/ Life is cheap - £400 fine for causing a death

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Pids - on 18 Oct 2016
Taxi driver fined £400 for opening door on cyclist which subsequently caused his death

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-37691400


Still a long way to go to raise awareness towards cyclists............
7
tim000 - on 18 Oct 2016
In reply to Pids:

terrible
deepsoup - on 18 Oct 2016
In reply to Pids:

FFS!
1
Dave Perry - on 18 Oct 2016
In reply to Pids:

Property has always been more valuable than human life. Rob a bank and you'll be locked away for years. Kill some one and............
4
Monk - on 18 Oct 2016
In reply to Pids:

I have to admit I don't agree. The driver made a mistake that had tragic consequences. I don't think that the punishment is particularly lenient. There was no malice and nothing wildly dangerous done. Just a tragedy that could have been avoided.

And yes, I am a cyclist.
8
dsh - on 18 Oct 2016
In reply to Monk:

Precisely, It's a tragedy, but it would be no different from making an error while otherwise driving responsibly (not on phone, distracted, drunk etc) resulting in the death of another car driver.

Unfortunately these accidents do happen.
4
thomasadixon - on 18 Oct 2016
In reply to Monk:

Isn't opening a car door into a main road without looking pretty dangerous? It could have been avoided if he'd looked, he didn't. Tragic consequences, yes, and entirely foreseeable. I got the impression from the article that he should really have been charged with a worse offense, manslaughter?

A driver not looking (while otherwise driving responsibly?!) and killing someone ought to be charged with death by dangerous driving...
5
SenzuBean - on 18 Oct 2016
In reply to Monk:
> I have to admit I don't agree. The driver made a mistake that had tragic consequences.

Sometimes those mistakes are called criminally negligent manslaughter...
Post edited at 22:47
1
KevinD - on 18 Oct 2016
In reply to Monk:

> There was no malice and nothing wildly dangerous done.

That someone died would tend to disagree with your judgement of nothing dangerous.
It was incompetence in charge of a vehicle plus a rather lovely attempt to blame the victim.
6
Dax H - on 19 Oct 2016
In reply to Pids:

I have yet to see a taxi driver who gives a crap about anything other than getting to his next fare as quickly as possible.
In this case though the cyclist is partially to blame for being too close to the car.
5
MG - on 19 Oct 2016
In reply to Monk:

I agree. If it had been say a pram pushed in to the road unthinkingly that caused the accident I doubt there would be calls for mother to be thrown in jail.
2
JoshOvki on 19 Oct 2016
In reply to Pids:

What should be the punishment for making a simple mistake? Other than having to live with knowing that you killed someone.
3
JoshOvki on 19 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:

Or father?
2
Yanis Nayu - on 19 Oct 2016
In reply to Monk:

I agree with you. It certainly isn't manslaughter. I'd be surprised if there were any of us who haven't at some point done something while driving which could have had tragic consequences.

Do we know why the cyclist was so close to the car? Was it parked? Was there fast-moving traffic overtaking him?
2
Yanis Nayu - on 19 Oct 2016
In reply to Pids:

An extract from the Highway Code for cyclists:

Rule 67
You should

look all around before moving away from the kerb, turning or manoeuvring, to make sure it is safe to do so. Give a clear signal to show other road users what you intend to do (see ‘Signals to other road users’)
look well ahead for obstructions in the road, such as drains, pot-holes and parked vehicles so that you do not have to swerve suddenly to avoid them. Leave plenty of room when passing parked vehicles and watch out for doors being opened or pedestrians stepping into your path
be aware of traffic coming up behind you
take extra care near road humps, narrowings and other traffic calming features
take care when overtaking (see Rules 162 to 169).
5
summo on 19 Oct 2016
In reply to Pids:

50/50, the taxi driver needs to anticipate the actions of other road users, the cyclist needs to think a door is pretty likely to open on a taxi. Bad lucky, tragedy etc... no one person to solely blame.

