driver getting away with it

thesmellyone

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2031 ... prosecuted

Driver should be sent down for that!

Bikerbaboon

12 months ago i had a lady driver pull out on me while i was out on my motor bike i spent 2 months unalbe to walk with 2 broken metatarsles and an broken leg the other side.
what did driving with out due care and attention get the driver that same corse.
no points on the licance nothing else... this system is failing to make the roads safe.

once some one has cuased an accidnet its already too late, case of shutting the door when the horse has already bolted. we need to have ongoing training for all driver and periodic retesting to inshure that people are trained and fit to drive on moddern roads.

and we also need to have real punnishment delt out to the negligent drivers, i think that however long the person spends in hospital times 3 would be a good start and if you killed some one its manslughter.

but its never going to happen as it will cost money and need man power..... also it will not generate cash like hte speed cameras, that at best make people drive badly for the 50m streach they cover.

Bassjunkieuk

ARGH!!!!!

OK, here's my take on this. I was involved in an RTA where a driver turned across my lane knocking me off my bike. I ended up in hospital as I sustained a nasty cut to the back of my hand which actually turned out to have damaged (well dis-lodged) the tendon that straightens the finger. I spend 5 days in hospital and couldn't ride my bike for 3 months following the incident. In my case I was asked what I wanted done with the driver. I had 2 options for driving without due care and attention. One was this driver awareness course and the other was a court appearance. As she had stopped and was the one who called the ambulance I said put her on this same course. My query here is who are the police to decide what charge should be dealt out? After all this women did nearly die!

I appreciate we need to re-educate drivers but this sofly softly approach to policing is doing no one any favours, as people are beginning to realize they can get away with fairly large infringements of the law with just a slap on the wrist.......just look at how many times Pete Doherty has been caught with drugs but has he been given a prison sentance yet? Each time he's just sent on his merry way with a "don't do it again" ticking off from the judge.

dondare

thesmellyone wrote:

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2031624_he_did_this_to_me_but_wont_be_prosecuted

Driver should be sent down for that!

"Ms Wood, who works in the Evening Post’s editorial department, said: “Even though he almost killed me he just got a slap on the wrist. What does someone have to do? Does someone have to die before they proceed with prosecution?"

No, even that often isn't enough.

Clever Pun

I agree that re-education is key... but surely they can prosecute and then the 'driver' has to take the class before getting back on the road.

surely that's the obvious solution?

dennisn

I'm going to play devils advocate on this one and ask a question or two. What if it was you who hit this lady accidentally? Obviously you didn't mean to do it but it happened.
So should you be sentenced to 20 years of hard labor as the other people on this
forum would like to see? Or should you at least be given some consideration in that it
was an accident and not intentional attempted murder(as other people on this forum
would call it)? I get the feeling that cyclist always blame the driver no matter what the circumstances may be. Have none of you ever almost caused an accident for any reason at all? Are you all so good that you live in a perfect world where things like this
could never happen to you? You will never cause an accident of any kind in your life?
Because it was a cyclist who was hurt the car driver was 100% at fault , without a doubt, and obviously should be jailed for many years? What if all this happened to you
and people were screaming for your head because you were the driver? Get real, this is
not a perfect world and when cars and bikes mix it up the bikes usually lose. Just like trains vs. cars. Anyone could end up being on either side of this one. It only takes a
second.

Dennis Noward

number9

So should you be sentenced to 20 years of hard labor as the other people on this
forum would like to see?

Nobody said that.

should you at least be given some consideration in that it
was an accident and not intentional attempted murder(as other people on this forum
would call it)?

Which people have or would call this attempted murder please?

I get the feeling that cyclist always blame the driver no matter what the circumstances may be.

And yet, naturally, you have bugger all evidence for this.

A driver nearly killed someone and didn't even get to court, FFS. Crap trolling.

dennisn

number9 wrote:

So should you be sentenced to 20 years of hard labor as the other people on this
forum would like to see?

Nobody said that.

should you at least be given some consideration in that it
was an accident and not intentional attempted murder(as other people on this forum
would call it)?

Which people have or would call this attempted murder please?

I get the feeling that cyclist always blame the driver no matter what the circumstances may be.

And yet, naturally, you have bugger all evidence for this.

A driver nearly killed someone and didn't even get to court, FFS. Crap trolling.

