Law for cyclists to have the same rules as drivers
Comments
-
PM from someone who didn't want to get involved in this thread (any wonder?):
"Got my BC insurance and sod anyone who's too tight to buy it
"[/quote]
The legal process does work and before charging decisions are made the very process of pre-charging decisions acts as the preliminary hearing. I refer you to code for Crown Prosecutors and the guidelines they have to observe. Your viewpoint that the current legal process doesn't work is in the minority.
Where there is gross negligence, the police will prosecute providing the evidence to succeed at court exists. See again the code for Crown Prosecutors.
You will not change the attitude of the minority of drivers that are anti cyclist. Training has to begin with new drivers with a change in the process of obtaining a licence and publicising the rights of cyclists on the roads.
Just because someone dies in a road traffic collision does make it a case of death by dangerous. Where there is fatality, force guidelines are that drivers will be arrested on SUSPICION of causing death by dangerous driving to ensure any evidence that might support a prosecution is not lost. In the incident you highlight there are no facts of the case and it reads very much like a force policy of arrest on suspicion because the collision involved a fatality. It in no way indicates that the legal proceedings are soft and just opted to let the driver go.
The punishment for RTCs does reflect the scale and severity of the offence. To charge or prosecute you need evidence. Evidence has to be corroborated and cannot be one person's word against another's other than opinion by expert witnesses whose experience is the corroboration.
I did not say "Kill a cyclist or injure them through poor driving and just give them a ticking off" at all. Scale and severity or did you just choose to ignore that? If the evidence is there for a charge of death by dangerous, it will be preferred. If there is evidence of an offence of lack of due care and attention/neglect, then again a prosecution will be preferred. Sometimes though, there are alternatives to a prosecution as not every case of neglect merits dragging someone through the courts. I was knocked off a motorcycle in 2004 writing the bike off and injuring myself. The driver, a throughly decent bloke with a young family and not a conviction to his name was full of remorse and distraught. Rather than prosecute he was compelled to attend a 3 day driving skills course. If he refused, he was to be charged.
You do not need preliminary hearings. When a charging decision is made the accused goes for a first appearance at the Magistrates court. If it is not within their powers to deal or sentence such as an indictment only case, it is then referred to the Crown Court. At both stages there is a plea and directions hearing and at both, the Magistrate or the sitting Judge can determine that there is insufficient evidence to proceed and kick it out or reject defence claims and act to proceed. That is a preliminary hearing.
So you're happy for car drivers to have yet another hike in insurance just because you're anti car? That sounds fair. In the next breath you're claiming that recreational areas don't have cars so cycle insurance isn't needed. You just want cycle insurance as a weapon against motorised transport and not to reflect the risk of cycling and to cover the injuries and damages caused by cyclists too. Sounds fair again.
You cannot have insurance that is only there to penalise motorists. Insurance at the very least needs to cover 3rd party liability and as a bike is invariably ridden on and off roads in a variety of public places, by varying abilities and degrees of non-compliance with the RTA, the cover needs to reflect that.
I fear you won't see the failings of your suggestion and hope you don't bank your home on this being passed as a bill before Parliament.I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.0 -
I don't understand that point.So you're happy for car drivers to have yet another hike in insurance just because you're anti car? That sounds fair. In the next breath you're claiming that recreational areas don't have cars so cycle insurance isn't needed. You just want cycle insurance as a weapon against motorised transport and not to reflect the risk of cycling and to cover the injuries and damages caused by cyclists too. Sounds fair again.
We can already claim against their insurance if they are at fault. No change, apart from having a lawyer to back you up. How many threads have there been on here where people realise the benefit of BC after the fact, and regret not having it?The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
I don't understand that point.So you're happy for car drivers to have yet another hike in insurance just because you're anti car? That sounds fair. In the next breath you're claiming that recreational areas don't have cars so cycle insurance isn't needed. You just want cycle insurance as a weapon against motorised transport and not to reflect the risk of cycling and to cover the injuries and damages caused by cyclists too. Sounds fair again.
We can already claim against their insurance if they are at fault. No change, apart from having a lawyer to back you up. How many threads have there been on here where people realise the benefit of BC after the fact, and regret not having it?
You missed the sarcasm in my response. I don't for one minute think the poster is being fair.I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.0 -
Nope. Got the sarcasm.
