You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
I live in Dorset and I remember reading about the cyclist who was called. Just read the sentencing and it's a bloody joke. The guy had lights on and the article makes reference to high Viz. Personally, I think that's irrelevant as he had lights on his bike.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-dorset-46070280
He "stopped briefly" but did not report the crash despite his windscreen being "almost caved in", prosecutors said.
Mr Gibbs died on the road from "overwhelming head injuries".
Later that night, a police officer spotted Johnson's damaged van passing the crash scene on the back of a recovery truck and reported it as a possible suspect vehicle for the collision.
FFS!
Absolutely unbelievable. You will get a several years in jail for a rude Tweet but a hit and run resulting in death gets a community order? This is complete madness.
Also I think he's a complete ****ing liar saying he thought he hit a deer.
As I've said many times, if you want to kill someone do it in a motor vehicle.
Having said that I do question the wisdom or riding on an unlit dual carriageway at night. I wouldn't.
Nobody gives a shit, not the cops, judges or the general public.
People in cars have important things to do and you’re getting in the way.
Unbelievable sentence, if the bike lights were of decent quality and not suffering from a battery almost out of juice. 🙁
https://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/17196166.martin-collier-lost-his-temper-after-car-made-way-for-ambulance-in-coxford-road-southampton/ got a harsher sentence than the OP case!
Some witnesses said they could see Mr Gibbs' illuminated bike lights from as far away as 200 yards (182m), while others said they had to "take avoidance action and swerve" to miss him, the court heard.
That's quite a wide range.
we have less rights and protection on the road than a dog.
A good friend of mine was killed last week in a RTC . He was out for a run and jogged across a pelican crossing which had pedestrians already on it. Car blew through the red light and killed him , and broke the leg of a young lad on a pushbike.
Father of 2 young children who are really good kids .
As for those sentances above, it would appear it was plain luck that a traffic officer saw the vehicle on a recovery truck , put 2 and 2 together so they caught the guy . Otherwise he could have got away with it. On tinpot local radio the other morning they had to explain how peds and cyclists have right of way at all times, then the cock of a chancellor gives the motorists ( idiots) more ammo by stating RFL is all going to be spent on repairing potholes.
Take away their cheaffeur driven jags and give them a brompton for 1 week.
RIP Rob , you will be missed by many people .
Nobody gives a shit, not the cops, judges or the general public.
People in cars have important things to do and you’re getting in the way.
This. We need a massive, top down and bottom up change of culture in this country and I can't see that happening any time soon.
Th worst part for me is that he will be driving again in 18 months. Why let someone like this ever drive again.
A smashed windscreen limits visibility massively. The fact he drove away in the dark with a damaged vehicle sounds like he knew exactly what had happened and he was escaping the scene. If my windscreen was smashed I'd stop and call for a recovery truck.
Hampshire County Council are trying to plan for the next ~30 years, as regards the roads https://www.hants.gov.uk/news/june05hants2050
The current questionnaire section deadline is 23rd November https://etehampshirecc.researchfeedback.net/s.asp?k=152533806340 for "Mobility, Connectivity and Energy"
At the very least, changes need to be made to the fail to stop legislation so that you can't blithely drive off after a collision of that magnitude. He could have got six months just for that, and the 'I thought I hit a deer' loophole should be closed.
TBH, they should have charged him with failing to stop anyway and let a jury decide on the basis that even a cursory examination of the scene would have revealed what actually happened.
I feel for his family and friends. I can't imagine being in court to hear that sentence being read out.
The sentence is because of the crappy sentencing guidelines. I wonder what the CTC, British Cycling are doing in trying to force legislation change as these type of stories keep coming year after year.
****ing ridiculous sentence. The minimum should be lose his license forever.
Can this sentence be challenged?
I'd like to know why "high visibility" clothing was even mentioned in court, given that it seems the accident happened in the dark, on an unlit road.
Reflectives may have been relevant. Hi Viz, completely pointless in such a scenario. Hi Viz for daylight, reflectives for darkness, surely this is generally accepted, no?
