Death of a Cyclist - What can be done??
Terra Nova
Posts: 56
I have started this thread in response to another thread about the case of my brother Tony Spink, who was killed on 18th July 2007, whilst cycling, by Andrew Stubbs. Stubbs was driving a HGV at the time. The case was debated in another thread but this thread was locked due to a general deterioration in the quality of debate (I think, I have asked the editor for his reasons, forgive me if I am wrong). I joined this website because of the thread about my brother but I was searching the internet for debate amongst cycling and motoring communities as to what we could do to campaign for greater safety and protection of vulnerable road users.
There are more points I want to make. Firstly, I do not see this thread as a tribute to my brother, nor do I want anyone to treat me, my family, or the subject we are discussing any differently just because we have been the victims of a heinous road crime that resulted in our Tony’s death. Although every comment in which people have expressed their genuine compassion and sympathy for what my brother suffered on various internet forums, and what we have suffered since, is very, very comforting and incredibly helpful to all my family in our grieving for our Tony. We thank you for that.
I just want to discuss what is on my mind, to offer my opinion but more importantly to learn from other cyclists through listening and appreciating those opinions (and no you don’t have to agree or fear disagreeing just because I am on this thread), and even to learn from our experiences, and to discuss, rationalise, reflect, work out, change, adapt our views, if we feel they could be or need be, and if anything, to discuss what can be done constructively to stop the thousands of deaths that are happening on our roads each year.
For those of you who say that emotion does not play a part in the seeking of truth or justice, and in the formulation of new law, changes in old law, or rational debate I say, in my humble opinion, you are wrong. Whilst people can suffer from emotional responses so extreme that it can prevent them from participating in debates such as this to their optimum potential, and that some people are so emotionally charged their judgement can be clouded, well this can be true, but so can the exact opposite be true. Emotion has everything to do with justice for if we were not emotional human beings and we did not respond to emotion but instead stifled emotion we would not have progressed as a cultural nation since the dark ages. There are quite plainly things that are right and things that are wrong and our emotions are at the very core of those judgements of what is right and what is wrong.
Some people can be so far removed from the emotion of situations and so engrained in law, statute, procedure, tradition, rules and regulations that they too can be blinded as to the real issues at stake, and when we are blinded in this way, our judgement can also be just as impaired as the person who is swathed in emotional feeling. What is needed is a balance of both. We need judges to be able to judge on facts and lawyers and barristers to represent the law, but that doesn’t mean those people control the law and write the law. We, as individuals and as a collective nation of people have that right, and emotion is proven throughout history to be the catalyst for change.
I believe in justice. My brother believed in justice. Our family believed that Stubbs had the right to a fair trial. The judge instructed the jury that “emotion does not play a part in this trial” and we agreed, however difficult that was for us, but her judgement of Stubbs at the sentencing was just as much about the humanity and emotion of what he did as it was about the facts of what he did. They are indelibly linked.
We only wanted to know the truth of what happened, the facts of what happened. But we also wanted an emotional response from the man who killed him. One of the most difficult things for us to accept is that we will never know the whole truth because, in our case, the defendant did not tell the whole truth, and our Tony died before he could tell his truth. We wanted our Tony’s death to be an “accident”, because then we would know that nothing caused it, it was not intentional, it was unavoidable, it was pure chance and fate. But we know it wasn’t an “accident”. IT WAS NOT AN ACCIDENT and completely avoidable. He, like thousands of others, did not have to die. Classing their deaths as accidents accepts the staus quo and means nothing will change.
To change things so that we save lives and we save people from suffering tragic and horrific deaths that my brother suffered we could begin with that: NO ROAD TRAFFIC DEATH IS AN ACCIDENT. They all have causes. That will be a start.
I have other ideas and opinions as to what we can do, and what else I would like to be done. I am hoping to share those ideas and hear more from others.
Many thanks for the respect you have shown my brother, he would be truly comforted and amazed at the response.
Andrew Spink
There are more points I want to make. Firstly, I do not see this thread as a tribute to my brother, nor do I want anyone to treat me, my family, or the subject we are discussing any differently just because we have been the victims of a heinous road crime that resulted in our Tony’s death. Although every comment in which people have expressed their genuine compassion and sympathy for what my brother suffered on various internet forums, and what we have suffered since, is very, very comforting and incredibly helpful to all my family in our grieving for our Tony. We thank you for that.
