Law for cyclists to have the same rules as drivers
Comments
-
I am trying to determine the point at which an accident (or self defence) suddenly becomes manslaughter, and then the next step which is murder.
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.
It appears very arbitrary to me.
In the context of this thread, how many drivers have been accused of manslaughter?
It's a rhetorical question really, as we all know of examples where drivers have done extraordinary things to try and get away from an "accident". To the point where anyone with common sense knows that they should be punished. And punished hard. But they are not.
If I am ever in the position of contemplating a heinous crime, then a car is the weapon of choice.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 wasn't disagreeing with you PB. It was directed at Philthy3.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0
-
Ah! No point.I wasn't disagreeing with you PB. It was directed at Philthy3.
Don't make me angry though.
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 -
Ah! No point.I wasn't disagreeing with you PB. It was directed at Philthy3.
Don't make me angry though.
Okay, i'll promise not to call anything you post bollox or drivel either. I guess I have been conditioned by fellow bracketeers and must be careful when venturing out into the realms of the PC, convention and decorum.
Now, what's happening in Pro Race...seanoconn - gruagach craic!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.
No you're trying to categorize a fatal road traffic collision in the brackets of manslaughter or murder. Read the legislation.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.0 -
No you're trying to categorize a fatal road traffic collision in the brackets of manslaughter or murder. Read the legislation.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/
i find myself agreeing with Phil here, i cant see how even the henious accident can be classed as murder/manslaughter.
in cases where the driver has deliberately used their car as a weapon, then its not an accident and they ll get charged appropriately, as in the case recently, she got done with GBH and 3years and the cyclist escaped injury, i think it should have been higher though.
But as i said at the very beginning, unless there is affective road policing, then you will always be dealing with the consequences, i would like the focus to be on prevention but as accident rates are going up across the country, this isnt the direction of travel at all.0 -
Proven negligence = manslaughter.
No you're trying to categorize a fatal road traffic collision in the brackets of manslaughter or murder. Read the legislation.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/
i find myself agreeing with Phil here, i cant see how even the henious accident can be classed as murder/manslaughter.
in cases where the driver has deliberately used their car as a weapon, then its not an accident and they ll get charged appropriately, as in the case recently, she got done with GBH and 3years and the cyclist escaped injury, i think it should have been higher though.
But as i said at the very beginning, unless there is affective road policing, then you will always be dealing with the consequences, i would like the focus to be on prevention but as accident rates are going up across the country, this isnt the direction of travel at all.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 you're trying to categorize a fatal road traffic collision in the brackets of manslaughter or murder. Read the legislation.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/
i find myself agreeing with Phil here, i cant see how even the henious accident can be classed as murder/manslaughter.
in cases where the driver has deliberately used their car as a weapon, then its not an accident and they ll get charged appropriately, as in the case recently, she got done with GBH and 3years and the cyclist escaped injury, i think it should have been higher though.
But as i said at the very beginning, unless there is affective road policing, then you will always be dealing with the consequences, i would like the focus to be on prevention but as accident rates are going up across the country, this isnt the direction of travel at all.
Which is precisely why sitting on hands is doing nothing towards reducing the number of accidents.
I do think that he root cause of antipathy towards the cyclist is the hedonism which is pervading our society. People think that they have a god given right to drive Tarquin and Penelope 600 yards in their XC60 or their ML350cdi to school or half a mile to the supermarket. It's the attitude that I pay road tax and I am entitled to drive where I f*cking like that is wrong.
I am a driver as I say and I do not think that I am being unfairly penalised. If a person has no choice but to use a car then fair enough but how much congestion is unnecessary use of the vehicle as a means of transport and why? The car has also become far more of a status symbol than it ever was.
Spend 25k on a car, park it on the drive and use your bike or take the bus or walk?! Good god, whatever for? I have bought it to bolster my ego and extend my penis, my ego and my penis won't get the benefit of my car if it's sitting on the drive.
I then take my 25k car, which is insured, taxed, polished, fuelled up, all at enormous cost, drive it down the road and there's a f*cking cyclist in the way, piddling on my perceived freedom and compromising the decision to fork out all this money. It's got 170bhp. Lets go fast, I am on a country road. Drive around a bend and come upon a group of cyclists, brake hard or attempt a silly overtaking manoeuvre and cause death or injury and it's fine because there are so many 'extenuating circumstances', what's the worst that could happen to me?seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
I agree ... but I don't think compulsory insurance to finance a pre-judicial process is going to make any difference - I'd say that it'd have a negative impact on the numbers cycling in generalWhich is precisely why sitting on hands is doing nothing towards reducing the number of accidents.