@singletrackmind: Firstly, condolences re. your friend. Secondly... RFL? If cyclists are referring to the proceeds of vehicle excuse duty as a "road fund" it's not going to be a surprise when gammony motorists continue with "we pay for the road so get out my way, cyclist" crap?
several witnesses said that they had to take action to avoid him, which would be unusual if they guys lights were actually of any use.
I see loads of riders that technically have a rear light but it is pathetically dim - like they are asking to be hit.
If I were a judge I would act leniently against a car driver in a situation like that.
several witnesses said that they had to take action to avoid him, which would be unusual if they guys lights were actually of any use.
Did those witnesses also say they were driving too close to the car in front, driving at 70mph plus and didn't observe the cyclist from afar as they weren't really looking.
If I were a judge I would act leniently against a car driver in a situation like that.
Luckily you will never become a judge...
Dressed like that she was asking for it....
A smashed windscreen limits visibility massively. The fact he drove away in the dark with a damaged vehicle sounds like he knew exactly what had happened and he was escaping the scene. If my windscreen was smashed I’d stop and call for a recovery truck.
That's because he's lying. The 'I hit a deer excuse' is just a legal fiction. His internet searches make this obvious as does fact that as you say nobody drives home with a shattered windscreen after hitting a deer, you call a recover truck.
I wonder what the CTC, British Cycling are doing in trying to force legislation change
Cycling UK are doing a fair bit, see their canpaigns page... https://www.cyclinguk.org/current-campaigns
This one in particular - https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaign/road-justice
They've also responded robustly to the Government's cynical focus on reforming cycling offences rather than all road offences.
Are you a member? Might be worth considering if you are concerned about road safety for cyclists.
Dunno about BC.
as you say nobody drives home with a shattered windscreen after hitting a deer, you call a recover truck.
Which he did as soon as he had got (he thought) far enough away from the fatal accident he caused.
several witnesses said that they had to take action to avoid him, which would be unusual if they guys lights were actually of any use.
"had to take avoidance action and swerve to miss him" usually really means "there was a bloody cyclist on the road and I had to move out slightly to pass them safely, which is really annoying".
I see loads of riders that technically have a rear light but it is pathetically dim – like they are asking to be hit.
Read that sentence back to yourself slowly and have a think about what you wrote.
In this situation it wouldn't matter to me (as a judge) if the cyclist was wearing black head to toe with no lights. The real crime here is driving away from the accident and leaving a cyclist dying by the side of the road.
There have been several times when I have nearly hit a cyclist or pedestrian over the 30 years I've been driving - mainly because they have been drunk, messing around, run out from between parked cars etc etc. Not once would I ever consider leaving the scene of any accident that might have ensued.
For that crime alone they should have thrown the book at him - no matter who was at fault in the original collision.
For that crime alone they should have thrown the book at him – no matter who was at fault in the original collision.
Unfortunately the 'I thought I hit a deer' excuse is enough to establish reasonable doubt.
The law needs changing here to mandate that drivers report any collision even if it's a deer. Then this BS excuse will be rendered unless.
Sentence is spot on guidelines, make of that what you will.
Yet the baying mob still want life for death by careless cycling. Worth responding to the consultation if you care.
Hopefully the defendant is a gig economy worker on a DPD style contract as it will be costing him £150-ish a day in penalties until he finds a replacement to carry out his job.
Minimum loss of licence for life with 5 years inside if ever caught behind the wheel of a vehicle requiring a licence to operate it on the highway. (A full 5 years with no let-off for good behaviour)
"Some witnesses said they could see Mr Gibbs’ illuminated bike lights from as far away as 200 yards (182m), while others said they had to “take avoidance action and swerve” to miss him, the court heard."
Or to correct that ....
"Some witnesses said they could see Mr Gibbs’ illuminated bike lights from as far away as 200 yards (182m), while others ...
Were paying so little attention to the road/were failing to drive with sufficient care that they failed to see in good time and properly overtake another road user."
It's not like the A338 has a succession of tight curves in it either. It's about as close to straight as you're going to get between Ringwood and Bournemouth.
Dangerous driving causing a death and driving away from the accident scene..... And all he has to do is work for free for a while and catch a bus for 18 months.
