The War On Britain's Road - Drivers V Cyclists - BBC 1 9PM

Dear Don,

Clearly the current impositions on motorists who kill and injure other road users, other motorists, cyclists  and pedestrians, are not working.

The impositions and punishments need to be far steeper  for any road user [motorist, cyclist, or pedestrian] for killing or injuring another road or pavement user.

As motorists are the major factor in this then the steeper penalties will be more of a deterrent to them than pedestrians or cyclists.

But a life banning the killers or injurerres from ever using that method again would be a start. And for second offences, then life hard labour such as Stalin introduced should fix it, I think ...

ATB from George

Mark,

I didn't declare this thread over. Read my reply, I only responded to Winky's post. If you want to progress to a higher level, say, hang, draw and quarter anyone who even thinks of driving a car, be my guest. I personally feel it is a very important subject that has been discussed and greater awareness of everyone to other road users and pedestrians is to be applauded but one has to ask when enough is enough? 

I will now leave and ignore this thread.

ATB

Steve

Restrict motorists to driving these, I say!

Jim, you are entitled to your opinion but you have said before your 'solution is the status quo.' Hence I am not exactly surprised you feel it is time to move on as discussion turns to the deaths since the thread began. It is an inconvenient truth.

Above, people were discussing the legal penalties for the first time. This was new so you are wrong in saying nothing new can materialise.

If you don't like, just don't read it. Seems quite simple!

George, a few posts back, I did suggest capital punishment for the first offence. I'm not convinced society would accept this proposal. I don't think society would accept a lifetime ban on first conviction nor hard labour for a secon......hold it - if the first penalty is implemented, a second offence is impossible. I think ?

Cheers

Don

This seems a bit melodramatic as I have never suggested this or anything remotely like it. It was you who raised your wing mirror but at least we agree the general topic is important so no worries. BR, MM

I'm not sure the punishment fits the crime in all cases. Imagine two friends meet after work and have a few too many drinks. They drive home on different, but similar routes.

One is stopped by a breath-test roadblock, is caught, fined and DQ'd from driving for a period. This is the penalty that society has prescribed as appropriate.

His mate is not so lucky. He strikes and kills a pedestrian on a pedestrian crossing because his drunken reaction time was too slow. He is arrested and prosecuted for manslaughter - he serves time in jail and is forever haunted by the knowledge of what he did. He has suffered MUCH greater consequences than his buddy.

Yet he has not really done anything different, other than be unlucky. How is this appropriate?

Similarly, imagine two women driving along a wet country road. They are both exceeding the speed limit (as is common - almost universal in my observation). Each loses control on a corner and slides across into the oncoming lane. For one, the consequence is that she ends up in a ditch with some damage to her car. She is fined when the incident is investigated by the local police. The other is unlucky enough to hit an oncoming car and kill a family of 4. Same actions, very different consequences, yet this is what society accepts as fair.

This is what I mean when I say that motorists don't take their responsibility seriously. They don't contemplate the horrific consequences of their actions. They don't behave appropriately. They simply wouldn't accept equivalent penalties for the two different outcomes, in spite of the fact that the actions are identical.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/...y/article3631594.ece

I think those who seek to rubbish the thread might do well to consider this recent verdict, given since the thread began, for a moment.

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. He had also lied to the police at first saying he was not on the phone. His punishment? A £2,700 fine and a 8-month driving ban.

Those throwing their toys out of their motorised prams saying this is all about cyclists saying drivers should be hung for killing and injuring them, should get a grip and stop creating a smokescreen for their own unwillingness to admit the facts.

£2,700? This is less than an XPS costs.

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.'

I certainly wouldn't hang him but I think a custodial sentence and life driving ban was essential. He has a carefree attitude to road safety but gets a slap on the wrist and a £2,700 fine.

Dear Don,

A ban from something stops most from doing it again, but the worst offenders will ignore the ban. However a life of enforced hard labour [for life - able to be rescinded if there is compelling evidence] would give a much better guarantee against recidivism.

ATB from George

Winky

I have no problem with your senarios. Similar senarios could be constructed for many crimes, eg crimes of street violence which start off with abuse, threats, knuckles, stabbing etc. Some end quite harmlesly, some needing hospital and some in manslaughter. (I have deliberately omitted murder). My point is that society punishes according to a mixture of the nature of the crime AND the consequences. I sometimes find this approach hard to justify, but on balance, it is probably as good as we can get. No system is going to be perfectly just, to the nth degree.

For example, if you look at the sentancing guidlines in the UK, careless driving takes into account "who" was injured/killed. If it was a family member, the accused is usually given a lighter sentance than would otherwise be the case.

But you still seem to be focussed on the concept that ALL motorists are vicious criminals, simply divided into two groups -  those who have been caught and those who haven't. I don't share such a view.

Rather worryingly, I have been told by safety experts that all of us experience about 10 minutes of "Alpha State" every hour. During this time we are half asleep. (Its those times just before we realise we have driven 5 miles and can't recall having passed certain places or events). We are prone to making more mistakes during this Alpha state. Being aware of this and taking certain precautions can reduce our exposure to this risk. But that is all. We can't eliminate all risk.

Cheers

Don

Don,neither Winky nor anyone else thinks all motorists are violent criminals.

I don't know the science behind your alpha state story but for the purposes of debate lets assume it is true. Given the lorry driver in the case above had fiddled his tachograph a number of times in the past I don't think his approach to reducing his and hence others exposure to this type of risk was safe.

