Text driver faces jail over death

[editor]

Congratulations on a splendid example of emotion-tugging (and prejudice revealing) descriptors ...

Simple statement of fact, even if it doesn't fit your prejudices. Someone in charge of a car is in control of powerful, highly dangerous machinery and with that power should come a greater responsibility.

If you drive and text you can expect to be punished. Hard.

 

[trashpony]

Simple statement of fact, even if it doesn't fit your prejudices. Someone in charge of a car is in control of powerful, highly dangerous machinery and with that power should come a greater responsibility.

If you drive and text you can expect to be punished. Hard.

And she is being punished hard.

But what if she hadn't been though and had still hit the cyclist because he'd gone through a red light? Would she still be more responsible because she was in the bigger vehicle?

 

[snadge]

And she is being punished hard.

But what if she hadn't been though and had still hit the cyclist because he'd gone through a red light? Would she still be more responsible because she was in the bigger vehicle?

from what I gather the cyclist would have still been dead, she would not have been liable.

 

[editor]

And she is being punished hard.

But what if she hadn't been though and had still hit the cyclist because he'd gone through a red light? Would she still be more responsible because she was in the bigger vehicle?

If you speed, text and drive at the same time through an urban area you're acting in a hugely irresponsible and dangerous manner. It's like going down a street blindfold waving a knife.

 

[jæd]

Simple statement of fact, even if it doesn't fit your prejudices. Someone in charge of a car is in control of powerful, highly dangerous machinery and with that power should come a greater responsibility.

If you drive and text you can expect to be punished. Hard.

And if you use the road with a device that exposes you to other road users with minimal protection its best to follow the rules. They're there for your protection.

In this case, I would say both the cyclist and the car driver where in the wrong... And playing the "what if" game is pointless...

 

[snadge]

If you speed, text and drive at the same time through an urban area you're acting in a hugely irresponsible and dangerous manner. It's like going down a street blindfold waving a knife.

very good flip side on that though, cyclists jumping red lights can expect being killed by cars obeying the rules of the road.

And as you said, It's like going down a street blindfold waving a knife.

 

[jæd]

And as you said, It's like going down a street blindfold waving a knife.

More like one person running down the street blindfold waving a knife, and another walking backwards and not looking... Both are quite dangerous and silly, but do them together and someone will get hurt...

 

[editor]

More like one person running down the street blindfold waving a knife, and another walking backwards and not looking... Both are quite dangerous and silly, but do them together and someone will get hurt...

But the one waving the knife about is the only one capable of killing through their stupidity.

 

[editor]

very good flip side on that though, cyclists jumping red lights can expect being killed by cars obeying the rules of the road.

The woman wasn't obeying the rules of the road.

 

[detective-boy]

Simple statement of fact...

It's not though. A simple statement of fact would have been:

Emotion/prejudice removed: You seem to be forgetting the difference between a cyclist and a speeding texting driver in a car which is a metal box providing significant protection from impact

or something like that.

 

[detective-boy]

If you speed, text and drive at the same time through an urban area you're acting in a hugely irresponsible and dangerous manner. It's like going down a street blindfold waving a knife.

Are you a politician? Why repeat a statement that no-one is challenging instead of answering the question?

 

[jæd]

The woman wasn't obeying the rules of the road.

Neither was the cyclist...

 

[detective-boy]

But the one waving the knife about is the only one capable of killing through their stupidity.

No, they're not. The person going backwards may well knock someone over and kill them. They are less dangerous, the chances are less but they are not zero. Just like the chances of a cyclist going through a red light in the presence of other traffic runs a risk of causing someone to take evading action and causing damage or injury. That is a fact.

It's a fact you and the other cycling apologentia studiously ignore. But that doesn't alter the fact it's, er, a fact.

 

[detective-boy]

The woman wasn't obeying the rules of the road.

BUT. SHE. MIGHT. HAVE. BEEN.

Jesus Christ, talk about one-eyed ...

If the fucking red-light jumping cyclist had caused a bus loaded with disabled schoolchildren (being carefully driven at 15mph, by a driver who had just drunk 4 cans of Red Bull) to swerve to miss him and thus crash into a Smart car full of nuns, causing both to burst into flames, slowly killing all on board, before the bus ploughed through the window of a nearby Oxfam shop and killing Dame Judi fucking Dench who happened to dropping some stuff off there for charidee you'd STILL be arguing that he was entirely fucking blameless ...

 

[snadge]

But the one waving the knife about is the only one capable of killing through their stupidity.

and how stupid is the person that tries to cuddle that blindfolded knife waver?

 

[goldenecitrone]

The driver should get a life ban for her irresponsibility. The cyclist got a life sentence for his.

 

[Radar]

BUT. SHE. MIGHT. HAVE. BEEN.

Jesus Christ, talk about one-eyed ...

If the fucking red-light jumping cyclist had caused a bus loaded with disabled schoolchildren (being carefully driven at 15mph, by a driver who had just drunk 4 cans of Red Bull) to swerve to miss him and thus crash into a Smart car full of nuns, causing both to burst into flames, slowly killing all on board, before the bus ploughed through the window of a nearby Oxfam shop and killing Dame Judi fucking Dench who happened to dropping some stuff off there for charidee you'd STILL be arguing that he was entirely fucking blameless ...

