Woman jailed for 4 Years for knocking down a cyclist while texting and driving.

[ddeckerslyke]

Installing loads more speed cameras to supposedly cut deaths and serious injury but not fill in the potholes that are a bigger danger to bikers in particular.

 

You might be interested in. http://www.fillthathole.org.uk/

[ddeckerslyke]

So if you were hit by a car while undertaking this and they were not texting but in full control of their vehicle and driving with due care and attention it woukld be their fault.

 

Where have I said that?

[chem1st]

This should serve as a reminder to cyclists, to watch out for other vehicles, especially at traffic lights, side roads etc.

It should also serve as a reminder to car drivers to watch out for cyclists, especially at traffic lights, side roads etc.

 

Everyone makes mistakes, and its ones like this that want to be avoided.

[Pseudonym]

People driving cars don't make more mistakes than people who are on foot or on a bicycle. The reason they have to pass a test and have insurance is because the consequences of their mistakes are so much higher for other people. People need to try and remember this before making glib calls for more nannying and legislation against cyclists. It simply isn't needed, would be ineffective and a waste of money...

There seems to me to be a slight flaw to this argument and that is that people who are on foot (pedestrians), aren't expected to be a part of the traffic-flow and to use the roadways. They're expected to mainly use the special surfaces provided for them (footpaths or pavements). This is not the case with cyclists, who do use the roadways and are part of the traffic-flow. The consequences of their mistakes can be high, both for themselves and others, for example the motorist swerving instinctively to avoid a cyclist risks collision with another obstruction.

 

I therefore maintain that as road-users, they should be subject to the same rules, regulations and limitations as their fellows. Not only should they be insured, they should be licensed, taxed and their mode of transport periodically examined for road-worthiness, in the same way that every other road-user is.

 

<snip>

 

As for this particular case? Well, he paid the ultimate price for his mistake. She has also paid a price for her mistake and the price was decided by the judge who heard all the evidence and there's no reason for us to second guess it. It's an unfortunate business that should act as a reminder to cyclists and drivers alike. But that's it. Nothing else needs doing. No further action required.

I agree, in that it should indeed "act as a reminder to cyclists and drivers alike", unfortunately, as reported by the BBC, neither the judge, the police, nor the family of the victim mention the fact that this should discourage cyclists from going through a red light, only that it should be a lesson to motorists not to use a mobile whilst driving!

 

The motorist in this case was prosecuted for 'Causing death by dangerous driving' Had it been HER that went through a red light and hit him, then this would be accurate, as it is, the charge is incorrect...

 

She did not cause his death by using the road in a dangerous manner, HE did! Had he not jumped the red light, he wouldn't have risked being in collision with the car. Had she not been driving in a dangerous manner, she would have stood a much better chance of compensating for his foolhardy action.

 

Therefore I'm of the belief that she didn't cause his death but she did limit her capability to avoid causing it. This is why I consider her penalty to be excessive in this instance as the charge that she was found guilty of was inaccurate.

 

Please note that the conclusions drawn regarding this particular incident are based on the assumption that the media reports are accurate.

[Darbees]

 

She did not cause his death by using the road in a dangerous manner, HE did! Had he not jumped the red light, he wouldn't have risked being in collision with the car. Had she not been driving in a dangerous manner, she would have stood a much better chance of compensating for his foolhardy action.

 

[/size]

Why can't people understand the concept that both parties in an "accident" can be complicit in that they are driving/cycling dangerously and should both be prosecuted as in my example above. The reason the cyclist hasn't been prosecuted is that he's dead.

[prioryx]

There seems to me to be a slight flaw to this argument and that is that people who are on foot (pedestrians), aren't expected to be a part of the traffic-flow and to use the roadways. They're expected to mainly use the special surfaces provided for them (footpaths or pavements). This is not the case with cyclists, who do use the roadways and are part of the traffic-flow. The consequences of their mistakes can be high, both for themselves and others, for example the motorist swerving instinctively to avoid a cyclist risks collision with another obstruction.

 

I therefore maintain that as road-users, they should be subject to the same rules, regulations and limitations as their fellows. Not only should they be insured, they should be licensed, taxed and their mode of transport periodically examined for road-worthiness, in the same way that every other road-user is.