I don't understand that point.So you're happy for car drivers to have yet another hike in insurance just because you're anti car? That sounds fair. In the next breath you're claiming that recreational areas don't have cars so cycle insurance isn't needed. You just want cycle insurance as a weapon against motorised transport and not to reflect the risk of cycling and to cover the injuries and damages caused by cyclists too. Sounds fair again.
We can already claim against their insurance if they are at fault. No change, apart from having a lawyer to back you up. How many threads have there been on here where people realise the benefit of BC after the fact, and regret not having it?
You missed the sarcasm in my response. I don't for one minute think the poster is being fair.
Insurance is not only fair, it is a good idea and one reason that I am covered by BC. I think everyone should be.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Nope..be.
I think all cyclists should be insured. How it is done is up for debate and I was only suggesting a scheme that could perhaps cover it. I was also suggesting a change in procedure because it is evident that the police treat cyclists differently.
I will cite another case. 1991. A man was at work when he got the phone call that his wife was in labour. Excited to see the arrival of a son after 5 girls, he got on his bike and cycled from Polegate towards Eastbourne when a driver hit him and 'ran'. He was killed. The police finally caught up with the driver some time later and he was given a non-custodial sentence when all the evidence pointed to the fact that the driver was exceeding the speed limit, the weather was clear and by the state of the victim, bicycle and the car, there was no way the driver couldn't have known he hit somebody.
What is disappointingly apparent, is that all the detractors are willing to criticise an idea and not present any alternatives or even how you could alter my proposal to make it work. To those concerned, you are all happy with the status quo despite such an idea being to the benefit of all and perhaps even go further to improving the cyclists lot in an era where there is too much traffic mixed in a potentially lethal cocktail with cyclists (Re.: Deaths in London of cyclists this year).
I am a driver. A large part of my living is driving. I drive 300 miles a week on average. I am also a cyclist and I witness so many near incidents on a weekly basis between cyclists and motorists especially in urban areas but also in the sticks as motorists fail consistently to give enough room or act with patience. As the number of cyclists goes up, then the chances of death and serious injury go up. The current system of law and prevention will not work, does not work, has not worked and does not look like keeping up with the ever increasing pressure on the roads.
The mindset of the average motorist in their comfortable, climate controlled vehicles is one of nonchalance and disregard, the same nonchalance and disregard of danger and the highway code to that of a handfull of cyclists too. I used to commute by bike and I used to jump red lights and do very silly things.
I spent almost 5 years in Sweden where without lights on your bike for example and drunk cycling, you could get your car licence endorsed and or a fine!
But in dear old Blighty, we just muddle through and the whingers come out of the closets and complain of anything that may be wholesale and positive and the mire gets deeper, more tragic and more confrontational.
No one yet has categorically said how they are going to re-train/re-educate 25m + drivers within say 1 year and in a way that will have a positive effect and extirpate/change the bad one's.
No one has yet said how they change the mindset of he police. The statement "If you want to kill someone, do it in a car" has no less impact than when I first heard it years ago.
A handfull of cases, far too easy to find unfortunately:
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/porsche-driver-killed-cyclist-77-5836873
http://www.henleystandard.co.uk/news/news.php?tabp=y&id=1354657
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2013/jun/21/veteran-cyclist-leonard-grayson
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20725496seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
From reading this thread and coming from someone who rides every day the needs of a cyclist on the road are different to cars. Therefore the rules that apply need not be the same. Given the extra vulnerability of cyclist on the road the legal system should be weighted in our favour when accidents happen I with cars. Society protects other groups of people against discrimination.
This morning I was coming down a short hill with a bend I looked ahead I saw a car therefore I approached the bend s more slowly to ensure I did not run out on the bend. Good thing I did as the car driver came through the bend in the middle of the road quite close to me. Now if that driver had looked ahead when I did they would have seen me. The point is cyclist and motorist can have good or poor driving standards and until the law is weighted in favour of the cyclist nothing will change. Of course that will require the police to take the needs of the cyclist seriously. How many times has we had a close shave with a car and there was police nearby who have done jack all. Called 999 once to report an hit and run on a pedestrian crossing of a pedestrian they did jack shit and said I had to come to nearest station to report even though the pedestrian and those that choose to help him like me were assaulted by the passengers of that car. Police can be useless until that changes there is little hope policing of the roads will improve , besides it is all done by camera now anyway.
