Community order and 18-month ban for driver who killed oncoming cyclist while overtaking

spragger wrote:

It is interesting how often this happens but not as often as the overtaking squeeze.

You have a car approaching you in the oncoming lane and when alongside you another vehicle overtakes you from behind, at best squeezing you into the gutter, worst up the bank.

All these manourvres are key indicators of poor driving behaviour and either need correction, or removal of the driver from the road.

Its only because the driver feels safe in their tonne of metal and they regard you on your bike as no threat.

Thats a great graphic: did you make it, or what is the source?

brooksby wrote:

Thats a great graphic: did you make it, or what is the source?

Surrey Police RPU - https://twitter.com/SurreyRoadCops/status/965189275980566528

Mungecrundle wrote:

And in a situation as described above, do you; A. Continue to drive at 30mph, safe in the assurance that you have a cast iron explanation as to why the circumstances of you killing a child were outside of your control. B. Drive at an appropriate speed that would enable you to take more time to observe, be aware of small pedestrians and maybe even stop should said small child suddenly appear 'from nowhere'. The unforseen is often quite forseable.

The question is, do you drive around town at 15 mph? Do you drive around every corner in such a way that you can always, always stop in less than the clear distance you can see? Do you, when riding your bike through town, always, always  drop your speed to such that you could always stop in time should a child or small dog run out from a group of people walking along the road? Do you always, always drive along the road with at least 3 seconds of clear distance between you and the next car? If your answer to any of these questions is an honest no, then you are simply guilty of making the same assumption as every other driver: That things will continue much as they generally do, most of the time.  There is an assumed level of risk, and an assumed level of response  / behaviour relating to that risk in everything we do (cue helmet debate).

OFten the unforseeable is foreseeable, but that isn't how we live our lives in any regard. 

In answer to your question, I often reduce my speed well below the posted limit when I think I'm in a particularly high risk situation, but in common with almost every driver on the road I also drive with a high expectation that others will comply with the rules (in spite of our collective experience that many don't) and that they will act in a largely predictable manner. 

As an after thought, perhaps 'unforseen' should bereplaced with unpredictable. 

madcarew wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

And in a situation as described above, do you; A. Continue to drive at 30mph, safe in the assurance that you have a cast iron explanation as to why the circumstances of you killing a child were outside of your control. B. Drive at an appropriate speed that would enable you to take more time to observe, be aware of small pedestrians and maybe even stop should said small child suddenly appear 'from nowhere'. The unforseen is often quite forseable.

The question is, do you drive around town at 15 mph? Do you drive around every corner in such a way that you can always, always stop in less than the clear distance you can see? Do you, when riding your bike through town, always, always  drop your speed to such that you could always stop in time should a child or small dog run out from a group of people walking along the road? Do you always, always drive along the road with at least 3 seconds of clear distance between you and the next car? If your answer to any of these questions is an honest no, then you are simply guilty of making the same assumption as every other driver: That things will continue much as they generally do, most of the time.  There is an assumed level of risk, and an assumed level of response  / behaviour relating to that risk in everything we do (cue helmet debate).

OFten the unforseeable is foreseeable, but that isn't how we live our lives in any regard. 

In answer to your question, I often reduce my speed well below the posted limit when I think I'm in a particularly high risk situation, but in common with almost every driver on the road I also drive with a high expectation that others will comply with the rules (in spite of our collective experience that many don't) and that they will act in a largely predictable manner. 

As an after thought, perhaps 'unforseen' should bereplaced with unpredictable. 

Yes, that pretty much is how I do drive and indeed cycle around other human beings* at all times. The idea that anyone's plan A to avoid an unexpected pedestrian is to swerve violently into oncoming traffic is, I find, rather alarming.

As an afterthought, small children, pets, and people staggering around at pub closing time are predictably unpredictable. Still no excuse to run them over though.

*Group riding aside, but then, as the courts persistently demonstrate, cyclists and especially club buddies barely count as human.

Mungecrundle wrote:

madcarew wrote:

Mungecrundle wrote:

And in a situation as described above, do you; A. Continue to drive at 30mph, safe in the assurance that you have a cast iron explanation as to why the circumstances of you killing a child were outside of your control. B. Drive at an appropriate speed that would enable you to take more time to observe, be aware of small pedestrians and maybe even stop should said small child suddenly appear 'from nowhere'. The unforseen is often quite forseable.

