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

[freyasdad]

There is partial blame for the cyclist and total blame on the driver.

The reasons for this are obvious for the cyclist but not so for the driver.

I dont know the driving test in any shape or form but i would guess that there is no mention about how the car is essentially a killing machine if drove wrongly.

There has been a big drive on the consequences when using a mobile phone when driving but in this instance i dont think it applies.

If you take away the phone an accident could have been avoided if a) the cyclist went through the red light and b) the motorist wasn't going 45 mph. As soon as the phone comes in to the matter then the motorist was highly likely to have an accident.

[Darbees]

If you take away the phone an accident could have been avoided if a) the cyclist went through the red light and b) the motorist wasn't going 45 mph. As soon as the phone comes in to the matter then the motorist was highly likely to have an accident.

There's nothing to prove that for certain, the motorist may have knocked him down anyway. Unfortunately for the motorist the fact that she was doing those illegal things at the same time has put her in the slammer for at least 2 years and it will go down as a statistic where death was caused by someone using a mobile phone when that might not definitely be the reason. Had she swerved off the road and hit him whilst texting, it would be different.

[Darbees]

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.

I don't think people don't take care because they may not be liable, they don't take care because they are selfish, irresponsible and/or stupid and no amount of liability will stop them behaving like that as has been shown in this instance by both parties.

[ddeckerslyke]

I don't think people don't take care because they may not be liable, they don't take care because they are selfish, irresponsible and/or stupid and no amount of liability will stop them behaving like that

 

Economists would disagree. This sort of incentivisation is a mainstay of economics. Is it effective or not? I don't know. As ever there's Wikipedia to consult here.

Though it seems to be more in a legal than an economic context.

 

And here is some heavyweight stuff from Harvard. It's an interesting topic.

 

no amount of liability will stop them behaving like that as has been shown in this instance by both parties.

 

Two things

 

1. As no-one in the OP had strict liability the conclusion does not follow. If the driver was part of a culture of strict liability then maybe she would have taken more care, maybe she wouldn't. At an individual level you can never know.

 

2. Even if all parties had strict liability there will be individual incidents where people do not behave as expected or 'incentivised'. That is not an argument against the whole system which has to be seen in terms of overall cost/benefit.

[531c]

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.

 

I deliberately left out the red light bit to show how it shouldn't matter. Look at some variations on the hypothetical old woman situation: -

 

1. Normal stretch of road, no pedestrian crossing.

2. Pedestrian crossing that isn't working. Either stuck on green or no light at all. The crossing is the safest location on the road to cross.

3. Junction with lights but no pedestrian crossing.

 

In each case she picks a time to cross when it looks safe. At best you might criticise the old woman's choice of where and when she crosses the road, but only people who have boxed themselves into a corner with their argument in this discussion would say she's irresponsible or an idiot for crossing. Or deserves to die because of her lack of judgement under a car driven at excessive speed without due care and attention.

 

[Continental liability laws]

 

I don't think people don't take care because they may not be liable, they don't take care because they are selfish, irresponsible and/or stupid and no amount of liability will stop them behaving like that as has been shown in this instance by both parties.

 

It is because driving bring out selfish behaviour in some people that the liability law works. With the law in place, they stand to lose much more by driving inconsiderately and dangerously around cyclists. So they drive more considerately for selfish reasons (to begin with at least). The proof is in the pudding on this one - you can go to Holland and see what effect these laws have.

[Darbees]

 

1. Normal stretch of road, no pedestrian crossing.

2. Pedestrian crossing that isn't working. Either stuck on green or no light at all. The crossing is the safest location on the road to cross.

3. Junction with lights but no pedestrian crossing.

 

In each case she picks a time to cross when it looks safe. At best you might criticise the old woman's choice of where and when she crosses the road, but only people who have boxed themselves into a corner with their argument in this discussion would say she's irresponsible or an idiot for crossing. Or deserves to die because of her lack of judgement under a car driven at excessive speed without due care and attention.

I can't see why you are making this hypothesis without the red light. The cyclist has made an error of judgement by going against the red light, making the fatal decision to compromise his own safety on the basis that no one other than himself would be breaking the law, of course he didn't deserve to die for making such a misjudgement. At the same time the woman was also compromising safety by speeding and texting and the actions of both of these people and the bad luck that the combination of those factors and the coincidence that they met at same point in a fraction of a second together lead to the accident. Without just one of those factors it probably would not have happened and we wouldn't all be over analysing it here looking for blame. They were both to blame in different degrees but sadly the one least to blame paid the highest price.

