This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
http://road.cc/content/news/226455-pensioner-who-admitted-killing-cyclist-g...
I can understand why the careless driver was spared prison, but why such a short driving ban ? As a Sheffield resident who regularly rides in this are, the fact that this driver could be driving again in a year is scary. And what sort of deterrent does it provide ?
My wife knew the victim through work. A lovely intelligent bloke with a young family. A life snuffed out and others wrecked due to someone else not paying attention. When will we start to take car crime seriously ?
I suppose at least this case came to court, a year his mother was killed, Chris Boardman says that there is still no decision on her case
http://road.cc/content/news/226101-anniversary-his-mothers-death-chris-boar...
I can understand why the careless driver was spared prison, but why such a short driving ban ? As a Sheffield resident who regularly rides in this are, the fact that this driver could be driving again in a year is scary. And what sort of deterrent does it provide ?
My wife knew the victim through work. A lovely intelligent bloke with a young family. A life snuffed out and others wrecked due to someone else not paying attention. When will we start to take car crime seriously ?
I suppose at least this case came to court, a year his mother was killed, Chris Boardman says that there is still no decision on her case
http://road.cc/content/news/226101-anniversary-his-mothers-death-chris-boar...
6
2
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Rural roads near me, I followed a car recently who drove directly across a crossroads without stopping, also pulled out directly left turn onto a straight road without stopping. The possible consequences are horrific to think about.
Sober but dangerous.
DC
Rural roads near me, I followed a car recently who drove directly across a crossroads without stopping, also pulled out directly left turn onto a straight road without stopping. The possible consequences are horrific to think about.
Sober but dangerous.
DC
In reply to Chris the Tall:
OK, you appear to have a punitive outlook; you are the judge, what sentence would you give? And, second, how will slinging old men in gaol improve road safety?
> I can understand why the careless driver was spared prison, but why such a short driving ban ? As a Sheffield resident who regularly rides in this are, the fact that this driver could be driving again in a year is scary. And what sort of deterrent does it provide ?
OK, you appear to have a punitive outlook; you are the judge, what sentence would you give? And, second, how will slinging old men in gaol improve road safety?
3
28
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Its madness, it really is, there is something very wrong with a judicial system that hand out sentences like this, admits he wasn't taking care but gets a year ban ?
Its madness, it really is, there is something very wrong with a judicial system that hand out sentences like this, admits he wasn't taking care but gets a year ban ?
1
26
1
In reply to Dave Cumberland:
Middle of the city near me. Motor cyclist, crossroad, a long period on red for both directions followed by green in the opposite direction to which he was travelling. Straight through, he went, followed by me on my bike, natch. You cannot distinguish us cyclists from motorised transport any longer.
> Rural roads near me, I followed a car recently who drove directly across a crossroads without stopping, also pulled out directly left turn onto a straight road without stopping. The possible consequences are horrific to think about.
Middle of the city near me. Motor cyclist, crossroad, a long period on red for both directions followed by green in the opposite direction to which he was travelling. Straight through, he went, followed by me on my bike, natch. You cannot distinguish us cyclists from motorised transport any longer.
1
1
In reply to Chris the Tall:
No, I didn't, did I? I'll go back to doing some work.
> Did you actually read what I posted ? Your response indicates otherwise
No, I didn't, did I? I'll go back to doing some work.
3
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Later in the article where it refers to the definition of 'careless' and 'dangerous' driving does seem to make the whole process of prosecution difficult. I agree with the Cycling UK's verdict that it isn't fit for purpose.
When you read things like this, it does make you wonder the value of a persons life under the law, when people get sentenced for longish spells in prison for financial misconduct.
Later in the article where it refers to the definition of 'careless' and 'dangerous' driving does seem to make the whole process of prosecution difficult. I agree with the Cycling UK's verdict that it isn't fit for purpose.
When you read things like this, it does make you wonder the value of a persons life under the law, when people get sentenced for longish spells in prison for financial misconduct.
In reply to Mike Highbury:
For the record I'm very much opposed to a "punitive" approach to sentencing - i.e. for society to take revenge
The more legitimate grounds are as a deterrent - both for the perpetrator and society in general - and to protect society from repeat offences by the perpetrator.
Thus it is not necessary to protect society from this driver by sending him to prison, but he shouldn't be back driving any time soon. And as for the deterrence, the sentence is so lenient that it wont have a positive effect on anyone's behaviour
For the record I'm very much opposed to a "punitive" approach to sentencing - i.e. for society to take revenge
The more legitimate grounds are as a deterrent - both for the perpetrator and society in general - and to protect society from repeat offences by the perpetrator.
Thus it is not necessary to protect society from this driver by sending him to prison, but he shouldn't be back driving any time soon. And as for the deterrence, the sentence is so lenient that it wont have a positive effect on anyone's behaviour
14
1
In reply to Chris the Tall:
That is an absolute disgrace of a sentence. A year's minor inconvenience for causing a death!!
That is an absolute disgrace of a sentence. A year's minor inconvenience for causing a death!!
In reply to Chris the Tall:
The problem is, if you start jailing people or giving them long driving bans you will have an unintended consequence.
If you risk going to jail for something that is effectively out of your control, large numbers of people may be dissuaded from driving.
The problem is, if you start jailing people or giving them long driving bans you will have an unintended consequence.
If you risk going to jail for something that is effectively out of your control, large numbers of people may be dissuaded from driving.
2
23
In reply to Chris the Tall: while the judge might have handed down a lenient sentence I think the driver's insurance company might inflict such a heavy premium that he won't be able to afford to drive again.
1
In reply to DancingOnRock:
How was it out of his control? He was driving the car.
> The problem is, if you start jailing people or giving them long driving bans you will have an unintended consequence.
> If you risk going to jail for something that is effectively out of your control, large numbers of people may be dissuaded from driving.
How was it out of his control? He was driving the car.
14
1
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Absolutely, doesn't sound like there is anything for society to gain by sending him to prison, but requiring him not to drive anymore seems a quite a sensible response and might even have some limited deterrence effect.