It's the "impeeded" bit that's causing the issue - drivers feel impeeded by any obstacles in the road. High power vehicles with better braking which have steadily grown wider over the years mean that they're more likely to do an unsafe overtake.I do think that he root cause of antipathy towards the cyclist is the hedonism which is pervading our society. People think that they have a god given right to drive Tarquin and Penelope 600 yards in their XC60 or their ML350cdi to school or half a mile to the supermarket. It's the attitude that I pay road tax and I am entitled to drive where I f*cking like that is wrong.
A few drivers will conduct "punishment passes" - but they're unlikely to take heed of changes to laws to punish them - as who is going to catch them?
Vechile Dimensions - when I was a younger we had a Hillman Avenger - body width = 1600mm (1.6 meters) - it was a family car ...
Look at the Ford C-max - a family car - width = 2000mm - yup - over a foot wider.
Or the Peugeot 308 - a small family car - width = 1815mm - a bit narrower than the Ford, but not by much.
If you look at the Smart ForTwo it's only 1510mm wide - much more sensible for the majority of our roads (and parking spaces)
Yet our road widths haven't dramatically increased - so coupled with the greater number of cars on the road, the available space for each road user has decreased significantly.
IMHO there are a number of things that need to be addressed.
Lighting - government guidance on cycle lighting needs to be updated to be clearer and publicised.
Car size - we need to reduce the number of big cars - either through financial incentive or licensing - or both.
Car power - this needs seriously reducing - we just don't need 250hp machines on the road.
Then we need to look at inattentive driving - technology to assist drivers is all very well, but it does rather lull the drivers into a false sense of security - driving my old Peugeot 205 or my MGB roadster was a very interactive experience - you couldn't be inattentive ...0 -
Are accident rates really going up per bvkm?
I don't think there is evidence to support that.
There was some research done on motorcycle accidents and the exposure to risk by motorbike type. The aim of the research was to show a link to accidents and engine size. They were trying to find out if people on high capacity bikes were more likely to have an accident. The report concluded that there was no link to engine size. Those riding 1,000cc bikes were about the same risk as those riding 125cc bikes. What the report did show is that there was a sweet spot for rider around the 5,000 mile per year mark. Once riders fell below 1,500 miles a year (typically your sunday afternoon sports bike rider) the risk went up, the same for those above 8,000 miles per year (the daily commuter facing all weather).
What it showed though is the accident rate per billion vehicle kilometers had been falling across all groups. I suspect the same applies to cyclists.0 -
Do you really think people are like this?
the people who do stupid overtakes on me, are all sorts, 4x4's, worx vans, city cars, any thing really, i m just in their way and they think they ll escape injury from a head on collision or that i ll get up if they run me over.
as i said earlier, we need more police, enforcement of driving stds (i would like to see a basic driving re test every 5 or 10 years too) deterent sentencing but it isnt going to happen anytime soon, infact the opposite is happening right now and judging by the comments in various threads in cake stop, some applaud this and like the majority of the electorate, want more cuts
0 -
Proven negligence = manslaughter.
No you're trying to categorize a fatal road traffic collision in the brackets of manslaughter or murder. Read the legislation.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/
i find myself agreeing with Phil here, i cant see how even the henious accident can be classed as murder/manslaughter.
in cases where the driver has deliberately used their car as a weapon, then its not an accident and they ll get charged appropriately, as in the case recently, she got done with GBH and 3years and the cyclist escaped injury, i think it should have been higher though.
But as i said at the very beginning, unless there is affective road policing, then you will always be dealing with the consequences, i would like the focus to be on prevention but as accident rates are going up across the country, this isnt the direction of travel at all.
And you obviously didn't read the law around manslaughter properly. For manslaughter by negligence, the person has to have a duty of care to that person. Take this scenario; a man walking over a bridge hears screaming from the bank beneath. He looks over and sees a small child in the water struggling to stay afloat with nobody around to help them. Being a sick individual, he decides not to help, but to stand and watch the child drown. Morally wrong and most people would have made an attempt to save the child but it is not manslaughter by negligence. If he had been the parent of the child and decided not to help, that would be manslaughter by negligence as he has a duty of care towards the child.
