Lorry driver killed cyclist, threw bike into undergrowth.

greg66_tri_v2.0

number9 wrote:

Drivers using their vehicles as weapons is not uncommon.

You have some independent statistically verified evidence to support that statement (whatever it is really intended to mean), I take it?

number9

Greg66 wrote:

number9 wrote:

Drivers using their vehicles as weapons is not uncommon.

You have some independent statistically verified evidence to support that statement (whatever it is really intended to mean), I take it?

A road-rage driver who mowed down a cyclist in a “moment of madness” and left him injured on the street has been spared jail.

http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-fe ... his-target

A “ROAD rage” driver who rammed a cyclist off his bike after the he kicked his sports car has been banned from driving.

http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/loc ... d_his_car/

During the six-day trial, jurors were told the incident had been ‘road rage gone wrong’, with Robertson driving very close to Mr Smith’s bike in a bid to intimidate him into veering off the road, before attempting to clip the back of the bike with his car.

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/20570 ... list_crash

Many urban cyclists have experienced drivers bullying and intimidating cyclists with their vehicle.

Robertson wanted the cyclist out of the way so he "nudged" him with a two ton vehicle, The same thing happened to me in Leytonstone, the car had fake number plates, there was no record of any vehicle with that registration.

yoohoo999

number9 wrote:

Why is this not reflected in motoring cases.



Drivers using their vehicles as weapons is not uncommon. They should be treated like this, guilty of Assault With A Deadly Weapon:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me ... 1131.story

Dr. Christopher Thompson, 60, slumped forward and held his face in his hands after the verdicts were announced in a courtroom packed mostly with supporters and cyclists.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Mary Stone, who prosecuted the case, asked for Thompson to be jailed immediately, calling him a flight risk and a safety threat to cyclists.

"There's not a cyclist in Los Angeles who would feel comfortable with this defendant out on the road after this verdict," Stone told the court.

Or maybe we could just use ABH, GBH or GBH with intent and save enacting a bit of US law?

this is just getting a bt silly now isn't it?

:roll:

zanes

number9 wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

number9 wrote:

Drivers using their vehicles as weapons is not uncommon.

You have some independent statistically verified evidence to support that statement (whatever it is really intended to mean), I take it?

A road-rage driver who mowed down a cyclist in a “moment of madness” and left him injured on the street has been spared jail.

http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-fe ... his-target

A “ROAD rage” driver who rammed a cyclist off his bike after the he kicked his sports car has been banned from driving.

http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/loc ... d_his_car/

During the six-day trial, jurors were told the incident had been ‘road rage gone wrong’, with Robertson driving very close to Mr Smith’s bike in a bid to intimidate him into veering off the road, before attempting to clip the back of the bike with his car.

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/20570 ... list_crash

Many urban cyclists have experienced drivers bullying and intimidating cyclists with their vehicle.

Robertson wanted the cyclist out of the way so he "nudged" him with a two ton vehicle, The same thing happened to me in Leytonstone, the car had fake number plates, there was no record of any vehicle with that registration.

You see, "No" would have been just as good an answer!

I love these little arguments. The fact that number9 continuously borders on troll is teh WIN!!

number9

Robertson deliberately knocks the guy off the road, comes near as damnit to killing him, grievously injures him...and only gets 20 months, and only for dangerous driving?

Why is this not attempted murder/GBH or something else that would get a suitably lengthy period.?

"Judge Peter Moss sentenced Robertson to 20 months for dangerous driving - criticising the maximum 24-month term as "absurdly low and incomprehensible" - and consecutive terms of eight months for perverting the course of justice and five months for theft."

"When Robertson was found guilty of dangerous driving and perverting the course of justice he swore at the judge and vomited in the dock before struggling as he was escorted to the cells."

(Times article)

number9

zanes wrote:

number9 wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

number9 wrote:

Drivers using their vehicles as weapons is not uncommon.

You have some independent statistically verified evidence to support that statement (whatever it is really intended to mean), I take it?