I think the first law change is the presumption of guilt of the motorist in the event of a accident with a cyclist. That way the motorist will have to demonstrate they were driving properly which should be pretty easy if they were. In those cases where it more borderline then the presumption of guilt comes into play. This would have the effect of changing behaviour of motorist. They may not like it but it is car that kill people not cyclists. If cyclist feel less victimised on the roads I bet our behaviour overall will improve too.
A simple awareness campaign like that for motorcyclists could go a long way too. Improving our lot does not have to involve massive spend on cycling infrastructure.
Government imposes stuff all the time on the population what j have suggested would be no different.http://www.thecycleclinic.co.uk -wheel building and other stuff.0 -
I think the first law change is the presumption of guilt of the motorist in the event of a accident with a cyclist. .
NO. You cannot give presumption of guilt full stop. The Entire English criminal legal system is based on Innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You cannot change it to guilty until proven innocent which presumed guilt effectively amounts to. This would set a very dangerous precedent. Not all accidents are the fault of the driver. To presume guilt would be very unfair on these unfortunate drivers who have done nothing wrong. Everyone is entitled to give their side and defend themselves. If there is not enough evidence the cyclist was at fault you can't put the blame on the other party instead.0 -
The original post regards cyclists should have the same rules as drivers. How is this possible when drivers don't have consistent rules? Lorries have different rules to cars and so on. Therefore the OP is a nonsense. Rules are scaled to the type of vehicle and are heavily influenced by safety considerations. The rules applying to cycling are totally proportionate. Enforcement is the challenge for all road users.
Motorists, of which I am one to the tune of 21+K miles per year, have a whingeing lobby about persecution. I see out and out stupid behaviour every day that potentially exposes me to real risk. Can't say that cyclists have that impact other than in isolated instances.0 -
[quote="
What is disappointingly apparent, is that all the detractors are willing to criticise an idea and not present any alternatives or even how you could alter my proposal to make it work. To those concerned, you are all happy with the status quo despite such an idea being to the benefit of all and perhaps even go further to improving the cyclists lot in an era where there is too much traffic mixed in a potentially lethal cocktail with cyclists (Re.: Deaths in London of cyclists this year).
i think others have put forward alternative solutions.
i ve also lived in Sweden and cycled alot in france and Italy, these places also have plenty of selfish dangerous drivers esp when road space is limited and that is the issue here, years ago, with far less traffic, there wasnt this level of aggression toward cyclists, both in urban and rural areas.
I put forward a no fault rule for cyclists involved in an accident (unless proven differently by the motorist) harsher sentences and more visable policing, even complulsory dash and head cams BUT without resources to enforce new laws and most importent the politicians to actually change laws then absolutely nothing is going to happen.
i take on board what Maglia says but we ditch innocent until proven guilty in other aspects of law and it is only by radical action that motorists will change their behavior, infact it would nt be the motorist is guilty, it is the cyclist is not at fault, triggering a proper police investigation but this needs resources that are not available, Police cuts are real and effect all areas of policing.
I still do not see how insurance for cyclists will change how motorists drive, your just not thinking outside the box here.
We need more cyclists engaged in politics because politics effects everything we do, what we want for us and our kids but as you say most people whinge and still vote Tory/Labour and they ve both done nothing to improve the status of cyclists.0 -
Nope..be.
I think all cyclists should be insured. How it is done is up for debate and I was only suggesting a scheme that could perhaps cover it. I was also suggesting a change in procedure because it is evident that the police treat cyclists differently.
I will cite another case. 1991. A man was at work when he got the phone call that his wife was in labour. Excited to see the arrival of a son after 5 girls, he got on his bike and cycled from Polegate towards Eastbourne when a driver hit him and 'ran'. He was killed. The police finally caught up with the driver some time later and he was given a non-custodial sentence when all the evidence pointed to the fact that the driver was exceeding the speed limit, the weather was clear and by the state of the victim, bicycle and the car, there was no way the driver couldn't have known he hit somebody.
