This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Having seen this piece - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24900776 and comparing the sentence with that often handed out to drivers who maim or even kill other road users, it seems that cruelty to animals is seen as more worthy of society's opprobrium than endangering human life.
I realise that there may be extra details about the case not mentioned in the report and that RTA's are usually more complicated than a simple "the driver crashed in to the cyclist". However I'd be a bit miffed if a relative or friend was injured in a crash and the party at fault simply walked away with a fine and maybe points on their license.
ALC
I realise that there may be extra details about the case not mentioned in the report and that RTA's are usually more complicated than a simple "the driver crashed in to the cyclist". However I'd be a bit miffed if a relative or friend was injured in a crash and the party at fault simply walked away with a fine and maybe points on their license.
ALC
In reply to a lakeland climber: Eh? The link has nothing to do with RTAs, I'm really unsure where you coming from here and why.....
In reply to nickinscottishmountains: It seems pretty obvious to me what he's getting at?! I'm not sure of the answer but I would imagine that cruelty to animals is indicative of someone's likelihood to possibly be a sociopath and capable of equally heinous acts towards people. I think that's why the sentence is maybe justified for your link.
As you intimate, there do seem to be a lot of cases recently where a cyclist is maimed or killed and families devasted as a consequence but the sentences have been much more lenient. I wonder, though, if that is more to do with pre meditation and not consequences. Dangerous driving would seem analogous to that link, but careless driving without intent less so. In the latter case the guilt from what they have done may be sentence enough. But it does seem mismatched where a cyclist can be killed by someone who is careless with all the awful fallout that would ensue, and hey receive a quite lenient sentence if anything. But the trouble is 90% of our society drive and we all know that there but for the grace of god that that moment we aren't concentrating is the one where there's a cyclist we don't see. Will harshly sentencing careless drivers mean cyclists are safer? I'm not sure. I don't know the answer, it's very complicated. But I dothink there is a difference between pre meditated sadism and carelessness. Ps. I cycle every day and also drive.
As you intimate, there do seem to be a lot of cases recently where a cyclist is maimed or killed and families devasted as a consequence but the sentences have been much more lenient. I wonder, though, if that is more to do with pre meditation and not consequences. Dangerous driving would seem analogous to that link, but careless driving without intent less so. In the latter case the guilt from what they have done may be sentence enough. But it does seem mismatched where a cyclist can be killed by someone who is careless with all the awful fallout that would ensue, and hey receive a quite lenient sentence if anything. But the trouble is 90% of our society drive and we all know that there but for the grace of god that that moment we aren't concentrating is the one where there's a cyclist we don't see. Will harshly sentencing careless drivers mean cyclists are safer? I'm not sure. I don't know the answer, it's very complicated. But I dothink there is a difference between pre meditated sadism and carelessness. Ps. I cycle every day and also drive.
In reply to a lakeland climber:
Intent is important, but I agree with you that people need to be held more accountable for the consequences of carelessness.
How on earth someone does someone get away with killing a cyclist whilst overtaking on a blind corner? How on earth did her lawyer get away with saying the blame lay with the victims boyfriend for buying her a bike ?
Intent is important, but I agree with you that people need to be held more accountable for the consequences of carelessness.
How on earth someone does someone get away with killing a cyclist whilst overtaking on a blind corner? How on earth did her lawyer get away with saying the blame lay with the victims boyfriend for buying her a bike ?
In reply to Chris the Tall:
I think the whole point is that, as Chris said, the intent behind trying to strangle a cat is very different to a lapse in concentration/genuine mistake that is often behind an RTA.
Its like comparing an RTA that was an accident, but resulted in a fatality, to someone intentionally trying to commit murder. I'm not a judge, but I'm pretty sure that the sentences would be very different.
Also, as someone pointed out above, there is a link between animal cruelty and cruelty to children, I'll try to dig out a link.
As an aside, being held more accountable for carelessness is one thing, and I don;t think people should be punished much more than they already are... everyone cocks up, its what makes us human. However there is a big difference (IMHO) between being careless and reckless. In the example of overtaking on a blind corner, that to me is reckless rather than careless, but I suppose its all personal opinion really.
I think the whole point is that, as Chris said, the intent behind trying to strangle a cat is very different to a lapse in concentration/genuine mistake that is often behind an RTA.
Its like comparing an RTA that was an accident, but resulted in a fatality, to someone intentionally trying to commit murder. I'm not a judge, but I'm pretty sure that the sentences would be very different.
Also, as someone pointed out above, there is a link between animal cruelty and cruelty to children, I'll try to dig out a link.
