UKC

Why are dead cyclists not important?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-35485674

In reply to coinneach:
What an insensitive thing to write. Please consider editing this statement. This terribly sad news does not need this sort of sensationalist statement attached to it.

In reply to coinneach:

It is very clear from the article that this young woman was very important, especially to her family and no doubt to her friends too.

It is also very clear that the process of law considers her death to be important too as the man was prosecuted and convicted.

That he didn't go to jail is a nuance of the law and the interpretation of the Judge. You may well be totally entitled to rail against our interpretation of what the penalty should be for causing death by careless driving, but the law was followed. I can only suggest that you contact your MP, the PM and someone within the Judiciary to lodge your complaint as penalties for this crime will not be increased on UKC.

When a life is lost, especially when it comes down to someone else's actions, it is always tragic and the outcome for the person who caused that death often feels inappropriately light. Yet, what would you do to this 77 year old with a 55 year unblemished driving record who made a mistake and had absolutely no intention of causing any harm to anyone? What is the right balance? Does putting him in jail serve any purpose, but also, does the avoidance of jail send out the wrong message? I certainly don't believe that the avoidance of jail will mean that drivers act more callously towards cyclists and start running them over because they think they can get away with it. I also agree that causing death during driving needs to carry a penalty that acts as a reminder of the seriousness of the consequences of making a mistake. I personally don't know what that balance is.

I do know that that a claim that dead cyclists aren't important is untrue.

In reply to Rampikino:

Good well balanced response.

Basically we are all human and are all capable of terrible human mistakes. The driver is probably a decent man who is likely to be going through terrible remorse at what happened.

I don't see what sending a 77 year old to prison in such circumstances would achieve. It won't bring the victim back and he has got to live with the consequences of his negligence for the rest of his life.

In reply to Trangia:

Deterrent effect?

In reply to elsewhere:

In this case I doubt it. The Law already has the power to send someone to prison for up to 10 years (IIRC) for causing death by dangerous driving depending on the circumstances. Isn't that sufficient deterrent?

In this case the driver didn't intend to harm anyone, he made a tragic mistake with terrible consequences. Even though he has been banned from driving and ordered to take his test again when the ban expires, I'd be very very surprised if he ever wanted to get behind the wheel of a car again. Living with the knowledge that you have been responsible for a death is likely to be punishment enough at his age.

From what I have read reported of the Judge's summing up he has been convicted and punished. It seems that in these circumstances the punishment was proportional.

In reply to elsewhere:

I echo other comments - who would this deter? After all this was Death by CARELESS driving which means that it was a mistake.

I would argue that education, experience and clarity are a better deterrent.

In reply to Rampikino:


But most carelessness when driving is, arguably, ultimately willful; re-tuning the radio, eating an apple, talking on the phone etc - the driver doubtless doesn't mean to cause any harm, but chooses to do whatever it is that takes attention away from the road.

In reply to Removed UserBwox:

I'm talking about the definition under the law. Perhaps have a little look at the differences between death by careless driving and Death by dangerous driving - they are different.

In reply to Removed UserBwox:

Was the driver in this case doing any of those?

In reply to Rampikino:
Deterrence is about public perception so if that requires cold hearted sentencing to generate that public perception it is in conflict with justice being proportionate for the individual. That's deterrence for you.

Personally I think more but very short driving bans and some short prison (weekend in some countries) sentences would be more effective deterrent. Hence anybody who doesn't get the message after a few points knows they'll get a leisure time driving curfew, all their vehicles have to be parked up or they get a tag and home curfew.

Basically attempts at punishment that do not destroy employment but before anybody dies.

In reply to Trangia:


The equivalent or worse? He overtook two vehicles on a mountain pass which if that means a blind summit he rolled the dice that there was no traffic and the person coming the other way lost.

In reply to elsewhere:

That's fair comment. He made a terrible misjudgement.

Put in terms of dice rolling there appears to be a very thin line between dangerous driving and taking a gamble.

If you had been the judge would you have jailed him?

In reply to coinneach:

When a high court judge, politician or senior old bill gets mown down I'm sure we'll see some appropriate sentencing and a change in law. Until then don't hold your breath.

D

In reply to elsewhere:



If..... I drive (and ride) that stretch of road quite a lot, and there are many long straights where you can pass slow traffic (of which there is a lot). It could equally well be a failure to see rather than a blind overtake. More likely in fact given that he wasn't charged with death by dangerous driving.

In reply to coinneach:

Lets hope that provision for cyclists continues to be improved such as the news of the progress London is making.

In reply to Rampikino:

Is the difference between 'careless' and 'dangerous' driving one of intent, because it was obviously dangerous what he did?

In reply to Phil1919:



No, it is the standard of driving. In practice there is some overlap between the two, and "Careless" may be chosen to improve the prospects of a successful conviction. As such, there is some overlap in the punishment. It is possible to get a longer prison sentence for death by careless driving compared to someone prosecuted for death by dangerous driving.

In reply to Phil1919:


I can't make that call as I'm not in the CPS. The distinction is made in law, I suppose, and in this case the driver was prosecuted for careless rather than dangerous driving and as a result should be penalised accordingly.

If you say it was "obviously dangerous" then you are at odds with the interpretation of the CPS. It may be that they decided to go with careless driving as a higher probability of securing a conviction, but that's a whole other kettle of fish.

In reply to Rampikino:

Yes, just interests me I guess, as being on the wrong side of the road would seem to be dangerous. The previous poster shed some light on it.

In reply to coinneach:

Tragic case. The motorist is a year younger than my dad, the cyclist a year older than me. It does worry me that one of my parents could hit a cyclist. Would a custodial sentence be appropriate? Not sure, and not sure it would be an effective deterrent- everyone assumes it wouldn't be them.

But the 5 year ban is a joke. Sorry, but once you have taken a life through carelessness you must accept that your life will never be the same again. And for a start, that means that you must never drive again.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Perhaps that is why as well as the 5-year ban he was prohibited from driving again until passing a retest, at minimum aged 82.

It would be a perverted justice system indeed that recognises the possibility that a wilful murderer can be 100% rehabilitated but does allow full rehabilitation of an accidental killer.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Yeah, it just gives OAPs carte blanche to mow down cyclists.

>Sorry, but once you have taken a life through carelessness you must accept that your life will never be the same again.
It'll almost certainly won't be as it was before the incident.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


I completely disagree. Whenever I read about someone's carelessness (and I mean carelessness, not any sort of deliberately and knowingly dangerous action) resulting in a death, I think that it could probably just as easily have been me. I am sure every driver has had moments of carelessness which on another day could have resulted in a death; it could easily be argued that those whose carelessness has killed are just unlucky compared with those whose carelessness hasn't - I find that quite a chilling thought. Yes, the law must take its course but, given that the careless driver has to already live the rest of their life with the knowledge that someone died, I think that a five year ban on top of that is fair and proportionate.

In reply to Lusk:


Clearly that is nonsense.

In reply to Lusk:

I think there is a widespread problem of people making poorly-judged, indeed not-at-all-thought-out manouvres. In particular, many drivers feel a right to overtake everything whether or not it's safe. He overtook 2 vehicles, one of which was "slow and elderly" as if that was a sin. It transpired he couldn't or didn't see what else was on the road. Overtaking is really really dangerous.

That said, I get it wrong on occasion. Though generally relaxed, I've made bad judgements, or not seen when tired. I'm usually on a motorbike which constantly reminds you that I'm the one who will be punished most if it goes wrong...this does have a sobering effect, especially as you get older and have lots to lose (family etc).

What a terrible outcome, for all parties. What to do to remind people that driving, though "normal", is dangerous? Overtaking doubly so? And how toget each road user group to think like other groups? I wish I knew.

In reply to Robert Durran:

The problem is that it is all too easy to say "Whoops, sorry" and continue along just the same. We have over 1000 deaths on the roads each year and we just accept it - compare that to rail or air transport, or compare it to high risk jobs like construction or oil.

We need to change our attitude to the car, to have far more respect for the dangers motorists pose to others. And that means treating driving as a privilege not a basic human right. The numbers of people with 12 or more points who escape a ban is at something like 30-40% and rising.

So I'll throw it back to you - do you think 1000 deaths pa is acceptable? And if not, what can be done to change the behaviour that leads to such carnage

In reply to Chris the Tall:


No.


Education, stiffer penalties for knowingly dangerous driving, lower speed limits where appropriate and their enforcement Scandinanvian style, more stretches where overtaking is not allowed US style. I just don't think that draconian punishment for genuine carelessness is appropriate.

In reply to elsewhere:


Sounds very much like dangerous driving to me. Sentencing is pitiful and follows a long list of similar injustice

http://www.ctc.org.uk/campaign/road-justice

In reply to Orgsm:


You are referring to speculation in another post. Best to stick to facts.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


It's an all time low and decreasing? I suspect it's far fewer than the deaths that used to happen when people lived jam packed in squalor in high occupancy slums that were in walking distance of their work, and it's far fewer than would die if cars went away and our economy collapsed.

That doesn't mean it's right, and that's why a lot has been done and continues to be done to make the roads safer. We are pretty much the lowest per-mile death rate of any industrialised nation.

I think that more autonomous features and eventually self driving cars will achieve far more for safety than ever more legislation brought to bare on ever fewer people will.

Edit: 3.6 deaths per 1,000,000,000 km driven is not by any sane definition carnage. Many other aspect of society, including other modes of transport, incur deaths as well, and the same trade offs are made there between our way of life and loss of life.

Edit 2: It is interesting to consider the point where, say, 10% of cars are autonomous to the degree that they're recording and reporting sufficient information to pre-emptively identify vehicles that are driven with persistently poor quality. Some cars on the road now are probably only a firmware update away from being able to report consistent tailgating for example.

In reply to Chris the Tall


Do you have a source for that statistic?

There is a high test and in the courts in which I work that result is a rare thing indeed.

In reply to rogerwebb:

It's a question not an accusation! Interested to know if things are different further south.

In reply to rogerwebb:


it would seem anything but a rare event.

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/consumer-news/92450/a-third-of-driver...

In reply to Rampikino:

Well written.

In reply to KevinD:

It is indeed different south of the border if that article is correct.
Exceptional hardship seems to be rather more exceptional here.

In reply to Orgsm:


By most sane definitions such an overtaking manoeuvre would be regarded as dangerous, as the outcome showed. Not checking your mirrors is careless. But because the lower charge is there, the CPS will take the easier option.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I don't think overtaking two vehicles on a long enough straight is either abnormal or necessarily dangerous. Almost anything you do driving could be dangerous if done carelessly.

Who said he didn't check his mirrors?

In reply to Robert Durran:
There is almost no driver on the road who has never made a misjudgement of any kind. Most of the time there is no other party in the way, or if there is they notice and are fortunately able to change their actions in order to avoid the collision, and nothing more than a beep of the horn, a flash of the lights or an obscene gesture results.

Sometimes they result in things like this.

TBH, if I had made a misjudgement driving, as I have on occasions done, and it had resulted in someone's death, I would imagine I would be so racked with guilt that I would find it hard to ever drive again, ban or no ban. If this person is in any way decent he will be the same.

