Cyclist killed during 24hr charity cycle ride
Comments
-
Horrible to say but I hope he had a massive life insurance. Poor women will have to try and raise the children on either benefits or trying to fit her job around their schooling and what ever benefits she gets after that. I am not aware of how compensation works in these terrible situations but hopefully she gets some kind of pay out from the insurance company of the driver otherwise I agree with the person who stated MIND should look to divert some of this money towards the victims family.0
-
But others are not being in-compassionate as you seem to think. They are simply not confusing the issue. You're completely out of order with your suggestions above that the family is being wronged in some way.CiB wrote:
Yeah, maybe I am. Trouble is when I read about people being killed like this, it seems so wrong that a woman loses her husband at such a young age and has to suffer all the grief & bitterness and anger at such a stupid way to lose him, and his kids face the rest of their lives without their dad because of of his desire to do good. It just strikes me that the charity receive 100% of the benefit of this - to them - stranger - dying, and his immediate closest family face a lifetime of getting over it and don't see a single penny of that additional £60,000 that MIND will receive. Yeah. I'm way off target for not agreeing that his wife & kids shouldn't get a penny. Good luck to his wife - she can meet someone else and get over it can't she? And his kids have only got what? 70-odd years to miss their dad? Thanks heavens we have people willing to make sure that the charity keeps every penny of this unexpected windfall that they didn't even know about last week.Ai_1 wrote:You are WAY off target here.
I'm not arguing that people shouldn't give to charity if they want to, or that rules is rules and must be obeyed. Just suggesting a bit of compassion. That's all.
There's nothing in-compassionate about saying the charity should use the money as intended.
Besides everything else do you really think some inappropriately funneled money is going to make them feel better? Your attitude if anything comes across to me as somewhat mercenary and unsavory - I find your discussion of who's owed what for who's life and actions very unpleasant.0 -
CiB wrote:Would you? "If it were me I would want all the money to go to the charity". I wouldn't
Do you? And how many do you think would kick up a huge fuss if some was diverted to his grieving widow & young family?Carbonator wrote:I think a lot less people would have donated if they knew only a small percentage was going to the charity.
100% I would yes.
My family would have my life insurance and I would not want them to take the charities money!
I raised money for BHF last year and I would much rather any extra money was used to improve children's/families lives than be added to my families life insurance pot if I had died during the event!
Do you not have life insurance?
I could die on any cycle ride, or in any of a thousand other ways.
I would not kick up a fuss but I would never do it again.
If I want to give to someones family then I will, but if I give to a charity I expect/hope it to be used well by them.
I gave to the charity (of his choosing) to show support as a fellow cyclist and show my respect for him setting out to try to help them in the first place.0 -
No. I started out by merely suggesting that MIND might like to give some of the money to the people most affected by this whole thing, then was (not much at all tbh) surprised to find that some people disagreed and felt it more important that that didn't happen. By arguing the point you forced it to become a polarised I Say This You Say That argument, rather than it just being an opinion that I happen to hold, that where a lot of money has unexpectedly been raised, it's not disingenuous to suggest that the family might see a bit of it. They have lost their breadwinner after all, and their lives have been irrevocably changed. I really really don't believe that the majority of people who donated twenty quid or whatever on seeing this story doing the rounds would be that bothered if a bit of it went to those that have lost the most.Ai_1 wrote:blah blah blah Besides everything else do you really think some inappropriately funneled money is going to make them feel better? Your attitude if anything comes across to me as somewhat mercenary and unsavory - I find your discussion of who's owed what for who's life and actions very unpleasant.
Not to worry. You're right, money won't change anything, MIND can make good use of this money and in a few weeks we'll all have forgotten all about it. We have that luxury. You have the luxury of insulting me for wanting to see a bit of this huge unexpected windfall be given to the family. Your choice I suppose.
FFS - in answer to the new post, I give up. Let's make sure whenever a charity receives a huge unexpected windfall in this sort of circumstance, not one penny of that goes to the people who lose out the most.
You win. I give up. What was I thinking of... :roll:0 -
CiB wrote:FFS - in answer to the new post, I give up. Let's make sure whenever a charity receives a huge unexpected windfall in this sort of circumstance, not one penny of that goes to the people who lose out the most.
