Cyclists above the law
in [UK Drivers]
|
Prev: Cunting lorry drivers.
Next: Britain's scariest roads
From: Steve Firth on 27 Nov 2009 17:25 Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote: > If the driver is traveling at a speed which prevents him from reacting > to pedestrians emerging onto the roadway, then he is driving without > due care. Oh look, it's Duhg. So you reckon that any train driver who hits a person who throws themselves in front of a train is "driving without due care", eh? This bus driver obviously driving without due care, according to you? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44A-inoWNUQ
From: BrianW on 27 Nov 2009 17:48 On 27 Nov, 21:43, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote: > BrianW <brianwhiteh...(a)hotmail.com> considered Fri, 27 Nov 2009 > 00:58:35 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write: > > > > > > >On 27 Nov, 01:24, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote: > >> BrianW <brianwhiteh...(a)hotmail.com> considered Thu, 26 Nov 2009 > >> 09:53:59 -0800 (PST) the perfect time to write: > > >> >On 26 Nov, 16:39, Phil W Lee <phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote: > >> >> Adrian <toomany2...(a)gmail.com> considered 26 Nov 2009 12:08:38 GMT the > >> >> perfect time to write: > > >> >> >Peter Grange <pe...(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> gurgled happily, sounding much > >> >> >like they were saying: > > >> >> >>> Perhaps you could clarify what you said. Are you proposing that killer > >> >> >>> cyclists should face appropriate jail sentences or are you proposing > >> >> >>> that the law should be enforced as it has been to-date. In a weak, > >> >> >>> ineffective manners which permits cyclists to kill and then walk free? > > >> >> >> As far as I am concerned, if you unlawfully kill someone whilst riding a > >> >> >> bike that is not substantially different from unlawfully killing someone > >> >> >> whilst driving a car. What have I said which makes you think I believe > >> >> >> differently? > > >> >> >You should believe differently, because it is different. > > >> >> >There is no equivalent, applicable to cycling, to the offences of Causing > >> >> >Death by Dangerous Driving or Causing Death by Careless Driving. > > >> >> >They were introduced specifically because, in the case of a road > >> >> >collision, it's very difficult to prove the gross negligence required for > >> >> >a Manslaughter conviction - basically, juries were very reluctant to > >> >> >convict because of the "There but for the grace..." angle. CDbDD and > >> >> >CDbCD carry much less onerous tests, so are considerably easier to prove > >> >> >- and thereby convict. > > >> >> >Which all means that, yes, there IS a substantial difference between > >> >> >unlawfully killing someone whilst riding a bike and unlawfully killing > >> >> >someone whilst driving a car - and that the cyclist IS much more likely > >> >> >to walk free. > > >> >> I'm fairly sure that if you check the stats on custodial sentences for > >> >> drivers who kill, the proportion is much lower than for cyclists who > >> >> kill. > >> >> Of course, it is so extremely rare for cyclists to kill anyone that > >> >> there aren't many cases to compare, unlike with motorists who manage > >> >> on average to kill each day as many people as cyclists do in a decade.- > > >> >You appear not to have spotted the word "unlawful" in Adrian's post. > > >> When has it not been unlawful to kill someone with a car? > > >If, for example, the driver is driving fully within the law and > >someone runs out in front of the car, within the stopping distance, > >and is killed. �Only people like Doug (and you???) �would seek to > >blame the driver in such circumstances. > > >> Even in the cases where the legal system fails to prosecute, I've > >> never heard of a coroner returning a "lawful homicide" verdict in a > >> motor vehicle killing. > > >They would presumably record a verdict of accidental death in the > >above scenario. > > >> The fact that they fail to return "unlawful killing" is part of the > >> problem. > >> If any weapon other than a motor vehicle was used in most of the road > >> deaths, there would be custodial sentences almost every time. > > >Even if the driver was obeying the law in all respects? > > If the driver is traveling at a speed which prevents him from reacting > to pedestrians emerging onto the roadway, then he is driving without > due care. Thanks for this - it saves me time. I now know I don't need to read anything else you post. Cheers!
From: JNugent on 27 Nov 2009 17:50 Phil W Lee wrote: [ ... ] > If [a] driver is traveling at a speed which prevents him from reacting > to pedestrians emerging onto the roadway, then he is driving without > due care. Oh, for God's sake, don't spout such sheer nonsense. Unless you want to be mistaken for a sock puppet of Doug's, that is.
From: Peter Grange on 27 Nov 2009 17:54 On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 22:25:03 +0000, %steve%@malloc.co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote: >Peter Grange <peter(a)plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >> >Here's something you could try to test the theory. Stop the next >> >pavement cyclist that you see and ask them to ride where they belong. >> >> Try telling the next motorist parked on the pavement to get his >> hulking great car off the pavement and on the street where it belongs. > >When I see a driver driving down the pavement at 25mph I shall tell them >off. Good luck with stopping him. -- Pete
From: Peter Grange on 27 Nov 2009 17:56
On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 19:51:26 +0000, JNugent <JN(a)noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote: >Peter Grange wrote: >> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 14:37:18 -0000, "mileburner" >> <mileburner(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >> >>> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message >>> news:1j9ueyx.1mu5i2w1uedkqdN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk... >>>> Tony Dragon <tony.dragon(a)btinternet.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> I don't recall being knocked over on the pavement by a motorist, but a >>>>> cyclist has managed to do this. >>>> Walking on pavements in London I have to dodge a flying cyclist every >>>> few hundred yards. Just a walk from place to work to sandwich bar can >>>> see me dodging a dozen or more pavement cyclists. Even more galling >>>> because there's a cycle lane on the pavement bu the cyclists choose not >>>> to use them. I've not had to dodge a single car in the last twelve >>>> months. >>>> >>>> There are also "Give Way" markings for cyclists which are use whenever >>>> the cycle lane crosses the pavement. Would you like to guess how many >>>> cyclists obey those markings? >>> What I have often wondered about those multitude of give way markers on >>> cycle routes is who the cyclist is supposed to give way to. The complexity >>> of some of them, (where there are pedestrians and traffic at a junction) is >>> so great that it is far easier to just use the road, and its safer. >>> >> Which is one of my objections to most shared-pavement cycle lanes. The >> cyclist is expected to stop and give way at every side turning off the >> road to which the cycle lane is parallel. > >Not "expected" - "required". Wow, that _really_ makes a difference. > >Though "give way" doesn't actually mean "stop". If there is no-one using the >crossed route at that particular point and time, it is possible to give way >without stopping. > >> In some cases this means a stop every few yards, > >Maybe (though rarely). That would be at one end of the continuum. > >> whereas on the road the cyclist, along with the >> motorised traffic, has right-of-way over traffic joining from the side >> road. This makes using the cycle lane for commuting, or any other >> reason where time matters, a no-no, and puts the cyclist at risk at >> each crossing point. There would be an uproar if the priorities were >> reversed for motorised traffic, where safety would doubtless be raised >> as an issue. > >Quite. Indeed. You agree it's dangerous then. |