Absolutely, doesn't sound like there is anything for society to gain by sending him to prison, but requiring him not to drive anymore seems a quite a sensible response and might even have some limited deterrence effect.
2
1
In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:
If you read the whole article and look in the comments, you'll find the sentencing guidelines.
That should help you find an answer.
If you read the whole article and look in the comments, you'll find the sentencing guidelines.
That should help you find an answer.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
I have and the car was in his control. I can see the sentencing guidelines but doesn't mean I have to agree with them.
If the cyclist was in some way to blame, drunk, jumping a red light, coming out of a junction without looking or something similar then there would be no sentence at all for the driver as they wouldn't be to blame.
The driver has been found guilty of not being fully attentive whilst in control of a vehicle which has led to someone totally innocent being killed and the sentence given sends no message that if driving a potentially lethal vehicle you should be 100% attentive at all times.
I don't think prison is the answer but a minimum 10 year driving ban at least followed by prison if that ban is broken.
Driving is done under licence and that licence should be removed if neccessary. If this happened on a driving test do you think the driver would be given a licence and allowed out on their own?
I have and the car was in his control. I can see the sentencing guidelines but doesn't mean I have to agree with them.
If the cyclist was in some way to blame, drunk, jumping a red light, coming out of a junction without looking or something similar then there would be no sentence at all for the driver as they wouldn't be to blame.
The driver has been found guilty of not being fully attentive whilst in control of a vehicle which has led to someone totally innocent being killed and the sentence given sends no message that if driving a potentially lethal vehicle you should be 100% attentive at all times.
I don't think prison is the answer but a minimum 10 year driving ban at least followed by prison if that ban is broken.
Driving is done under licence and that licence should be removed if neccessary. If this happened on a driving test do you think the driver would be given a licence and allowed out on their own?
11
4
7
In reply to DancingOnRock:
If I have it's been my fault and I'd take responsibility for it, it wouldn't put matters outside of my control.
If I have it's been my fault and I'd take responsibility for it, it wouldn't put matters outside of my control.
8
In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:
Unfortunately due to the limitations of the human brain it would and it does, and the driver has taken full responsibility for it.
Unfortunately due to the limitations of the human brain it would and it does, and the driver has taken full responsibility for it.
Post edited at 15:12
2
3
In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:
This is fundamentally not possible for humans. You can concentrate as hard as you like and you'll still make mistakes no matter what the consequences are. This is a major theme of 'human performance'/ 'human factors' which is taught in industry to try to reduce accidents: The upshot is that relying on people to be 100% attentive all the time to prevent accidents is naïve and pretty much guarantees serious problems because literally no one can do it. Those who claim to be different are quickly shown up through simple tests regardless of intelligence/ experience/ qualifications.
Maybe that means no one should drive as the consequences of inevitable mistakes are devastating, but it would also mean no climbing or anything else where a single bad decision or moments inattention could kill others.
Having said that, does anyone know what this guy (the driver) actually did? Usually in these cases they have to do something pretty monumentally stupid/ inconsiderate even to get to court for death by careless driving let alone death by dangerous driving. When more details are available it usually does seem that the sentences are overly light. e.g. the guy who blindly overtook two other vehicles on a country lane while a cyclist was coming the other way and still avoided prison:
https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=633964&v=1#x8235260
> if driving a potentially lethal vehicle you should be 100% attentive at all times.
This is fundamentally not possible for humans. You can concentrate as hard as you like and you'll still make mistakes no matter what the consequences are. This is a major theme of 'human performance'/ 'human factors' which is taught in industry to try to reduce accidents: The upshot is that relying on people to be 100% attentive all the time to prevent accidents is naïve and pretty much guarantees serious problems because literally no one can do it. Those who claim to be different are quickly shown up through simple tests regardless of intelligence/ experience/ qualifications.
Maybe that means no one should drive as the consequences of inevitable mistakes are devastating, but it would also mean no climbing or anything else where a single bad decision or moments inattention could kill others.
Having said that, does anyone know what this guy (the driver) actually did? Usually in these cases they have to do something pretty monumentally stupid/ inconsiderate even to get to court for death by careless driving let alone death by dangerous driving. When more details are available it usually does seem that the sentences are overly light. e.g. the guy who blindly overtook two other vehicles on a country lane while a cyclist was coming the other way and still avoided prison:
https://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=633964&v=1#x8235260
8
In reply to JHiley:
I fully understand that and my saying 100% attentive should probably be as attentive as possible at all times which would mean not opening sandwiches, replying to text messages, rubber necking, looking in your glove compartment and all manner of things that drivers routinely do that could have disasterous consequences. As you say sentences are generally too light for incidents like this and drivers need to held accountable and know that they/we will be.
I fully understand that and my saying 100% attentive should probably be as attentive as possible at all times which would mean not opening sandwiches, replying to text messages, rubber necking, looking in your glove compartment and all manner of things that drivers routinely do that could have disasterous consequences. As you say sentences are generally too light for incidents like this and drivers need to held accountable and know that they/we will be.
3
In reply to yesbutnobutyesbut:
I basically agree but your posts and some others on here as well as in the link posted by the OP seemed to give the impression that the fact that he was in control of the vehicle, did something (as yet unknown) wrong and someone died is proof that he deserves to go to prison. This would imply that the main factor determining whether any motorist on the road should go to prison ought to be luck.
What he did isn't revealed as far as I can tell, but I would be surprised if it was a simple mistake... which means I'm more than likely wasting my time defending a reckless moron.
I basically agree but your posts and some others on here as well as in the link posted by the OP seemed to give the impression that the fact that he was in control of the vehicle, did something (as yet unknown) wrong and someone died is proof that he deserves to go to prison. This would imply that the main factor determining whether any motorist on the road should go to prison ought to be luck.
What he did isn't revealed as far as I can tell, but I would be surprised if it was a simple mistake... which means I'm more than likely wasting my time defending a reckless moron.
1
In reply to Chris the Tall:
Well having a quick read of the article there seems to be careless driving and dangerous driving as two different crimes with careless being the lesser which seems fair enough.
