Death by dangerous cycling

It shows that car drivers that kill people because of their own recklessness, do not get charged with manslaughter, and often dont go to jail.

People should not base opinions on newspaper reports of court cases - the use of the term reckless is wrong in law and out of date hence we have a statutory definition of what dangerous driving actually is.

If you have the stats to back up your opinion "often don't go to jail' please share it.

I have no idea what the "evidence" actually was - and only the people in court who heard it do.

This discussion is going round in circles - and is really about the sentencing of drivers who kill.

We have a sentencing council - google it - who set the guidelines following public consultation on the topic. It is all well and good berating the Judge when he or she passes any particular sentence but given said Judge has to abide by the guidelines then if people have a real issue with sentencing in these sorts of cases (or others) take the complaint to the Sentencing Council.

There should be a minimum sentence for deaths caused by somebody breaking the law regardless of how it happened.Theres a fine line between an accident and mindless stupidity.I see it every day on my drive to work and from motorists,cyclists,motorbikes and pedestrians.

The CPS obviously thought he caused a death, and should be charged with dangerous driving, for which he got off, he may have been convicted of a lesser crime like careless driving.

Careless driving, inconsiderate driving, driving without due care and attention, all carry no jail time. I agree with the CPS, perhaps its this law that needs changing, but it seem popular to attack cyclists.

There does not seem to be a crime of causing death by careless driving, just careless driving.

How can we have laws that are so out of touch with actual crimes?

We have a sentencing council - google it - who set the guidelines following public consultation on the topic. It is all well and good berating the Judge when he or she passes any particular sentence but given said Judge has to abide by the guidelines then if people have a real issue with sentencing in these sorts of cases (or others) take the complaint to the Sentencing Council.

Does it matter one iota whether the fact that motorists can crush a small child to death under their wheels by mounting a pavement and escape justice with the classic excuse 'I didn't see her', is due to inept judging, or, inept sentencing council guidelines?

This isn't about 'berating a judge'- it's about berating a system that allows hundreds of negligent/inept motorists to kill and maim cyclists (and, obviously, child pedestrians on pavements), to escape either scot-free, or with grossly inadequate punishment.

How does it do that? The driver was cleared.

Isn't that the point?

He was cleared of the offence, there is no dispute that he killed a four year old girl by running her over.

---------- Post added 22-09-2017 at 07:42 ----------

There should be a minimum sentence for deaths caused by somebody breaking the law regardless of how it happened.Theres a fine line between an accident and mindless stupidity.I see it every day on my drive to work and from motorists,cyclists,motorbikes and pedestrians.

And the minimum sentence should vary depending on the likely level of harm the stupidity could cause. With a bike that's very low, hence very few deaths caused. With a car it's higher, with a bus/lorry/wagon it's very high.

---------- Post added 22-09-2017 at 07:47 ----------

People should not base opinions on newspaper reports of court cases - the use of the term reckless is wrong in law and out of date hence we have a statutory definition of what dangerous driving actually is.

 

If you have the stats to back up your opinion "often don't go to jail' please share it.

 

I have no idea what the "evidence" actually was - and only the people in court who heard it do.

 

This discussion is going round in circles - and is really about the sentencing of drivers who kill.

We have a sentencing council - google it - who set the guidelines following public consultation on the topic. It is all well and good berating the Judge when he or she passes any particular sentence but given said Judge has to abide by the guidelines then if people have a real issue with sentencing in these sorts of cases (or others) take the complaint to the Sentencing Council.

The guidelines for motoring offences are very broad though, and there appears to be a disinclination to punish motorists for killing people, or in the case of juries to even convict them.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/434678/600-killer-drivers-allowed-to-go-free

MORE than 600 killer drivers have *managed to avoid a prison sentence in the past five years despite being res*ponsible for a fatal crash.

And despite having announced and then suspended a review into the sentencing guidelines for these specific offences.

The Government's consultation on motoring offences and sentencing, first promised in May 2014 in response to Cycling UK’s Road Justice campaign, plans to increase sentences for the most serious offenders but falls short of what is needed to tackle driving standards on Britain’s roads.

 

The Government originally promised to carry out a full review of all motoring offences and penalties, including the distinction between 'careless' and 'dangerous' driving. Instead, the proposals in the review only aim to increase maximum sentences for the most serious offences.

Despite that, 1 cyclist caused death and a jail time outcome and yet

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/british-cycling-law-urgent-review-series-deaths-kim-briggs-bikes-dangerous-careless-driving-jesse-a7957996.html

This doesn't make any sense.

Hundreds of people are killed by cars every year, and hundreds of drivers walk free.

1 person is killed by a cyclist, who gets 18 months for it, but the cycling laws are to be reviewed when the overall review has been suspended.

It's absolute nonsense and pandering to the gutter press.

Indeed cyclone. It's what happens when populism rears its ugly head. People need hate figures.

Does it matter one iota whether the fact that motorists can crush a small child to death under their wheels by mounting a pavement and escape justice with the classic excuse 'I didn't see her', is due to inept judging, or, inept sentencing council guidelines?

 

This isn't about 'berating a judge'- it's about berating a system that allows hundreds of negligent/inept motorists to kill and maim cyclists (and, obviously, child pedestrians on pavements), to escape either scot-free, or with grossly inadequate punishment.