I just want to discuss what is on my mind, to offer my opinion but more importantly to learn from other cyclists through listening and appreciating those opinions (and no you don’t have to agree or fear disagreeing just because I am on this thread), and even to learn from our experiences, and to discuss, rationalise, reflect, work out, change, adapt our views, if we feel they could be or need be, and if anything, to discuss what can be done constructively to stop the thousands of deaths that are happening on our roads each year.
For those of you who say that emotion does not play a part in the seeking of truth or justice, and in the formulation of new law, changes in old law, or rational debate I say, in my humble opinion, you are wrong. Whilst people can suffer from emotional responses so extreme that it can prevent them from participating in debates such as this to their optimum potential, and that some people are so emotionally charged their judgement can be clouded, well this can be true, but so can the exact opposite be true. Emotion has everything to do with justice for if we were not emotional human beings and we did not respond to emotion but instead stifled emotion we would not have progressed as a cultural nation since the dark ages. There are quite plainly things that are right and things that are wrong and our emotions are at the very core of those judgements of what is right and what is wrong.
Some people can be so far removed from the emotion of situations and so engrained in law, statute, procedure, tradition, rules and regulations that they too can be blinded as to the real issues at stake, and when we are blinded in this way, our judgement can also be just as impaired as the person who is swathed in emotional feeling. What is needed is a balance of both. We need judges to be able to judge on facts and lawyers and barristers to represent the law, but that doesn’t mean those people control the law and write the law. We, as individuals and as a collective nation of people have that right, and emotion is proven throughout history to be the catalyst for change.
I believe in justice. My brother believed in justice. Our family believed that Stubbs had the right to a fair trial. The judge instructed the jury that “emotion does not play a part in this trial” and we agreed, however difficult that was for us, but her judgement of Stubbs at the sentencing was just as much about the humanity and emotion of what he did as it was about the facts of what he did. They are indelibly linked.
We only wanted to know the truth of what happened, the facts of what happened. But we also wanted an emotional response from the man who killed him. One of the most difficult things for us to accept is that we will never know the whole truth because, in our case, the defendant did not tell the whole truth, and our Tony died before he could tell his truth. We wanted our Tony’s death to be an “accident”, because then we would know that nothing caused it, it was not intentional, it was unavoidable, it was pure chance and fate. But we know it wasn’t an “accident”. IT WAS NOT AN ACCIDENT and completely avoidable. He, like thousands of others, did not have to die. Classing their deaths as accidents accepts the staus quo and means nothing will change.
To change things so that we save lives and we save people from suffering tragic and horrific deaths that my brother suffered we could begin with that: NO ROAD TRAFFIC DEATH IS AN ACCIDENT. They all have causes. That will be a start.
I have other ideas and opinions as to what we can do, and what else I would like to be done. I am hoping to share those ideas and hear more from others.
Many thanks for the respect you have shown my brother, he would be truly comforted and amazed at the response.
Andrew Spink
0
Comments
-
Given the disproportionate number of fatalities involving lorries, it would be natural to expect the authorities to clamp down hard on sloppy, inattentive behaviour whilst driving and HGV through crowded urban streets.
Dream on:
http://www.movingtargetzine.com/article ... -fined-300
The family of Ms Foa – the daughter of typewriter magnate Adriano Ollivetti said she was wearing a luminious reflector jacket and a helmet when she was crushed by the two tonne lorry.
District Judge Anthony Evans said:
“I accept in cases of this sort it’s distressing for all concerned, the family of the disceased and the driver whose inadvertance has resulted in a fatality.”
Prosecutor Graham Parkinson told the court the incident happened at 9.10am in Camley Street, Kings Cross.
“Emma was riding her bike and reached the traffic lights. She went along the nearside and waited for the lights to change,” he said. “She was alongside for 37 seconds and would have been visible. He moved off and turned left causing her to be pushed to the ground and killed instantly. He had been looking for some paperwork in his truck… He felt a bump, saw a bike and jumped out to find her.”
Karen Dempsey, defending, said that Thorn was “shocked and distressed” and that the incident “would live with him for the rest of his life”. She added that witnesses had said he was not driving aggressively.
I am not sure what I am most shocked by. I am not shocked that, despite the fact that Mr Thorn’s criminal negligence has resulted in the unlawful killing of Ms Foa, the court is allowing him to continue to drive. I am not shocked that, despite being found guilty of road crime, the driver has been fined £300.
