If you thought sentencing for drivers who harm cyclists was uniquely bad...

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Cyclolotl wrote:

He said: "You might be travelling in a safe manner, but that doesn't mean everyone else is.

"Please make sure that you're wearing the right kit, it might be expensive but without it, your life could be at risk."

Or, and I know this is a crazy idea, use it to tell people to "make sure you are driving to the conditions and in a safe manner"? FFS, the speed limit is NOT a target and even travelling at the speed limit you can lose control on a bend like that. There is a slight hump in the road just before a sharp bend. The message should be "Drive safer, you never know when YOU could cause someone life-changing injuries." NOT "protect yourself from idiots because you never know where they are"

I think this point is directly related to the lenient sentence. There's little point aiming such advice at the driver, because cases like this make it clear to drivers they don't have much to lose from screwing up - it's not _them_ who get the life-changing injuries, and they won't receive much punishment from the "justice" system. So such admonishments carry little weight. There is clearly an instinctive impulse of the police to aim the advice at the person who suffers the negative consequences, and I don't think that's solely down to the police being victim-blamers, it's also semi-logical given the unequal distribution of concequences. Now if drivers who did that were, sentenced to a more reasonable term, say 16 years rather than months, or were sentenced to be run over with a steamroller or otherwise made to suffer consequences similar to those of the victim, then it would make sense for the police to warn them like that. "Driver safer because you could cause an incident that would lead to serious harm to yourself" is more compelling than "drive safer because you might hurt someone who isn't you and who you probably don't care about".

I agree the lenient sentencing needs to change.

And where does the shift start? By making the message about the person that did wrong you shift the attention. Maybe once the attention shifts the onus will start to shift. Once the onus shifts perhaps the sentencing will start to reflect the actual damage done. Once that starts to happen maybe legislation will change to make the speed limits on these sorts of roads less biassed towards motor vehicles and safer for alternate transport types. Then there is even less excuse for this sort of event.

Having said all of that, I agree with the message behind it. If I'm out for anything more than a pootle on cycle paths I wear a helmet. When I used to ride motorbikes I always wore helmet, leathers, body armour, boots, and gloves (airbag suits were the things of sci-fi at that point). It would be foolish not to protect yourself and it is a message that should be re-enforced, just not as the focus after an incident like this.

Cyclolotl wrote:

I agree the lenient sentencing needs to change.

And where does the shift start? By making the message about the person that did wrong you shift the attention. Maybe once the attention shifts the onus will start to shift. Once the onus shifts perhaps the sentencing will start to reflect the actual damage done. Once that starts to happen maybe legislation will change to make the speed limits on these sorts of roads less biassed towards motor vehicles and safer for alternate transport types. Then there is even less excuse for this sort of event.

Having said all of that, I agree with the message behind it. If I'm out for anything more than a pootle on cycle paths I wear a helmet. When I used to ride motorbikes I always wore helmet, leathers, body armour, boots, and gloves (airbag suits were the things of sci-fi at that point). It would be foolish not to protect yourself and it is a message that should be re-enforced, just not as the focus after an incident like this.

A short while ago, the Govt announced (with much fanfare etc) a wide ranging review into traffic offences and sentencing, so I'm sure we're about to taste the fruits of that hard work by them.

(The problem with focussing on PPE for motorcyclists is that anyone could have been hit by that driver - not just a motorcyclist).

Cyclolotl wrote:

Having said all of that, I agree with the message behind it. If I'm out for anything more than a pootle on cycle paths I wear a helmet. When I used to ride motorbikes I always wore helmet, leathers, body armour, boots, and gloves (airbag suits were the things of sci-fi at that point). It would be foolish not to protect yourself and it is a message that should be re-enforced, just not as the focus after an incident like this.

I don't! The message is very clear victim blaming.

Motorcycling, fair enough it's the law to wear a helmet at least. But one of the massive problems preventing the uptake of cycling as a hobby, as a means of transport is this perception that it's dangerous and that you need hi vis and helmets and daytime running lights and you're constantly told to ride single file and do this that and the other and not get in the way and basically treated on a level somewhere between Meghan Markle and pond scum.