Again, you apportion blame where there isn't any and assume that every collision that results in a fatality should have a custodial sentence. Wrong. This case you highlight shows that THE POLICE do not make sentencing decisions. The courts do, yet you blame the police.
A newspaper article does not report all of the facts of the case and even if there was an element of speed involved, it does not on it's own prove dangerous driving unless the speed was GREATLY excessive. The sentencing guidelines dictate the maximum sentence available to the courts but the Judge is able to use his or her discretion to award a sentence that they believe is appropriate. If the prosecution think it is overly lenient, they can appeal it. But the Judge will have had pre-sentence reports, previous convictions and evidence of character put before them to make an informed decision. What do you know about the driver in this case? Do you know whether he has a sick wife or child at home who would be adversely affected by them being given a custodial sentence? No, you don't. Do you know whether he is the only bread winner in the family and his family will lose their home if they were given a custodial? No again. There are umpteen factors a Judge has to consider before sending someone to prison. Prison is for those who have no remorse, showed absolutely no regard for their victim, are residivists, the protection of the public etc etc. It is not for those who have made a genuine mistake in the spur of the moment even if it does result in a fatality. I appreciate the impact a fatality has on the deceased's family having delivered death messages enough times, but a mistake is not intent and you have to consider the degree of recklessness involved for punishment.
The police do not make charging decisions unless a case involves simple offences and an admission of guilt. For any collision and especially where it involves a fatality, the file is put before a CPS prosecutor who will decide on the balance of the available evidence whether to authorise any charges. That decision is based on the code for crown prosecutors which they are compelled to observe.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/docs/code_2013_accessible_english.pdfI ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.0 -
Nope. Got the sarcasm.
I don't understand that point.So you're happy for car drivers to have yet another hike in insurance just because you're anti car? That sounds fair. In the next breath you're claiming that recreational areas don't have cars so cycle insurance isn't needed. You just want cycle insurance as a weapon against motorised transport and not to reflect the risk of cycling and to cover the injuries and damages caused by cyclists too. Sounds fair again.
We can already claim against their insurance if they are at fault. No change, apart from having a lawyer to back you up. How many threads have there been on here where people realise the benefit of BC after the fact, and regret not having it?
You missed the sarcasm in my response. I don't for one minute think the poster is being fair.
Insurance is not only fair, it is a good idea and one reason that I am covered by BC. I think everyone should be.
I don't believe I have said that having insurance as a cyclist is a bad idea? I've said I think the suggestion being put forward by Pinno is flawed from top to bottom. I have insurance myself.I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.0 -
I think the first law change is the presumption of guilt of the motorist in the event of a accident with a cyclist. .
NO. You cannot give presumption of guilt full stop. The Entire English criminal legal system is based on Innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You cannot change it to guilty until proven innocent which presumed guilt effectively amounts to. This would set a very dangerous precedent. Not all accidents are the fault of the driver. To presume guilt would be very unfair on these unfortunate drivers who have done nothing wrong. Everyone is entitled to give their side and defend themselves. If there is not enough evidence the cyclist was at fault you can't put the blame on the other party instead.
There already effectively is presumed guilt: bail, remand, naming the accused but protecting the victims etc..
And presumed liability isn't the same as presumed guilty. There can be no guilty party at all in presumed liability.
A lot of drivers need to be taught to respect other road users, presumed liability and the associated financial impact is a reasonable method.0 -
I think the first law change is the presumption of guilt of the motorist in the event of a accident with a cyclist. .
NO. You cannot give presumption of guilt full stop. The Entire English criminal legal system is based on Innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. You cannot change it to guilty until proven innocent which presumed guilt effectively amounts to. This would set a very dangerous precedent. Not all accidents are the fault of the driver. To presume guilt would be very unfair on these unfortunate drivers who have done nothing wrong. Everyone is entitled to give their side and defend themselves. If there is not enough evidence the cyclist was at fault you can't put the blame on the other party instead.
There already effectively is presumed guilt: bail, remand, naming the accused but protecting the victims etc..
Thats not the same. Bail remand etc are brought about after an investigation to determine this and its the onus is still on the prosecution to prove guilt not the accused to prove innocence.
