Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => On The Road => Topic started by: Thor on 16 January, 2009, 05:25:33 pm
-
BBC NEWS | England | Beds/Bucks/Herts | Doctor fined over fatal accident (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/7833519.stm)
I suppose this is par for the course.
After all, the victim
was not wearing reflective clothing and his backlight was on the offside furthest away from [ the driver's ] car. >:(
-
The lighting in the area of the accident was also poor
well the said driver should have taken more care >:(
-
his backlight was on the offside furthest away from [/i] [ the driver's ] car. >:(
IOW, in the correct place ::-).
-
I think they mean the nearside...and it's a weaselly lawyer that uses the lighting regulations in that way, since a nearside light would only vanish from view when you were a couple of yards away from the bike.
-
8 points on a licence which already contains 3 is very much a Final Warning.
Bet some nice lawbod sticks up for him should he tot up past 12 though...
-
Shocking. Absolutely shocking.
Dr Rupert Bankart? Yup, that's about right. Someone with a name like that would have lived approx 10 minutes at any school in Glasgow.
The day that the law demands that every car be painted yellow is the day that I agree all cyclists should wear hi-viz clothing.
Not that hix-viz is a bad idea per se, but victim blaming is horrifying.
-
I think they mean the nearside...and it's a weaselly lawyer that uses the lighting regulations in that way, since a nearside light would only vanish from view when you were a couple of yards away from the bike.
No, they mean the offside, i.e. its correct position. The way I read it is that he T boned the victim. He almost certainly looked right and did not look straight in front of himself until the last second because "everything in front will have gone - won't it". Note that the driver said he slowed and did not say he stopped.
I had somebody do exactly that to me, except I managed to avoid him. No amount of hi viz gear or hugely powerful lights will help if the driver does not look. In this case I judge the driver to be 100% in the wrong.
-
A piss poor result in so many ways.It's enough to make yer blood boil >:(
I have a thought:it's lonely so I'll share it with you....
Now that the driver has been formally/legally responsible/guilty could the victim's dependants use the conviction to pursue a civil action to obtain appropriate compensation?
-
The problem is that the system is weighted against non-drivers. Whilst only around half the population are drivers, most legislators, lawyers, policeman and prosecutors are drivers.
-
There are also some cyclists among the legal profession.LIZ springs to mind :thumbsup:
-
Ah, but she deals with a different disadvantaged minority.
-
The doctor will end up in front of the GMC for being convicted (thanks to the Notifiable Occupations Circular). There is a strong possibility he will be struck off the medical register - the GMC has a record of such action. There may be further justice down the line.
-
The doctor will end up in front of the GMC for being convicted (thanks to the Notifiable Occupations Circular). There is a strong possibility he will be struck off the medical register - the GMC has a record of such action. There may be further justice down the line.
I wonder if that would have been taken into account during sentencing.
-
There's one part of me that agrees that the fine is ridiculously small, but then there's another side: What would they achieve by giving a higher penalty? Are people really going to be more careful because some bloke somewhere got a hard punishment?
Punishment isn't the solution. A while back, we had a debate over in P&OBI regarding the death penalty and the consensus was that greater punishment doesn't reduce crime rate.
-
I thought we now had a charge of death by careless driving available. Given that this was careless driving, and a death resulted - why wasn't the higher charge used?
-
There's one part of me that agrees that the fine is ridiculously small, but then there's another side: What would they achieve by giving a higher penalty? Are people really going to be more careful because some bloke somewhere got a hard punishment?
Punishment isn't the solution. A while back, we had a debate over in P&OBI regarding the death penalty and the consensus was that greater punishment doesn't reduce crime rate.
I disagree there Rob, it is a risk factor in my mind if the fine is higher then the majority would be less likely to gamble and take the risk driving dangerously.
Think of walking a 6" plank a foot off the ground not much risk no need to pay that much attention if you falll you won't get hurt.
Walk the same 6" plank 20 feet in the air where if you fall you will break something and that will hone the senses.
True there are the few who are oblivious to the danger they put others in and don't even bother to look but it would make the majority take note.
-
Punishment isn't the solution.
Quite right.
Punishment should be a deterrent.
An extreme punishment would be a powerfull deterrent intended to discourage law breaking in the first instance thus preventing a fatal SMIDSY
-
Think of walking a 6" plank a foot off the ground not much risk no need to pay that much attention if you falll you won't get hurt.
Walk the same 6" plank 20 feet in the air where if you fall you will break something and that will hone the senses.
The question is, would you not get more careless after years of walking along the plank without falling?