The crux seems to be that driving without care is dangerous. I'm no lawyer but I'd say careless driving is not seeing something because you're fiddling with your air con settings or you've turned around to shout at your children or something like that and as a result you've hit something. Where as dangerous driving is where you're purposely driving in a manor which increases risk, such as at high speeds, intentionally driving through junctions, on the other side of the round around bends, dangerous over takes etc. They are two very different things but can both equally lead to someones death (or your own) but neither are equal to murder where you purposely aim to kill someone, ie shooting them, although I guess if you run someone over on purpose that might count.
Anyway, the issue is, although most of us won't have driven 'dangerously' I bet we've all driven carelessly at some point, it might have just been the slightest lapse of focus, a returning of the radio, or a glance at a phone etc. It's just for most of us that hasn't resulted in someone getting killed, but it's just luck really, for someone somewhere it'll happen just in the wrong place at the wrong moment and bang, dead cyclist.
So although very, very occasionally the consequences are extreme it is a crime we're all guilty of we've just so far got away with it because there is no realistic way of proving it unless something does happen and when it does just how big of a punishment can a judge realistically dole out for something he's probably done himself on the way to work.
Well having a quick read of the article there seems to be careless driving and dangerous driving as two different crimes with careless being the lesser which seems fair enough.
The crux seems to be that driving without care is dangerous. I'm no lawyer but I'd say careless driving is not seeing something because you're fiddling with your air con settings or you've turned around to shout at your children or something like that and as a result you've hit something. Where as dangerous driving is where you're purposely driving in a manor which increases risk, such as at high speeds, intentionally driving through junctions, on the other side of the round around bends, dangerous over takes etc. They are two very different things but can both equally lead to someones death (or your own) but neither are equal to murder where you purposely aim to kill someone, ie shooting them, although I guess if you run someone over on purpose that might count.
Anyway, the issue is, although most of us won't have driven 'dangerously' I bet we've all driven carelessly at some point, it might have just been the slightest lapse of focus, a returning of the radio, or a glance at a phone etc. It's just for most of us that hasn't resulted in someone getting killed, but it's just luck really, for someone somewhere it'll happen just in the wrong place at the wrong moment and bang, dead cyclist.
So although very, very occasionally the consequences are extreme it is a crime we're all guilty of we've just so far got away with it because there is no realistic way of proving it unless something does happen and when it does just how big of a punishment can a judge realistically dole out for something he's probably done himself on the way to work.
4
In reply to JHiley:
I'm wondering whether people who do drive all their lives without any kind of accident are just lucky?
I'm sure I've heard it said by traffic cops (with statistics to back it up) that very few accidents have nobody who is at fault
being involved.
> I basically agree but your posts and some others on here as well as in the link posted by the OP seemed to give the impression that the fact that he was in control of the vehicle, did something (as yet unknown) wrong and someone died is proof that he deserves to go to prison. This would imply that the main factor determining whether any motorist on the road should go to prison ought to be luck.
I'm wondering whether people who do drive all their lives without any kind of accident are just lucky?
I'm sure I've heard it said by traffic cops (with statistics to back it up) that very few accidents have nobody who is at fault
being involved.
3
In reply to Chris the Tall:
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/birmingham-trio-caught-r...
And in similar news, 130+ mph boy racers get suspended sentence and commended for indicating whilst changing lanes
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/birmingham-trio-caught-r...
And in similar news, 130+ mph boy racers get suspended sentence and commended for indicating whilst changing lanes
In reply to Chris the Tall:
We weren't in court and didn't hear everything but from what I have read it doesn't sound like too lenient a sentence. How many of us can in all honesty say we have NEVER driven carelessly, even if momentarily? Generally we get away with it, but sometimes the consequences are awful.
It's a very long way from driving dangerously which is a calculated disregard to the lives of others which is a totally different matter.
Any loss of life is tragic for all concerned, but as others have said a severe punitive sentence wont bring the victim back and is not going to "teach" the driver any greater lesson than he has tragically already learned. He has got to live with his conscience for the rest of his life. That will be his punishment. Also I suspect the judge took into account the fact that he pleaded guilty thus sparing the victim's family the additional trauma of a following a harrowing trial.
We weren't in court and didn't hear everything but from what I have read it doesn't sound like too lenient a sentence. How many of us can in all honesty say we have NEVER driven carelessly, even if momentarily? Generally we get away with it, but sometimes the consequences are awful.
It's a very long way from driving dangerously which is a calculated disregard to the lives of others which is a totally different matter.
Any loss of life is tragic for all concerned, but as others have said a severe punitive sentence wont bring the victim back and is not going to "teach" the driver any greater lesson than he has tragically already learned. He has got to live with his conscience for the rest of his life. That will be his punishment. Also I suspect the judge took into account the fact that he pleaded guilty thus sparing the victim's family the additional trauma of a following a harrowing trial.
2
2
In reply to ThunderCat:
This is appalling, and I suspect given the police's reaction will be appealed, and hopefully the judge removed, as apart from anything else he ignored the trial judge's comments on sentencing
> And in similar news, 130+ mph boy racers get suspended sentence and commended for indicating whilst changing lanes
This is appalling, and I suspect given the police's reaction will be appealed, and hopefully the judge removed, as apart from anything else he ignored the trial judge's comments on sentencing
In reply to Timmd:
The first statement could still be true even if someone was 'at fault' in every accident. Being at fault could cover any accident where one party didn't have priority or did something wrong. I don't think this is the same as careless driving which although the definition is vague, usually seems to involve doing something pretty irresponsible in the cases we get to hear about.
Since the driver in the OP's case was convicted and received a punishment it is likely he was doing something quite stupid and we know that the consequences were horrible. However I think using the fact that he was punished as evidence that he ought to have been punished more severely, without knowing what he actually did is flawed logic.
> I'm wondering whether people who do drive all their lives without any kind of accident are just lucky?
> I'm sure I've heard it said by traffic cops (with statistics to back it up) that very few accidents have nobody who is at fault being involved.
