You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
It makes them safer for the cyclists/horses/walkers that don't use them!
does it when they are forced to drive on those roads? Practical alternatives don't always exist. Sometimes the alternative isn't as safe as you would think.
Today i road in on a back road rather than the A46T, came round a corner and had two cars one on each side of the road coming towards me. glad there was a verge to use.
[url= http://road.cc/content/news/87423-ctc-deliver-damning-report-devon-and-cornwall-police-attitude-cyclists ]http://road.cc/content/news/87423-ctc-deliver-damning-report-devon-and-cornwall-police-attitude-cyclists[/url]
not sure about the timing but.
mrmo - Member
just a thought, in 2011 official figures i have seen say 636 people were murdered, and 1901 were killed on the roads.If you want to stop uneccesary deaths where would you put the effort?
An excellent question to put to your local Police Commisionaire
An excellent question to put to your local Police Commisionaire
I have emailed him and got no response.... make of that what you will for democratically elected police commissioners?
Aracer,
Does that not prove my point - in the first version of events and yours the story has changed - there's really no point in debating this unless you have all the facts. [i]"no one got "done" for it anyway IIRC"[/i] - might be right or might be someone assuming that a Coroner's verdict of Accidental Death means no prosecutions were brought.
I think it does matter which end of the system is apparently failing. Did the police not recognise a crime? Did the CPS not believe there was a reasonable prospect of conviction (with three people all to point there finget at each other I can see that bring possible) or did the courts have a trial and the jury found not guilty? Or as you've complained of before a guilty verdict got too lenient a sentence. You might see them all as the same thing - but they are 3 totally different organisations - if you knew which bit was failing you could see how to fix it.
I am intrigued what you think my attitude is you are trying to challenge. For the avoidance of doubt:
(1) I believe if you want to reduce accidents (including cyclists) you need to catch and prosecute more people doing minor things wrong (careless driving) before they have accidents. So there is a disincentive to driving badly not just driving badly and being unlucky enough to kill. I don't believe focussing on penalties for the few who actually kill someone is a real deterrent, for the many who are sure they will not have an accident today.
(2) When cases make it to court. USUALLY the court correctly applies the law as defined in statute. I think the word "Dangerous" is misleading to most people. It is hard for the layperson to see how you define bad driving that causes an accident as anything other than dangerous - but actually the definition, and case law, are not really about the consequences they are about the level of intent / awareness / recklessness involved. You have to "try" quite hard to get to the standard of driving the law considers "dangerous". If you don't like that its not the "Justice System" that is at fault it is Parliament.
In E&W there are approximately:
500 causing death by... cases each year of which over 70% are guilty.
7500 Dangerous Driving cases... about 1/2 of which are guilty verdicts.
230,000 Careless driving cases, 80% of which are fixed penalties, 75% of court cases are guilty.
@poly, the simple truth is the whole system is failing. Politicians won't bring in laws. You only have to look at their own driving records to see why. The CPS won't prosecute, The courts won't give maximal sentences, the police don't investigate. juries won't deliver guilty verdicts.
They are all car drivers and that is the problem, for the grace of god go i.
You might see them all as the same thing - but they are 3 totally different organisations - if you knew which bit was failing you could see how to fix it.
Is a fair point - I don't disagree with that, my point is simply that the system is failing somewhere, and which part is failing makes no difference to the fact it is failing. Neither do I disagree with your suggestion that it is important to convict for everyday bad driving which doesn't kill. The fact that doesn't happen because everyday bad driving is seen as normal is part of the problem. Which leads us on to where I think we have a difference of opinion - I don't believe that the standard for dangerous driving is being applied properly. IIRC the wording is something like "driving which falls far below the standard of a competent driver". Where is goes wrong is in defining a competent driver - it appears the standard used is actually that of an average driver, as all the members of the jury and the judge are equally incompetent ("could have been me"). Parliament have defined this correctly, it's the courts who get it wrong (and as a by product the CPS don't bring prosecutions they won't win). I mean if clipping a cyclist as you overtake or attempting to overtake a cyclist without moving out of the same lane (or for another recent well publicised case, travelling so closely behind a cyclist that you can't avoid running them over when they're knocked off by a door) isn't far below the standard of a competent driver then competent has a rather different definition to what I thought. Oh and of course I disagree with your assertion that not bringing the full weight of the law onto those who kill whilst driving doesn't have an effect on people's attitude to driving.
