The War On Britain's Road - Drivers V Cyclists - BBC 1 9PM
Posted by: Tony2011 on 04 December 2012
Tonight BBC1 - 9PM.
Being a driver/cyclist myself in the streets of London is not easy and, having read several previous threads/comments from more than passionate members, I wonder how will you feel after this documentary.
KR
Tony
http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/su...ng/thinkcyclist.aspx
Truce anyone? As i said at the beginning of the thread, there were some people with very strong, passionate views on the subject and, in hindsight, I did not expect it to run that long. I still ride my bike(Cherrylee) as if I was driving my car(dont' ask!) and vice-versa. I love them both. Please don't ask me to take sides. It would break their hearts
Merry Xmas everyone and a Happy New Year!
KR
Tony
Dear Tony,
As I said earlier in the thread, I smile at the motorists who cause me to stop my cycle to avoid an accident! In any case it is advisory in the Highway Code that one should take every precaution to avoid an accident! So I do, even when other parts of the Code suggest that I would be right to consider I have priority ...
But something does need to be done to address the hard core who consider themselves "ace" road users when they are anything any but! They are killers at worst.
ATB and Happy Christmas from George
So, given your repeated assertion that sentencing is 'more or less' right, do you think less than the value of an XPS power supply was more or less the right penalty for effectively taking away the life of the young woman concerned?
I have tried to point out that careless driving and its consequences TOGETHER, determine the severity of the sentance. Circumstances vary widely and so do sentances. I have also tried to point out that motorists in general ARE carefull and so far as I can tell, ARE considerate towards cyclists.
Nevertheless, we are all falible, regardless of how determined we are to be safe. It is my opinion that to villify every motorist to the extent promoted by Winky, is unjustified.
There are always exceptions. drivers who make a conscious decision (eg to use a mobile phone) are treated more harshly than someone who has a momentary lapse of concentration. Dangerous driving is punished more harshly than careless driving. Persistant offenders are treated more severely than first-time offenders.
Having briefly read the sentancing guidlines, I am of the opinion that they are appropriate. There will always be anomolies in the impementation of sentancing and there will always be appeals against inappropriate sentancing - both ways.
Cheers
Don
Don
Do you think the £2,700 fine was an anomaly?
Regards, M
So, given your repeated assertion that sentencing is 'more or less' right, do you think less than the value of an XPS power supply was more or less the right penalty for effectively taking away the life of the young woman concerned?
I have tried to point out that careless driving and its consequences TOGETHER, determine the severity of the sentance. Circumstances vary widely and so do sentances. I have also tried to point out that motorists in general ARE carefull and so far as I can tell, ARE considerate towards cyclists.
Nevertheless, we are all falible, regardless of how determined we are to be safe. It is my opinion that to villify every motorist to the extent promoted by Winky, is unjustified.
There are always exceptions. drivers who make a conscious decision (eg to use a mobile phone) are treated more harshly than someone who has a momentary lapse of concentration. Dangerous driving is punished more harshly than careless driving. Persistant offenders are treated more severely than first-time offenders.
Having briefly read the sentancing guidlines, I am of the opinion that they are appropriate. There will always be anomolies in the impementation of sentancing and there will always be appeals against inappropriate sentancing - both ways.
Cheers
Don
Don
Do you think the £2,700 fine was an anomaly?
Regards, M
Like that guy who killed four club cyclists in Wales a few years ago. Fined for having bald tyres, that was it. No other negligence or culpability was found. Apparently the icy road "caused" the accident. This is what we accept. It feels like the police hang around just long enough to slap a summons on the cyclist's body and move on to the next "accident".
Dear Don,
No doubting that the great majority of motorists are careful, reponsible people.
But a small minority are not and these are the problem.
These are the ones I would see very severely punished indeed. Certainly prevented from driving ever again in their lifetimes.
Two year ago I was hit off my my cycle by a car ...............................
...............Careers need to be potentially ruined by such actions in my opinion.
The safe and careful motorist has nothing to fear from such stringent new rules as I would see in place.
ATB from George
I am sorry to hear of your misfortune(s) with motorists. Perhaps this has influenced your view of how errant motorists should be treated ?
