Birmingham cyclist killed as motorist overtook parked cars

This type of driving is so common. Generally, I find drivers when encountering roads narrowed to single file by parked cars, will assume that bikes will yield. Regardless of whether the obstruction is on the driver's side of the road or not.

The rules are clear, if your side is obstructed and you have not yet started to pass it, you MUST yield.

This doesn't happen, as might is right on English roads.

So, unlikely to have been inattention, but simply she thought the bikes would stop or squeeze up against the kerb to avoid her vehicle.

£60 victim surcharge!  Do they add this just to confirm thay are taking the piss?

Guessing it was the prosecution who included the high-vis clothing in their statements which means they think it could have some bearing on the case. 

Has there been a studies on sentencing by any cyling group on safety gear and mitigation? Would be interesting to see if judges generally are giving reduced sentences where the victim wasn't all safety geared-up.

This is not meant to excuse the driver, but:

"6.30 pm on November 11th"- so it was dark

"The court heard that all three riders had been wearing fluorescent clothing"
​Flourescence only works with ultraviolet light - which is in sunlight but not normal artificial lighting.

and you wonder why a cyclist might assault a driver? The Legal system doesn't give a s***. Don't get me wrong no one should take the law into their own hands, it is why we have police, cps, courts etc. but if the system offers no protection what is the alternative? 

"a moment of inattention"

Well that's ok then...phew foir a minute there I thought it was much more serious

Hey up.
If you can get a petition together like the referendum one with 4 million signatures and get stuff like this debated in parliment.

Get them to put it out there and force public debate on it.

life time bans are a waste of time, simple as that.

For instance a driver gets banned and a year later he / she uses a car belonging to a partner / friend which is fully insured and drives about. Please tell me how a cop is in a position to know that the driver is banned......i wait with baited breath.

The way forward is to give greater sentences with none of this halved for good behaviour crap.  

The message sent by such events and sentences is quite simply "don't cycle - get a car".

Because if you choose to ride a bike as your means of transport, you are accepting you can be randomly killed through no fault of your own, no matter how much you 'take responsibility for your own safety' (to quote a certain poster late-of-this-parish) and it will just be 'one of those things', an 'accident' that nobody can really be blamed for. Is it surprising few want to cycle given those terms?

I'm not going to insist this woman gets locked up for life, but, if the state, and juries, don't consider it fair to impose very-long custodial sentences for this kind of driving, then they have no case at all for insisting cyclists share space with cars. They can't keep on having it both ways, they need to make up their minds.

Actually, three ways, if you throw in the repeated insistence that keeping physically active and not getting obese is the individual's responsibility. The state's stance on these things is completely self-contradictory.

I actually have a massive problem with the wording used in these offences.  You cant drive a car carelessly without being dangerous. So careless driving is de facto dangerous driving.

There's a simple message that's consistently ignored:  30mph (or 20 or 40), is the maximum speed for a given area not the recommended speed.   

I wonder if the sentencing review is more likely or less likely to happen now, with recent political developments.

Just supposing that in 12 months time, Ms Morrall gets her licence back, gets a new car and somehow gets insurance. What would be the penalty on conviction should someone , in a moment's inattention of course, accidentally set fire to it on her driveway? 

Just asking out of curiosity.

Once again I pop in to remind people that our Judges are constrained by the system they work in and, specifically, the sentencing guidelines (where available). This case appears to have been sentenced absolutely correctly. It is that system that requires change and not how our Judges implement it. It requires a root and branch re-write to make it internally consistent with other driving offences and, crucially, with other criminal ones.

The CPS will only proceed with a case if there is a reasonable chance of conviction. This includes what charges are brought. The chances are by bringing a charge of careless driving, the least serious option, the defendant was persuaded to plead guilty early leading to a lesser sentence. If the charge had been dangerous driving and the defendant pleaded not guilty the case would go to trial with the defence pleading a moment of inattention is not dangerous driving and a reasonable chance the jury would agree. In order to save money and secure a prosecution the CPS will always take the easy option. It may not be fair buts thats the way it is.

Traumatised? Try being the mother of the boy you killed while you walk around freely.  

Killing innocent people, entirely the perpetrator's fault, but no custodial sentence? No lifetime ban?

The courts continue to boadcast the message that it is OK to kill people in the UK, as long as you use a car and they are on a bicycle.

If you didn't get that the first time, here it is again: In our country, killing is OK, but make sure you use a car as the weapon.

If a doctor was pulled up to a General Medical Council hearing after a patient died, and claimed that a "moment of inattention" led to them injecting the wrong drug, or removing the wrong kidey, or something like that, they would be laughed at.

I accept that accidents happen, that there can be momentary lapses in concentration, but that it seems for driving related deaths we have a very low standards of what counts as a minor lapse in concentration. I simply cannot see how crossing into the wrong lane during an overtaking manouver whilst not noticing a group of cyclists in hi-vis and with lights on could be counted as a minor lapse in concentration.

Quote:

She has been completely traumatised by the consequences of that poor driving and will continue to be for ever.

In the mean time the other person is going to continue to be dead for ever.

Won't have to pay 500GBP though! Also, if you plan to assassinate anyone in the UK just drive them over and pretend you did not mean to. It's basically lawful killing at this point.

Finally - in my experience, in day light, fluo/safety clothing and lights help very, very little. Same amount of cars and pedestrians do not see me.

At night, its much better, actually... (better contrast I guess, disturbs drivers on their phone even when its on the edge of their sight).

<Sarah McCormack, defending, said: “It was a moment of inattention, over steering as she went past the parked cars that led to her being too far over. She has been completely traumatised by the consequences of that poor driving and will continue to be for ever.”>

You'd think that lawyers would get sick of parroting this sort of thing. Probably more accurate to say she saw there was nothing threatening ahead, couldn't be bothered about the cyclists whom she probably expected to move (if she noticed them at all) and was only fussed about getting the kids to brownies and not damaging her car.

At the very least she should never be permitted to drive again (if she is as traumatised as her lawyer claimed, this won't, of course, be an issue).

Moment of inattention probably translates into I thought there was more room and the cyclists would move over into the gutter as I scraped past. Shocking sentence for a death.

I don't commute every day but I do enough of it to see that people would rather put your into the gutter than wait 5 seconds to pass safely - Ironically, sometimes with 'precious person on board' or some other treat me safely logo stuck in the back window. The same people that pick their kids up from school and then boot it through the 20 zone once their kids are safely aboard.

You do sometimes feel like getting a jersey with 'dad on board' or whatever but this would probably just been seen as motorist baiting.