Mathom Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 I believe this woman had been caught speeding THREE other times before she eventually killed this cyclist. So that will almost certainly have been taken into account when deciding upon a sentence. I suppose the judge thought that she was a persistent menace seeing as she'd not learnt her lesson the other three times. The cyclist should have stopped at the light but I'm afraid that when driving the first rule is "Everyone else is a potential accident" so she should have been in full possession of her faculties and prepared for such a likelihood. That she wasn't shows she was an unfit driver. People run red lights for many reasons - brake failure, emergency vehicles, being an idiot themselves etc As a driver you need to be prepared, not having an angry slanging match with your ex on the phone. Personally I think people caught on the phone while driving should have the phone confiscated - the prospect of losing your personal number, address book and whatnot might put people off where the prospect of someone else losing a life clearly does not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gelyk Posted March 1, 2008 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. Yes there are footpaths for pedestrians to use, but they still cross the roads and can therefore be a danger to other road users...so they should take a test to show they can properly cross a road. I'm not sure what sort of impact such tests you suggest for cyclists would have. Those who wish to break the laws will continue to do so. A majority of people I see riding bikes on roads are old enough to know that red lights mean stop. I think the key is for police to issue more fines to those cyclists who do break the law. But no doubt cyclists will whinge that it's just police raising revenue (like motorists do with speeding fines) and that they should be out there solving 'real' crimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddeckerslyke Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 There's a link to the story in the first post, read it then give us your opinion. If I understand correctly the link refers to the red light/texting story. I was actually referring to a different story which became part of this thread, about a lorry driver prosecuted for crushing a cyclist to death who had tried to overtake on the inside at a junction. The point was it's tempting to nip into that gap and not at all obvious to everyone that as the lorry/bus turns you are quite likely to be crushed as the gap is squeezed. This should certainly form part of cyclist education IMO. The woman in the story made an understandable but fatal error of judgment. Without seeing the original story I couldn't comment on why the lorry driver was convicted of an offence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaytsev Posted March 1, 2008 Author Share Posted March 1, 2008 If I understand correctly the link refers to the red light/texting story. I was actually referring to a different story which became part of this thread, about a lorry driver prosecuted for crushing a cyclist to death who had tried to overtake on the inside at a junction. The point was it's tempting to nip into that gap and not at all obvious to everyone that as the lorry/bus turns you are quite likely to be crushed as the gap is squeezed. This should certainly form part of cyclist education IMO. The woman in the story made an understandable but fatal error of judgment. Without seeing the original story I couldn't comment on why the lorry driver was convicted of an offence. Ahh I understand sorry for the confusion. Maybe useful if Ruby could provide a link to that story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaytsev Posted March 1, 2008 Author Share Posted March 1, 2008 I have found a few links to similar stories. A common theme seems to be it's the other vehicle drivers fault in all cases desopite evidence to the contrary . On closer inspection of the facts in LINK 1 the cyclist actually left the road, rode on the pavement and thenrejoined the road in order to get round a bus. He would still be alive if he had followed the rules of the road it seems. LINK 1 LINK 2 Again tragic but totally avoidable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
purple_frog Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 Jeez, it's amazimg how anti-cyclists some people are on here! Yes, he was in the wrong, but fundamentally, she was still not driving with due care and attention - had she been, and had killing the cyclist still been unavoidable, I'm sure she would have gotten off far more lightly. If you drive, you are responsible for making sure you are alert to all potential hazzards, so that you can act accordingly and make split-second decisions - she was driving too fast and texting, both of which were factors that prevented her from paying attention to what she was doing and responding appropriately to the situation. I'm not saying the cyclist wasn't totally in the wrong, but her actions were more to blame in his death than were his. Unfair it may seem to some drivers, but if you've got a massive killing-machine in your hands, you've gotta be willing to take responsibility for the outcomes of your actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaytsev Posted March 1, 2008 Author Share Posted March 1, 2008 Jeez, it's amazimg how anti-cyclists some people are on here! Yes, he was in the wrong, but fundamentally, she was still not driving with due care and attention - had she been, and had killing the cyclist still been unavoidable, I'm sure she would have gotten off far more lightly. If you drive, you are responsible for making sure you are alert to all potential hazzards, so that you can act accordingly and make split-second decisions - she was driving too fast and texting, both of which were factors that prevented her from paying attention to what she was doing and responding appropriately to the situation. I'm not saying the cyclist wasn't totally in the wrong, but her actions were more to blame in his death than were his. Unfair it may seem to some drivers, but if you've got a massive killing-machine in your hands, you've gotta be willing to take responsibility for the outcomes of your actions. Rather emotive language, 'massive killing machine' come on calm down. I think you will find that if she was driving with due care and attention and within the law she would have no need to have 'gotten off far more lightly' as she would not be in anyway at fault. Generally I do agree with you though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KJ_VENOM Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 Rather emotive language, 'massive killing machine' come on calm down. I think you will find that if she was driving with due care and attention and within the law she would have no need to have 'gotten off far more lightly' as she would not be in anyway at fault. Generally I do agree with you though. She still would have been pilloried by the pro cyclist/anti car brigade In this case i cannot see mitigating circumstances. I see contributing factors, if the cyclist had not ridden through a red light (his fault) and her distraction (her fault) this incident would not have happened 4 years imprisonment is a fair sentence, as she was at fault but not totally to blame for the accident Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex C. Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 She still would have been pilloried by the pro cyclist/anti car brigade In this case i cannot see mitigating circumstances. I see contributing factors, if the cyclist had not ridden through a red light (his fault) and her distraction (her fault) this incident would not have happened 4 years imprisonment is a fair sentence, as she was at fault but not totally to blame for the accident I think that sums it up perfectly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddeckerslyke Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 I have found a few links to similar stories. A common theme seems to be it's the other vehicle drivers fault in all cases despite evidence to the contrary . On closer inspection of the facts in LINK 1 the cyclist actually left the road, rode on the pavement and thenrejoined the road in order to get round a bus. He would still be alive if he had followed the rules of the road it seems. I'm not sure how you draw those conclusion from those stories. ISTM that in both cases a cyclist went for the gap I've described in previous posts. They both made understandable (and apparently commonly) fatal errors of jugment. Whether he went on to the pavement, however much it gets your goat, seems irrelevant. Cyclists should be educated not to go for the gap on the inside and bus/lorry drivers should also be aware of the danger and have properly fitted equipment and use it. Of course this is not restricted to cyclists, pedestrians will also take this short cut. It's a dangerous, often fatal manoeuvre. All parties can do something to improve this situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.