The sentence is entirely in keeping with the tariff for road killing.
A fine that represents less than the cost OF THE BIKE is no deterrent, in my opinion.0 -
Number 9 Given the maximum punishment for the offence was a fine
Given also that you are punished for the action not the consequences, then the punishment is in accordance with the law.
Quite what this story has to do with a wholly unrelated case involving allegations of death by dangerous driving and perverting the course of justice compared to a simople careless driving case i'm not sure.
This couldn't be trying to whip up public emotion like that scanadalous rag the Daily Mail does could it?Want to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com
Twittering @spen_6660 -
We see the cyclist's lot clearer than most, naturally enough, but things start to look a bit different when you take the larger view those who deal with these issues take.
http://www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/statistics/da ... esults2008
In 2008 the number of people killed or seriously injured is as follows
killed seriously injured
in a car 1,257 10,711
Pedestrians 527 6,642
cyclists 115 2,450
Motorbike 493 6,049
Children 124 2,807
(children being also counted in the numbers above)
Those are the headline numbers, with little contextual information related to the number of people doing each or the distances they do. Never the less, it's pretty easy to see why cyclists might not be the main target of anyone with a limited road safety budget to spend.
The usual way that budget is spent is through "cycling facilities" which means either a bit of useless paint or worse still, a shared-use path, but with priorities naturally being targeted elsewhere (and successfully deaths down 14pc, serious injuries 7pc and thats just compared to 2007) it's understandable, if frustrating, that more useful things aren't done.
Are HGV's a particular problem?
http://www.dft.gov.uk/adobepdf/162469/2 ... 2005pdfdoc
They are a very small part of the overall traffic, doing about 30 billion kilometres, compared to nearly 400 billion for cars, but they do about half that on motorways, away from cyclists, and less than 2 billion of it on urban roads (those with more than 2 axles doing just 0.4 billion at most) Other traffic does about 110 bvk's on urban roads every year. So HGV's are about 2% of urban traffic, and in 2004 were responsible for about 2% of cyclist casualties (all injured, not just killed or seriously injured) Cars were at 87%. So far so good for HGV's, they are in proportion.
Then you look at the deaths. 60% of cyclists who dies in traffic collisions were killed by a car in 2004. 22% (22 people) were killed by a HGV. That is hugely disproportionate to their traffic numbers, especially since their miles are skewed away from where cyclists ride.
So HGV's are no more likely to be involved in an accident with a cyclist than any other vehicle, arguably less likely than cars, though only a little bit. However, when they are involved it's more likely to be fatal than when cars are involved. That's hardly surprising, and quite likely to be true of a HGV vs anything, not just cyclists.
Cars are still by far the biggest problem no matter how you ever spin the numbers. 87% of casualties, 60% of deaths. As a cyclist, I'd much rather that cyclist safety measures were targeted at cars rather than HGV's.
I'll mention my idea of having the police encouraged to actually charge people with careless driving when they are involved in non-serious injury accidents, especially, but not just, with vulnerable road users. Other threads here recently have shown they quite often don't pursue those incidents much beyond a crime number and rarely charge people with any offences. It gives rise to a culture of these accidents being "minor" things of little consequence. They might be in a 4x4, they aren't when your on a bike.0 -
Could someone who is a law expert please explain how driving more than 4.5 hours without a break and killing someone dies did not fit into the criteria for dangerous driving, which I understand is thatthe way they drive falls far below the minimum acceptable standard expected of a competent and careful driver; and
it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.
Or is that just "a little below" the minimum acceptable standard?0 -
I just want to discuss what is on my mind, to offer my opinion but more importantly to learn from other cyclists through listening and appreciating those opinions (and no you don’t have to agree or fear disagreeing just because I am on this thread), and even to learn from our experiences, and to discuss, rationalise, reflect, work out, change, adapt our views, if we feel they could be or need be, and if anything, to discuss what can be done constructively to stop the thousands of deaths that are happening on our roads each year.
You have every right to do this, however you need to be aware that these threads can quite quickly descend into the mire typified by the locked thread you mention. Are you sure you want to put yourself through that?NO ROAD TRAFFIC DEATH IS AN ACCIDENT. They all have causes. That will be a start.
Without getting into word play I'd would suggest that when most people use the term accident they would mean 'as opposed to a deliberate action'.
