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

[Pseudonym]

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

Nope, me neither, I've never seen a typo in a quote of mine before that wasn't in my original!

 

And the word capability is accurate in my context...

[ddeckerslyke]

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!

 

This presumes that what's legal and what's safe are equivalent. Clearly they are not. Like I said I go when I could just as easily get off and walk across. I am taking the same risk as when I judge it safe to walk across. So me as a pedestrian and me as a cyclist present similar dangers to other road users. It's just that pedestrians jumping the lights doesn't wind anyone up in this country. Though in the US/Canada isn't that the offence of jaywalking?

 

Twenty years of jumping lights as a cyclist and x>20 years jumping lights as a pedestrian. IM(H)O it's not luck it's just being sensible and practical.

 

And thank you for your good wishes.

[531c]

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.

 

The key words in your sentence are 'can be'.

That the consequences of cyclists' mistakes can be serious to themselves is evident from the OP and the other examples given.

 

But the point was well made by Zammo that cyclists rarely cause any serious injury or kill anyone as a consequence of their actiions regardless of whether they are breaking the law.

 

There are tens of thousands of examples of people killed or seriously injured by motorists mistakes every year.

 

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.

 

They are subject to the highway code.

As to the other things you maintain, they were put to bed by Zammo.

[Darbees]

They are subject to the highway code.

As to the other things you maintain, they were put to bed by Zammo.

They are subject to Highway Code but that is not law, much of it is advisory. Here is something about the laws for cyclists. It seems that the only penalty they can receive for cycling offences is a £30 fixed penalty (might have gone up now) which they can receive for running red light and cycling on pavement amongst other things. They can be sued for damage and injury in same way as anyone can be but that is not in a criminal court.

 

In the case of this story therefore, the cyclist could have received a fixed penalty and been sued for damage to the womans car, bit different to her penalty but he didn't have the potential to cause such carnage.

[Pseudonym]

...cyclists rarely cause any serious injury or kill anyone as a consequence of their actiions regardless of whether they are breaking the law.

Isn't even once enough for it to be compulory for them to be punishable if they do break the law? ... By fining, suspension of licence, increased insurance?

 

They are subject to the highway code.

You know that and I know that, regrettably there are a number of cyclists that don't appear to share our knowledge of this!

 

As to the other things you maintain, they were put to bed by Zammo.

To your satisfaction perhaps, certainly not to mine, by reason of his flawed argument!

[Slurper]

Using mobile phones and texting is a hyped-up anti-brigade craze.

 

Some people are quite capable of multi-tasking while carrying out the simple task of driving a car and remaining observant.

 

Others can barely drive even if they concentrate 100% of their feeble minds to the task in hand. It’s all down to capacity, and the ability to take on more mental work rate.

 

What is the pint in having a law that says you can't text while driving when there's already a law that says you can’t irresponsibly cause accidents?

 

Prosecute people who cause accidents, not people who can safely use a phone, insert a CD or have a chat.

 

As for this case, he ran a red light, end of story – his fault, the driver shouldn’t have had to do more than give a statement at the side of the road and should have been able to claim for damages to her vehicle from insurance that he, as a cyclist, obviously would not have had.

[Cyclone]

Legislate and Punish.

 

I suspect the system is not designed to "improve" behaviour. It seems to be more about saving lives but as I said in previous posts I'm not sure of the mechanism/process.

 

"Appalling" or Galling? Zamo's post above illustrates seems to sum it up perfectly. 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. 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.

The basic problem though is that you're breaking the law, I hope you get a £30 fine one day for such stupid behaviour.

 

Similar outlaw behaviour is on a narrow road, let's say with cars illegally parked, if a line of traffic is building up behind me then, where it's safe, I will go up on the pavement and let the traffic past.

 

In both cases I'm breaking the law to keep traffic moving. Some people get disproportionately wound up by this. Some don't.

 

This might be worth a thread on its own.

 

Going through red lights is nothing to do with you keeping the traffic flowing and all to do with you selfishly not wanting to stop or wait.

[Cyclone]

 

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.

Every other road user like horse riders?

They should be prosecuted for breaking the law, the rest of your post doesn't stand up to rational analysis.

[wolfstalin]

Hands up all you perfect people who have never gone through traffic lights at amber. Maybe, but I do not know the lights had just changed and it may have been too dangerous for the cyclist to stop because some ... head motorist was right up his backside.

 

 

....er, according to his brother he stopped for the red light but then proceeded through it because he thought it was safe to do so, ie he didn't see the car that hit him.

 

To try to justify his action is both pityfull and shows a reckless disregard for safety, so you either should be ashamed of yourself or take another test as I fear you are not competent to drive.

[wolfstalin]

so now we have the death penalty for running a red light?? Had she been concentrating on driving instead of texting the cyclist would still be alive.

 

I thought we all ran the risk of death or serious injury if we step into oncoming traffic, is it different where you come from.

 

......and it is by no means certain that the driver of the car would not have killed the idiot under any circumstances, driving properly on not.