To hear this is as per guidelines is even more shocking than the "accident" itself!
Absolutely ridiculous!
The cyclist was not wearing high-visibility clothing, the court was told.
Interesting that the Beeb chose to put this in the article as it sounds like an attempt to blame the cyclist (as they don't mention that he was illegally lit and not wearing a helmet I'd assume that he was).
Surely there's a good case for an appeal for an unduly lenient sentence?
We have until 11.45pm tonight to respond to consultation on the Gov's plans to introduce new "death by cycling" laws.
I'm fine with new laws, that helps establish cyclists as an equal user group. I'd happily mandate insurance too frankly, virtually everyone has it, and it would shut up some of the mouth breathing ****s that have no idea what they're talking about.
However, that's nothing to do with drivers being told "that was a bit naughty" when they kill people, and that seems to be the problem.
You are obviously free to respond in favour if that's your opinion, however...
However, that’s nothing to do with drivers being told “that was a bit naughty” when they kill people
The issue is the waste of legislative resources with a cynical attempt to villify cyclists, fast-tracking this while sitting on a long-promised wider review of road offences (which this could have been part of).
So there is a link, in that context.
Surely there’s a good case for an appeal for an unduly lenient sentence?
Not if it is in line with the sentencing guidelines.
Or to correct that ….
“while others …
Were paying so little attention to the road/were failing to drive with sufficient care that they failed to see in good time and properly overtake another road user.”
No, the statement was most likely an accurate reflection of the "evidence" your correction is applying your own bias - it may be true, or it may genuinely be that there was a fault with the light, it was mounted badly etc. The court has to make its decisions based on the actual evidence before it - not on hypothesis about what they make up themselves. It was the job of the investigating officers to establish if that light could clearly be seen by an observant driver at a suitable distance.
The law needs changing here to mandate that drivers report any collision even if it’s a deer. Then this BS excuse will be rendered unless.
Mmm, 1. Making people "report" everything rather than "stop" would not really help at the scene; 2. would clog up a resource strapped police with people reporting stuff like hitting a rabbit; 3. You'd like to have hoped that the investigating officer, or the CPS asked the questions "if you thought it was a deer, did you not think it would be sensible to stop and check if the deer was now blocking the carriageway and presumably a risk to other road users?
The ‘I hit a deer excuse’ is just a legal fiction. His internet searches make this obvious as does fact that as you say nobody drives home with a shattered windscreen after hitting a deer, you call a recover truck.
Where did you see what he searched on the internet? Did they even prosecute for fail to stop/report? I'm fairly certain not everyone call a recovery truck for every deer v vehicle - there were no pics of the van in the article (and may not have been in court) which makes it hard to know how bad it was damaged.
I’d like to know why “high visibility” clothing was even mentioned in court, given that it seems the accident happened in the dark, on an unlit road.
Reflectives may have been relevant. Hi Viz, completely pointless in such a scenario. Hi Viz for daylight, reflectives for darkness, surely this is generally accepted, no?
I think you may be reading too much into the particular words, as used either in court or the press. In colloquial use normal people use "high vis" differently from the distinction you appear to be trying to make. The point may well have been relevant because had he been highly reflective (and this may even be true of some neon coloured clothing) then it would have made the "thought it was a deer" story unbelievable or been enough to move the case from careless to dangerous.
Read that sentence back to yourself slowly and have a think about what you wrote.
I have no problem with what I wrote - I see loads of cyclists wearing black (no problem with that unless...) and with small rear lights which are so dim that they look like they are about 10 minutes away from the battery failing.
That counts as 'asking to be hit' in my mind and I reckon in the mind of most police and judges.
You’d like to have hoped that the investigating officer, or the CPS asked the questions “if you thought it was a deer, did you not think it would be sensible to stop and check if the deer was now blocking the carriageway and presumably a risk to other road users?
This is what I was thinking. Hit a thing big enough to make van pretty much un-driveable (so clearly not a rabbit, fox, badger etc,.) yet just carry on driving and leaving whatever it was to slowly die or block the road causing other accidents.
