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

[531c]

Originally Posted by 531c

Societies intolerance should be firmly directed at these selfish plebs because they are the cause of the thousands of road related deaths and serious injury that ruins thousands more lives every year.

 

You mean like cyclists, who decide traffic signals do not apply to them?

 

You've been hit three times by bikes so I understand the reason for your opinion. But if you'd been hit by a *car*, the chances are you wouldn't be around to post to this discussion.

 

I agree that cyclists piling through pedestrian crossings on red when there are pedestrians around are selfish and irresponsible. But don't lose sight of the consequences point that was well made by Zammo earlier in this thread - cyclists rarely (ie hardly ever) kill or seriously injure someone else.

 

Most cyclists who go through a red light do so in the way that ddeckerslyke described - carefully. And usually a left turn or T junction where they are going straight on. When they do this they are putting nobody else at risk and themselves at limited risk. In absolute terms it is wrong. But measured by it's risk and consequences it is insignificant.

 

If you tend towards moral absolutes then you will think it's wrong regardless just because it says so in the good book (highway code in this case). But if you are a moral consequentalist it probably won't bother you once you think it through. (From your sig sccsux I would have expected an anti-absolutist perspective.)

 

In the case being originally discussed it could be that the cyclist was reckless and/or had bad judgement. But it could equally be that he wasn't and he was crossing the road in a similar was as ddeckerslyke described. It isn't clear from the Daily Mail article (is anything other than the Daily Mail's opinion ever clear in a Daily Mail article?).

 

If he was reckless, he paid for it and it's tough. (The woman could have avoided running him down if she was driving carefully and within the law so it doesn't change her situation.)

If he was crossing carefully the situation would be close to identical to him pushing his bike across the road or as a pedestrian. In which case the blame rests squarely on the woman's shoulders.

[nightrider]

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.

 

my point was that some people seem to be implying the cyclist got deserved to be killed....I am not saying it is sensible or safe to run red lights....but it hardly deserves being killed.

 

IMO you should not be driving a car if you are not concentrating enough to see people doing dangerous things like this. There are dangerous people all over (in cars, on bikes, even pedestrians - I drive and cycle and in both cases I have lost count of the number of times I have seen dangerous driving by car drivers and cyclists alike) and part of driving is to watch out for these dangers. If you are texting on a phone you cannot be giving full attention. In this case both people were in the wrong (one for running a red light and one for not paying attention when in charge of a vehicle). The cyclists is dead and is not going to be prosecuted...quite rightly the driver was. The jury would have had to make some judgement on whether it was likely not texting would have made a difference. It must be the case they judged it would not, else the driver would not have been convicted. Without all the expert opinions the jury saw people on here can second guess their verdict, but have no evidence to say actually the texting would not have made a difference. The jury must have felt the evidence showed the texting was a factor in the death.

[ddeckerslyke]

All other vehicles are subject to controls, rules and punitive punishments for not following the rules, cyclists should be subject to the same regime, what's so complicated or wrong with that?

 

What follows is my best guess on the apparently counterintuitive idea of always holding cars/bikes liable.

 

AIUI the idea is that strict liability forces more dangerous road users (ie motor vehicles) to be more considerate. They are more dangerous because they are more likely to cause injury even if an accident is not down to them.

 

I'll use the example of pedestrians as it's less emotive than cyclist.

 

In a collision between pedestrian and car the pedestrian is usually, and often fatally, the loser.

 

The rationale is that strict liability, in economists terminology, 'incentivises' the driver to take more care. Would drivers be more careful if they knew they were going to be held responsible for any accidents? Strict liability says 'Yes'.

 

The other side of the argument is that pedestrians could go running into the middle of the road causing accidents as they know they will not be held responsible but their incentive not to do this is that they will probably end up dead or seriously injured.

 

So in a strict liability environment as in France, Germany, and other countries, motorists are incentivised by money to look out for pedestrians and pedestrians are incentivised by personal safety. If it works as envisaged then all parties are contributing to a safer environment for everyone.

 

By extension you could have some kind of hierarchy.

 

In a collision between pedestrian and bicycle it is always the bicycle's fault. Between bicycle and motorcycle it is the motorcycle's fault, between motorcycle and car it is the car, and between car and lorry it is the lorry's fault.

 

At each step the more dangerous road user is incentivised to look out for others lower down the food chain.

 

I'm not saying it's right or perfect or I agree with it but that's my guess at the rationale of strict liability. If it was conclusively good then everywhere would have it* and if it was conclusively bad then nowhere would have it.

