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

[Zaytsev]

From the first article "In other parts of Europe including France, Germany, Belgium and Holland, motorcyclists and car drivers are already assumed to be liable in accidents with pedestrians or cyclists. Compulsory motor insurance includes extra cover for any compensation claims."

 

This seems to be a workable, alternative approach to road safety rather than the pillorying it was intended to illustrate.

 

I'm not sure of the jurisprudential niceties of strict liability but there's blame in the sense that "all car users and motorcyclists are evil sinners and all cyclists and pedestrians are saintly victims" and then there's a practical legal measure of blame/liability employed in the countries referred to in the article.

 

ISTM the two are separate and should not be conflated or confused.

 

The second link is a petition and AFAICS adds nothing to the PoV in the first.

 

BTW I said workable, not better or worse.

 

Not really sure where you're going with this, for the record I am not anti cycling, not anti car and certainly not anti motorbike.

 

You originally stated;

 

Is there really a brigade of people out there who would pillory a driver who went through a green light at or below the speed limit and killed or injured a cyclist who had run a red light?.

I gave you two examples the latter being a pro cycling group.

 

Straight forward I would have thought.

[Zaytsev]

You said

 

"I have found a few links to similar stories. A common theme seems to be it's the other vehicle driver's fault in all cases despite evidence to the contrary."

 

and then illustrated this with a story containing this quote

 

'Crash investigator Pc Adrian Cousins told the court the lorry's mirrors adhered to guidelines and the cause of the accident was Mr Donald disobeying the Highway Code by riding up on to the pavement and cutting back too close to the lorry as it was turning.'

 

 

Like I said I can't see how you draw that conclusion from that article. AISI the whole article contradicts the statement it's intended to support.

 

Try to keep up, the official apportioning of blame was towards the unfortunate cyclists.

 

The sentence below.

 

A common theme seems to be it's the other vehicle driver's fault in all cases despite evidence to the contrary."

 

refers to this in the first link:

 

Mr Donald's partner, Kate Evenden, said: "The police might have decided the lorry driver was not at fault, but it is not good enough to say there was a blind spot and he didn't see. Surely there needs to be a change in the law with HGV drivers made responsible for their mirrors and to ensure they are trained to be aware of cyclists.

 

"If cycling is being promoted then we need higher standards of driving. Everyone who knew Ninian knew he was a responsible cyclist. He drove a van and a car and had good road sense. He didn't take risks."

 

and this in the second:

 

Her family have backed the Evening Standard's Safer Cycling campaign, which has called for lorries to be fitted with extra safety mirrors to prevent accidents as part of a 12-point charter of improvements.

 

Of course the fitting of mirrors that may have prevented these terrible incidents and should be made as soon as possible but clearly the two cyclists would be alive today if they had riden in a more defensive way.

 

As Ruby stated:

 

they are in more danger than a driver in a vehicle and to my mind, that should make them more alert and aware of possible dangers, not foolhardily flying about as though they're invincible. They may be in the right but ending up dead or seriously injured doesn't vindicate them, sadly.

 

With which you agreed:

 

Spot on.

 

As I said above it would also help if bus/lorry drivers were more aware of the problem. Maybe they are but it's just a blind spot.

 

And the bit about invincibility is one of the arguments against cycle helmets.

 

To end the thread wasn't started a a tit for tat point scoring excercise which it seems to have turned into so I will take my leave of the thread.

[JFKvsNixon]

Not totally to blame, if she was she would have been jailed for longer, if the cyclist had stopped at the red light he would have not been in the position to be hi

 

As I see it she was totally to blame for driving at 45mph and texting on her phone. She should have approached the traffic lights with caution, she should have been ready for something out of the ordinary.

 

The fact that she hit a cyclist going through a red light is immaterial. It could have been an emergency vehicle going through a red light, a pedestrian crossing, a car stuck on a filter light or pretty much anything.

 

The cyclist was wrong for going through the red light, and if he had caused an accident resulting in serious injury or death I would expect a similar sentence for him. Likewise if the car driver had hit another car I would expect similar sentence.

 

This isn't a bike verses a car thing.

[Zaytsev]

..........

 

This isn't a bike verses a car thing.

 

Exactly which is why I thought I made my stance obvious in my second post:

 

I know what you're getting at and the guy running a red light was stupid and wrong but as a biker you know perfectly well that this dumb bint was an accident waiting to happen. If she had not been texting she may have been able to avoid hitting him. Remember she wasn't just on the phone talking but actually TEXTING.