Well, #9. I'm glad that you are probably perfect and that something like this could never happen to you while driving a car. I sort of wonder if you understand the concept of
"it was an accident" or is everyone supposed to be perfect. People are involved in road accidents all the time, and none of it is intentional, people get hurt and sometimes killed, it's the nature of the beast(traffic). For you to say, because a cyclist got hurt, that this
is somehow not an accident and was cause for special consideration and special
punishment is absurd. Sh*t happens and it can be caused by you or you could be the
unlucky one.

Dennis Noward

Beeblebrox

dennisn wrote:

number9 wrote:

So should you be sentenced to 20 years of hard labor as the other people on this
forum would like to see?

Nobody said that.

should you at least be given some consideration in that it
was an accident and not intentional attempted murder(as other people on this forum
would call it)?

Which people have or would call this attempted murder please?

I get the feeling that cyclist always blame the driver no matter what the circumstances may be.

And yet, naturally, you have bugger all evidence for this.

A driver nearly killed someone and didn't even get to court, FFS. Crap trolling.

Well, #9. I'm glad that you are probably perfect and that something like this could never happen to you while driving a car. I sort of wonder if you understand the concept of
"it was an accident" or is everyone supposed to be perfect. People are involved in road accidents all the time, and none of it is intentional, people get hurt and sometimes killed, it's the nature of the beast(traffic). For you to say, because a cyclist got hurt, that this
is somehow not an accident and was cause for special consideration and special
punishment is absurd. Sh*t happens and it can be caused by you or you could be the
unlucky one.

Dennis Noward

Barely any such thing as an accident on the roads - it is almost certainly due to someone not following (or understanding) the rules of the road, or not concentrating or not being in control of their vehicle properly. The rules are - generally - set up pretty well and avoid accidental collision. Of course it can be the cyclists' fault, but the 'nature of the beast' is that drivers are less attentive towards cyclists and, I would say, the more dangerous and cause more injury than cyclists cause to drivers.

Your post is either trolling or you are horrendously misinformed on the nature of British roads.

thesmellyone

Dennis if you're happy with the result then we'll leave it like that. But if this happened to you i think you'll be feeling a little different and "we" the rest of the cycling community would feel equally outraged. I don't think this lady is thinking "well accidents do happen" and just because i'm partially deaf now and that i'm in constant pain and my 3 kids nearly lost there mum it's ok the 77 driver who hit me will be sown the error of his ways.

I think people (all people) should be regularly retested maybe once every 5 years (reduced testing fee) and for over 60's once every year (make it free). It's a fact of life that your reactions slow when you age or you get complacent as you've not had an accident for so long.

So when you get hit by a car Dennis and you will (we all get into accidents) and you're on life support thinking that driver nearly killed me (my family almost lost a dad/brother/husband) and he didn't even go to court, not even any points on his license I think you'll react like the majority of these people here.

number9

For you to say, because a cyclist got hurt, that this
is somehow not an accident and was cause for special consideration and special
punishment is absurd.

Once again, nobody said that. You're developing into a master of countering arguments nobody's made.


95% of accidents are due to driver error, according to ROSPA. Nearly all RTAs are avoidable, genuine, unavoidable "accidents" are incredibly rare.

dondare

dennisn wrote:

I'm going to play devils advocate on this one and ask a question or two. What if it was you who hit this lady accidentally? Obviously you didn't mean to do it but it happened.
So should you be sentenced to 20 years of hard labor as the other people on this
forum would like to see? Or should you at least be given some consideration in that it
was an accident and not intentional attempted murder(as other people on this forum
would call it)? I get the feeling that cyclist always blame the driver no matter what the circumstances may be. Have none of you ever almost caused an accident for any reason at all? Are you all so good that you live in a perfect world where things like this
could never happen to you? You will never cause an accident of any kind in your life?
Because it was a cyclist who was hurt the car driver was 100% at fault , without a doubt, and obviously should be jailed for many years? What if all this happened to you
and people were screaming for your head because you were the driver? Get real, this is
not a perfect world and when cars and bikes mix it up the bikes usually lose. Just like trains vs. cars. Anyone could end up being on either side of this one. It only takes a
second.

Dennis Noward

The driver admitted responsibility.

dennisn

All of you act like this is something the driver did on purpose and with malice. It was
an accident. I say again , it was an accident.

Dennis Noward

dondare

I wonder why that cyclist who killed that girl wasn't simply told to take the cycling proficiency test.

number9

All of you act like this is something the driver did on purpose and with malice.

