Cyclist jailed for pavemant death

On 15 Aug, 04:30, "Just zis Guy, you know?"
wrote:
On Fri, 14 Aug 2009 15:12:31 -0700 (PDT), BrianW

wrote:
That was evidently the case back in the 1950s, and may still be
the case now. �Perhaps in an ideal world juries would be willing to
convict dangerous drivers who kill for manslaughter. �Regrettably, we
do not live in an ideal world. �Hence the "causing death by dangerous
driving" law is an attempt to rectify the situation.

You appear to have conceded the point at issue, which was that drivers
get especially lenient treatment in the courts for acts of negligence
resulting in serious injury and death.

I must have missed that. Could you show me where?

BrianW wrote:
On 14 Aug, 13:50, Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote:
BrianW considered Thu, 13 Aug 2009
00:54:49 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:





On 12 Aug, 22:05, Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote:
(D.M. Procida) considered
Wed, 12 Aug 2009 17:24:46 +0100 the perfect time to write:
p.k. wrote:
Cyclist jailed for pavement death
A cyclist who knocked down an 84-year-old pedestrian who later died has been
jailed for seven months.
Is that all? It doesn't seem much, for killing somebody by behaving like
a maniac.
Daniele
It's a hell of a lot better than what most motorists get for killing
people.
Really?
Average sentences for causing death by dangerous driving in period up
to 2004:
http://www.publications.parliament.u...srd/vo060720/t...
That doesn't include the CDbDD figures.
Which rather goes to show that killing with a car isn't regarded as
serious.

My apologies - wrong link. I took it from a post I made last year on
this subject. To avoid any more mistakes, here is the link to the
post:

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....b7bfe310?hl=en

Since then, the maximum sentence has been increased from 10 to 14
years, with shorter sentences being increased proportionately:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2006/3186.html
Care to rethink?
No.

The only a small proportion of motorists who kill are charged
adequately - the fact that the sentence is reasonable for those who
are does little to change the fact that the majority walk free.-

Do you have any numbers and sources, or do we just take this on your
say-so?

In any case, there is no such offence as "killing someone with a
car". The culpability of a motorist who kills can range from zero
(e.g. someone without warning runs out in front of a driver who is
driving entirely within the law) to extremely high (e.g. a driver
deliberately mows someone down = murder). The fact that only a small
number are charged may reflect the lack of culpability in most cases.

Yes this is true but it also applies to cyclists.

As a first approximation it would seem fair to assume a similar profile
of culpability between cyclists involved in a fatal collision and
motorists involved in a fatal collision.

Hence the question why not compare the average sentences of a cyclist
involved in a fatal collision with the average sentence of a motorist
involved in a fatal collision?

On 15 Aug, 10:15, Nick wrote:
BrianW wrote:
On 14 Aug, 13:50, Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote:
BrianW considered Thu, 13 Aug 2009
00:54:49 -0700 (PDT) the perfect time to write:

On 12 Aug, 22:05, Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote:
(D.M. Procida) considered
Wed, 12 Aug 2009 17:24:46 +0100 the perfect time to write:
p.k. wrote:
Cyclist jailed for pavement death
A cyclist who knocked down an 84-year-old pedestrian who later died has been
jailed for seven months.
Is that all? It doesn't seem much, for killing somebody by behaving like
a maniac.
Daniele
It's a hell of a lot better than what most motorists get for killing
people.
Really?
Average sentences for causing death by dangerous driving in period up
to 2004:
http://www.publications.parliament.u...srd/vo060720/t....
That doesn't include the CDbDD figures.
Which rather goes to show that killing with a car isn't regarded as
serious.

My apologies - wrong link. �I took it from a post I made last year on
this subject. �To avoid any more mistakes, here is the link to the
post:

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....b7bfe310?hl=en

Since then, the maximum sentence has been increased from 10 to 14
years, with shorter sentences being increased proportionately:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Crim/2006/3186.html
Care to rethink?
No.