So I'm not sure a prison sentence would make any difference.

In reply to Robert Durran:


What is the relevance of mirrors? If I'm reading the story right it was a head-on collision, was it not?

In reply to coinneach:

The fact is he should have got a jail sentence.There is no doubt about that whatsoever.

In reply to Neil Williams:

I was trying to give an example of "careless" driving - a momentary lapse in concentration that we are all prone to now and then.

In reply to hikerpike:


Could you qualify that argument given that the process of law decreed that he didn't. Is this an emotional response or a rational one?

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Given the amount of car travel and the benefits it brings, I would say that is acceptable, yes. Obviously if we can lower it at reasonable cost - financial and in other ways - we should, but it seems low level to me. Turning a basic aspect of modern life into a "privilege" seems a ridiculous suggestion to me. For comparison 650 people die falling downstairs every year - do you think stairs should be seen as a privilege too?

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Assuming you drive, *you* could hit a cyclist, too. Older people may be liable to more lapses of judgement, but they are not the only ones who are susceptible to such things. Every single driver on the road is.


That sounds very much like a desire for revenge. The criminal system should not in my view ever be about revenge. It should be about deterrence, and about rehabilitation. You can't deter people from making errors of judgement, provided they weren't caused by tired/drink driving, because they were not made intentionally. That's why most crimes require intent to be proven.

One thing I'm a little "on the fence" about is whether the outcome is relevant. So, should a misjudgement that only causes damage be seen at the same level as one that causes death? Rarely is the misjudgement intentional, but most of the time it is prevented from causing death, injury or even property damage by the alert actions of the other party. I've lost count of the number of times I've braked, flashed my lights and sounded my horn to alert someone of a bad overtake towards me; had I simply continued as I was I would probably have been killed.

I do tend towards the idea, moving away from road traffic, that attempted murder should receive the same penalty as actual murder, certainly in cases where it was only a stroke of luck or the other person's actions that prevented it being actual murder, for instance.

In reply to MG:
Risking your own life (eg climbing) should be a right.

Risking other people's lives (eg driving or trundling boulders off cliffs) is a responsibility and not a right.

It is a Driving Licence (ie a permission you earn by doing a test and can be withdrawn).
It is not a Driving Right (typically something you are born with and difficult to withdraw unless imprisoned).

Driving should be closer to a privilege than a right.

In reply to hikerpike:

.......in your opinion.

In reply to Chris the Tall:




https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/annual-road-fatalities

It's 1700 and has halved in 13 years.

The cycling deaths have stayed relatively constant at around 100, but I suspect this is due to massive increase in cycling so less cyclist proportionally are being killed.

100 doesn't sound very many at all.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

It sounds like 100 too many to me.

In reply to Andy Hardy:


Possibly. It doesn't say how they died. At least one of those just fell off their bike going too fast.

In reply to Andy Hardy:
The only way you will zero road deaths is to ban road vehicles. Yes, including cycles, as even with no cars people will still slip on ice, hit kerbs etc and fall off, and many of those people will be elderly and will be killed or severely injured as a result. Or pedestrians will step in front of them (as pedestrians would walk in the road much more without the threat of cars, lorries and buses and there would be more of both pedestrians and cyclists).

Actually even then you won't zero road deaths. If old Mrs Smith, aged 97, trips over a grid on the pavement, it might well kill her. With the number of elderly people in the UK increasing it would not be hard to get to 100.

Some stats for the 18th or 19th century would be interesting. I bet road deaths are not zero.

In reply to Neil Williams:


I believe crashes and collisions between horses and horse drawn carriages were quite common. Also pedestrians being knocked down

In reply to coinneach:

FWIW my Dad hit and killed a cyclist in the 1960s. It wasn't his fault and the Police didn't press charges once they had established that his car was in perfect condition and negligence couldn't have contributed. It affected him badly and for the rest of his life he would flinch whenever a cyclist came out of a side turn.

In reply to Neil Williams:



No, revenge would be sending a 77 year-old to prison. But whilst I agree with you about the purpose of punishment, you miss a vital factor - prevention. It is morally acceptable to consider the safety of others and the risk of a repetition of the offence when passing sentence. And in this case that can be achieved by a lifetime ban. Hardly unfair when you consider he has played the old man card to avoid prison.

If someone of my age committed the same offence, they ought to receive a custodial sentence as a deterrent and reminder to other drivers of the potentially fatal consequences of such a dangerous manoeuvre. But a mere 5 year driving ban would be appropriate, allowing them to rehabilitate in due course

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Why do you persist in using the word "dangerous". He was found guilty of CARELESS driving.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

This is where I have difficulty with it. Either the action (inattention) was bad or it wasn't. If it was bad, a custodial sentence should apply to any misjudgement/moment of inattention on the road, or to none.

I am not convinced that the effect of the misjudgement/moment of inattention should be significant in giving a sentence.

But then as I said I would give the same sentence for attempted murder as for murder, as the difference between the two isn't generally under the control of the criminal, rather it's either luck or the actions of the other party (to me, taking an action intending to kill someone is as bad as actually succeeding). I don't think this is a common view; I find more people see criminal justice as a form of revenge, which I don't at all.

In reply to Robert Durran:


That the courts find someone guilty of a specific crime doesnt mean that others would consider, if they did it themselves, deserving of another offence. Particularly bearing in mind the CPS will choose the charge they think is most likely to result in success.
Lets not forget both the car in front and the van behind him decided the risk was too high.

In reply to KevinD:


Or decided that either they were happy with the prevailing speed of the road or that they couldn't be bothered overtaking. Deciding whether or not to overtake is a risk-benefit analysis as there is always risk, but the benefit is also variable, so even for the same level of risk different drivers will choose differently.

In reply to coinneach:

People seem to forget that McClelland is/was a cyclist himself -

'The wing mirror of his Volvo S40 caught Mrs Preece's handlebars, and then she was caught by the wheel of a bike that McClelland himself was carrying on a rack on the back of his car.' from the news report

In reply to Neil Williams:

Surely there is a difference between "attempting" something -intent but failure- and carelessness where there is no intent?

In reply to apache:

There are lessons there about loading bikes on cars. And also those trailers where the wheels stick out.

In reply to Rampikino:
The crime appears to be manslaughter. The circumstances involved an additional element of danger or risk, i.e over-taking on a road.

Sentencing should be consistent ( and therefore fair) whether you believe in the system of retributive justice or not( I do not). So sentencing should match the crime and it's seriousnesss. A life has been lost.

In reply to hikerpike:


There is no such crime in Scotland...

In reply to MG:
I've checked the date and the location of this article. Tayside/Central belt, 3 Feb, 2016.

I've recently lived in central Scotland.Falkirk specifically for 18months just recently but I've moved back to the big city.And I can tell you.The roads there are full of nutjobs.The drivers are extremely friendly to cyclists.But not to pedestrians.In fact my biggest gripe was the poor town planning and the behaviour of motorists there.One of the main reasons I moved out of the place, it was not pleasant living there.

Regardless of what you want to call it ( 'death by dangerous driving', whatever......).The gravity of the man's "alleged" actions and their consequences has to be taken into account.It is alleged he overtook on a road driving a car.She was on a bike.It was suggested this may have resulted in a head-on collision death and resulted in or directly contributed to her death.

What am I missing here? And age has nothing to do with it.

I recently read of a young girl in jail several years in the US for throwing crab apple at a postman.She subsequently hung herself.

In reply to Robert Durran:


What part of trying to overtake 2 vehicles on a hill straight towards on oncoming cyclist would you NOT consider as dangerous?

In reply to hikerpike:

What you are missing is the idea that, however regrettable, careless actions that result in death are considered differently to deliberate or reckless ones that have the same result.

In reply to MG:
He did'nt sneak into her house and club her while she was sleeping,No.

But so the story goes his actions directly caused or contributed to her death.And the circumstances surrounding that appear also decidedly dodgy-He did'nt just hit her but it is alleged he hit her while over-taking.Which means yes it probably is'nt manslaughter and probably more like death through careless/risky/dangerous driving.

Manslaughter is when I throw myself off a building but I accidentally somehow hit you but not intentionally however fatallly on the way down.

If you kill somone on the road by accident like a cyclist or pedestrain a short jail sentence at least should be the norm or mandatory.

In reply to coinneach:

I'm amazed he went to court - down in London the CPS throw it out and dangerous driver who killed a cyclist doesn't even get a caution

What age is it exactly where you don't have to go to prison anymore, about the age of the judge? Reminds me of Mrs Blair letting someone off because they were religious

In reply to Orgsm:


The scene of crime officers (or whatever they're called in Scotland) would be the best placed to answer that one.

No one here actually knows what happened.

In reply to MG:


True, but even so to me the punishment should be against carelessness that had the potential to endanger life regardless of whether it did or not. The latter is simple luck. The criminal justice system should not be about luck.

In reply to Orgsm:

Depends on the width of the road and other factors. There are plenty of very wide single carriageway roads (e.g. parts of the A5 in north Wales) where this would not be in the slightest bit dangerous.

In reply to hikerpike:


Why?

Why should not the action (carelessness, dangerous driving, whatever) be the thing that precipitates action? Why should you have to kill someone to be punished? Why should you be punished more because you did kill someone than the other guy who did the same thing but got away with it because the cyclist saw him and jumped off into the hedge?

It sounds like vengeance to me, and I don't think vengeance should have any place in the criminal justice system. Vengeance does not provide any benefit to society whatsoever.

In reply to MG:

Deliberately killing (or injuring, or disabling, or causing minor inconvenience to, or whatever) someone is *far* worse than accidentally doing it with no intention of doing so.

Meanwhile, to me, all instances of dangerous or careless driving should be punished based on what the actions were, not what the outcome of the actions was.

In reply to MG:


Maybe, but there are mostly lessons about driving your vehicle, whatever it is, without clouting anyone else with it.

In reply to Neil Williams:

Aren't there two separate offences?

'Careless diving' (driving without due care and attention) and Causing death through careless or inconsiderate driving.

Each one has maximum and minimum tariffs.

The jury decide the guilt, the judge decides the penalty. It can be appealed of course.

In reply to hikerpike:


The crime is careless driving. In my view all instances of careless driving need to be considered on the severity of the action, not solely on its outcome. So the fact that someone was killed is relevant only to a very limited degree in my view.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Yes, there are, though I'm not entirely comfortable with the fact that there are.

Going back to my example, you have two drivers who both overtake too close to an oncoming cyclist, at the same speed, in the same location, in the same type of car. One cyclist is hit and dies. The other cyclist dives off into the hedge and is slightly injured and has his bicycle smashed up, which is paid for by the driver's insurance without any recourse to the Courts.

Has one committed a more serious offence than the other? Legally yes. Morally, in my view, no. Both were driving to an unacceptable standard. The second one only didn't kill someone because of that other person's action. Therefore, both should receive the same punishment in keeping with their action, not anyone else's mitigating action.

That is difficult to achieve, however, which is probably why the two offences exist.

One interesting one I debated with a friend was whether road traffic law should be reduced down to one thing - an offence of contributing to the cause of a road accident with a very severe penalty. It was an interesting idea.

