awkwardbydesign
Officially Awesome
Indeed it does. Two pieces by cycling advocates.
Cyclists to be awarded equality with motorists.
- Thread starter Rob998
- Start date
awkwardbydesign
Officially Awesome
No it isn't. It's like saying someone who kills with a toy bow and arrow should face the same maximum penalty as someone who kills a with a gun.
ff1d1l
pfm Member
I wouldn't agree. Seems fundamental to the argument to me.
foxwelljsly
Me too, I ate one sour too.
If you kill anyone with anything the maximum sentence is life. Whether it's a car, pedal cycle or novelty action figure. WTF are you on about?
Very well put, I’m rather sick of saying the same thing.
I’d like to see an example of a driver receiving a 20 year sentence.
As stated before I don’t mind them issuing guidance or increasing allowable sentences but a change in the law won’t solve a problem that doesn’t really exist (statistically).
Sentences & punishments should be preventative also; at the very least a ban takes people off the road.
Mm, IAM & Autocar?
Andrew C!
Been around a while....
Sorry. My point is that on here some contributors want full transparency around police use of stopping motorists. My point is, and was back in the day, to try and at least ensure the motorist was committing a moving traffic offence before stopping them whenever possible. Routine stops are allowed, of course.
On the point of death by negligence ie cyclist hitting a pedestrian, I’d proffer to suggest there would be a very comprehensive investigation following such a death. The sentencing following any negligence would be quite severe, at least. If the sentencing guidelines need adjusting, then that does happen, especially when new trends around such deaths are spotted.
Lesser examples of such sentencing changes in general law can be found with aggravating factors to support a hate crime, and crimes exacerbated by use of weapons.
S-Man
StrivingON
kensalriser
pfm Member
Yeah, me too.
Sue Pertwee-Tyr
Accuphase all the way down
Well don’t say it any more then. We’re all clear on what you think, and you are clear on what we think. We disagree, and we both understand the other side’s pov. The reason this is being prolonged is because you won’t let us think what we think without trying to force us to change our view.
gintonic
50 shades of grey pussy cats
examples are totally irrelevant when we are talking about a principle you don't seem to accept - i didnt ever say a driver has been given 20 years - what i am saying is the sentencing tariff for killing a pedestrian by a car and killing a pedestrian by a bicycle should be the same in the same circumstances. After the principle is accepted into law, you can argue all you like about how it is implemented, and operationalised.
To be blunt i dont care what the tariff is, but all offenders should be treated equally.
foxwelljsly
Me too, I ate one sour too.
They are. The maximum sentence for both is life. Manslaughter carries a discretionary life sentence and murder a mandatory one. You can do either with a pedal cycle, car or John Birch Society commemorative rolling pin.
gintonic
50 shades of grey pussy cats
that isnt what the articles in the press are saying - death by furious cycling (or similar) 2 years or death by dangerous driving - life under some circumstances. The point of the thread was about closing the "loop hole" of the former, to equalise the available punishment.
So lets just remove the furious cycling sh!t, and death by dangerous driving and prosecute all under the usual man slaughter and murder laws....
foxwelljsly
Me too, I ate one sour too.
Given that the least vulnerable road user is usually at fault by default, with a good brief you may get away with it.
Paul L
coffee lounge for me
Hopefully not just nostalgia when I say that both cycling and driving were more pleasant 20 or 30 years ago, less crowded and less aggressive on both sides. But kind of ironic that both bikes and cars are often significantly better now with the evolution of equipment in a time that is often less enjoyable to use them.
I’m in the camp that hopes for better education and less selfishness all round and it reminds me of the war between motorcyclists and others that took a persistent campaign of education for both riders and others, and it feels those same frustrations have shifted to cycling. If it doesn’t improve I can imagine regulation of cycling has to come.
I like the quote above by awkwardydesign about drivers “They are pedestrians trying to get from A to B with the minimum inconvenience or effort” and that will stick with me. I think it describes us all, looking to minimise our own convenience, whether we would realise it or not.
I’m in the camp that hopes for better education and less selfishness all round and it reminds me of the war between motorcyclists and others that took a persistent campaign of education for both riders and others, and it feels those same frustrations have shifted to cycling. If it doesn’t improve I can imagine regulation of cycling has to come.
I like the quote above by awkwardydesign about drivers “They are pedestrians trying to get from A to B with the minimum inconvenience or effort” and that will stick with me. I think it describes us all, looking to minimise our own convenience, whether we would realise it or not.
I suppose the idea of what a severe sentence is greatly varies. Motoring/traffic offences seem to be treated very leniently. As I’ve mentioned before the number of people with over 12 points still driving around is quite staggering.
foxwelljsly
Me too, I ate one sour too.
Personally, I'm unconvinced by the effectiveness of punitive incarceration in the reduction of harm from driving offences and would rather see any death or injury caused by dangerous or careless driving result in a lifetime driving ban rather than jail time.
1000+ deaths every year caused by cars merits having a distinction between dangerous driving and manslaughter. One death every 5 years by bicycle does not and the ultimate sanction of manslaughter still applies. IMHO, of course.