If you put presumed liability on the driver its still not a fair assumption that they are at fault. I can watch a hundred youtube clips of cars hitting cyclists. A fair portion of them will be down to cyclists whizzing through red lights, squeezing past slow moving vehicles, cutting up other road users. These people who blatantly disregarded the rules of the road would have the law presume them innocent in a scenario with no cameras or witnesses. That is extremely unfair on a driver who has this happen to them.0 -
Nope..be.
I think...somebody.
What do you know about the driver in this case? Do you know whether he has a sick wife or child at home who would be adversely affected by them being given a custodial sentence? No, you don't. Do you know whether he is the only bread winner in the family and his family will lose their home if they were given a custodial? ...pdf
What?! Clemency for acting like an idiot, not stopping after the incident and taking a Dad away from 6 children? Not subjective in the slightest. :roll:seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Nope..be.
I think...somebody.
What do you know about the driver in this case? Do you know whether he has a sick wife or child at home who would be adversely affected by them being given a custodial sentence? No, you don't. Do you know whether he is the only bread winner in the family and his family will lose their home if they were given a custodial? ...pdf
What?! Clemency for acting like an idiot, not stopping after the incident and taking a Dad away from 6 children? Not subjective in the slightest. :roll:
You my friend, have a Moses complex. Punishment is not the same as revenge. You clearly have the two mixed up.I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.0 -
Moses Complex: religious psychopathology :shock:
I had better book a session with the shrink.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
What do you know about the driver in this case? Do you know whether he has a sick wife or child at home who would be adversely affected by them being given a custodial sentence? No, you don't. Do you know whether he is the only bread winner in the family and his family will lose their home if they were given a custodial? ...pdf
What?! Clemency for acting like an idiot, not stopping after the incident and taking a Dad away from 6 children? Not subjective in the slightest. :roll:
Sorry, but why should that dictate whether some one is charged and the subsequent sentence? we are not talking about shop lifting.
If the evidence shows his driving is at fault, that he didnt stop, then a custodial (and a long one) not only is correct for him but tells other motorists that killing cyclists is treated very seriously by the law, at the moment its not, its treated as an occupational hazard of driving.
Your the only traffic cop i ve ever heard of who thinks killing with car is punished correctly at the moment.
a mate lost his job, marriage, house and ended up (for a while) in a housing shelter after losing his licence for drink driving, there was no accident, it was 2 in the morning on a rural road, he got a harsh sentence, would you say that was wrong and he should have been let off? i would nt, he knew the law, chose to break it.0 -
What...pdf
What...slightest. :roll:
Sorry, but why should that dictate whether some one is charged and the subsequent sentence? we are not talking about shop lifting.
If the evidence shows his driving is at fault, that he didnt stop, then a custodial (and a long one) not only is correct for him but tells other motorists that killing cyclists is treated very seriously by the law, at the moment its not, its treated as an occupational hazard of driving.
I totally agree and it is not uncommon for motorists to be treated leniently in cases like this.
Your the only traffic cop i ve ever heard of who thinks killing with car is punished correctly at the moment.
I don't know where you have picked that up from.
a mate lost his job, marriage, house and ended up (for a while) in a housing shelter after losing his licence for drink driving, there was no accident, it was 2 in the morning on a rural road, he got a harsh sentence, would you say that was wrong and he should have been let off? i would nt, he knew the law, chose to break it.
You will have to explain what relevance that has to the this debate. I am not going down the road of what I think this guy should have got in terms of a penalty. Yes he broke the law but no one was hurt and yes it was right to penalise him. By how much, I have no idea.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Your the only traffic cop i ve ever heard of who thinks killing with car is punished correctly at the moment.
I don't know where you have picked that up from.
a mate lost his job, marriage, house and ended up (for a while) in a housing shelter after losing his licence for drink driving, there was no accident, it was 2 in the morning on a rural road, he got a harsh sentence, would you say that was wrong and he should have been let off? i would nt, he knew the law, chose to break it.
You will have to explain what relevance that has to the this debate. I am not going down the road of what I think this guy should have got in terms of a penalty. Yes he broke the law but no one was hurt and yes it was right to penalise him. By how much, I have no idea.
Addressed to Phil3 who has intimated he is a traffic cop?
In regards that Phil3 has said that the effects (on the perpetrator) of the sentence should determine that sentence ie sole wage earner etc, i say thats irrelevant in this type of crime and DD was to show that the law doesnt think so either.
