Video: Sussex Police use CCTV footage of motorist knocking 12-year-old girl off bike in safety campaign

SB76 wrote:

A question, should the sentence be worse because it was a cyclist? No doubting the consequences of hitting a cyclist are potentially far worse and more dangerous but would anyone be calling for a harsher sentence if it was car on car??
I'm not defending the sentence but I don't know if the law views car/bikes or pedestrians differently??

If it had been car on car, there would almost certainly have been no injuries, no police called, no offence recorded, just another piece of shit driving the cost of which adds to everyone elses insurance.
One in 6 people claim on their car insurance each year. The massive majority for accident damage. Obviously barely any resulted in any driving offence charges. I think the law changed in about 1965 that all knocks had to be notified to the police. Personally I'd revoke that, increase the number of traffic cops tenfold and fund them from the roughly 5 million fines that would be issued from crashes alone.

jellysticks wrote:

PhilRuss wrote:

[[[[[ Absolutely outrageous comments from Sargeant Carl Naff...
Just who, and who alone, should he should be lecturing here?
P.R.

What on earth are you talking about? His comments are entirely appropriate and reasonable. He's not lecturing anyone.

I think he's talking about the tosser from the police force who, in the aftermath of another cretinous motorist ploughing into a cyclist, saw fit to open his trap and vomit forth rubbish about helmets and hi-viz.

Would you like anything else obvious explained to you?

severs1966 wrote:

noether wrote:

The fine is appalling: the driver should have been given 6 months community service securing the roads for use by child (!) cyclists.

I absolutely agree that the sentence was inadequately severe. However I confess to being astonished that the police actually bothered with a prosecution, which they normally wouldn't, even with video evidence (well, not unless the victim is killed). The cops usually don't care about cyclists.
What caused the willingness to investigate and prosecute? Was it the overwhelming, plain to see, incontrovertible evidence? Or was it because the victim was a child?

At the risk of repetition. I want to say again that the penalties for offences only really have a very small margin of interpretation. Having posted yesterday that the charge was the correct one according to the law and charging guidelines. I'll add today that the sentence was correct as well.

Conviction for driving without due care and attention
3 points on his licence
£85 fine
£85 costs,
£20 victim surcharge.

Here's the guideline sentence that a magistrate or judge needs to follow: They are asked to identify the characteristics of the offence and then look for the appropriate staring point.

The one that applies here is the lowest one
Momentary lapse of concentration or misjudgement at low speed.

The starting point for sentence is based on a fiirst time offender pleading not guilty

Starting point. Band A Fine + 3 – 4 points

Factors indicating greater degree of harm
1. Injury to others
2. Damage to other vehicles or property
3. High level of traffic or pedestrians in vicinity
4. Location e.g. near school when children are likely to be
present

Then consider a reduced sentence for guilty plea.

The Standard Band "A" fine is currently £50 The sentence in this case was £85. This approaches but does not reach the standard Band "B" fine of £100. It's about as high as a magistrate could go without breaking the guidelines.

I mention this because there seems to be an idea that magistrates and judges can just make the sentence as they go along. But they can't and if they go too far from the guidelines the sentences can be appealed. The magistrate also has to set down his /her reasons for adding on for aggravating and reducing for mitigating circumstances.

The issue is far more fundamental than getting annoyed with the CPS and the Judiciary or calling for higher sentences.

In most cases the road safety issue is not that sentences are too light but that there is almost no prospect of minor cases of careless or dangerous driving being dealt with at all.

Take speeding for example. It's happening all the time continuously and it's ignored. If believed that if they were speeding there would be a good chance that they would be caught they wouldn't do it. You wouldn't have to inctrease the sentence at all. It would be pretty clear that if you stood a good chance of being caught everytime you did it that if you carried on doing it you wouldn't have a licence by the end of the week.

We don't need higher sentences as such (though I am not against some increases) what we need is for the roads to be policed in a way that people know that their driving is being watched and monitored and that the police are minded to act.

The opposite is the case now. Most drivers believe that their driving is not monitored and that the police are not minded to prosecute minor offences.