Awful for the families and friends of the men killed.
Aracer/MrMo,
Judges are specifically trained not to use "but for the grace of god go I / could have been me". Of course some may not heed the warning and some may subconsciously apply a bias. That is why their is an appeal court.
You are correct in your definition of dangerous driving, except that there is a second sentence. So it requires both of these criteria to be met:
[i](a)the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and
(b)it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.[/i]
In contrast careless driving only (a) applies and the word far is removed. Now when rather wooly terminology is used in legislation (common) it usually ends up with the Appeal courts determining where the line is drawn. That is what has happened here. Case law has helped define what is and is not one side of the line from the other. When parliament disagrees with the interpretation of the appeal court it can refine the law to make its intention clearer - it has not done so.
230,000 cases a year of people accepting they were caught driving below the standard suggest to me that its not about 'average drivers'. Those are just the ones who were caught.
clearly you have low morals if you will drive home tonight more recklessly than you need to because the sentencing is so light. That is the inevitable conclusion of an argument that sentencing needs to be tougher.Oh and of course I disagree with your assertion that not bringing the full weight of the law onto those who kill whilst driving doesn't have an effect on people's attitude to driving.
Firstly this is a tragic incident.
I cycle on a 40 mph road on which I live and its really scary when LGVs pass.
Devon & Cornwall Police seem to think the best solution is for cyclists to stay off the A30
(a)the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and
(b)it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.
and how many drivers will describe themselves an incompetent?
So what you have is clause a and b saying exactly the same thing, is s/he a worse driver than me? This applies to the jury, the judiciary, the police, cps, and politicians.
The whole system relies on interpretation there is nothing black and white. Consider the comments a few weeks ago by a barister? it could happen to anyone clipping a cyclist doesn't matter!
clearly you have low morals if you will drive home tonight more recklessly than you need to because the sentencing is so light. That is the inevitable conclusion of an argument that sentencing needs to be tougher.
have a read about how driver behave around cyclists, punshiment passes, the throwing of bottles and bricks, whippings etc. It is not uncommon. Then consider the trying to squeeze past at traffic islands that i would hope any person who sat down and thought about it would agree are dangerous, but no one actually sits down and thinks about it, the majority of drivers in my experience just do it. There are no consiquencies, there is no comeback. If your unlucky, oh well the courts won't ban you because it might cause hardship.
no they don't. Clause a says - you drive really badly and clause b says - and its obvious that driving that badly is dangerous.Mrmo - clause a and b saying exactly the same thing
And it certainly does rely on interpretation that is why we have courts - otherwise it would be a simple case of issuing tickets and getting the money... ...oh hang on thats what they are changing careless driving to. Expect the pepipo servers to go into overload when that goes live.
I don't need to I ride on the roads. There are some idiots out there, but actually the majority of drivers are not doing the things you list.have a read about how ....
Well actually I would suggest the bottles, bricks and whippings are pretty uncommon. Even intentional punishment passes are rate (I don't think I've ever been intentionally passed like that). I can also tell you with a fair degree of certainty that every stage from police, cps and courts would treat all of those very seriously.driver behave around cyclists, punshiment passes, the throwing of bottles and bricks, whippings etc. It is not uncommon.
you've got a particular chip about not being banned for hardship. There are some people with very high points who somehow have managed to argue their case, but its a small proportion - albeit the media love a story about a guy with 30 points. How many days have you spent in a court and seen how many hardship proofs are accepted? Hardship is not enough - it has to be exceptional hardship. I'm sure there are some very good lawyers with a very good story to tell who get clients off regularly - but most lawyers would tell you it is far from easy - 26387 people were banned under totting up provisions in E&W Mags Courts in 2006. A further 160,000 people were banned because their driving was so bad (not totting up) - about half were drink driving, but 10% of careless driving court convictions and all but one dangerous driving case got bans. Those numbers don't include new driver license revokes at 6pts either. I think you might be paying too much attention to the press and not enough to finding out the facts.If your unlucky, oh well the courts won't ban you because it might cause hardship.