A road-rage driver who mowed down a cyclist in a “moment of madness” and left him injured on the street has been spared jail.

http://www.rochdaleonline.co.uk/news-fe ... his-target

A “ROAD rage” driver who rammed a cyclist off his bike after the he kicked his sports car has been banned from driving.

http://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/loc ... d_his_car/

During the six-day trial, jurors were told the incident had been ‘road rage gone wrong’, with Robertson driving very close to Mr Smith’s bike in a bid to intimidate him into veering off the road, before attempting to clip the back of the bike with his car.

http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/s/20570 ... list_crash

Many urban cyclists have experienced drivers bullying and intimidating cyclists with their vehicle.

Robertson wanted the cyclist out of the way so he "nudged" him with a two ton vehicle, The same thing happened to me in Leytonstone, the car had fake number plates, there was no record of any vehicle with that registration.

You see, "No" would have been just as good an answer!

I love these little arguments. The fact that number9 continuously borders on troll is teh WIN!!

I was asked to show that drivers using vehicles as a weapon is not uncommon. Those are all recent examples. Not uncommon then.

zanes

No, you were asked;

"You have some independent statistically verified evidence to support that statement (whatever it is really intended to mean), I take it?"

number9

They still haven't caught this chap:

http://www.cyclingweekly.co.uk/news/lat ... shire.html

A driver in Cheshire who twice in the space a month has attempted to run off the road the same members of Port Sunlight Wheelers - and who is known to police because he already has six points on his licence - remains at large because the Crown Prosecution Service claim that none of the witnesses were able to identify him.

He's been heard boasting about his exploits in "chippies". The car involved is a hot-hatch, blue-coloured Renault Clio hurtling around the Chester area. One of the Port Sunlight Wheelers nearly wiped out by this guy is a police officer, Garry Doolan.

Doolan says End to End record holder, Andy Wilkinson, was involved in the second incident. Doolan says he has learned that the driver voluntarily attended a police interview, but gave a "no comment" interview. However, according to Doolan, the driver had previously told the police officer that he had "had a go" at the cyclists because they were riding four abreast - which Doolan refutes.

bails87

3 cases out of millions of drivers is uncommon. Stats not stories.

greg66_tri_v2.0

number9 wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

number9 wrote:

Drivers using their vehicles as weapons is not uncommon.

You have some independent statistically verified evidence to support that statement (whatever it is really intended to mean), I take it?

<the usual hysterical hyperbole>

That's two press stories. In the last 16 months. In England. And your experience.

I agree: "no" would have been a shorter and accurate answer.

number9 wrote:

Many urban cyclists have experienced drivers bullying and intimidating cyclists with their vehicle.

You have some independent statistically verified evidence to support that statement (whatever it is really intended to mean), I take it?

number9

zanes wrote:

No, you were asked;

"You have some independent statistically verified evidence to support that statement (whatever it is really intended to mean), I take it?"

Yep. And from the past twelve months there have been quite a few examples, so such incidents are not uncommon.

http://www.movingtargetzine.com/article ... -messenger

In this case, as reported by Scotsman, the driver concerned, Mr Chaudry, deliberately used his vehicle as a weapon and purposefully drove it at Greg Walker, an Edinburgh cycle courier. Mr Walker suffered multiple injuries. This case has the horrible echo of that of Thomas McBride, a Chicago bicycle messenger who was killed in 1999. Thomas was deliberately run over by a driver after an argument in the street. That driver was later convicted of murder.

Mr Chaudry showed clear intent to harm Greg, and he was found guilty of dangerous driving, and the driver has been sent to jail, as well as banned from driving for 5 years. In addition, Mr Chaudry will have to re-sit his driving test. I would say that this was a punishment that was proportionate with the crime, and its consequences. It’s also good to see that the police (according to this report) considered laying a charge of attempted murder.

greg66_tri_v2.0

I stand corrected.

That's two press stories. In the last 16 months. In England. And your experience. And one press story in Scotland. God knows when.