In reply to Neil Williams:

But then you get into the realms of intent.

I could walk down the road with a crowbar. Should I be arrested because I could easily have broken into a house?

Silly example, I'm sure I could come up with a better example if I wasn't half watching the rugby. But you get the idea.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


I think you can get done for 'Going equipped' or something.
Would driving a car be 'Going equipped to kill'!?!?

In reply to DancingOnRock:

No, but there's a fairly solid argument that if you did attempt to break into a house with it, but failed due to e.g. an alarm system, that is just as serious as succeeding at breaking into one, because had it not been for the householder's defensive actions (fitting an alarm) the break-in would have been a success. Your intent was the same. Someone else mitigated the actions, and that ideally would not be taken into account in terms of punishment for your actions.

In reply to Neil Williams:


Nope. The car driver had considered overtaking just before this muppet did but choose not to since it was unsafe. He then decided overtaking two vehicles was fine.


Shame someone else took all the risk isnt it?

In reply to KevinD:


How do you know that was his thought process? Are you him? Have you asked him?

I often don't overtake because I can't be bothered. Maybe I have a look once, then consider that against the likely gains it's too much effort.


There are plenty of circumstances under which overtaking two or even more vehicles is perfectly fine.


I think you miss my point.

In reply to Lusk:

No, because the primary purpose of a car is as a means of transport, not a weapon. It is only a weapon if it is used deliberately to kill/maim or with the intent of using it in that way even if it doesn't succeed.

Should I be considered going equipped for computer hacking because I've got a laptop in my bag?

In reply to DancingOnRock:


There is the crime of going equipped. So if it was at 3am you might need some quick talking to convince the cops not to give you a bed for the night.
Or if you had that crowbar at 5pm outside the local football ground when the supporters were due a punch up.

In reply to Neil Williams:


We know she made that decision since she said so.
"Mrs Orr said the driver of the Clio had in fact been planning to overtake just before McClelland did, but abandoned the manoeuvre because she did not think it would have been safe."

http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/elderly-driver-who-killed-mother-of-...


There are plenty when its not like when a clearly visible cyclist is on the other side of the road.


Or that I think it is meaningless. Your perception of whether something is risky or not does not define whether it is.

In reply to coinneach:
If I was judge I would have given him at least 2 years but no more than five.

It's extremely diffcult to judge intent ,objectively measure it, being something that is subjective.

And yes I think the consequences and the actions added up are important together.Indeed the consequence is usually the index for which all the other actions are judged.Consquence does matter as even judging what actions,mind states, thoughts,bundles of karma and so on caused or contributed to what can become academic and over-analytical.

A cyclist dies from or as a result of collision or contact with a vehicle.The driver whether he was overtaking or not (although he was over-taking,i.e doing a risky manoeuvre of not one vehicle but two for example and possibly on the ascent up a mountain pass though it is not clear if that is the case... which makes it worse) of that vehicle is arguably most responsible for that death.

One has to face facts that he more than likely killed someone assuming he is the driver of the vehicle that is the alleged to have hit or come into contact with her.

If you make a tiny mistake climbing then you might or in some case will most likely die or end up a cripple.If your judgement is not quite sound enough.Or the roll of the dice will determine or heavily bias it for you.In such cases you have to accept the consequences.If an avalanche falls and I made all the judgements I still have to pay the consequences.It is not about punishing people; it is about honouring a system that tries to be fair.

Dangerous driving that results in a fatailty is I think up there with a range of murders even if it was accidental. I'm not here to prosecute another's opinion.But I may state my own views, opinions or feelings on it yes if I feel so inclined.Indeed often when it may not happen to be shared by everyone.

In reply to hikerpike:

I absolutely, categorically do not agree with you. Murder with intent is far, far worse than manslaughter and similar offences in my eyes (and the law agrees). Evil intent is a far worse thing to me than incompetence, even if the result is the same.

Wilful incompetence (e.g. drink driving) is a fair bit worse though.

In reply to Neil Williams:


Yes. It was a pretty poor example.

I'm not going to attempt to break into a house with it.

Just like the driver of the car didn't attempt to kill the cyclist.

It was just a result of his lack of judgement.

Ultimately we've all been in the same situation.

Why didn't the lady overtake? Could she something that the guy three cars couldn't see?

I've had people hoot at me when I've stopped in the middle of the road "apparently for nothing", I've even had people then overtake and nearly have a nasty accident.

Every single person views every single incident from a different aspect of view and time frame. No one person has 100% of the same view and experience, risk aversion, skill, etc.

The guy didn't intend to kill the cyclist and had no way of knowing his actions would result in a death. Maybe the view of the road he had was clear and the cyclist was just out of view when a larger vehicle would have been seen. We all should drive at a speed which would allow us to stop in time. He decided not to stop but 'only' clipped the cyclist with the wingmirror and bicycle. He didn't smash head on.

In reply to DancingOnRock:
One aspect worth considering is whether he actually did see the cyclist, or whether the cyclist was hidden behind the pillar of the car. Modern cars, due to safety regulations, have very thick pillars. It is easy to momentarily lose a cyclist in one. I've done it, I only didn't hit them because my passenger shouted, and in reaction to that shout I slammed hard on the brakes and stopped in time. Only consequence was me feeling a complete idiot and getting the finger (quite justifiedly) from the cyclist.

Would that have been justification had I hit him? No, of course not. Might it have explained what happened? Possibly.

Edit: Any driver that has never had a near miss of any kind is either lucky or a liar.

In reply to Robert Durran:


To be more precise he pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving, a plea which I imagine the CPS were very happy to accept. The simple fact, as evidenced by this thread, is that an awful lot of people refuse to acknowledge that such an action is dangerous, even though the outcome proves otherwise.

As someone suggested earlier, perhaps the answer is education, to make drivers aware of the risks they pose to others. Harsher sentences are also required, to provide greater deterrent. But that depends on convictions, and juries have a poor record in such cases. In fact it might even make convictions less likely.

What is really required is a cultural shift, a change in our attitude to cars. But that's about as likely as Americans changing their attitudes to guns - it's a deadly addiction that is too deeply ingrained.

In reply to coinneach:
I'm only speculating but it sounds like he may have only saw the cyclist until or before it was too late.

@Neil, I am not debating whether manslaughter is more serious than murder with intent, of course not.The very definition implies less or more responsibility/accountability.Some people murder under stress or duress; in this case it is aggravated or diminished responsibility.There was a case of a guy who was attacked by a junkie with a knife in Amsterdam.He made this alleged confession in his memoirs that he might have killed someone unintentionally in Amsterdam because he claimed he was scared and petrfiied so the outcome of this is the guy went in the canal.

Perhaps one of the lessons here if there is one is watch out for cyclists when over-taking.Another one for cyclists and buses/lorries is buses or long big vehicles turning left as there is a known blind spot
on the back left.One knows how easy it is to miss sighting a pedestrain crossing the road at night and perhaps playing around in the middle.If one cannot see a person what is the chance of not seeing a cyclist esp. when you only get a quick glance before you commit to overtaking.

If I hit a cyclist with a car I am typically largely responsible if not completely.Mainly in lieu or virtue of the fact that I do have more responsibility, assuming it is just me and the cyclist.

The problem with intent is it becomes very difficult to prove as it is a subjective thing to measure i.e we cannot read each other's minds certainly always so easily..In many cases we can intuit what peoples intentions are but to prove it is often difficult.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

What is really required is a cultural shift, a change in our attitude to cars. But that's about as likely as Americans changing their attitudes to guns - it's a deadly addiction that is too deeply ingrained.

What do you mean by a 'cultural shift, a change in our attitude to cars'?

In reply to Robert Durran:


Thinking about the word rather than the law, does the word "careless" not indicate more guilt than the word "dangerous"? You could drive dangerously cos you were distracted for relatively reasonable reasons but to me careless would indicate you were driving dangerously because you weren't bothered who gets hurt.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I've read things written along the lines of this being why so few drivers who kill cyclists do end up going to jail or paying for it in a 'meaningful way' (which is always subjective), because everybody in court thinks it could have been them and is relatively lenient as a result.

It's another way of looking at things.

In reply to Timmd:
I was at a junction only tonight, it was dark, wet miserable, the traffic was endless in both directions no one was letting me out, and gaps were few and far between , a gap appeared , quick look left, no lights , looked right clear, to the right too( there was a car , but I calculated if I nipped out very quickly , I would be OK, but something stopped me. I for some reason hesitated, and a second later out the gloom a cyclist entered my headlights, they had the dimmest , most pathetic lights you could imagine, and was wearing dark non reflective clothing . They cycled past oblivious of the near accident avoided. My heart skipped a beat, as they passed, I looked at the rear lights, and after a very few yards they too were invisable to me. ( and no doubt only visible to the cars coming up behind him/her , at the last minute. )

I am a cyclist myself , and I am cyclist aware, but I cannot say that every car versus cyclists death, is the fault of the drivers alone .
Each will have its own specific set of tragic circumstances.

In reply to Jim C:


The point about presumed liability is that, as the person in the more dangerous vehicle, and protected from the physical consequences, you have greater responsibility. But it's a starting point, not an end point, and in many cases it is the cyclists fault.

I've no doubt that the safest cyclists drive, and the safest drivers also cycle. One reason why I'd like to see more drivers banned.

Cycling without lights annoys the hell out of me, not just at night, but in gloomy conditions where you can see, but don't realise how hard it is to be seen.

In reply to FactorXXX:



Where do you start ? Look at TV and films that celebrate fast and dangerous driving. Look at the hostility towards enforcement of regulations. Look at the way our towns and cities have been taken over by motorists at the expense of human powered transport - just look at the amount of space we dedicate to the car. And look at the resistance to any change to that domination.

But these are just symptoms. The car promised freedom and adventure, with thrills along the way. Last time I was at the cinema 75% of the adverts were for cars, and that was the theme of most of them. But instead we are trapped by our dependence on the car, stuck in perpetual traffic jams. We take risks when we leave the house, due to fumes and speeding cars, and so the safest place is to get into our own car and join the queue.

We've been lied to, but we still cling on to the myth we were sold.

I drive, have done for 32 years. Quite how I got through my first 10 or so years is a miracle, but in fact the only collision I've ever had is when I was driving cautiously, slowing down for an accident ahead of me, and someone drove into the back of me. And yes I've been done for speeding, once, at 3 in the morning in motorway roadworks. I could whinge that it was unfair, it wasn't dangerous, but in truth I had it coming, it was a wake-up call.

This is a climbing forum, many of us also cycle and ski. we are, for want of a better word, adrenaline junkies. But there is a time and place, and that is not when behind the wheel of a car on busy, public roads

In reply to Chris the Tall:



Technically he Had lights , they were not the 700 lumins that I have for sure, but then I have to watch I don't dazzle drivers. 50 lumens at best.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Just to remind you we're talking about 100 people here.

How do you mean 'taken over by motorists'?

In reply to DancingOnRock:



I presume the 100 people you are referring to are cyclists killed by motorists each year, ignoring all the pedestrians killed, all those injured, all those affected by fumes, all those who have to contend with cars speeding past their homes

In reply to Jim C:
It can be weird and unnerving when it's only that 'something' which stops you from doing something before something bad is avoided.