You do paint a vivid picture

Go outside for a while mate and get away from the keyboard, it's a lovely day outside. I get the feeling u75 is getting on your tits again

I think I shall ride over to Greenwich for an early lunch, keeping mobile firmly in pocket and an eye open for backward riding red light crashing knife wielding cyclists (or was it motorists or peds or erm...)

 

[jæd]

Just like the chances of a cyclist going through a red light in the presence of other traffic runs a risk of causing someone to take evading action and causing damage or injury. That is a fact.

Its a reckless person (or a tourist) in London who doesn't double check for cyclists running reds at pedestrian crossings... Same for looking both ways on one way streets.

Not saying they all do it, just enough for it to a hazard that needs checking for...

 

[tommers]

yawn. I'm bored.

 

[mauvais]

No. It isn't. HE was the hazard. HE went through a red light. SHE has a quite legitimate claim that, no matter how distracted her attention, she was perfectly entitled to find HIM an unexpected hazard.

The point is that it doesn't really matter whether it's a cyclist going through a red light, a wild pony, or an asteroid - if you crash into it because you weren't looking where you were going, it's your fault. Legal technicalities, I don't know, but morally, it clearly is.

He is to blame for a bike equivalent of dangerous driving but it does not necessarily reduce how much she can be blamed for death by dangerous driving.

I'm sure giving me an armed grenade would be illegal, and rightly so, but if I throw it into a playground it's me who's to blame for the consequences.

 

[detective-boy]

The point is that it doesn't really matter....

The point is that it matters hugely. Your simplistic analysis that if you hit something it's down to you is just wrong. A driver is expected to exercise sufficient care, and make allowance, to deal with all that is reasonably foreseeable. Not "all", all that is reasonably foreseeable. If it were any other way, no-one would ever go anywhere.

Therefore a driver is not really expected to position their vehicle, and adjust their speed so as to take account of a potential vehicle ignoring a red cross light (though an driver trained to advanced level would always do so). Any attention they do devote to the issue will be (and should be) way down the list of priorities after things like looking out for pedestrians, looking out for turning vehicles, choosing an appropriate lane and being able to stop safely if the lights change.

And so even not paying attention to the smallest degree may mean that looking for someone going through a red light drops off the bottom of the list - something that the majority of drivers, the majority of the time never do anyway.

And so her offence, whilst quite rightly proven and quite rightly about to be punished, but the fact that someone died is hugely dependent of the fact that HE committed an offence she was quite entitled not to expect. What if she HADN'T been textingm, but had still been speeding - would you still want her taken out and shot? What if she hadn't been texting or speeding? What then?

The blame is shared, no matter how much you wriggle.

 

[lighterthief]

The blame is shared...

Have to say I agree.

 

[mauvais]

Suppose I'm on my bike going along at 20mph. A driver pulls out from a side road without looking. Their fault! But if I can stop in time without crashing into them, but don't because I wasn't paying attention or just couldn't be arsed to brake, it's blatantly my fault too.

By the way, I believe this is the junction in question, an unpleasant bit of road: http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=Sou...pn=0.001373,0.004184&t=h&z=19&iwloc=addr&om=0

The news article said she looked to her right and saw stationary cars in Mountbatten Way, which can only mean she came up the road from the south east. It's a big open junction with a shallow angle, and IMO it would be difficult to have an accident there unless you really weren't looking.

 

[Cobbles]

The cyclist did run a red light though!

Indeed - there's negligent twats in charge of all sorts of vehicles.

 

[soulman]

So you think the young man on a bicycle who was killed by the car driver was a twat. Nice.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

For me this is one of the reasons I dislike fellow cyclists jumping red lights - it gives people a legitimate opportunity to place blame on the cyclist: "So the driver was speeding and sending a text message - but the cyclist jumped a red light!"

I agree with you. After some robust discussion here and other places, i took a decision not to jump red lights for these reasons. Still doesn't excuse someone driving around whilst texting.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

No. It isn't. HE was the hazard. HE went through a red light. SHE has a quite legitimate claim that, no matter how distracted her attention, she was perfectly entitled to find HIM an unexpected hazard.

They both committed significant traffic offences. If he had lived, he could quite possibly have faced charges for going through the red light.

In civil law, an insurance claim would undoubtedly be settled on the basis of shared blame - at least 50:50 if not more fault attributed to the cyclist.

You cyclist apologentia had better get your stocks of outrage in for when she gets a significantly reduced sentence from what she might have expected if he hadn't committed a serious offence himself ... (my money is on no more than 12 months, possibly even a suspended)

You don't half spout some bullshit. Your line of argument is tantamount to the rape defence of "she was asking for it cos she had a short dress on" imo. cyclists apologentia my arse

 

[Lemon Eddy]

For fucks sake. All he said was that the cyclist contributed to his own death by running a red light. That's absolutely true.

Yes, the driver was a stupid, negligent idiot who will (hopefully) get a suitably harsh sentence of many years in jail. Unfortunately it doesn't change the fact that if the silly twat had not run the red, he'd be alive.

 

[nadia]

The piece of road in question is in fact a three lane dual carriage way. Jumping a red light on that road is almost suicidal (I am quoite familiar with the stretch of road and as a cyclist it is not for the faint hearted). She should have been paying proper attention ie a green light been go if its safe to do so. the fact she was speeding and texting (which she denied), the fact she rang her boyfriend before the ambulance is quite disgraceful.

 

[Herbsman.]

I wonder what the general opinion would have been if the cyclist had dismounted and was killed while walking across the road.