Gross Negligence Manslaughter
This is where the death is a result of a grossly negligent (though otherwise lawful) act or omission on the part of the defendant. The law in respect of this has been clarified in the case of R v Adomako (1994) 3 All ER 79 where a four stage test for gross negligence manslaughter known as the Adomako Test was outlined by the House of Lords:
The test involves the following stages:
a) the existence of a duty of care to the deceased;
b) a breach of that duty of care which;
c) causes (or significantly contributes) to the death of the victim; and
d) the breach should be characterised as gross negligence, and therefore a crime.
There is no manslaughter by "Lawrence Recklessness", overruling R v Seymour (1983) 2 AC 493I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.0 -
I think it is a cultural thing. Road deaths and accidents are seen in this country as one of those things. Many years ago Britain had an appalling death rate on the roads, but incidents involving vehicles were seen as "accidents". They still are if you look at the wording of Road Traffic Act offences. So if someone is killed by a driver, the penalty is lower.
How this helps rid us of a culture of poor and often negligent driving and improves standards I don't know. Apart from making cyclists conform to drivers :roll:Ecrasez l’infame0 -
No you're trying to categorize a fatal road traffic collision in the brackets of manslaughter or murder. Read the legislation.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/
i find myself agreeing with Phil here, i cant see how even the henious accident can be classed as murder/manslaughter.
in cases where the driver has deliberately used their car as a weapon, then its not an accident and they ll get charged appropriately, as in the case recently, she got done with GBH and 3years and the cyclist escaped injury, i think it should have been higher though.
But as i said at the very beginning, unless there is affective road policing, then you will always be dealing with the consequences, i would like the focus to be on prevention but as accident rates are going up across the country, this isnt the direction of travel at all.
Which is precisely why sitting on hands is doing nothing towards reducing the number of accidents.
I do think that he root cause of antipathy towards the cyclist is the hedonism which is pervading our society. People think that they have a god given right to drive Tarquin and Penelope 600 yards in their XC60 or their ML350cdi to school or half a mile to the supermarket. It's the attitude that I pay road tax and I am entitled to drive where I f*cking like that is wrong.
I am a driver as I say and I do not think that I am being unfairly penalised. If a person has no choice but to use a car then fair enough but how much congestion is unnecessary use of the vehicle as a means of transport and why? The car has also become far more of a status symbol than it ever was.
Spend 25k on a car, park it on the drive and use your bike or take the bus or walk?! Good god, whatever for? I have bought it to bolster my ego and extend my penis, my ego and my penis won't get the benefit of my car if it's sitting on the drive.
I then take my 25k car, which is insured, taxed, polished, fuelled up, all at enormous cost, drive it down the road and there's a f*cking cyclist in the way, piddling on my perceived freedom and compromising the decision to fork out all this money. It's got 170bhp. Lets go fast, I am on a country road. Drive around a bend and come upon a group of cyclists, brake hard or attempt a silly overtaking manoeuvre and cause death or injury and it's fine because there are so many 'extenuating circumstances', what's the worst that could happen to me?
You perhaps want to take note of Article 1 of the Human Rights Act and I'll politely add that your post smacks of envy. I drive a big gas guzzling 4x4. Do I have to use it every time I do? No. Is it my choice whether I do or don't? Yes it is. Is there a law against me using it? No there isn't. Am I a maniac on the roads when driving just because I'm behind the wheel of a 4x4? No i'm not. Do I cut cyclists up? No I don't. Do I in fact wait until it is safe to pull entirely over to the other side of the road when passing them? Yes I do. Do I move to block the center line of the road when I can see a car from the opposite direction going to try and squeeze between me and cyclist ahead of them? Yes I do.I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.0 -
Being a sick individual, he decides not to help, but to stand and watch the child drown
When you say sick individual - you mean morally sick? or do you mean ill, physically weak etc?
On the parental responsibility - Children and Young Persons Act 1933 doesn't quite go far enough to cover the above example. there's been a lot of debate on this recently.
On a current case topic we have the recent conviction of the doctors and nurses who wrongly refused to treat a downs' child mistaking him as being subject to a do not resuscitate order. I haven't been following it that closely, but up until that point there have been very few cases of medical manslaughter.0 -
Does the driver of a car not have some duty of care towards more vulnerable road users? If not, they certainly should.
Don't know the legality of such things, but according to this definition they would:duty of care
n. a requirement that a person act toward others and the public with watchfulness, attention, caution and prudence that a reasonable person in the circumstances would. If a person's actions do not meet this standard of care, then the acts are considered negligent, and any damages resulting may be claimed in a lawsuit for negligence.0 -
No...all[/b].
Which...accidents.
I do... wrong.
I am...to me?
You perhaps want to take note of Article 1 of the Human Rights Act and I'll politely add that your post smacks of envy. I drive a big gas guzzling 4x4. Do I have to use it every time I do? No. Is it my choice whether I do or don't? Yes it is. Is there a law against me using it? No there isn't. Am I a maniac on the roads when driving just because I'm behind the wheel of a 4x4? No i'm not. Do I cut cyclists up? No I don't. Do I in fact wait until it is safe to pull entirely over to the other side of the road when passing them? Yes I do. Do I move to block the center line of the road when I can see a car from the opposite direction going to try and squeeze between me and cyclist ahead of them? Yes I do.
Human rights act?! Envy?! I drive a Merc 270cdi.
I don't think that 4 x 4's are necessary in urban areas. Slowbike made the point about cars getting bigger and bigger and he is right.
No point telling me how good you are as a driver or how you overtake a cyclist because after all you are a cyclist yourself. What was the point in that? I do think that most drivers are fine. It's the few who are heedless and cavalier that concern me.
When I am out cycling, most drivers pass reasonably. That odd one individual, where you feel the wing mirror as it passes or they overtake and then cut in left far too early or pull out on you like you don't exist, may not be doing a criminal act but they are dangerous; they pay little or no heed to you and it if they were to make contact, it's potentially lethal. It's okay, "They didn't mean to, they didn't intend to cause harm... etc etc", so let them off with a slap on the wrist.
I was being stereotypical about drivers in my last post, firstly as devil's advocate and secondly as irony but it was somewhat lost.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
philthy3's references related to criminal negligence. However, negligence in general usually refers to civil cases where injury/damages occur. The test for negligence in civil cases is similar, but different - there being a requirement for proximity for example. But for the purpose of this thread its similar enough. A driver has obligations in both respects. He has a duty of care not to injure someone or cause damage to their property and for that he carries insurance. He is also bound by statute which specifies certain offences for failure to exercise a similar but different duty of care.Does the driver of a car not have some duty of care towards more vulnerable road users? If not, they certainly should.
thus a driver can be both liable for damages under negligence law and fined and punished under criminal law for committing offences.
Cyclists also have a similar duty and for that many of us carry insurance. The difference is that there is an order of magnitude fewer that a cyclist can commit.0 -
-
Being a sick individual, he decides not to help, but to stand and watch the child drown
When you say sick individual - you mean morally sick? or do you mean ill, physically weak etc?
On the parental responsibility - Children and Young Persons Act 1933 doesn't quite go far enough to cover the above example. there's been a lot of debate on this recently.
On a current case topic we have the recent conviction of the doctors and nurses who wrongly refused to treat a downs' child mistaking him as being subject to a do not resuscitate order. I haven't been following it that closely, but up until that point there have been very few cases of medical manslaughter.
Sick as in morally.
The recent case with the Doctor and Nurse was not one where they refused to treat the child believing he had a don not resuscitate on him. The lack of any attempt to resuscitate him had no bearing on the case, but the media in their ignorance picked up on it as the main issue. The issue was that when he arrived at the hospital, if they had done their jobs properly in requesting test results and monitoring him correctly, they would have spotted in was going into septic shock and been able to save him. By failing to do that they neglected their duty of care, hence manslaughter by negligence.I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.0 -
No...all[/b].
Which...accidents.
I do... wrong.
I am...to me?
You perhaps want to take note of Article 1 of the Human Rights Act and I'll politely add that your post smacks of envy. I drive a big gas guzzling 4x4. Do I have to use it every time I do? No. Is it my choice whether I do or don't? Yes it is. Is there a law against me using it? No there isn't. Am I a maniac on the roads when driving just because I'm behind the wheel of a 4x4? No i'm not. Do I cut cyclists up? No I don't. Do I in fact wait until it is safe to pull entirely over to the other side of the road when passing them? Yes I do. Do I move to block the center line of the road when I can see a car from the opposite direction going to try and squeeze between me and cyclist ahead of them? Yes I do.
Human rights act?! Envy?! I drive a Merc 270cdi.
I don't think that 4 x 4's are necessary in urban areas. Slowbike made the point about cars getting bigger and bigger and he is right.
No point telling me how good you are as a driver or how you overtake a cyclist because after all you are a cyclist yourself. What was the point in that? I do think that most drivers are fine. It's the few who are heedless and cavalier that concern me.