The first statement could still be true even if someone was 'at fault' in every accident. Being at fault could cover any accident where one party didn't have priority or did something wrong. I don't think this is the same as careless driving which although the definition is vague, usually seems to involve doing something pretty irresponsible in the cases we get to hear about.
Since the driver in the OP's case was convicted and received a punishment it is likely he was doing something quite stupid and we know that the consequences were horrible. However I think using the fact that he was punished as evidence that he ought to have been punished more severely, without knowing what he actually did is flawed logic.
In reply to JHiley:
Greater punishment generally is logical if you believe a stronger deterrent is appropriate.
> However I think using the fact that he was punished as evidence that he ought to have been punished more severely, without knowing what he actually did is flawed logic.
Greater punishment generally is logical if you believe a stronger deterrent is appropriate.
In reply to elsewhere:
The level of punishment rarely has any effect on crime levels. The length of a prison sentence has a lot to do with keeping public safe and rehabilitation.
It's the likelihood of being caught that has the greatest impact.
The level of punishment rarely has any effect on crime levels. The length of a prison sentence has a lot to do with keeping public safe and rehabilitation.
It's the likelihood of being caught that has the greatest impact.
1
In reply to elsewhere:
Only if you assume a priori that punishment *is* a deterrent.
> Greater punishment generally is logical if you believe a stronger deterrent is appropriate.
Only if you assume a priori that punishment *is* a deterrent.
1
Wikipedia has a good page on the subject. Increasing penalties has the opposite effect to what you would expect.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_(legal)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_(legal)
In reply to JHiley:
Very good point.
> However I think using the fact that he was punished as evidence that he ought to have been punished more severely, without knowing what he actually did is flawed logic.
Very good point.
1
In reply to DancingOnRock:
A longer ban might serve both to deter and to keep the public safe.
Agree.
> The level of punishment rarely has any effect on crime levels. The length of a prison sentence has a lot to do with keeping public safe and rehabilitation.
A longer ban might serve both to deter and to keep the public safe.
> It's the likelihood of being caught that has the greatest impact.
Agree.
Post edited at 15:31
1
In reply to planetmarshall:
So it might be logical for those who "believe a stronger deterrent is appropriate" as I said earlier.
> Only if you assume a priori that punishment *is* a deterrent.
So it might be logical for those who "believe a stronger deterrent is appropriate" as I said earlier.
In reply to Chris the Tall:
That guy was my wife's work colleague. Tragic stuff.
As an aside, it is a consequence of mixing cars and bikes. We need a robust, segragated cycling infrastructure in this country - to tackle congestion, obesity, air pollution and morbidity. We don't mix cars and people because of the danger. We shouldn't expect to mix cars and bikes without a similar threat to the cyclist.
Another thing that gets me; the latest Jaguar adverts tacitly promote racing/rally type driving on public roads, around blind bends. It is all tied up with sex (hunky young man driving, and some woman caressing herself). What the actual f**k. Time to show REAL Jaguar drivers (and whilst we are at it, REAL Cola drinkers in Coke adverts).
Rant over.
That guy was my wife's work colleague. Tragic stuff.
As an aside, it is a consequence of mixing cars and bikes. We need a robust, segragated cycling infrastructure in this country - to tackle congestion, obesity, air pollution and morbidity. We don't mix cars and people because of the danger. We shouldn't expect to mix cars and bikes without a similar threat to the cyclist.
Another thing that gets me; the latest Jaguar adverts tacitly promote racing/rally type driving on public roads, around blind bends. It is all tied up with sex (hunky young man driving, and some woman caressing herself). What the actual f**k. Time to show REAL Jaguar drivers (and whilst we are at it, REAL Cola drinkers in Coke adverts).
Rant over.
8
1
In reply to Shani:
Fair point this.
I've actually got some sympathy for the "moment of carelessness that could happen to anyone" defence (when it isn't used as a fig leaf to excuse someone who's just habitually reckless or incompetent), but in most situations if people were regularly working with machinery where a momentary lapse of attention could leave someone dead then we'd be pretty hot on finding ways to modify the equipment or come up with better practices to prevent that from happening. So why shouldn't we apply the same approach to roads? For everyone's sake.
> As an aside, it is a consequence of mixing cars and bikes. We need a robust, segragated cycling infrastructure in this country - to tackle congestion, obesity, air pollution and morbidity. We don't mix cars and people because of the danger. We shouldn't expect to mix cars and bikes without a similar threat to the cyclist.
Fair point this.
I've actually got some sympathy for the "moment of carelessness that could happen to anyone" defence (when it isn't used as a fig leaf to excuse someone who's just habitually reckless or incompetent), but in most situations if people were regularly working with machinery where a momentary lapse of attention could leave someone dead then we'd be pretty hot on finding ways to modify the equipment or come up with better practices to prevent that from happening. So why shouldn't we apply the same approach to roads? For everyone's sake.
2
In reply to Ramblin dave:
I know what you mean but it has an odious aspect - a moment of carleessness resulting in fatality is accepted but loss of a driving licence is too cruel a consequence.
> I've actually got some sympathy for the "moment of carelessness that could happen to anyone" defence.
I know what you mean but it has an odious aspect - a moment of carleessness resulting in fatality is accepted but loss of a driving licence is too cruel a consequence.
4
In reply to Ramblin dave:
Brilliantly put.
Another way to look at it is how differently would people drive if they knew their children were cycling ahead of them somewhere on the same stretch of road? Attention and focus of the driver would go up. I'd imagine speed would come down....
> ... but in most situations if people were regularly working with machinery where a momentary lapse of attention could leave someone dead then we'd be pretty hot on finding ways to modify the equipment or come up with better practices to prevent that from happening. So why shouldn't we apply the same approach to roads? For everyone's sake.
Brilliantly put.
Another way to look at it is how differently would people drive if they knew their children were cycling ahead of them somewhere on the same stretch of road? Attention and focus of the driver would go up. I'd imagine speed would come down....
