Cyclist killed in Hackney

[CharlieAddict]

huh you take extra caution do you ... and that therefore negaties everyone elses responsiblites becuase you're taking care... does it(?)

it's a heavy burden i know but i think i can manage.

what about tube drivers who hit people on the tracks are they murders too in your eyes...

why was a cyclist cycling on the tracks of the underground?

bollix ill thought out teenage angst logic here...

yep i agree.

 

[Hollis]

Meanwhile, as there are were more accidents leading to fatalaties in the home per annum than on the roads. houses were banned by the Government and caves were substituted.

Plans for next year involve the banning of "all sharp things" as well as weighty blunt objects, together with mandatory 2 year training courses in unfloding deckchairs safely.

Yes well you know - you trip over your own slippers, hit your head and die - tough shit.. shite happens.

You hit your wife over her head, with your slippers, causing GBH or worse - you spend some time in the jail.

Spot the difference matey????

 

[Hollis]

what if you replaced the word cycling with driving would that statement sound so reasonable then?

at least if all road users were taxed and insured it would suddenly force a culture of responsiblity on people for fear of increasing their premiums...

Fuck premiums! Jail sentences and bannings.

Caught speeding - 1 month ban
Unliscened driver - 1 month jail (first offence).

I think the "culture" of the motorist will change pretty quickly then.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

Fuck premiums! Jail sentences and bannings.

Caught speeding - 1 month ban
Unliscened driver - 1 month jail (first offence).

I think the "culture" of the motorist will change pretty quickly then.

intresting concept that these things are in isolation of each other ...

tell me would you expect an inconsiderate person to be a good or a poor driver?

I think that if you are attempting to change a culture then you migth have to look further afield that behind the steering wheel...

however, as for unlicenced drivers sorry but 1 month... fuck off... 25 years... instant life time ban from driving...

intentionall uninsured (ie never had insurence as opposed to it ran out yesterday and technically will be covered by the renewal) 25 years

untaxed car thus invailidating insurence 25 years

suddenly tariffs which aren't about revenue gathering but are about improving standards would impact instantly on the culture of drivers but why shouldn't all road users be licenced?

in effect any form of wheeled or hooved transportation will cause considerable damage if used irresponisbly it is a privalige to use them not a right (although once licenced you have the right to use them but this is contextrally different) and like any privialige if you abuse it you should expect to have it removed and suffer stringent consiquences...

people need a big stick and this is one of the areas where the stick thus far has not been anywhere near big enough....

and you know how much i like cars...

 

[pengaleng]

and you know how much i like cars...

but you hate shit drivers more lol

 

[WouldBe]

Better safty incase you hit another car. Think about that.. Beter for YOU as an individual If you hit another Individual.. Its sick......

Cars & motor vehicles Are bad.. Aint no two ways about it.

Put the airbags on the outside of the car and a 6" metal spike in the center of the steering wheel and see how fast driving standards improve.

 

[Treacle Toes]

Put the airbags on the outside of the car and a 6" metal spike in the center of the steering wheel and see how fast driving standards improve.

By jove, i think you've got something there

 

[Roadkill]

Might be worth pointing out that HGVs account for about 7% of road vehicles, but are involved in about a fifth of fatal accidents...

 

[Cobbles]

Put the airbags on the outside of the car and a 6" metal spike in the center of the steering wheel and see how fast driving standards improve.

Coupled with red light activated chain guns and land mines at junctions.

 

[WouldBe]

Coupled with red light activated chain guns and land mines at junctions.

and rocket launchers on speed cameras.

 

[Cobbles]

Yes well you know - you trip over your own slippers, hit your head and die - tough shit.. shite happens.

You hit your wife over her head, with your slippers, causing GBH or worse - you spend some time in the jail.

Spot the difference matey????

Exactly, you can't infer murderous intent in the case of an inanimate object like a pair of slippers or a bus.

The analagy is flawed in that you'd only go to jail if you intentionally hit your wife with the slippers. On the same basis, a surgeon is the same as a slasher with a knife, the difference in intent creates the crime and protects the surgeon (who can't always get the patient's consent).

 

[detective-boy]

I have a feeling, for instance, that if you do something reckless that obviously involved great risk of death to somebody, and you were trying to hurt them (e.g. if you hit them repeatedly with a baseball bat) then that might constitute murder even if you didn't actually intend to kill them.

In law, murder is only where there is an intention to kill the victim or, at least, cause them really serious bodily harm (e.g. GBH level). That is rarely the case with traffic incidents - the driver rarely intends to cause any injury at all.

There is a form of manslaughter which results from doing something unlawful which causes death - but that something must be unlawful in it's own right (like an assault, or like supplying drugs) and not just unlawful in HOW it was done (i.e. carelessly or recklessly). Most driving incidents therefore fall outside this legal definition as driving is not unlawful per se.