3
KevinD - on 19 Oct 2016
In reply to Yanis Nayu:

Rule 239
you MUST ensure you do not hit anyone when you open your door. Check for cyclists or other traffic

Note the must. You would have thought a professional driver would manage to follow the minimum competence rules.

I hope all the people blaming the f*cking victim never complain about a cyclist being in the primary position and whenever some retard whines about it points out their error.
4
galpinos on 19 Oct 2016
In reply to Pids:

Tragic. looks like the "dutch reach" isn't taught to taxi drivers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzIf80eSfCg
Robert Durran - on 19 Oct 2016
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
> An extract from the Highway Code for cyclists:
> Rule 67
> You should
> Leave plenty of room when passing parked vehicles and watch out for doors being opened.

This is not of course a licence for people to open doors carelessly or dangerously; all good road users should take reasonable precautions at all times in anticipation of possible carelessness by others.

If every potentially dangerous act of carelessness was punished with a ban or imprisonment, the roads would be quickly emptied of all users. Whether those acts of carelessness unlucky enough to result in tragedy should be punished disproportionately is certainly highly debatable.
Post edited at 08:56
1
Yanis Nayu - on 19 Oct 2016
In reply to KevinD:

Where did I say the driver wasn't at fault? I just said it didn't constitute manslaughter, and questioned why the cyclist was so close to the car.

In the real world, the courts, criminal and civil, have to take all the factors into account, and can't dismiss any negligence on the part of the deceased which led to their demise.
2
deepsoup - on 19 Oct 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:
> Whether those acts of carelessness unlucky enough to result in tragedy should be punished disproportionately is certainly highly debatable.

Mere carelessness is the kind of thing that ends in spilt milk and broken eggs, not people dying.

In every other sphere a negligent or aggressive act will be punished according to the outcome. Lose your temper and shove someone in a bit of argy-bargy in a pub and you may be guilty of common assault (you're unlikely to be charged though). But if the person you shove falls over, hits their head and dies as a result you're very likely to be done for manslaughter.
6
MG - on 19 Oct 2016
In reply to deepsoup:

That's deliberate. We are talking about carelessness, perhaps tripping someone up in a pub by sticking you leg out without thinking. If they die as a result, would you throw them in jail?
1
Glyno - on 20 Oct 2016
In reply to Pids:

A sad and tragic outcome but I think both parties are a bit to blame on this one.

Try reversing the circumstances...
Pensioner opens car door only for young cyclist to plough into him causing serious injury (even fatal) to the driver, cyclist is unscathed. Would the cyclist not be to blame for not giving enough width or even not paying attention?
3
Robert Durran - on 20 Oct 2016
In reply to deepsoup:

> Mere carelessness is the kind of thing that ends in spilt milk and broken eggs, not people dying.

Nonsense. Carelessness is carelessness independent of the outcome. Precisely the same act of carelessness, say accidentally knocking a bottle of milk left out to keep cool on a window ledge, could result in spilt milk one time and someone's death another time.

2
Robert Durran - on 20 Oct 2016
In reply to Glyno:

No I don't think the cyclist would be to blame; the onus is on the driver not to open a door in the way of a legitimate road user. Cycling further out is just sensible anticipation of possible carelessness.
4
RobertHepburn - on 20 Oct 2016
In reply to Pids:

I have cycled about 5 hours per week for the last 25 years, including road, MTB, touring, commuting etc.

A real tragedy, and I am not sure that putting the driver in jail would really help. I think our justice system should be more about restoration than retribution or punishment. Maybe something like a long term fine (£100/month for 20 years) that is paid to a cycling charity? Maybe some community service helping to install cycling safety schemes?

As always, the devil is in the detail, and we probably don't have enough to make a judgement.
If a cyclist rides next to the curb, and comes out to pass the car at the last second, then they can be very difficult to see. If you look in the side window attacked to the door then you won't see them approaching, and they can arrive during the opening of the door. I have seen some cyclists ride like this.
I have also seen plenty of car drivers throw doors open without looking, which always annoys me, as I know how risky it is for cyclists.