I ll have to work on my delivery, much like you on your edited quotes
But Pinno, to get back to your original assertion, you do need to explain why you think insurance is going to change any of this?0 -
Your... badly edited quotes...lol...
But Pinno, to get back to your original assertion, you do need to explain why you think insurance is going to change any of this?
IF and it is a big 'if', an insurance scheme coupled with a change in procedural law, was implemented, the cyclist would have the backing of a legal process that is more fair the the current one. Then it becomes top down pressure on drivers who seem to think that cyclists are a soft target, simply because previous cases re-enforce the prejudice and automatic assumption that the cyclist is somehow at fault - more: they were just there, they weren't wearing a helmet, they were a bit wobbly, they were two abreast at the time (perfectly legal), they don't pay road tax, they are clogging up the roads and every other stereotypical perspective of the average cyclist by the average cynical driver.
I think this attitude is also reflected not only by the police but by the law courts when you consider how lenient some sentences are for even death when it was clear that the plaintiff was at fault. The legal process of a preliminary hearing would remove most fraudulent claims, it would allow both legal parties to have their say, and any police evidence would be under some scrutiny which places a bit more emphasis on them and any investigation prior to a court case.
If we don't put the spotlight on procedures where there has been serious injury or death, then the status quo remains. If the spotlight is not on road safety and the consequences of really bad driving, then drivers remain in their assumed protected bubble that is the car, both physically and legally.
A fund that pays for legal representation, accessible by victims and families of victims ups the stakes. Legal representatives in all cases in all aspects of law act as a natural filter prior to any proceedings actually taking place, so it won't be clogged up by the insignificant and the equivocal.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Your the only traffic cop i ve ever heard of who thinks killing with car is punished correctly at the moment.
I don't know where you have picked that up from.
a mate lost his job, marriage, house and ended up (for a while) in a housing shelter after losing his licence for drink driving, there was no accident, it was 2 in the morning on a rural road, he got a harsh sentence, would you say that was wrong and he should have been let off? i would nt, he knew the law, chose to break it.
You will have to explain what relevance that has to the this debate. I am not going down the road of what I think this guy should have got in terms of a penalty. Yes he broke the law but no one was hurt and yes it was right to penalise him. By how much, I have no idea.
Addressed to Phil3 who has intimated he is a traffic cop?
In regards that Phil3 has said that the effects (on the perpetrator) of the sentence should determine that sentence ie sole wage earner etc, i say thats irrelevant in this type of crime and DD was to show that the law doesnt think so either.
I ll have to work on my delivery, much like you on your edited quotes
But Pinno, to get back to your original assertion, you do need to explain why you think insurance is going to change any of this?
Err no I haven't intimated anything of the sort. I was never attached to traffic/Roads Policing Unit but that has no impact on my knowledge of the law and the judicial processes having passed both my Sergeants and Inspector's examinations, which test your knowledge of roads policing, general policing duties, crime and evidence and procedure. I also worked for the Criminal Justice Department for many years linking with the CPS and courts.I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.0 -
What do you know about the driver in this case? Do you know whether he has a sick wife or child at home who would be adversely affected by them being given a custodial sentence? No, you don't. Do you know whether he is the only bread winner in the family and his family will lose their home if they were given a custodial? ...pdf
What?! Clemency for acting like an idiot, not stopping after the incident and taking a Dad away from 6 children? Not subjective in the slightest. :roll:
Sorry, but why should that dictate whether some one is charged and the subsequent sentence? we are not talking about shop lifting.
If the evidence shows his driving is at fault, that he didnt stop, then a custodial (and a long one) not only is correct for him but tells other motorists that killing cyclists is treated very seriously by the law, at the moment its not, its treated as an occupational hazard of driving.
Your the only traffic cop i ve ever heard of who thinks killing with car is punished correctly at the moment.
a mate lost his job, marriage, house and ended up (for a while) in a housing shelter after losing his licence for drink driving, there was no accident, it was 2 in the morning on a rural road, he got a harsh sentence, would you say that was wrong and he should have been let off? i would nt, he knew the law, chose to break it.