Just addressing the terminology
windfall - yes it's a significant sum of money - but is it significant to the charity? It's a big donation - by many - supporting a charity that the cyclist wanted to support. He's not going to be able to repeat his efforts, so this was his final act of doing so - it's fitting that it should raise more than he intended.
unexpected - a lot of charity donations are incidental - hence "unexpected" - although averaging out means the charity can have some idea of what levels of donations to anticipate - the additional raised through the death of a fund-raiser is unwelcome, but wouldn't be overly significant.
It seems there is more than just "Mind" - there are local associated "Mind"s who raise money - the total income for the whole group was £123 million for years 2012-13 - £94million from local minds and £29 from the central one. £60k isn't going to be that significant in the grand scheme of things.
IMHO it isn't appropriate for MIND to direct any of the donated funds to the grieving family (unless it falls inside the charities normal remit) - however, I do think it is appropriate for them to talk to the family and ensure the funds are used in memory of the lost father/husband. Hopefully something lasting can be created to give the family something positive to focus on now and in the future.0 -
Disgusting and tragic story.
Yes it's about time more drivers got lengthy sentences so that there is more of a deterrent for such dangerous driving.
It seems absurd that you do a long stretch for accidentally killing someone with a punch, but when you run someone down with your car you will more than likely get off lightly. A punch is less dangerous than bad driving IMO.0 -
It would be better if people who cannot or will not drive properly were not on the road, but the next best thing would be to punish them severely when they kill, potentially kill or even just drive badly towards vulnerable road users lol.
As a society I do not think we have it in us to do either though
0 -
Ai_1 wrote:
Yeah because revenge makes things better.sarm34 wrote:just kill the drink driver end of story .... a life for a life
I have zero tolerance for drink driving but this sort of comment helps no-one.
Revenge certainly makes victims feel somewhat better. It does not necessarily have to be death but incarceration for life would also be suitable justice in this circumstance.0 -
HellsCyclist wrote:incarceration for life would also be suitable justice in this circumstance.
Then we would all have to pay for more prisons.0 -
It would not be justice at all.HellsCyclist wrote:Ai_1 wrote:
Yeah because revenge makes things better.sarm34 wrote:just kill the drink driver end of story .... a life for a life
I have zero tolerance for drink driving but this sort of comment helps no-one.
Revenge certainly makes victims feel somewhat better. It does not necessarily have to be death but incarceration for life would also be suitable justice in this circumstance.
Punishment serves two purposes, it provides a deterrent and it makes victims and the self-righteous feel better. Making someone miserable isn't constructive and it's not justice, no matter what they've done. It's revenge.
Most people seem to think it's self evident that if someone does something awful they should be made suffer for it. I disagree. You can't make anything better by inflicting more pain and misery. Absolutely, those who've shown a propensity for causing harm to others should be stopped from causing further harm and that may mean a long stay in prison, re-habilitation or whatever but that's not really what "justice" is about. It's about revenge. The mob demands it, government provides it. The original harm is never undone.
Then again I'm a weirdo who thinks people aren't "evil" (yes even Hitler) they just have misguided and sometimes massively destructive thought processes. They're broken.
Horrible things happen. You can't undo them with revenge or compensation. You have no choice but to accept them or live in denial. The idea that "justice" fixes anything is denial.
I fully expect most people will vehemently disagree with me but it's what I believe and if anyone has second thoughts because of reading this then it's worth saying.0 -
Ai_1 wrote:It would not be justice at all.
Punishment serves two purposes, it provides a deterrent and it makes victims and the self-righteous feel better. Making someone miserable isn't constructive and it's not justice, no matter what they've done. It's revenge.
Most people seem to think it's self evident that if someone does something awful they should be made suffer for it. I disagree. You can't make anything better by inflicting more pain and misery.
Pop it down from Murder to 2 kids (in your care) playing ...
You witness 1 child deliberately hit the other.
Anything you do from this point to "correct" the behaviour will cause some sort of pain or misery.
1) You take them aside and explain that hitting isn't nice - result, child feels hurt - either at being caught or being told off or being made to look stupid in front of the other child.
2) You make the child sit on the naughty step - result - humiliation = misery
3) You smack the child - result - pain
All varying degrees of pain and misery, but it informs the child that the way they behaved isn't acceptable. Hopefully the next time either of them misbehave they remember the punishment delivered before and modify their behaviour before misbehaving or make up for it afterwards!
IME children need firm boundaries - yes, they push beyond, but the amount they push depends on how strictly those boundaries are maintained.
Are adults so different to children?