Post edited at 15:56
2
In reply to Shani:
As a general point I agree, but in this instance I believe the cyclist was on the main but fairly rural road (Loxley Road) and the car pulled of a side road - it isn't really where we'd expect to cyclists to be on protected lanes. Though we should expect motorists to be aware of cyclists, as plenty of us use that road. The irony being that it's actually one of the nicest bits to ride around Sheffield, because you get less traffic than in the areas nearer the Eastern Edges.
Good to know I'm not the only one who gets angry at the way cars are advertised - it certainly adds to the problem
> As an aside, it is a consequence of mixing cars and bikes. We need a robust, segragated cycling infrastructure in this country - to tackle congestion, obesity, air pollution and morbidity. We don't mix cars and people because of the danger. We shouldn't expect to mix cars and bikes without a similar threat to the cyclist.
As a general point I agree, but in this instance I believe the cyclist was on the main but fairly rural road (Loxley Road) and the car pulled of a side road - it isn't really where we'd expect to cyclists to be on protected lanes. Though we should expect motorists to be aware of cyclists, as plenty of us use that road. The irony being that it's actually one of the nicest bits to ride around Sheffield, because you get less traffic than in the areas nearer the Eastern Edges.
> Another thing that gets me; the latest Jaguar adverts tacitly promote racing/rally type driving on public roads, around blind bends. It is all tied up with sex (hunky young man driving, and some woman caressing herself). What the actual f**k. Time to show REAL Jaguar drivers (and whilst we are at it, REAL Cola drinkers in Coke adverts).
Good to know I'm not the only one who gets angry at the way cars are advertised - it certainly adds to the problem
In reply to Chris the Tall:
I understand, but let's turn this around; 'why shouldn't we have protected cycle lanes here'? The road offers a great ascent from the city out in to the Peak, so why not make it safe? I like to think that the 'Outdoor City' would offer great cycling infrastructure that embraces the Peak - our greatest natural asset. Protected cycle lanes would really open it up to all.
There are lots of traffic islands along that road towards the city end, so the planners are aware of the danger of cars to pedestrians.
> As a general point I agree, but in this instance I believe the cyclist was on the main but fairly rural road (Loxley Road) and the car pulled of a side road - it isn't really where we'd expect to cyclists to be on protected lanes.
I understand, but let's turn this around; 'why shouldn't we have protected cycle lanes here'? The road offers a great ascent from the city out in to the Peak, so why not make it safe? I like to think that the 'Outdoor City' would offer great cycling infrastructure that embraces the Peak - our greatest natural asset. Protected cycle lanes would really open it up to all.
There are lots of traffic islands along that road towards the city end, so the planners are aware of the danger of cars to pedestrians.
1
In reply to Shani:
I agree with your rant. I've heard HSE people say that if the fatality rate on the roads occurred in any industry it would be a national scandal and things would be changed immediately due to the outcry.
Right now, reading this thread, I'm struggling to justify driving. Its useful for going climbing and getting to work but knowing that its literally impossible to never make a mistake nomatter how carefully you stack the odds and that the consequences are just down to luck really puts things in perspective.
Can I only justify driving because I really really want to? a bit like the gun lobby in America or an Ayn Rand enthusiast.
I think road design and more importantly, cultural changes would help but the death toll would still be massive IMO.
I agree with your rant. I've heard HSE people say that if the fatality rate on the roads occurred in any industry it would be a national scandal and things would be changed immediately due to the outcry.
Right now, reading this thread, I'm struggling to justify driving. Its useful for going climbing and getting to work but knowing that its literally impossible to never make a mistake nomatter how carefully you stack the odds and that the consequences are just down to luck really puts things in perspective.
Can I only justify driving because I really really want to? a bit like the gun lobby in America or an Ayn Rand enthusiast.
I think road design and more importantly, cultural changes would help but the death toll would still be massive IMO.
2
1
In reply to JHiley:
In industry the rates would be much higher. More people die falling down the stairs than in road crashes. It's just due to the sheer numbers of people using the roads.
In industry the rates would be much higher. More people die falling down the stairs than in road crashes. It's just due to the sheer numbers of people using the roads.
In reply to JHiley:
And there would be cries of "won't someone think of the children!?"
And there would be manslaughter charges for 'carelessness'.
But, for driving, there isn't. Partly because deaths through driving have become normalised, and partly because juries will not convict because of the 'that could have been me' argument, rather than thinking 'that should never happen', which is what happens when it's some activity they don't do.
People have very inconsistent approaches to risk and blame management.
> I've heard HSE people say that if the fatality rate on the roads occurred in any industry it would be a national scandal and things would be changed immediately due to the outcry
And there would be cries of "won't someone think of the children!?"
And there would be manslaughter charges for 'carelessness'.
But, for driving, there isn't. Partly because deaths through driving have become normalised, and partly because juries will not convict because of the 'that could have been me' argument, rather than thinking 'that should never happen', which is what happens when it's some activity they don't do.
People have very inconsistent approaches to risk and blame management.
4
In reply to captain paranoia:
There would be manslaughter charges, but not for simple mistakes or lapses of attention or even for some fairly questionable decisions as I uderstand it.
More attention would be on the system which put someone at risk from a big deadly machine with a human operator and no safety precautions.
> And there would be manslaughter charges for 'carelessness'.
There would be manslaughter charges, but not for simple mistakes or lapses of attention or even for some fairly questionable decisions as I uderstand it.
More attention would be on the system which put someone at risk from a big deadly machine with a human operator and no safety precautions.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
I dont have the stats to hand but I was left under the impression that the rate (not the total number) of deaths was much worse for road accidents at out last h&s course thingy.
Will try to double check if I get a time.
I dont have the stats to hand but I was left under the impression that the rate (not the total number) of deaths was much worse for road accidents at out last h&s course thingy.
Will try to double check if I get a time.
In reply to JHiley:
1732 Road deaths in 2015
Workplace deaths 15/16 - 137 workers and 92 members of the public
The workforce (most adults?) and the number of drivers (a bit more?) must be comparable.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/fatals.htm
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-in-great-...