I my opinion all 'accidents' have one common feature. Someone, sometime, somewhere makes the wrong decision; they drink a coffee instead of having a proper rest, they misjudge the time they have to overtake, they cross the roading without looking, etc etc.
Improving road safety, for all users, is directly linked to improving this decision making.
This could be done by improving driver training, why is the advanced drivers test not the driving test? why not resit the test every 3 years? why not increase the driving age to 21 instead of 17? (how many young male lives would that not save?)
Just my initial thoughts.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
jimmypippa wrote:Could someone who is a law expert please explain how driving more than 4.5 hours without a break and killing someone dies did not fit into the criteria for dangerous driving, which I understand is thatthe way they drive falls far below the minimum acceptable standard expected of a competent and careful driver; and
it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.
Or is that just "a little below" the minimum acceptable standard?
I am not a legal expert, but certain classes of vehicle do have strict restrictions on how long they are driven without a break. You shouldn't be convicted of two separate crimes for the same individual act (a fairly important principle of a proper justice system), so if there is a separate law about driving hours (as there is), it can't also be seen as dangerous driving. I would expect that even though the driving hours doesn't apply to car drivers, they still can't be seen as being guilty of dangerous driving for driving for a long time for that reason.
I'd be surprised if I became a less safe driver after 5 hours of driving. If I was tired I'd drive a bit slower, but 5 hours alone isn't likely to cause that is it? As I understand it, the law is about preventing HGV drivers having to drive when tired by forcing them to take breaks, rather than any actual notion that more than 4.5 hours is itself a problem.
In my irresponsible youth I've driven when far too tired, but that was due to how long I'd been awake by then, not how long I'd been driving.
That depends on whether young male drivers have accidents because they are 17/18 or because they are inexperienced drivers. I go with the later, and think they would, as a population group, have the same accidents in the first couple of years of learning to drive whether they are 18 or 22 at the time.why not increase the driving age to 21 instead of 17? (how many young male lives would that not save?)0 -
Eau Rouge, we have a limited selection of smilies on this forum. They don't include an applauding smiley.
Today's one of the few days when I've regretted that omission. Thank you for what you've posted (ETA: in your first post; I've just realised you've done another one, which might be bobbins for all I know. I have a board game to play now)
For my part (and abridged, as I've just downed a big Sunday lunch mit trimmings und wein): how do we improve safety?
First: education. I abhor the complacency and defeatism that say we have a stupid populus, so let us herd them with a big stick that has fines and punishment on it. Far better, IMO, to educate. Whether's its by limited duration driving licences, re-training for drivers who've been in collisions, or simply immersion in information, I don't care. Education is the primarily tool.
Secondly, technology. Most accidents are just that: accidents. They could be avoided with side mounted distance sensors pinging as a driver is indicating, and web-type cams feeding an HGV cab about what's in its blind spots. These are that expensive.
Thirdly, (an echo of the first) move away from our tabloid sensationalist attitude. Try to understand why something happened, and no just linger on the highlights of the outcome. If we understand why something happens, we might prevent it re-occuring. If we dwell on the tabloid headlines, we lose sight of what really happened.
There's more, I'm sure, but I've had enough now.0 -
Personally I'm surprised there has yet to be a series of TV adverts making people aware of the dangers cyclist can encounter on the road. This would at the very least be a start.
Much like the graphic speed kills, drink driving and look listen and look again adverts a cycling one about giving room, allowing cyclists to go first at the lights, right/left hooks and turning left would go a long way.
Sometimes I feel that most cycling-road safety initiatives focus on informing cyclist as oppose to all road/traffic users (i.e. motorists), which is where it is needed most.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:Personally I'm surprised there has yet to be a series of TV adverts making people aware of the dangers cyclist can encounter on the road. This would at the very least be a start.
Much like the graphic speed kills, drink driving and look listen and look again adverts a cycling one about giving room, allowing cyclists to go first at the lights, right/left hooks and turning left would go a long way.
Sometimes I feel that most cycling-road safety initiatives focus on informing cyclist as oppose to all road/traffic users (i.e. motorists), which is where it is needed most.
+1 Totally agree with you. Are Sustrans doing anything?! Just gonna check their website. I would guess that some other organisations have some marketing on this subject, but I am not aware of a very high level campaign supported by the Police. Does anyone else know of anything?0 -
Spen, please let Number9 have his point of view. I know, he knows, you know, we all know that these offences are charged according to the laws available, tried according to the trial systems we have available, judged on the evidence available and sentenced on the verdicts passed according to the tarrifs available under our current laws.
