Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"After reading yet another story of a cyclist being killed by a car driver! Is it time to get serious with the penalty for it! It just seems to me that vehicle drivers seem to get far leaner sentences than they would if they were killing people through other means (knife attacks, fist fights, guns). It will be interesting to see what sentence this chap will receive on the 12th January. Personally I think it should be twenty years!" What if it was the cyclists fault? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is a big difference between murder and manslaughter or death by dangerous driving, I am sure drivers in those situations do not think I am going to murder somebody with my vehicle today and while this is a terrible situation for the family of the person involved in a fatal RTA the driver also has to live with the consequences for the rest of their lives... No sentence passed down would be enough to bring the person back and unfortunately we have very short sentences in this country for the majority of crimes committed." . This particular death arose from a road rage incident that ended with the driver killing the cyclist! My point is, drivers seem to get a lighter sentence for manslaughter murder if they've used the car as a weapon instead of a gun/knife/fist etc etc | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"After reading yet another story of a cyclist being killed by a car driver! Is it time to get serious with the penalty for it! It just seems to me that vehicle drivers seem to get far leaner sentences than they would if they were killing people through other means (knife attacks, fist fights, guns). It will be interesting to see what sentence this chap will receive on the 12th January. Personally I think it should be twenty years! What if it was the cyclists fault?" Dash cams could help in these situations. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Have you got a link for it ?" . Main BBC news webpage | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"After reading yet another story of a cyclist being killed by a car driver! Is it time to get serious with the penalty for it! It just seems to me that vehicle drivers seem to get far leaner sentences than they would if they were killing people through other means (knife attacks, fist fights, guns). It will be interesting to see what sentence this chap will receive on the 12th January. Personally I think it should be twenty years! What if it was the cyclists fault? Dash cams could help in these situations. " Yep! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Have you got a link for it ?" . It's not particularly about that case, there's been several over this last year, it's the point that the vehicle driver seems to get off lighter for a crime a car as a weapon instead of a knife! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"After reading yet another story of a cyclist being killed by a car driver! Is it time to get serious with the penalty for it! It just seems to me that vehicle drivers seem to get far leaner sentences than they would if they were killing people through other means (knife attacks, fist fights, guns). It will be interesting to see what sentence this chap will receive on the 12th January. Personally I think it should be twenty years! What if it was the cyclists fault? Dash cams could help in these situations. Yep!" It'd be good if insurance companies offered a discount if you used them to subsidise the purchase cost. It'd be in their interest, surely. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"After reading yet another story of a cyclist being killed by a car driver! Is it time to get serious with the penalty for it! It just seems to me that vehicle drivers seem to get far leaner sentences than they would if they were killing people through other means (knife attacks, fist fights, guns). It will be interesting to see what sentence this chap will receive on the 12th January. Personally I think it should be twenty years! What if it was the cyclists fault? Dash cams could help in these situations. Yep! It'd be good if insurance companies offered a discount if you used them to subsidise the purchase cost. It'd be in their interest, surely. " . This particular man has already been convicted of death by dangerous driving but is that really the case... There's no death by acting stupid with a gun! It's manslaughter or murder, personally I think he murdered that cyclist! If he'd have waived a loaded gun out of his window at him, would he still be up for death by dangerous driving, I think any rational person that uses a ton and a half car to smash a cyclist off the road is just as culpable | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You seemed as though you were talking about a particular case so wondered what area and when it happened?" Bump | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whenever you see a similar story, the unfair assumption is usually that the driver is at fault. As a driver and a cyclist myself, I've seen people at fault from both sides. However, accidents happen - they arent premeditated or intentional. I will say one thing though... over the years, my car has been hit by cyclists on several occasions, while I've been stationary. (Waiting at traffic lights, or simply parked, etc). Usually, dickheads phoning or texting while riding, and not paying attention to what's in front of them. Cyclists break the road rules, much more frequently than drivers do - putting themselves and others in harms way. Yet their perceived vulnerability somehow conveys a sense that they cant possibly be at fault, in an accident." . Death by dangerous driving isn't an accident! However to counter your point I'd say you probably weren't killed by the cyclist hitting your car while you were stationary at traffic lights? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You seemed as though you were talking about a particular case so wondered what area and when it happened? Bump" .http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-34798621 It's not particularly about this case though... I'm asking a wider question about whether divers get lighter sentences than they should while using their car as a weapon | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Maybe each case should be judged as per the evidence pertaining to that case.. where a car is used as a weapon in what can be proven as per the law of the land then yes the sentence should be high but i thought the maximum sentence could be up to 14 years in such cases..?" Minimum sentencing is a terrible idea. Case by case is the only sensible suggestion  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"After reading yet another story of a cyclist being killed by a car driver! Is it time to get serious with the penalty for it! It just seems to me that vehicle drivers seem to get far leaner sentences than they would if they were killing people through other means (knife attacks, fist fights, guns). It will be interesting to see what sentence this chap will receive on the 12th January. Personally I think it should be twenty years! What if it was the cyclists fault?" The driver has already been convicted, so no it wasn't the cyclists fault but nice attempt at victim blaming.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A sad story indeed but I am thinking if the driver intended to murder him he would have died immediately not 16 months later" . If I shot you in the head with a gun but slightly missed and you got a glancing blow and you survived for 16 months in a coma.. Is that not murder? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"After reading yet another story of a cyclist being killed by a car driver! Is it time to get serious with the penalty for it! It just seems to me that vehicle drivers seem to get far leaner sentences than they would if they were killing people through other means (knife attacks, fist fights, guns). It will be interesting to see what sentence this chap will receive on the 12th January. Personally I think it should be twenty years! What if it was the cyclists fault? The driver has already been convicted, so no it wasn't the cyclists fault but nice attempt at victim blaming. "I don't think it was victim blaming, it was an attempt to give the OP context. No details about the case were provided. Sometimes cyclists are crap at cycling safely. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whenever you see a similar story, the unfair assumption is usually that the driver is at fault. As a driver and a cyclist myself, I've seen people at fault from both sides. However, accidents happen - they arent premeditated or intentional. I will say one thing though... over the years, my car has been hit by cyclists on several occasions, while I've been stationary. (Waiting at traffic lights, or simply parked, etc). Usually, dickheads phoning or texting while riding, and not paying attention to what's in front of them. Cyclists break the road rules, much more frequently than drivers do - putting themselves and others in harms way. Yet their perceived vulnerability somehow conveys a sense that they cant possibly be at fault, in an accident.. Death by dangerous driving isn't an accident! However to counter your point I'd say you probably weren't killed by the cyclist hitting your car while you were stationary at traffic lights?" DfT/TfL studies show drivers are at sole fault in 70% of cycle/vehicle collisions. Cyclists at sole fault in 10% of cases, & shared fault 20%. That's 7 out of every 10 collisions caused by the actions of the driver alone. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A sad story indeed but I am thinking if the driver intended to murder him he would have died immediately not 16 months later. If I shot you in the head with a gun but slightly missed and you got a glancing blow and you survived for 16 months in a coma.. Is that not murder?" Wow great example I guess you would already be in jail for GBH and shooting would be intentional not accidental | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
Mr ddc | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A sad story indeed but I am thinking if the driver intended to murder him he would have died immediately not 16 months later. If I shot you in the head with a gun but slightly missed and you got a glancing blow and you survived for 16 months in a coma.. Is that not murder? Wow great example I guess you would already be in jail for GBH and shooting would be intentional not accidental " The above convicted driver was convicted of deliberately using his vehicle as a weapon, it wasn't an 'accident'. The police took him back to court to charge him with murder. The court convicted him & now we are just awaiting sentencing. How many times are we as a society going to condone road deaths as merely 'accidents' when they are anything but? Accident infers a lack of intent - it does not infer a lack of responsibility for the consequences. Only today a Swindon newspaper reports the story of a van driver cleared of driving into two cyclists at 1pm (broad daylight) who were riding one behind the other, close to the kerb. Witnesses saw them riding like this, the driver of the vehicle behind saw the van driving close to the kerb, so close she could not see the cyclists til one flew over the van roof. At no time did the witness see the van driver attempt to move over to overtake on a wide road. This driver ploughed into two cyclists on a clear straight road in broad daylight & walked free from court. The legal system in this country offers no protection or redress for those who aren't in a vehicle, even though the law provides for strong sentencing the courts routinely refuse to go with the higher charge, & then hand down derisory sentencing. The average punishment for being convicted of killing a cyclist on the road is something like 9 points on the license & a few hundred quid fine. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Somewhere (Holland?) the presumption is that the car driver is always guilty unless they can prove the cyclist was at fault. The logic being that when you are in control of something able to kill, you should always be fully in control of it. Cyclists are given a wide berth there. The closest is this country interestingly is with horses. There was a case a few years ago on a country lane when the car driver had the book thrown at them because they ran into the back of a horse. For some reason cyclists, and children, aren't felt to be as important
Mr ddc"Strangely enough, the Presumed Liability rule is law in all but three European Countries. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Mr ddc Strangely enough, the Presumed Liability rule is law in all but three European Countries. "
Thanks Sara, I thought I'd read it somewhere. (Probs in the 'things to bear in mind before taking your car abroad' blurb for the ferry) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Mr ddc Strangely enough, the Presumed Liability rule is law in all but three European Countries.