[DanProdd]

The cyclist shouldn't have gone through the red light, but she was speeding and not paying proper attention. It doesn't matter how he got there, if she had been driving with due care and attention this accident might have been avoided. Its tragic,and I sympathise with the driver as well as the cyclist. Hopefully both sets of road users will take notice of this case. As a cyclist I'm always horrified when I see the casual disregard for road safety displayed by my fellow velocipeds.

[wolfstalin]

The driver of the lorry probably was to blame but as cyclists often say, they are in more danger than a driver in a vehicle and to my mind, that should make them more alert and aware of possible dangers, not foolhardily flying about as though they're invincible. They may be in the right but ending up dead or seriously injured doesn't vindicate them, sadly.

 

Good point here and to reinforce it there duz seem to be quite a lot of people around who ignore reality, a case in point happened at the meadowhead round about, where a car was on the inside and a 60ft+ arctic was in the center, coming around the corner the arctic squeezed the car and the driver said when questioned "I've got right of way" not taking into account that he was about to get crushed rights or no rights, the passenger took hold of the wheel to swerve the car onto the round about itself to avoid a collision.

[jfish1936]

Without knowing the full facts its difficult to know that the texing made any difference at all..

 

So when driving over the speed limit, presumably in a built up area, UK drivers have the competence to:

(a) give full attention to the road, being ready for unexpected events such as a child or dog running out;

AND

(b) give thought to a reply to a message, and fiddle with the mobphone keypad to type it in?

 

Drivers of the UK, if this is true, we Aussies salute you!

 

But it sounds more like:

While she was driving too fast. maybe annoyed by her ex's message, having to reply to it RIGHT AWAY, she stopped looking at the road; something unexpected happened, and she failed to deal with it in time.

 

As I said earlier, I would not dare look at a text message until the car was stopped at the roadside, still less try to tap out an answer one-handed with one hand on the wheel and both eyes on the road.

Please reply, and tell me I'm a nervous old fuddy-duddy who doesn't understand how texting is an instinctive thing that doesn't need any attention, and driving is something you can do with both eyes shut.

[newvanandman]

So when driving over the speed limit, presumably in a built up area, UK drivers have the competence to:

(a) give full attention to the road, being ready for unexpected events such as a child or dog running out;

AND

(b) give thought to a reply to a message, and fiddle with the mobphone keypad to type it in?

 

Drivers of the UK, if this is true, we Aussies salute you!

 

But it sounds more like:

While she was driving too fast. maybe annoyed by her ex's message, having to reply to it RIGHT AWAY, she stopped looking at the road; something unexpected happened, and she failed to deal with it in time.

 

As I said earlier, I would not dare look at a text message until the car was stopped at the roadside, still less try to tap out an answer one-handed with one hand on the wheel and both eyes on the road.

Please reply, and tell me I'm a nervous old fuddy-duddy who doesn't understand how texting is an instinctive thing that doesn't need any attention, and driving is something you can do with both eyes shut.

 

 

There is a cut off point that if someone steps out in front of you, or indeed runs a red light in front of you,no action whatsoever could make any difference.We dont know that the time scales on this was not the same.

 

Pulling an extract from my post and twisting it to your own end wont answer the question either.

My point was that it may have been that time dictated the accident could not have been averted and that would make the texing irrellivent.

[Becky B]

The cyclist shouldn't have gone through the red light, but she was speeding and not paying proper attention. It doesn't matter how he got there, if she had been driving with due care and attention this accident might have been avoided. Its tragic,and I sympathise with the driver as well as the cyclist. Hopefully both sets of road users will take notice of this case. As a cyclist I'm always horrified when I see the casual disregard for road safety displayed by my fellow velocipeds.

 

I watched the clip of this story on the BBC South news website, they went on to do a piece about cycling and there were some fine examples of eejit cyclists with what appeared to be a callous disregard to their own safety and even the fact they were swerving across roads!

The knowledge of such turnips makes me even more careful about how and where I ride, but I'm not sure it makes any difference to the general feeling towards cyclists

 

The brother of the chap who was killed said he had stopped and checked it was clear before he went through the red light - but how did he know?

[Cyclone]

Seems on the harsh side when the motorcycle killer only got 5.5 years.

Surely it's a mitigating circumstance when the cyclist is also at fault, sounds like a 50/50 accident to me, which is always a bad thing for a cyclist.