I think his point, and my point most definitely, is that the charges and punishments relating to road traffic collisions, deaths and injuries are wrong, and of those that are available the corresponding tarriffs that go with them are wholly inappropriate and dsproportionate to the crime committed.
I accept that you say the punishment is for the crime committed and not the consequences of the crime but in the case of a careless driving conviction for example, the consequence of the crime should be taken into account. That is an opinion. Just because the punishment is for the action does not mean to say this should not change. I believe it should change, unless I read and learn from another point of view that explains to me why it shouldn't change. And I accept that a new charge is in existence to reflect that (death by careless driving) and it is a great leap forward in my opinion, but I believe more can be done.
I also personally believe his comments and references to other crimes are relevant to my brother's case, and relevant to the topics I started this thread to discuss.
I ask that both you and Number9 do not get into the point scoring and slandering exchange of posts that prevented me from making all the points I wanted to make in a thread that Number9 started about my brother's case.0 -
WheezyMrChubby...."You have every right to do this, however you need to be aware that these threads can quite quickly descend into the mire typified by the locked thread you mention. Are you sure you want to put yourself through that?"
Many thanks for your concern. I am a 42 year old man (I was younger than my brother when he was killed). I have had many hardships in my time and have seen many tragic events. I have also enjoyed many comforts and pleasures and have been lucky enough to see much of this world. I have 16 years experience in the health care world and have handled many, many situations of death and grief in the course of that work.
I have been through the horror of loss and I know the pain of grief a road traffic death causes and I also know that does not make me special in any way. I am one of hundreds of thousands.
I have also sat through every moment of two long court trials in which my brother's death was argued and contested in the ultimate of painful situations. I survived, and so have my family and other friends.
I can assure you that nothing I read on here will be as bad as what I have already read and heard during the course of that experience. In fact it will only be better because this time I can speak back and have my say.
Please be reassured that I want this discussion and can handle this discussion and that I need no different treatment than anyone else, as I said in my opening post.0 -
WheezyChubby "I'd would suggest that when most people use the term accident they would mean 'as opposed to a deliberate action'".
Yes, I agree that people use the term in such a way too, but the play of words is absolutely fundamental. Words are important. Only one word separates careless driving from dangerous driving as an example, and that is the word "far". In much the same way as some people use derogative words about seomone's sexuality for example, they may contest that they are not homophobic and did not mean to cause offence. But the truth is the word would cause offence. In relation to the word "accident" in road traffic collisions it does cuase offence to seom people. particularly when it is used to excuse a death. And my point of view is that the word "accident" is endemic of an attitude amongst all road users which actually contributes to a reduction in safety.0 -
Terra Nova
I have just read youre posts on another forum describing the events surrounding youre brothers death. While I sympathise with youre loss I'd like to know what are the questions you are hoping will be answered with this thread?
I am not going try and pick apart this particular case as you have already been through it all before and undoubtedly know far more about it than I ever could.
Speaking generally about collisions between vehicles and cyclists i dont believe it is true that there is no such thing as an accident. These things happen because of a chain of events whereby one or both parties either make a misjudgement or simply do not have all the information they need in order to make a decision...
In terms of a cyclist on the immediate off side front corner of an HGV, they cannot be seen even if the driver looks there. It is also the responsibility of a cyclist to not put himself into a dangerous position. Since these accidents tend to happen at junctions where HGVs turn left then I would say that riding up the inside of a lorry at a junction is not a safe thing to do.
If youre looking for tougher punishments for drivers who cause death then I'm afraid endless discussions on forums isnt going to get that to happen. A person can only be punished within the boundaries of what the law says for any particular offence. The judicial system may not be perfect but it is there for the rights of both the victim and the criminal.
What sentence were you hoping for and what did he get?0 -
Eau Rouge wrote:
That depends on whether young male drivers have accidents because they are 17/18 or because they are inexperienced drivers. I go with the later, and think they would, as a population group, have the same accidents in the first couple of years of learning to drive whether they are 18 or 22 at the time.why not increase the driving age to 21 instead of 17? (how many young male lives would that not save?)
I would suggest that the reason that so many young male drivers have accidents is a lethal combination of their inexperience and having no perception of their own mortality leading to taking risks.