From chakaping's link =
[i]2.2.2. In England, deaths and serious injury caused by cyclists have attracted
a great deal of attention. There have been a number of high-profile cases
e.g. at the Central Criminal Court on 23 August 2017 Charles Alliston
was acquitted of manslaughter but convicted of wanton and furious
driving after he rode into Mrs Briggs when she was crossing a road in
London. Mrs Briggs suffered serious head injuries and died a week later.
Mr Alliston was sentenced to 18 months detention in a Young Offender’s
Institution. At Reading Crown Court on 11 October 2017 Richard
4
Manners admitted causing bodily harm by wilful misconduct after
crashing into a 4 year old boy in a pedestrian-only area while riding a
bike with no brakes. He was imprisoned for 27 weeks.[/i]
Right, 2 then. Amazing
I wish I had the patience to read it all, but I haven't. I did scan and nowhere can I see mention that riding dangerously is extremely rare because it causes as much danger to the person riding as it does to anyone else!
This all sadly reinforces my gut feel that I should avoid riding on, or near the road at all costs. I feel like an environmental cheat loading my bike up to drive 7 miles to the downs when I could/should ride there. And riding on the road with my kids??? No way Hose.
No way Jose
You've not seen Father Ted have you.
globe.com/scene/?frame=S02E02-tn4Nixkt
or watch and listen here about 15.40.
Surely there’s a good case for an appeal for an unduly lenient sentence?
Not if it is in line with the sentencing guidelines.
Kevin Johnson previously pleaded guilty at Bournemouth Crown Court to causing death by careless driving.
So are the causing death by careless/dangerous driving charges the only options? It seems to me that death has been caused by negligence/willful negligence and as such could be considered manslaughter.
This all sadly reinforces my gut feel that I should avoid riding on, or near the road at all costs. I feel like an environmental cheat loading my bike up to drive 7 miles to the downs when I could/should ride there. And riding on the road with my kids??? No way Hose.
Have you considered the fact you are still driving on the [same] roads with the same drivers and whilst your tin box might provide you with some extra protection it won't guarantee a van driven by an inattentive driver doesn't wipe you out? Have you considered whether by training your kids to believe that everybody gets driven everywhere and so if, like many, they stop actively pursuing "sport" as they get older you'll have bread sedentary couch potatoes who face the life of health problems associated with an inactive lifestyle. Have you considered whether by keeping "our children" away from such places we help reinforce in their minds "that bikes don't belong on roads" and they grow up to become the "you should pay roadtax" shouters of the future? By protecting them from a tiny catastrophic risk now are you exposing them to a much more likely one in many years time?
FWIW I've never had a dodgy pass riding on the road with kids, and even people who have generally agree that drivers are far more courteous around children. That does of course rely on them seeing you to start with (although a group may be more visible)! The sentence on those who do cause fatalities will have no impact on other drivers who don't pay as much attention as they should.
I’m fine with new laws, that helps establish cyclists as an equal user group. I’d happily mandate insurance too frankly, virtually everyone has it, and it would shut up some of the mouth breathing **** that have no idea what they’re talking about.
Cyclists are already an equal user group in law and there is no need for new laws to establish that. I don't think that adding a new law on dangerous cycling or introducing mandatory insurance will shut anyone up, because the people you are describing just think that cyclists shouldn't be on the road, full stop.
I have no problem with what I wrote
If I encountered someone cycling at night in black clothing with no lights, I'd think they were taking a stupid risk and behaving irresponsibly, but I'd hope they didn't come to harm. I wouldn't think they were "asking to be hit".
Have you considered the fact you are still driving on the [same] roads with the same drivers and whilst your tin box might provide you with some extra protection it won’t guarantee a van driven by an inattentive driver doesn’t wipe you out? Have you considered whether by training your kids to believe that everybody gets driven everywhere and so if, like many, they stop actively pursuing “sport” as they get older you’ll have bread sedentary couch potatoes who face the life of health problems associated with an inactive lifestyle. Have you considered whether by keeping “our children” away from such places we help reinforce in their minds “that bikes don’t belong on roads” and they grow up to become the “you should pay roadtax” shouters of the future? By protecting them from a tiny catastrophic risk now are you exposing them to a much more likely one in many years time?