This is the reason I pass parked cars wide, and come out early to claim the space. Drivers may not like it, but it is the only way to be safe.

Ride safe people!
1
Glyno - on 20 Oct 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:

> No I don't think the cyclist would be to blame; the onus is on the driver not to open a door in the way of a legitimate road user. Cycling further out is just sensible anticipation of possible carelessness.

I don't want to get too deep into such a sensitive subject, but could I just say...

I failed my first driving test for failing to give adequate width to parked vehicles.
(...and yes, it pissed me off as I would have thought it the onus of the driver not to swing a door open).
r0x0r.wolfo - on 20 Oct 2016
In reply to Glyno:
In a car? Or on a motorcycle?
Post edited at 10:01
Glyno - on 20 Oct 2016
In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:
car
I would assume the same law applied to either?
Post edited at 10:01
r0x0r.wolfo - on 20 Oct 2016
In reply to Glyno:

> car

> I would assume the same law applied to either?

Ah okay, so you were penalised for driving too close to other cars. It can be rationalised partly by the door zone but clearly you had poor road positioning and were at risk of hitting things. There isn't a law stating 'never pass within the doorzone of a car'. As you will know, you will have to enter that space whilst passing narrow gaps quite frequently.
balmybaldwin - on 20 Oct 2016
In reply to Glyno:
> A sad and tragic outcome but I think both parties are a bit to blame on this one.

> Try reversing the circumstances...

> Pensioner opens car door only for young cyclist to plough into him causing serious injury (even fatal) to the driver, cyclist is unscathed. Would the cyclist not be to blame for not giving enough width or even not paying attention?

No he wouldn't it is the drivers responsibility to check before opening a door into live traffic. your example would be tragic but not the cyclists fault


In the case we are discussing, I'm not sure jail would be right though, however being charged with causing death by careless driving and getting a suspended sentence probably would be appropriate
Post edited at 10:12
balmybaldwin - on 20 Oct 2016
In reply to Glyno:

That would have been a minor though and not the cause of you failing your test in its entirety (i.e. there must have been other minor of major offences)
Glyno - on 20 Oct 2016
In reply to r0x0r.wolfo:

> Ah okay, so you were penalised for driving too close to other cars.

yes, I said so above.
Glyno - on 20 Oct 2016
In reply to balmybaldwin:
> That would have been a minor though and not the cause of you failing your test in its entirety (i.e. there must have been other minor of major offences)

to be honest, it was almost 40 years ago and it's the only reason I remember (it sticks in my mind still - lol).

maybe there's a driving instructor on here who could clarify?
Post edited at 10:17
timjones - on 20 Oct 2016
In reply to Pids:

> Taxi driver fined £400 for opening door on cyclist which subsequently caused his death


> Still a long way to go to raise awareness towards cyclists............

Are awareness and punishment the same thing?
2
r0x0r.wolfo - on 20 Oct 2016
In reply to Glyno:
But of course it's different when you are the danger as opposed to defensive riding.
Post edited at 10:21
1
elliott92 - on 20 Oct 2016
In reply to Pids:

Very tragic and condolences to the family. I'm not going to speculate on this particukar incident but we seem to have a trend at the moment from cyclists. They want to go as fast as they can.. they appear out of nowhere in a very short time. The times I've double checked for bikes (got into this habit after getting a motorbike and being scared at how many people don't see you), nothing there and then all of a sudden they appear just as you think it's safe to do whatever it is you are doing. Cyclists in London are the worst for this. People on bikes need to slow the hell down and realise that my van has some pretty big blind spots
12
Jim 1003 - on 20 Oct 2016
In reply to elliott92:
> Very tragic and condolences to the family. I'm not going to speculate on this particukar incident but we seem to have a trend at the moment from cyclists. They want to go as fast as they can.. they appear out of nowhere in a very short time. The times I've double checked for bikes (got into this habit after getting a motorbike and being scared at how many people don't see you), nothing there and then all of a sudden they appear just as you think it's safe to do whatever it is you are doing. Cyclists in London are the worst for this. People on bikes need to slow the hell down and realise that my van has some pretty big blind spots