It is easy to break the law - speeding in a car - simple, just put your foot down a little - I doubt there are more than a handful of ppl who haven't broken that law at one time or another and I'll wager there are plenty that do it every time they drive. But there aren't harsh penalties for driving a mph or two over the limit - because it's not really serious, although you may get more than a ticking off for doing it past a school at kickout time!
The problem that I see is that the penalties for "accidentally" killing someone with your vehicle are very low and whilst almost nobody intends to kill a cyclist - there is very little incentive treat them with respect ie giving a wide berth when overtaking - so accidents happen and cyclists get killed.
So - if someone gets behind the wheel having had a drink or two and then has an accident that results in the death of a cyclist I believe that should be treated very seriously indeed. The decision to drive whilst responses are impaired puts all road users at risk and that needs to be heavily discouraged.
Our roads are getting busier - more people on the roads = more chances for accidents and a greater need to be vigilant. Any drop in standards can result in pain and misery for many.
I believe harsher sentences including jailtime and community work are required along with longer driving bans. I don't care if someone relies on their vehicle for work - if they've chosen to abuse the privilege of driving then that privilege needs to be removed - they'll have to find other work or pay for someone who does know how to drive properly.
Lifetime in prison is too much - but a lifetime driving ban could be a suitable response to those who repeatedly break the law - although the flipside is that if they're happy to break the law in the first place then any driving ban won't prevent them from getting behind the wheel - so some other method to discourage them from endangering more lives is needed.0 -
I agree with the vast majority of that.Slowbike wrote:Ai_1 wrote:It would not be justice at all.
Punishment serves two purposes, it provides a deterrent and it makes victims and the self-righteous feel better. Making someone miserable isn't constructive and it's not justice, no matter what they've done. It's revenge.
Most people seem to think it's self evident that if someone does something awful they should be made suffer for it. I disagree. You can't make anything better by inflicting more pain and misery.
Pop it down from Murder to 2 kids (in your care) playing ...
You witness 1 child deliberately hit the other.
Anything you do from this point to "correct" the behaviour will cause some sort of pain or misery.
1) You take them aside and explain that hitting isn't nice - result, child feels hurt - either at being caught or being told off or being made to look stupid in front of the other child.
2) You make the child sit on the naughty step - result - humiliation = misery
3) You smack the child - result - pain
All varying degrees of pain and misery, but it informs the child that the way they behaved isn't acceptable. Hopefully the next time either of them misbehave they remember the punishment delivered before and modify their behaviour before misbehaving or make up for it afterwards!
IME children need firm boundaries - yes, they push beyond, but the amount they push depends on how strictly those boundaries are maintained.
Are adults so different to children?
It is easy to break the law - speeding in a car - simple, just put your foot down a little - I doubt there are more than a handful of ppl who haven't broken that law at one time or another and I'll wager there are plenty that do it every time they drive. But there aren't harsh penalties for driving a mph or two over the limit - because it's not really serious, although you may get more than a ticking off for doing it past a school at kickout time!
The problem that I see is that the penalties for "accidentally" killing someone with your vehicle are very low and whilst almost nobody intends to kill a cyclist - there is very little incentive treat them with respect ie giving a wide berth when overtaking - so accidents happen and cyclists get killed.
So - if someone gets behind the wheel having had a drink or two and then has an accident that results in the death of a cyclist I believe that should be treated very seriously indeed. The decision to drive whilst responses are impaired puts all road users at risk and that needs to be heavily discouraged.
Our roads are getting busier - more people on the roads = more chances for accidents and a greater need to be vigilant. Any drop in standards can result in pain and misery for many.
I believe harsher sentences including jailtime and community work are required along with longer driving bans. I don't care if someone relies on their vehicle for work - if they've chosen to abuse the privilege of driving then that privilege needs to be removed - they'll have to find other work or pay for someone who does know how to drive properly.
Lifetime in prison is too much - but a lifetime driving ban could be a suitable response to those who repeatedly break the law - although the flipside is that if they're happy to break the law in the first place then any driving ban won't prevent them from getting behind the wheel - so some other method to discourage them from endangering more lives is needed.
My point was that punishment for punishment's sake is not productive and is really just revenge.
Your example for how you would treat kids would fall under the "rehabilitation" banner although maybe it's just "habilitation" when it's kids. I'm not saying inflicting any misery is wrong. It's the idea that punishment itself redresses the balance that I have a problem with. If pain or misery is a necessary part of teaching or prevention that's a different thing entirely.0
