Woman given 60hours community service for killing cyclist

mamba80

philthy3 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

First Aspect wrote:

trek_dan wrote:

I would also argue that most people would indeed regard a driving ban and being effectively uninsurable thereafter as being a strong deterrent. Most people could almost immediately put into context just how inconvenient that would be in their everyday lives.

We dont know exactly what this woman did do we?

But until there are very harsh deterrent sentences and presumed fault to the driver if involved in an accident with cyclist/pedestrian, then this sort of thing will just continue.

if this woman had been given 10years, it would be on the front page of all the newspapers, they d be an in-depth analysis of the hows and whys and articles on how to safely overtake cyclists, instead this story barely makes the local rag.

i know deterrents work because when i had m/c's, the stories that did the rounds that guys went to prison for say doing 150mph, made all of us, very very careful as to what we did and where.

Flies in the face of innocent until proven guilty.

Unless you were a witness to the RTC or have had access to the collision report by the Serious and Fatal Collision investigator, you have no idea how it happened, what the circumstances were, weather and road conditions or the part any other vehicles played. Deaths on the road are tragic, but will happen. Each one has to be treated on its own individual circumstances. She has been prosecuted and convicted in a court. Result. Sentencing guidelines are there to assist the courts and must give due regard to the individual and the victim. Is there anything to be gained by sending a 69 year old woman to prison? Possibly and possibly not. But, what is her state of health? Is she requiring frequent medication or medical care? Is imprisonment going to make her susceptible to self harm? Does she have dependents that rely on her for support? Does she have any previous convictions or a history of driving offences? Is the wider community going to suffer as a result of he removal from society? etc etc. All these factors and more will have been provided to the courts in pre-sentencing reports produced by the Probation Service. An informed view then allows the court to sentence as they feel appropriate. If it is over-duly lenient, the prosecution can lodge an appeal. As one hasn't been forthcoming, they must feel it is acceptable.

Most euro countries operate this system to protect vulnerable road users and tbh you are considering this woman's needs and wants without a single mention of the victim and his family will go to their graves, grieving for their son, all he gets from you is "Deaths on the road are tragic, but will happen" sorry not good enough.

why is it i can ride around France for 2 weeks and almost every car gives me space and holds back but within 5 miles of riding around equally quiet roads in the UK i get cut up and it continues throughout the ride????

my post is that the guide lines a completely wrong, its immaterial if the courts have stuck to the current ones.

edit: this woman also got a total of £185 in fines and costs, a guy runs a red light on his 'cycle and gets £300 ffs

slowbike

philthy3 wrote:

Flies in the face of innocent until proven guilty.

Yes, premused liability does fly in the face of innocent until proven guilty - but there are some good arguments for doing this.

philthy3 wrote:

Unless you were a witness to the RTC or have had access to the collision report by the Serious and Fatal Collision investigator, you have no idea how it happened, what the circumstances were, weather and road conditions or the part any other vehicles played.

Nope - but the lady did plead guilty to the charge - so accepted that it was her fault.

philthy3 wrote:

Deaths on the road are tragic, but will happen. Each one has to be treated on its own individual circumstances.

Totally agree - I detest the knee jerk reaction "we must make sure this never happens again" laws that get introduced.

philthy3 wrote:

She has been prosecuted and convicted in a court. Result. Sentencing guidelines are there to assist the courts and must give due regard to the individual and the victim. Is there anything to be gained by sending a 69 year old woman to prison? Possibly and possibly not. But, what is her state of health? Is she requiring frequent medication or medical care? Is imprisonment going to make her susceptible to self harm? Does she have dependents that rely on her for support? Does she have any previous convictions or a history of driving offences? Is the wider community going to suffer as a result of he removal from society? etc etc. All these factors and more will have been provided to the courts in pre-sentencing reports produced by the Probation Service. An informed view then allows the court to sentence as they feel appropriate.

Perhaps the sentencing guidelines are flawed. Perhaps greater consideration should be made to the impact her sentence may have on the victims family - with a guilty plea and a lady driving a C3, this isn't likely to be some "get out of my way bluddy cyclists" driver. It's quite possible that she's considering never driving again - banned or not - but it doesn't take away from the fact that it's yet another person killed by another person not operating their vehicle with care and consideration - what do we need to do to make people take more care?

philthy3 wrote:

If it is over-duly lenient, the prosecution can lodge an appeal. As one hasn't been forthcoming, they must feel it is acceptable.