You were not on the jury, did not hear the evidence and are basing your rant on a newspaper report and in no position to suggest the verdict is due to 'inept judging' - because you don't know.

The rest of your rambling does not warrant any comment save to ask for the evidence that 'hundreds' kill and maim cyclists and escape scot free (that would be not charged or acquitted) or with grossly inadequate punishment (I imagine that means are not sentenced to death)

---------- Post added 22-09-2017 at 09:08 ----------

1 person is killed by a cyclist, who gets 18 months for it, but the cycling laws are to be reviewed when the overall review has been suspended.

It's absolute nonsense and pandering to the gutter press.

I agree about that

This may be of interest to some of you-

https://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1523239

a new thread where anti-cycling bigotry is raising it's head, example posts below

I don't understand why cyclists need these boxes to be honest. Your supposed to stay to one side of the road to allow cars to pass when safe anyway so why would you need to stop in front of a car at the lights when most of the time the car sets off a lot quicker than you would? And what about the cyclists that stop in these boxes but then decide to mount the pavement and cut across just to avoid the red light? Double standards in my opinion.

Either way, if you swerve to avoid a pothole into something that is overtaking you, it's your fault. Better to ride through the pothole and bust a wheel than be killed.

---------- Post added 22-09-2017 at 09:22 ----------

You were not on the jury, did not hear the evidence and are basing your rant on a newspaper report

There's hundreds of newspaper reports on that tragedy-

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Esme+Weir%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=ZtXEWcWbF83c8Af05LfQAg

all remarkably consistent. And there's no denying that he killed her while she was on the pavement

You were not on the jury, did not hear the evidence and are basing your rant on a newspaper report and in no position to suggest the verdict is due to 'inept judging' - because you don't know.

 

Isn't that the point?

He was cleared of the offence, there is no dispute that he killed a four year old girl by running her over.

If he does not see that, end of discussion, no point in flogging a dead horse.

This may be of interest to some of you-

 

https://www.sheffieldforum.co.uk/showthread.php?t=1523239

 

a new thread where anti-cycling bigotry is raising it's head, example posts below

 

 

 

---------- Post added 22-09-2017 at 09:22 ----------

 

There's hundreds of newspaper reports on that tragedy-

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Esme+Weir%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=ZtXEWcWbF83c8Af05LfQAg

 

all remarkably consistent. And there's no denying that he killed her while she was on the pavement

 

I'm not 'ranting', and, I didn't say it was due to inept judging (you introduced that phrase in your strawman when you accused other posters of blaming the judge (which they also hadn't done). I said it was a result of either inept judging, or, bad sentencing guidelines.

You don't like the outcome of a case based on a newspaper report?

You are critical of the judging (I assume you mean a jury) in a case in which you did not see any witness give evidence, you heard none of the evidence and did not listen to the summing up or competing arguments from the respective parties.

Sounds like a rant to me.

You would be better off getting your opinions from "evidence" not from the reports in a paper - and you use the phrase hundreds again -

Last time I looked there were insufficient seats in a court for hundreds of people.

If you are ever selected for jury service and you are on a panel involving a driving case are you going to let everyone know how partial you are - or just sit there ignore the evidence and convict the car driver ?

You don't like the outcome of a case based on a newspaper report?

 

You are critical of the judging (I assume you mean a jury) in a case in which you did not see any witness give evidence, you heard none of the evidence and did not listen to the summing up or competing arguments from the respective parties.

 

Sounds like a rant to me.

 

You would be better off getting your opinions from "evidence" not from the reports in a paper - and you use the phrase hundreds again -

Last time I looked there were insufficient seats in a court for hundreds of people.

 

If you are ever selected for jury service and you are on a panel involving a driving case are you going to let everyone know how partial you are - or just sit there ignore the evidence and convict the car driver ?

You seem to be unable to read properly. I've had that feeling over several of your replies to my posts, but, from what you say above it's clear you're not actually reading what I'm posting.

I said-

There's hundreds of newspaper reports on that tragedy-

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=%22Esme+Weir%22&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b-ab&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=ZtXEWcWbF83c8Af05LfQAg

What's that got to do with seats in a court?!

It's ironic that you're accusing me of ranting, when it's clear from your rushed responses to my (and others) posts, that you're the one getting overly emotional.

You seem to be unable to read properly. I've had that feeling over several of your replies to my posts, but, from what you say above it's clear you're not actually reading what I'm posting.

 

I said-

 

(I even put a link to those hundreds of reports.)

 

What's that got to do with seats in a court?!

 

It's ironic that you're accusing me of ranting, when it's clear from your rushed responses to my (and others) posts, that you're the one getting overly emotional.

Resorting to sly digs now

If you don't have the intelligence to work out that the fact numerous news outlets have reported on a case does not mean there were a similar number of reporters in court to listen to the evidence - they pool and simply copy the report from whoever was in court -

The chip on that shoulder of yours must weigh heavily.

You know zero about the case you highlight save what someone wrote in a paper - nothing - yet feel able to spout and opine on the basis of that report.

Fill your boots - you are entitled to your view - even if it is incapable of standing any sort of analysis.