Cyclist jailed for pavemant death

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.
So would I (dead/killed is dead/killed).

--
Colin N.

Lincolnshire is mostly flat ... But the wind is mostly in your face

David Hansen wrote in
:

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.

Nice try?! Who has been teaching you to say that?

On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 09:31:02 +0100, Tony Dragon
wrote:

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.

Guy

You appear to have missed the point completely.
Whether it's done on purpose or because of stupidity is open to question.


I am not so sure it is "open to question"

--

The BMA (British Medical Association) urges legislation to make the wearing of cycle helmets compulsory for both adults and children.

The evidence from those countries where compulsory cycle helmet use has already been introduced is that such legislation has a beneficial effect on cycle-related deaths and head injuries.
This strongly supports the case for introducing legislation in the UK. Such legislation should result in a reduction in the morbidity and mortality associated with cycling accidents.

On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 11:57:32 +0100, David Hansen
wrote:

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.


Where's KeithT ?


--
DfT Figures 2007
Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers:
Killed or seriously injured: Pedal Cyclists : 533 Pedestrians 384
All casualties: Pedal Cyclists : 3739 Pedestrians : 1795
Please draw your own conclusion.

On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 11:32:50 +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.

Nice try?! Who has been teaching you to say that?

I note that you did not offer any evidence which might back up your
assertion.



--
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

Judith M Smith wrote:
On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 11:57:32 +0100, David Hansen
wrote:

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.


Where's KeithT ?


Out fishing ;-)



--
DfT Figures 2007
Passenger casualty rates by mode Per billion passenger kilometers:
Killed or seriously injured: Pedal Cyclists : 533 Pedestrians 384
All casualties: Pedal Cyclists : 3739 Pedestrians : 1795
Please draw your own conclusion.


--

Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.

On 15 Aug, 11:58, Nick wrote:
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.

The definition of "dangerous driving" in the Road Traffic Act is, IMO,
wide enough to address your concerns. Not only must the standard of
driving be far below that expected of a competent driver, the driving
must be such that it would be obvious to a competent driver that there
is a serious risk of personal injury or serious damage to property.

Substitute "cycling" for "driving" - a poor standard of cycling would
only be dangerous under this definition if it posed a danger to
others. Therefore, say, someone cycling very fast down a pavement in a
city might fall within the definition. Someone doing the same on an
empty road might not.

On 15 Aug, 11:58, Nick wrote:
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.

Incidentally, I can easily see why you might have gained that
impression. I spend much of my time on usenet challenging Doug
Bollen's lies, hypocrisy and general stupidity. That, however, is not
to say that I agree with all those who oppose Mr Bollen.

On 16 Aug, 03:21, Phil W Lee phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk wrote:
Nick considered Sat, 15 Aug 2009 11:58:13 +0100 the
perfect time to write:





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.

Indeed, some weight should be given to the fact that the motorist has
chosen to use a form of transport that is demonstrably far more
dangerous to others, and which (unlike the bicycle) insulates the
operator from the great majority of the risk.-

Why? It is surely the behaviour of the motorist/cyclist which is
relevant, not their choice of transport.

BrianW wrote:
On 15 Aug, 11:58, Nick wrote:
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.

The definition of "dangerous driving" in the Road Traffic Act is, IMO,
wide enough to address your concerns. Not only must the standard of
driving be far below that expected of a competent driver, the driving
must be such that it would be obvious to a competent driver that there
is a serious risk of personal injury or serious damage to property.

Substitute "cycling" for "driving" - a poor standard of cycling would
only be dangerous under this definition if it posed a danger to
others. Therefore, say, someone cycling very fast down a pavement in a
city might fall within the definition. Someone doing the same on an
empty road might not.

These are very nice words but in actuality they mean diddly, invoking
the view of a competent driver is an entirely subjective, get out of
jail free.

Danger is a synonym for risk which tends to suggest that the place to
look for bias is in a large sample of data. If drivers and cyclist are
equal we would expect them to be allowed to expose pedestrians to the
same level of risk and hence would expect a similar level of pedestrian
deaths to be non-culpable or mildly-culpable per cyclist/driver.

We could then quibble about the ratios of culpable to non culpable
deaths but I don't see an obvious reason they would be significantly
different.

The place to look for this is in the national statistics of all fatal
collisions. An individual case can always be argued as special or
different but on the national scale we would expect to see some equivalence.

Do you not think it would shed a bit more light on the issue than some
polemic.