No doubt we'll get to the independent evidence in due course.

zanes

number9 wrote:

Yep. And from the past twelve months there have been quite a few examples, so such incidents are not uncommon.

[/img]

number9

Champion cyclist is compensated for road rage injuries

Mick was out cycling with a group of riders, including M.I. Racing’s Barrie Mitchell, when a motorist overtook the group of cyclists blaring his horn. The driver then swerved in front of the group, bringing his car to an abrupt halt.

http://www.britishcycling.org.uk/web/si ... k_ives.asp

The basic problem here is that there are people who assault cyclists on the roads. Our Olympic atheletes complain of abuse during training.

Wallace1492

Greg66 wrote:

number9 wrote:

Drivers using their vehicles as weapons is not uncommon.

You have some independent statistically verified evidence to support that statement (whatever it is really intended to mean), I take it?

Hold on a wee moment here. IMHO it is pretty uncommon. However, is that the point? No, what we are talking about is the punishment for it is far too lenient. Also, I do tend to agree that divers do use their vehicles to imtimidate cyclists, maybe not always deliberately, but lets fact it, this forum is often filled with stories of near misses, but again, these are not that common, but again, there should be punishment for this.

So number9 does have some valid points. The punishment for poor driving is not harsh enough. And, the consequences must be taken into account.

number9

zanes wrote:

number9 wrote:

Yep. And from the past twelve months there have been quite a few examples, so such incidents are not uncommon.

[/img]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/uncommon

I have noticed personally in the last ten years the increasing disregard and indeed often unwarranted, outright aggression to cyclists by drivers, across the spectrum, from white van driver usual suspects to supposedly respectable middle-aged family man.

This trend has been driven in large part by the tantamount to criminal incitement of attacks against cyclists by Clarkson, Parris et al(Parris suggesting stringing piano wire across country lanes and Clarkson's continuous attacks on cyclists/cycling).

http://tinyurl.com/ybuvto4

Mindless morons now think it fair game to literally push cyclists off the road, as their hero, has as good as said it's okay, indeed made it 'cool' to do so.

Their is a large amount of sociopaths already in possession of vehicles on Britain's roads without giving them de facto licence to vent their videogaming fantasises of 'taking someone out', or generally venting their sick inadequacies in everyday life, from behind the wheel of a two ton weapon on a defenceless twelve stone of human flesh.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Wallace1492 wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

number9 wrote:

Drivers using their vehicles as weapons is not uncommon.

You have some independent statistically verified evidence to support that statement (whatever it is really intended to mean), I take it?

Hold on a wee moment here. IMHO it is pretty uncommon. However, is that the point? No, what we are talking about is the punishment for it is far too lenient.

That was, I think, the point in issue. What I wanted to highlight was number9's tendency to pepper his posts with material that is (a) irrelevant (as you've said) and (b) simply nonsense. All that that sort of drivel does is cloud the issue and serve (it seems) to whip him up into an ever-more intense frenzy of car-hatred.

It's an old trick when arguing: chuck in some inaccurate and irrelevant but emotive ballast to try to drag people along with you on your main proposition.

As for this:

Mindless morons now think it fair game to literally push cyclists off the road, as their hero, has as good as said it's okay, indeed made it 'cool' to do so.

Their is a large amount of sociopaths already in possession of vehicles on Britain's roads without giving them de facto licence to vent their videogaming fantasises of 'taking someone out', or generally venting their sick inadequacies in everyday life, from behind the wheel of a two ton weapon on a defenceless twelve stone of human flesh.

Well, it's just the semi-literate rantings of a bigot, isn't it?

zanes

number9 wrote:

Their is a large amount of sociopaths already in possession of vehicles on Britain's roads without giving them de facto licence to vent their videogaming fantasises of 'taking someone out', or generally venting their sick inadequacies in everyday life, from behind the wheel of a two ton weapon on a defenceless twelve stone of human flesh.

You forgot rock'n'roll. That killed society

spen666

number9 wrote:

Why is this not reflected in motoring cases.