1732 Road deaths in 2015
Workplace deaths 15/16 - 137 workers and 92 members of the public
The workforce (most adults?) and the number of drivers (a bit more?) must be comparable.
http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/fatals.htm
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/reported-road-casualties-in-great-...
In reply to DancingOnRock:
What consequence is that? I can think of a consequence of leniency or a laissez-faire attitude: more deaths.
There is nothing out of the driver's control, and if there is they shouldn't be driving. I'd be quite happy for large numbers of people being dissuaded from driving but I doubt that is going to happen, jails sentences or not.
> The problem is, if you start jailing people or giving them long driving bans you will have an unintended consequence.
What consequence is that? I can think of a consequence of leniency or a laissez-faire attitude: more deaths.
> If you risk going to jail for something that is effectively out of your control, large numbers of people may be dissuaded from driving.
There is nothing out of the driver's control, and if there is they shouldn't be driving. I'd be quite happy for large numbers of people being dissuaded from driving but I doubt that is going to happen, jails sentences or not.
1
In reply to elsewhere:
Seems to be as I thought then.
Ive got a booklet at work with the workplace fatalaties broken down into the most dangerous jobs like farming etc
Will have a look
Seems to be as I thought then.
Ive got a booklet at work with the workplace fatalaties broken down into the most dangerous jobs like farming etc
Will have a look
In reply to Removed UserStuart en Écosse:
There's a few posts above that you have missed and are worth a read.
There's a few posts above that you have missed and are worth a read.
In reply to JHiley:
The problem is motoring deaths are measured per billions of miles travelled and deaths at work are per 100,000. It's difficult to compare them. But consider that some of the deaths at work were caused by moving vehicles - road workers are at considerable risk.
The problem is motoring deaths are measured per billions of miles travelled and deaths at work are per 100,000. It's difficult to compare them. But consider that some of the deaths at work were caused by moving vehicles - road workers are at considerable risk.
In reply to Removed UserStuart en Écosse:
There is a multitude of things that can occur that out of drivers control, eg an unforeseen mechanical failure, an animal jumps out and distracts the driver, objects kicked up off the road by other vehicles, and many, many more.
You need the good reaction times and skill to deal with them.
It's interesting comparing this thread where there is no information or facts about the case in question with the recent thread about the orange clad cyclist who was videoed cycling into the side of an artic.
> There is nothing out of the driver's control, and if there is they shouldn't be driving. I'd be quite happy for large numbers of people being dissuaded from driving but I doubt that is going to happen, jails sentences or not.
There is a multitude of things that can occur that out of drivers control, eg an unforeseen mechanical failure, an animal jumps out and distracts the driver, objects kicked up off the road by other vehicles, and many, many more.
You need the good reaction times and skill to deal with them.
It's interesting comparing this thread where there is no information or facts about the case in question with the recent thread about the orange clad cyclist who was videoed cycling into the side of an artic.
Post edited at 11:13
In reply to Chris the Tall:
If all drivers were obliged to take a form of 'Advanced' driving course within 3 years of passing their basic test, in order to keep their 'full' licence' it would improve driving standards dramatically.
Shortly after becoming a sales rep in the 70's I decided to take the 'advanced' course run jointly by the local police force and the IAM , and even though I did not actually sit the Institute of Advanced Motorist test, the lessons learned - particularly regarding observation, anticipation, and consideration - have stayed with me. A keen road cyclist for approaching 60 years Full licence for over 50 years - 40+ years mainly 'on the road' as a salesman - and still 'Nil Points'
A driving licence is not a 'right' but a 'privilege' that has to be earned.
Loss of a licence in a case of careless driving where a fatality or serious injury to a cyclist or pedestrian should be mandatory - as a warning to all motorists. A momentary lapse of concentration should not be a valid defence. We are all responsible for our actions ( or lack of them) when in charge of more than a ton of metal moving at speed on a public highway. Cyclists and pedestrians are highly vunerable and should be approached with caution and consideration.
Education of motorists is vital, however some deterrent is needed to concentrate drivers minds.
If all drivers were obliged to take a form of 'Advanced' driving course within 3 years of passing their basic test, in order to keep their 'full' licence' it would improve driving standards dramatically.
Shortly after becoming a sales rep in the 70's I decided to take the 'advanced' course run jointly by the local police force and the IAM , and even though I did not actually sit the Institute of Advanced Motorist test, the lessons learned - particularly regarding observation, anticipation, and consideration - have stayed with me. A keen road cyclist for approaching 60 years Full licence for over 50 years - 40+ years mainly 'on the road' as a salesman - and still 'Nil Points'
A driving licence is not a 'right' but a 'privilege' that has to be earned.
Loss of a licence in a case of careless driving where a fatality or serious injury to a cyclist or pedestrian should be mandatory - as a warning to all motorists. A momentary lapse of concentration should not be a valid defence. We are all responsible for our actions ( or lack of them) when in charge of more than a ton of metal moving at speed on a public highway. Cyclists and pedestrians are highly vunerable and should be approached with caution and consideration.
Education of motorists is vital, however some deterrent is needed to concentrate drivers minds.
5
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Yes I noticed that. It doesn't help with comparisons but since I'm in my break:
I didn't find the H&S booklet I was looking for but google has helped a bit.
Number of workers in farming and fishing (now the most dangerous industry) is 2% of the uk workforce which was 31.76 million in aug to oct 2016. That means about 317600 people worked in farming/ fishing.
This industry had 27 fatalities in 2016 so that means approx. 0.0085% of the total people working in it.
(Edit- comparing numbers so massively different in scale could affect the meaningfulness of the comparison but I'll press on.)
I couldn't find a figure for total number of road users but have decided to consider commuters to make my estimate which seems a good comparison as they will use the road every day which is a good comparison for people working in an industry sector. Again I couldn't find a number for commuters but it must be something like the 31760000 people making up the total UK workforce. This is likely to be an underestimate and a bit shoddy but I don't have time to make a better one.
Total road fatalities was 1732 so that means approx 0.0055% of my shoddily estimated total. So it appears that even though I likely underestimated the total number of road users, you were correct and I was not. Using the road is probably less dangerous than working in the most dangerous industry sector which surprises me.