Third time, nobody has said this or anything like it, but my view is that if a driver is too lazy/stupid/distracted or impatient to notice a cyclist in broad daylight and smashed into them inflicting serious, disfiguring and crippling injuries then it is disgraceful that no charges are laid and constitutes a green card to similar idiot drivers to take absurd risks with vulnerable road users.


Politely Dennis, argue with what's been said here, not your increasingly hysterical fabrications please.

Belv

I don't see the benefit to anyone of a prison sentence. Loss of licence requiring the extended re-test, a years ban and points on any subsequent licence might send out the right message to other drivers though?

number9

Belv wrote:

I don't see the benefit to anyone of a prison sentence. Loss of licence requiring the extended re-test, a years ban and points on any subsequent licence might send out the right message to other drivers though?

Fair enough, and it's worth remembering the lack of a criminal conviction makes it a LOT harder for the cyclist to claim damages in a civil action.

Crapaud

number9 wrote:

... Politely Dennis, argue with what's been said here, not your increasingly hysterical fabrications please.

Interestingly, that's how I find most of your venomous, anti-motorist posts.

What were your previous usernames? The style seems familiar.

number9

Interestingly, that's how I find most of your venomous, anti-motorist posts.

So presumably you have an example of any of my posts being "anti-motorist"?

Or "fabrications"?

I'll give you a fiver for every one you can find.

Off you trot crappy!

spen666

number9 wrote:

Belv wrote:

I don't see the benefit to anyone of a prison sentence. Loss of licence requiring the extended re-test, a years ban and points on any subsequent licence might send out the right message to other drivers though?

Fair enough, and it's worth remembering the lack of a criminal conviction makes it a LOT harder for the cyclist to claim damages in a civil action.

Lack of a criminal conviction shouldn't prevent or harm a civil claim as standard of proof in civil claim is balance of probabilities as opposed to the criminal standard of beyond all reasonable doubt

Lack of a criminal conviction doesn't make it harder to claim compensation. However, a criminal conviction should make it easier to claim compensation (if you follow)

don_don

Barely any such thing as an accident on the roads - it is almost certainly due to someone not following (or understanding) the rules of the road, or not concentrating or not being in control of their vehicle properly.

95% of accidents are due to driver error, according to ROSPA. Nearly all RTAs are avoidable, genuine, unavoidable "accidents" are incredibly rare.

Which is why the term 'Road Traffic Accident' has now been superceded by 'Road Traffic Collision' in plod-speak.

'Accident' implies some sort of unforeseen circumstance which could not have been avoided, where as 'Collision' allows an element of responsibility, as pointed out above.

number9

don_don wrote:

Barely any such thing as an accident on the roads - it is almost certainly due to someone not following (or understanding) the rules of the road, or not concentrating or not being in control of their vehicle properly.

95% of accidents are due to driver error, according to ROSPA. Nearly all RTAs are avoidable, genuine, unavoidable "accidents" are incredibly rare.

Which is why the term 'Road Traffic Accident' has now been superceded by 'Road Traffic Collision' in plod-speak.

'Accident' implies some sort of unforeseen circumstance which could not have been avoided, where as 'Collision' allows an element of responsibility, as pointed out above.

The police used to take the attitude that in any RTA somebody must have been at fault.

This is no longer the case, sadly.

idaviesmoore

It's a horrible situation but I do feel that, unless you happen to be a motorist who is also a cyclist, most motorists lacks any empathy for cyclists. They don't seem to undrstand that the things that are inconsequential to them such as road side grids, strong side winds, broken bottles and various other detritus, wet pedestrian crossing markers etc are potentially catastrophic to us. I think if motorists used bikes more they'd appreciate the dangers with greater clarity.

dennisn

Have none of you ever merged into traffic or changed lanes and almost hit, or actually
did hit, another car or truck or bus or cyclist? This kind of thing happens to everyone,
yet no one wants it to happen or tries to make it happen. We all have come close or
worse out there on the roads, so why does there seem to be so little understanding
of the driver involved. Just a call for his head on a stake. You must know that when you're
riding your bike on the roads (with cars) that you will be the one to lose the battle in
any kind of accident. It's the way it is. You have no protection, you are harder to see
because you're smaller than a car, you're probably going at a slower rate of speed than the rest of the traffic. It's almost as if you're an accident waiting to happen. People on this forum talk some about cyclist having the same right of way on the road as a car. What a load of crap. If you're trying to merge into traffic and have the right of way, yet no one is
yielding to you, do you simply keep going because, "well, I have the right of way"? No you
don't, you back off, even in a car and especially on a bike. Riding a bike on the road is a
dangerous thing to do compared to driving a car. The injuries are worse and you will
always lose against a car. I will agree with one thing that all concerned need to be as
alert as possible out there. I feel that cyclist make a big mistake in thinking that because
the law gives certain rights on the road that this somehow lessens the danger. For me the main cause of problems is that motorist really don't see you.