The only a small proportion of motorists who kill are charged
adequately - the fact that the sentence is reasonable for those who
are does little to change the fact that the majority walk free.-

Do you have any numbers and sources, or do we just take this on your
say-so?

In any case, there is no such offence as "killing someone with a
car". �The culpability of a motorist who kills can range from zero
(e.g. someone without warning runs out in front of a driver who is
driving entirely within the law) to extremely high (e.g. a driver
deliberately mows someone down = murder). �The fact that only a small
number are charged may reflect the lack of culpability in most cases.

Yes this is true but it also applies to cyclists.

As a first approximation it would seem fair to assume a similar profile
of culpability between cyclists involved in a fatal collision and
motorists involved in a fatal collision.

Hence the question why not compare the average sentences of a cyclist
involved in a fatal collision with the average sentence of a motorist
involved in a fatal collision?-

Because it is meaningless. You have made a big assumption which may
or may not be true. The only meaningful comparison is to look at the
(very rare) cases where cyclists culpably kill, and to ask what
sentence a motorist with equivalent culpability would have received.

BrianW wrote:

Hence the question why not compare the average sentences of a cyclist
involved in a fatal collision with the average sentence of a motorist
involved in a fatal collision?-

Because it is meaningless. You have made a big assumption which may
or may not be true. The only meaningful comparison is to look at the
(very rare) cases where cyclists culpably kill, and to ask what
sentence a motorist with equivalent culpability would have received.


Only meaningless in your eyes because it doesn't give the result you
want. Culpability is a very subjective judgement.

If a cyclist kills they are almost always regarded as culpable of a
serious offence if a motorist kills they are normally not regarded as
culpable of a serious offence.

If any thing I would have thought it should have been the other way around.

So maybe you would like to answer the question?

On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 11:07:37 +0100, Nick wrote:


If a cyclist kills they are almost always regarded as culpable of a
serious offence if a motorist kills they are normally not regarded as
culpable of a serious offence.

What complete and utter ********.

On 15 Aug, 11:07, Nick wrote:
BrianW wrote:
Hence the question why not compare the average sentences of a cyclist
involved in a fatal collision with the average sentence of a motorist
involved in a fatal collision?-

Because it is meaningless. �You have made a big assumption which may
or may not be true. �The only meaningful comparison is to look at the
(very rare) cases where cyclists culpably kill, and to ask what
sentence a motorist with equivalent culpability would have received.

Only meaningless in your eyes because it doesn't give the result you
want. Culpability is a very subjective judgement.

You seem to be labouring under a misunderstanding - that I want to
persecute cyclists and condone dangerous driving. Nothing could be
further from the truth. I am a cyclist, or at least I was until two
months ago, when I was involved in a near fatal accident, caused by
the carelessness of a driver whilst I was cycling. I will get back to
cycling again, but not for a few months.

I am the first to agree that killer motorists are sometimes treated
too leniently. This was particularly so in the past. I have posted
elsewhere the stats that show that motorists convicted of causing
death by dangerous driving have increased in recent years - a trend
with which I fully agree.

My point is simply that *all* road users have a duty to behave
responsibly towards others. If they don't, they must answer for the
consequences, and in this regard I would treat motorists and cyclists
equally.

BrianW wrote

My point is simply that *all* road users have a duty to behave
responsibly towards others. If they don't, they must answer for the
consequences, and in this regard I would treat motorists and cyclists
equally.

I think you may find some disagreement with that in this newsgroup where
some people think cyclists always have the moral high ground whatever the
circumstances.

I totally agree with you though.

BrianW wrote:
On 15 Aug, 11:07, Nick wrote:
BrianW wrote:
Hence the question why not compare the average sentences of a cyclist
involved in a fatal collision with the average sentence of a motorist
involved in a fatal collision?-
Because it is meaningless. �You have made a big assumption which may
or may not be true. �The only meaningful comparison is to look at the
(very rare) cases where cyclists culpably kill, and to ask what
sentence a motorist with equivalent culpability would have received.
Only meaningless in your eyes because it doesn't give the result you
want. Culpability is a very subjective judgement.