I do not share your views on this matter and I find similarities between your final sentence and the mantra of many an extremist state ie "the innocent have nothing to fear"
Cheers
Don
So, given your repeated assertion that sentencing is 'more or less' right, do you think less than the value of an XPS power supply was more or less the right penalty for effectively taking away the life of the young woman concerned?
I have tried to point out that careless driving and its consequences TOGETHER, determine the severity of the sentance. Circumstances vary widely and so do sentances. I have also tried to point out that motorists in general ARE carefull and so far as I can tell, ARE considerate towards cyclists.
Nevertheless, we are all falible, regardless of how determined we are to be safe. It is my opinion that to villify every motorist to the extent promoted by Winky, is unjustified.
There are always exceptions. drivers who make a conscious decision (eg to use a mobile phone) are treated more harshly than someone who has a momentary lapse of concentration. Dangerous driving is punished more harshly than careless driving. Persistant offenders are treated more severely than first-time offenders.
Having briefly read the sentancing guidlines, I am of the opinion that they are appropriate. There will always be anomolies in the impementation of sentancing and there will always be appeals against inappropriate sentancing - both ways.
Cheers
Don
Don
Do you think the £2,700 fine was an anomaly?
Regards, M
I don't have the details surrounding the case to make a meaningful assessment.
Cheers
Don
So, given your repeated assertion that sentencing is 'more or less' right, do you think less than the value of an XPS power supply was more or less the right penalty for effectively taking away the life of the young woman concerned?
I have tried to point out that careless driving and its consequences TOGETHER, determine the severity of the sentance. Circumstances vary widely and so do sentances. I have also tried to point out that motorists in general ARE carefull and so far as I can tell, ARE considerate towards cyclists.
Nevertheless, we are all falible, regardless of how determined we are to be safe. It is my opinion that to villify every motorist to the extent promoted by Winky, is unjustified.
There are always exceptions. drivers who make a conscious decision (eg to use a mobile phone) are treated more harshly than someone who has a momentary lapse of concentration. Dangerous driving is punished more harshly than careless driving. Persistant offenders are treated more severely than first-time offenders.
Having briefly read the sentancing guidlines, I am of the opinion that they are appropriate. There will always be anomolies in the impementation of sentancing and there will always be appeals against inappropriate sentancing - both ways.
Cheers
Don
Don
Do you think the £2,700 fine was an anomaly?
Regards, M
Like that guy who killed four club cyclists in Wales a few years ago. Fined for having bald tyres, that was it. No other negligence or culpability was found. Apparently the icy road "caused" the accident. This is what we accept. It feels like the police hang around just long enough to slap a summons on the cyclist's body and move on to the next "accident".
I presume this is a carefully considered assessment based on all the evidence available?
Cheers
Don
So, given your repeated assertion that sentencing is 'more or less' right, do you think less than the value of an XPS power supply was more or less the right penalty for effectively taking away the life of the young woman concerned?
I have tried to point out that careless driving and its consequences TOGETHER, determine the severity of the sentance. Circumstances vary widely and so do sentances. I have also tried to point out that motorists in general ARE carefull and so far as I can tell, ARE considerate towards cyclists.
Nevertheless, we are all falible, regardless of how determined we are to be safe. It is my opinion that to villify every motorist to the extent promoted by Winky, is unjustified.
There are always exceptions. drivers who make a conscious decision (eg to use a mobile phone) are treated more harshly than someone who has a momentary lapse of concentration. Dangerous driving is punished more harshly than careless driving. Persistant offenders are treated more severely than first-time offenders.
Having briefly read the sentancing guidlines, I am of the opinion that they are appropriate. There will always be anomolies in the impementation of sentancing and there will always be appeals against inappropriate sentancing - both ways.
Cheers
Don
Don
Do you think the £2,700 fine was an anomaly?
Regards, M
I don't have the details surrounding the case to make a meaningful assessment.
Cheers
Don
28 year old Mary Bowers has been left as good as dead (still under constant care in hospital a year on) by a driver who was on the phone and admitted he did not even look properly before turning.
He had also lied to the police at first saying he was not on the phone.
The defendant had previously admitted a series of tachograph offences, including driving a lorry for 20 hours in one day when the maximum is 9 hours.
So Don, at a high level, do you think the £2,700 fine was an 'anomaly'?
Don
In the time since we first started discussing the £2,700 fine, yet another cyclist has been killed with two drivers arrested due to careless driving.