Without wanting to turn it around (since I only cycle at the mo and don't drive yet) something once once told me to stop at a mini round about rather than assume the car driver approaching had logically seen me, and an elderly lady shot across and look towards me in what seemed like surprise as she carried on. I guess it was her constant speed, but another time I might have carried on and been in her way. Quite a close one.

So reply to Chris the Tall:

So what is your proposal? Put driving a car out of reach of most, thus screwing the ecomony? Jailing loads of people for unavoidable human errors and carelessness?

In reply to MG:
I'm wondering to what degree any countries economies suffer (or not) which have tougher penalties than us?

That'd probably be the first thing to look at.

I think Australia has tougher penalties than is for killing another person while driving...

In reply to Orgsm:


There is nothing to suggest that the manoeuvre was actually a dangerous one (despite all the speculation in this thread). Someone got killed because the manoeuvre was carried out carelessly. I do not know all the facts, so will not speculate on the degree of carelessness. Reversing slowly out of a parking space at Tescos is not a dangerous manoeuvre either, yet if I did it carelessly and hit an frail old lady with her shopping she might be killed.

In reply to Timmd:



Quite possibly a humane and sensible one.

Incidentally, replace "cyclist" with "driver" in your post and throughout this thread and I wonder whether there would be so much outrage at the sentence.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


No they're the number of cyclist who died on the road.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

So why are you ignoring all the other casualties?

In reply to MG:



If you bother to read my other posts on this thread, you would see my main gripe is that the law isn't enforced - dangerous driving being classed as careless, dangerous drivers being allowed to continue driving.

As for the economy, you do realise that motoring is cheaper than ever, with the inevitable consequence that there are far more cars on the roads. How's that working out for you ? Still believing the myths the car industry produces ?

If you are genuinely interested in social justice, you'll be aware that its children who live in deprived, inner city areas that suffer most from the negative effects of motoring, from the fumes and speeding drivers.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Yes, there are more cars than ever, and deaths on our roads are at an all time low for modern times, with both the absolute number of deaths and the deaths per mile driven continuing to decrease year on year.

Not only that but normalised deaths on the roads are one of the lowest in the whole world.

A lot is being done. To be fair, there has been a much more dramatic reduction in deaths of motor vehicle occupants compared to cyclists as more of the safety features are inwards facing, but cyclist deaths also have a reducing trend. More than a few of the deaths of cyclists on the road each year are not due to motor cars, although I do not know what fraction that is.

Self driving cars are really interesting here - at the moment we accept one of the lowest road mortality rates in the world as a consequence of having motor cars, much as we accept the comparable number of deaths from having stairs. However, once people choose to drive instead of letting the machines do it, I imaging the consequences of them making a human mistake and killing someone will be much harsher, because they choose unnecessarily to take that risk.

As it stands people are living in cloud cookoo land if they think we could continue without large scale private car ownership.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Because they are all falling.

And technically so are cycling deaths as a proportion to the uptake of cycling.

You may feel at risk as a cyclist but that is just your perception. The statistics don't back your paranoia.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I presume you are referring to the situation where a plea of careless driving is accepted rather than the court being given a chance to prove that there was in fact dangerous driving. This does seem a justifiable gripe however pragmatic it might be. If the charge is dangerous driving can the verdict be of careless driving or are the only options dangerous driving or acquittal?


Doesn't a conviction for dangerous driving automatically result in a ban?

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Pretty well. It means personally I can travel for pleasure to an extent that my grandparents and even parents would only dream of. It means an economy that means I am healthier and wealthier than any other generation. And all this in a way that is safer than ever.

Also, while I understand you are perfect, I recognise I and most people make mistakes and don't think draconian measures will prevent or reduce this.

In reply to MG:

Sorry, but is a driving ban for 12 points draconian?

In reply to Chris the Tall:


No, but the long jail sentences and life bans for carelessness that you appear to be calling for are (I presume that is what he was referring to).

In reply to Robert Durran:
12 points is not carelessness. That's a sustained inability to adjust driving style.

In reply to elsewhere:

I agree. What is your point?

In reply to Robert Durran:

Why don't you go back and read what I posted - in this case I said that it was reasonable that the driver was not sent to prison, due to his age. But given that he has escaped punishment with that excuse, the flip side should apply and he shouldn't be allowed to drive again. The chances are he won't pass the re-test anyway (one would hope he would have the decency not to even try).

But my main point is that we shouldn't regard such incidents as unavoidable accidents, as momentary lapses of concentration. I'm not saying I would never attempt such a manoeuvre, but I would make sure I could see the road was absolutely clear. We all need to take more care, be more aware of the consequences.

In reply to Robert Durran:
Carelessness and normal mistakes sometimes kill and that should result in imprisonment and a long ban.

Those are modest penalties compared to those suffered by the victims and their families.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


I was referring to your more general comments rather than to your ones about this specific case:

"Once you have taken a life through carelessness you must accept that your life will never be the same again. And for a start, that means that you must never drive again."

"If someone of my age committed the same offence, they ought to receive a custodial sentence."

In reply to coinneach: it's important to keep in mind that UK roads continue to get safer for all road users despite massive increases in vehicle numbers. That said, cyclist deaths are falling the slowest. There were 109 in 2013. Measures to improve road safety are clearly working, especially for pedestrians, motorcyclists and car passengers but less so for cyclists. I think better training and education for motorists and cyclists has to be the answer. I'm not passing any blame for this incident onto the poor woman involved but in many fatal RTAs involving cyclists, the rider has to take some of the blame.

In reply to elsewhere:


So you think that my careless mistake which kills a deer should just result in a bit of a fright, whereas your identical careless mistake which kills a person should result in imprisonment and a long ban?

In reply to Robert Durran:
Yes.

Legal penalties should be and to some extent are* proportionate to the damage

*death by dangerous/careless driving.

In reply to elsewhere:

So you think that a jail sentence and a long ban should be down to bad luck. That really doesn't seem fair to me.

In reply to Robert Durran:


It's not the same mistake.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


In that I've pulled out to overtake and carelessly not seen something which, if I had, would have meant I wouldn't have pulled out, it is.

In reply to Robert Durran:

There is an element of sentencing that is punishment. That element is proportional to the effect of the crime.

The 'mistakes' are overtaking carelessly and overtaking carelessly and killing someone.

Not overtaking.

At some point in the chain of events the outcome changes.

.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

No. Both mistakes are overtaking carelessly.


Of course not.


Yes, same mistake, different outcomes. I don't know why that isn't obvious.

To make it even clearer: A mistake which results in a collision with a car. If the car contains four people all of whom die rather than just one person who dies, obviously it is still the same mistake.

In reply to Robert Durran:

My understanding is that is how "death by .... driving" offences work. Same mistake but different consequence so different offence.


Minor compared to the unfairness suffered by the victim.

In reply to elsewhere:


Maybe, but I would argue it is unfair.


Yes. So?

In reply to Robert Durran:




Yes and the punishment would be 4x harsher.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Well in that case the law is an ass.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Not really.

If you didn't have progressive sentencing you'd end up with people in prison for 10 years for stealing a mars bar.

In reply to Robert Durran:
If you think about it, the main objective of punishment is to deter people from committing crime or re-offending.

Overtaking carelessly 'could' result in a prison sentence. Is that something you want to risk?

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Eh no. You choose whether to steal something and then whether it's a Mars Bar or the crown jewels. You don't choose to make a careless mistake, let lone how many, if any, people die as a result of it.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Get some sleep.

You'd have the prisons full of people who've done nothing wrong.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


It's just not relevant. A careless mistake is not something I choose to do; it's not something I "risk". By definition it is something I did not want or intend to happen. If there is an element of knowing risk or intention then it is not pure carelessness and, yes, the law should reflect that; progressive sentencing should ideally reflect the degree of risk taken or intention, not the outcome.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


I'm wide awake, thankyou.


Eh why? No idea why you think that. I think it's you who needs some sleep!

In reply to Robert Durran:

No it shouldn't.

Sentencing is based on what did happen, not what might happen.

That's just a ridiculous idea.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Which is why I oppose presumed liability. It is better to determine liability in each case based on the precise actions or inactions of each party.


Agreed. The Police really should be stricter on the matter, you almost never see it enforced. Confiscation, with return only on payment of an administrative fee for the cost of doing so plus the showing of a set of CE conformant lights to be fitted to the cycle, might be a good start.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Overtaking carelessly could result in me dying or being seriously injured, or me killing or seriously injuring someone else.

Anyone for whom that is not sufficient motivation not to deliberately make a dangerous overtake really shouldn't be on the road. A prison sentence is to me neither here nor there compared to the above two.

In reply to DancingOnRock:
Though (and I don't seriously propose this) banning overtaking entirely on single-carriageway roads, while annoying, would probably solve this kind of issue. It would have to come with an enforced requirement for slow vehicles (tractors, cyclists etc) to pull over periodically if causing a queue, but it could seriously increase safety.

On most single carriageway journeys I do not overtake anybody, FWIW. Only rarely do I think the benefit-(risk/stress) ratio comes out as worth it.

All overtaking has risk, and a risk of misjudgement causing an accident.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


No, the mistake is performing a dangerous overtaking manoeuvre.

That it results in a collision is an outcome. The outcome could have been that the other vehicle braked/swerved and there was no collision, or that the other vehicle was a minibus in which all 17 occupants were killed, or something in between. But the actions of making a dangerous overtaking manoeuvre had no influence on those latter things.

This is where my friend's idea that it should be illegal to cause or contribute to the cause of a road accident with a stiff penalty, but that there should be no other driving offences, comes from.

In reply to Neil Williams:



Everyone makes mistakes. That's the difference from being careless and dangerous.

The law has to capture both situations and punish respectively.

There is also the 'protection' part of the sentence, which deals with whether and how the public should be protected from the offender. That's the 'might' part. As in - what is the likelihood of reoffending.

In reply to Neil Williams:
In your friend's world there is no difference between a professional driver who hides a serious illness that results in him collapsing at the wheel of a bin lorry killing several people.

And someone who looks down to change the radio station and has a bit of a wobble of the steering wheel.

It's not workable.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


No, I think it is entirely rational.

In reply to coinneach:

Given the length of this thread I'm astonished that a page search shows no one has mentioned the word "Culpability". This is what the law seeks to punish. Neil, Robert and and others have referred to the concept indirectly but there are people on this thread who should look up this concept and reconsider their ill thought out ideas of what the law should punish.

In reply to wercat:

Go on then, educate us

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Multiple people have been doing so above, but if that didn't help try this:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=culpability

In reply to wercat:


Thanks. Looked it up. Seems to be precisely what I have been arguing.

In reply to Robert Durran:


I thought the argument was about the level of punishment, not whether or not they're guilty.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Google culpability. Look at the Wikipedia entry - first few paragraphs will do. A genuine act of carelessness with absolutely no intent to cause harm would seem to carry no culpability and the punishment (if any) should reflect this. Exactly what I have been arguing. You seem to think the punishment would or should reflect the harm actually done with little regard to culpability.