Drivers using their vehicles as weapons is not uncommon. They should be treated like this, guilty of Assault With A Deadly Weapon:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me ... 1131.story

Dr. Christopher Thompson, 60, slumped forward and held his face in his hands after the verdicts were announced in a courtroom packed mostly with supporters and cyclists.

Deputy Dist. Atty. Mary Stone, who prosecuted the case, asked for Thompson to be jailed immediately, calling him a flight risk and a safety threat to cyclists.

"There's not a cyclist in Los Angeles who would feel comfortable with this defendant out on the road after this verdict," Stone told the court.

[/quote]

Erm at a wild guess because that case is in a different jurisdiction


Given that you seem unable to graps the difference between civil and criminal law, I have little confidence that you are able to understand that qwhat happens in the USA is happening in a different legal system

number9

Greg66 wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

number9 wrote:

Drivers using their vehicles as weapons is not uncommon.

You have some independent statistically verified evidence to support that statement (whatever it is really intended to mean), I take it?

Hold on a wee moment here. IMHO it is pretty uncommon. However, is that the point? No, what we are talking about is the punishment for it is far too lenient.

That was, I think, the point in issue. What I wanted to highlight was number9's tendency to pepper his posts with material that is (a) irrelevant (as you've said) and (b) simply nonsense. All that that sort of drivel does is cloud the issue and serve (it seems) to whip him up into an ever-more intense frenzy of car-hatred.

It's an old trick when arguing: chuck in some inaccurate and irrelevant but emotive ballast to try to drag people along with you on your main proposition.

As for this:

Mindless morons now think it fair game to literally push cyclists off the road, as their hero, has as good as said it's okay, indeed made it 'cool' to do so.

Their is a large amount of sociopaths already in possession of vehicles on Britain's roads without giving them de facto licence to vent their videogaming fantasises of 'taking someone out', or generally venting their sick inadequacies in everyday life, from behind the wheel of a two ton weapon on a defenceless twelve stone of human flesh.

Well, it's just the semi-literate rantings of a bigot, isn't it?

Feel free to point out what I've posted that you think is nonsense, or exhibits a hatred of cars please.

Tell you what, I'll give you a tenner for every post of mine that you find that justifies your claim that i "hate cars".

Deal?

number9

Erm at a wild guess because that case is in a different jurisdiction


Given that you seem unable to graps the difference between civil and criminal law, I have little confidence that you are able to understand that qwhat happens in the USA is happening in a different legal system


spen, you're just being childish. I know Thompson was charged in LA, the clue's in the link, where it says "LA Times", see?

The only confusion about civil and criminal law is in your fevered imagination, I've explained eleventy-twelve times what the position is, if you still can't grasp it then it's beyond my ability to educate you.

Wallace1492

Right, I don't see where this is goping anymore.
Everyone agrees that drivers are let off too leniently.

Number9 has valid points, as have most on here.
People have issues about no9 being a bit passionate about it, and maybe exaggerating and being patronising.

I do not think this infighting and cat calling helps in any way.
Please can we move on?

yoohoo999

Wallace1492 wrote:

People have issues about no9 being a bit passionate about it, and maybe exaggerating and being patronising.

and being incorrect?

number9

yoohoo999 wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

People have issues about no9 being a bit passionate about it, and maybe exaggerating and being patronising.

and being incorrect?

Incorrect about what please?

It's a bit harsh to attack me for dishonesty without saying what I've said that's wrong!

I've been cycle commuting in London for twenty years and despite the doubling of cycling numbers but halving of accidents, antipathy toward cyclists seems to be growing, either inspired or reflected by the vitriol in the press.

There have been incidents of drivers attacking cyclists for no apparent reason other than their being cyclists, and I'm not sure how you can state my own personal experience is wrong.

gabriel959

yoohoo999 wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

People have issues about no9 being a bit passionate about it, and maybe exaggerating and being patronising.

and being incorrect?

of course, and you are always right, init flower? :roll:

Stu T

Never Met Tony but swapped banter online many times. Always a funny committed guy. Have met Andy his brother and he's a fantastic guy. Really feel for Andy and his family

yoohoo999

gabriel959 wrote:

yoohoo999 wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

People have issues about no9 being a bit passionate about it, and maybe exaggerating and being patronising.

and being incorrect?

of course, and you are always right, init flower? :roll:

of course i'm not always right. what on earth has that got to do with whether number9 is incorrect? bizzare statement.