I have no statistic to support this however. It would be interesting to compare statisics on drivers who get their license over 21 to those under 21 and there accident rates in say their first 3 years driving.Road Safety charity BRAKE wrote:The facts about young driver and passenger casualties in the UK
• Nationally, road crashes are the biggest killer of 15-24 year-olds.
• In 2005 in the UK, 846 drivers, passengers and motorbike riders aged 15-25 were killed, 7,362 were seriously injured and 62,146 were slightly injured.
• One in eight car licence holders are aged under 25, yet one in three (33%) drivers who die on UK roads are under 25 (up from 29% in 2004).
• Almost one in four (22%) convictions for causing death by dangerous driving are against under-21s.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
jimmypippa wrote:Could someone who is a law expert please explain how driving more than 4.5 hours without a break and killing someone dies did not fit into the criteria for dangerous driving, which I understand is thatthe way they drive falls far below the minimum acceptable standard expected of a competent and careful driver; and
it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.
Or is that just "a little below" the minimum acceptable standard?
Jimmy I'm a hgv driver and I am more than happy to answer yours' and anyone elses questions regarding hgv driver law. Be prepared though it can be a complicated minefield.0 -
Terra Nova wrote:WheezyChubby "I'd would suggest that when most people use the term accident they would mean 'as opposed to a deliberate action'".
Yes, I agree that people use the term in such a way too, but the play of words is absolutely fundamental. Words are important. Only one word separates careless driving from dangerous driving as an example, and that is the word "far". In much the same way as some people use derogative words about seomone's sexuality for example, they may contest that they are not homophobic and did not mean to cause offence. But the truth is the word would cause offence. In relation to the word "accident" in road traffic collisions it does cuase offence to seom people. particularly when it is used to excuse a death. And my point of view is that the word "accident" is endemic of an attitude amongst all road users which actually contributes to a reduction in safety.
You make a fair point“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!0 -
Greg, your three ideas are good, but in relation to the "big sticks" as punishment there has to be both. Stubbs is banned from driving for three years. I would not be happy for such a driver to be at the wheel of a HGV again. It is, in his case, a matter of protecting the public from his driving. We have to have that. But yes, education.
All road traffic violations to necessitate some form of re-training. Better training, higher standards for passing the driving test, repeated driving tests, time-limits on driving licenses (like passports). Even a reward system whereby penalty points are negated by offenders taking specific driving courses and re-test.
Laws and clear standards for judging specifically what criminal, dangerous, and reckless driving should be judged at. Should careless driving exist as a crime? Surely, all driving that is not at the safe standard of driving is dangerous? HGV drivers should be judged at the higher standards they train to and not to the standard of a group 1 license holder.
All these should be aimed at raising the safe standard of driving.
Mass education campaigns aimed at all groups of road users with clear messages that road traffic collisions are not accidents and, therefore not acceptable. Advertising campaigns about cyclists and pedestrians and messages aimed at protecting the most vulnerable of road users.
With regards to HGV’s it is a scandal that they can be made and made with blind spots on them and that this can be used as an excuse for the death of a vulnerable road user or absolve the driver of the RESPONSIBILITY for the death of a vulnerable road user. Change legislation on the safety of vehicles. It is the RESPONSIBILITY of the driver to see what is around him and to ensure that he maintains full knowledge of everything in his vicinity as he is driving. It is the RESPONSIBILITY of the road haulage companies that put these vehicles on the road to ensure that their drivers can drive the vehicles safely and that they are not put in charge of vehicles that have blind spots. The road haulage companies and HGV manufacturers should have wiped out the scandal of blind spots decades ago.
And “most accidents are just that: accidents”… No! Fundamentally and by pure definition of the word itself they are not “just accidents”. Some may be, but I think that we should stop the acceptance of road traffic collisions as being accidents. They are collisions whose causes are investigated, some of which have definite and very criminal causes, some of which (but I suspect the tiny majority) may prove to be without cause, and, therefore, accidents. They are NOT Accidents.0 -
ravey1981In terms of a cyclist on the immediate off side front corner of an HGV, they cannot be seen even if the driver looks there. It is also the responsibility of a cyclist to not put himself into a dangerous position. Since these accidents tend to happen at junctions where HGVs turn left then I would say that riding up the inside of a lorry at a junction is not a safe thing to do.
I agree that it's not a safe thing to do but people do do it, particularly inexperienced or long-necked cyclists. And the underlying assumption is that the HGV can't see what is going on in the blind spots but that's not going to stop them turning in ignorance of what effect it might have. HGVs can't see what they're causing and we put the responsibility on the cyclist - this seems plainly dangerous and unjust to me.