As an aside, being held more accountable for carelessness is one thing, and I don;t think people should be punished much more than they already are... everyone cocks up, its what makes us human. However there is a big difference (IMHO) between being careless and reckless. In the example of overtaking on a blind corner, that to me is reckless rather than careless, but I suppose its all personal opinion really.
In reply to sweenyt:
A couple of refs:
Ascione FR, Arkow P, eds. Child abuse, domestic violence, and animal abuse: linking the circles of compassion for prevention and intervention. West Lafayette, Ind: Purdue University Press, 1999
Is animal cruelty a "red flag" for family violence? Investigating co-occurring violence toward children, partners, and pets.
J Interpers Violence. 2009 Jun;24(6):1036-56. doi: 10.1177/0886260508319362. Epub 2008 Jun 10.
Is animal cruelty a "red flag" for family violence? Investigating co-occurring violence toward children, partners, and pets.
Cross-reporting legislation, which permits child and animal welfare investigators to refer families with substantiated child maltreatment or animal cruelty for investigation by parallel agencies, has recently been adopted in several U.S. jurisdictions. The current study sheds light on the underlying assumption of these policies-that animal cruelty and family violence commonly co-occur. Exposure to family violence and animal cruelty is retrospectively assessed using a sample of 860 college students. Results suggest that animal abuse may be a red flag indicative of family violence in the home. Specifically, about 60% of participants who have witnessed or perpetrated animal cruelty as a child also report experiences with child maltreatment or domestic violence. Differential patterns of association were revealed between childhood victimization experiences and the type of animal cruelty exposure reported. This study extends current knowledge of the links between animal- and human-directed violence and provides initial support for the premise of cross-reporting legislation.
A couple of refs:
Ascione FR, Arkow P, eds. Child abuse, domestic violence, and animal abuse: linking the circles of compassion for prevention and intervention. West Lafayette, Ind: Purdue University Press, 1999
Is animal cruelty a "red flag" for family violence? Investigating co-occurring violence toward children, partners, and pets.
J Interpers Violence. 2009 Jun;24(6):1036-56. doi: 10.1177/0886260508319362. Epub 2008 Jun 10.
Is animal cruelty a "red flag" for family violence? Investigating co-occurring violence toward children, partners, and pets.
Cross-reporting legislation, which permits child and animal welfare investigators to refer families with substantiated child maltreatment or animal cruelty for investigation by parallel agencies, has recently been adopted in several U.S. jurisdictions. The current study sheds light on the underlying assumption of these policies-that animal cruelty and family violence commonly co-occur. Exposure to family violence and animal cruelty is retrospectively assessed using a sample of 860 college students. Results suggest that animal abuse may be a red flag indicative of family violence in the home. Specifically, about 60% of participants who have witnessed or perpetrated animal cruelty as a child also report experiences with child maltreatment or domestic violence. Differential patterns of association were revealed between childhood victimization experiences and the type of animal cruelty exposure reported. This study extends current knowledge of the links between animal- and human-directed violence and provides initial support for the premise of cross-reporting legislation.
In reply to Chris the Tall:
The whole word 'careless' gives a diluted meaning when it comes to driving offences. We all have careless moments in our day-to-day lives, it's to be expected but the consequences are generally trivial - a spilled cup of coffee or a broken plate. Hoever, the public thinks that equivalent carelessness when in charge of a couple of tons of metal is equally excusable.
We need to make it clear that a better standard is expected behind the wheel, and a better standard when riding a bike. The definition of 'reckless' is set so high that it is hard to prosecute, but it seems clear to me that the behaviour of some drivers (and some cyclists) deserves far more than the 'careless' tag.
So I'd like to see proper deterrent sentences for drivers who kill because of their casual attitude to the safety of others, and a lot tougher sentences for cyclists who have an equally casual attitude.
The whole word 'careless' gives a diluted meaning when it comes to driving offences. We all have careless moments in our day-to-day lives, it's to be expected but the consequences are generally trivial - a spilled cup of coffee or a broken plate. Hoever, the public thinks that equivalent carelessness when in charge of a couple of tons of metal is equally excusable.
We need to make it clear that a better standard is expected behind the wheel, and a better standard when riding a bike. The definition of 'reckless' is set so high that it is hard to prosecute, but it seems clear to me that the behaviour of some drivers (and some cyclists) deserves far more than the 'careless' tag.
So I'd like to see proper deterrent sentences for drivers who kill because of their casual attitude to the safety of others, and a lot tougher sentences for cyclists who have an equally casual attitude.
In reply to MHutch:
In the case I referred to, a jury didn't even regard as "careless" what most people would regard as dangerous
http://road.cc/content/news/95681-pharmaceutical-consultant-who-killed-cycl...
The problem comes because a jury will inevitably contain people who will think " I could have been the driver" and so acquit. It's less likely that it would contain people who could justify a deliberate killing.
In the case I referred to, a jury didn't even regard as "careless" what most people would regard as dangerous
http://road.cc/content/news/95681-pharmaceutical-consultant-who-killed-cycl...
The problem comes because a jury will inevitably contain people who will think " I could have been the driver" and so acquit. It's less likely that it would contain people who could justify a deliberate killing.
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Isn't that the point of jury rather than a problem with it - it's meant to consist of "peers" who think roughly like the population at large.
Clearly carelessness when driving is highly dangerous and reducing it is desirable. I am not sure heavier sentences is the way to do it though. Would be people really drive differently if the sentences were increased, or just continue to assume they are not careless?
> The problem comes because a jury will inevitably contain people who will think " I could have been the driver" and so acquit. It's less likely that it would contain people who could justify a deliberate killing.
Isn't that the point of jury rather than a problem with it - it's meant to consist of "peers" who think roughly like the population at large.
Clearly carelessness when driving is highly dangerous and reducing it is desirable. I am not sure heavier sentences is the way to do it though. Would be people really drive differently if the sentences were increased, or just continue to assume they are not careless?
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Oddly, and only on the basis of the reported case, I have a sneaking feeling that if she had been charged with a reckless or dangerous driving offence, the chances of conviction would have risen, because jurors would then be able to draw a distinction between their own day-to-day carelessness behind the wheel and the circumstances of this death.
Basically, 'Death by Careless Driving' gives the jury a chance to empathise with the defendant. "There but for the Grace of God..etc". By watering down the charge in the hope of securing conviction, the CPS makes acquittal by a sympathethic jury more likely.
Oddly, and only on the basis of the reported case, I have a sneaking feeling that if she had been charged with a reckless or dangerous driving offence, the chances of conviction would have risen, because jurors would then be able to draw a distinction between their own day-to-day carelessness behind the wheel and the circumstances of this death.
Basically, 'Death by Careless Driving' gives the jury a chance to empathise with the defendant. "There but for the Grace of God..etc". By watering down the charge in the hope of securing conviction, the CPS makes acquittal by a sympathethic jury more likely.
In reply to MG:
No its a problem, a big one, when the population at large seems to think its ok to kill people on bikes, because they are annoying to people in cars.
> (In reply to Chris the Tall)
>
> [...]
>
> Isn't that the point of jury rather than a problem with it - it's meant to consist of "peers" who think roughly like the population at large.
>
> [...]
>
> Isn't that the point of jury rather than a problem with it - it's meant to consist of "peers" who think roughly like the population at large.
No its a problem, a big one, when the population at large seems to think its ok to kill people on bikes, because they are annoying to people in cars.
In reply to a lakeland climber: I don't think its either or..
They have finally tightened up animal cruelty because its been a huge problem, but also cruelty to animals is strongly linked to cruelty to people.
I think it depends on the crash. Some can be accidents, some are malicious. I do feel for some of the wagon drivers. I was in London last year and saw cyclists making manoevres up the inside of wagons when there's little chance he would see them there just was not the space. But then again I've had people deliberately accelerate into me out running so some people just get road rage and don't realise it easily kills.
They have finally tightened up animal cruelty because its been a huge problem, but also cruelty to animals is strongly linked to cruelty to people.
I think it depends on the crash. Some can be accidents, some are malicious. I do feel for some of the wagon drivers. I was in London last year and saw cyclists making manoevres up the inside of wagons when there's little chance he would see them there just was not the space. But then again I've had people deliberately accelerate into me out running so some people just get road rage and don't realise it easily kills.
In reply to Mikkel:
That is just hyperbole.. come on..
> (In reply to MG)
> [...]
>
> when the population at large seems to think its ok to kill people on bikes, because they are annoying to people in cars.
> [...]
>
> when the population at large seems to think its ok to kill people on bikes, because they are annoying to people in cars.
That is just hyperbole.. come on..
In reply to MG:
What's alarming is that these cases get so little publicity - you have do something really stupid like tweeting about it to get in the news. Another cyclist died in London this morning - the fourth in just over a week - but does it make the front pages ?
> (In reply to Chris the Tall)
>
> [...]
>
> Isn't that the point of jury rather than a problem with it - it's meant to consist of "peers" who think roughly like the population at large.
>
It's the reason why lynch mobs would get acquitted in the deep south and why Diplock courts were introduced in Northern Ireland. Not suggesting that is the answer - after all judges and magistrates have shown themselves to be just as biased against cyclists.>
> [...]
>
> Isn't that the point of jury rather than a problem with it - it's meant to consist of "peers" who think roughly like the population at large.
>
What's alarming is that these cases get so little publicity - you have do something really stupid like tweeting about it to get in the news. Another cyclist died in London this morning - the fourth in just over a week - but does it make the front pages ?
In reply to Mikkel:
No they don't. Idiotic statement.
> (In reply to MG)
> [...]
>
> No its a problem, a big one, when the population at large seems to think its ok to kill people on bikes, because they are annoying to people in cars.
> [...]
>
> No its a problem, a big one, when the population at large seems to think its ok to kill people on bikes, because they are annoying to people in cars.
No they don't. Idiotic statement.
In reply to Chris the Tall: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-24925390
You wouldn't expect it too unless it was found to be malicious. It made the BBC news. We've no idea what happened so in all fairness it's a non story until investigated and witness reports. Look at the BBC article.. it just says where, what was involved. Its like with climbers, the bigger stories often come out once guilt is established.
But thats also the fault of the UK road system. In Germany cyclists and traffic rarely mixes, especially at major junctions but we normally get our own lights system.
You wouldn't expect it too unless it was found to be malicious. It made the BBC news. We've no idea what happened so in all fairness it's a non story until investigated and witness reports. Look at the BBC article.. it just says where, what was involved. Its like with climbers, the bigger stories often come out once guilt is established.
But thats also the fault of the UK road system. In Germany cyclists and traffic rarely mixes, especially at major junctions but we normally get our own lights system.
In reply to IainRUK:
Ok remove the troll bit at the end.
There do seems to be way to many cases of people getting away with killing or badly injuring cyclist.
Ok remove the troll bit at the end.
There do seems to be way to many cases of people getting away with killing or badly injuring cyclist.
In reply to Mikkel:
Interesting that people think this only applies to cyclists. Careless/reckless drivers also kill pedestrians, motorcyclists and other motorists. In most cases, regardless of the 'status' of the victim, the sentences seem unusually lenient.
> (In reply to IainRUK)
>
> Ok remove the troll bit at the end.
> There do seems to be way to many cases of people getting away with killing or badly injuring cyclist.
>
> Ok remove the troll bit at the end.
> There do seems to be way to many cases of people getting away with killing or badly injuring cyclist.
Interesting that people think this only applies to cyclists. Careless/reckless drivers also kill pedestrians, motorcyclists and other motorists. In most cases, regardless of the 'status' of the victim, the sentences seem unusually lenient.
In reply to Ridge:
Yes, if the 'weapon' is a car then it seems to be a whole different rule book
e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-24944675
Yes, if the 'weapon' is a car then it seems to be a whole different rule book
e.g. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-24944675
In reply to ebygomm: Trials are quite normal actually. Do you want her summarily shot?
In reply to MG:
Eh? I don't know how you've concluded that from what I've posted
> Trials are quite normal actually. Do you want her summarily shot?
Eh? I don't know how you've concluded that from what I've posted
I always though that it was the "action" that was punishable rather than the "outcome".
Imagine this scenario:
Driver A: Driving along a wet, dark country road at 100mph. Loses controls, spins off into a field causing some damage to a drivers fence.
Driver B: Driving along a wet, dark country road at 100mph. Loses controls, spins off into a passing cyclist causing death.
In both cases the action of the driver are exactly the same. Should the punishment be different?
Imagine this scenario:
Driver A: Driving along a wet, dark country road at 100mph. Loses controls, spins off into a field causing some damage to a drivers fence.
Driver B: Driving along a wet, dark country road at 100mph. Loses controls, spins off into a passing cyclist causing death.
In both cases the action of the driver are exactly the same. Should the punishment be different?
In reply to ebygomm: OK I was being sarcastic but do you think is different the link you posted to any other offence?
In reply to MG: ...what do you think...
In reply to Fultonius:
Not so, if you punch someone once and they fall and crack their skull and die you are prosecuted for manslaughter not assault.
> I always though that it was the "action" that was punishable rather than the "outcome".
Not so, if you punch someone once and they fall and crack their skull and die you are prosecuted for manslaughter not assault.
In reply to MG:
I can't work out what this sentence means.
I'm not being pedantic...
> (In reply to ebygomm) OK I was being sarcastic but do you think is different the link you posted to any other offence?
I can't work out what this sentence means.
I'm not being pedantic...
In reply to Timmd: It's gibberish Don't worry - phone.
In reply to ebygomm: True. Hmm. Strange how luck and circumstance can affect your punishment even if your actions are identical.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...