Drivers poor road manners to cyclists and general not giving a shit, and child obesity are all definitely my fault. I'll change my ways, thanks for the words of wisdom.
It seems to me that death has been caused by negligence/willful negligence and as such could be considered manslaughter.
Go back to the stuff chakaping posted, there are mentions of that point..
If I encountered someone cycling at night in black clothing with no lights, I’d think they were taking a stupid risk and behaving irresponsibly, but I’d hope they didn’t come to harm. I wouldn’t think they were “asking to be hit”
totally agree - I've seen it many times in fact and marvelled at the lack of self preservation instinct in such people. But they aren't asking to be hit - exactly the opposite in fact. Just like riders [i]with [/i] lights.
5plusn8 - where did I say that? try taking your kids on the road - I believe you'll find drivers manners are much better than you expect. But obviously if you want to assume your gut feel is right, and quell your eco-guilt by wagging your finger at all the other drivers when you are part of the problem then crack on. Obviously though - its actually the criminal justice system that is at fault - not your risk perception.
I've given up road riding - far too many broken bones at the hands of drivers. Even getting a snapped spine the driver didn't even get a telling off - the cops said 'your insurance will sort it' - permanent pain ! Cheers.
Killing people with a car is fine, cyclists, yeh take em all down. FFS
Absolutely ridiculous!
The cyclist was not wearing high-visibility clothing, the court was told.
Interesting that the Beeb chose to put this in the article as it sounds like an attempt to blame the cyclist (as they don’t mention that he was illegally lit and not wearing a helmet I’d assume that he was).
In fairness to the Beeb, they are simply reporting the fact that his lack of "Hi-Vis" was reported to the court. Presumably this was by the defence, to imply the lack of a yellow vest somehow reduces the defendant's level of responsibility for fleeing the scene of a road traffic collision.
The article doesn't make any point or inference in relation to this fact, so I'd say it qualifies as fair, dispassionate reporting. Any conclusions readers draw are really their own. TBH I think the press should report anything presented as evidence or testimony, certainly not self-censor just to avoid being accused of victim blaming…
But Yes, a scarily light sentence, worst of all the bloke doesn't live all that far from me, so once he gets his licence back, there's a fair chance He'll be barrelling round my area endangering the local Deer again...
where did I say that?
Initially implied, then confirmed by this:
you are part of the problem
I fail to see how by exercising freedom of choice to avoid cycling on he road, or risk my kids lives on the road then I am harming anyone. Other than the driving, which I held my hands up to. Can I just check, do you cycle only or do you have a car also?
Re the hi-viz, in court drivers & defence will say anything in court - a lorry driver reconned that a road sign had obstructed his view of the four motorcyclists heading straight towards him as he turned right onto a minor road - he only got a fine & 9pts for very nearly killing a friend of mine.
Plus in times of tradgedy it's very difficult to actually own up and admit you've done something as terrible as killing another human being so it's all too easy to try to justify ones actions and apportion blame elsewhere.
Stronger sentencing, stronger policing and more suitable infrastructure of our roads is what's needed - I'd go out of my way to avoid nsl dual carriageways and other busy nsl routes 😞
5plusn8 - i wrote you a lengthy reply then the forum binned it. It would probably have been wasted anyway since it seems you only wanted responses which agree that the ONLY rational conclusion from a seemingly lenient sentence for one person being killed in the dark on a dual carriageway is that you should never ride on or near roads.
Here's an alternative view though: https://www.cyclinguk.org/campaign/safety-in-numbers
Basically all I said was, I don't want to ride on roads, nor my kids. I never said the ONLY conclusion was anything. You have a reading comprehension, assumption and conclusion jumping to issue.
You do what you like. As can everyone else. I am happy other people choose to cycle on the roads. When I drive my car I take care to look after the other road users, especially the soft ones. With bikes I hang back, give plenty of room, won't overtake unless I can cross into the next carriageway, and often check myself to think if there might be bike inside me etc. In the car the kids are aware of this and often warn me of bikes, and other road users see what I do (mostly cos it pisses them off) and hopefully they will learn to respect bikes too. As it is my perception of risk is conservative, I can't see the harm.