Simple convex mirrors located by or on traffic lights/give way signs would enable HGV drivers to see whether their sweep path (or whatever the technical term is) is clear. These would not be expensive. The onus would be on the HGV driver to check and the ''I couldn't see, they were in my blind spot'' defence would become less acceptable.
(The only danger in having such mirrors that I can think of is that it might give some cyclists the impression that they are safe to move into that zone.)0 -
Terra Nova wrote:I think his point, and my point most definitely, is that the charges and punishments relating to road traffic collisions, deaths and injuries are wrong,
And how does increasing the sentance improve road safety? I beleive that improvements in road safety are down to education, tolerance and respect of other road users and training of all road users. Higher sentences do not in themselves change very much. Take as an example US punishment in many states of the death penalty for murder... surely the ultimate penalty. And yet they still have murders. If increased penalties were the answer there would be none.
When driving do drivers think "if I do this action I may get 2 years - oh that's OK"... or if increased to 4 years do they think "oh that's 2 extra years... better be more careful!"
Back to my point is that we need a readjustment of attitude when driving through education as punishment will not work IMHO.
PS... as these sorts of threads will rapidly dissintegrate into - prove what you are saying or STFU - you are a tw@t. I will not search for or post evidence of the connection between levels of sentence and reduction in crime or vise versa and will now gracefully bow out of the pending arguments, slaging matches and general nastiness that will surely follow.0 -
Ravey... to quote an old saying "there are more questions than answers".
I am merely canvassing opinion about safety on roads and attitudes to road saftey amongst the cycling and motoring public. The more opinion I read the better informed I will be and the more informed my own conclusions about what I think should happen to improve safety and prevent more deaths like my brother's will be.
I am not looking for answers about my brother's death. I have all the amswers I need on that one, particularly as I have moved past the stage where I needed answers from the man who killed him, that will never happen.
It is everyone's responsibility to look after themselves and make the right decisions on their safety - cyclists, pedestrians, alcohol users, drug users, plane travellers, bungee jumpers etc etc, this I accept. Some people in certain professions (like mine for example) have even greater responsibilities for the safety of others and owe a greater duty of care to others than other members of the general public. I think that principle applies to certain classes of license holders and drivers of certain vehicles like HGV's too.0 -
cjw, I have no intention of saying anythng of the sort personally.
You make a good point about the level of sentence not making any affect on a reduction in crime. To use the US death penalty case is something I definitelty agree on because I am not in favour of the death penalty. In my own case I am more aggrieved at the fact he was only convicted of careless driving than the sentence of 2 years for his other crime of perverting the course of justice. I did not want blood from the man, I wanted the truth and an apology.
However, I can't help but think of the woman who was sentenced to 4 years for causing death by dangerous driving of a cyclist (or was he a pedestrian?) shortly after my brother was killed because she was using her mobile to text whilst driving. I think it was a test case for mobile phone useage and it struck a chord with me. The tough sentence and conviction of the serious charge certainly makes me realise that if I sneak a text in whilst driving and run someone over I can expect the same. It deters me.0 -
Terra Nova wrote:And “most accidents are just that: accidents”… No! Fundamentally and by pure definition of the word itself they are not “just accidents”. Some may be, but I think that we should stop the acceptance of road traffic collisions as being accidents. They are collisions whose causes are investigated, some of which have definite and very criminal causes, some of which (but I suspect the tiny majority) may prove to be without cause, and, therefore, accidents. They are NOT Accidents.
Well, let's test that.
Dirver X drives under the speed limit. Hits a spot of black ice, skids, and kills a cyclist or a pedestrian.
The accident has a cause; the black ice. Was it preventable? Yes: turn the clock back, send the council gritters out, salt the road, and no black ice.
Was it preventable by the driver? Let's say his tyres were legal, the electronic traction gizmos on his car were all working overtime, he was wide awake and sober. He would have hit the ice, at the same speed, at the same angle, 100 mornings out of 100. 100 mornings out of 100, he would have slid off the road. So would the next 100 drivers driving that piece of road. That morning, cyclists/peds were in that driver's way.
The collision has a cause: the ice. It doesn't cease to be an accident just because it had a cause. I think, if I may say so, that you're clinging to the OED definition of accident as a panacea. It isn't.