We won't know the facts of this case for a while of course but we do know his family are left without their father / son / brother at Christmas.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-e...d-hampshire-20755072
One wonders if the ability to take chances at their own discretion and at worse get off with a small fine is enough of a reason for some motorists not to drive with due care?
It is time to get real here Don. To stop waffling on about alpha states etc. There will of course be genuine accidents but the main reasons there are so many who speed, drive around on phones etc increasing the likelihood of these mistakes are:
1) because they feel this is their prerogative;
2) because they think they can get away with it; and
3) even if they are caught the penalties are light.
BR, MM
PS Don, please note we live in a society where children are regularly having to be fed in school breakfast clubs because their parents 'can't afford' to feed them in the morning. Last time I looked you could buy bread and marmalade in tesco for a quid.
You see the hobbitshire of status quo you would have us occupy is one thing, the age of irresponsibility which we actually live in is quite another.
If, using just this one example, these parents cannot be relied upon to feed their own children, would I trust these same people to take anything other than the most selfish course of action wherever possible in daily life including if they are behind the wheel? Absolutely not.
Don, you may not wish to have what you perceive to be 'draconian measures' (fines above £2,700?) but the reality is it only takes an irresponsible minority to do an immense amount of damage and this is exactly what they are doing. Without fear of justice as, like with many other things, they feel can get away with it.
Before you deny this recall that speeding alone is linked to 25% of the 2000 road deaths and 200,000+ injuries.
Taking progressive action is not about creating a nanny state, the inaction and careful preservation of the status quo which you prescribe has already created it.
So, given your repeated assertion that sentencing is 'more or less' right, do you think less than the value of an XPS power supply was more or less the right penalty for effectively taking away the life of the young woman concerned?
I have tried to point out that careless driving and its consequences TOGETHER, determine the severity of the sentance. Circumstances vary widely and so do sentances. I have also tried to point out that motorists in general ARE carefull and so far as I can tell, ARE considerate towards cyclists.
Nevertheless, we are all falible, regardless of how determined we are to be safe. It is my opinion that to villify every motorist to the extent promoted by Winky, is unjustified.
There are always exceptions. drivers who make a conscious decision (eg to use a mobile phone) are treated more harshly than someone who has a momentary lapse of concentration. Dangerous driving is punished more harshly than careless driving. Persistant offenders are treated more severely than first-time offenders.
Having briefly read the sentancing guidlines, I am of the opinion that they are appropriate. There will always be anomolies in the impementation of sentancing and there will always be appeals against inappropriate sentancing - both ways.
Cheers
Don
Don
Do you think the £2,700 fine was an anomaly?
Regards, M
Like that guy who killed four club cyclists in Wales a few years ago. Fined for having bald tyres, that was it. No other negligence or culpability was found. Apparently the icy road "caused" the accident. This is what we accept. It feels like the police hang around just long enough to slap a summons on the cyclist's body and move on to the next "accident".
I presume this is a carefully considered assessment based on all the evidence available?
Cheers
Don
"Summing up, the coroner revisited evidence from motorist Robert Allan Harris, whose Toyota Corolla crashed into the cyclists.
Mr Hughes suggested Mr Harris’s driving was a factor in the accident, saying “he was going too fast for the prevailing conditions”.
Mr Harris had told the inquest that before the accident at around 10am on Sunday, January 8, 2006, he spotted ice while travelling around a bend at between 50mph and 55mph on the 60mph road.
After braking he lost control of the car and careered into the oncoming cyclists.
The coroner said, “There was a clear admission that his approach speed on the bend was too high and he lost control of his car.”"
There was a follow up inquest in which the police were criticised heavily for not communicating the state of the roads so that they could be gritted. That this was able to be used as a mitigating circumstance to beat the manslaughter charges is reprehensible.
In my opinion we drivers have an absolute responsibility to maintain control of our vehicles. An absolute responsibility to travel at a speed whereby we can safely stop within the distance we can see. An absolute responsibility to control our vehicles in a manner that doesn't kill people. But we won't accept this as a society. We allow soft defences that either beat conviction or substantially reduce penalties - "But it was foggy", "Sorry I didn't see him", "The road was slippery", "There was no warning sign", "That curve is unsafe" etc...