Of course it should dictate what punishment should be awarded. You in a moment of inattentiveness while reversing into a parking space knock over and kill a small child who you hadn't seen. Deciding the space is too tight, you pull off to find another space without realising what you've done. The horrified parent doesn't take any detail of your car as they're too distraught at the sight of their lifeless child on the floor. You meanwhile find another space on the other side of the car park and go off on your merry way. You caused a fatality and left the scene simply because you hadn't seen the child and didn't feel any impact. Throw you in prison for 14 years? No. Death by dangerous driving? No.
There are scenarios where driver's will go to prison for a collision that results in a fatality and equally, where there are scenarios where they won't go to prison. There are scenarios where thieves don't go to prison. IN every case, the sentencing Judge or Magistrate has to consider if imprisonment is the appropriate punishment. The taking of someone's liberty is seen as the last possible option.
Your mate was drink driving which has a mandatory term of disqualification. Let him off when he is endangering anyone he may encounter on the roads? Not a chance and frankly that is a ludicrous suggestion and example of where the law ought to have applied leniency.I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.0 -
Your...this?
Err no I haven't intimated anything of the sort. I was never attached to traffic/Roads Policing Unit but that has no impact on my knowledge of the law and the judicial processes having passed both my Sergeants and Inspector's examinations, which test your knowledge of roads policing, general policing duties, crime and evidence and procedure. I also worked for the Criminal Justice Department for many years linking with the CPS and courts.
Let's turn this around.
A) Do you think that traffic offences causing serious injury or death are often too lenient?
If so, do you think there needs to be legislative, sentencing or procedural changes or a combination? seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Your...this?
Err no I haven't intimated anything of the sort. I was never attached to traffic/Roads Policing Unit but that has no impact on my knowledge of the law and the judicial processes having passed both my Sergeants and Inspector's examinations, which test your knowledge of roads policing, general policing duties, crime and evidence and procedure. I also worked for the Criminal Justice Department for many years linking with the CPS and courts.
Let's turn this around.
A) Do you think that traffic offences causing serious injury or death are often too lenient? If so, do you think there needs to be legislative, sentencing or procedural changes or a combination?
I won't even try and deny there are instances where sentencing has been too lenient in all types of cases, but if it is excessively lenient, the CPS can set the process in place to appeal the sentence. The Attorney General can only consider the appeal if the sentence is overly lenient and has succeeded in increasing the tariff imposed in many cases referred to them in the past. If you're going to have the power of discretion to enable everyone from the Judiciary all the way down to street parking wardens, then you have to accept that an element of personal judgement will be being used. Take it away from one and you take it away from everyone. Sentencing guidelines set the maximum and minimum punishments available giving the sentencing judge/magistrate a scalar to consider against the facts of the offence. The majority of cases they get it about right, but sometimes though rarely, yes, they get it wrong.
There are some offences where I don't think there should be options against a set punishment, but fatal RTCs isn't one of them. There are too many variables that have to be considered. You start on the presumption of a moment of circumstances, but then add other factors like the presence of intoxicants, no driving licence or insurance, excessive speed, manner of driving immediately prior to the collision, not in control of the vehicle, vehicle condition, standard of driving for the conditions etc etc. As they tot up you get nearer to the top end of the available sentencing.I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.0 -
We already have it wrong in my opinion, with the introduction of the “Death by...” offences. For years we've had a system based on the guilty intent not the guilty act. You'll always get harsher penalties for attempted murder than accidental killing. As per the example above, an inattentive driver can, through a momentary lapse kill someone. Did they intend to? – No, will a prison sentence deter them? – no, does society need protecting from them? – no does the fear of being locked up make someone else more likely to look? – probably not. If there is a degree of advanced recklessness then we have a guilty mind.
IMO a drink driver, driving too fast who crashes and injures should get no less a harsh sentence than one who kills - its just random events that determine if someone is killed or not
In terms of laws for cyclists – its hard to justify why we don’t have to stop and exchange details in the event of an accident involving damage to property or injury and hard to take a view that speed limits need lowering or enforcing when they don’t apply mostly to cyclists.0 -
I had an ex-con who was on work placement with us. Decent enough guy. He was thoroughly regretful. He spent 5 years inside after getting into a fight with another bloke in a bar. The guy he punched fell over awkwardly and smacked his head on the foot rail. He was charged and convicted of manslaughter.