Or they feel there's no point as "the system" is biased towards drivers anyway... [/cynical]

pblakeney

philthy3 wrote:

...Is there anything to be gained by sending a 69 year old woman to prison? Possibly and possibly not. But, what is her state of health? Is she requiring frequent medication or medical care? Is imprisonment going to make her susceptible to self harm? Does she have dependents that rely on her for support? Does she have any previous convictions or a history of driving offences? Is the wider community going to suffer as a result of he removal from society? etc etc. All these factors and more will have been provided to the courts in pre-sentencing reports produced by the Probation Service. An informed view then allows the court to sentence as they feel appropriate. If it is over-duly lenient, the prosecution can lodge an appeal. As one hasn't been forthcoming, they must feel it is acceptable.

No one has suggested a custodial sentence.
Lengthy bans and heavy fines are more appropriate.

kingstongraham

The speed awareness course I had to go on was very good. More training like that should be enforced for minor violations, because that is a way to prevent serious incidents.

StillGoing

mamba80 wrote:

Most euro countries operate this system to protect vulnerable road users and tbh you are considering this woman's needs and wants without a single mention of the victim and his family will go to their graves, grieving for their son, all he gets from you is "Deaths on the road are tragic, but will happen" sorry not good enough.

why is it i can ride around France for 2 weeks and almost every car gives me space and holds back but within 5 miles of riding around equally quiet roads in the UK i get cut up and it continues throughout the ride????

my post is that the guide lines a completely wrong, its immaterial if the courts have stuck to the current ones.

edit: this woman also got a total of £185 in fines and costs, a guy runs a red light on his 'cycle and gets £300 ffs

Err no. If you read it again, I said the courts will consider the impact on the both parties.

France is a cycling nation as are most of the Euro continent countries. Cycling in the UK and its inadequate roads infrastructure mean cyclist are seen as a hindrance.

Fines are awarded on the probability that the convicted person can pay it. There is little to no point in fining someone a fee beyond their means when all that will happen is a non-payment of fine warrant being issued. That £185 might just be stretching the guilty parties finances to the limit. How do you know whether or not she has essential outgoings that have to be covered and I don't mean Sky TV etc? At 69 she'll be in receipt of the state pension, with rent or mortgage payments to meet, food and consumer bills, that is stretching the pension if that is her only income. The courts will also consider the prevalence of the offence. In your example of the cyclist going through a red light, there may well be a plethora of dickhead cyclists ignoring the dangers of cycling through red lights and decided to set a heavy fine to deter others.

You sound as if you think she should be put in poverty. She made a mistake and tragically, somebody died as a result. Everyone makes mistakes, not all of them thankfully end up with somebody losing their life. Unless there is some serious disregard for life or a deliberate act, the courts are right to show a balanced sentence.

harry-s

The speed awareness course I had to go on was very good. More training like that should be enforced for minor violations, because that is a way to prevent serious incidents.

Hmm, I went to one of these courses a few years ago. The course was organised by the AA, and the presenter started off by asking everyone in the room, about 12-15 people, what their pet hates were about driving. The answers were pretty predictable, - not signalling, tailgating, undertaking etc, and most answers were met with a nod and a constructive comment or a "yes, and we'll return to that later". Someone replied with their pet hate as "bloody cyclists", to which the expert's reply was, "yes, they're a nuisance". This is from someone trained to present courses to increase speed awareness and hopefully improve the participants driving. I tried my best to butt in, but it didn't work, I was outnumbered...

redbikejohn

I did a quick Google and apparently "the sun got in her eyes " hence my comments above ref using flashy lights. She did look kind of frail though, not sure she should have been driving. Some 70 year old people could kick my butt and are fit and healthy, but other are really old and maybe not so suited to driving in today's traffic.

pblakeney

philthy3 wrote:

... In your example of the cyclist going through a red light, there may well be a plethora of dickhead cyclists ignoring the dangers of cycling through red lights and decided to set a heavy fine to deter others.

It is that exact example that needs to be applied to drivers.

