"Blame is hard to prove, but campaigners argue trifling penalties gives little incentive for drivers to change their behaviour"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2010/nov/09/cyclist-death-driver-penalties
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Debate!
"Does the law treat killing a cyclist seriously enough?"
(5 posts)-
Posted 13 years ago #
-
I think this:
"A worrying suggestion is that the reason the authorities do not take cyclists' deaths seriously is because they think that cycling in big cities is a dangerous activity anyway, and injury is thus an unfortunate inevitability"
... is sadly accurate
Posted 13 years ago # -
No, however it is not restricted to cyclists.
The law treats almost all road fatalities as unfortunate accidents sadly necessary as the downside of convenient transport for all seemingly regardless of the level of stupidity/guilt.
Until they start treating these deaths seriously, and returning to the view that a license to drive is a privilege not a right nothing will change.At a minimum I would suggest mandatory lifetime driving bans for causing death by dangerous driving and minimum 6 months prison (actual time served, not top line before remission for good behaviour etc etc etc) for driving whilst disqualified in addition to an automatic lifetime ban. You have taken someones life through proven criminal negligence/stupidity/evil intent, why should you return to driving after a year or two? The victim never will and neither should the perpetrator. (rant off!)
Posted 13 years ago # -
"Death by dangerous driving" is in itself a slightly mealy-mouthed term, whereas manslaughter or culpable homicide would remove the seeming distinction between death-caused and death-caused-but-by/whilst-driving, where driving is intrinsically slightly excused by its perceived necessity, as Smudge said. Ignoring the fact that someone was just doing their driving-based job to earn an honest crust/driving home to their young fambly after a long day at work/driving to visit their ailing granny in the hospital and treating the car as any other weapon would be more honest.
I'm frequently terrified as a driver and passenger but regard this as the correct state in which to be when on a road, surrounded by other cars, watching out for them doing silly things, for people shooting out of side roads, for children running off pavements, for grannies falling into the road and so on. I'm not terrified in the same situation on a bike just because I can see more and am in control of a much less deadly weapon (and don't have the additional worry about the risk of incurring a non-injurious but potentially extremely costly vehicle repair bill which one bears when using a car).
Posted 13 years ago # -
When the lorry driver said that he did not see the cyclist it would have been assumed that like in all of those SMIDSY incidents that he had just not clocked her, not that his eyesight was actually defective and he certainly would not admit that. Those tipper lorries are really frightening at the best of times, huge wheels, lots of them, and it is like having a bunglalow draw up beside you, blocking out the daylight! I think I concur with Smudge on the sentencing of drivers, particularly those re-offenders who drive with no insurance, when banned, etc. A car is a lethal weapon.
Posted 13 years ago #
Reply
You must log in to post.
posts