 

*This is naive nonsense. I know.

[Darbees]

 

In a collision between pedestrian and bicycle it is always the bicycle's fault. Between bicycle and motorcycle it is the motorcycle's fault, between motorcycle and car it is the car, and between car and lorry it is the lorry's fault..............

 

 

*This is naive nonsense. I know.

Indeed. Having that sort of strict liability will not stop people being reckless and irresponsible and having collisions no matter how much care the other party is taking, all parties should be taking care anyway regardless of which class of vehicle is around them.

[531c]

Its like watching The Marathon Man, is it safe, is it safe, well I would have thought that it was obvious to anyone of any level of sense that it wasn't safe given that he is dead.

 

I've always found that there death thing to be fairly conclusive evidence that something wasn't quite as safe as some idiot believed it to be.

 

This is all obvious to someone with your level of sense.

 

What do you think in this situation? A old woman is crossing the road. She checks before she sets off and it's safe. Someone comes driving down the road 50% over the speed limit, not looking where they are going and they run the old woman down and kill her.

 

Was the old woman an idiot for believing it to be safe when she started crossing the road? Do you find the death thing to be conclusive evidence that it wasn't safe for her to do what she did?

[Darbees]

This is all obvious to someone with your level of sense.

 

What do you think in this situation? A old woman is crossing the road. She checks before she sets off and it's safe. Someone comes driving down the road 50% over the speed limit, not looking where they are going and they run the old woman down and kill her.

 

Was the old woman an idiot for believing it to be safe when she started crossing the road? Do you find the death thing to be conclusive evidence that it wasn't safe for her to do what she did?

That's not a reasonable comparison because you missed out the red light bit. If the lady crossed on a red light there is potential for more danger even thought it may not look that way and by the same token the car going through a green may presume it's safe provided they are observing the other rules too. However in this case it wasn't safe due to the other factors in her driving which the cyclist hadn't considered.

[531c]

What follows is my best guess on the apparently counterintuitive idea of always holding cars/bikes liable.

 

AIUI the idea is that strict liability forces more dangerous road users (ie motor vehicles) to be more considerate. They are more dangerous because they are more likely to cause injury even if an accident is not down to them.

 

<snip>

 

The other side of the argument is that pedestrians could go running into the middle of the road causing accidents as they know they will not be held responsible but their incentive not to do this is that they will probably end up dead or seriously injured.

 

<snip>

 

Well summarised. Especially the point that cyclists and pedestrians don't suddenly start throwing themselves recklessly into the road because of this liability law. "I might get killed.. yeah but it won't be my fault so I think I'll do it anyway!"

 

Contrary to popular UK opinion, this law works as most people who have done any cycling on the continent can testify.

 

The difference in the consideration offered to cyclists, and therefore their safety, in places like Holland, Germany and France where these laws are in place compared to here is incredible.

 

We need it and it will benefit car drivers as well as cyclists. More people will feel safe enough to do the 80% (or whatever the statistic is) of journeys that are under 3 miles by bike. Which will mean less congestion on the roads and quicker journeys for those who stay in their cars.

 

(I agree with the point you made earlier about self righteous high viz 'one less car' vests!)

[wolfstalin]

That's not a reasonable comparison because you missed out the red light bit. If the lady crossed on a red light there is potential for more danger even thought it may not look that way and by the same token the car going through a green may presume it's safe provided they are observing the other rules too. However in this case it wasn't safe due to the other factors in her driving which the cyclist hadn't considered.

 

No further answer required, are you reading my mind.

 

 

 

..................or is it just common sense!!!

[wolfstalin]

This guy being killed is just natural selection in action.

[ddeckerslyke]

Indeed. Having that sort of strict liability will not stop people being reckless and irresponsible and having collisions no matter how much care the other party is taking, all parties should be taking care anyway regardless of which class of vehicle is around them.

 

Should be but aren't.

 

Presuming the idea is as described then it's not designed to stop anything, it's designed to improve things by incentivising those more likely to inflict (I won't say cause) harm to take more care.

 

There will be costs. There will be benefits. AISI 'Do the costs overall outweigh the benfits?' is the main question that needs to be anwered.

 

It is a system adopted in, IIRC, France, Germany, Holland - and maybe elsewhere. As I said if it was conclusively good then everywhere would adopt it and if it was conclusively bad then nowhere would.

 

The point I was making is it's not as outrageous as it may seem at first.