To be honest you are pissing me off, I look after other road users and myself, I vote for pro cycling parties and support all efforts to make cycling safer. I don't see why I should increase my risk or my kids to satisfy a pretty crap way of putting things right. Try voting, or join sustrans, I do both.
I believe you’ll find drivers manners are much better than you expect.
Not where I live there aren't, around half of them are impatient and self entitled ****ers. If there is a car behind me coming up to a blind corner (there are many blind corners where I live) I would say there is around a 75% chance that they will overtake me. If there is a narrowing in the road (again, lots of narrowing in road where I live) I would say there is a 50% chance that the oncoming driver will race through forcing me to slow down just so they don't have to slow down.
And this is on roads where there are horses and cows strolling around, standing in roads on corners etc,.
Mmm, 1. Making people “report” everything rather than “stop” would not really help at the scene; 2. would clog up a resource strapped police with people reporting stuff like hitting a rabbit; 3. You’d like to have hoped that the investigating officer, or the CPS asked the questions “if you thought it was a deer, did you not think it would be sensible to stop and check if the deer was now blocking the carriageway and presumably a risk to other road users?
There is already a duty to report collisions with a wide range of animals:
If you hit an animal which is covered by The Road Traffic Act 1988 – namely, <b>dogs</b>, <b>goats</b>, <b>horses</b>, <b>cattle</b>, donkeys, mules, <b>sheep</b> and <b>pigs</b> you are legally required to report it to the police.
I don't have time to go through the Act like a Lawyer but I believe one is obliged to stop and report in these cases. Certain animals like foxes, cats and deer you don't have to report.
Clearly a large animal like a deer can provide reasonable doubt in case of actual collision with a human but a cat can't.
I’m fairly certain not everyone call a recovery truck for every deer v vehicle – there were no pics of the van in the article (and may not have been in court) which makes it hard to know how bad it was damaged.
The damage was bad enough for it to be put on a recovery truck and for the copper to see significant damage from the verge on the other carriageway. How much does a deer weight? 100-150 kg? Hit at 70 mph and that's 3000-4000 N of force. It's quite likely you won't actually be able to drive away.
In this case the Driver hit a cyclist say weighing 80 kg at say 50 mph closing speed = 1700 N of so. Enough to bounce the cyclist almost 50 m down the road. I'd say the vehicle was a bit more than scratched, hence "almost caved in" according to the Crown.
here did you see what he searched on the internet?
It's in the article
He searched for 'road closures' after the accident and 'contact police' the next day.
He wasn't convicted of failing to stop or failing to report, so the deer thing isn't really relevant. Presumably the CPS didn't pursue because the likelihood of a different sentence was low.
The court has clearly accepted the "momentary lapse" mitigation, although that "moment" must have lasted longer than 6 seconds for the rest of the evidence to fit.
He wasn’t convicted of failing to stop or failing to report, so the deer thing isn’t really relevant. Presumably the CPS didn’t pursue because the likelihood of a different sentence was low.
The deer thing IS the reason they didn't press charges even for failing to stop. Like I said it's a legal fiction which provides reasonable doubt.
I’d think they were taking a stupid risk and behaving irresponsibly, but I’d hope they didn’t come to harm. I wouldn’t think they were “asking to be hit”.
how about the physcological impact on the person who might hit them because they are riding with such little care ?
I say again - they are asking to be hit - just too bloody stupid to realise it.
So you'd drive into them if you saw them? You know "Hit me!" as you say, be the right thing to do wouldn't it?
FWIW I’ve never had a dodgy pass riding on the road with kids, and even people who have generally agree that drivers are far more courteous around children.