There is a book that sets out how to drive, if you don't abide by it you are driving dangerously, the clauses you sight are open to interpretation by the person applying them. Who is deciding what a competent driver is, if you aren't driving by the highway code you are not a competent driver, quite simple really, but b is saying obvious to a competent driver, and most drivers are not competent! is that so hard to understand? There is no need to interpretate, did you overtake giving plenty of room, yes/no? did you cross a solid white line, yes/no.
Simple black and white, no need to interpretate, but that is not the point of the law, it exists to ensure people aren't punished. to fudge the issue.
you've got a particular chip about not being banned for hardship.
maybe when you know someone who run down by a drink driver who had been banned three times, and the the case was thrown out by cps and police incompetence it colours your view? he has been banned from driving since. each time served his ban, or at least wasn't caught driving whilst banned. Still hasn't been banned for life.
Having worked with someone who successfully argued hardship because he would loose his job. He was a crap driver before and a crap driver after, he lost his job anyway as he was deemed a liability for other reasons.
As for the punishment, had two on the way home today, for holding my line approaching a junction, details sent to Glos Pol, expection of action nill. Bottles, i complained to a school when a bottle got thrown out the back of a school minbus, heads response i don't give a ****.
Dreadful, just dreadful. I drove back from Penzance along that road a couple of weeks ago and passed a couple of touring cyclists who, one assumes, were also starting LEJOG. I'm a very experienced road cyclist and ride club runs along the A316 to the start of the M3 (as a group), but I would not ride on the A30. I watched the lorries passing too close.
If there is an alternative route that could be well-signposted, I'd be in favour of banning cyclists, personally. It makes decisions about where to ride that bit easier if you are unfamiliar with the area, an it is reasonable to assume that a lot of the cyclists starting out LEJOG won't be familiar with the road or any alternative. Of course that assumes there isn't some super fast 6AM Time Trial course along that stretch.
further, you mention that there are 500 cases of death by dangerous driving each year, but only 70% return a guilty verdict, ie 30% of those prosecutions fail. Someone is still dead though! and on the basis that the CPS don't bother bringing the charge if it will fail there must have been enough evidence to suggest the driver was as fault?
or 7500 cases of dangerous driving but 3500 were found to have been driving fine? were they really?
Clause a says - you drive really badly and clause b says - and its obvious that driving that badly is dangerous.
So is it not obvious to a competent driver that clipping a cyclists, or attempting to overtake one without changing lanes is dangerous? I mean that is hardly rocket science is it? Yet driving at that standard appears not to meet the criteria for dangerous driving. Something is wrong.
Now when rather wooly terminology is used in legislation (common) it usually ends up with the Appeal courts determining where the line is drawn. That is what has happened here. Case law has helped define what is and is not one side of the line from the other. When parliament disagrees with the interpretation of the appeal court it can refine the law to make its intention clearer - it has not done so.
How does clipping a cyclist come into that wooly area? So the courts are applying the law in a way which sets an extremely low standard for "competent driver" and parliament is populated by people who drive just as badly as the rest of the population, so hasn't seen fit to correct them. The current situation doesn't really reflect very favourably on any of the parties involved in our justice (sic) system.
clearly you have low morals if you will drive home tonight more recklessly than you need to because the sentencing is so light. That is the inevitable conclusion of an argument that sentencing needs to be tougher.
What's the point of long sentences for murder and manslaughter - I doubt anybody thinks of that when killing somebody (following the same logic)? What you're missing is that the sentencing regime might not have a direct effect on people's thinking, but it is part of a wider culture of acceptance of poor driving and placing a very low value on the lives of vulnerable road users. There certainly are plenty of people out there who appear to care very little about the wellbeing of cyclists. I mean you only have to look at the comments after any press article to find people suggesting cyclists deserve to be killed - that's in a dispassionate situation rather than the heat of the moment whilst driving, I doubt such people go out of their way to drive safely around cyclists. A tougher sentencing regime might just make them think that killing a cyclist whilst driving is rather more of a big deal than the current situation where it's seen as just "something which could have happened to anybody".
Judges are specifically trained not to use "but for the grace of god go I / could have been me".
Yet they still do whether or not they explicitly mention it, and such decisions don't always get appealed (in the case of them not mentioning it, I doubt very many do). I'm sure there was one very recently, will see if I can remember...