ForumNewbie

philthy3 wrote:

At 69 she'll be in receipt of the state pension, with rent or mortgage payments to meet

Not necessarily - if she owns her home, by the age of 69 she is likely to have paid off her mortgage, and is possibly in receipt of private pension(s) as well.

philthy3 wrote:

She made a mistake and tragically, somebody died as a result. Everyone makes mistakes, not all of them thankfully end up with somebody losing their life. Unless there is some serious disregard for life or a deliberate act, the courts are right to show a balanced sentence.

We don't know the circumstances but she has admitted to careless driving which seems more than just making a mistake. I agree lots of people drive carelessly every day with regard to cyclists, and that is why education and publicity is needed as to why it is dangerous and not worth the risk of driving too close to cyclists just to save a few seconds.

dannbodge

I don't see how people get far less punishment for killing someone in a car over just killing them in general, the results are still the same so surely the punishment should be.

I've ridden the whole of the A32 (from Portsmouth to Alton and back) and some parts are quite bad.
There were far more motorbikes being idiots and 99% of the cars were actually very well behaved.

I ride through Wickham every week now so definitely going to start giving it 110% concentration.

slowbike

philthy3 wrote:

You sound as if you think she should be put in poverty. She made a mistake and tragically, somebody died as a result. Everyone makes mistakes, not all of them thankfully end up with somebody losing their life. Unless there is some serious disregard for life or a deliberate act, the courts are right to show a balanced sentence.

Not discussing the particulars of this case as we don't have all the facts surrounding it - but I have to bring you up on the "She made a mistake" ... yes, she did - she drove in a careless manner - probably had for many years but was fortunate that there wasnt anyone in her path whilst doing so. So it was most likely an avoidable mistake with few variables rather than one where a simple mistake snowballs into something more serious.

I don't think many people drive looking further than their bonnet - there seems to be little consideration for what may be just in front of the vehicle in front or what's just around the corner that I can't see right now - you only have to look at the way people overtake you into a queue or accelarate up into a line of vehicles - yes - seen that one - overtaken in a 30, the car accelarated hard up the hill only to brake 1/2 way up because there was a lorry at the front of the queue - something that could've easily been anticipated had the driver looked.

Lookyhere

philthy3 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Most euro countries operate this system to protect vulnerable road users and tbh you are considering this woman's needs and wants without a single mention of the victim and his family will go to their graves, grieving for their son, all he gets from you is "Deaths on the road are tragic, but will happen" sorry not good enough.

why is it i can ride around France for 2 weeks and almost every car gives me space and holds back but within 5 miles of riding around equally quiet roads in the UK i get cut up and it continues throughout the ride????

edit: this woman also got a total of £185 in fines and costs, a guy runs a red light on his 'cycle and gets £300 ffs

Err no. If you read it again, I said the courts will consider the impact on the both parties.

France is a cycling nation as are most of the Euro continent countries. Cycling in the UK and its inadequate roads infrastructure mean cyclist are seen as a hindrance.

Fines are awarded on the probability that the convicted person can pay it. There is little to no point in fining someone a fee beyond their means when all that will happen is a non-payment of fine warrant being issued. That £185 might just be stretching the guilty parties finances to the limit. How do you know whether or not she has essential outgoings that have to be covered and I don't mean Sky TV etc? At 69 she'll be in receipt of the state pension, with rent or mortgage payments to meet, food and consumer bills, that is stretching the pension if that is her only income. The courts will also consider the prevalence of the offence. In your example of the cyclist going through a red light, there may well be a plethora of dickhead cyclists ignoring the dangers of cycling through red lights and decided to set a heavy fine to deter others.

You sound as if you think she should be put in poverty. She made a mistake and tragically, somebody died as a result. Everyone makes mistakes, not all of them thankfully end up with somebody losing their life. Unless there is some serious disregard for life or a deliberate act, the courts are right to show a balanced sentence.

Your concentrating on the perpetrator, a young man of 20y of age has been killed, her circumstances, needs and wants should be way down the list.

if the sun got in her eyes, she wasnt driving to the conditions, end of.

euro countries have a different attitude, true but why can t we as well?
what sentences like this tell everyone is that the car rules and that the roads are for them and everyone else on them are worthless human beings.