Accidents happen. It's a fact of life. Whether you're Rod Hudd, or some plain Joe who trips on an unrepaired pavement and falls badly and cracks your skull, accidents happen. We can't live our lives wrapped in a coccoon of cotton wool, expecting never to have a knock or a bump. Life isn't like that. Some knocks will be inconsequential. Some won't. That's life, and death, I'm afraid.0 -
Terra Nova wrote:I wanted the truth and an apology.
Forgive me if this sounds blunt, but in that case you were always going to be disappointed.
A court of law is about a result. It's an adversarial environment. It's about who can present the most persuasive version of events. The truth gets a lower billing than what either side can come up with. You may not like that, and you dislike may be well-founded, but that's the way it works in this country. End of.
As for an apology, you're at the mercy of the defendant. The only arena which I can think of in which an apology is a possibility is defamation. I would imagine most criminal defendants will be adivsed never to make anything approaching an apology, because it may be construed as an admission of civil liability, and thereby void their civil motor insurance cover.
If there's one thing I will take from your experience, it is this: to write a letter to my family that will attempt to moderate their expectations if I am squished in an RTA.0 -
Terra Nova wrote:cjw, I have no intention of saying anythng of the sort personally.
Sorry, not aimed at you at all. In the previous thread you it was a number of others who descended to the level of small children all calling each other rude names.0 -
Accidents in the true sense are incredibly rare. Almost invariably, driver error is involved, according to those notorious tree-hugging hippies, er, ROSPA. We have a media, legal system and public attitude that tries to convince us that external factors are to blame. Weather. Speed cameras. Road layout. Cyclists. Whatever. The reality is, RTAs are nearly always due to driver error.0
-
-
Greg66 wrote:number9 wrote:Almost invariably, driver error is involved ... The reality is, RTAs are nearly always due to driver error.
And no error on the part of others involved in the RTA?
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nearly0 -
A much used statistic in Road Safety in that driver error is a factor in 95% of road accidents, whether by failing to notice a hazard, not reacting in time, or simply adopting a dangerous behaviour.
A vehicle can have an influence in many of these situations, whether by informing a driver, assisting a driver, or by ultimately removing the driver’s ability to behave in an antisocial or dangerous manner by taking over some of the control.
http://www.rospa.co.uk/roadsafety/advic ... idents.htm0 -
number9 wrote:driver error is a factor in 95% of road accidents
Phew. We're not on different pages after all. "A" factor, I'm prepared to agree with. Your previous post: "RTAs are nearly always due to driver error" suggests that in a large % of cases driver error is the sole factor, which plainly is a much more difficult proposition.
However, there are errors and errors. Failing to notice black ice is difficult to criticise as driver error. Not noticing that a child is having trouble controlling its dog on the pavement, and is a few seconds from running into the road on the end of the lead of said dog, ditto. Not noticing that children are flocking towards an ice cream (or simply not noticing the ice cream van) less so. "Error" is, IMO, a spectrum of grey, not a binary, black/white evaluation. So ultimately, where such a statistic gets the debtate, I don't know.number9 wrote:A vehicle can have an influence in many of these situations, whether by informing a driver, assisting a driver, or by ultimately removing the driver’s ability to behave in an antisocial or dangerous manner by taking over some of the control.
Ok. I've read this a few times. I don't get it. How does a vehicle take over some of the control (of what?) and remove a driver's ability to act in a dangerous manner?0 -
Terra Nova wrote:cjw, I have no intention of saying anythng of the sort personally.
You make a good point about the level of sentence not making any affect on a reduction in crime. To use the US death penalty case is something I definitelty agree on because I am not in favour of the death penalty. In my own case I am more aggrieved at the fact he was only convicted of careless driving than the sentence of 2 years for his other crime of perverting the course of justice. I did not want blood from the man, I wanted the truth and an apology.
However, I can't help but think of the woman who was sentenced to 4 years for causing death by dangerous driving of a cyclist (or was he a pedestrian?) shortly after my brother was killed because she was using her mobile to text whilst driving. I think it was a test case for mobile phone useage and it struck a chord with me. The tough sentence and conviction of the serious charge certainly makes me realise that if I sneak a text in whilst driving and run someone over I can expect the same. It deters me.
That was this case I think:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... -jail.html
The killer driver had speeding convictions on the same road as where she killed the cyclist.
45 per cent of drivers in a recent survey admitted texting at the wheel.0
This discussion has been closed.
