KJ_VENOM Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 She got 4 years, that means she's a short term prisoner and will do the same time as someone who gets 6 years but won't get any of the privileges of a long term prisoner, meaning the worst jails, three to a cell, and locked up for 23 hours a day. She wont be three to a room (they're not called cells anymore) she wont be considered a security risk therefore the toughest prison she will be put in is a cat C prison generally these are single room prisons with some double rooms I have to agree that she shouldn't have been texting but the cyclist was also at fault for going through a red light (an action which resulted in his death) something that happens a lot more than some people would like to admit Someone stated if it was a HGV that she had run into it would be her we would be giving sympathy to i state if it had been a HGV coming through a green light and a cylist running a red, even if a HGV driver was travelling at the correct speed the outcome would have been the same Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NeoGen Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 One could say that it's mad that anyone can just go out and walk around the streets and cross our busy roads. I've lost count of the number of pedestrians I've seen who don't bother looking before they cross the road. Therefore should people be made to pass some sort of test before they are allowed to cross a road? Cyclist do use the road slightly more than pedestrians, last I looked there where footpaths for them, whereas cyclist use the roads, and other road users are expected to pass tests etc to show that they are fit to be on them, this doesn't necessarily ensure they are, but I'm sure that if cyclist where made to take mandatory safety and proficiency tests it would reduce casualties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 BOTH were doing the wrong thing, thing is the cyclist unfortunately died, SO the driver got her punishment. maybe it WILL make others think about using their mobiles while driving...i STILL see stupid drivers using theirs, almost every day maybe the death of the cyclist SHOULD be used to let other cyclists know of the consequences of doing risky things too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Becky B Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 Why do people think that the cyclist wearing a helmet would have made a difference? He was hit by a ton of metal travelling at 45 miles per hour, why would a bit of polystyrene saved him?! I'm not saying wearing a helmet is wrong, just highlighting that in this case, it probably wouldn't have made a difference. The evidence is very mixed as to whether helmets save lives/prevent serious injury. I think the cyclist was wrong to jump the red light, but the [insert words here, they fail me] woman was driving at well over the speed limit, not even looking at the road!! Will she have to re-take her test when she gets out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KJ_VENOM Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 Will she have to re-take her test when she gets out? Yes is the short answer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 Now that's a cut and dried case, but she only got 2 years, so what's the average for manslaughter, surely better than 2 years, and it makes the 4 years for someone who had mitigating circumstances pretty severe. What where her mitigating circumstances for doing 40mph in a 30mph zone and texting whilst going through traffic lights? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaytsev Posted March 1, 2008 Author Share Posted March 1, 2008 Cyclist do use the road slightly more than pedestrians, last I looked there where footpaths for them, whereas cyclist use the roads, and other road users are expected to pass tests etc to show that they are fit to be on them, this doesn't necessarily ensure they are, but I'm sure that if cyclist where made to take mandatory safety and proficiency tests it would reduce casualties. You will also find that a huge number of cyclists use the footpaths as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddeckerslyke Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 It's tragic that this happened and the driver was at fault in the extreme, but some cyclists do take some stupid risks with themselves every day. As both a pedestrian and as a driver, they terrify me sometimes. There was another case a while ago when the driver of an artic crushed a cyclist against a railing when turning left and I think received a prison term for it. Drivers know that you have to give room to a lorry making a turn, but some cyclists seem to think they're immune to injury. She was trying to squeeze along the inside of the lorry obviously not having noticed it was turning and was crushed. Also obviously not realising that drivers have blind spots.... As we're now trying to encourage people to cycle more, it should be compulsory for cyclists who've not passed a driving test to have some elementary training in road safey. This manoeuvre is quite often fatal to cyclists. "Oh I'll just nip up the inside here." It's very tempting if you are inexperienced. When I started cycling a friend said absolutely not to do this. I thought he was being over cautious but I also thought - OK I'll sit here behind this bus and see what happens. It's actually pretty sobering to see the side of the bus/lorry gradually squeeze the space you were about to occupy. I think that piece of advice saved my life, or at least helped me avoid serious injury. I pass this on to anyone I talk to who takes up cycling. I've not seen the original story but IM(H)O the person who was killed probably made a simple and fatal error of judgment. Don't know about the facts wrt to driver so can't really comment but on the face of it it seems harsh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaytsev Posted March 1, 2008 Author Share Posted March 1, 2008 This manoeuvre is quite often fatal to cyclists. "Oh I'll just nip up the inside here." It's very tempting if you are inexperienced. When I started cycling a friend said absolutely not to do this. I thought he was being over cautious but I also thought - OK I'll sit here behind this bus and see what happens. It's actually pretty sobering to see the side of the bus/lorry gradually squeeze the space you were about to occupy. I think that piece of advice saved my life, or at least helped me avoid serious injury. I pass this on to anyone I talk to who takes up cycling. I've not seen the original story but IM(H)O the person who was killed probably made a simple and fatal error of judgment. Don't know about the facts wrt to driver so can't really comment but on the face of it it seems harsh. There's a link to the story in the first post, read it then give us your opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddeckerslyke Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 Why do people think that the cyclist wearing a helmet would have made a difference? He was hit by a ton of metal travelling at 45 miles per hour, why would a bit of polystyrene saved him?! I'm not saying wearing a helmet is wrong, just highlighting that in this case, it probably wouldn't have made a difference. The evidence is very mixed as to whether helmets save lives/prevent serious injury. The Great Cycling Helmet Debate, a mainstay of cycling groups for several years is gradually entering the mainstream. 1. Cyclist Killed by Train was not Wearing Helmet - is one headline. Don't know if this is an Urban Myth but it gets the point across. Cycle Helmets are, as you said, polystyrene, they are not Magic Force Fields or Starship Deflector Shields. Stand in front of a moving train and attempt to fend it off with a ceiling tile. 2. AIUI cycle helmets were made compulsory for a while in Australia. IIRC what happened was fewer people cycled but of those that did a greater proportion were injured. Like you I'm not saying that's the end of the debate but blind faith in cycle helmets needs challenging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.