Education will never ever work, because there are far too many people to educate, how on earth would you ever reach them in an effective way?

and yes PB, i am calling for jail.

pblakeney

Lookyhere wrote:

and yes PB, i am calling for jail.

Okay. One exception.
And if it were deliberate dangerous driving instead of lack of due care and attention, I'd agree.
Although even I would argue that making the choice to continue driving whilst blinded by the sun is dangerous driving, but I don't know the facts of the case.

slowbike

PBlakeney wrote:

Lookyhere wrote:

and yes PB, i am calling for jail.

Okay. One exception.
And if it were deliberate dangerous driving instead of lack of due care and attention, I'd agree.
Although even I would argue that making the choice to continue driving whilst blinded by the sun is dangerous driving, but I don't know the facts of the case.

You're suggesting that the driver couldn't have anticipated being blinded by the sun ... I mean, it only rises and sets every day of the year and it's not known that during the winter months it can be blinding. If the driver cannot anticipate such a basic issue then they shouldn't be driving in the first place.
What would be pertinent to any sentence is if the driver continued to drive at the same speed having been blinded by the sun. If so, that's blatant disregard for the safety of anyone else in the vicinity.

pblakeney

Slowbike wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Lookyhere wrote:

and yes PB, i am calling for jail.

Okay. One exception.
And if it were deliberate dangerous driving instead of lack of due care and attention, I'd agree.
Although even I would argue that making the choice to continue driving whilst blinded by the sun is dangerous driving, but I don't know the facts of the case.

You're suggesting that the driver couldn't have anticipated being blinded by the sun ... I mean, it only rises and sets every day of the year and it's not known that during the winter months it can be blinding. If the driver cannot anticipate such a basic issue then they shouldn't be driving in the first place.
What would be pertinent to any sentence is if the driver continued to drive at the same speed having been blinded by the sun. If so, that's blatant disregard for the safety of anyone else in the vicinity.

That IS what I said.

tangled_metal

A guy I knew was witness to an incident between a car and a truck. Car parked up, broken down. Truck came over the crest of a hill driving to the road and weather conditions which were both good. Had been going uphill so I'm guessing not driving fast. Anyway the car driver couldn't get out of the car so died when the sun dazzled the driver such that he couldn't see the road. Split archive and a dead girl. The truck driver was a complete mental mess after that. He wasn't prosecuted since it was an accident.

I only gave this example because not all deaths resulting from motorised transport has a fault. Presumed liability/guilt needs checks and balances or period who could not avoid killing someone would get caught up in laws aimed rightly at dealing with problem drivers. It's true BTW and I do know more details from the witness gained some time after the event because he was affected by witnessing it.

That's my tuppeneth on the subject. Knee jerk responses to half the story without evidence isn't right. If those jerking knees results in bad policy, process or laws then we're no better off. This is a difficult situation. One that does need thinking about and changes are needed but they need to be good, well researched and thought out solutions

slowbike

PBlakeney wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Lookyhere wrote:

and yes PB, i am calling for jail.

Okay. One exception.
And if it were deliberate dangerous driving instead of lack of due care and attention, I'd agree.
Although even I would argue that making the choice to continue driving whilst blinded by the sun is dangerous driving, but I don't know the facts of the case.

You're suggesting that the driver couldn't have anticipated being blinded by the sun ... I mean, it only rises and sets every day of the year and it's not known that during the winter months it can be blinding. If the driver cannot anticipate such a basic issue then they shouldn't be driving in the first place.
What would be pertinent to any sentence is if the driver continued to drive at the same speed having been blinded by the sun. If so, that's blatant disregard for the safety of anyone else in the vicinity.

That IS what I said.

Don't you go arguing with the fact that I didn't read your whole post before replying ....

slowbike

Tangled Metal wrote:

A guy I knew was witness to an incident between a car and a truck. Car parked up, broken down. Truck came over the crest of a hill driving to the road and weather conditions which were both good. Had been going uphill so I'm guessing not driving fast. Anyway the car driver couldn't get out of the car so died when the sun dazzled the driver such that he couldn't see the road. Split archive and a dead girl. The truck driver was a complete mental mess after that. He wasn't prosecuted since it was an accident.