Is there some other method of dealing with the problem? the only option I an realistically see working is to increase the number of cyclists so motorists are used to looking for cyclists (but I can hardly lay claim to that idea eh?). Surely there must be more ways?
-
The doctor will end up in front of the GMC for being convicted (thanks to the Notifiable Occupations Circular). There is a strong possibility he will be struck off the medical register - the GMC has a record of such action. There may be further justice down the line.
I wonder if that would have been taken into account during sentencing.
Probably. However, the Conduct Committees that hear such cases are wise to 'professional man' and 'double punishment' arguments that lawyers will put forward in mitigation (I know this as I've trained a few committees in my time).
-
The problem is that the system is weighted against non-drivers. Whilst only around half the population are drivers, most legislators, lawyers, policeman and prosecutors are drivers.
Go and get yourself a drink mate, I agree with you.
If anybody searches in here they'll find my tale of the driver who changed lanes to overtake parked cars. He hit me head on. The police did him for failing to stop & failing to report & careless driving.
The court found him not guilty of all three charges.
Highway code rule 136 (as at that time) clearly stated that you had to give way if your lane was obstructed and there was oncoming traffic. I had nowhere to go anyway as I was already passing the parked cars (in his lane) before he arrived at the obstruction.
-
Go and get yourself a drink mate, I agree with you.
We actually agree quite often! :thumbsup:
Thanks for the drink, I'll have it tomorrow after the Audax. :)
-
I disagree there Rob, it is a risk factor in my mind if the fine is higher then the majority would be less likely to gamble and take the risk driving dangerously.
....
True there are the few who are oblivious to the danger they put others in and don't even bother to look but it would make the majority take note.
I agree with Fixedwheelnut.
And God help me for making this further point, but its true. What holds a lot of drivers back from aggressive and dangerous behaviour is the consequences of damage to their cars' bodywork - both the financial costs of bodywork repairs and insurance going up, and the thought if the precious car being damaged.
I know of no studies of figures to back up my thoughts, but I'd say most drivers are reluctant to squeeze through a gap if there's danger of scrapes to their car or parked cars. But would give the same room to passing a cyclist.
This also feeds into the urban 4x4 choice - the Nissan Navara 'gets you respect' adverts, ie. my bodywork is tougher than yours, I will come off better if you hit me.
Further, look at the etiquette in this country for pedestrians crossing the road. Its taken as a given that pedestrians will defer to the car. Look at drivers expectations when driving along - pedestrians are expected to cross as quickly as possible, and get out of the way. How often do cars slow in reality for pedestrians in the near distance?
But if its a honking great Artic at the same distance, you can bet the car slows.
So I agree with Fixedwheelnut - the consequences of some mangled metalwork outweigh the consequences of some mangled person.
And I speak as someone who till recently drove 20000 miles a year, and quite happily owns a car which I enjoy.
-
Further, look at the etiquette in this country for pedestrians crossing the road. Its taken as a given that pedestrians will defer to the car. Look at drivers expectations when driving along - pedestrians are expected to cross as quickly as possible, and get out of the way. How often do cars slow in reality for pedestrians in the near distance?
I think the tone for this has been set by the Government. Cars used to have to stop if you put your foot on the road surface at a Zebra Crossing. Pedestrians ruled. Now it is different. You press a button and wait as loads of cars sail by and eventually you are allowed to cross. Cars rule.
Why should they behave differently anywhere else?
-
"Nobody more than you regrets what happened."
Well, Mr Fussell might have regretted it more, but he was killed. >:(
-
I think the tone for this has been set by the Government. Cars used to have to stop if you put your foot on the road surface at a Zebra Crossing. Pedestrians ruled. Now it is different. You press a button and wait as loads of cars sail by and eventually you are allowed to cross. Cars rule.
Pedestrians still have right of way at road junctions if they are crossing before the motorists gets there (Rule 170). How many drivers know that? Precious few in my experience as a pedestrian.
Too many cars imo and not enough rigorous driver testing.
-
What I object to is the phrase "momentary inattention" - the cyclist would have been visible from 40-50 metres away, giving something like 3-4 secs to see him. 3-4 secs is a long time in a car, it's not "momentary". "Momentary" is when someone steps from behind a parked car when you were just briefly glancing in the mirror or checking the next right turn is clear.
-
Yup. It is motorist speak for "fuck-em".
-
Punishmnet for the first offence should make sure that there is no chance of a second offence by the same peron. Take his right, or rather Pdermission, to drive away and for good.
-
I thought we now had a charge of death by careless driving available. Given that this was careless driving, and a death resulted - why wasn't the higher charge used?
It may be that the incident occured prior to the new legislation becoming active.