For him it seems it was a discretionary matter. Indeed, for many drivers the choice of whether to drive when fatigued, to take breaks, to speed, to drive aggressively or talk on their mobile all seem to be discretionary matters which they will decide on the basis of their own immediate wants and their own perception of their vast driving skill and experience.

Finally, he commits the crime for which he is in court and it transpires he was on the phone, not paying attention and had also lied to police. Furthermore, as a professional driver his negligence in these matters is if anything worse.

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?

My usual Sunday morning long run is on the D5 from la Colle-sur-Loup where I live, to Pont-du-Loup and beyond to the mountains.

I share this road with many cyclists (it's been used in the Tour in the past in fact), plenty of motorists and the occasional (often loopy) motorcyclist. Nevertheless, by running on the correct side of the road and keeping my wits about me, I have neither inconvenienced, nor been inconvenienced by, other road users.

But this week I (and a few of the more intrepid cyclists) had it to myself!

Mother nature decided to intervene, and once I had threaded my way through the below, I could run where I liked in the middle of the road! I have to say it was a joy.

No idea how long it's going to take them to clear. The largest rock broke through a restraining mesh, bringing down poles and all manner of other stuff, so it might be months. Ill wind and all that.

Mind you it was/is a lovely road to drive along too (and too twisty for anyone to go very fast).

Don, that's brilliant!

Where can I find the data on this because it is the perfect defence. If I am in an Alpha state I cannot be held responsible for what happens.

I challenge anyone who has met me to imagine me in one of these and *NOT* snort whatever beverage they are drinking at the time out of their nose and all over their keyboard...

Phil

I am sure that Winky can speak for himself on this matter. But so far he hasn't.

Cheers

Don

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,

I don't think all motorists are violent criminals at all (although some surely are, and some would be, but for an ongoing streak of luck). We all break the law frequently and in some cases almost continuously when we drive, so in that sense we are criminals. My main beef is that we motorists don't (and won't ever) take responsibility for the death and injury we cause. To accept the status quo (which we collectively do), we will always look for a "reason" that excuses our own judgement, behaviour, impatience, aggression, ignorance and consequent decisions. We will continue to support penalties that demonstrably do not alter behaviour enough to prevent road fatalities.

We will continue to demonise cyclists who (gasp!) filter through traffic, run red lights, don't wear helmets, wear lycra, ride on the footpath etc.. whenever someone has the temerity to suggest that it is cars running down bikes, not the other way around. Because blaming the victims excuses us (collectively) from contemplating our own shortcomings. Many motorists seem to believe that running down cyclists is inevitable and unavoidable ("due to the laws of physics" as someone on this forum put it). I do too, but for different reasons. It isn't physics, it is behaviour.

I'm not sure that being in an Alpha State is any form of defence. The subject was presented at a transport safety briefing that I attended a few months back. I can't imediately find a close-fitting description by Googling but the following extract from Wikipedia give a bit of a flavour:-

Following this lapse-of-attention line of thought, a recent study indicates that alpha waves may be used to predict mistakes. In it, MEGs measured increases of up to 25% in alpha brain wave activity before mistakes occurred. This study used common sense: alpha waves indicate idleness, and mistakes are often made when a person is doing something automatically, or "on auto-pilot", and not paying attention to the task they are performing. After the mistake was noticed by the subject, there was a decrease in alpha waves as the subject began paying more attention. This study hopes to promote the use of wireless EEG technology on employees in high-risk fields, such as air traffic controlling, to monitor alpha wave activity and gauge the attention level of the employee

Not the best reference I know, but a starter.

Cheers

Don

Thankfully we are agreed.

Cheers

Don

On this I disagree.

My experience is that by large, motorists are responsible, but with lapses in concentration, and do accept responsibility for their actions or inaction.

This view is based on (inevitably) limited personal experience with family, friends and work collegues etc plus the usual media reports such as newspapers, TV and radio. In addition, the vast majority of those people I know  tell me they continually try to inprove their resposibility as drivers in the light of other people's accidents and incidents. 

Yes, I do see people using mobile phones, driving too fast, driving dangerously. But they are exceptions.

Cheers

Don

alpha state is presumably not a good place to be if you're sat 'pedal to the metal' in a fast jet!!  There must be ways to manage this condition...

That's what the safety briefing was all about that I went to. Being aware of the Alpha State and keeping yourself in the Beta State.

But most motorists aren't aware of these things and the Alpha State is a fact of life.

Cheers

Don

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 that was being driven by a motorist who claimed that he never saw me. There were several marks on his car and damage to the passenger side door mounted rear view mirror. The driver was not worried at all about me, but said that he would sue me for the damage that I had done to his car. [The first of my two assaults by motorised weapons in two years, the second of which was not only traumatic at the time, but has left me with permanent damage].

These are the bar stewards I would see never being allowed to drive again.

The people like him, the people who speed [and I mean not just exceeding the speed limit, but actually going faster than safe when conditions are poor], the people who gladly think they are such good drivers that they can also use a phone at he same time and so on.

I see it every single day of the week on a two mile commute to work - this arrogant disregard for others' safety from a minority of motorists. I see carelessness also from pedestrians who step into the line without looking and cyclists who ride without lights, but these does not have anything like the potential to kill their fellow road users, though they should be included in any new laws to curb danger on the road. For fairness sake. The users of the road - all of them need to be given a stern reminder of their responsibilities to others.

Manslaughter is a very powerful term, and it should be applied to such motorists, and other road users where applicable. A crime of potential manslaughter should be created with just as serious a set of sentences as for the actual, for road users - all road users who disregard the safety of their fellow road users.

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