As for cyclists; according to a study quoted on cyclinguk 1.3 million people cycle five days a week (I know that more cyclists don't commute every day so again there's an under estimate of the total number of people cycling)
and according to the govt 104 cyclists were killed in 2014 (6% of the total casualties)
This means 0.008%
This suggests cycling is probably slightly less dangerous than farming/ commercial fishing. Especially since I underestimated the total number of cyclists. Again I'm surprised by this but farming has a shocking safety record.
Yes I noticed that. It doesn't help with comparisons but since I'm in my break:
I didn't find the H&S booklet I was looking for but google has helped a bit.
Number of workers in farming and fishing (now the most dangerous industry) is 2% of the uk workforce which was 31.76 million in aug to oct 2016. That means about 317600 people worked in farming/ fishing.
This industry had 27 fatalities in 2016 so that means approx. 0.0085% of the total people working in it.
(Edit- comparing numbers so massively different in scale could affect the meaningfulness of the comparison but I'll press on.)
I couldn't find a figure for total number of road users but have decided to consider commuters to make my estimate which seems a good comparison as they will use the road every day which is a good comparison for people working in an industry sector. Again I couldn't find a number for commuters but it must be something like the 31760000 people making up the total UK workforce. This is likely to be an underestimate and a bit shoddy but I don't have time to make a better one.
Total road fatalities was 1732 so that means approx 0.0055% of my shoddily estimated total. So it appears that even though I likely underestimated the total number of road users, you were correct and I was not. Using the road is probably less dangerous than working in the most dangerous industry sector which surprises me.
As for cyclists; according to a study quoted on cyclinguk 1.3 million people cycle five days a week (I know that more cyclists don't commute every day so again there's an under estimate of the total number of people cycling)
and according to the govt 104 cyclists were killed in 2014 (6% of the total casualties)
This means 0.008%
This suggests cycling is probably slightly less dangerous than farming/ commercial fishing. Especially since I underestimated the total number of cyclists. Again I'm surprised by this but farming has a shocking safety record.
Post edited at 12:39
In reply to JHiley:
I would use total workforce for accidents at work.
I would use total population for all road users. Even kids going to school ride bikes, or cross the road, or are passengers in cars.
I would use total workforce for accidents at work.
I would use total population for all road users. Even kids going to school ride bikes, or cross the road, or are passengers in cars.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Surely a lack of care/attention is completely within someone's control?
> If you risk going to jail for something that is effectively out of your control, large numbers of people may be dissuaded from driving.
Surely a lack of care/attention is completely within someone's control?
1
In reply to DancingOnRock:
They're both (1732 vs 132+92) per UK population per year. For comparison the rough estimate is for every person I know killed at work I will know 8 killed on the roads.
> The problem is motoring deaths are measured per billions of miles travelled and deaths at work are per 100,000.
They're both (1732 vs 132+92) per UK population per year. For comparison the rough estimate is for every person I know killed at work I will know 8 killed on the roads.
In reply to Nina_Sky:
It depends what you mean by a lack of care/ attention. The legal definition of careless driving is very vague according to the link in the OP. It is defined as "driving which falls below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver."
If it means driving in an inconsiderate and generally careless way then I'd absolutely agree and don't really see why there's a distinction from "dangerous driving".
However if it means anything that makes you 'at fault' in a serious accident i.e. you did something wrong, then it's not necessarily within someone's control because its impossible to avoid making mistakes no matter how hard you concentrate.
It might be possible to deter people from driving inconsiderately but its impossible to deter people from making potentially fatal mistakes unless you deter them from driving altogether.
Personally I'd like a clear distinction between the two cases with suitably harsh punishments (prison) for the inconsiderate and possibly loss of licence and having to re-take the driving test for people who cause a serious accident that may be put down to human performance limitations. The problem is that it would be very hard to prove which is the case after an accident.
What depresses me is that its almost socially unacceptable to drive safely. e.g. if you wait behind a cyclist on a winding road for a safe place to overtake then the cars behind will invariably start tailgating dangerously and then make a point of pushing past the cyclist as closely as possible when you finally pass.
The vast majority of people seem happy to overtake in places where they're leaving it 100% to chance that there isn't someone coming the other way or alternatively to just push past. This is especially noticeable on the A625 both on the approach to Sheffield and on the part between the Grouse and Froggatt .
More consistent/ better driving instruction might help. I don't remember any significant training on the sort of things to expect from cyclists that you wouldn't expect from cars or motorbikes e.g. filtering on the left or taking misleading positions in lanes when turning. The highway code is ok but my driving instructor used to have the LH mirror set up looking straight at the curb to help with reverse parking and only suggested adjusting it if going on motorways! (he was a great guy otherwise! honest!)
Personally I think it just doesn't occur to lots of drivers.
> Surely a lack of care/attention is completely within someone's control?
It depends what you mean by a lack of care/ attention. The legal definition of careless driving is very vague according to the link in the OP. It is defined as "driving which falls below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver."
If it means driving in an inconsiderate and generally careless way then I'd absolutely agree and don't really see why there's a distinction from "dangerous driving".
However if it means anything that makes you 'at fault' in a serious accident i.e. you did something wrong, then it's not necessarily within someone's control because its impossible to avoid making mistakes no matter how hard you concentrate.
It might be possible to deter people from driving inconsiderately but its impossible to deter people from making potentially fatal mistakes unless you deter them from driving altogether.
Personally I'd like a clear distinction between the two cases with suitably harsh punishments (prison) for the inconsiderate and possibly loss of licence and having to re-take the driving test for people who cause a serious accident that may be put down to human performance limitations. The problem is that it would be very hard to prove which is the case after an accident.
What depresses me is that its almost socially unacceptable to drive safely. e.g. if you wait behind a cyclist on a winding road for a safe place to overtake then the cars behind will invariably start tailgating dangerously and then make a point of pushing past the cyclist as closely as possible when you finally pass.