There was no intent to kill him, he was unlucky in that the victim died.
In a moment where a driver doesn't pay attention and kills a cyclist, the driver is surely guilty of manslaughter?
He didn't intend to kill the cyclist but by not paying attention, he was negligent.
Why should the driver of a car who drives badly and causes harm be given leniency? The bloke in the pub who gets into a mutually accepted fight (for want of a better phrase), they both start hitting each other and one gets sentenced for manslaughter.
A guy gets on his bike and cycles down the road, gets knocked off and killed by a negligent driver but the driver gets a wrap on the knuckles. If the cyclist did not act in any unsafe fashion, he cannot be held even partly responsible (ie He didn't provoke the driver) and yet the driver gets off lightly.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
I had an ex-con who was on work placement with us. Decent enough guy. He was thoroughly regretful. He spent 5 years inside after getting into a fight with another bloke in a bar. The guy he punched fell over awkwardly and smacked his head on the foot rail. He was charged and convicted of manslaughter.
There was no intent to kill him, he was unlucky in that the victim died.
In a moment where a driver doesn't pay attention and kills a cyclist, the driver is surely guilty of manslaughter?
He didn't intend to kill the cyclist but by not paying attention, he was negligent.
Why should the driver of a car who drives badly and causes harm be given leniency? The bloke in the pub who gets into a mutually accepted fight (for want of a better phrase), they both start hitting each other and one gets sentenced for manslaughter.
A guy gets on his bike and cycles down the road, gets knocked off and killed by a negligent driver but the driver gets a wrap on the knuckles. If the cyclist did not act in any unsafe fashion, he cannot be held even partly responsible (ie He didn't provoke the driver) and yet the driver gets off lightly.
The guy you had on placement had an intention to cause harm. Consent for something illegal which a fight is, can never make an assault lawful. Unless you can prove a car driver intended to harm the cyclist, you will never get a conviction for manslaughter.
I'm done with this now as you're repeating the same old viewpoints which have already been adequately explained to you as misguided. Good luck with your campaign for a bill of vengeance.I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.0 -
What if the guy in the pub had the fight picked on him and was defending himself?I had an ex-con who was on work placement with us. Decent enough guy. He was thoroughly regretful. He spent 5 years inside after getting into a fight with another bloke in a bar. The guy he punched fell over awkwardly and smacked his head on the foot rail. He was charged and convicted of manslaughter.
There was no intent to kill him, he was unlucky in that the victim died.
In a moment where a driver doesn't pay attention and kills a cyclist, the driver is surely guilty of manslaughter?
He didn't intend to kill the cyclist but by not paying attention, he was negligent.
Why should the driver of a car who drives badly and causes harm be given leniency? The bloke in the pub who gets into a mutually accepted fight (for want of a better phrase), they both start hitting each other and one gets sentenced for manslaughter.
A guy gets on his bike and cycles down the road, gets knocked off and killed by a negligent driver but the driver gets a wrap on the knuckles. If the cyclist did not act in any unsafe fashion, he cannot be held even partly responsible (ie He didn't provoke the driver) and yet the driver gets off lightly.
The guy you had on placement had an intention to cause harm. Consent for something illegal which a fight is, can never make an assault lawful. Unless you can prove a car driver intended to harm the cyclist, you will never get a conviction for manslaughter.
I'm done with this now as you're repeating the same old viewpoints which have already been adequately explained to you as misguided. Good luck with your campaign for a bill of vengeance.
Self defence but still manslaughter. :?:The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
No that is self defence. As long as the force used was reasonable and proportionate, there is no crime.0
-
I had an...lightly.
The...manslaughter.
I'm done with this now as you're repeating the same old viewpoints which have already been adequately explained to you as misguided.
I am misguided because I think that the cyclist is not protected by the law very well in it;s current state, is therefore more vulnerable and I want to know if there is a way to make the roads safer for us (somehow)!? Okay.
Good luck with your campaign for a bill of vengeance.
There has been nothing that I have said that points to any desire for a 'bill of vengeance'.
What if the guy in the pub had the fight picked on him and was defending himself?
Self defence but still manslaughter. :?:
What's the point PBlakeney?
I was, by my questions trying to get a viewpoint from some one more conversant with the law and seeing if there was some common ground. Silly me.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