I agree, and the stupidity of cycling 2 or 3 abreast near corners or on narrow roads beggars belief.The speed some cyclists come down the steep passes in the Lakes is very dangerous, some of them struggling to stay on the correct side of the road.
Post edited at 10:47
9
Jimbocz - on 20 Oct 2016
In reply to Pids:
What strikes me about this story is only alluded to in the article: it seems that the driver initially lied about what happened. He seemed to claim that the cyclist actually caught his bag on the door instead of it being opened into him. It's unclear whether that was found to be a lie or not.

If the motorist was found to be a victim blaming liar, that changes everything. the penalty should be much more severe.
Trevers - on 20 Oct 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:

> This is not of course a licence for people to open doors carelessly or dangerously; all good road users should take reasonable precautions at all times in anticipation of possible carelessness by others.

> If every potentially dangerous act of carelessness was punished with a ban or imprisonment, the roads would be quickly emptied of all users. Whether those acts of carelessness unlucky enough to result in tragedy should be punished disproportionately is certainly highly debatable.

I'm not going to comment on the specific case in the OP, I don't believe failing to looking before opening a car door is really on a par with failing to look properly before pulling out.

But I strongly disagree with the sentiment of your post. If every potentially dangerous act of carelessness was properly punished, people would stop being quite so careless.
3
Trevers - on 20 Oct 2016
In reply to Jim 1003:
> I agree, and the stupidity and callousness of people failing to understand why groups of cyclists ride 2 abreast near corners or on narrow roads and then getting pissed off at them beggars belief.

Fixed that for you.

I'd also add that responding to an incident where a cyclist was killed or hurt with some anecdotal evidence of some other cyclist(s) riding safely and within the law is not only stupid, it's incredibly insensitive.
Post edited at 11:34
3
fred99 - on 20 Oct 2016
In reply to Trevers:

> I don't believe failing to looking before opening a car door is really on a par with failing to look properly before pulling out.

Why don't you get on a bicycle and try the two options.

If someone pulls out in front of a cyclist, the cyclist smashes into the car.
If someone opens a door in front of a cyclist, the cyclist smashes into the car door.
Not really any difference - try it and you'll see I'm right.

Of course both options could lead to the cyclist swerving or being knocked into oncoming traffic - again no different result.
Trevers - on 20 Oct 2016
In reply to fred99:

I'm not going to get into an argument with you here. I am a regular and keen road cyclist and have posted more than my fair share of rants about drivers ignoring road safety.

I'm not trying to administer blame here, but I believe there is a difference in that being car doored requires the cyclist to be in the wrong position. I've nearly been car doored a couple of times and each time I felt it was partially my fault for not riding defensively enough.

I'm not saying that makes it any less a tragedy, or exonerates the driver. I do think instructors should teach drivers to always check and open the door with their left hand. I don't want to cast judgement based on the BBC article because it's so lacking in any detail of what actually happened.
RX-78 on 20 Oct 2016
In reply to elliott92:

I think you could easily replace cycles with motorbikes there and claim the same thing. Funny how some drivers can complain about cyclists going too fast and also too slow, basically they are complaining about cyclists being on the road. Your description of cyclists appearing out of nowhere sound like a SMIDSY to me, they can't actually come out of nowhere. read the article http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-cyclists/
1
Trevers - on 20 Oct 2016
In reply to RX-78:

It's a case study in confirmation bias.
1
Jim 1003 - on 20 Oct 2016
In reply to Trevers:
.
> Fixed that for you.

> I'd also add that responding to an incident where a cyclist was killed or hurt with some anecdotal evidence of some other cyclist(s) riding safely and within the law is not only stupid, it's incredibly insensitive.