The message in this video is not "we have come down like a ton of bricks on this idiot driver, he'll never drive again, will be in jail for ages and fined thousands and we'll be putting in extra safety measures (cameras, speed humps, whatever) along this road..."

The message is "wasn't it lucky this guy was wearing £1000 worth of protective kit and even with that he still broke his back, he'll be off work for months (if he can ever work again...?), motorcycling is only for the people who are able to afford that and willing to take the risk of being violently and traumatically injured"
(whereas actually, motorcycling, scooter riding etc is a brilliant way of commuting as it's far more environmentally friendly than driving.

ktache wrote:

In other shock news, after the conviction of Britian's worst serial rapist, Manchester Police tell all men going out for a drink to wear male chastity belts to protect them just in case they are drug raped.

Surely, just common sense.

You know, from the thread on the live blog, just like locking up your bike isn't it.

link please?

check12 wrote:

ktache wrote:

In other shock news, after the conviction of Britian's worst serial rapist, Manchester Police tell all men going out for a drink to wear male chastity belts to protect them just in case they are drug raped.

Surely, just common sense.

You know, from the thread on the live blog, just like locking up your bike isn't it.

link please?

<whoosh>

OldRidgeback wrote:

The motorcyclist was lucky to survive that impact to be honest. The sentence for the car driver was light. The standard of driving by the person in the car was appalling. It's quite clearly a case of too much performance for a low skilled driver. 

I don't like putting it in terms of skill / performance. I could fling my 1.3 litre yaris round that bend at 70 and it would yield the same result. It's not a matter of skill or performance but one of judgement. The driver is clearly a fucking moron and shouldn't be driving a shopping trolley.

vonhelmet wrote:

OldRidgeback wrote:

The motorcyclist was lucky to survive that impact to be honest. The sentence for the car driver was light. The standard of driving by the person in the car was appalling. It's quite clearly a case of too much performance for a low skilled driver. 

I don't like putting it in terms of skill / performance. I could fling my 1.3 litre yaris round that bend at 70 and it would yield the same result. It's not a matter of skill or performance but one of judgement. The driver is clearly a fucking moron and shouldn't be driving a shopping trolley.

The driver ran wide on the corner because he'd entered with too much speed. I think he was trying to slow down in the corner, which simply made things worse. That's poor driving skill, in addition to poor judgement. I see a lot of drivers (and motorcycle riders) using vehicles they simply don't have the ability to drive. But they buy them because they can. I do think there's a real problem with licensing.

I think we can agree that the driver shouldn't be allowed to use a shopping trolley or a skateboard either for that matter.

OldRidgeback wrote:

I see a lot of drivers (and motorcycle riders) using vehicles they simply don't have the ability to drive. But they buy them because they can. I do think there's a real problem with licensing.

This. As a teenager and student, I had holiday jobs driving forklift trucks. I had refresher training twice in five years. That's driving a slow vehicle, with a warning light, in a controlled environment, with everyone around wearing PPE and well aware of the danger of approaching the forklift. Yet we allow people to take short written and practical tests, then drive a car for the rest of their lives. We allow people to drive on motorways without any training whatsoever - just making it up as they go along!  You can crash as many times as you like - just pay up for the increased insurance premiums and you can carry on as you are.

If current driver training and licencing standards were permitted when operating lethal machinery in any workplace, school, hospital - wherever - anywhere except a public road - there would be public outrage.

crazy-legs wrote:

 

It's this bend right here. Guessing the increased openness of the road made the driver feel he could floor it for the last bit. 70 is far far too fast for that road - in fact I'm sure it's got a 50mph on it the whole way along (and even 50 is too fast for much of it, there are some bends along there you can't do at more than about 20mph...)

Just did a wee Google Streetview trip up and down the road. Looks a bit like a rally stage so Joe Average thinks it's a challenge and "why not floor it"... Twats!