I wish that that was my experience. Most are ok, some especially patient (though several because they know who I am, and know that we're both heading for the same place at the same time for the same drop off, and that i *will* go speak to the calmly and politely about their woeful driving if they do barge past or cut me up).
however there are still the few who Must Get Past The Cyclist, those that can clearly see round blind corners, and those who seemingly can't think past their own bonnets or just assume I'll be afraid and leap out of their way, or teleport somehow to avoid delaying them for even a few seconds.
none of this will stop me riding, and using the roads with my kids, but I have bought a three seat tandem* to use for the school run to keep the small ones a little safer.
* it is also great to use, and hilarious to ride, btw
Not where I live there aren’t, around half of them are impatient and self entitled ****.
kerley - When you are riding with kids? or a are you just partially quoting me to make the point you want to make rather than the one I was making?
To be honest you are pissing me off,
5plusn8 - I seem to have hit a nerve, simply by asking some questions if you had considered a different side to the decision.
It’s in the article
He searched for ‘road closures’ after the accident and ‘contact police’ the next day.
rydster - thanks for that. It wasn't mentioned in the article in the OP, but that sheds some more light. Reading between the lines he'll have pled guilty on condition of the fail to report charge being dropped. Rightly or wrongly the prosecution frequently negotiate guilty pleas to avoid the cost, inconvenience to witnesses and the potential they screw up the case and he gets off with everything. If there is a possible defence then you can see how a prosecutor could reach the conclusion to drop it and move on. You are right adding deer to the list of reportable animals would close a possible "get out", although I think the reason for those animals being listed is that they have owners who might be entitled to compensation, not quite the same as saying every accident though. It doesn't stop the usual "I didn't even know there has been a collision" excuse (obviously a bit tricky with an "almost caved in windscreen" - whatever that actually means.
How much does a deer weight? 100-150 kg? Hit at 70 mph and that’s 3000-4000 N of force. It’s quite likely you won’t actually be able to drive away.
One of my work colleagues hit a deer on the A66 near Penrith - the car was undriveable and an insurance write off.
kerley – When you are riding with kids? or a are you just partially quoting me to make the point you want to make rather than the one I was making?
I am riding in the New Forest but not with kids. However having seen a lot of people riding with kids (it is a popular camping spot) they don't get treated any differently. The point you made was that drivers were better than people think, I am telling you that is not the case on the roads I ride on. Made worse by most of the roads being 40mph limit meaning a lot of the cars are doing 45mph as they pass too close, squeeze in before you, overtake on blind corners, blind brows of hills, overtake into oncoming cars etc, etc,.
the new forest can be quite bad, especially when it's busy and everyone is getting hacked off with caravans / tourists goggling horses and people on bikes. I even once had an Audi of some description drive straight at me, on the wrong side of the road and freak me out so I ended up crashing into the verge....
Southampton is atrocious at the moment, said works snarling up.the roads so everyone is bad tempered. I had 2 very close near misses despite being clearly visible. I've stopped commuting by bike just not worth it at the moment. so a other car on the road.
In fairness to the Beeb, they are simply reporting the fact that his lack of “Hi-Vis” was reported to the court. Presumably this was by the defence, to imply the lack of a yellow vest somehow reduces the defendant’s level of responsibility for fleeing the scene of a road traffic collision.
I'm a bit slow on the uptake and it's only just dawned on me that as the defendant pled guilty there wouldn't have been a trial and any arguments presented by the prosecution and defence; we're assuming then that the lack of hi-vis clothing was presented as mitigation to sentencing despite the fact that it's not a legal requirement (the lack of comment regarding lights and a helmet, I would assume meant, that they were in place)?
I've only skimmed through some of the stuff Chakaping link to, but the report that 5 in 6 drivers involved in fatal collisions avoid prison (with only a third losing their licences) is pretty shocking; it does rather suggest institutional victim blaming within the legal system to me.
When you can't stop cyclists from victim blaming what hope do we have with the population at large.
Asking for it? Honestly!!
Did people hear this BBC R4 programme earlier in the year? Very different case(s) than the one sparking this thread, and no judgement/criticism implied of the views expressed here - but an interesting listen.
how about the physcological impact on the person who might hit them because they are riding with such little care ?
Dunno, what's that got to do with suggesting people are "asking to be hit"?
I say again – they are asking to be hit – just too bloody stupid to realise it.