It's not anecdotal, I investigate road accidents, and it's not insensitive either, it's advice to cyclists not to be stupid, it might save a life. Cycling 2 abreast near bends or on narrow roads is stupid and contrary to the Highway code...
Post edited at 14:50
7
kdr001 - on 20 Oct 2016
In reply to Pids:

The prosecution was a total waste of public money. The knowledge that you have responsibility for someone's death is quite enough without needing brought home by a criminal conviction.
In this context, the criminal law should be there to punish those who are reckless, not those whose momentary act of carelessness has completely disproportionate consequences.
5
elsewhere on 20 Oct 2016
In reply to kdr001:
> The prosecution was a total waste of public money.

It's got you, me and everybody else this thread thinking abut the risks of opening a car door. That's very good value for money.
1
Jim 1003 - on 20 Oct 2016
In reply to elsewhere:

> It's got you, me and everybody else this thread thinking abut the risks of opening a car door. That's very good value for money.

Agree, and it's a common cause of cycling accidents.
MonkeyPuzzle - on 20 Oct 2016
In reply to kdr001:

> The prosecution was a total waste of public money. The knowledge that you have responsibility for someone's death is quite enough without needing brought home by a criminal conviction.

Why do we prosecute anyone who kills someone whilst driving then? Or for that matter anyone who kills someone without intending to full stop?

2
ads.ukclimbing.com
timjones - on 20 Oct 2016
In reply to elsewhere:

> It's got you, me and everybody else this thread thinking abut the risks of opening a car door. That's very good value for money.

Has it got the vast majority of us thinking about it any more than we already do every time we open a car door?
kdr001 - on 20 Oct 2016
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

> Why do we prosecute anyone who kills someone whilst driving then? Or for that matter anyone who kills someone without intending to full stop?

My first point was intended to refer to the particular incident, not generally.

I have no problem with prosecuting those who kill because they drive recklessly or where the consequences of an assault are worse than intended. It's criminalising someone for a momentary lapse of attention which I think is wrong-headed.
1
Trevers - on 20 Oct 2016
In reply to Jim 1003:

> .

> It's not anecdotal, I investigate road accidents, and it's not insensitive either, it's advice to cyclists not to be stupid, it might save a life. Cycling 2 abreast near bends or on narrow roads is stupid and contrary to the Highway code...

Contrary to the highway code, but not stupid. If it's not safe to overtake (such as around corners or on narrow stretches) then riding two abreast carries a safety advantage, unless it's so narrow and tight that you're hidden from oncoming traffic.

Do you understand why it bothers me that you would bring up "things cyclists do that may be dangerous" in discussion of an incident in which a cyclist was tragically killed?
3
Robert Durran - on 20 Oct 2016
In reply to Trevers:

> I'm not going to comment on the specific case in the OP, I don't believe failing to looking before opening a car door is really on a par with failing to look properly before pulling out.

So which is more culpable then?

> But I strongly disagree with the sentiment of your post. If every potentially dangerous act of carelessness was properly punished, people would stop being quite so careless.

So what penalty would you suggest for the thousands and thousands of potentially dangerous acts of carelessness on the roads every day if they could be detected by the authorities?

Robert Durran - on 20 Oct 2016
In reply to kdr001:

> The knowledge that you have responsibility for someone's death is quite enough without needing brought home by a criminal conviction.

Absolutely. I carelessly doored someone outside my house a few years ago. He was all but unhurt and I paid for some damage to his bike but it shook me up quite a lot and I am much more consciously careful now. I do think the argument that prosecutions, though potentially dispropoportionare, raises awareness (eg this thread) has some validity, though. I had not heard of this Dutch Reach before and think it is a great idea.

Trevers - on 20 Oct 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:

> So what penalty would you suggest for the thousands and thousands of potentially dangerous acts of carelessness on the roads every day if they could be detected by the authorities?

The standard 3 points and a fine, if it's perceived to be simply careless driving and/or speeding as the vast majority are, and nobody is hurt/no property damaged. I'm not suggesting throwing anyone in prison, just that if people thought there was a significant chance of them getting caught then they wouldn't be so blase about breaking rules.

I think we may have misunderstood each other. I shouldn't have used the word "strongly" because it sounded like I wanted people hung drawn and quartered, and it was a bit personal. I'm a strong advocate for strict policing of low impact, high frequency road crime with the standard penalties applied on the spot, I think that would go a long way towards making the roads safer. I hope the West Midlands Police can lead the way in that regards.
Timmd on 20 Oct 2016
In reply to KevinD:
> Rule 239

> you MUST ensure you do not hit anyone when you open your door. Check for cyclists or other traffic

> Note the must. You would have thought a professional driver would manage to follow the minimum competence rules.

> I hope all the people blaming the f*cking victim never complain about a cyclist being in the primary position and whenever some retard whines about it points out their error.

Plus 1. Cyclists have to be *somewhere* on the road if they're using them.
Post edited at 19:36
Yanis Nayu - on 20 Oct 2016
In reply to Timmd:

> Plus 1. Cyclists have to be *somewhere* on the road if they're using them.

Do you cycle next to parked cars?
Timmd on 20 Oct 2016
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
> Do you cycle next to parked cars?

I cycle past parked cars, yes, it's often unavoidable. I try and watch out for heads in cars and leave at least half an open door's width, since a full door's width doesn't always feel practicable.
Post edited at 19:49
Yanis Nayu - on 20 Oct 2016
In reply to Timmd:

> I cycle past parked cars, yes, it's often unavoidable.

Within a door's width?
Mike Peacock on 20 Oct 2016
In reply to Pids:

There are some real classics on this thread. Someone died, and we have:

"I'm not going to speculate on this particukar incident but we seem to have a trend at the moment from cyclists. They want to go as fast as they can.. they appear out of nowhere in a very short time. The times I've double checked for bikes (got into this habit after getting a motorbike and being scared at how many people don't see you), nothing there and then all of a sudden they appear just as you think it's safe to do whatever it is you are doing. Cyclists in London are the worst for this. People on bikes need to slow the hell down and realise that my van has some pretty big blind spots."

"I agree, and the stupidity of cycling 2 or 3 abreast near corners or on narrow roads beggars belief. The speed some cyclists come down the steep passes in the Lakes is very dangerous, some of them struggling to stay on the correct side of the road."

Honestly. Imagine if someone had died in a car accident. Would we have: "well, some drivers speed and jump red lights" (therefore this other driver probably had it coming?). Or if a pedestrian died crossing the road: "well, some people cross the road without looking" (therefore this other pedestrian probably had it coming?).

It isn't relevant. One cyclist died being car doored, and that's someone relevant to the Lakeland passes? Classic outgroup stereotyping. Nice work.
Timmd on 20 Oct 2016
In reply to Mike Peacock:

> It isn't relevant. One cyclist died being car doored, and that's someone relevant to the Lakeland passes? Classic outgroup stereotyping. Nice work.

Thanks for putting into words what I was thinking.
FactorXXX - on 20 Oct 2016
In reply to Mike Peacock:

Steady on, this isn't an obituary thread.
This was said in the original post: Still a long way to go to raise awareness towards cyclists...
From that a discussion has ensued and some people have pointed out that cyclists too make mistakes. Sounds fair to me.
1
Robert Durran - on 20 Oct 2016
In reply to Mike Peacock:
> There are some real classics on this thread. Someone died, and we have:
> Honestly. Imagine if someone had died in a car accident. Would we have: "well, some drivers speed and jump red lights" (therefore this other driver probably had it coming?). Or if a pedestrian died crossing the road: "well, some people cross the road without looking" (therefore this other pedestrian probably had it coming?).

The only offensive things in this thread so far are your own absurd and really quite nasty extrapolations in brackets that you are trying to attribute to other posters having a sensible discussion.
Post edited at 21:21
5
Mike Peacock on 20 Oct 2016
In reply to FactorXXX:

Yeah that's fair enough I guess, but even so if it's a thread about awareness it depresses me how quickly people jump in with "but I saw a cyclist break the law doing x".
orejas - on 20 Oct 2016
In reply to Pids:

I am afraid cyclists ( I am one) cannot win. If we cycle far enough into the road to avoid a full door you get abuse for being in the middle of the road (you would be is most small streets). If you stick close to the cars, you get the you should be paying attention, dammed if you do, dammed if you do not.
So, leaving this case aside, if you want to bump someone, wait until they are on a bike and you in a car. Nothing will ever happen to you because people in the jury more likely drive and will never want to punish lack of attention (as we all have them - I of course drive too)
Mike Peacock on 20 Oct 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:

Well, there were question marks.
1
wintertree - on 20 Oct 2016
In reply to orejas:

> If we cycle far enough into the road to avoid a full door you get abuse for being in the middle of the road (you would be is most small streets).

You should cycle on the footpath instead!

Sorry, I'll get my coat...

captain paranoia - on 20 Oct 2016
In reply to orejas:

I have been observing drivers passing parked cars recently. And have observed that they generally leave more room than when they overtake me on my bike.
1
captain paranoia - on 21 Oct 2016
In reply to orejas:

ps. KevinD put it pretty well, I thought:

http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=651668&v=1#x8413634
deepsoup - on 21 Oct 2016
In reply to MG:

> That's deliberate. We are talking about carelessness, perhaps tripping someone up in a pub by sticking you leg out without thinking.

Yeah, maybe that wasn't the best example. Mind you, as well as being deliberate, it's also a criminal offence - as is "carelessness" whilst in charge of a motor vehicle. When the highway code says "you MUST" do something, it's an offence not to bother.

> would you throw them in jail?

And in the case of this driver who got off with a slap on the wrist for negligently causing someone's death, would you let them off entirely?

deepsoup - on 21 Oct 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:
> Nonsense. Carelessness is carelessness independent of the outcome. Precisely the same act of carelessness, say accidentally knocking a bottle of milk left out to keep cool on a window ledge, could result in spilt milk one time and someone's death another time.

Whether it's a criminal offence or not, balancing a brick on the corner of your balcony, four floors above a busy pavement is f*cking irresponsible and anti-social. We're just bickering about semantics now, but personally I don't think "careless" is a strong enough word to describe a thoughtless act of potentially murderous negligence.
1
GrahamD - on 21 Oct 2016
In reply to deepsoup:

"murderous negligence" ?
1
KevinD - on 21 Oct 2016
In reply to Jim 1003:

> It's not anecdotal, I investigate road accidents, and it's not insensitive either, it's advice to cyclists not to be stupid, it might save a life.

It is anecdotal. I would also have thought someone investigating accidents when hearing someone talk about blindspots on their vehicle would respond by suggesting fixing it so their vehicle is actually safe. i hope you arent with the police with this level of bias.

> Cycling 2 abreast near bends or on narrow roads is stupid and contrary to the Highway code...

It is, of course, a should rather than a must.
As for stupid. Purely dependent on the circumstances. On a narrow road if anything it can be safer since it may stop some moron trying to force their way past.
Likewise on bends. Plenty safe to take two abreast which isnt really surprising when you think about how much room two cyclists take compared to a car.
2
deepsoup - on 21 Oct 2016
In reply to GrahamD:
> "murderous negligence" ?

Yeah, overstating it a bit maybe.
(Is that what you're getting at? Or am I misusing a technical term or something?)

Mind, these definitions fit the bill:
" adj. Characteristic of or giving rise to murder or bloodshed: murderous mistrust.
adj. Informal. Capable of devastating or overwhelming: a murderous exam."