:roll:

the_hundredth_idiot

Wallace1492 wrote:

Right, I don't see where this is goping anymore.
Everyone agrees that drivers are let off too leniently.

Number9 has valid points, as have most on here.
People have issues about no9 being a bit passionate about it, and maybe exaggerating and being patronising.

I do not think this infighting and cat calling helps in any way.
Please can we move on?

+1

dilemna

With any luck due to the continuing credit crunch if reports are to believed thousands of fat cat city corporate and commercial lawyers have yet to lose their jobs ............

Oh my heart bleeds ............

Not sure if this has been posted but here's another case of a road rage driver which resulted in the death of a cyclist:

http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/c ... -23432533/

I think many regular road cyclists will recognise the cuture of agression displayed by many drivers toward cyclists. The forums are not exactly devoid of these incidents.

Not a ride goes by without a couple of near death experiences. Unless you are regular cyclist you won't appreciate just how frightening it can be. For the uninitiated it must be terrifying and is often the reason quoted by many drivers why they don't cycle as they know how dangerously they and other drivers can and do drive. Riding a bike means you have little chance of survival if knocked down by any of these drivers.

RIP to all fellow cyclists and condolences to their families who were killed this year on the roads. I'm sure Christmas will be a very difficult time as for any one who has recently lost loved ones.

yoohoo999

number9 wrote:

Incorrect about what please?

It's a bit harsh to attack me for dishonesty without saying what I've said that's wrong!

I said "incorrect", not "dishonest". There's a difference (but hey, you don't seem to be that bothered about accuracy, just getting reasonably close)

In all honesty, I agree entirely with what you are trying to acheive.

As I've said before, I'm a cyclist, I lost my grandfather in an RTA caused by an HGV driver that had been driving for around 19 hours out of the previous 24, and I'm a lawyer who understands that the remedies provided by statute isn't always the justice you want.

But the simple fact of the matter is that despite having very powerful and emotive arguments, your understanding of how your proposals would intergrate into our current legal system appears to be flawed. It's a complex area that would require considerable analysis by a lawyer practising in that particular field, so the fact that a lay person comes close to understanding is admirable - but close doesn't really cut it when you are trying to influence legislative policy.

I think that the arguments on this topic have gone as far as they can go. It seems odd that there isn't a single person involved in this discussion who doesn't want the same thing (greater protection of vulnerable road users and adequate sentencing of those committing criminal offences causing injury or death to road users), yet we have effectively spent 12 pages banging our heads together.

There is a solution to both of these issues, but you proposal isn't it. It works from a cyclist's perspective, but it doesn't fit with ECHR, the Government or any other road users.

The solution has to be proportionate, just and above all legally possible. Yours is not.

As I said in the very first comment I made in this thread, legislative change must be made via parliament. Parliament won't (as they have already indicated) consider your proposal, so let's move on and try to find something that WILL work.

You will need FIRM statistical analysis (not from media sources, your own personal experience or from grieving family members), you need the assistance of a lawyer who is very conversant in this area and committed to the same cause, and you need a couple of MPs on board who will take this where it needs to go - the Commons.

Number9, if you come up with a proposal that is sound in principle, I would walk up to downing street with you and present it. We're all trying to achieve the same end result, but from different starting points.

All big law firms, my own included, do a lot of pro bono work and many lawyers are avid cyclists. It might be worth speaking to a few to see if they are willing to get involved. You would have access to some fantastic resources and a much better profile.

I would suggest that this debate is now pointless and that we all either go our seperate ways and maintain the status quo, or we actually try to make a concerted effort to come up with NEW solutions to the issue of vulnerability of cyclists on the UKs roads.