There is a second form of manslaughter which is committed through gross negligence. This is the version used / tried in corporate manslaughter cases (e.g. the rail crash / maintenance cases). It needs the actions to be grossly negligent, to such a degree that severe criminal sanction is appropriate. That is a high test to achieve and not many driving incidents reach it.

It is for the numerous cases which do not reach this level of gross negligence sufficient to substantiate a manslayghter charge that the driving specific offences of causing death by dangerous driving, by careless driving whilst under the influence of drugs / alcohol and, now to be introduced, by careless driving have been introduced. Whilst many say the sentences they carry are not sufficient, it should be noted that driving is about the ONLY activity where recklessness and carelessness are criminalised to this extent (as noted on another thread) - it would not be a seperate criminal offence (for instance) to cause death by careless juggling / cycling / gun play.

 

[detective-boy]

Caught speeding - 1 month ban
Unliscened driver - 1 month jail (first offence).

Usual knee jerk "only" speed kills bollocks.

HOW, exactly, would that have prevented this death? There is no suggestion the lorry was speeding? There is no suggestion the driver was unlicensed?

Achieving improved road safety is far, far more complex than simpletons like you imagine in your fucking fantasy worlds.

(ETA: Recent report out which suggests that speed is ACTUALLY only the cause of some small percentage of road traffic collisions ...)

 

[detective-boy]

Might be worth pointing out that HGVs account for about 7% of road vehicles, but are involved in about a fifth of fatal accidents...

Which, in the absence of the Road Haulier's Association and the craven politicians they lobby, would result in ... er ... the dangerous lorries being seperated from the rest of us.

Perhaps you could design specific links between main centres, allowing lorries to form into road trains to transport large amounts of stuff safely and more efficiently, with far less environmental impact ... maybe we could call them ... er ... railways ...

 

[Mrs Magpie]

Haven't read the whole thread so apologies if this has already been mentioned...
It seems to me, the problem with buses and lorries is the blind spot on the left hand side. Surely it is not beyond the wit of a designer to rig up something (hopefully compulsory) so that bus and lorry drivers can easily see cyclists?

 

[scifisam]

what if you replaced the word cycling with driving would that statement sound so reasonable then?

It would be nonsenical to say that we need to remove barriers to driving!

The insurance and registering of cycles has already been discussed in a different thread. I'm not sure what relevance it has here, as it was the cyclist that was killed, and the information we have at present makes it sound like she wasn't at fault.

I think it does make a difference that it was a lorry that killed the woman. It's just so much harder for lorry drivers to see small road users such as cyclists. The same driver probably wouldn't have killed this woman if he were in exactly the same circumstances but driving a car instead of a lorry.

Mrs Magpie is right about it being a design fault rather than purely a human fault.

 

[pseudonarcissus]

I'm not sure it is a "fact of life" - I see far too many cyclists who do not ride at all defensively and who, through ignorance or impatience, put themselves in extremely dangerous situations (e.g. squeezing up the inside of lorries stationary at traffic lights, risking the lights changing and the lorry moving off whilst they are in the danger zone).

I would not say that cyclists should have to ride in such a manner as to make up for the inadequacies of other road users (any more than I believe motorcyclists should) but there is definitely scope for some to improve their defensive riding strategies, the most important of which is looking and thinking ahead (in time and space) and predicting potential danger before it arises.

In Texas, should you get caught speeding or committing some other offenses it is possible to have your ticket dismissed if you agree to undertake a defensive driving course. The course is 6 hours. I think that's a pretty good idea, you can get rid of one speeding ticket a year that way. The cost of the course and all the other stuff works out a tiny bit more than paying the ticket.

Now, when I'm govenor of the State of Texas I'm going to modify the plan so that EVERYONE is compelled to take on-road, rush hour, cycle training, a bit like the cycling profficiency test we all took with our friendly local bobby when we were 10. This would make everyone experience that vulnerability that makes most cyclists pretty defensive as it is, it would also allow motorists and lorry drivers appreciate what cyclists have to put up with and hopefully make them more considerate. The scheme may also encourage more cycling and save the NHS millions (The Texas NHS is in year 2 of my rule).

This wonderful scheme actually targets the most agressive motorists, the ones that get the most speeding tickets...it's so beautiful...

wasn't there data from the DoT that showed Volos killed more motorcyclists than any other make of car....this is because volvo drivers had safe cars and were therefore invulnerable...the 4x4 SUV craze I'm sure adds to the problem

 

[WouldBe]

Haven't read the whole thread so apologies if this has already been mentioned...
It seems to me, the problem with buses and lorries is the blind spot on the left hand side. Surely it is not beyond the wit of a designer to rig up something (hopefully compulsory) so that bus and lorry drivers can easily see cyclists?

Surely it's not beyond the wit of the driver to not overtake just before they need to cut back in to avoid stationary traffic.