Dennis Noward

idaviesmoore

I don't want anyone's head on a stake. I just want motorists to understand that certain situations that are nothing to a driver could be lethal to cyclist.

Beeblebrox

dennisn wrote:

Have none of you ever merged into traffic or changed lanes and almost hit, or actually
did hit, another car or truck or bus or cyclist? This kind of thing happens to everyone,
yet no one wants it to happen or tries to make it happen. We all have come close or
worse out there on the roads, so why does there seem to be so little understanding
of the driver involved. Just a call for his head on a stake. You must know that when you're
riding your bike on the roads (with cars) that you will be the one to lose the battle in
any kind of accident. It's the way it is. You have no protection, you are harder to see
because you're smaller than a car, you're probably going at a slower rate of speed than the rest of the traffic. It's almost as if you're an accident waiting to happen. People on this forum talk some about cyclist having the same right of way on the road as a car. What a load of crap. If you're trying to merge into traffic and have the right of way, yet no one is
yielding to you, do you simply keep going because, "well, I have the right of way"? No you
don't, you back off, even in a car and especially on a bike. Riding a bike on the road is a
dangerous thing to do compared to driving a car. The injuries are worse and you will
always lose against a car. I will agree with one thing that all concerned need to be as
alert as possible out there. I feel that cyclist make a big mistake in thinking that because
the law gives certain rights on the road that this somehow lessens the danger. For me the main cause of problems is that motorist really don't see you.

Dennis Noward

I've still a problem with your use of the word 'accident'. Accident (to paraphrase from Hot Fuzz) implies nobody is to blame. In 'road traffic incidents' (again, thanks Hot Fuzz), there is still someone to blame even if it wasn't intended.
Personally I've never hit anyone else on the road, but if I did I don't imagine it would happen spontaneously without cause, I suspect either myself or the other party would be breaking traffic rules of some variety. It would therefore be one of ours' fault.

Yes we're all aware we have less protection as a cyclist (although whether it is more dangerous is debatable), but if you think giving too much right of way to drivers will help, then I think that you are wrong. Forcing them to overtake properly, making ourselves more visible by using a more central road position where appropriate and using good, highway code manoeuvres is the safest way to bike about.

dennisn

Beeblebrox wrote:

dennisn wrote:

Have none of you ever merged into traffic or changed lanes and almost hit, or actually
did hit, another car or truck or bus or cyclist? This kind of thing happens to everyone,
yet no one wants it to happen or tries to make it happen. We all have come close or
worse out there on the roads, so why does there seem to be so little understanding
of the driver involved. Just a call for his head on a stake. You must know that when you're
riding your bike on the roads (with cars) that you will be the one to lose the battle in
any kind of accident. It's the way it is. You have no protection, you are harder to see
because you're smaller than a car, you're probably going at a slower rate of speed than the rest of the traffic. It's almost as if you're an accident waiting to happen. People on this forum talk some about cyclist having the same right of way on the road as a car. What a load of crap. If you're trying to merge into traffic and have the right of way, yet no one is
yielding to you, do you simply keep going because, "well, I have the right of way"? No you
don't, you back off, even in a car and especially on a bike. Riding a bike on the road is a
dangerous thing to do compared to driving a car. The injuries are worse and you will
always lose against a car. I will agree with one thing that all concerned need to be as
alert as possible out there. I feel that cyclist make a big mistake in thinking that because
the law gives certain rights on the road that this somehow lessens the danger. For me the main cause of problems is that motorist really don't see you.

Dennis Noward

I've still a problem with your use of the word 'accident'. Accident (to paraphrase from Hot Fuzz) implies nobody is to blame. In 'road traffic incidents' (again, thanks Hot Fuzz), there is still someone to blame even if it wasn't intended.
Personally I've never hit anyone else on the road, but if I did I don't imagine it would happen spontaneously without cause, I suspect either myself or the other party would be breaking traffic rules of some variety. It would therefore be one of ours' fault.

