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

[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.

 

Put it this way. How many people ALWAYS wait for the green man to show before crossing at a pedestrian crossing? I'd guess that 99% of people will sometimes cross at a pedestrian crossing, if they think it is safe, regardless of whether there's a red man showing. And sometime pedestrians do this and get it wrong... just like this cyclist did. So why then are there no calls for compulsory licences, tests, insurance, safety helemets and high visibility clothing for pedestrians? Pedestrians are involved in far more accidents with motor vehicles each year than cyclists so surely this makes even more sense? The reason is because it is over nannying and isn't necessary. Perspective people, please apply a little perspective.

 

As for this particular case? Well, he paid the ultimate price for his mistake. She has also paid a price for her mistake and the price was decided by the judge who heard all the evidence and there's no reason for us to second guess it. It's an unfortunate business that should act as a reminder to cyclists and drivers alike. But that's it. Nothing else needs doing. No further action required.

[prioryx]

Hands up all you perfect people who have never gone through traffic lights at amber. Maybe, but I do not know the lights had just changed and it may have been too dangerous for the cyclist to stop because some ... head motorist was right up his backside.

[waldershelf]

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 disagree, what would a guarantee of "being in the right" at all times do for the already appalling standard of cyclists road behavior do?

 

We need to do the opposite and introduce punitive measures to punish cyclists who don't follow the rules of the road similar to the ones already in place for other road users. Start with passing a test and having a licence that can be endorsed and removed and compulsory insurance that is charged on a realistic basis by the industry.

[nightrider]

The cyclist ran a red light,thats ok, but texing isnt??

Had the cyclist not ran a red light the accident would not have happened.Sorry but if i run a red light then i would take the consequenses,i would not want to point the finger at someone else,just because they happened to be picking their nose,or texing.

The driver also has family,they also have to live with whats happened for the rest of their life,sending them to prison for 4 years is just pc nonsense.

 

so now we have the death penalty for running a red light?? Had she been concentrating on driving instead of texting the cyclist would still be alive.

[Zaytsev]

so now we have the death penalty for running a red light?? Had she been concentrating on driving instead of texting the cyclist would still be alive.

 

Not necessarily.

 

The fact is she WAS texting and was unable to be in full control of her vehicle. So the presumption has to be because of this she MAY have been able to avoid him.

 

However he may still have been killed by a vehicle whos driver was in total control an paying attention, due to it being impossible to avoid him. In that instance he would have been the sole cause of the accident but still dead as he ran a red light.

[ddeckerslyke]

I disagree, what would a guarantee of "being in the right" at all times do for the already appalling standard of cyclists road behavior do?

 

We need to do the opposite and introduce punitive measures to punish cyclists who don't follow the rules of the road similar to the ones already in place for other road users. Start with passing a test and having a licence that can be endorsed and removed and compulsory insurance that is charged on a realistic basis by the industry.

 

Legislate and Punish.

 

I suspect the system is not designed to "improve" behaviour. It seems to be more about saving lives but as I said in previous posts I'm not sure of the mechanism/process.

 

"Appalling" or Galling? Zamo's post above illustrates seems to sum it up perfectly. I go through red lights all the time on my bike. My reasoning is I could get off and walk across this junction but what's the point? This obviously infuriates some car drivers. I've been doing this for twenty years without incident. The basic question I ask myself when I get to a junction is could I walk across this safely? If the answer is Yes then I go. One incidental safety benefit is that if I'm out in front then I'm clearly visible.

 

Similar outlaw behaviour is on a narrow road, let's say with cars illegally parked, if a line of traffic is building up behind me then, where it's safe, I will go up on the pavement and let the traffic past.

 

In both cases I'm breaking the law to keep traffic moving. Some people get disproportionately wound up by this. Some don't.

 

This might be worth a thread on its own.

[ddeckerslyke]

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.

 

Put it this way. How many people ALWAYS wait for the green man to show before crossing at a pedestrian crossing? I'd guess that 99% of people will sometimes cross at a pedestrian crossing, if they think it is safe, regardless of whether there's a red man showing. And sometime pedestrians do this and get it wrong... just like this cyclist did. So why then are there no calls for compulsory licences, tests, insurance, safety helemets and high visibility clothing for pedestrians? Pedestrians are involved in far more accidents with motor vehicles each year than cyclists so surely this makes even more sense? The reason is because it is over nannying and isn't necessary. Perspective people, please apply a little perspective.

 

As for this particular case? Well, he paid the ultimate price for his mistake. She has also paid a price for her mistake and the price was decided by the judge who heard all the evidence and there's no reason for us to second guess it. It's an unfortunate business that should act as a reminder to cyclists and drivers alike. But that's it. Nothing else needs doing. No further action required.

 

Er...What a great post.

[Zaytsev]

Legislate and Punish.

 

I suspect the system is not designed to "improve" behaviour. It seems to be more about saving lives but as I said in previous posts I'm not sure of the mechanism/process.

 

"Appalling" or Galling? Zamo's post above illustrates seems to sum it up perfectly. I go through red lights all the time on my bike. My reasoning is I could get off and walk across this junction but what's the point? This obviously infuriates some car drivers. I've been doing this for twenty years without incident. The basic question I ask myself when I get to a junction is could I walk across this safely? If the answer is Yes then I go. One incidental safety benefit is that if I'm out in front then I'm clearly visible.

 

Similar outlaw behaviour is on a narrow road, let's say with cars illegally parked, if a line of traffic is building up behind me then, where it's safe, I will go up on the pavement and let the traffic past.

 

In both cases I'm breaking the law to keep traffic moving. Some people get disproportionately wound up by this. Some don't.

 

This might be worth a thread on its own.

 

So if you were hit by a car while undertaking this and they were not texting but in full control of their vehicle and driving with due care and attention it woukld be their fault.

 

This post certainly explains a lot about your previous contribution to the thread.

[Darbees]

In this instance it is a question of approtioning blame and clearly both parties were at fault. However the actions of the cyclist were just annoying but not really of any danger to anyone except himself as he unfortunately found out and paid ultimate price. The woman was clearly not in full control of her vehicle and has had to pay the price for that, she will however walk out of prison a free person in 2 years. What she has on her conscience is a another matter.

[Darbees]

By way of contrast here is a report of an accident in Bradford where it has been made to look as though an idiot driving an Impreza has killed his friend whilst speeding. However that wasn't the case at all and police charged the other driver with dangerous driving and speeding. When it went to court the other driver of the Audi was acquitted of dangerous driving but convicted of careless driving and using her phone, report here the Subaru driver who made the error of judgement in turning across the path of the speeding carelessly driven car is still facing a careless driving charge.