The question is, do you drive around town at 15 mph? Do you drive around every corner in such a way that you can always, always stop in less than the clear distance you can see? Do you, when riding your bike through town, always, always  drop your speed to such that you could always stop in time should a child or small dog run out from a group of people walking along the road? Do you always, always drive along the road with at least 3 seconds of clear distance between you and the next car? If your answer to any of these questions is an honest no, then you are simply guilty of making the same assumption as every other driver: That things will continue much as they generally do, most of the time.  There is an assumed level of risk, and an assumed level of response  / behaviour relating to that risk in everything we do (cue helmet debate).

OFten the unforseeable is foreseeable, but that isn't how we live our lives in any regard. 

In answer to your question, I often reduce my speed well below the posted limit when I think I'm in a particularly high risk situation, but in common with almost every driver on the road I also drive with a high expectation that others will comply with the rules (in spite of our collective experience that many don't) and that they will act in a largely predictable manner. 

As an after thought, perhaps 'unforseen' should bereplaced with unpredictable. 

Yes, that pretty much is how I do drive and indeed cycle around other human beings* at all times. The idea that anyone's plan A to avoid an unexpected pedestrian is to swerve violently into oncoming traffic is, I find, rather alarming. As an afterthought, small children, pets, and people staggering around at pub closing time are predictably unpredictable. Still no excuse to run them over though. *Group riding aside, but then, as the courts persistently demonstrate, cyclists and especially club buddies barely count as human.

Group riding, and I rather suspect the list of exceptions is considerably longer than that. 

Spike64 wrote:

I am amazed with how differently the media chooses to report incidents like this . The Charlie Alleston case bought national media ( including the BBC) wide coverage for days on end. A quick search of national media outlets (including the BBC)  of this particular case show little or no interest in reporting. No wonder cyclists feel victimised and one of the main perpetrators are the BBC.

The BBC hates cyclists.  They have programmes about walking, driving, trains and buses, but nothing about cycling.   They have been running a thirty year campaign about cycle helmets, and have never once mentioned in my hearing, the overwhelming benefits of cycling, in health, congesiton, pollution and obesity terms, despite the mass of evidence.

muhasib wrote:

If you get angry about this just read about the Helen Measures case if you're not familiar with it - another needless death while overtaking in the opposite lane.

The sick thing is there are too many of these cases were killers simply get off completely or are given a slapped wrist.

We've started compiling a few since 2011 on the CTC/CUK forum https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=50829

But no, it's people on bikes that need 'new' laws because the old ones are too archaic and cyclists are getting away with murder, except it's actually people in motors that do. 

the little onion wrote:

How about a change in the law - instead of defining dangerous/careless driving in terms of whether it falls below the standard of a competent driver, why don't we redefine it as "driving of a standard that would fail the driving test"? Surely that makes sense - the test is there to establish minimum competency, so if you demonstrably fall below that competency, you shouldn't be on the road.

Or... Just have a simple offence of "causing death by driving" (i.e get rid of the dangerous/careless distinction). Hopefully it would be easier to get a conviction because it would be a matter of fact rather than opinion; then sentencing policy would include aggravating and mitigating factors (speeding, alcohol/drug use, mounting the pavement, actions of others, etc etc). 

ricardito wrote:

the little onion wrote:

How about a change in the law - instead of defining dangerous/careless driving in terms of whether it falls below the standard of a competent driver, why don't we redefine it as "driving of a standard that would fail the driving test"? Surely that makes sense - the test is there to establish minimum competency, so if you demonstrably fall below that competency, you shouldn't be on the road.

Or... Just have a simple offence of "causing death by driving" (i.e get rid of the dangerous/careless distinction). Hopefully it would be easier to get a conviction because it would be a matter of fact rather than opinion; then sentencing policy would include aggravating and mitigating factors (speeding, alcohol/drug use, mounting the pavement, actions of others, etc etc). 