In reply to coinneach:

Do you really think this would be appropriate use of prison? What positive outcome would it achieve for anyone involved?
jk

In reply to Neil Williams:

Already done that, didn't tell me anything I didn't already know, so wanted the poster to put in a bit of effort in explaining himself

In reply to Chris the Tall:


I would have thought the onus would be on you to explain why you seem to set less store on culpability than the law does.

In reply to Robert Durran:


No. The debate seemed to be drifting towards whether someone showing a lack of care in a situation that he should have been aware of the consequences of being careless were, should be sent to prison.

Carelessness bordering on negligence. It's obviously a fine line. None of it is ever black and white.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


Well, what about your post of 00.05 this morning?


I agree with that. That is why I have been talking about pure carelessness, nowhere near that line, in order to make my point clear that punishment should reflect culpability.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I'm quite happy with the law, merely it's application.

I don't accept the argument "I didn't see the cyclist, so I'm not at fault", if you should have seen the cyclist, or could have foreseen that there might be one that you couldn't see when you start your manoeuvre, but would be there before you finish it.

In reply to Chris the Tall:
Nobody is arguing that. The thing I'm arguing is that it is the dangerous manoeuvre that is/was bad, and that that should be punished regardless of the outcome. By that I mean that the punishment should be in proportion solely to the actions/inactions of the person being punished, and should not relate to consequences that were not in their control.

IOW, I see it as equally bad if the driver hit a car making that manoeuvre and the driver survived as if he hit a cyclist and they did not. The bad action was the overtake, as that was what was in their control. The severity of the consequence was not.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Of course you should have seen the cyclist and 999 time out of a 1000 you would, but momentary carelessness does happen and to everybody. The question is how severely that carelessness should be punished. I would argue very lightly compared with when carrying out a manoeuvre knowing that it is dangerous (to take an extreme example, overtaking on a blind corner knowing that there might be a cyclist coming the other way)

In reply to Robert Durran:

On a pragmatic level, I don't see what the "hang em and flog em" brigade here think harsher punishments for carelessness will achieve. Humans aren't robots and will make mistakes through carelessness sometimes. Occasionally, they will result in fatal accidents. Driving bans and prison sentences won't change this (unlike the potential bans have for reducing dangerous or reckless behaviour, which is not inevitable).

To reduce accidents from carelessness and human error, the effective approach is to remove the potential for making them and to reduce the consequences when they are made. Lots has happened in this area in the last few decades, particularly in the UK which has some of the safest roads in world.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I don't see this as "momentary carelessness", but as and rare and risky manoeuvre, requiring your full concentration. Presumably the driver misjudged the distance he required to complete it, but that doesn't change the fact that it was dangerous.

And as a society, we are far too indulgent when it comes to this sort of behavior. Where else do we see this sort of death toll due to third party negligence ?

(As for taking a blind corner on the wrong side of the road and killing a cyclist - there was a case recently where a driver was acquitted despite doing exactly that - been trying to find a link to the story)

In reply to MG:


A driving ban will mean one less dangerous driver on the roads.

I suspect you are right that the deterrent effect is lower than with other crimes (but it's not non-existent), but I also believe the recidivism rate is higher. Why ? Because dangerous driving is more socially acceptable, unlike burglary or assault. This is why we need a cultural shift.

In reply to Neil Williams:



But our laws don't work like that.

In another situation if someone punched someone they would be tried for different things depending on the outcome.
ABH, GBH, manslaughter, murder.

Otherwise as I say, you'd have people doing 10years for getting in a fist fight.

We have 4 laws governing this incident ranging from driving without due care and attention to causing death by dangerous driving.

Ultimately the people who are dealing with the actual case are best placed to decide what actions should be carried out.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Have you ever made a mistake or misjudgement while driving which on another occasion could have killed someone, but due to good luck didn't? If so, do you think a long ban or jail sentence would have been appropriate had the mistake been witnessed and caught on camera by the police? If not, why should it be if someone was killed?


Probably nowhere, but individuals and societies weigh up and accept all sorts of risks every day when the benefits are big enough. That is not to say we should be complacent and I don't think we are.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


This is not analagous to carelessness when driving. If you punch someone there is a clear intention to hurt them and if they in fact die you should have anticipated that possible outcome. Nobody who hurts or kills someone through careless driving does so with any intention to do so.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Very few people who punch someone has any intention of killing someone.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Or one less unlucky driver on the roads........


I agree entirely.

In reply to DancingOnRock:


And nor do people who overtake on blind corners, but they do so knowing that they might do so, and, if they do, they should feel the full weight of the law.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Why do you keep conflating dangerous and careless driving? Being deliberately dangerous is not acceptable. Carelessness is, rightly, understood to be inherently part of being human.

You mention assault - the comparison to what you are suggesting for carelessness when driving is harsh penalties for accidentally breaking someone's nose by walking in to them when looking the other way.

In reply to Chris the Tall:
So increase the penalty for ALL dangerous driving. Not just dangerous driving that has a bad effect.

In reply to coinneach:

One problem I have with the Police/CPS/Courts is that they seem to treat older persons far too leniently when vehicle "accidents" occur.
Whilst older drivers are expected to volunteer their inadequacy to drive safely - in what are invariably far more powerful vehicles that that in which they took their test many many years before - when some "accident" occurs they defer to the elderly drivers' age as not only part of the reason for the accident, but also as a reason not to throw the full weight of the law at them.
If I was drunk/on drugs/wearing an eye-patch/had an arm in plaster, and then drove, eliciting an "accident" which killed/maimed some poor unfortunate then I'd be crucified by the Police/CPS/Courts.
Why do the elderly not get similarly dealt with when they continue to drive when not capable of doing the job properly ?

Note - both I and my sister (a serving P.C.) informed my late father that if he continued to drive distances (which would involve him taking soporific painkilling drugs), then we would jointly "shop" him - he stopped immediately.

In reply to MG:


Because terminology is important, it creates a reference frame for how we see events, which is why were shouldn't refer to car crashes as "accidents".

Legally speaking, there is a higher threshold for dangerous driving, which is why the CPS far too often opt for the lower charge. But nonetheless, like climbing grades, there is a grey area as to where one starts and the other ends. Maybe reckless would be a better term than dangerous, since carelessness can be dangerous.

But this guy wasn't merely careless, he didn't merely forget to check his mirrors, he deliberately created a situation where his vehicle posed a danger to human life. And the sooner we all start to realise the dangers that we create for others through our driving, the better.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Err, why?


Deliberately!? Why on earth do you say that? Everything in the article suggests it was a poorly judged overtaking manoeuvre.

I see you again (deliberately?) avoid addressing the point that human carelessness and error is not something the law and punishment can do much about.

In reply to Neil Williams:


Unfortunately, due to our culture of accepting dangerous driving, that would simply result in less convictions.

The introduction of the "Death by careless driving charge" was intended to secure more convictions for those borderline cases where juries were reluctant to convict due to the severity of the potential sentences. In fact the overall number of convictions has remained (I believe) fairly static, which has meant a lot less convictions for dangerous driving

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Obviously carelessness is dangerous in the non legal sense of the word. I am sure that you know perfectly well that the distinction the rest of us is making (regardless of the terminology) is between intentional, knowingly dangerous driving (I agree reckless is a better term) and careless, unintentionally dangerous driving. It is these which you insist on conflating (and yes, I know there will sometimes be grey areas, but often there will not be).

In reply to MG:


Because you don't accidentally overtake two vehicles whilst pulling a caravan


I have addressed that question

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Oh come on, you're just being silly now. Nobody ever overtakes anything accidentally for goodness sake!

Are you or are you not going to acknowledge that there is a difference between dangerously misjudging an overtaking manoeuvre and carrying out an overtaking manoeuvre despite knowing that it is dangerous? And please don't just speculate about the incident in the OP, because neither of us knows all the facts (it could have been either for all we know).

In reply to Chris the Tall:



Not really. You just keep making out people regularly set out to run cyclists over, as above, which is childish.

In reply to Robert Durran:

As stated above, the terminology is important. "Dangerous" is a far stronger, more emotive term than "carelessness"

It is the refusal of some many of you, and so much of the population, to acknowledge that driving such as this is dangerous, that it puts somebody else's life in danger, despite the frequency of fatal outcomes, that baffles me. Blind love of the car ? Cognitive dissonance ?

1700 deaths may be half what it was 15 years ago (probably due to speed cameras and improvements in in-car safety) but it's still far too high

In reply to MG:


I think the law has a problem with this as well though. Dangerous drivers don't just get in their car and decide to be dangerous. They have a serious of driving habits which make them a dangerous driver, there is a point where for legal purposes a careless driver becomes a dangerous driver. That transition isn't usually going to be wilful.

In reply to MG:


No. I've never posted anything of the sort.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I do agree with you there. But what you are doing is making out that people regularly driver in such a way that they know they are likely to kill cyclists. This is clearly rubbish.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Nobody is saying that carelessness isn't dangerous. What is baffling is your refusal to acknowledge that it is, just that, careless, rather than intentional.

In reply to Robert Durran:

I agree that there is no intent to kill - we aren't talking murder after all - but there was every intent to execute a completely reckless manoeuvre (a double overtake whilst towing a caravan is not standard). Too damn right I don't regard that as merely "careless". It smacks of getting frustrated, losing their temper and thinking of nobody else but themselves. That person should not be driving.

(oh, and my feelings would be the same if the victim was a pedestrian, or a motorist - please stop misrepresenting my arguments)

In reply to Robert Durran:


No, I've not done that either

In reply to Chris the Tall:


You're not making much sense.
"...he deliberately created a situation where his vehicle posed a danger to human life [the cyclist]. "

In reply to Chris the Tall:



I don't think that anyone has suggested that he was towing a caravan.... In any case, there is nothing inherently reckless (or non standard) about overtaking two vehicles in one manoeuvre.

In reply to MarkJH:

The news report (see OP) stated that they were returning from a caravan holiday - an odd detail to report unless they were towing a caravan.

In reply to MG:



What bit of that statement don't you understand ?

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Well I understand it, it's your denial that you said it that is odd!

In reply to Chris the Tall:


They reported that he suffered from angina too; presumably that is significant. As I said, nobody has suggested that he was towing a caravan.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Static caravan?

He had bicycle on the back of the car that clipped the cyclist.

In reply to MG:

"he deliberately created a situation where his vehicle posed a danger to human life"

is very different to

"making out people regularly set out to run cyclists over"

The latter suggests he targets specific road users, the former that he was a danger to all other road users.

Keep digging.

In reply to MarkJH:


Yep, good reason not to send him to prison. But as I said previously, when you use old age and ill health to avoid one form of punishment, expect some balance - he should not be allowed to drive again.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Yes, this seems fair; a request for mitigation based on age/ill health should come with a requirement to voluntarily surrender one's licence.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Could just have easily have been a fixed caravan. You seem intent speculating in such a way as to put as bad as possible slant on the incident. It could have been anything from a small misjudgement to very reckless for all we know.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Maybe, but I was guessing that there was some impediment to him performing an emergency stop when he saw the cyclist. So maybe he saw the cyclist all along, and just assumed he could overtake a car and a campervan without hitting her. Still reckless, dangerous and careless. Whether it was legally "dangerous" is another matter, and without the full evidence none of us can be sure, but it's undeniable he caused danger to the life of another person, a person who had not contributed to that danger themselves. It's something we all need to remember when we drive.