I only gave this example because not all deaths resulting from motorised transport has a fault. Presumed liability/guilt needs checks and balances or period who could not avoid killing someone would get caught up in laws aimed rightly at dealing with problem drivers. It's true BTW and I do know more details from the witness gained some time after the event because he was affected by witnessing it.

That's my tuppeneth on the subject. Knee jerk responses to half the story without evidence isn't right. If those jerking knees results in bad policy, process or laws then we're no better off. This is a difficult situation. One that does need thinking about and changes are needed but they need to be good, well researched and thought out solutions

On the face of it - prosecution could easily argue that he wasn't driving to road & weather conditions - as when he crested the hill he couldn't see - he wouldn't have seen a cyclist there either - so the question is, is it reasonable to expect someone to drive temporarily as though the road ahead is clear - or is it a reasonable for a driver to assume that there are no obstructions in the road ? I could argue both yes and no to those. Yes doesn't help when on the odd ocaision there is an obstruction - the issue being that because it is just the odd occaision, drivers get complacant and then drive as though there isn't. Sure, they don't mean to collide with the other vehicle - there was no malice intended - but it's too late for that.

Technology has already been introduced that will brake for you in certain circumstances - yet another technology enabler that IMHO will eventually lead to more complacancy and lack of attention when driving - which will ultimately lead to more accidents until the need for a driver is removed completely. There will still be accidents - no doubt - but it will be because of kit failure or unusual circumstances that the program cannot cope with - eg a flock of birds fly in from the side that the car interprets as children running across the road, cannot brake to avoid them and decides that a sharp turn to the right - wiping out the overtaking cyclist - is the lesser of two unavoidable situations.

That's ok for 10 years time when autonomous cars are hopefully mainstream - but doesn't help anything now ...

trek_dan

Tangled Metal wrote:

A guy I knew was witness to an incident between a car and a truck. Car parked up, broken down. Truck came over the crest of a hill driving to the road and weather conditions which were both good. Had been going uphill so I'm guessing not driving fast. Anyway the car driver couldn't get out of the car so died when the sun dazzled the driver such that he couldn't see the road. Split archive and a dead girl. The truck driver was a complete mental mess after that. He wasn't prosecuted since it was an accident.

I only gave this example because not all deaths resulting from motorised transport has a fault. Presumed liability/guilt needs checks and balances or period who could not avoid killing someone would get caught up in laws aimed rightly at dealing with problem drivers. It's true BTW and I do know more details from the witness gained some time after the event because he was affected by witnessing it.

That's my tuppeneth on the subject. Knee jerk responses to half the story without evidence isn't right. If those jerking knees results in bad policy, process or laws then we're no better off. This is a difficult situation. One that does need thinking about and changes are needed but they need to be good, well researched and thought out solutions

I think that is a very good example of how the prosecution system is rigged in favour of the perpetrator rather than the victim, could just have easily been a cyclist or a pedestrian.

paulwood

redbikejohn wrote:

I am amazed when I see guys riding in dappled shade into bright sunny bits and back into shade again without having a bright flashy light on the rear. In a car with bright light hitting the windscreen it is hard to spot cyclists sometimes - if they don't have a light on.

Not a tough one really. If you can't see it might be a good idea to slow down to a speed where you can see far enough. Unlike the morons who thing the speed limit is a target.

ForumNewbie

paulwood wrote:

redbikejohn wrote:

I am amazed when I see guys riding in dappled shade into bright sunny bits and back into shade again without having a bright flashy light on the rear. In a car with bright light hitting the windscreen it is hard to spot cyclists sometimes - if they don't have a light on.

Not a tough one really. If you can't see it might be a good idea to slow down to a speed where you can see far enough. Unlike the morons who thing the speed limit is a target.

Yes, if it was a person walking along a country road in these conditions, you wouldn't expect them to have a bright flashing light on - you would expect the driver to slow down and take extra care.

pblakeney

ForumNewbie wrote:

paulwood wrote:

redbikejohn wrote:

I am amazed when I see guys riding in dappled shade into bright sunny bits and back into shade again without having a bright flashy light on the rear. In a car with bright light hitting the windscreen it is hard to spot cyclists sometimes - if they don't have a light on.

