Cyclists 'should be given same penalties as drivers if they injure people'

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, road safety charity Brake
and the Institute of Advanced Motorists have all called on Justice Secretary
Kenneth Clarke to lift the proposed exemption on cyclists under the new law.

A cyclist who broke a pedestrian's skull after jumping a red light in London
was recently fined just £850.


http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...e-7924182.html

On 10/07/2012 08:35, Mrcheerful wrote:
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, road safety charity Brake
and the Institute of Advanced Motorists have all called on Justice Secretary
Kenneth Clarke to lift the proposed exemption on cyclists under the new law.

A cyclist who broke a pedestrian's skull after jumping a red light in London
was recently fined just £850.


http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...e-7924182.html

Interesting reader comments. Most of it rather similar to what some people
would say here (and translates to "We don't want to be held accountable, so
let's make something up").

On 10/07/12 09:26, JNugent wrote:
On 10/07/2012 08:35, Mrcheerful wrote:
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, road safety charity
Brake
and the Institute of Advanced Motorists have all called on Justice
Secretary
Kenneth Clarke to lift the proposed exemption on cyclists under the
new law.

A cyclist who broke a pedestrian's skull after jumping a red light in
London
was recently fined just £850.


http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...e-7924182.html


Interesting reader comments. Most of it rather similar to what some
people would say here (and translates to "We don't want to be held
accountable, so let's make something up").

Many appear to give examples of minimal penalties given to motorists who
have caused injuries. Are you claiming that they've all been made up?

On 10/07/2012 10:05, Colin Reed wrote:

On 10/07/12 09:26, JNugent wrote:
On 10/07/2012 08:35, Mrcheerful wrote:

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, road safety charity
Brake and the Institute of Advanced Motorists have all called on
Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke to lift the proposed exemption on
cyclists under the new law.

A cyclist who broke a pedestrian's skull after jumping a red light in
London was recently fined just £850.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...e-7924182.html

Interesting reader comments. Most of it rather similar to what some
people would say here (and translates to "We don't want to be held
accountable, so let's make something up").

Many appear to give examples of minimal penalties given to motorists who
have caused injuries. Are you claiming that they've all been made up?

"Many", you say?

I didn't spot a single example given where a driver had caused serious injury
by dangerous driving (that's a term of art) and not been punished
appropriately (according to law, where convicted of dangerous driving), if
that's what you mean.

But you're missing the point, aren't you?

The story is about a proposed strengthening of the law so that "causing
serious injury by dangerous driving" is made a offence in its own right (with
more stringent penalties) than provided at present. So those who pointlessly
complain that some driver wasn't punished - in excess of what the law
currently provides for - are about to see an *improvement*. And still the
responders moan.

But why on Earth shouldn't the proposed offence against causing serious
injury by dangerous driving (not yet created) also cover cycling?

That way, cyclists who charge through a red light into a pedestrian, breaking
his skull (just a random example, not sure what made it occur to me) could be
punished properly - and end up in prison.

What difference does it make to the victim whether his severe injuries are
caused by dangerous handling of a Mini or a bike? And why should one be
treated as somehow less serious than the other?

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 08:35:32 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
wrote:

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, road safety charity Brake
and the Institute of Advanced Motorists have all called on Justice Secretary
Kenneth Clarke to lift the proposed exemption on cyclists under the new law.

A cyclist who broke a pedestrian's skull after jumping a red light in London
was recently fined just £850.


http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...e-7924182.html



What on earth are the arguments for exempting cyclists?

As usual - they do not want to accept their obligations in society.

Numb-nuts epitomised such views.

On 10/07/12 11:04, JNugent wrote:
On 10/07/2012 10:05, Colin Reed wrote:

On 10/07/12 09:26, JNugent wrote:
On 10/07/2012 08:35, Mrcheerful wrote:

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, road safety charity
Brake and the Institute of Advanced Motorists have all called on
Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke to lift the proposed exemption on
cyclists under the new law.

A cyclist who broke a pedestrian's skull after jumping a red light in
London was recently fined just £850.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...e-7924182.html


Interesting reader comments. Most of it rather similar to what some
people would say here (and translates to "We don't want to be held
accountable, so let's make something up").

Many appear to give examples of minimal penalties given to motorists who
have caused injuries. Are you claiming that they've all been made up?

"Many", you say?

OK, six out of eleven replies use those sentiments, but only two suggest
details - if you're being pedantic. (If? Of course you are, you are
JNugent after all).

I didn't spot a single example given where a driver had caused serious
injury by dangerous driving (that's a term of art) and not been punished
appropriately (according to law, where convicted of dangerous driving),
if that's what you mean.

The respondent Jay gives several examples which can be confirmed by
Googling (if you can be bothered) where deaths and injuries caused by
careless driving were given lower penalties than the cycling example
that you have mentioned again yourself below.


But you're missing the point, aren't you?

No, not at all. The point had nothing to do with the story - the point
was that you claim that the respondents were making stuff up. I'm sure
you'd now like the point to be about the story.


The story is about a proposed strengthening of the law so that "causing
serious injury by dangerous driving" is made a offence in its own right
(with more stringent penalties) than provided at present. So those who
pointlessly complain that some driver wasn't punished - in excess of
what the law currently provides for - are about to see an *improvement*.
And still the responders moan.

But why on Earth shouldn't the proposed offence against causing serious
injury by dangerous driving (not yet created) also cover cycling?

That way, cyclists who charge through a red light into a pedestrian,
breaking his skull (just a random example, not sure what made it occur
to me) could be punished properly - and end up in prison.

Whereas at the moment they only receive a fine between 150% and 300%
greater than some examples of motorists - are these the ones that you
claim the respondents have "made up"?


What difference does it make to the victim whether his severe injuries
are caused by dangerous handling of a Mini or a bike? And why should one
be treated as somehow less serious than the other?

On Tue, 10 Jul 2012 11:24:14 +0100, Colin Reed
wrote:

On 10/07/12 11:04, JNugent wrote:
On 10/07/2012 10:05, Colin Reed wrote:

On 10/07/12 09:26, JNugent wrote:
On 10/07/2012 08:35, Mrcheerful wrote:

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, road safety charity
Brake and the Institute of Advanced Motorists have all called on
Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke to lift the proposed exemption on
cyclists under the new law.

A cyclist who broke a pedestrian's skull after jumping a red light in
London was recently fined just £850.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...e-7924182.html


Interesting reader comments. Most of it rather similar to what some
people would say here (and translates to "We don't want to be held
accountable, so let's make something up").

Many appear to give examples of minimal penalties given to motorists who
have caused injuries. Are you claiming that they've all been made up?

"Many", you say?

OK, six out of eleven replies use those sentiments, but only two suggest
details - if you're being pedantic. (If? Of course you are, you are
JNugent after all).

I didn't spot a single example given where a driver had caused serious
injury by dangerous driving (that's a term of art) and not been punished
appropriately (according to law, where convicted of dangerous driving),
if that's what you mean.

The respondent Jay gives several examples which can be confirmed by
Googling (if you can be bothered) where deaths and injuries caused by
careless driving were given lower penalties than the cycling example
that you have mentioned again yourself below.

Yes of course I can be bothered as I have seen cyclists biased descriptions of
accidents before

Of course you may take what he says with a pinch of salt - as one would expect
he has quoted only half the stories

================================================== ==========
He quotes a case of bald tyres where in fact they were deemed to not have
contributed to the accident in any way The driver was *not* charged or found
guilty with anything regarding the accident - as it was exactly that.
================================================== ==========
The coroner ruled that Adrianna Skrzypiec's death was accidental - the lorry
driver committed no offence.
================================================== ==========
Keith Wilson:
The injured cyclist died four day later in hospital Stirling Sheriff Court was
told that Richard Beer, 37, might not have died had he been wearing a helmet.

So he contributed to his own death
================================================== ==========

Emma Foa : Prosecutor Graham Parkinson told the court the incident happened at
9.10am in Camley Street, Kings Cross.
"Emma was riding her bike and reached the traffic lights. She went along the
nearside and waited for the lights to change," he said.
The driver checked his mirrors and she was not visible.

Well she won't do that again.

================================================== ==========

On 10/07/2012 11:24, Colin Reed wrote:

On 10/07/12 11:04, JNugent wrote:
On 10/07/2012 10:05, Colin Reed wrote:
On 10/07/12 09:26, JNugent wrote:
On 10/07/2012 08:35, Mrcheerful wrote:

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, road safety charity
Brake and the Institute of Advanced Motorists have all called on
Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke to lift the proposed exemption on
cyclists under the new law.

A cyclist who broke a pedestrian's skull after jumping a red light in
London was recently fined just £850.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...e-7924182.html

Interesting reader comments. Most of it rather similar to what some
people would say here (and translates to "We don't want to be held
accountable, so let's make something up").

Many appear to give examples of minimal penalties given to motorists who
have caused injuries. Are you claiming that they've all been made up?

"Many", you say?

OK, six out of eleven replies use those sentiments, but only two suggest
details - if you're being pedantic. (If? Of course you are, you are
JNugent after all).

That's two points you have missed in two consecutive posts. Are you going to
go for the hat-trick?

As I asked you earlier:

I didn't spot a single example given where a driver had caused serious
injury by dangerous driving (that's a term of art) and not been punished
appropriately (according to law, where convicted of dangerous driving),
if that's what you mean.

So perhaps you can prove that wrong by pointing to the cases of proven
*dangerous driving* your "many" respondents were referring to?

Remember: just because an accident (I use that word deliberately) has
occurred does *not* mean that an offence has been committed at all, still
less an offence of dangerous driving. Humans are imperfect. Accidents happen.

However, some "road traffic accidents" occur through negligence
(carelessness) and some through recklessness (dangerous driving, which is
defined in law).

The proposed change in the law is meant to improve the safety of pedestrians,
cyclists and vehicle occupants by creating a new offence of "causing serious
injury by dangerous driving". ATM, that would only attract a charge of
"dangerous driving".

The proposed offence will fall somewhere between between DD and CDBDD in
seriousness. That's *good*, isn't it? And is there a single reason on God's
Earth why the offence should be applied to cyclists where *they* cause
serious injury through reckless/dangerous cycling?

The respondent Jay gives several examples which can be confirmed by
Googling (if you can be bothered) where deaths and injuries caused by
careless driving were given lower penalties than the cycling example
that you have mentioned again yourself below.

Not one identifiable conviction for careless driving was mentioned (still
less any for dangerous driving). But even if a careless driving conviction
had been reliably cited, it would be irrelevant, because careless driving and
dangerous driving are as chalk and cheese. You ought to already know that,
and to be able to distinguish them.

But you're missing the point, aren't you?

No, not at all. The point had nothing to do with the story - the point
was that you claim that the respondents were making stuff up. I'm sure
you'd now like the point to be about the story.

Ranting respondents were either making stuff up or comparing things which are
not in the same category. Probably both. You've just done the latter as well
(as I have shown above).

The story is about a proposed strengthening of the law so that "causing
serious injury by dangerous driving" is made a offence in its own right
(with more stringent penalties) than provided at present. So those who
pointlessly complain that some driver wasn't punished - in excess of
what the law currently provides for - are about to see an *improvement*.
And still the responders moan.
But why on Earth shouldn't the proposed offence against causing serious
injury by dangerous driving (not yet created) also cover cycling?
That way, cyclists who charge through a red light into a pedestrian,
breaking his skull (just a random example, not sure what made it occur
to me) could be punished properly - and end up in prison.

Whereas at the moment they only receive a fine between 150% and 300%
greater than some examples of motorists - are these the ones that you
claim the respondents have "made up"?

Still refusing to address the point (carelessness versus recklessness), eh?

You'll achieve your hat-trick with room to spare.

What difference does it make to the victim whether his severe injuries
are caused by dangerous handling of a Mini or a bike? And why should one
be treated as somehow less serious than the other?

silence was the reply

JNugent wrote:
On 10/07/2012 11:24, Colin Reed wrote:

On 10/07/12 11:04, JNugent wrote:
On 10/07/2012 10:05, Colin Reed wrote:
On 10/07/12 09:26, JNugent wrote:
On 10/07/2012 08:35, Mrcheerful wrote:

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, road safety
charity Brake and the Institute of Advanced Motorists have all
called on Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke to lift the proposed
exemption on cyclists under the new law.

A cyclist who broke a pedestrian's skull after jumping a red
light in London was recently fined just £850.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...e-7924182.html

Interesting reader comments. Most of it rather similar to what
some people would say here (and translates to "We don't want to
be held accountable, so let's make something up").

Many appear to give examples of minimal penalties given to
motorists who have caused injuries. Are you claiming that they've
all been made up?

"Many", you say?

OK, six out of eleven replies use those sentiments, but only two
suggest details - if you're being pedantic. (If? Of course you are,
you are JNugent after all).

That's two points you have missed in two consecutive posts. Are you
going to go for the hat-trick?

As I asked you earlier:

I didn't spot a single example given where a driver had caused
serious injury by dangerous driving (that's a term of art) and not
been punished appropriately (according to law, where convicted of
dangerous driving), if that's what you mean.

So perhaps you can prove that wrong by pointing to the cases of proven
*dangerous driving* your "many" respondents were referring to?

Remember: just because an accident (I use that word deliberately) has
occurred does *not* mean that an offence has been committed at all,
still less an offence of dangerous driving. Humans are imperfect.
Accidents happen.
However, some "road traffic accidents" occur through negligence
(carelessness) and some through recklessness (dangerous driving,
which is defined in law).

The proposed change in the law is meant to improve the safety of
pedestrians, cyclists and vehicle occupants by creating a new offence
of "causing serious injury by dangerous driving". ATM, that would
only attract a charge of "dangerous driving".

The proposed offence will fall somewhere between between DD and CDBDD
in seriousness. That's *good*, isn't it? And is there a single reason
on God's Earth why the offence should be applied to cyclists where
*they* cause serious injury through reckless/dangerous cycling?

I think you meant to say 'why the offence should NOT be applied to cyclists'

On 10/07/2012 17:18, Mrcheerful wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 10/07/2012 11:24, Colin Reed wrote:

On 10/07/12 11:04, JNugent wrote:
On 10/07/2012 10:05, Colin Reed wrote:
On 10/07/12 09:26, JNugent wrote:
On 10/07/2012 08:35, Mrcheerful wrote:

The Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, road safety
charity Brake and the Institute of Advanced Motorists have all
called on Justice Secretary Kenneth Clarke to lift the proposed
exemption on cyclists under the new law.

A cyclist who broke a pedestrian's skull after jumping a red
light in London was recently fined just £850.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/londo...e-7924182.html

Interesting reader comments. Most of it rather similar to what
some people would say here (and translates to "We don't want to
be held accountable, so let's make something up").

Many appear to give examples of minimal penalties given to
motorists who have caused injuries. Are you claiming that they've
all been made up?

"Many", you say?

OK, six out of eleven replies use those sentiments, but only two
suggest details - if you're being pedantic. (If? Of course you are,
you are JNugent after all).

That's two points you have missed in two consecutive posts. Are you
going to go for the hat-trick?

As I asked you earlier:

I didn't spot a single example given where a driver had caused
serious injury by dangerous driving (that's a term of art) and not
been punished appropriately (according to law, where convicted of
dangerous driving), if that's what you mean.

So perhaps you can prove that wrong by pointing to the cases of proven
*dangerous driving* your "many" respondents were referring to?

Remember: just because an accident (I use that word deliberately) has
occurred does *not* mean that an offence has been committed at all,
still less an offence of dangerous driving. Humans are imperfect.
Accidents happen.
However, some "road traffic accidents" occur through negligence
(carelessness) and some through recklessness (dangerous driving,
which is defined in law).

The proposed change in the law is meant to improve the safety of
pedestrians, cyclists and vehicle occupants by creating a new offence
of "causing serious injury by dangerous driving". ATM, that would
only attract a charge of "dangerous driving".

The proposed offence will fall somewhere between between DD and CDBDD
in seriousness. That's *good*, isn't it? And is there a single reason
on God's Earth why the offence should be applied to cyclists where
*they* cause serious injury through reckless/dangerous cycling?

I think you meant to say 'why the offence should NOT be applied to cyclists'

Quite right.

I am well corrected.

Thank you for that.