The problem with using this language is that it helps to normalise exactly what the driver got away with in this case. Forget about lights. I'll bet a lot of people reading that story would tell you the cyclist was "asking to be hit" just because he was on the road.
I don't know if you are a cyclist or not, but no one is "asking to be hit" when they ride a bike.
So you’d drive into them if you saw them? You know “Hit me!” as you say, be the right thing to do wouldn’t it?
of course I wouldn't if I saw them - and that is the point - if I saw them.
Riding with deficient lights, often seriously deficient and in combination with no reflectors to attempt to compensate, is incredibly negligent and self-entitled - as self-entitled as it seems a lot of people are on here.
I don’t know if you are a cyclist or not, but no one is “asking to be hit” when they ride a bike.
except that they are if they ride in the dark with deficient lighting and nothing to compensate - like reflectors.
how many bikes in the garage do I need to be counted as a cyclilst - if more than 4 then I am one...
If you really don't get it, go back to the point that was made by someone else earlier in the discussion, about how some people talk about rape cases. Do you think that women who wear short skirts and go out late at night are "asking to be raped"? Do you think it matters if people "explain" rape like this?
of course I wouldn’t if I saw them – and that is the point – if I saw them.
From the other drivers it seemed that some saw the cyclist whilst others didn't. That says to me that he was visible and anyone who didn't see him or saw him at last minute was simply not paying attention. If you are driving observantly you can see cars moving out a long way ahead even if you can't see the cyclist because the cars may be blocking the view.
You may be one of the poor drivers who didn't see him in which case that is 100% down to you and nothing to do with him "asking for it"
Hmm I am not sure it is comparable with rape victim blaming,
Rapists go looking for victims to rape.
Drivers do not go looking for cyclists to mow down.
Drivers do not go looking for cyclists to mow down
Why the **** not? They're asking for it aren't they? Just like them miniskirt wearing slags.
I was riding home once (years ago, but I remember it well) and my light battery ran out. Asking for it I was.
The type of rapist* you are referring to don't go out looking for people in short skirts to rape. They plan their attacks and either target specific victims or look for people alone in vulnerable / secluded areas where they can take advantage. They know what they are doing; are fully aware of their actions and consequences.
Drivers go out fully aware they are in 1500+ kg of fast moving metal that has through fair means or foul, through incapacity or inattention, through will or circumstance - the capability of killing or maiming in an instant. If a driver doesn't know that then they shouldn't be driving; they need to be fully aware of their actions and consequences.
In neither case is the victim 'asking for it', it's the responsibility of the rapist to not rape people and the driver to be fully aware and capable so they don't run innocent people over.
* for avoidance of doubt, not the too drunk to know whether the victim was willing or not rape, where desire may play a part. That's not the point here.
The type of rapist* you are referring
I am not referring to any type of rapist, that is your assumption or projection. I mean any rapist, they don't rape people by accident.
Drivers go out fully aware they are in 1500+ kg of fast moving metal that has through fair means or foul, through incapacity or inattention, through will or circumstance – the capability of killing or maiming in an instant. If a driver doesn’t know that then they shouldn’t be driving; they need to be fully aware of their actions and consequences.
I don't disagree, but there can easily be a scenario where an innocent careful driver might accidentally run over a cyclist who is drunk and wobbles out into the road from a dark hedgerow?
That is not in anyway the same as being drunk and accidentally wobbling into an opportunist rapist. The rapist is looking for the opportunity to commit his crime. Being drunk and getting raped is not the fault of the drunk person. Being drunk and getting run over might be the fault of the drunk person.
You are muddying the waters. Note I am not in anyway victim blaming cyclists, I am just pointing out that it is possible for a cyclist to contribute to their own misfortune, where the driver may be innocent.
If someone is raped, it isn't their fault, end of.
Things I would like to see:
drivers should be more careful, the legal system should put more onus on drivers to be careful, roads should be wide and well lit, cycle paths should be separate from the roads, cars should be speed restricted, safety technology should be mandatory etc etc.
Was going to dip my toe in again, now see it's all good a bit "rapey". Hmmm......