In reply to Chris the Tall:



Of course that statement is true in that he deliberately overtook, but that is not the same thing as deliberately posing a danger to human life. I really don't know why you seem to find this so hard to understand.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Precisely.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Do you drive?

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Yes - posted my driving history further up the thread

In reply to Robert Durran:


I would say I don't understand why you are in denial that it is dangerous to overtake when you can't be absolutely sure the road ahead is clear, but it's a very common trait. Deep down we know we all roll the dice occasionally and hope we don't roll a 6 (or snake eyes or whatever is bad luck). We won't admit to ourselves that could end up killing someone through what is ultimately a very selfish act.

My point all along has been that we should all be far more aware of the potential dangers from our driving and modify our behavior. And one way to get that message across is to use pejorative language such "dangerous" and "crash", rather than "careless" and "accident".

In reply to Chris the Tall:



Whereas a more rational view is that deliberately incorrect and accusatory language doesn't change the reality - many accidents are due to carelessness and human error and won't be stopped by telling people they deliberately endanger and kill when they don't.

In other safety conscious concerns like, flying and medicine, it has long been recognised that blaming people and demonizing their entirely natural behaviour isn't helpful. A prescription error isn't labelled a deliberate attempt to kill a patient, nor missing a pre-flight check a deliberate attempt.to crash a plane.

In reply to MG:


Not really the best examples there. The more accurate one of a plane hitting another would almost certainly result in a report holding someone to blame. Even a near miss would produce a ton of paperwork and probably an attempt to prevent it reoccuring eg banning the dangerous manoeuvre entirely.
In both cases you wouldnt have the shrug and "its entirely natural behaviour" shit happens approach.

In reply to KevinD:
. Even a near miss would produce a ton of paperwork and probably an attempt to prevent it reoccuring eg banning the dangerous manoeuvre entirely.

Exactly my point. The response isn't to demonise and jail the pilot but to arrange things so it can't happen again. Such an approach is highly effective.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Yes there is, read the court documents, jeeeez

In reply to Orgsm:


Which documents?

In reply to MG:
At a national level the Scout Association likes that approach as well - the accident form clearly explains that it is not intended to level blame using it, but rather to feed investigation into approaches and to provide accurate information in the event of a court case.

Such an investigation might well conclude that if the road involved was particularly bad for visibility, banning overtaking may be a good option.

Indeed, along those lines (though not to be fair relevant to country roads) I do wonder why we don't see Dutch-style "half dual carriageways" in the UK very much. Those are roads with one lane in each direction but a central reservation (and normally a separate cycle lane in order to avoid the need to overtake cycles).

In reply to MG:


Awesome. So what do you propose doing to prevent cardrivers making the same mistake? Remember they dont just pat them on the shoulder and say accidents happen but take action to prevent it reoccuring.
You are also ignoring the difference between mistakes and being criminally negligent. Doctors have ended up in prison for their errors and that Shoreham pilot is currently still waiting to find out what will happen. The cops have interviewed him and I think are now waiting for the air investigation to finish.

In reply to KevinD:

Well quite a lot is done already with road design, vehicle design, speed cameras, driving tests and so on, and it shows in the UK's excellent road safety record. Clearly more could be done if we choose. As Neil has pointed out, restricting overtaking on some roads might be one option, perhaps with new rules to ensure slow moving traffic makes way regularly.


No I am not. In fact I keep emphasising that I am talking about inherent human carelessness, not recklessness or criminal negligence.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


And I would say that I don't understand why you are in denial that it is possible to make genuine mistakes.

I am all for measures which might reduce mistakes and all sorts of dangerous driving. I just don't think that draconian punishments for genuine mistakes is one of them.

In reply to Orgsm:

I was going on the link in the OP and the conviction for careless driving. If the truth is otherwise then fine, he should have been punished accordingly, but that does not change my views on punishments for genuine careless mistakes driving.

In reply to Neil Williams:


I've used these in Scandinavia. The thought of a brakedown with nowhere to pull over was a bit worrying with just one lane and no hard shoulder. I would entirely be in favour of more no overtaking zones with double lines down the middle of the road - far more of this in the US. Even if some people ignore them, they might at least make them more aware of the risks and if they misjudged things they wouldn't have a leg to stand on

In reply to Robert Durran:


Again, where have I said the guy didn't make a genuine mistake ? He clearly did. But genuine mistakes can be dangerous, and we need to be reminded of this, by using appropriate language. It may have been appropriate that he wasn't charged with dangerous driving, but that is another issue.


A lifetime driving ban is not draconian, it's lenient when you consider he would have gone to prison had he not been able to use his age and health as an excuse. Driving is a privilege, reserved for those who have demonstrated competence, it is not an essential human right

In reply to Chris the Tall:


There is no point in further speculation about this particular case; I'm more interested in the general principle. I'd be interested to hear your answers to the questions I asked you at 12.59 yesterday.

In reply to Robert Durran:


True, though cars don't break down as often as they did, and I imagine with a blockage people would soon be motivated to help you push it out of the way.


True. I rarely bother overtaking on single carriageways, it's a faff, it's a fairly high risk, and it saves you a couple of minutes in most cases if that.

In reply to Robert Durran:


Not speculation - I refer you to the explanation given by the judge as to the sentencing, as reported by the BBC


May I refer you to the answer I gave at 14.30

In reply to Chris the Tall:


No answer there.

In reply to Robert Durran:

Well ask your question again then, but rephrase it so it isn't a blatant attempt to set up an accusation of hypocrisy.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Sorry but I cannot agree with this "lifetime ban" idea on a very strong principle. Keep in mind that we very rarely lock people up FOREVER.

When you impose a penalty on someone for the rest of their lives it basically states that there is no redemption, no rehabilitation, no way back, no forgiveness, no alternative and no turning back.

I don't believe that we, as a society, are built this way and nor do I think we should be. Something with zero redemption is purely punitive, and if it lasts for decades then it is punitive and vindictive and I wouldn't want us to look at ourselves in that way.

Yes, it is painful for the victims of this awful accident, and it will be incredibly raw, but which are we:

1. We remove freedoms for a period of time and then give them back steadily as we satisfy ourselves that they are appropriate.

2. We remove freedoms forever.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

I shall resist the temptation to infer hypocrisy from that response!

Ok. Do you or do you not think that people should be punished for genuine mistakes (pure carelessness or errors of judgement) where there is absolutely no intention or awareness of putting others at risk?

I should add that in some circumstances I could see a case for removal of a license and its later return after retraining to improve judgement and retesting, so long as this is NOT seen as punishment but as a matter of public protection.

In reply to Chris the Tall:
I think the reason you aren't addressing the point is that you realize your suggestion, when hypothetically applied to you, suddenly appears unjust. You then immediately forget this again, and make unjustified suggestions about the driver in the OP intentionally doing dangerous things and needing to be punished. Then you are asked about you or others who, but for luck might be in the same position, and become all evasive again, and the circle repeats.

This all seems to stem from an absurdly exaggerated view that cars are bad and evil, therefore drivers are bad and evil, therefore drivers must be hammered for the smallest of errors

In reply to MG:

Righteous indignation often feels appropriate until the lens is turned upon yourself.

In reply to Rampikino:

With prison you have a valid point, although I don't think Peter Sutcliffe could or should ever be released. The US has a ridiculous number of people jailed for life with no chance of parole for a minor part in the crime, often as a plea bargain to avoid execution. Yes I do do strongly believe in redemption and rehabilitation.

Being banned from driving is not the same as being sent to prison - it's only our obsession with the motor car, our addiction to the pleasures it brings, that makes people think that. This is the attitude we need to address.

I'm not saying that 82 year olds shouldn't drive, but there is a reason why we introduce stringent checks on drivers over 70 (or is it 75?). We need to be absolutely sure they are fit to do so.

Maybe you are right that a lifetime ban is bad in principle. The maximum sentence for this crime is 5 years, so maybe a 10 year ban followed by a comprehensive retest would be appropriate.

My parents are now getting to that age where I have serious doubts about their fitness to drive. I don't believe either of them would ever do the sort of stupid, aggressive overtaking that seems to have occurred here (though they might be the cause of it), but they could easily clip a cyclist. It's a worrying dilemma.

In reply to MG:

And yet I'm the only one who has detailed any of their driving history on this thread !!

OK - I have lost control of my car precisely once - Feb 1989, aquaplaned in heavy rain in the lake district, mounted a verge, took out a plastic bollard and was back on the road before I knew it. No damage to the car, but I was presented with the bollard at the NUMC annual dinner that night.

And yes I've made other momentary mistakes, have broken speed limits, but I have never overtaken when I can't be absolutely sure that the road ahead is clear. Pretty sure I have never caused another vehicle, or cyclist, or walker to take evasive action.

So now lets hear your stories - why are you so afraid of a clampdown on dangerous driving ?

In reply to Chris the Tall:


And if you were unfortunate enough to kill someone who was stood there, would you gracefully accept your prison sentence and lifetime driving ban?

In reply to Chris the Tall:

We should definitely ban people over a given age (75? 80?) from driving. If this would also catch out some people who would still be perfectly able to drive, so what. The important thing would be that those who are too blind or slow to drive safely are removed from the roads. My grandfather (who died aged 85) refused giving up his licence to the end, but the last ten years were criminally dangerous. I simply should not have been his choice.

We also don´t let 16 year olds drive a car, even if quite a few of them (the majority?) probably would already be able to do so responsibly. However, it is more important to keep the ones off the road who are not yet mature enough to operate a potentially dangerous machine.

I absolutely don´t see why age discrimination is only acceptable at one end of the age distribution.

In fact - and I am only partially trolling here - I would ban people from voting who are within one of two parliamentary periods of their expected life expectancy. How dare the pensioner generation f*ck up the future of my children, a future they won´t have to endure? This is true for almost any topic, taking privileges they enjoyed away from the next generations, education costs being only one example.

CB

In reply to Chris the Tall:

What purpose do you think is served by harsher punishment for what boils down to a tragic accident, no malice, no gross/willful negligence, just an honest mistake with consequences. The sort of thing that could through bad luck or a lapse in judgement (don't kid yourself you're immune) happen to any one of us on our way home from work this evening?

What would a long ban or a stint in prison actually achieve? Would that be the first thought in your head every time you approached a crest, dark pedestrian crossing or were dazzled for a moment, not 'there could be someone walking there' but 'I could rot in jail if I kill the person who might be there'? Get real. If you have the first thought (and you're not a complete sociopath) you slow down and look again, if you don't have the first thought you'll never get to the second stage, considering the punishment and acting to preserve your freedom.