I just mean being in a position where you could easily kill or maim someone accidentally, and apparently not much giving a shit whether you do or not, or at least not caring enough at the time to take the most basic precaution to avoid it.
Post edited at 12:34
Ramblin dave - on 21 Oct 2016
In reply to deepsoup:

I think that the deeper issue is that normally we'd consider it murderously negligent to put someone in a situation where they've got to concentrate for hours at a time and a mistake could easily kill people. People do mess up sometimes, and this is why we normally have all sorts of checks and safeguards for operating dangerous machinery. But with cars we've normalized the basic negligence so the whole weight of the situation falls on the operator.

I don't know what the answer is, to be honest. Better designed roads can help, though.
GrahamD - on 21 Oct 2016
In reply to deepsoup:

> Yeah, overstating it a bit maybe.

I think "murderously negligent" is contradictory as murderous implies forthought and negligent the opposite. is all. I just don't think these emmotive outpourings really help anyone's case
nutme - on 21 Oct 2016

Suppose cyclists have to make a "tragic" accident to a taxi driver now.. It's just £400 after all.
Post edited at 14:39
deepsoup - on 21 Oct 2016
In reply to GrahamD:
> I think "murderously negligent" is contradictory as murderous implies forthought and negligent the opposite. is all.

Er.. Yeah, that's fair. It's not the best use of English.
Manslaughterously negligent then? :-P
Robert Durran - on 21 Oct 2016
In reply to deepsoup:

> Whether it's a criminal offence or not, balancing a brick on the corner of your balcony, four floors above a busy pavement is f*cking irresponsible and anti-social.

Ok, fair enough, the milk bottle might not have been the best analogy, but my point still stands.

> I don't think "careless" is a strong enough word to describe a thoughtless act of potentially murderous negligence.

Ok, the milk bottle might not be careless but the car door certainly might be.

Nevis-the-cat - on 21 Oct 2016


The next time the Daily Mail ges arsey and accusative about a climber getting killed in a Scottish winter, I'll remind us all about this prissy little thread of victim blaming.

1
captain paranoia - on 22 Oct 2016
In reply to Robert Durran:

> The only offensive things in this thread so far are your own absurd and really quite nasty extrapolations in brackets that you are trying to attribute to other posters having a sensible discussion

Did you miss the 'wataboutery' from the likes of elliot92 and Jim1003?

HC 'musts' are mandatory behaviours. You MUST do these things.
Many of the HC 'shoulds' are intended as recommended (not mandatory) mitigating actions to counter those who aren't following the 'musts'. The two quoted here are just such a pair.

If you don't comply with the 'musts', your driving falls below the required standard, and you should be punished, at least by penalty points or removal of licence. If you kill someone as a result of your negligence, you should be charged with manslaughter. The 'we all make mistakes' argument is bollocks. You would not get away with it in other spheres of activity; train driving, etc. We allow these deaths to go unpunished because 'we all drive', and society seems to think the utility of universal private transport outweighs the consequential deaths. I disagree. I'd be much stricter on removing licences for 'minor infractions' where no-one is injured; it might just give the message that people need to pay attention when they're driving. I certainly hope the taxi driver has lost his licence.
Robert Durran - on 22 Oct 2016
In reply to captain paranoia:
> Did you miss the 'wataboutery' from the likes of elliot92 and Jim1003?

No I didn't. And clearly, some behaviours mean that you are more vulnerable to others' carelessness or negligence; defensive road use makes you safer. But for someone else to interpret that on someone else's behalf to mean "this particular cyclist had it coming to him" is, I think, pretty nasty. As I said earlier, there is no doubt the blame lies with the person opening the door. The only question is what punishment should apply.
Post edited at 09:32
2
tim000 - on 22 Oct 2016
In reply to fred99:

> Why don't you get on a bicycle and try the two options.

> If someone pulls out in front of a cyclist, the cyclist smashes into the car.

> If someone opens a door in front of a cyclist, the cyclist smashes into the car door.

> Not really any difference - try it and you'll see I'm right.

> Of course both options could lead to the cyclist swerving or being knocked into oncoming traffic - again no different result.

I think a car door would be worse . more chance of seeing that a car might pull out. less chance of seeing that someone is about to pen a door

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.