 

<snip>

 

I agree, in that it should indeed "act as a reminder to cyclists and drivers alike", unfortunately, as reported by the BBC, neither the judge, the police, nor the family of the victim mention the fact that this should discourage cyclists from going through a red light, only that it should be a lesson to motorists not to use a mobile whilst driving!

 

The motorist in this case was prosecuted for 'Causing death by dangerous driving' Had it been HER that went through a red light and hit him, then this would be accurate, as it is, the charge is incorrect...

 

She did not cause his death by using the road in a dangerous manner, HE did! Had he not jumped the red light, he wouldn't have risked being in collision with the car. Had she not been driving in a dangerous manner, she would have stood a much better chance of compensating for his foolhardy action.

 

Therefore I'm of the belief that she didn't cause his death but she did limit her apabilicty to avoid causing it. This is why I consider her penalty to be excessive in this instance as the charge that she was found guilty of was inaccurate.

 

Please note that the conclusions drawn regarding this particular incident are based on the assumption that the media reports are accurate.

 

I think that should be her culpability.

[prioryx]

Don't know how that word got changed from capability.

[ddeckerslyke]

Try to keep up

 

These are my final efforts to keep up…

 

You said: “I have found a few links to similar stories. A common theme seems to be it's the other vehicle driver’s fault in all cases despite evidence to the contrary.”

 

In Link 1 “Crash investigator Pc Adrian Cousins told the court the lorry's mirrors adhered to guidelines and the cause of the accident was Mr Donald disobeying the Highway Code by riding up on to the pavement and cutting back too close to the lorry as it was turning.” Conclusion: Link 1 contradicts the assertion.

 

In Link 2 “Coroner Dr Andrew Reid recorded a verdict of accidental death.” Conclusion: Link 2 contradicts the assertion.

 

I asked "Is there really a brigade of people out there who would pillory a driver who went through a green light at or below the speed limit and killed or injured a cyclist who had run a red light?"

 

You answered "In a word...YES."

 

The key word is pillory ie publicly scorn or ridicule.

 

Link 1 reports a legal move towards strict liability and nothing more. Blame in a technical legal sense for practical reasons. Whether you agree with those reasons or not is a side issue. No pillorying AFAICS. Conclusion: Link 1 does not support the assertion.

 

Link 2 is a petition in support of strict liability. No pillorying AFAICS. Conclusion: Link 2 does not support the assertion.

 

To save us both time I'll just take it that I am totally in the wrong. This was my simple minded attempt to understand.

[Pseudonym]

...I go through red lights all the time on my bike. My reasoning is I could get off and walk across this junction but what's the point? This obviously infuriates some car drivers. I've been doing this for twenty years without incident...

As a road-user who doesn't believe that the rules of the road apply to them, I'd say that you've been very lucky so far! You're evidently a danger both to yourself and other road-users, like so many of your ilk who ignore the regulations... and I don't exclude selfish, stupid and ignorant motorists from this category either!

 

The basic question I ask myself when I get to a junction is could I walk across this safely? If the answer is Yes then I go. One incidental safety benefit is that if I'm out in front then I'm clearly visible...

Unfortunately you're only visible if someone is actually looking... And not selecting a new track on the CD-player, re-tuning the radio, turning their head to address their passenger, or even texting on their mobile.

 

Bear in mind that there are a lot of what to be generous, I'll term inexperienced motorists on the road, far too many drive in the sublime and grossly mistaken expectation that other road-users will drive correctly. Many don't expect an obstruction when they 'have the green light', just as they don't expect cyclists to come along their nearside when turning left, nor do they expect them to suddenly ride from the pavement into the road, or swerve out to avoid a pothole.

 

As I started by saying, so far you've been lucky, long may your luck hold... But why take the chances uneccessarily?

[Darbees]

As a road-user who doesn't believe that the rules of the road apply to them, I'd say that you've been very lucky so far! You're evidently a danger both to yourself and other road-users, like so many of your ilk who ignore the regulations... and I don't exclude selfish, stupid and ignorant motorists from this category either!

 

That applies to pedestrians too, everyone should take care and if anything goes wrong they will have to accept the consequences which if you are a cyclist or pedestrian can be very severe.