four years for killing cyclist

patchy

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hamp ... 270751.stm

i mean, seriously, who texts and drives? i can barely text and walk, let alone operate a vehicle.

Belv

I don't like the insinuation that the cyclist was doing something wrong by not wearing a helmet.

chronyx

They're both idiots. One of them came off worse.

Eat My Dust

This is my post from the "campaign" section:

"And who says RLJing is safer?

I'm not sure about the custodial sentence bit and I'm usually on here bleating about people getting off lightly. Surely her sentence is only for using her mobile phone. If she hadn't been texting and he had jumped the red light, and she had hit/killed him, would she have been charged with anything in the first place? If he had stopped at the red light he'd still be alive."

Gussio

Off topic, but does anyone have annual figures for cyclists killed on London roads over the last few years? Despite the lunacy that we see around us each day, there seem to be mercifully few fatalties.

cee

wait a minute though.

forget the phone.....

if she had hit a pedestrian crossing the road, whilst doing 45 in a 30 zone surely that would also have been dangerous driving, jail, no £200 etc.

cjw

Gussio wrote:

Off topic, but does anyone have annual figures for cyclists killed on London roads over the last few years? Despite the lunacy that we see around us each day, there seem to be mercifully few fatalties.

About 20 Killed and 371 KSI in 2006...

While there has been a 34 per cent reduction in cyclist KSIs compared with the 1994-98 average, there has been an increase in the number of cyclists killed or seriously injured between 2004 and 2005. The figure has risen from 340 to 372. Cyclist fatalities have risen from 8 to 21, returning to around the pre-2004 annual average of 20. Though there has been a significant increase in the number of cyclists this is clearly cause for concern and TfL are gaining a deeper understanding of the issue, to see if we need to take more action.

woodford2barbican

So, if he did not jump the red light he would still be alive?

Anonymous

woodford2barbican wrote:

So, if he did not jump the red light he would still be alive?

Maybe. Or maybe an alien from outer space may have zapped him if he had patiently waited for the light to change.

We will never know, and the discussion is pointless.

cjw

woodford2barbican wrote:

So, if he did not jump the red light he would still be alive?

Whilst one cannot say with ABSOLUTE certainty that he would still be alive. If he had not jumoed the light, in all probability he would be. The chances of getting zapped by an alien are infintesimally small (as there are no robustly evidenced examples of this happening). There would be possibilities of him dying of a heart attack, brain tumour etc etc, but assuming he was relatively healthy up to that point (being only 19 and cycling help mitigate a lot of the possibility of medical death) that is extremely unlikely.

He could also have been hit by (for example) falling pianos, aircraft meteors etc... however we can can almost guarantee that this would not have happened. In this case not on the basis of remote probabilities but from the reporting. If any of these events had happened the press report would have read....

"Cycylist killed by driver after jumping red light at same moment as a meteor landed just feet away from the incident"

So in all probability - to an extremely large factor - he WOULD be alive if he hadn't jumped the light.

Anonymous

hahaha cjw - first post ever to make me laugh. Nice one

Anonymous

hahaha cjw - first post ever to make me laugh. Nice one

karl j

quote - Sgt Alyson West, of Hampshire Constabulary, said the ruling would hopefully discourage others from using their mobile phones while driving.
"Today's sentence will not bring back Jordan Wickington. However, it will hopefully help to deter drivers who continue to flout the law by using their mobile phones while driving."

Yes ok, if you say so luv

cupofteacp

A couple of years ago I got the figures for cyclist deaths in London between 1999 and 2005.

There were 120 deaths during that period, unfortnatly they changed the method of recording the deaths in 2005 and so I was unable to easily include them.

I also had to excude some where the data was incomplete.

After all that I was left with 87 deaths. 56% driver 44% cyclist.
Only 2 during that period where RLJ's. 3 were killed not stoping at junctions.
17 were killed by left turners, 13 were killed cycling off the pavement!

Driver at fault
210 Turning Left 17
216 Driving Too Close To The Vehicle In Front 5
217 Driving Too Close To The Vehicle Alongside 5
223 Negligently Opening Or Closing Door 5
204 Disobeyed ATS 2
219 Overtaking On Offside Injudiciously 2
221 Changing Lane Injudiciously 2
224 Going Too Fast Having Regard To Road Environment 2
227 Emerging From Private Drive Injudiciously 2
299 Other Driver/Rider Factor 2
209 Turning Right Injudiciously 1
211 U Turning 1
222 Failure To Signal Movement Correctly 1
225 Going To Fast Having Regard To Other Road Users 1
239 Lost Control - No Apparent Reason 1

I'm not saying RLJing is safe but we've had this argument countless times before where people have said it's more dangerous than sitting at the lights, I'm afraid no one can prove either way.

Yes in this case if the guy had'nt RLJed he'd be ailve, but I would'nt want to say that sitting at lights is safe either.

cupofteacp

PS
I think every junction is different, but in general, if you can position yourself where the motorists can see you clearly and therefore remove the "left turn" then your half way there.

However, most of the junctions I cross (when they eventually turn green) are in NE London, therefore the traffic is either slow moving or stationay

PPS this was done in a hurry 5:30, please excuse spelling etc.

PPPS see you Monday, lets be safe out there

BentMikey

cupofteacp wrote:

After all that I was left with 87 deaths. 56% driver 44% cyclist.

What does the bolder bit mean?

woodford2barbican

CherryUp wrote:

woodford2barbican wrote:

So, if he did not jump the red light he would still be alive?

Maybe. Or maybe an alien from outer space may have zapped him if he had patiently waited for the light to change.

We will never know, and the discussion is pointless.

the discussion is not pointless, these sad events just validate the arguments that I and many others place for not RLJing. If you think the discussion is pointless, is that because you RLJ and think that you are safe doing so?

Bassjunkieuk

Whilst this is a very tragic accident I don't understand why the whole focus has been on the driver using their phone whilst driving. This is only one of a few law's that where broken by both parties. The driver was also speeding at the time, possibly as a result of using her phone but I when I'm driving I know what 30mph feels like and 45 is quite a bit different.

The cyclist also broke the law by jumping the red light, and in this case paid the ultimate price.

I think this accident should not just be used to show the dangers and consequence's of using a phone whilst driving but also how speeding and RLJ can have dire consequence to.

Gambatte

Bassjunkieuk wrote:

when I'm driving I know what 30mph feels like and 45 is quite a bit different.

You'd think she would have as well. Especially round there.

Apparently she had 3 speeding convictions - 2 on the approach to the same junction!!

nwallace

IIRC the guy was a builder, also IIRC Building sites are second only to Agricultural premises for Work Related KSI's. What is to say that had he made it to work that morning, he didn't end up getting added to the HSE stats instead of the DfT ones.

Interesting stat the 13 KSI dismounting the pavement, if only because I once had a kid bunny hop off the pavement without looking, pure luck resulted in his back wheel landing about 1cm from my front and in exactly the same tread line. (And in case you haven't realised, I wasn't familiar with the correct road positions at the time)

How does the Cycling KSI stats compare to motorcycles in the breakdown. There is a few there where there is an obvious overlap.