Not a tough one really. If you can't see it might be a good idea to slow down to a speed where you can see far enough. Unlike the morons who thing the speed limit is a target.

Yes, if it was a person walking along a country road in these conditions, you wouldn't expect them to have a bright flashing light on - you would expect the driver to slow down and take extra care.

General driving, or cycling, tip.
If you can't see further than your braking distance then you are going too fast.

Lookyhere

the last few posts are why i argue for jail.
drivers are going to continue to believe they are invincible in their air bagged equipped cars and will not drive to the conditions, be it rain or low, bright sunlight until they read and hear that drivers that do not are going to jail for killing other road users.

the blanket minimum 12 month ban worked very well for DD (regardless of circumstance) well at least up until the roads stopped being policed but the principle of deterrents is well known.

richk

Garry H wrote:

... she should be made to wear a t-shirt (or sandwich board) saying "I'm doing this because I killed someone".

Not quite what you're asking for but a couple of times I've seen groups of people working wearing hi-viz with "community payback" (or something of that nature) on the back.

tangled_metal

Slowbike wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

A guy I knew was witness to an incident between a car and a truck. Car parked up, broken down. Truck came over the crest of a hill driving to the road and weather conditions which were both good. Had been going uphill so I'm guessing not driving fast. Anyway the car driver couldn't get out of the car so died when the sun dazzled the driver such that he couldn't see the road. Split archive and a dead girl. The truck driver was a complete mental mess after that. He wasn't prosecuted since it was an accident.

I only gave this example because not all deaths resulting from motorised transport has a fault. Presumed liability/guilt needs checks and balances or period who could not avoid killing someone would get caught up in laws aimed rightly at dealing with problem drivers. It's true BTW and I do know more details from the witness gained some time after the event because he was affected by witnessing it.

That's my tuppeneth on the subject. Knee jerk responses to half the story without evidence isn't right. If those jerking knees results in bad policy, process or laws then we're no better off. This is a difficult situation. One that does need thinking about and changes are needed but they need to be good, well researched and thought out solutions

On the face of it - prosecution could easily argue that he wasn't driving to road & weather conditions - as when he crested the hill he couldn't see - he wouldn't have seen a cyclist there either - so the question is, is it reasonable to expect someone to drive temporarily as though the road ahead is clear - or is it a reasonable for a driver to assume that there are no obstructions in the road ? I could argue both yes and no to those. Yes doesn't help when on the odd ocaision there is an obstruction - the issue being that because it is just the odd occaision, drivers get complacant and then drive as though there isn't. Sure, they don't mean to collide with the other vehicle - there was no malice intended - but it's too late for that.

Actually the prosecution couldn't argue that way. Wasn't rigged at all. It's a stretch of road where certain light conditions result in temporary blindness. I'm sure you have the complete physical control of all senses and responses but most don't. As I got told, the Sun was low and that section of road cresting the hill does cause drivers to wobble. This was what the truck driver did resulting in a wobble into the hard shoulder or side of the road and into/over the car. The driver was no more able to stop that than the cyclist who.gets suddenly blown sideways by a strong gust of wind.

AFAIK a prosecution would need a degree of fault or bad decision/driving. Truth was the driver of the truck was going slowly due to cresting the hill, the car wasn't visible as he went up.the hill and even with the slow speed the driver couldn't stop or move tree truck back away from the car before it was hit. Accident purely. Unjust to prosecute something that couldn't be predicted or prevented.

Of course I'm sure you know better than experienced traffic cops investigating the incident and no doubt the prosecutor deciding there was no case to answer. Things aren't black and white over motorists vs cyclists or any other group.

shimanobottombracket

Dannbodge wrote:

I don't see how people get far less punishment for killing someone in a car over just killing them in general, the results are still the same so surely the punishment should be.

I've ridden the whole of the A32 (from Portsmouth to Alton and back) and some parts are quite bad.
There were far more motorbikes being idiots and 99% of the cars were actually very well behaved.

I ride through Wickham every week now so definitely going to start giving it 110% concentration.

How much concentration were you giving before/are giving now?

StillGoing

Dannbodge wrote:

I don't see how people get far less punishment for killing someone in a car over just killing them in general, the results are still the same so surely the punishment should be.