An excellent idea.  After all, it is the driver's choice to drive and imperil other people, so at a very basic level, they are to blame.  They could have walked, cycled, taken a bus or taxi or even the train, but they decided to drive and as a result, someone is dead.   Might concentrate a few minds.

burtthebike wrote:

ricardito wrote:

the little onion wrote:

How about a change in the law - instead of defining dangerous/careless driving in terms of whether it falls below the standard of a competent driver, why don't we redefine it as "driving of a standard that would fail the driving test"? Surely that makes sense - the test is there to establish minimum competency, so if you demonstrably fall below that competency, you shouldn't be on the road.

Or... Just have a simple offence of "causing death by driving" (i.e get rid of the dangerous/careless distinction). Hopefully it would be easier to get a conviction because it would be a matter of fact rather than opinion; then sentencing policy would include aggravating and mitigating factors (speeding, alcohol/drug use, mounting the pavement, actions of others, etc etc). 

An excellent idea.  After all, it is the driver's choice to drive and imperil other people, so at a very basic level, they are to blame.  They could have walked, cycled, taken a bus or taxi or even the train, but they decided to drive and as a result, someone is dead.   Might concentrate a few minds.

Damd good idea.

As someone who enjoys shooting shit I proffer the following analogy;

You get into the driving seat = You put your hands on a gun (not knowing if it's loaded) 

You start moving = You pick that gun up & your waving it around.

you get any where near anyone (whether you know that their ther or not) = your pointing a gun at them.

Your potential closing speed rises above a few miles an hour = you've loaded the gun.

.... A few more miles an hour = and now you've cocked the gun

.........get closer/faster... Your 'cone of possibility' doesn't allow much room for manoeuvre..= your deliberately pointing a cocked & loaded gun at someone.

............get closer/faster .. You have no chance of avoiding them if they do anything unexpected or you cock up = now your fingers on the trigger of a loaded gun that's pointed directly at someone......

- - - - - - - - - What can possibly go wrong!

That's wot I fink.......

ricardito wrote:

the little onion wrote:

How about a change in the law - instead of defining dangerous/careless driving in terms of whether it falls below the standard of a competent driver, why don't we redefine it as "driving of a standard that would fail the driving test"? Surely that makes sense - the test is there to establish minimum competency, so if you demonstrably fall below that competency, you shouldn't be on the road.

Or... Just have a simple offence of "causing death by driving" (i.e get rid of the dangerous/careless distinction). Hopefully it would be easier to get a conviction because it would be a matter of fact rather than opinion; then sentencing policy would include aggravating and mitigating factors (speeding, alcohol/drug use, mounting the pavement, actions of others, etc etc). 

I have to say, I really like this. Then a jury only has to decide if driving itself was responsible for the death. 

When the focus is, was the driving bad, was it dangerous... then it gets grey and subjective, but when it fundamentally comes down to was it driving that caused the death, then its fairly black and white.

I can think of two examples where drivers have simpyl shrugged their shoulders and offered no reason why they, ploughed straight into  a cyclist, drove into oncomign traffic whilst driving on the wrong side of the road.

In both cases, without a fault in teh car, or any aggravating circumstances raised by the drivers, they would be guilty of death by driving... as it was their driving, good, bad, ugly, that created the crash.

For me its about taking away subjectivity from jurors and I believe a simplification of the law would be a great help.

Sentencing for a guilty verdict could have a significant range to account for, a moments lapse in concentration, through to, going nuts on a drug and alcohol fuelled bender. 

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

I am sure the fact that the accused was female and young will have definitely swayed the jury. A death by dangerous driving conviction would effectively end that woman's prospects. 

Now personally, I believe there are certain crimes that no matter how unintentional, warrant such punishment, and i can't help but feel this is one.

I am aware however that I am highly biased in this situation. 

The problem as I see it is that unless there are tales of that time that girl went to prison for 5 years for hitting that cyclist when overtaking, attitudes won't change.

This tells me exactly what it is... chances are if you are generally good, young, sober and ideally female, you are unlikely to feel the full wrath of the law due to a driving offence.

Sad times

You have to add "white" to that list as well.  And not just for a driving offence, but for any of the trials of life. If you are a young, good looking, white female, you are given an easier ride in all of life than any other demographic with 2 important exceptions. The price you pay for this 'gold card' ride is that of sexual harrassment; and there is one other group that gets a slightly comfier ride: If you are a  good looking white male... of any age. And you get to do it without the sexual harassment penalty.

No, life isn't fair.