Stiffer punishments for drivers promised as cyclist deaths soar

Finally!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

Stiffer punishments for drivers promised as cyclist deaths soar

"Motorists who kill cyclists could face jail in an attempt to ensure dangerous
drivers face tougher punishment.

"Director of Public Prosecutions Ken Macdonald is to tell prosecutors to charge
more motorists who cause fatalities with dangerous driving - which has a penalty
of prison - instead of careless driving, for which offenders can only be fined.

"He also wants the Crown Prosecution Service to make full use of laws coming
into effect next year that will introduce an offence of causing death by
careless driving. "

[...]

The Comments section seems to be filled with Daily Mail readers who need a clue.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...html?in_articl
e_id=412691&in_page_id=1770

Stiffer punishments for drivers promised as cyclist deaths soar

"Motorists who kill cyclists could face jail in an attempt to ensure
dangerous drivers face tougher punishment.

The whole thing turns into a scare story about cycling - they say nothing
of pedestrians, who are arguably even more at risk[1], or drivers.

I thought the sharp rise in cyclist deaths was pretty much due to the low
numbers of cyclist deaths, leaving it prone to 'large' fluctuations when
the change is expressed in percentage terms.

[1] www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Expodata/Spreadsheets/D7250.xls

Marc Brett wrote:

The Comments section seems to be filled with Daily Mail readers who
need a clue.

No change there then...

--
Dave Larrington
http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk
Stop it! You're scarin' the Hippo...

Marc Brett said the following on 27/10/2006 10:18:

The Comments section seems to be filled with Daily Mail readers who need a clue.

Aren't they out in force?

"Let's face it, the roads have become far too dangerous for cyclists." -
err, and who is it that makes the roads far too dangerous for cyclists
(in your words), Ms Daily Mail Reader????

Also, how come motorists always accuse cyclists of jumping red lights
(yes, some do), but it's never mentioned that motorists themselves often
jump red lights - that just seems to be blithely ignored. A cyclist
jumping a red light is generally putting himself at risk, whereas a car
jumping a red light is putting other people at risk, so surely should be
taken more seriously.

Perhaps I should start filming certain junctions in WSM and send it to
the Daily Wail :-)

--
Paul Boyd
http://www.paul-boyd.co.uk/

Paul Boyd wrote on 27/10/2006 11:46 +0100:

Perhaps I should start filming certain junctions in WSM and send it to
the Daily Wail :-)


Already done:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFQwt...elated&search=

--
Tony

"Anyone who conducts an argument by appealing to authority is not using
his intelligence; he is just using his memory."
- Leonardo da Vinci

Paul Boyd wrote:

Also, how come motorists always accuse cyclists of jumping red lights
(yes, some do), but it's never mentioned that motorists themselves often
jump red lights - that just seems to be blithely ignored.
I was travelling through Swansea as a passenger in a car yesterday. One
junction was particularly congested as at least 5 cars went through red
on each light change which meant it was impossible for traffic on our
road to even make a left turn onto the main road as by then it was blocked.
I gave up counting them after 35 of them had done it!
One cyclist came through on red and that was when all directions were
blocked solid.
The main difference between her and the car drivers was that she was
being very observant and careful, whereas most of the car drivers were
tailgating at speed the vehicle in front without probably even looking
at the lights...then having to slam their brakes on when they reached
the traffic backed up from the next set of lights.
We were stuck for about twenty minutes covering 200 mtrs. and it was
completely down to car red light jumping.

"Marc Brett" wrote in message
...
The Comments section seems to be filled with Daily Mail readers who need a
clue.


This one's a classic:

"Don't see any mention of cyclists being taught to ride properly and obey
the rules of the road, pay tax or insurance, have a certificate to prove
that their bike is roadworthy, being forced to wear helmets etc. all the
things that a motorist has to do to be legal on the road. Until they do then
they don't have even the same rights as the already overburdened motorist
and certainly they don't have more."

Hmmm I seem to have missed that part of the highway code that states that a
motorist must wear a helmet.

Marc Brett wrote:
....
| "He also wants the Crown Prosecution Service to make full use of laws coming
| into effect next year that will introduce an offence of causing death by
| careless driving. "

I'm not sure what's happened to that.

http://www.dft.gov.uk/stellent/group...hcsp#TopOfPage

makes no mention of such a new offence but says "The issue of careless
driving also involves wider consideration of the dangerous and careless
driving offences and the possible creation of a new offence of bad
driving where death or serious injury is caused. This is being examined
in the context of a Home Office Review on which there will be
consultation."

& I can't find it anywhere else. Might it be an amendment? If so where
does one go for those?

Ah, found it:
http://www.publications.parliament.u...-28.html#j9007

phew! As you were :-O.

--
Patrick Herring, http://www.anweald.co.uk/ph
Cycle helmets - for & against: http://www.anweald.co.uk/cyclehelmets.html