The thing is a dual carigeway is a safe road, two or more lanes to overtake into, and no on coming trafic,usually straight, unless yougo on the rock ferry bypass, now speed reduced to 50mph max, or lesowe bypass now 40 mph max, all it needs is for motorists who see a cyclist or cyclists in front of them check mirors, indicateif safe to do so and pull out, and hold the passing lane till youve passed them, if youre to close to them ask yourself why, and SLOW DOWN, then use the procedure above.
Its not rocket science is it,just basic driving skills.
[url= http://www.thisisbristol.co.uk/Barristers-protest-plan-bar-legal-aid/story-19190287-detail/story.html#axzz2YCuM9iRN ]this is the article i think your thinking of, or at least one press article refereing to[/url]
Aracer there is a an appeal in the Scottish Courts at the moment - although there was no mention of 'for the grace of god' - it will be interesting to see if the appeal court increases the sentence.
Personally I'd rather see longer bans rather than prison sentences. I'd also like to see more use of the retest to get license back rather than fill in a form.
As for the comments after the articles - some of them are almost certainly menacing communications and I'd be happy to see them prosecuted - perhaps needs someone to formally complain?
By definition murder is a premeditated action, therefore meriting a deterrent sentence. Manslaughter can have many circumstances but may well be premeditated with the intent to kill or a conscious blatant disregard.
Given the average "clearance" I get on the roads its clear that not everyone considers passing close to be 'obviously dangerous'. That may be wrong, and if I were on the jury I could be persuaded that a bad overtake so poorly judged was Dangerous - but you have to recognise that if the courts aren't coming to the conclusion you want the law needs clarification if the intent of parliament was that anyone not following the Highway Code was Dangerous rather than Careless then they should say so. Now add in the possibility that the defence use the "he wobbled" argument and suddenly you've planted some reasonable doubt.
I'm not sure how often, if ever, prosecutors call expert opinion to help the jury understand what a careful and competent driver might be expected to do. They could probably recruit experts from STW because everyone here is perfect 😉
Is that the link you meant to give, mrmo? I can't see the relevance to this discussion.
project - Member
all it needs is for motorists who see a cyclist or cyclists in front of them check mirors, indicateif safe to do so and pull out, and hold the passing lane till youve passed them, if youre to close to them ask yourself why, and SLOW DOWN, then use the procedure above.Its not rocket science is it,just basic driving skills.
Doesn't really work like that on a lot of roads. For example, the A127, both lanes moving at the same speed absolutely chockablock every day. If you come up behind a cyclist, you can't overtake as the traffic is too bunched up to change lanes, so you slow down to 15mph or whatever. Then the speed difference is too great to get into any gaps that crop up. End result, people squeeze past in lane.
(Not excusing it at all)
An article I found whilst searching for something else, which agrees with my point about the standard of "competent driving" being incorrectly applied, but also suggesting that there is new guidance which should improve things. In theory the driving behaviour discussed above which I consider to be dangerous does now explicitly come under that category - we shall have to see what happens in reality.
http://www.ctc.org.uk/news/minor-win-for-cyclists-prosecution-guidance-shifts
...here are several more articles from the same source, all banging the same drum as me (I have to admit I hadn't realised I was peddling the CTC party line so closely - should probably rejoin).
http://www.ctc.org.uk/blog/rhiaweston/lenient-sentencing-just-tip-of-iceberg
http://www.ctc.org.uk/blog/roger-geffen/crushing-cyclist-lorry-while-on-mobile-really-careless-driving
http://www.ctc.org.uk/blog/rhiaweston/careless-driving-charge-contested-cycling-lawyer
Lots more there if you follow the links.
Cyclists and fast/busy A-roads just dont mix in my opinion. We as cyclists can complain about driving standards all we want but it isn't going to change the fact that there's some roads anyone with a sense of self-preservation shouldn't ride on. I believe its also counter productive to ride certain roads if we want to change drivers attitude towards us.
Its one thing expecting time and space in a low speed differential urban environment where we aren't holding anyone up significantly. Causing drivers to brake from 60+ mph to sub 20 mph is not going to gain us support from the general population.
