Drivers in the UK getting off after killing cyclists

Ray Palmer

I have noticed a few article from the Mail Online app (terrible paper) about motorists causing cyclists death and not been given sentences. One guy was apparently distract by his sat nav, a woman was fiddling with her sat nav and another guy was eating a sandwich while driving. The were all found guilty of careless driving but not given any custodial sentences.

I find it a little shocking as it seems they aren't been convicted of dangerous driving given it actually killed people and they weren't paying attention. The judges seem to be letting them off easy. I get the impression the view is sure we all don't pay attention so it could happen to anybody.

Is it justice and reasonable?

rollingscone

Could be that the judge was satisfied that they were suffering enough living with the knowledge of what they had done.


If they were allowed to keep driving it would be another thing.

Hmmzis

Judges not wanting to set precedence for when they themselves run over someone? Most of them would be drivers anyway and probably wouldn't consider 'playing with satnav' or eating as something dangerous while driving.

Ray Palmer

Hmmzis wrote: »

Judges not wanting to set precedence for when they themselves run over someone? Most of them would be drivers anyway and probably wouldn't consider 'playing with satnav' or eating as something dangerous while driving.

I think that is what I find so scary about. I doubt the same view would be taken with a pedestrian death but a certain blame on cyclist seems implied

Chips Lovell

Ray Palmer wrote: »

...a woman was fiddling with her sat nav...

She got 18 months in jail with nine months suspended.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

...and another guy was eating a sandwich while driving...

He was sentenced to 240 hours community service for causing death by careless driving.

Now you can argue about the severity of the sentence alright, but it's not a case of either of them "getting off".

Ray Palmer

Vladimir Kurtains wrote: »

She got 18 months in jail with nine months suspended.

He was sentenced to 240 hours community service for causing death by careless driving.

Now you can argue about the severity of the sentence alright, but it's not a case of either of them "getting off".

Sorry my bad I some how missed the sat nav messer got jail. I think 240 hours community service is very light. The 3rd person I don't think got any community service nor jail.

Jawgap

Unlike in Ireland, you'll find that in the UK when the judge is handing down a sentence they are very clear and what factors were important to them when making the decision.

They usually begin by stating what their sentencing starting point is and then go on to discuss, often in some considerable detail, the mitigating and aggravating factors of the crime and how they impacted on the sentence.

These statements are rarely reported in any detail because they are quite technical and boring so it can seem someone got off lightly when in fact there were quite sound reasons for treating them differently to someone else who committed a similar offence, if you only read the report in the media.

The CPS Guidelines for Sentencing of Dangerous Driving can be found here.......

Linky

bambergbike

The CTC has a selection of case studies on the page:

http://www.roadjustice.org.uk.

Essentially, they have three complaints about cyclists being failed at different levels of the justice system. As they put it themselves:

"The police do not investigate road collisions thoroughly enough; the prosecution services make weak charging and prosecution decisions, and the courts issue sentences that do not adequately reflect the severity of crimes committed by bad drivers.
In order to make the roads safer we need a system that discourages bad driving, educates drivers to a higher standard and takes persistently bad drivers off the roads."

I'm not a UK cyclist,but those arguments strike me as plausible and reasonable. It certainly seems to be the case that budgets for traffic police work in the UK have shrunk and that officers have been moved to other police work.

The CTC are not calling for every driver who makes a mistake - even stupid mistakes that cost life - to be locked up: they want to see greater use of driving bans and prison sentences used mainly for drivers who flout those. There seem to be too many cases of drivers flouting bans and driving without insurance that only get picked up on when the same drivers cause yet further mayhem.

The prosecutor in the satnav case, by way of context, worked out that the driver should have been able to see the cyclist ahead of her for 17 seconds - maybe 20, depending on his speed and hers - before she hit him. She didn't fail to see him because she took her eyes off the road for a fraction of a second, she was grossly irresponsible and the prison sentence doesn't strike me as unduly harsh.

One side of the coin is that judges and juries are sometimes quick to excuse the actions of their fellow motorists; the flip side is that cyclists in the UK still seem to have a fair bit of victim-blaming to contend with. The majority of bike-car collisions are caused by drivers not paying enough attention, but safety initiatives often focus on what cyclists could be doing to protect themselves (hi-viz, for example) rather than on what drivers should be doing to make cyclists around them safer (shoulder checks, for example.) In that context, some UK cycling advocates thought the recent RSA safety ads on cycling and on driving safely in the presence of cyclists were quite good.

In terms of enforcement and prosecutions, I don't know how well or how badly we're doing. I know the RSA is pleased that well over 3000 penalty points seem to be issued most weeks, but how many of those are for overtaking cyclists dangerously?

DubVelo

http://road.cc/content/news/57677-bow-roundabout-nobody-blame-death-cyclist-svitlana-tereschenko-says-coroner

Here's another one, driver was on the phone, wasn't indicating, turned left and killed a cyclist. No ones fault!

The family point out that back home in Ukraine, this would have been a criminal case.

As the saying goes, 'If you want to kill someone in the UK, get behind the wheel.'.

DubVelo

bambergbike wrote: »

In terms of enforcement and prosecutions, I don't know how well or how badly we're doing. I know the RSA is pleased that well over 3000 penalty points seem to be issued most weeks, but how many of those are for overtaking cyclists dangerously?

Ah now! Don't be stirring. As you well know, they are all for doing 54 in a 50 zone.

tomasrojo

By coincidence, I was reading this post at the Road Danger Reduction Forum only yesterday:

The absolutely basic point here is made by the prosecuting lawyer: Luker should have adapted his driving style if the conditions were poor. This is just reiteration of the basic rule in the Highway Code, as well as simple common sense. It is worth looking at this a bit more: despite having described his inability to see where he was going, the defendant could still say in court “I just don’t understand why I didn’t see him,” and “ ”I would have done everything in my power to avoid any accident” when all that was required was driving in such a way that he could see where he was going. If that was impossible, perhaps stopping driving for a while? Inconvenient, but within “everything in my power”.

http://rdrf.org.uk/2012/03/01/sorry-mate/

The emphasis made by the judge on the suffering of Luker is also a common feature of these cases. It has some relevance, but it's hardly of great importance, given that he killed someone because he was too impatient or too thoughtless to stop driving when he couldn't see properly.

MrCreosote

The truth is that, consciously or not, the police and judiciary feel that cyclists are always partly to blame simply because they are on a bike.