Thanks Sara, I thought I'd read it somewhere. (Probs in the 'things to bear in mind before taking your car abroad' blurb for the ferry)"Sorry, its 5 - UK,Cyprus,Malta,Romania & Ireland. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Mr ddc Strangely enough, the Presumed Liability rule is law in all but three European Countries.
Thanks Sara, I thought I'd read it somewhere. (Probs in the 'things to bear in mind before taking your car abroad' blurb for the ferry)
Sorry, its 5 - UK,Cyprus,Malta,Romania & Ireland."The sad thing is: you'd think if Boris was serious about improving cyclists' safety, there's your answer, right there! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I remember a case recently where a cyclist was cycling along in a bus lane where there were parked cars ...on approaching and attempting to pass one of the parked cars the driver door was flung open in his path sending him flying off his bike into the path of a bus that was attempting to overtake the cyclist ...he was killed ...when it came to court it was decided that the motorist is under no obligation the check in their wing mirror for cyclists before flinging their car door open ....accidental death !" thats awful!! i can see that there might not have been any premeditation of hitting/injuring/or killing the cyclist but surely drivers must check their mirrors before opening their doors into traffic! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I remember a case recently where a cyclist was cycling along in a bus lane where there were parked cars ...on approaching and attempting to pass one of the parked cars the driver door was flung open in his path sending him flying off his bike into the path of a bus that was attempting to overtake the cyclist ...he was killed ...when it came to court it was decided that the motorist is under no obligation the check in their wing mirror for cyclists before flinging their car door open ....accidental death ! thats awful!! i can see that there might not have been any premeditation of hitting/injuring/or killing the cyclist but surely drivers must check their mirrors before opening their doors into traffic!" This is actually law, but in this case the jury decided otherwise! As I said, the law offers no protection or redress to those who aren't in vehicles. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I remember a case recently where a cyclist was cycling along in a bus lane where there were parked cars ...on approaching and attempting to pass one of the parked cars the driver door was flung open in his path sending him flying off his bike into the path of a bus that was attempting to overtake the cyclist ...he was killed ...when it came to court it was decided that the motorist is under no obligation the check in their wing mirror for cyclists before flinging their car door open ....accidental death ! thats awful!! i can see that there might not have been any premeditation of hitting/injuring/or killing the cyclist but surely drivers must check their mirrors before opening their doors into traffic! This is actually law, but in this case the jury decided otherwise! As I said, the law offers no protection or redress to those who aren't in vehicles." how can they decide against the law? the law is the law surely? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"After reading yet another story of a cyclist being killed by a car driver! Is it time to get serious with the penalty for it! It just seems to me that vehicle drivers seem to get far leaner sentences than they would if they were killing people through other means (knife attacks, fist fights, guns). It will be interesting to see what sentence this chap will receive on the 12th January. Personally I think it should be twenty years! What if it was the cyclists fault?" Considering how difficult it is to get to court let alone secure a conviction for accidents in where cyclist;s lose their life I suspect that there is enough evidence that it wan;t the cyclist's fault. Can I ask why your response was to automatically victim blame? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I remember a case recently where a cyclist was cycling along in a bus lane where there were parked cars ...on approaching and attempting to pass one of the parked cars the driver door was flung open in his path sending him flying off his bike into the path of a bus that was attempting to overtake the cyclist ...he was killed ...when it came to court it was decided that the motorist is under no obligation the check in their wing mirror for cyclists before flinging their car door open ....accidental death !" I was told on this site that I'm at fault for riding well away from parked cars, & that it would be my fault if I was hit. The above is EXACTLY why you should ride well away from parked cars. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think dangerous/reckless driving should have higher penalties than fines and points. So many lives are lost or majorly affected by it that it seems absurd to me. " You can go to prison for up to 2 years for dangerous driving. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I remember a case recently where a cyclist was cycling along in a bus lane where there were parked cars ...on approaching and attempting to pass one of the parked cars the driver door was flung open in his path sending him flying off his bike into the path of a bus that was attempting to overtake the cyclist ...he was killed ...when it came to court it was decided that the motorist is under no obligation the check in their wing mirror for cyclists before flinging their car door open ....accidental death ! thats awful!! i can see that there might not have been any premeditation of hitting/injuring/or killing the cyclist but surely drivers must check their mirrors before opening their doors into traffic! This is actually law, but in this case the jury decided otherwise! As I said, the law offers no protection or redress to those who aren't in vehicles. how can they decide against the law? the law is the law surely?" You tell me, I've given up hoping for justice. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whenever you see a similar story, the unfair assumption is usually that the driver is at fault. As a driver and a cyclist myself, I've seen people at fault from both sides. However, accidents happen - they arent premeditated or intentional. I will say one thing though... over the years, my car has been hit by cyclists on several occasions, while I've been stationary. (Waiting at traffic lights, or simply parked, etc). Usually, dickheads phoning or texting while riding, and not paying attention to what's in front of them. Cyclists break the road rules, much more frequently than drivers do - putting themselves and others in harms way. Yet their perceived vulnerability somehow conveys a sense that they cant possibly be at fault, in an accident." What utter rubbish.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is a big difference between murder and manslaughter or death by dangerous driving, I am sure drivers in those situations do not think I am going to murder somebody with my vehicle today and while this is a terrible situation for the family of the person involved in a fatal RTA the driver also has to live with the consequences for the rest of their lives... No sentence passed down would be enough to bring the person back and unfortunately we have very short sentences in this country for the majority of crimes committed." Do you understand what dangerous driving is? The clue is in the word dangerous. It's not an accident. It;s not careless. It;s dangerous. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I remember a case recently where a cyclist was cycling along in a bus lane where there were parked cars ...on approaching and attempting to pass one of the parked cars the driver door was flung open in his path sending him flying off his bike into the path of a bus that was attempting to overtake the cyclist ...he was killed ...when it came to court it was decided that the motorist is under no obligation the check in their wing mirror for cyclists before flinging their car door open ....accidental death ! thats awful!! i can see that there might not have been any premeditation of hitting/injuring/or killing the cyclist but surely drivers must check their mirrors before opening their doors into traffic! This is actually law, but in this case the jury decided otherwise! As I said, the law offers no protection or redress to those who aren't in vehicles. how can they decide against the law? the law is the law surely?" Had a google. Driver admitted not using his mirrors before opening his door, had illegally tinted windows in his car, yet the jury cleared him of manslaughter. I may be wrong on the law aspect, it may be only a 'suggestion'. Let me google. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is a big difference between murder and manslaughter or death by dangerous driving, I am sure drivers in those situations do not think I am going to murder somebody with my vehicle today and while this is a terrible situation for the family of the person involved in a fatal RTA the driver also has to live with the consequences for the rest of their lives... No sentence passed down would be enough to bring the person back and unfortunately we have very short sentences in this country for the majority of crimes committed.. This particular death arose from a road rage incident that ended with the driver killing the cyclist! My point is, drivers seem to get a lighter sentence for manslaughter murder if they've used the car as a weapon instead of a gun/knife/fist etc etc" What is the driver being charged with? If he deliberately used his car as a deadly weapon then that is aggregated assault with a dangerous weapon. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I remember a case recently where a cyclist was cycling along in a bus lane where there were parked cars ...on approaching and attempting to pass one of the parked cars the driver door was flung open in his path sending him flying off his bike into the path of a bus that was attempting to overtake the cyclist ...he was killed ...when it came to court it was decided that the motorist is under no obligation the check in their wing mirror for cyclists before flinging their car door open ....accidental death !" This happened near where I used to live in London. The shared cycle and bus path runs next to the parking and this outcome was always going to happen. The bike path being shared makes it really difficult to take the primary position unless you are confident so many cyclists ride near the cars to avoid the buses. The not guilty verdict means that the road layout doesn't get questioned. It's a joke. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is a big difference between murder and manslaughter or death by dangerous driving, I am sure drivers in those situations do not think I am going to murder somebody with my vehicle today and while this is a terrible situation for the family of the person involved in a fatal RTA the driver also has to live with the consequences for the rest of their lives... No sentence passed down would be enough to bring the person back and unfortunately we have very short sentences in this country for the majority of crimes committed.. This particular death arose from a road rage incident that ended with the driver killing the cyclist! My point is, drivers seem to get a lighter sentence for manslaughter murder if they've used the car as a weapon instead of a gun/knife/fist etc etc What is the driver being charged with? If he deliberately used his car as a deadly weapon then that is aggregated assault with a dangerous weapon." The victim died 16 months after the assault - which the driver had already been convicted of. The police then returned to court with a murder charge as the driver had already been convicted of intent, the murder charge stuck & the driver convicted. This was possible due to the repeal of the old 'year and a day' rule. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A sad story indeed but I am thinking if the driver intended to murder him he would have died immediately not 16 months later. If I shot you in the head with a gun but slightly missed and you got a glancing blow and you survived for 16 months in a coma.. Is that not murder? Wow great example I guess you would already be in jail for GBH and shooting would be intentional not accidental " . No the guy intensionally knocked the guy off the road in his car... That's no different than intensionally shooting you in the head but slightly missing in my mind! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A sad story indeed but I am thinking if the driver intended to murder him he would have died immediately not 16 months later. If I shot you in the head with a gun but slightly missed and you got a glancing blow and you survived for 16 months in a coma.. Is that not murder? Wow great example I guess you would already be in jail for GBH and shooting would be intentional not accidental . No the guy intensionally knocked the guy off the road in his car... That's no different than intensionally shooting you in the head but slightly missing in my mind!" It's a perfect comparaable scenario
I'm not sure why someone would describe this as an accident | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My point was and still is... Do drivers get lighter sentences killing someone with their car than with another weapon!. I'm asking because I think they do and I think they get lighter sentences because the vast majority are drivers... It's the old if men were raped scenario" I agree totally. The sentencing tariffs for death by careless or dangerous are at least now comparable to manslaughter and murder. But CPS still pusgh for the lighter charge as the chance of conviction is higher. And the reason is as you say, because a jury of motorists won't want to demonise their own behaviour. The changes should be in harsher sentencing for lesser offences. Life bans for anyone that loses their licence twice (once can be a mistake but twice you are a shit or dangerous driver - end of), harsher punishnents for using phones and speeding and many other 'minor' offenses which would prompt the chamge in behaviour that would make the roads safer for everyone | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"After reading yet another story of a cyclist being killed by a car driver! Is it time to get serious with the penalty for it! It just seems to me that vehicle drivers seem to get far leaner sentences than they would if they were killing people through other means (knife attacks, fist fights, guns). It will be interesting to see what sentence this chap will receive on the 12th January. Personally I think it should be twenty years! What if it was the cyclists fault? The driver has already been convicted, so no it wasn't the cyclists fault but nice attempt at victim blaming. "I don't think he was victim blaming. It's not an unreasonable question and, in some cases, although not this one, quite possibly the case. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A sad story indeed but I am thinking if the driver intended to murder him he would have died immediately not 16 months later. If I shot you in the head with a gun but slightly missed and you got a glancing blow and you survived for 16 months in a coma.. Is that not murder?" That depends on whether you were aiming for my head or trying to mis my head. If you were aiming for my head then it's either murder or attempted murder. If were aiming to mis then it might not be murdered and could possibly be manslaughter, although I think a murder charge would probably stick. With murder there has to be intent. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Whenever you see a similar story, the unfair assumption is usually that the driver is at fault. As a driver and a cyclist myself, I've seen people at fault from both sides. However, accidents happen - they arent premeditated or intentional. I will say one thing though... over the years, my car has been hit by cyclists on several occasions, while I've been stationary. (Waiting at traffic lights, or simply parked, etc). Usually, dickheads phoning or texting while riding, and not paying attention to what's in front of them. Cyclists break the road rules, much more frequently than drivers do - putting themselves and others in harms way. Yet their perceived vulnerability somehow conveys a sense that they cant possibly be at fault, in an accident.. Death by dangerous driving isn't an accident! However to counter your point I'd say you probably weren't killed by the cyclist hitting your car while you were stationary at traffic lights? DfT/TfL studies show drivers are at sole fault in 70% of cycle/vehicle collisions. Cyclists at sole fault in 10% of cases, & shared fault 20%. That's 7 out of every 10 collisions caused by the actions of the driver alone." It's still valid to ask the question. Until we had the context it was not possible to really even discuss this. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"A sad story indeed but I am thinking if the driver intended to murder him he would have died immediately not 16 months later. If I shot you in the head with a gun but slightly missed and you got a glancing blow and you survived for 16 months in a coma.. Is that not murder? Wow great example I guess you would already be in jail for GBH and shooting would be intentional not accidental " I think the point is is that, in this case, it was intentional. The driver used his vehicle as a weapon. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Mr ddc Strangely enough, the Presumed Liability rule is law in all but three European Countries.
Thanks Sara, I thought I'd read it somewhere. (Probs in the 'things to bear in mind before taking your car abroad' blurb for the ferry)
Sorry, its 5 - UK,Cyprus,Malta,Romania & Ireland."And, with the exception of Romania, they all base their law on Common Law as opposed to Roman Law. It would totally contravene the basic presumption of innocence, that we all enjoy, if for some crimes you were presumed guilty. I'm also wondering if this assumption of liability is criminal liability or civil liability. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I remember a case recently where a cyclist was cycling along in a bus lane where there were parked cars ...on approaching and attempting to pass one of the parked cars the driver door was flung open in his path sending him flying off his bike into the path of a bus that was attempting to overtake the cyclist ...he was killed ...when it came to court it was decided that the motorist is under no obligation the check in their wing mirror for cyclists before flinging their car door open ....accidental death ! thats awful!! i can see that there might not have been any premeditation of hitting/injuring/or killing the cyclist but surely drivers must check their mirrors before opening their doors into traffic! This is actually law, but in this case the jury decided otherwise! As I said, the law offers no protection or redress to those who aren't in vehicles. how can they decide against the law? the law is the law surely?" But the jury has to convict on the evidence put in front of it. If it's not convinced by the evidence put in front of it it won't convict. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Mr ddc Strangely enough, the Presumed Liability rule is law in all but three European Countries.
Thanks Sara, I thought I'd read it somewhere. (Probs in the 'things to bear in mind before taking your car abroad' blurb for the ferry)
Sorry, its 5 - UK,Cyprus,Malta,Romania & Ireland.
And, with the exception of Romania, they all base their law on Common Law as opposed to Roman Law. It would totally contravene the basic presumption of innocence, that we all enjoy, if for some crimes you were presumed guilty.
I'm also wondering if this assumption of liability is criminal liability or civil liability. "I think the logic is more an extension of "you should always be in full control of your vehicle", you hit something, so clearly you weren't, now face the consequences. It's just that it seems in the uk, all too often 'the consequences' are "there, but for the grace God, go I, so we'll let you off" | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
" Mr ddc Strangely enough, the Presumed Liability rule is law in all but three European Countries.
Thanks Sara, I thought I'd read it somewhere. (Probs in the 'things to bear in mind before taking your car abroad' blurb for the ferry)
Sorry, its 5 - UK,Cyprus,Malta,Romania & Ireland.
And, with the exception of Romania, they all base their law on Common Law as opposed to Roman Law. It would totally contravene the basic presumption of innocence, that we all enjoy, if for some crimes you were presumed guilty.