[Zaytsev]

I can't see why you are making this hypothesis without the red light. The cyclist has made an error of judgement by going against the red light, making the fatal decision to compromise his own safety on the basis that no one other than himself would be breaking the law, of course he didn't deserve to die for making such a misjudgement. At the same time the woman was also compromising safety by speeding and texting and the actions of both of these people and the bad luck that the combination of those factors and the coincidence that they met at same point in a fraction of a second together lead to the accident. Without just one of those factors it probably would not have happened and we wouldn't all be over analysing it here looking for blame. They were both to blame in different degrees but sadly the one least to blame paid the highest price.

 

And why make the hypothesis on the basis the car driver is breaking the law ie:

 

Or deserves to die because of her lack of judgement under a car driven at excessive speed without due care and attention.

[sccsux]

You've been hit three times by bikes so I understand the reason for your opinion.

 

Nowt to do with being knocked down by cyclists. More to do with the lack of respect & disipline that they (cyclists) exhibit (when I first had a cycle, we were not allowed to ride it until we had passed the cycling proficiency test (by our parents).

 

But if you'd been hit by a *car*, the chances are you wouldn't be around to post to this discussion.

 

Not so (I've also been knocked over by cars - on two seperate occasions) once was my fault, the other I was on a crossing on Penistone Road when I was 12 (near Bassets).

 

cyclists rarely (ie hardly ever) kill or seriously injure someone else.

 

Irrelevant. That's like saying shoplifters aren't really stealing. Simply because the impact is not as severe, doesn't make it OK!

 

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?).

 

OK.. Let's imagine another scenario..

 

If the woman was driving at the correct speed, not using the mobile phone, sees the cyclist and performs an emergancy stop, avoids hitting the cyclist and ends up involved in a collision with the driver(s) behind her.

 

Thge cyclist was wrong, the idiotic woman was equally at fault.

 

in places like Holland, Germany and France where these laws are in place compared to here is incredible.

 

Incredulous, is the word I'd have used.

 

There should never be a case where the outcome is prejudged (blame being placed on a single person/entity before a trial)

 

i would guess that there is no mention about how the car is essentially a killing machine

 

You'd be guessing correctly.

 

However, any decent driving instructor would have made this obvious to you as a learner (common sense als reinforces this fact)!

[Zamo]

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'm not sure what "traffic-flow" has got to do with anything? Traffic-flow doesn't change the facts. The facts are that mistakes by car drivers s cause considerably more damage than mistakes by pedestrians and cyclists. In fact billions of pounds more damage, tens of thousands more deaths and hundreds of thousands of injuries.

 

I am sorry but there is simply no comparison between the consequences of mistakes whilst driving a car and whilst riding a bicycle.

 

I therefore maintain that as road-users, they should be subject to the same rules, regulations and limitations as their fellows.

 

Which "fellows"...pedestrians or motorists? If you compare the threat cyclists pose (death, injury and financial) then they are comparable to pedestrians, not motorists. So yes, treat them like their fellows... pedestrians.

 

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.

 

Given this much thought?

 

How much will it cost to bring in and then try to enforce such legislation? How successful would the scheme be? Would the police have any interest in enforcing it? Do the public want the police using their limited resource on such trivial nonsense? What about the knock on effects, such as fewer people cycling? Won't this mean more cars on the road and won't more cars mean more congestion, more pollution, more unhealthy commuters? Aren't the future mistakes of ex-cyclists, now driving cars, likely to lead to more deaths, injuries and damage? Is it really necessary to treat bicycles (that weigh 20kg, travel at low speed and kill on average zero people each year) as if they pose the same threat as cars (that weight 1.5 tons, travel at high speed and kill ten's of thousands of people each year)? Given the amount of death and destruction caused by car drivers would the money not be better spend getting illegal drivers, unsafe cars and uninsured drivers (est. 10%) off the road?

 

Just a few questions off the top of my head that appear to show there cannot possibly be a business case for what you suggest.

 

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.

 

The question is this... Is driving at 50% above the speed limit, whist texting, dangerous?

 

The judge and jury decided it was and I'm inclined to agree. The charge is therefore causing death (which is obviously not in dispute) by dangerous driving. I'm sorry but you are misguided if you believe that you have immunity from the law just because your 'victim' may have done something wrong, stupid or even illegal.

 

 

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.

 

The judge and jury had all the evidence so why not trust their judgement?

[Zaytsev]

Tens of thousands killed each year. I think you need to check your figures again:

 

These figures are from the BBC website for 2006:

 

According to the Department for Transport, in 1930 there were only 2.3 million motor vehicles in Great Britain, but more than 7,000 people were killed in road accidents.

 

In contrast nowadays there are more vehicles but fewer deaths - there are more than 27 million vehicles and 3,180 people were killed in the 12 months to March this year, provisional results show.