They do things differently in America

Bernie S

http://velonews.competitor.com/2010/10/ ... 47979?news

term1te

I'm in the good ol' US of Ahh at the moment. Watching the local news you see the other view they have of cyclists... Some politician was saying that plans to make a city more cycle friendly are "the results of a UN plot to rein in American cities", and that building cycle lanes could "threaten our personal freedoms". What is he on? I was also talking with a colleague out here, who said that he couldn't cycle to work as the site was completely unaccessible unless you went on a freeway. They do do things differently over here...

Pross

I was going to suggest that a drunk driver in the UK may get a similar sentence if they knocked down and killed two cyclists, injured a third and then left the scene. However, the only case of a drink driver killing a cyclist I could find (in Scotland) resulted in a 5 year sentence reduced from 7 years for a guilty plea. The judge considered this a substantial custodial sentence!

Pross

Interesting to see the guidelines here http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/death_by_careless_driving_under_the_influence/ 14 years is the maximum, I'm trying to find out if there is a charge of causing death by dangerous driving under the influence although you would assume being under the influence would automatically be classed as dangerous rather than careless!

dennisn

Her sentence is not all that unusual here in the U.S. Drunk drivers who kill someone generally get upwards of 15 to 20 years. Add leaving the scene of an accident and you've more than likely tacked on 5 or 10 more. Don't drive drunk in the U.S.

briantrumpet

Term1te wrote:

Some politician was saying that plans to make a city more cycle friendly are "the results of a UN plot to rein in American cities"

Are you sure he wasn't talking of a UN plot to rain in American cities? We're talking conspiracy theories here.

danlikesbikes

About time we started to take on some "fairer" sentences to try to protect and also encourage people to ride bikes and make the country a bit safer IMHO - rant over.

P.S. yes some t@@T did nearly knock me off my bike the other day and no I wasn't too happy.

spen666

Pross wrote:

Interesting to see the guidelines here http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/death_by_careless_driving_under_the_influence/ 14 years is the maximum, I'm trying to find out if there is a charge of causing death by dangerous driving under the influence although you would assume being under the influence would automatically be classed as dangerous rather than careless!

Pross, you are making a mistake in your interpretation here.

Being drunk is one thing

Driving dangerously is something different.

It is possible to be driving whilst drunk, but not driving dangerously.

the driving drunk relates to the state you are in

The driving dangerously relates to the standard of driving, not the risk or potential.

Careless driving is defined as the standard of your driving falling below the standard of the reasonably competent driver

Dangerous driving is defined as the standard of your driving falling far below the standard of the reasonably competent driver

Clearly driving whilst drunk makes you more potentially more dangerous, but that is not the offence of dangerous driving as that requires an act, not a potential

spen666

Pross wrote:

Interesting to see the guidelines here http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/death_by_careless_driving_under_the_influence/ 14 years is the maximum, I'm trying to find out if there is a charge of causing death by dangerous driving under the influence although you would assume being under the influence would automatically be classed as dangerous rather than careless!

Pross, you are making a mistake in your interpretation here.

Being drunk is one thing

Driving dangerously is something different.

It is possible to be driving whilst drunk, but not driving dangerously.

the driving drunk relates to the state you are in

The driving dangerously relates to the standard of driving, not the risk or potential.

Careless driving is defined as the standard of your driving falling below the standard of the reasonably competent driver

Dangerous driving is defined as the standard of your driving falling far below the standard of the reasonably competent driver

Clearly driving whilst drunk makes you more potentially more dangerous, but that is not the offence of dangerous driving as that requires an act, not a potential

spen666

Pross, forgot to mention there is also an offence of causing death by dangerous driving which is more serious than death by careless driving whilst under the influence

Ben6899

Term1te wrote:

I'm in the good ol' US of Ahh at the moment. Watching the local news you see the other view they have of cyclists... Some politician was saying that plans to make a city more cycle friendly are "the results of a UN plot to rein in American cities", and that building cycle lanes could "threaten our personal freedoms". What is he on? I was also talking with a colleague out here, who said that he couldn't cycle to work as the site was completely unaccessible unless you went on a freeway. They do do things differently over here...

Blimey, what is he on!? I can only speak for Los Angeles, but can assure anyone who hasn't been that if you don't have a car then you're effectively stuffed!

paulbox

Ben6899 wrote:

Term1te wrote:

Some politician was saying that plans to make a city more cycle friendly are "the results of a UN plot to rein in American cities", and that building cycle lanes could "threaten our personal freedoms".

Blimey, what is he on!? I can only speak for Los Angeles, but can assure anyone who hasn't been that if you don't have a car then you're effectively stuffed!

I work in Houston fairy often and normally stay in the hotel nearest to our office. In theory I could walk from hotel to office in about 15 minutes, in practice I have to sit in a car or shuttle bus for 30 minutes because pavements don't exist and it is far too dangerous to walk without them... :?

The money that Houston spends on new roads and widening schemes is amazing, a few cycle lanes here and there would be a drop in the ocean.

Crapaud

Ben6899 wrote:

Term1te wrote:

I'm in the good ol' US of Ahh at the moment. Watching the local news you see the other view they have of cyclists... Some politician was saying that plans to make a city more cycle friendly are "the results of a UN plot to rein in American cities", and that building cycle lanes could "threaten our personal freedoms". What is he on? I was also talking with a colleague out here, who said that he couldn't cycle to work as the site was completely unaccessible unless you went on a freeway. They do do things differently over here...

Blimey, what is he on!? I can only speak for Los Angeles, but can assure anyone who hasn't been that if you don't have a car then you're effectively stuffed!

I was going to reply to Term1te, Ben, but you may be able to corroborate this: In LA you can't actually leave the city except by motorised transport, ie. car, bus, train. There are no roads out that you could cycle, walk, skateboard etc. If it's not LA, it's another 'merkin city.

Mike Healey

Ben6899 wrote:

Term1te wrote:

I'm in the good ol' US of Ahh at the moment. Watching the local news you see the other view they have of cyclists... Some politician was saying that plans to make a city more cycle friendly are "the results of a UN plot to rein in American cities", and that building cycle lanes could "threaten our personal freedoms". What is he on? I was also talking with a colleague out here, who said that he couldn't cycle to work as the site was completely unaccessible unless you went on a freeway. They do do things differently over here...

Blimey, what is he on!? I can only speak for Los Angeles, but can assure anyone who hasn't been that if you don't have a car then you're effectively stuffed!

For another view on that:
http://travel.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/tr ... lobal-home

Ben6899

Mike Healey wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Blimey, what is he on!? I can only speak for Los Angeles, but can assure anyone who hasn't been that if you don't have a car then you're effectively stuffed!

For another view on that:
http://travel.nytimes.com/2010/11/14/tr ... lobal-home

He makes it all sound very romantic and convenient. I still wouldn't do it. He mentions PCH... a wonderful highway with stunning vistas, but it's truly one of the last places I would want to be on my bike.

Sunset or Hollywood Blvd with yellow cabs and tour buses flying about? No thanks.

Ben6899

Crapaud wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

Blimey, what is he on!? I can only speak for Los Angeles, but can assure anyone who hasn't been that if you don't have a car then you're effectively stuffed!

I was going to reply to Term1te, Ben, but you may be able to corroborate this: In LA you can't actually leave the city except by motorised transport, ie. car, bus, train. There are no roads out that you could cycle, walk, skateboard etc. If it's not LA, it's another 'merkin city.

I was speaking more of LA County so LA, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, smaller cities such as Orange and Anaheim... there are trails to cycle on, but in terms of getting about private car is definitely King.

jc4lab

http://www.funny.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects ... in_America