The vast majority of people seem happy to overtake in places where they're leaving it 100% to chance that there isn't someone coming the other way or alternatively to just push past. This is especially noticeable on the A625 both on the approach to Sheffield and on the part between the Grouse and Froggatt .
More consistent/ better driving instruction might help. I don't remember any significant training on the sort of things to expect from cyclists that you wouldn't expect from cars or motorbikes e.g. filtering on the left or taking misleading positions in lanes when turning. The highway code is ok but my driving instructor used to have the LH mirror set up looking straight at the curb to help with reverse parking and only suggested adjusting it if going on motorways! (he was a great guy otherwise! honest!)
Personally I think it just doesn't occur to lots of drivers.
3
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Yet all but a very very small proportion of the population will know people who work and/or drive.
A person is more likely to know one of the about 1700 who will die on the roads this year than one of the about 220 who die at work this year.
> No. Because less than half of the population work.
Yet all but a very very small proportion of the population will know people who work and/or drive.
A person is more likely to know one of the about 1700 who will die on the roads this year than one of the about 220 who die at work this year.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
Thanks. I probably ought to read all the posts but much of it (on all pub/off belay threads) depresses me.
> There's a few posts above that you have missed and are worth a read.
Thanks. I probably ought to read all the posts but much of it (on all pub/off belay threads) depresses me.
In reply to elsewhere:
That's probably because we all know someone who uses the roads.
Very few of us know people who work on farms or on construction.
I know one person who was killed by a stallion on a farm. I don't know anyone who has been killed in a car accident.
> Yet all but a very very small proportion of the population will know people who work and/or drive.
> A person is more likely to know one of the about 1700 who will die on the roads this year than one of the about 220 who die at work this year.
That's probably because we all know someone who uses the roads.
Very few of us know people who work on farms or on construction.
I know one person who was killed by a stallion on a farm. I don't know anyone who has been killed in a car accident.
In reply to DancingOnRock:
That doesn't change the fact that the 1700 road casualties are likely to be known to more people than the 220 workplace casualties unless workplace casualties have about *8* times as many friends, relatives and colleagues than road casualties. That's possible but seems unlikely.
Sorry to hear that.
> That's probably because we all know someone who uses the roads.
> Very few of us know people who work on farms or on construction.
That doesn't change the fact that the 1700 road casualties are likely to be known to more people than the 220 workplace casualties unless workplace casualties have about *8* times as many friends, relatives and colleagues than road casualties. That's possible but seems unlikely.
> I know one person who was killed by a stallion on a farm.
Sorry to hear that.
In reply to captain paranoia:
And there would be manslaughter charges for 'carelessness'.
If you're going to compare it to Health and Safety in the Workplace, then there's a very good chance that the person in charge of the road network would be held accountable for any deaths for knowingly allowing the situation to be possible and doing nothing about it.
If that person - the Health and Safety Manager in the case of a workplace, was allowed to do something about it, then the first thing they would look at is eliminating the risk and the easiest short term solution would be to remove bikes off roads shared with motorised vehicles.
Purely from a Health and Safety point of view it makes perfect sense. Doubt it would be popular though...
And there would be manslaughter charges for 'carelessness'.
If you're going to compare it to Health and Safety in the Workplace, then there's a very good chance that the person in charge of the road network would be held accountable for any deaths for knowingly allowing the situation to be possible and doing nothing about it.
If that person - the Health and Safety Manager in the case of a workplace, was allowed to do something about it, then the first thing they would look at is eliminating the risk and the easiest short term solution would be to remove bikes off roads shared with motorised vehicles.
Purely from a Health and Safety point of view it makes perfect sense. Doubt it would be popular though...
1
In reply to elsewhere:
In my immediate family, two of us work, eight don't. We all use the roads. None of us work on farms or in construction.
In my immediate family, two of us work, eight don't. We all use the roads. None of us work on farms or in construction.
In reply to JHiley:
The problem I believe is that most car drivers have never ridden a bicycle or Motorbike on the road.
Children get driven to school, with the parent parking either on the pavement or right up against it - to ensure their offspring doesn't have to cross the road, and to hell with anyone else's kids.
Then these children become old enough, and the same parents, whilst raging against anything on two wheels as being unsafe - well, it is with these parents behind the wheel - merrily encourage their children to drive a car, and instil the same bad habits into them.
This is not helped by some driving instructors who seem to regard "2 wheels bad, 4 wheels good" as their mantra, judging by their manoeuvrings.
I do note that anyone I know who rides a bike allows far more space to brake/stop/evade an incident in front of them than do those for whom a two-wheeled conveyance (on the road) is an anathema. The bike riders also position their cars better behind the vehicle in front, so that they have options if anything sudden occurs. By the way mountain-biking doesn't count, as this is off-road.
> More consistent/ better driving instruction might help. I don't remember any significant training on the sort of things to expect from cyclists that you wouldn't expect from cars or motorbikes e.g. filtering on the left or taking misleading positions in lanes when turning. The highway code is ok but my driving instructor used to have the LH mirror set up looking straight at the curb to help with reverse parking and only suggested adjusting it if going on motorways! (he was a great guy otherwise! honest!)
> Personally I think it just doesn't occur to lots of drivers.
The problem I believe is that most car drivers have never ridden a bicycle or Motorbike on the road.
Children get driven to school, with the parent parking either on the pavement or right up against it - to ensure their offspring doesn't have to cross the road, and to hell with anyone else's kids.
Then these children become old enough, and the same parents, whilst raging against anything on two wheels as being unsafe - well, it is with these parents behind the wheel - merrily encourage their children to drive a car, and instil the same bad habits into them.
This is not helped by some driving instructors who seem to regard "2 wheels bad, 4 wheels good" as their mantra, judging by their manoeuvrings.
I do note that anyone I know who rides a bike allows far more space to brake/stop/evade an incident in front of them than do those for whom a two-wheeled conveyance (on the road) is an anathema. The bike riders also position their cars better behind the vehicle in front, so that they have options if anything sudden occurs. By the way mountain-biking doesn't count, as this is off-road.
2
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...