There's a road near me you couldn't pay me to ride on, I've only ever seen one cyclist on there in 15 years of commuting by car and I've actually seen him several times so he wasn't there by accident. In my opinion he's an absolute muppet and he's not doing our "cause" any good. If thats what I think of him as a regular, experienced cyclist, what on earth are all those non-cycling drivers thinking as they swerve round him or brake heavily for HGV's quickly swapping lanes?
Views like this /\ are worse than the careless driving that is killing people who choose not to get about by car.
You mdavids are a plum of the first degree, well meaning Im sure but light of thought without a doubt.
The blaming of victims for getting in the way of cars in this thread reveals the real challenge, its not the petrol heads or commerce its the presumption even by those sympathetic to bike that out of control cars and trucks have a divine right to roads and the rest of should just keep out of the way.
We could do that, it would start with dual carriageways, then a roads, then b roads, then bridleways, until theres nothing left.
Honestly im struggling to believe some of the twaddle written in this an other recent threads is from a cyclists. More likely pobs who have come across this site. Anyone with any miles wouldn't talk such absolute tosh.
/\ Emotive twaddle from someone without a grasp of reality.
Petrolhead??? Commerce??? Out of control cars and trucks??? Divine right???? WTF are you on about. It's people using fast trunk roads to go about their business. You cant expect every road to be designed around the cyclist.
What do you want? Every road in the country to be a 30 mph limit in case you decide to use it for a bimble on your bike? Nice thought but it isn't going happen is it?
Yes, driving standards and attitudes leave a lot to be desired. I'm not blaming the victim for being there. You can keep thinking me a plum and I'll keep averaging over a 100 incident free miles a week because I use my judgement not to put myself on clearly dangerous roads.
You are blaming the cyclists for being irresponsible, in doing so excuses the driver for hitting them.
That's wrong, there is no excuse.
I hope every body who has posted on this thread has also donated to their JustGiving page .
Actions ... Not words...
It seems to me that as cyclists we are quite happy to be banned from motoroways yet demand the right to ride on national speed limit dual carriageways, to my mind nsl dc's without any sort of hard shoulder are more hazardous than motorways & providing there is a reasonable alternative provided I would be quite happy to support a ban on cyclists using nsl dc's. When there is not a reasonable alternative available then the nsl should be reduced to at least 50mph (40mph for HGV's)
This has nothing to do with the standard of anyone's cycling or driving but all to do with the risk analysis of mixing vulnerable road users with other vehicles when such a high speed differential is likely to occur.
Flame grill toast & call me anti cycling all you like, but fyi I am the sort of cyclist that didn't learn to drive until I had kids & regularly used my bike to get from A to B over long distances, not some petrol head who sees cycling as just a recreational hobby.
& yes the std of driving in this country is down right appalling & needs to be tackled, but that is not going to be sorted quickly & I don't think that demanding the right to ride on nsl dc's is going to help our cause, perhaps like Jades (haven't checked the name) Bridge we should be out there demanding a viable alternative & organise a mass peace ride down the A30?
& yes I have donated, hence my post with link to page earlier.
It seems to me that as cyclists we are quite happy to be banned from motoroways yet demand the right to ride on national speed limit dual carriageways,
There is a fundamental point here that you're missing...
Cyclists have never been allowed on motorways, we are not demanding the right to ride on NSL DCs, [b]we already have that right[/b].
What you are talking about is removing the existing rights of one group of users, because of the actions of another, and that is no way to behave.
All we want is for that right to be respected and our lives not to be put in further un-necessary danger by the standards of driving on them.
To talk of banning cyclists from roads and using Mways as an example is missing the point entirely and does nothing to improve the safety of the roads in general (for cyclists or other users), you are 100% right in that it will not be easy and will not happen quickly, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't fight for it.
NSL DCs are often far safer roads than other NSL roads where visibility is worse and there are no other lanes for overtaking and no central reservation. If you start down the banning cyclists route then where does it end? ban them from all 60 limit roads? what about 50s? narrow 40s with bends? what about bannign tractors, mopeds, milkfloats, horses, walkers, wide loads, robin reliants, people who have broken down and stopped... the list goes on, and all it does is perpuate the idea that cyclist shouldn't be there.