Yes we're all aware we have less protection as a cyclist (although whether it is more dangerous is debatable), but if you think giving too much right of way to drivers will help, then I think that you are wrong. Forcing them to overtake properly, making ourselves more visible by using a more central road position where appropriate and using good, highway code manoeuvres is the safest way to bike about.

I will agree that there is usually someone "at fault". My problem is that no one can
possibly know everything that is going on around them all the time. There are simply too
many gaps in what we see or don't see. Too many distractions (yes, cell phones can be killers). Too much to see ,hear, and do for any person to come to grips with it all and NEVER have a problem on the road. We are all only human and subject to faults,
miscalculations, indecision, poor judgement, and everything else that is part of being human. Now intention to do bad things is a whole different ball game from being
involved in a, so called, "accident".

Dennis Noward

number9

Riding a bike on the road is a
dangerous thing to do compared to driving a car.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, it's much safer.

Dennis, your rants are increasingly based on straw men, sweeping prejudice and false arguments. You've mis-stated what people have written here and you state assertive rubbish which bears no relation to the truth.

mtbcommuter

Am I the only one here who is thinking that Dennis is using deliberately provocative language to invoke a response? It seems number 9 is biting.

I actually lost interest in the thread on page one, I only turned to page two to see which one offered the other one a chance to sort it out behind the bike sheds

If Road Traffic Collisions were investigated along the lines of Air Disasters then we'd know without any doubt whether a nut holding a small cog in place sheared off or whether the nut holding the wheel and steering the car was on his/her mobile (interesting that Dennis uses the americanism "cell phone") or lighting a cigarette or simply thinking about what he/she was going to have for tea. Having said that we may also find that the cyclist was at fault (unbelievable I know)

In every collision someone or something is at fault, but that is completely off the thread, as mentioned a number of times the driver admitted fault, the police decided to educate rather than prosecute. If the cyclist isn't happy then take out a civil action, her solicitor would gain access to all of the documentation used by the police, including the interview of the driver where he admits fault and the victim will be compensated for her injuries, loss of earnings etc. etc.

Should a 77 year old still be driving, at the moment I'd say No. When I reach 76 I may change that opinion.

Should Dennis get a life, probably.

fezzyboy

First post for me so I hope It's ok.

Firstly I'm sorry for your injuries and glad you lived to tell the tale.

I am sitting here reading this today l as got side swiped by a left turning car despite me being in the correct road position at a crossroads and trying to go straight ahead. Cuts bruises and a torn muscle in my leg so not too bad. :shock:

"I'm So sorry I didn't see you." said the driver.

He apologised repeatedly and I didn't really know what to say to him (first time for everything my wife says!!). I just said to him in the end "mate I bounced off the side of your car and it's just by luck that I didn't go under it, (a point made by the ambulance crew that turned up). The problem is I said that you are in a car on a road and you need to do eveything all the time to drive to the best of your ability". It could have been a lot worse. Everyone's is different, but drivers and riders on the roads need to be "on the ball" all the time to look after themselves and anyone else on the road, this includes pedestrians. As a Motorcyclist as well I need to be aware of others drivers not seeing me so I can ride defensive and compensate for their failings. I will generaly not win a fight with a car etc if on a bike or motorbike no matter Who's fault it is. The problem in my accident was I couldn't do anything about it, as he was at the side of me and then turning without me knowing. So sometimes one peron can't do anything to avoid the failings of another.. that (to me) is the cause of most collisions / accidents.

If re-educating a driver helps to prevent them having another accident then surely that's a good thing. More regular and stringent testing, would help. It's a big responsibility to drive / ride on the road and if you want to take the responsibility you should be made to take more regular tests. :idea:

The End !!!!

dennisn

thesmellyone wrote:

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2031624_he_did_this_to_me_but_wont_be_prosecuted

Driver should be sent down for that!

Lets go back to the beginning on this one.
Title - driver getting away with it.
Guote - ... should be sent down for that.

Geting away with it? Wouldn't that imply he did it intentionally?
Should be sent down for that? Wouldn't that imply that you want his head on a stake(so to speak)?
You can bitch at me all you like, I still have an opinion on this. Now, what about "thesmellyone"? He sounds just a little vindictive and hateful don't you think?
Just the sort of person cycling needs? Right?

Dennis Noward