Of course it shouldn't. Accidents happen. In all cases you have to consider Mens Rea and Mea Culpa.

OnTheRopes

philthy3 wrote:

Dannbodge wrote:

I don't see how people get far less punishment for killing someone in a car over just killing them in general, the results are still the same so surely the punishment should be.

Of course it shouldn't. Accidents happen. In all cases you have to consider Mens Rea and Mea Culpa.

There is no such thing as a Traffic Accident, the police call it a Road Traffic Incident for a reason.

slowbike

Tangled Metal wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

Tangled Metal wrote:

A guy I knew was witness to an incident between a car and a truck. Car parked up, broken down. Truck came over the crest of a hill driving to the road and weather conditions which were both good. Had been going uphill so I'm guessing not driving fast. Anyway the car driver couldn't get out of the car so died when the sun dazzled the driver such that he couldn't see the road. Split archive and a dead girl. The truck driver was a complete mental mess after that. He wasn't prosecuted since it was an accident.

I only gave this example because not all deaths resulting from motorised transport has a fault. Presumed liability/guilt needs checks and balances or period who could not avoid killing someone would get caught up in laws aimed rightly at dealing with problem drivers. It's true BTW and I do know more details from the witness gained some time after the event because he was affected by witnessing it.

That's my tuppeneth on the subject. Knee jerk responses to half the story without evidence isn't right. If those jerking knees results in bad policy, process or laws then we're no better off. This is a difficult situation. One that does need thinking about and changes are needed but they need to be good, well researched and thought out solutions

On the face of it - prosecution could easily argue that he wasn't driving to road & weather conditions - as when he crested the hill he couldn't see - he wouldn't have seen a cyclist there either - so the question is, is it reasonable to expect someone to drive temporarily as though the road ahead is clear - or is it a reasonable for a driver to assume that there are no obstructions in the road ? I could argue both yes and no to those. Yes doesn't help when on the odd ocaision there is an obstruction - the issue being that because it is just the odd occaision, drivers get complacant and then drive as though there isn't. Sure, they don't mean to collide with the other vehicle - there was no malice intended - but it's too late for that.

Actually the prosecution couldn't argue that way. Wasn't rigged at all. It's a stretch of road where certain light conditions result in temporary blindness. I'm sure you have the complete physical control of all senses and responses but most don't. As I got told, the Sun was low and that section of road cresting the hill does cause drivers to wobble. This was what the truck driver did resulting in a wobble into the hard shoulder or side of the road and into/over the car. The driver was no more able to stop that than the cyclist who.gets suddenly blown sideways by a strong gust of wind.

AFAIK a prosecution would need a degree of fault or bad decision/driving. Truth was the driver of the truck was going slowly due to cresting the hill, the car wasn't visible as he went up.the hill and even with the slow speed the driver couldn't stop or move tree truck back away from the car before it was hit. Accident purely. Unjust to prosecute something that couldn't be predicted or prevented.

Of course I'm sure you know better than experienced traffic cops investigating the incident and no doubt the prosecutor deciding there was no case to answer. Things aren't black and white over motorists vs cyclists or any other group.

I did say - "On the face of it" ....
If it's a well known phenomemom then it's predictable - that there was someone is in the way is also predictable - unlikely maybe - but still a possibility - therefore everytime someone drives up that road and gets temporarily blinded and wobbles their vehicle they are taking a chance that there is nobody in the way. Fortunately most of the time they're lucky.
I've commuted into the winter sun - like many others - visibility is compromised - speed is reduced accordingly.

Btw - UK police don't have road traffic accidents anymore - they have road traffic collisions - ie there is ALWAYS blame that can be apportioned - somebody did, or failed to do something that caused the collision.

StillGoing

OnTheRopes wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

Dannbodge wrote:

I don't see how people get far less punishment for killing someone in a car over just killing them in general, the results are still the same so surely the punishment should be.

Of course it shouldn't. Accidents happen. In all cases you have to consider Mens Rea and Mea Culpa.

There is no such thing as a Traffic Accident, the police call it a Road Traffic Incident for a reason.

The police call it a Road Traffic Collision. Who are you; Simon Pegg in Hot Fuzz FFS? :roll: