Yet Another Cycling Forum
General Category => On The Road => Topic started by: tonycollinet on 08 November, 2018, 07:00:14 am
-
Because Fuck!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-46070280
-
Kevin Johnson previously pleaded guilty at Bournemouth Crown Court to causing death by careless driving
Not dangerous apparently.
-
I think that if someone has died, it should automatically be assumed to be dangerous. The current situation is awful.
-
Cyclist fault for not wearing hi viz... not much victim blaming...
-
When I read it earlier - it said dangerous - but I'm with Butterfly - if driving is bad enough to result in death - then by definition it is dangerous.
-
If your attention was elsewhere at the moment of impact, and your victim was 50m away when you got out to see what it was, you could easily end up wondering what on earth could have caused the damage to the front of the vehicle.
-
If your attention was elsewhere at the moment of impact, and your victim was 50m away when you got out to see what it was, you could easily end up wondering what on earth could have caused the damage to the front of the vehicle.
Suspect you may need to rethink that.
-
When I read it earlier - it said dangerous - but I'm with Butterfly - if driving is bad enough to result in death - then by definition it is dangerous.
Unfortuantely that doesn't stand up-to analysis
e.g. would you say the road was dangerous?
-
When I read it earlier - it said dangerous - but I'm with Butterfly - if driving is bad enough to result in death - then by definition it is dangerous.
Unfortuantely that doesn't stand up-to analysis
e.g. would you say the road was dangerous?
The road user...aka murderer
-
When I read it earlier - it said dangerous - but I'm with Butterfly - if driving is bad enough to result in death - then by definition it is dangerous.
Unfortuantely that doesn't stand up-to analysis
e.g. would you say the road was dangerous?
You're going to tell us how, statistically, dual carriageways are far safer roads to cycle on than single carriageways, aren't you?
-
Conflicting statements about lighting are troubling too
A
-
It almost seems that the courts have viewed cycling on road as inherently dangerous, & perhaps with a pervasive sense of 'accident'; that cyclists somehow 'contribute' to what happens simply by virtue of being on the road. Motorists appear only to have to come out with some vague statement about not being aware of the cyclist.
PS. Personally I avoid DCwys, but that's my preference.
-
When I read it earlier - it said dangerous - but I'm with Butterfly - if driving is bad enough to result in death - then by definition it is dangerous.
But not by the definition in the Road Traffic Act, where it's the standard of your driving, specifically how it falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, that determines which offence you would be charged with.
-
When I read it earlier - it said dangerous - but I'm with Butterfly - if driving is bad enough to result in death - then by definition it is dangerous.
But not by the definition in the Road Traffic Act, where it's the standard of your driving, specifically how it falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, that determines which offence you would be charged with.
Yes, I understand that. But I disagree with the legal definition.
-
When I read it earlier - it said dangerous - but I'm with Butterfly - if driving is bad enough to result in death - then by definition it is dangerous.
Unfortuantely that doesn't stand up-to analysis
e.g. would you say the road was dangerous?
You're going to tell us how, statistically, dual carriageways are far safer roads to cycle on than single carriageways, aren't you?
dual carriageways are foul to cycle on.
However, if I have to commute in rush hour traffic, I'd rather commute on a dual carriageway than a single carriageway.
That statement is made based on thousands of hours of plowing up and down between york and leeds. The A64 dual carriageway bit was much, much safer than the single carriageway bit. More space between me and the vehicles. So despite the greater speed differential, yes, the dual-carriageway was safer.
-
The problem with dual-carriageways is that drivers don't really pay attention once they've driven the same section a few times. Which likely explains why some people saw a brightly lit bicycle and others didn't. And it's not usual, it's how our brains work, we'll go into autopilot in such situations until something unusual invokes consciousness. Anyone that claims to be paying full attention is lying.
Admittedly, I can't imagine I'd hit 'a deer' and not stop.
I'd also agree with the entire 'careless' thing – there's nothing else we do where momentary 'carelessness' can be fatal to someone else. If it wasn't happening in a motor vehicle, where the rules are evidently different, I'm sure we'd be concerned. But ultimately, regardless of the definition, it's crass and offensive to put someone's death at the behest of mere carelessness. Sorry, your husband is dead. There's a bit of an oops on his way home. It seems to be legal terminology yet again aimed at the mitigation for drivers, who never like to face the fact that they might have done something significant wrong or that they should (and would in any other context) carry a higher duty of care towards others.
-
The hypocrisy of the whole ‘careless’ thing is evidenced by it only applying on the highway. E.g if you’re in charge of a vehicle on a construction site and you run someone over there is no defence of ‘momentary inattention’ to the ensuing health & safety charge. Only on the highway are drivers forgiven for ‘momentarily’ being ‘inattentive’.
-
When I read it earlier - it said dangerous - but I'm with Butterfly - if driving is bad enough to result in death - then by definition it is dangerous.
Unfortuantely that doesn't stand up-to analysis
e.g. would you say the road was dangerous?
You're going to tell us how, statistically, dual carriageways are far safer roads to cycle on than single carriageways, aren't you?
dual carriageways are foul to cycle on.
However, if I have to commute in rush hour traffic, I'd rather commute on a dual carriageway than a single carriageway.
That statement is made based on thousands of hours of plowing up and down between york and leeds. The A64 dual carriageway bit was much, much safer than the single carriageway bit. More space between me and the vehicles. So despite the greater speed differential, yes, the dual-carriageway was safer.
Multiple lanes are the important thing. It means they can overtake you properly. Paradoxically, narrower lanes are better, as there's never a question of cars being able to squeeze past in the same lane.
-
Paradoxically, narrower lanes are better, as there's never a question of cars being able to squeeze past in the same lane.
Not if they're so narrow only 1 1/8 cars fit across them, as several are around here. I avoid them like the plague.
-
Just reading about a woman who critically injured a cyclist while driving high on cocaine.
Lawyer says 'The defendant is a woman of good character.'
I realise at this point that's evidently a competition between lawyers to try and keep a straight face when saying this. They're all in the pub on a Friday evening comparing. Yeah, he was injecting heroin into his eyeballs while masturbating over child pornography and using the LHC to accelerate kittens into a wall, but I just looked the judge in the eyes and said it: the defendant is a man of good character. Didn't flinch. Didn't smirk. Nailed it.
-
Trying to overtake on a single width road, and killing someone, is just careless driving:-
https://www.itv.com/news/border/update/2018-11-13/man-who-killed-elderly-cyclist-found-guilty-of-careless-driving/ (https://www.itv.com/news/border/update/2018-11-13/man-who-killed-elderly-cyclist-found-guilty-of-careless-driving/)
-
Trying to overtake on a single width road, and killing someone, is just careless driving:-
https://www.itv.com/news/border/update/2018-11-13/man-who-killed-elderly-cyclist-found-guilty-of-careless-driving/ (https://www.itv.com/news/border/update/2018-11-13/man-who-killed-elderly-cyclist-found-guilty-of-careless-driving/)
I hate that expression "clipped". He wasn't clipped: he was mown down by a man driving a car.
-
Update:
Lanham, 71, overtook two female cyclists, one of whom had to pull off the road to let him past. His Focus horn was then heard sounding "four to five times" before he drove past helmet-wearing Mr Lee as he pedalled an electric bike. Another female cyclist, a GP, told police Mr Lee did not deviate from his straight riding line, but was knocked off his bike as Lanham went by.
I can understand how that seems careless but not dangerous. I mean, who doesn't run 2 other people off the road, hitting and killing one of them? Twice on Sundays, right? Definitely only careless. FFFFFFS!
https://www.itv.com/news/border/update/2018-11-14/man-jailed-for-12-months-for-careless-driving-after-death-of-cyclist/
-
Notable for the line "Debbie, who ran Debbie's Cakes and Gluten Free Bakes, was wearing a protective helmet."
https://www.mix96.co.uk/news/local/2746603/aylesbury-singer-jailed-for-death-of-cyclist/
-
I've not followed that link but read of the case on the BBC.
Amazed defending lawyer cited unfamiliarity with road layout as mitigating factor.
Surely, it it is normal and expected that traffic entering a roundabout ALWAYS slows on approach and gives way to anything on the roundabout?
-
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-46345059
Yup. 'Careless'.
Yup. 'Unfamiliar with the road'
So all those big signs, road markings and sodding great grassy lump in the middle of a circular road: none of them are clues?
But it does beg the question. Why is she in prison when so many other tossers aren't? I mean, she even pleaded guilty, FFS!
-
Sadly, in cases like this, I don't really see the benefits of a longer prison sentence. One woman is dead, another has to live with causing it. Her remorse for once seems genuine.
It's more a symptom of habitual lack of care drivers exhibit – and that as a society we're continually unwilling to hold them to account. It generally doesn't take minutes on the road to see drivers do something stupid and 99.99999% of the time they get away with it. Of course, what makes it worst, is that getting away with it habituates bad driving behaviour. Nothing bad will happen until it actually happens.
It goes back to penalising the little things and taking them seriously. It's too late once someone is dead.
-
Amazed defending lawyer cited unfamiliarity with road layout as mitigating factor.
Spend enough time in court and nothing defence lawyers advance as mitigation will surprise you any longer.
-
I think "Negligent" would be a better term - bring it in line with risking the lives of others in the workplace.
[@ian ; I'm in favour of short-sharp-shock tactics. More short prison sentences, really shake people up, and make more of an impact on their friends/colleagues than just fines and bans. There is probably a study somewhere showing this doesn't work, but I haven't seen it yet ... ]
-
It doesn't – and shouldn't – need prison, the point is to nudge drivers into safer more careful practices rather than letting bad practice become the norm and relying on chance to prevent bad outcomes (which is effectively what the current system does). That generally means modest fines and other inconveniences for even the minor offences but, of course, that requires road policing and for drivers to believe there's a chance of getting caught. Given the number of drivers I see speeding, using their phone, and other illegal activities, that's obviously not the case. There was an article the other day about 20-limits not working and the reason, of course, isn't that driving at a reduced speed isn't safer, but that simply people were not adhering to the limit and there's no enforcement. The message there isn't just that you can get away with it but that it's somehow not important or serious. Yes, it's obviously unfair to drivers, penalising them for breaking the law, but perhaps rather than keep the conservation about drivers, maybe we should ask how they feel about their own children and loved ones, or themselves being on the receiving end. There's a lot of othering, a lot of excuses, even down to the language were the driver is nearly always absent from crashes, their cars absently careening into each other and anyone who gets in the way. That's mostly, I think, because drivers don't want to accept that they're the causal agent and the responsibility that would entail.
-
I meant to ask my mate Chairman Al, who knew the victim, whether this happened on Hemel's version of the Magic Roundabout, as that confused me greatly the first time I encountered it. Though my reaction was to slow right down to give myself more time to figure it out, not press on regardless.
-
I meant to ask my mate Chairman Al, who knew the victim, whether this happened on Hemel's version of the Magic Roundabout, as that confused me greatly the first time I encountered it. Though my reaction was to slow right down to give myself more time to figure it out, not press on regardless.
Looking at Google Maps for junction of Bennetts End Road and A414 suggests this is NOT a magic roundabout...
-
No it's not that one, it's worse because the congestion at the magic roundabout slows everything down, plus the contraflow helps confuse people. The Bennetts end one is much faster and hard to cross the A41 on as a result, so people often take chances getting into the stream. I'm glad I no longer commute through it.
-
When I read it earlier - it said dangerous - but I'm with Butterfly - if driving is bad enough to result in death - then by definition it is dangerous.
But not by the definition in the Road Traffic Act, where it's the standard of your driving, specifically how it falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, that determines which offence you would be charged with.
I think we should all expect careful and competent drivers not to hit a person sufficiently illuminated as to be visible from 200 yards.
-
Absolutely.