When I am out cycling, most drivers pass reasonably. That odd one individual, where you feel the wing mirror as it passes or they overtake and then cut in left far too early or pull out on you like you don't exist, may not be doing a criminal act but they are dangerous; they pay little or no heed to you and it if they were to make contact, it's potentially lethal. It's okay, "They didn't mean to, they didn't intend to cause harm... etc etc", so let them off with a slap on the wrist.
I was being stereotypical about drivers in my last post, firstly as devil's advocate and secondly as irony but it was somewhat lost.
OK i take your point and obviously missed your irony, but the choice of vehicle is down to an individual. 4x4s are more commonly labelled as Sports Utility Vehicles (SUV) as they offer a combination of space, ability, robustness and luxury. Their practicalities extend beyond the rutted farmer's track.
I will agree with you that it is a minority of drivers that are the problem, but I don't believe you can categorise them to one particular type of vehicle user. It would be a similar myth to the one many motorcyclists still have that Volvo drivers have it in for riders. It's a subjective view as for me Audi drivers are the worst offenders especially those in A3s and TTs.
I'll address the elephant in the room and say I think it has got worse since the open borders regime. Europeans can now come to the UK and exchange their licence for a UK one if the country of origin has a similar testing standard to the UK. Well it's hardly difficult to fraudulently obtain a UK driving licence so if that is the margin for obtaining one, there must be scores out there that have never actually taken a driving test themselves. Prior to open borders, they would ensure they returned back to their country of origin once every 12 months to renew the period they could drive in the UK without obtaining a driving licence and there was nothing we could do about it. Some of these drivers had clearly never taken a driving test in their lives. The problem is the punishment for driving other than in accordance, disqualified driving, no insurance etc, is not a deterrent. People are happy to pay the few hundred pounds fine on the off chance of being caught as it is far cheaper than the £1,000 plus quote they get from an insurance broker to drive a clapped out Austin Metro.
Vehicles are all too easy to obtain and fail to register on the second hand market. If you could control the sale of vehicles more stringently, you might prevent the private seller happy to hand over their part of the V5 to the buyer on the promise that he'll post everything on the way home. Start fining sellers who don't send in the V5 themselves and require photographs of buyers with a copy of their driving licence number for identification.I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.0 -
Does the driver of a car not have some duty of care towards more vulnerable road users? If not, they certainly should.
Don't know the legality of such things, but according to this definition they would:duty of care
n. a requirement that a person act toward others and the public with watchfulness, attention, caution and prudence that a reasonable person in the circumstances would. If a person's actions do not meet this standard of care, then the acts are considered negligent, and any damages resulting may be claimed in a lawsuit for negligence.
No duty of care by "Lawrence recklessness" is the bit you missed.
http://www.vanuatu.usp.ac.fj/courses/la205_criminal_law_and_procedure_1/Cases/R_v_Lawrence.htmlI ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.0 -
Pretty sedate and good natured since frenchfighter left
Ah! No point.I wasn't disagreeing with you PB. It was directed at Philthy3.
Don't make me angry though.
Okay, i'll promise not to call anything you post bollox or drivel either. I guess I have been conditioned by fellow bracketeers and must be careful when venturing out into the realms of the PC, convention and decorum.
Now, what's happening in Pro Race... 0 -
Pretty sedate and good natured since frenchfighter left
Ah! No point.I wasn't disagreeing with you PB. It was directed at Philthy3.
Don't make me angry though.
Okay, i'll promise not to call anything you post bollox or drivel either. I guess I have been conditioned by fellow bracketeers and must be careful when venturing out into the realms of the PC, convention and decorum.
Now, what's happening in Pro Race...
I wonder why...seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
I think you may be the only one that found that particular elephant. Do more foreigners drive TT's? :roll:I'll address the elephant in the room and say I think it has got worse since the open borders regime.0 -
Well that elephant certainly wasn't an elephant.0
-
Well that elephant certainly wasn't an elephant.
More like a mouse. I just hope his 4 x 4 isn't stolen by an immigrant.seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
I think you may be the only one that found that particular elephant. Do more foreigners drive TT's? :roll:I'll address the elephant in the room and say I think it has got worse since the open borders regime.
And where have I suggested it is an issue of race? Do more foreigners drive TTs is an idiotic comment. There's history between you and I and in light of your latest contribution, I'll leave you to the silly games. Pathetic.I ride a bike. Doesn't make me green or a tree hugger. I drive a car too.0 -
But an elephant would be an immigrant.Well that elephant certainly wasn't an elephant.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 -
But an elephant would be an immigrant.Well that elephant certainly wasn't an elephant.
No one really knows for sure. Its a grey area.0
