with the thought foremost in out minds that we may kill somebody with a careless action at any moment then we would become such a risk averse society that nothing would get done....it would also be a pretty soulless existence, you'd be afraid to move!

Cases like the driver who wasnt wearing the glasses he is required to wear, the tacho fiddling etc should absolutely have the book thrown at them but its important to judge every case on its own....a blanket rule presuming guilt for the motorist until proven otherwise would be terrible in my opinion.

What we need is a public awareness / education. Something along the lines of imagining that a person on a bike is your son/brother/daughter/sister kind of thing.

Like this?

http://www.roadsafetygb.org.uk/news/2164.html

But then the successes they are trumpeting seem pretty feeble... only 1 in 7 people able to remember a two-word strapline?

What we really need is more people on bikes. Then you wouldn't have to "imagine".

I don't think tougher sentencing (from a road safety point of view) would make a huge difference.

Education would be far more effective. I see no reason why compulsary re-testing couldn't be implimented. Or a tougher test.

The biggest attitude to over come is the belief that driving is a human right when it's actually a privilege with responsibilities.

.a blanket rule presuming guilt for the motorist until proven otherwise would be terrible in my opinion

No, but maybe a blanket rule that if a motorist has collided with someone, and it's shown that it was their fault, then it should be assumed that they are not capable of driving a vehicle to the required standard, and the onus should then pass to them to prove otherwise. If they can't, then take away their license.

To digress slightly, what's easier, changing human nature or designing a system which ensures that your stupidity can't injure others?

Almost every other facet of our lives has been made safer by design, even something as simple as putting a plug into a socket. It's only on the roads that we throw up our hands and go "enh".

What we really need is more people on bikes. Then you wouldn't have to "imagine".

+1 my mum admits to giving cyclits far more room since I was old enough to ride bikes on the road unsupervised.

The flip side of that is far more aware of the minority of douchebags on bikes running red lights inapropriately or riding recumbants. Whereas before the bad cycling was diluted amongst the whole of cyclits, now she seems aware that some are just accidents waiting to happen. i.e. before all cyclists ran 10% of red lights, now she assumes 10% of cyclists run all red lights.

What's easier, changing human nature or designing a system which ensures that your stupidity can't injure others?

Absolutely.

Without any physical changes to the roads, I think that 'system' MUST include right of way for vulnerable road users (I believe that is important). But I wholeheartedly welcome positive physical changes to our infrastructure too.

Laws deal with the consequences of stupid actions, and people will always be stupid.

Lets get a cyclist hit squad together, you knock a cyclist over and a group of hit-men on bikes show up and shoot you in the face.

In New Zealand, the motorcycle gangs are really dangerous guys. Hit one and expect 'consequences'. As a result, motorists are on high alert if they see or hear a motorbike, especially a Harley.

These guys had the right idea.

[img][url= http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8440/7752109640_f501f438c7.jp g" target="_blank">http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8440/7752109640_f501f438c7.jp g"/> [/img][/url] [url= http://www.flickr.com/photos/25808039@N06/7752109640/ ]Machine-Gun-Bicycle[/url] by [url= http://www.flickr.com/people/25808039@N06/ ]jwmlee[/url], on Flickr[/img]

Mr Agreeable - Member

What we need is a public awareness / education. Something along the lines of imagining that a person on a bike is your son/brother/daughter/sister kind of thing.

Like this?

Kind of but play on peoples emotions more.

my mum admits to giving cyclits far more room since I was old enough to ride bikes on the road unsupervised

Exploiting this kind of sentiment as an example.

Almost every other facet of our lives has been made safer by design, even something as simple as putting a plug into a socket.

I think that's part of the problem. Motor vehicles (bikes aside) have been made a lot safer, more insulative. A driver is disconnected from the world outside. 30mph in a modern car feels so slow that it's easy to forget that you're operating nearly a ton and a half box along the road.

I'm sure driver's (mostly) aren't deliberaltey driving into cyclists, i'm sure they aren't actively trying to kill us?

No, but they are deliberately driving carelessly or dangerously, and that needs greater punishment, larger fines, and more driving bans. How many people are driving around with > 12 points?

10,000 apparently.... http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring/news/8833796/Carry-on-driving-for-half-of-drivers-with-12-points-on-licence.html

30mph in a modern car feels so slow that it's easy to forget that you're operating nearly a ton and a half box along the road.

So, perhaps instead of putting a spike in the centre of the steering wheel, we lower urban speed limits on residential roads, enforce them (the flashing 30 limit sign on my local high street, which includes shops, homes and a school, is actually burning out from all the inconsiderate bellends setting it off) and actually try and make drivers legally responsible for their actions?

great that's addressed the 60% (the drivers of cars who cause bike related accidents). What are you proposing to do about the 40%?

What are you proposing to do about the 40%?

Pin summonses to their prone bodies? Annoying as bad cyclists are, you can't say they pose the same threat to safety as bad drivers by any objective measure.

Neo: Whoa. Déjà vu.

[url= http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/so-what-do-you-think-would-improve-safety-for-cyclists/page/2 ]Last Weeks Safety Thread[/url]
[url= http://dl.dropbox.com/u/81427686/PPR445_new.pdf ]Causes of Cycle Accidents on Britians Roads[/url] by the Transport Research Lab

Tougher sentences would work. However successive goverments don't seem to understand what tougher means. There is no good reason why speeding egts 60quid and 3 points. Make it a thousand or more and 11 points maybe. 2nd offence life time ban. That would make people slow down. People rant about it being out of proportion but whose says so. Apparently life is so important nowadays, why not show that. Minimum sentence for death my dangeropus driving etc should be the same as murder and thats should be real life. If your actions kill you should suffer. For ever!
Remember, there is no such thing as an accident, just bad driving.

dazh - Member

No, but maybe a blanket rule that if a motorist has collided with someone, and it's shown that it was their fault, then it should be assumed that they are not capable of driving a vehicle to the required standard, and the onus should then pass to them to prove otherwise. If they can't, then take away their license.

This is what happens already.

If a motorist collides with someone and its shown to be the motorist's fault then they face the consequences, every case judged on merit....the problem is the judges/magistrates who seem reluctant to hand down stiffer punishment.

Courts already have the power to disqualify drivers for careless driving but rarely seem to implement this.

Likewise there is scope to imprison somebody for 14 years when convicted of Death by Dangerous Driving.....but when was the last time this happened?!

The laws are fine.....the leniency of the judicial system is all wrong.

spxxky - Member

I read today of a lorry driver who killed TWICE and still did not receive a ban

Care to provide a link? People seem to be assuming you're talking of Joao Lopes but that can't be right as he did receive a ban.

Anyway. The reason tougher sentencing won't work, is that dangerous drivers don't think of themselves as criminals. They rarely even think of themselves as dangerous drivers.

Therefore getting any punishment will always come as a shock- and if it's coming as a shock then it's obviously not a deterrant. Adding 2 years or a lifetime ban onto a sentence nobody expects to get will make no difference whatsoever.

I think the OP meant that the ban wasn't enforced in any meaningful way. And scarily it doesn't seem to have affected his employability, either.

Mr Agreeable - Member

I think the OP meant that the ban wasn't enforced in any meaningful way. And scarily it doesn't seem to have affected his employability, either.

Er, are you familiar with the case at all? His ban (and prison sentence) are recent, he wasn't driving or working while banned.

Not trying to be rude, but it might be worth your time to read it up a little.

In New Zealand, the motorcycle gangs are really dangerous guys.

🙄

Anyway. The reason tougher sentencing won't work, is that dangerous drivers don't think of themselves as criminals. They rarely even think of themselves as dangerous drivers.

Therefore getting any punishment will always come as a shock- and if it's coming as a shock then it's obviously not a deterrant. Adding 2 years or a lifetime ban onto a sentence nobody expects to get will make no difference whatsoever.

This would only be true if all dangerous driving was a "first offence", which it doesn't seem to be, for instance in the case of Joao Lopes, or the 10,000 drivers with > 12 points.

Until drivers actually get meaningful sentences they will continue to take chances with pedestrians and cyclist

I read today of a lorry driver who killed TWICE and still did not receive a ban

Edit#
Random Google [url= https://www.google.com.au/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ie=UTF-8&ion=1#hl=en&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=does%20punishment%20work&oq=&gs_l=&pbx=1&fp=99b0cee94ed2fe06&ion=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&biw=1777&bih=887 ]On Does Punishment Work?[/url]

Therefore getting any punishment will always come as a shock- and if it's coming as a shock then it's obviously not a deterrant. Adding 2 years or a lifetime ban onto a sentence nobody expects to get will make no difference whatsoever.

Attitudes change. I'm sure at one point it was a big shock to be told that killing someone in a duel was technically murder, or that clubbing someone over the head to steal their joint of mammoth would lead to your expulsion from the cave.

This research (which I'm proud to say comes from my home town of Bristol) sets out the case for tougher sentencing and enforcement very clearly:

The average sentence for causing an accidental death by driving is 50% of the average sentence for causing accidental death by other means. We have a massive collective blindspot in our society.

Sorry to bang on about this, but I was "left hooked" twice on the way to work this morning, three times last night, and I'm feeling like something's gotta give...

You're completely right about Joao Lopes not receiving a ban Northwind, although he was convicted of an offence, and I'm really surprised that anyone hired him after the publicity around the original case.

http://road.cc/content/news/47057-eilidh-cairns-killer-implicated-second-london-lorry-fatality

Pin summonses to their prone bodies? Annoying as bad cyclists are, you can't say they pose the same threat to safety as bad drivers by any objective measure.

Well you can say they are a significant threat to their own safety if they are causing or contributing to nearly half of all car/cycle accidents. I.E 40% of them are injuring or killing themselves. I never said it was as bad, just that it needs addressing together and demonizing one side of the equation won't solve anything.

Remember, there is no such thing as an accident, just bad driving.

Utter rubbish that. My one and only "crash" was caused by a farmer leaving a road covered in slurry like an ice rink. I was under the speed limit (as I had just come round a blind bend), my car was almost new so tyres were fine. The moment I hit the shite it went and couldn't be brought back in. I left the road into a fence and nobody was hurt.

I also know someone who's car's accelerator pedal jammed. Again within warranty, perfectly good car, forced them off the road, thankfully nobody hurt.

I heard about a guy at work who's car veered into incoming traffic after his suspension broke in a pot hole. He had a head on with a bus. I don't know how avoidable the pot hole was, but I doubt he expected a wishbone to snap.

There are plenty of times where accidents just happen to motorists through no fault of their own.

Mr Agreeable - Member

This research (which I'm proud to say comes from my home town of Bristol) sets out the case for tougher sentencing and enforcement very clearly:

Well, yes and no. It's a good presentation of the numbers, and correctly makes the case that driving offences seem disproportionately sentenced. But it doesn't actually have anything to say about the likely benefits or deterrance effect of tougher sentencing.

Yes I do think we seem to have weak sentencing for motoring offences. But it doesn't follow that making sentences harsher would have a deterrant effect.

Utter rubbish that. My one and only "crash" was caused by a farmer leaving a road covered in slurry like an ice rink. I was under the speed limit (as I had just come round a blind bend), my car was almost new so tyres were fine. The moment I hit the shite it went and couldn't be brought back in. I left the road into a fence and nobody was hurt.

I'd say that's not very good judgement of the road conditions. Speed limit has nothing to do with it.

I do agree though, accidents happen ( I just think that one happens to be your own fault 😛 ).

Mistakes are easy to make. And I'm not sure the answer is to punish people so harshly that they feel nothing but distrust for the society that does so. Meanwhile the people who are yet to make their mistakes remain unaware that they're about to make them.

The laws are fine.....the leniency of the judicial system is all wrong.

Surely if the laws are fine then they wouldn't allow judges/magistrates/police to ignore them? In the vast majority of collisions the facts of the case are easily established and undeniable, so surely this makes the case for automatic bans a no-brainer?

I'll never understand why drivers are given the benefit of the doubt and allowed to continue driving when there's a serious question over whether they're competent to do so. It wouldn't happen in any other walk of life.

But it doesn't actually have anything to say about the likely benefits or deterrance effect of tougher sentencing.

Thorough regulation, investigation and enforcement is a key factor in making roads safe. There's a great chapter in Tom Vanderbilt's book "[url= http://www.howwedrive.com/ ]Traffic[/url]" where he explains how countries with systematic corruption problems (like India) are also some of the least safe places to drive.

He also mentions the example of France referred to above - a country that, along with places like Mexico, has become noticeably safer on the roads after steps were taken to address corruption.

The UK doesn't have a problem with corruption, but it does have a similar mechanism in effect whereby many people who commit motoring offences get off completely, or very lightly.

I'll never understand why drivers are given the benefit of the doubt and allowed to continue driving when there's a serious question over whether they're competent to do so. It wouldn't happen in any other walk of life.

Already linked to this but it's well worth reading: http://www.jake-v.co.uk/resources/documents/cycling/summary_of_findings.pdf. It basically comes down to "there but for the
grace of God go I".