One big issue with banning cyclists from DCs is the message it sends to drivers - that cyclists should get out of their way. I'd hazard a guess that such a course of action might actually lead to more cyclist deaths in total - not many cyclists do actually get killed on DCs, and I can see driving standards around cyclists on other roads getting worse as a result.
Driving standards are appalling, and getting worse imo. I got beeped by the driver behind me when I was patiently following a cyclist up Sheep Barn Lane (steep, narrow, winding hill nr New Addington). I stopped (and stopped him, and all the traffic) and got out. He was very angry and said I should have passed the cyclist. I said I couldn't see round corners. He (and his (equally) chavvy girlfried) said I shouldn't be driving. (Presumably they CAN see round corners?).
Gary McCourt is the name of the driver whose sentence is being reviewed. I was one of the people who wrote to the Crown Office as part of a CTC campaign.
As for being banned from certain roads. No. That only reinforces the commonly-held view that cyclists "shouldn't be on the road" are "in the way" or "holding everyone up". I get that roads are busy and traffic/goods needs to move around the country swiftly, however, it is possible to start one's manoeuvre early and pull out in good time to give a cyclist the correct amount of space.
I know it's hard, because when I tow my caravan, the ****ers in the fast lane really really don't want to let me out to pass things... but with gentle pressure they do yield.
Vehicles are all fitted with brakes, mirrors and indicators - it's a fairly simple matter to use them appropriately.
A few swingeing sentences for drivers killing cyclists will soon get the message across that it's not OK, and that it's not "just one of those things".
aracer, i thought that was what you meant, its relevance is that a senior barrister thinks that clipping cyclists doesn't matter....
What hope is there if the legal system believes that cyclists don't get injured when hit by cars?
Probably needs it's own thread really but yet another incident involving a lorry and cyclist.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-23207691
🙁
I'm seeing adverts on the back of buses now "Drivers - give cyclists room". This is a good thing.
How about, where there are overhead gantries: "Look out for cyclists: 10 years in jail for killing one". (OK, a bit extreme maybe, but you get the point).
Where there are not, signs at the side of the road "Look out for cyclists - give them room", increased Police presence, road safety leaflets given out at (car) race events, and other gatherings, tv adverts, newspaper adverts.
Awareness/consciousness could be raised and changed relatively simply I believe ... if there was the political will. After all, Acts of Parliament made the canals possible, then the railways and then motorways - the same legislative machinery COULD swing into action on behalf of cyclists ... COULD. 🙁 but will it?
Dickyhead, to be honest i would like to be able to use motorways on a bike, but not the carriageway as such. All new main roads should be built with a high quality parallel cyclepath. And i mean high quality, kept clean etc. How much extra would it cost when building a new bypass to add a dedicated cyclepath.
I don't choose to ride on dual carriage ways and fast a roads, but often there is no viable alternative. Give me an alternative and i will be happy. I don't like riding around cars, simply because it isn't the nicest place to be. exhaust fumes, rubbish etc.
I cycled up a stretch of dual carriageway yesterday on my way to work - not really by choice but because I couldn't see a good way round it (on a 40 mile commute you tend not to want to add loads of extra miles).
As I trundled along there were very few cars and they gave me a wide berth. The only terrifying section was crossing entry and exit slip roads - warily - checking over my shoulder a lot. The dual carriageway gives way to single carriageway 50mph and it's actually scarier as the traffic compresses into the smaller space.
Drivers don't seem to realise that you're not there to be an impediment. You checked the map - same as they did - and planned a route and expect to be able to cycle it without losing any limbs.
Personally, I think everyone should do a mandatory year of driving in Belgium or Spain where the culture seems to be that it's fair enough to scare the bejeezus out of fellow drivers but woe betide anyone who so much as mildly disconcerts a cyclist.
crazy-legs - Member
Probably needs it's own thread really but yet another incident involving a lorry and cyclist.
That does sound really sad and possibly another asz left turn incident.
Personally, I think everyone should do a mandatory year of driving in Belgium or Spain where the culture seems to be that it's fair enough to scare the bejeezus out of fellow drivers but woe betide anyone who so much as mildly disconcerts a cyclist.
I saw this in Gran Canaria, over taking driver went right over into the other lane, that there happened to be a car coming the other way didn't seem to figure in the act?