I'm also wondering if this assumption of liability is criminal liability or civil liability. "Its civil liability, there is no - nor has there ever been - any presumption of innocence under civil claim. Presumed Liability does not preclude any criminal case, it merely makes financial redress easier for the injured party. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I really can't comment on this thread as a friend of mine was killed in a high profile incident. Hey wad a very experienced cyclist killed by a car driver. I get rather wound up about this subject. " You have my most heartfelt condolences, its a subject dear to my heart also. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"There is a big difference between murder and manslaughter or death by dangerous driving, I am sure drivers in those situations do not think I am going to murder somebody with my vehicle today and while this is a terrible situation for the family of the person involved in a fatal RTA the driver also has to live with the consequences for the rest of their lives... No sentence passed down would be enough to bring the person back and unfortunately we have very short sentences in this country for the majority of crimes committed. Do you understand what dangerous driving is? The clue is in the word dangerous. It's not an accident. It;s not careless. It;s dangerous. " But not murder. It's only murder if there was intent to kill or cause harm. In a case of dangerous driving that intent is not normal there. In this particular case it would seem there was intent to cause harm. So I ask again, what is the driver actually being charged with? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My point was and still is... Do drivers get lighter sentences killing someone with their car than with another weapon!. I'm asking because I think they do and I think they get lighter sentences because the vast majority are drivers... It's the old if men were raped scenario" I still do not see the comparison because if someone is using a weapon then the intention is to injure or kill. Generally they have taken the weapon out with them which also shows premeditation. This intent is very rarely there with incidents involving a car and a cyclist. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My point was and still is... Do drivers get lighter sentences killing someone with their car than with another weapon!. I'm asking because I think they do and I think they get lighter sentences because the vast majority are drivers... It's the old if men were raped scenario I agree totally. The sentencing tariffs for death by careless or dangerous are at least now comparable to manslaughter and murder. But CPS still pusgh for the lighter charge as the chance of conviction is higher. And the reason is as you say, because a jury of motorists won't want to demonise their own behaviour. The changes should be in harsher sentencing for lesser offences. Life bans for anyone that loses their licence twice (once can be a mistake but twice you are a shit or dangerous driver - end of), harsher punishnents for using phones and speeding and many other 'minor' offenses which would prompt the chamge in behaviour that would make the roads safer for everyone" The evidence that slower speed decreases either total accidents or total deaths does not actually exist. Slower speeds does not always lead to fewer accidents. In fact some 20mph limits may well be removed in some places because the number of accidents and injury has actually gone up since there introduction. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"My point was and still is... Do drivers get lighter sentences killing someone with their car than with another weapon!. I'm asking because I think they do and I think they get lighter sentences because the vast majority are drivers... It's the old if men were raped scenario I still do not see the comparison because if someone is using a weapon then the intention is to injure or kill. Generally they have taken the weapon out with them which also shows premeditation. This intent is very rarely there with incidents involving a car and a cyclist. " But in this case it clearly was. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"After reading yet another story of a cyclist being killed by a car driver! Is it time to get serious with the penalty for it! It just seems to me that vehicle drivers seem to get far leaner sentences than they would if they were killing people through other means (knife attacks, fist fights, guns). It will be interesting to see what sentence this chap will receive on the 12th January. Personally I think it should be twenty years! What if it was the cyclists fault?" In this instance it was not an accident. It was malice on the part of the person driving the car. In accidents people seldom get the jail as nothing was intended. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sorry folks, I was wrong about the murder charge. The driver was convicted of dangerous driving, then after the victim died he was charged with, & has admitted death by dangerous driving. As the driver has admitted there were words exchanged before the incident its pretty obvious he intended harm to the victim, but whether he actually intended death as the outcome is very hard to prove. For my money, although its not proven I have no doubt the driver intended serious injury at the very least &should face the maximum 14yr sentence. " . That's my point... If your shooting a gun at someone, your intending harm. The same should surely apply when your running a cyclist off the road while driving a tonne and a half vehicle | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I think dangerous/reckless driving should have higher penalties than fines and points. So many lives are lost or majorly affected by it that it seems absurd to me. " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Proving intent to kill would be the thing here though, as opposed to intent to harm. A maximum sentence of 14 years is already available - that should be applied on a case by case basis. No need for a change in the law. (And no, I'm not a driver.)" I;m pretty sure that no one has ever got that sentence though. There was a case last year where a disqualified motorist, 2 1/2 times the drink drive limit doing 70 in a 30 zone in a stolen car got 10 years. So despite all those aggravating factors his sentence was 5 years per life. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