You seem to be labouring under a misunderstanding - that I want to
persecute cyclists and condone dangerous driving. Nothing could be
further from the truth. I am a cyclist, or at least I was until two
months ago, when I was involved in a near fatal accident, caused by
the carelessness of a driver whilst I was cycling. I will get back to
cycling again, but not for a few months.

I am the first to agree that killer motorists are sometimes treated
too leniently. This was particularly so in the past. I have posted
elsewhere the stats that show that motorists convicted of causing
death by dangerous driving have increased in recent years - a trend
with which I fully agree.

My point is simply that *all* road users have a duty to behave
responsibly towards others. If they don't, they must answer for the
consequences, and in this regard I would treat motorists and cyclists
equally.

And there is the problem, while most agree that the law should apply to
all, there are a few resident idiots who come up with the same rubbish
again & again.

'They should not have ticketed the cyclist as they do not do that often'
'He is a motorist so he must be guilty'
'The cyclist only does it because motorist do'
'He broke the law but that was because he felt safer'
'The law does not apply to me because if I hit someone it wont hurt them
so much'

All road user should act within the law & show consideration for all
other road users.

When that happens the roads will be much safer & calmer.


--

Tony Dragon

On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 10:33:38 +0000 (UTC) someone who may be "Mr.
Benn" %%@%%.% wrote this:-

I think you may find some disagreement with that in this newsgroup where
some people think cyclists always have the moral high ground whatever the
circumstances.

Nice try, but I can't say I have ever noticed anyone putting forward
such a viewpoint.

Perhaps you should go back under your bridge.


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

BrianW wrote:
On 15 Aug, 11:07, Nick wrote:
BrianW wrote:
Hence the question why not compare the average sentences of a cyclist
involved in a fatal collision with the average sentence of a motorist
involved in a fatal collision?-
Because it is meaningless. �You have made a big assumption which may
or may not be true. �The only meaningful comparison is to look at the
(very rare) cases where cyclists culpably kill, and to ask what
sentence a motorist with equivalent culpability would have received.
Only meaningless in your eyes because it doesn't give the result you
want. Culpability is a very subjective judgement.

You seem to be labouring under a misunderstanding - that I want to
persecute cyclists and condone dangerous driving. Nothing could be
further from the truth. I am a cyclist, or at least I was until two
months ago, when I was involved in a near fatal accident, caused by
the carelessness of a driver whilst I was cycling. I will get back to
cycling again, but not for a few months.


Yes my apologies, I was labouring (or maybe idling) under that
misunderstanding.

However the point remains that both culpability and sentencing are very
similar subjective judgements. In this type of discussion they can
almost be substituted one for another. Hence it is not particularly
helpful to compare cyclist sentencing vs motorists sentencing because
any unfair bias will already be present in the judgement of culpability

Specifically I get the impression that when a cyclist is involved in a
fatal collision there is a default assumption of culpability where as
with a motorist the courts have more of a tenancy to empathise "could
have happened to anyone", "nothing you could have done".

Obviously to investigate this impression further we need to look at the
raw figures before they are filtered by a judgement of culpability.

I am the first to agree that killer motorists are sometimes treated
too leniently. This was particularly so in the past. I have posted
elsewhere the stats that show that motorists convicted of causing
death by dangerous driving have increased in recent years - a trend
with which I fully agree.

My point is simply that *all* road users have a duty to behave
responsibly towards others. If they don't, they must answer for the
consequences, and in this regard I would treat motorists and cyclists
equally.

My personal view is that there is an inherent danger in some road
activities such as driving or cycling fast and that the degree of
responsibility should go up with the danger that a road user brings to
the situation. Hence in general a motorist has more responsibility than
a cyclist and a cyclist more responsibility than a pedestrian.
Additionally there is a greater asymmetry in personal injury risk
between a motorist and a pedestrian (or cyclist) that the law should
seek to address this.

So I don't believe everyone should be treated equally when determining
culpability.