I guess maybe you don't drive so let's imagine you clip a pedestrian while out on your bike, maybe you just misjudged something or had your eyes down a second or two too long, maybe there was an unexpected gust or a pebble in the road. They stumble, bump their head and die. Unlikely but it does happen from time to time. Bear in mind this was a complete accident, you had no way of foreseeing the consequences but you're out there riding so you've accepted it could happen. What punishment would you consider appropriate in those circumstances: a lifetime ban on bike ownership, a year in prison, 3, 5, 10?
jk

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Since you ask a completely clean licence and no crashes, ever. However, I am not so arrogant to believe I never makes mistakes.

Take your aquaplaning incident. If the bollard had been a cyclist, are you really happy with the idea you should have lost your licence for life, or even been jailed?

In reply to cb294:



At what age will you cease to care about the future of your children?

In reply to Robert Durran:


As I have said repeatedly, our blind obsession with the car leads us to accept lower standards of care than any other walk of life. We do not treat driving with the respect it requires. 1,775 people died on Britain’s roads in 2014 and 22,807 were seriously injured.

It may be true that drivers aren't aware that they are putting others at risk - this is a problem that needs to be addressed. Leniency merely perpetuates the problem. Bad, careless, reckless, aggressive drivers need to removed from the roads (but not necessarily imprisoned, unless they ignore their ban) - this is why I highlighted the problem with the lack of enforcement of the 12 point rule.

So what about genuine carelessness - you pull out of a parking space, don't check your mirrors, clip a cyclist and send them into the path of a lorry. Prison is not the answer, but a lengthy ban should remind you that you're carelessness killed someone. If, however you were on your mobile phone at the time, or had been drinking, sorry, off to the clink.

But I see overtaking as different to pulling out of a parking space - it's rarely essential, you have no excuse for not giving it your full attention, and there's a good chance can abort the manouevre. Higher standards apply surely ?

In reply to Chris the Tall:

See given that above you have admitted several cases of carelessness, why don't you tear up your licence and sell your car? By your own criteria, you shouldn't be on the road.

In reply to MG:


Jail yes, but I've never advocated a lifetime ban for a 21 year old. I was lucky to get away scot-free from the incident, but we learn from our mistakes, and those of others.

In reply to MG:

Not really contributing much to the debate are you ?

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Well actually yes - it shows you to be a complete hypocrite! Ban and jail others but if it's you who is careless, all of sudden things are different.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


Are you special?

I ask because I don't think you would need a lengthy ban as a reminder you'd accidentally killed someone.

I'm not and I wouldn't.

The only person I know who's ever found themselves in that position didn't need a lengthy ban to help them remember. It'd be mercy if for a moment they could forget.
jk

In reply to Chris the Tall:
I hit two 15year old girls who ran out of a shop to catch a bus. I was doing 20mph. There was over £1000 worth of damage to my car.

The girls had broken legs and arms etc.

I had to wait 6months for the police to decide there would be no prosecution. Despite a bus load of passengers who all gave witness statements.

That wasn't my careless error, that was theirs. They could have easily been killed if I had been doing 30.

Only a small minority of people have an obsession with the motor car. For a huge percentage of us it's a boring, frustrating part of everyday life that we have to endure.

Since then I've hit a motorcyclist head on who was overtaking at high speed on a blind bend. This wrote my 6month car off and smashed his bike to smithereens. Luckily he jumped off his bike before it hit me and got away with internal injuries and broken pelvis and ribs. I was uninjured except for the burns on my forearms and the ringing in my ears for a few days, from the airbag.

As a car driver, I prefer not to be involved in the pain and hassle all of this causes.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Would the threat of prison have stopped you losing control of that car? The answer is 'apparently not' because that threat existed at the time yet still you crashed.

Which leads me to ask what would gaoling your former self and ruining your past self's future career have achieved. Who would it have made safer, who would benefit and would it all have been worth it?

Ask yourself what might *actually* have stopped your past self losing control of that car on that day? What might help the bollard-cyclist survive and recover once hit? Why not dedicate your campaigning zeal to something actually worthwhile rather than seeking vengeance through the courts.

jk - clean licence from 16, quarter million or so miles responsible for a few largely inconsequential slides, skids and bumps, some scary near misses and many more I was doubtless unaware of or didn't cause.

In reply to jkarran and dancing on rock:


No, and I agree with you, but not everyone is the same. I did speculate that when it come to driving the effect of deterrence is lower, and the rate of recidivism is higher, but there are no stats available.

If you read what I actually post, rather than what the likes of MG would like you to believe I've posted, you will see that I'm not calling for a complete ban on cars or for draconian punishments for anyone, least of all those are commit genuine mistakes or are blameless in accidents. Right from the outset I've made it clear that I could be on either side of such an incident.

Nonetheless, far too often I see a car speeding through a residential area or a driver on their mobile. If you go over the snake pass at the moment you can see the evidence of 4 or 5 crashes. I think something needs to change, I've changed my behavior, use my car less often, drive slower. Is it so wrong to encourage others to do likewise. Does that really make me a hypocrite ?

In reply to Chris the Tall:


No, what makes you a hypocrite is arguing that
"Bad, careless, reckless, aggressive drivers need to removed from the roads (but not necessarily imprisoned, unless they ignore their ban) "
while you admit "I have lost control of my car precisely once - Feb 1989, aquaplaned in heavy rain in the lake district, mounted a verge, took out a plastic bollard" and "made other momentary mistakes". Both of these are examples of bad or careless driving and therefore you should stop motoring or accept you are a hypocrite. I have quoted you directly, so don't try and claim I am making stuff up again.

In reply to rogerwebb:

I don´t know, I hope that I won´t become that selfish in 20 odd years, and I know that many members of the generation of my parents do care about the future of my children, but overall apres moi le deluge seems to be the guiding principle for voters in essentially all aging, European societies.

Voters on pensioner age consistently show the highest support for

- parties that do not prioritize the fight against climate change, or even actively sabotage measures to decarbonize our economies
- support for parties whose policies make getting a good education more and more expensive,
- support for parties that sell off state property to fund tax reductions now,
- support for parties that favour those who could pay off their properties long ago over those who need to get on the housing market as first time buyers,
- support for reducing state pensions and other benefits (of course only for those who currently pay into the system, never for those who are already taking it out)

I guess this list can go in forever, but in all cases support for these policies becomes higher the older the voter cohorts become.

CB

In reply to jkarran:

Exactly.

What Chris seems to be proposing is vengeance against evil car drivers. I don't believe in the justice system supplying vengeance. It exists to supply a deterrent (which clearly didn't "deter" him from his incident), to rehabilitate, and to protect society.

The safety of elderly drivers is a side thing. Perhaps we should *all* have to retake our test every 5-10 years. That would soon weed out *really* bad drivers, and if one also had to retake one's test after being convicted of any driving offence, however small, that would provide further protection.

Meanwhile, if Chris feels his parents really shouldn't be driving, perhaps it's time for him to have an adult conversation with them about it.

Neil

In reply to Chris the Tall:


There are existing laws against both of those things, and they require us as a country to be willing to pay a little money to fund enough police officers to enforce them. I'm willing to do that.

FWIW I have observed that the prevalence of cameras has caused most people to stick to the limit these days, certainly when it isn't 70.


The Snake is a very dangerous road. It could probably be made quite a lot safer by applying a 40mph limit with a liberal arrangement of SPECS cameras (the advantage of 40mph is that near enough all motor traffic can attain and maintain that speed, and as such there is then no need for anyone to overtake anything other than a tractor or bicycle, and on the downhills probably not always the latter!)

Perhaps you should campaign for that?


It's fine to encourage people to do anything you want to encourage them to do. What you were suggesting upthread is banning them!

In reply to MG:
Is not clear that the incident that chris relates necessarily constituted an offence though- it might have been but we'd need more information about the speed he was travelling at in relation to the road conditions at the time.

Whereas the driver in the case being discussed certainly was.

Oddly, the AA link below divides 'careless driving' into two categories, those dealt with by a fixed penalty, and more serious ones, 'where other road users are endangered', dealt with by a summons. Overtaking in an unsafe way falls into this category.

http://www.theaa.com/motoring_advice/legal-advice/careless-driving.html

Which is odd- surely if other road users are endangered by driving that falls far below the standard expected of a competent driver, the offence should be dangerous driving?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_driving

And overtaking where oncoming traffic is forced to take evasive action to avoid a collision, should fall into this category. If the case in the OP was one of death by careless driving, this is where the problem lies. The motorists actions were clearly dangerous, not a momentary lapse in judgement, but embarking on an optional manoeuvre without ensuring it could be completed safely.

Charging acts which endanger other road users as dangerous driving rather than careless driving would help keep a clear distinction between tragedies arising out of an unfortunate human lapse in concentration, and ones where the driver willingly engaged in an action that they would be aware carried risks- and overtaking unsafely clearly falls into the latter category.

In reply to Neil Williams:


Again, more misrepresentation, you can do better.

Somewhere up the thread I referred to the number of drivers with 12 or more points (who I class as bad, dangerous etc) being allowed to continue driving, suggesting it was 30-40% and rising. Someone was good enough to back me up with a link.

http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/car-news/consumer-news/92450/a-third-of-driver...

How is it "vengeance" to say that such drivers should serve a ban ?

In reply to Chris the Tall:

A lot of straw men, or should they be straw motorists, being driven towards you on this thread, Chris...

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Far too fast ! Had it been witnessed by a copper I surely would have got points. I don't think, either then or now, I'd have got a ban. If a similar incident happened to a 21 year old today, and a cyclist or walker were killed, I suspect the CPS would go for careless rather than dangerous - my inexperience in such conditions would be taken into account, there were no aggravating factors.

But it was dangerous and could have had consequence for myself and others. Around the same time a friend was persuaded to drive whilst drunk, flipped the car. Nobody died, nobody went to jail but he did get a lengthy ban and a hefty fine. It did act as a warning to others.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

Are the girls still alive because you spotted something that made you stick to 20mph?

It sounds like you avoided the careless error of doing a legal 30mph when that wasn't the right for the conditions.

If they'd been killed by somebody doing 30mph despite warning signs* the driver should be prosecuted.

*eg kids milling about, people hurrying between bus & shops, schools just closed, pubs emptying out or whatever you spotted.

In reply to Chris the Tall:



If a cyclist causes a fatal accident accident should they be jailed or banned from cycling?

In reply to timjones:


If their riding was criminally careless or dangerous then yes jail them.
Not sure about being banned from cycling since it isnt a licensed activity not sure how it would work.

In reply to cb294:

There is of course another way of looking at it which is with age comes wisdom although I would certainly qualify that with 'not always '.
In some times in some societies it is youth that supports the intolerant, many if not most populist extremist parties rely heavily on the young. I think that overall the arbitrary disenfranchismet of the old would be a backwards step.
the other problem I see with your approach is mission creep. Once you disqualify by one unavoidable category who else gets disenfranchised in future

Suspect this needs a separate thread. Good one for a wet Tuesday with not much happening though.

In reply to MG:


The record is dropping and, as far as I can tell, mostly attributed to infrastructure not the drivers. I note you miss out the obvious option of CPD. after all if those changes to driving tests are useful surely it makes sense to check everyone meets those standards?


You are doing a piss poor job of it then considering you dismiss the case in point as just "poorly judged overtaking manoeuvre.". Bearing in mind a poorly judged overtake would be unlikely to get a charge of careless driving but it would have to be incompetent all round.

In reply to timjones:

http://road.cc/content/news/155056-cyclist-jailed-after-fatal-collision-ped...

In reply to KevinD:

Nothing against that in principle; it would probably be vastly expensive and impractical unfortunately


We only have the OP article to go on but it seems me there are roughly two possibilities.
1) The driver, after 55 years of clean driving, looked, and either saw the cyclist or realized he couldn't see clearly and thought to hell with it, lets go for it anyway. This, I agree would be reckless and worthy of prison. Or,
2) Looked, missed the cyclist due momentary inattention or similar, genuinely believed the road was clear,overtook and had the accident.

I strongly suspect case 2, and it is the many, many similar cases that often result in nothing but a scare that I am arguing lengthy bans and prison will do nothing to reduce, but other measures might.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


In your first post you described a 5 year ban as 'a joke' and advocated a lifetime ban. That doesn't come across as being predominantly aimed at harm reduction. You appear to want to punish a man for the consequences of his mistake not the mistake itself since you don't accept you should be banned for making a similar mistake with different consequences half a lifetime ago. To me that just seems illogical rather than hypocritical. You also appear to accept that harsh sentences prove little deterrent against careless mistakes which leads me to wonder what would the point be of harsher sentences if not vengeance.

To those suggesting someone who has an accident while overtaking must automatically be guilty of willfully and recklessly ignoring oncoming hazards or not even looking for them in the first place I'd like to point out it's quite possible for a normal healthy person to look and not see, that's the way our vision works (or more to the point doesn't always). It's also quite possible to look, believe the road ahead clear of hazards but miss a subtle blind spot, we don't always know what we don't know. It's also quite possible to do all of that properly and still genuinely misjudge a distance or speed. We're fallible. Understanding that can help keep us safe. Punishing it less so.

jk

In reply to rogerwebb:

Good point, I will reply in a separate thread!

CB

In reply to MG:

It seems to me there might be others

And the two you present have been chosen to set up a false dichotomy...

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
I don't think fundamentally there are.others. Regardless, it's how we handle 2) that I have been discussing throughout.

In reply to jkarran:

Re overtaking- it's either safe to make the manoeuvre, or you don't.

A quick glance may indeed miss something, or misjudge speed; so look again, properly, and don't commit til your certain the manoeuvre can be completed safely.

I think the fact that this falls within the remit of careless driving is the problem- overtaking without being certain you can do it safely is manifestly dangerous driving, and should be treated as such. If it was, people might think a bit harder, and look a bit more carefully...

In reply to MG:
And that's where the problem is, others are discussing 1). It's no wonder each side isn't getting through to the others

The link in the OP looks suspiciously like 3) the driver got progressively more impatient being stuck behind a queue of slow moving traffic and allowed his irritation to cloud his judgement or even 4) the driver committed to a manoeuvre and found that his vehicle wasnt powerful enough to rescue him when he got stuck for longer than expected in the oncoming traffic lane

Either way, he did something dangerous - overtook without being sure that he could complete safely- and it should have been charged and tried as such. Not sure the sentence would necessarily have been different given his age, but it may be in other cases.

And, to be honest, I don't even buy 2) as an option. As in post to jkarran, overtaking is too potentially high stakes to commit to on a glance where inattention may be a factor. If someone does overtake on that basis, that is dangerous and if an accident results should be treated as such.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Well no, others repeatedly refuse to acknowledge 2) even exists, even after describing their own experiences of it. On 1) I dont think anyone disagrees there should be severe sanctions.

In reply to jkarran:

How many times do I have to repeat this

The judge used his age and ill health as a reason not to jail him. I agree with that. If I were the vengeful sort I wouldn't. But I think it should be balanced by taking those same two factors into consideration as to whether he is allowed to drive again.

Secondly, overtaking is not a single split second manouevre. It requires your full attention. It is usually possible to abort if you have made a misjudgement. This driver made an initial mistake - it clearly wasn't safe to overtake - and then failed to realise or react to the danger he was creating for several seconds.

Far too many deaths occur on the roads. We need to stop denying that they are unavoidable.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:




Thats not how humans work. We make mistakes, are careless, can never be certain and misjudge things. Metaphorically shouting "don't do that" ever louder and clobbering people when they make errors does not solve the problems here.

In reply to elsewhere:





It's quite interesting what kinds of thought processes go on when people read things but weren't actually there.

Similar to the incident in the OP I suppose.

Everything is pure speculation.

In reply to MG:

I don't agree.

Of course there are plenty of low stakes judgements we make all the time without much mental effort or checking

But there are others where we really do focus on what we are doing because the consequences of an error are so serious

That's why we shout 'watch me' to our belayers when we think we might be about to come off- because we know that people don't pay attention at a uniform level, but they can up their concentration when there is a higher likelihood that something serious is at stake

We also concentrate a lot harder when balancing along a narrow snow arête than when walking along the pavement.

And, if we value our survival, we don't step out on the road after a cursory glance, we really look to see if traffic is coming.

We *can* be certain of completing an overtaking manoeuvre, and only attempt it if we are; or we can choose not to and gamble it will be ok.

If we choose the latter, and treat it like a low-stakes action for the amount of mental effort we put into planning it, and get it wrong, then I think that is dangerous driving and should be dealt with as such.

But apparently its not, so as far as the law is concerned, you are in fact right...

In reply to DancingOnRock:
Are you able to say if your choice of a speed where pedestrians survive collisions was good judgement based on observation or good luck?

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

Can you honestly say you have never forgotten to tighten a screwgate, or check all mirrors before overtaking, or cut youself with a kitchen knife? If so you are unusual, if not then these are examples of my "2)" type errors and entirely human.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

An excellent argument for reducing speed limits to 20mph

In reply to elsewhere:


Hmmm, I know the street in question if you drove a car down there and hit and killed a pedestrian you'd quite rightly get the book thrown at you. It seems that as a cyclist he was let off exceedingly lightly!

I was thinking more of accidents where you were legally allowed to cycle.

In reply to KevinD:


I'd say that cyclists should be judged on the same terms as motorists, but I'd be uneasy about jailing anyone for a simple and genuine mistake that had tragic consequences.


If it's right to ban motorists then it has to be right to ban cyclists. The question has to be how do you enforce it?

In reply to elsewhere:


Not really. It was an accident that happened.

I just think that given the information Chris has decided that the car was being driven by a doddery old bloke towing a caravan who had no regard for cyclists and overtook two fast moving vehicles without a care in the world.

I suspect the truth is closer to a 70year old keen cyclist, fit with all his faculties, overtook a slow moving vehicle, saw the cyclist, brakes hard and hit the cyclist a glancing blow with the wing mirror that caused her to steer into the side of the car and be hit on the head by the bikes on the rack.

The car doesn't have to be going very fast for this to have very serious outcome.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


Not necessarily. Maybe he did feel sure but was wrong....... a genuine mistake.

Anyway, as I've already said, there's not much point in speculating. It adds nothing to the debate about penalties for genuine mistakes.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


And I'm sure it will be taken into account if and when he comes to reapply for his licence. It's not the judges job to prejudge his future health.


And it gets my full attention, it gets most people's full attention. However much you might dislike the idea and it is an uncomfortable one: it is perfectly possible for a conscientious, healthy driver following normal driver training to look and not see oncoming traffic. I'm not talking about a quick, careless glance, I'm talking about a good look down the road then continuing to look where they're going whether overtaking or at a junction. This is the stuff that still gets pilots killed despite the fact they're well trained to mitigate the risk. This is the stuff that gets road users killed. Most of them are blissfully unaware of how little they're actually seeing when they look. And yes, that's true even when they're concentrating.

Have a read up on foveal vision, blind spots, motion blindness, perceiving differences while distracted and scanning. To be honest I'd suggest finding your local flying club and enquire about attending a free GASCO safety evening. It's astonishing what we don't see! Understanding that and learning how to better fill in the gaps could save someone's life but unless and until similar training becomes part of the normal driving syllabus I'm going to refrain from leaping to harsh judgement when road accidents happen.


Some in reality are unavoidable, they always will be. Better training could definitely prevent some. Harsher punishment is unlikely to.

jk

In reply to timjones:

I've not heard of it actually happening.

In reply to Chris the Tall:


It isn't, it is probably going to protect the public. But you also suggested bans and prison sentences in other cases.

In reply to DancingOnRock:

And there is possibly another thing to look at on a national basis there - modern cars are designed not only to be safe for the occupants in a collision, but also to be safe for anyone they hit as far as possible.

Should externally mounted luggage that could hinder that, such as boot-mounted cycle racks and long items on a roofrack be banned? Should trailers be required to have similar smooth sides and a shape that tries not to drag anyone they hit under them?

That might have resulted in a different outcome to this collision even if all actions had been the same.

In reply to jkarran:
Or look at the rail system, where there are all sorts of safeguards and safety systems to guard against that natural problem - human inattention and misinterpretation.

Sadly, as we saw in Germany today, they don't always work. But on the roads we barely even have them. Crikey, if you put my Vectra on a long straight road and set the cruise control to 70, it'd just carry on until somebody got in its way, at which point it would hit them. (I have wondered how many accidents this kind of setup has caused). No train, in the UK at least, is like that. The system recognises human fallibility.

Then, you've got the Airbus control philosophy, where the computer is said to know best...

In reply to jkarran:
To err is human so road deaths are inevitable.

They're not unavoidable because in almost every case somebody could have done something different that would have avoided that particular death (eg held back on overtaking in the OP and DancingOnRock gave a good example of being slow enough when kids ran out).

Today about ten or twenty million UK motorists made millions of mistakes. They dealt with those mistakes and ten or twenty million motorists demonstrated their ability to avoid fatal collisions.

Today about ten motorists failed to avoid killing somebody. If they had done something different today it is almost certain that most of the fatalities could have been avoided. I think they should be held responsible (eg investigated & charged, perhaps imprisoned or banned) for their failure to avoid fatal collisions.

In reply to elsewhere:


What good does that serve? Some (and I'd speculate it's a very few) will have been grossly negligent or reckless but the rest have basically been unlucky. What is the point of imprisoning the unlucky? It just doesn't make sense to me.
jk

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:


It's got *nothing* to do with looking harder or thinking carefully if you're not aware of and managing your own innate limitations. We all have them and they're much more severe than most people imagine. If you think I'm over-egging this I'd ask you do some research and think again. Judge me then.

jk

In reply to jkarran:

not at all- in fact on a previous thread (one about a driver who turned right into a side road and hit a motorcyclist, who was travelling well in excess of 100mph) i was arguing exactly the same points.

but i'm arguing the opposite of what you suggest- because we very much do have limitations in our visual and cognitive systems, we should adapt our driving to account for them.

overtaking is not necessary to complete our journeys; we might get there a bit later if we dont do it, but at least we wont kill anyone. if we are going to overtake, pick a point where the limitations we have arent tested.

uphill towards a blind summit, pulling a caravan past a queue of traffic was cutting the margin for error, and cutting it too far as it turned out.