KiwiMike wrote:

In other news from Kent Police:

The assailant, a 41-year-old man, was convicted of attempted sexual violation and ordered to pay £85 costs, an £85 fine and a £20 victim surcharge.

Sergeant Carl Knapp of Sussex Police said: "Fortunately in this case the woman escaped with bumps and bruises but it could have been a lot worse.

"Despite being perfectly sober, the male completely failed to respect the woman's right to not be assaulted.

"It shows how dangerous any one of us can be if we fail to spot and take on board all of the other potential assailants near us.

"This footage shows a man to blame but there have equally been incidents where women have been assaulted after wearing provocative clothing and drinking heavily.

"My message to all women is don't dress sluttishly, don't drink and keep a vial of pepper spray in your hand at all times - whatever you need to do to make sure you keep yourself and other people safe.

"70% of assaults where women suffer serious harm or are killed happen after drinking whilst dressed inappropriately.

"I would urge all women to reflect on this and to take that opportunity to double check their clothing before going out.

"Whether you have a right to not be raped or not, by getting a good understanding of the predatory people and their tactics, you are better placed to anticipate and take avoiding action where necessary."

Hmm, where to start - the arguable trivialisation of rape in the above post, or the obvious issue of intent, or lack thereof.

I've hit a car as a result of a momentary lapse of attention, but I've never accidentally raped or sexually assaulted anyone.

birzzles wrote:

I once almost hit a runner while cycling. She was in black running down my side of a country lane with headphones on. How in hells name was I to see her? Same thing happened to me with a woman on a horse under dappled sunlight, car almost got her as well, but I swear she was invisible. A horse!

I understand where your coming from but.

Cycling to work last week came round a blind corner and face to face with a Cow that had got out of its field. Yes it was daylight, yes i could see the cow, if i had been driving fair chance i would have hit the cow. Likewise last weekend i had a group of 7 or 8 lambs dart across the road in front of the bike.

You simply can't assume anything. Your the driver your actions do have consequences, you can't blame the victim because you ****ed up. Just because the speed limit may be 60 doesn't mean it is safe to drive at 60. Its called driving to the conditions.

@Allez Neg: how about taking it as what it was obviously meant as: an example of how victim blaming of cyclists for their maiming or death is standard practice amongst Police forces? And how it would be seen as callous / utterly unacceptable to use the same phraseology in relation to other crimes which have relatively recently moved into the sphere of being taken seriously. I do not seek to juxtapose the harm caused by sexual assault vs that caused by a 2,000kg vehicle moving at speed. I want neither to happen to anyone, and want both taken seriously by Police/CPS.

KiwiMike wrote:

In other news from Kent Police:

The assailant, a 41-year-old man, was convicted of attempted sexual violation and ordered to pay £85 costs, an £85 fine and a £20 victim surcharge.

Sergeant Carl Knapp of Sussex Police said: "Fortunately in this case the woman escaped with bumps and bruises but it could have been a lot worse.

"Despite being perfectly sober, the male completely failed to respect the woman's right to not be assaulted.

"It shows how dangerous any one of us can be if we fail to spot and take on board all of the other potential assailants near us.

"This footage shows a man to blame but there have equally been incidents where women have been assaulted after wearing provocative clothing and drinking heavily.

"My message to all women is don't dress sluttishly, don't drink and keep a vial of pepper spray in your hand at all times - whatever you need to do to make sure you keep yourself and other people safe.

"70% of assaults where women suffer serious harm or are killed happen after drinking whilst dressed inappropriately.

"I would urge all women to reflect on this and to take that opportunity to double check their clothing before going out.

"Whether you have a right to not be raped or not, by getting a good understanding of the predatory people and their tactics, you are better placed to anticipate and take avoiding action where necessary."

I know this has already been said - but this is a disgusting trivialisation of sexual assault. Please don't use something as horrific as rape to make a point.

Intent is really important - negligence is very different from actively seeking to harm another person.

allez neg wrote:

Kiwi - yes, I know the context of your post. I didn't see any victim blaming in what plod was quoted as saying in the article - just commonsense stuff. If, say, there were a spate of burglaries in the area, along with hoping plod would make efforts to catch the bad guys, I wouldn't see any problem or take offence if plod also issued general security advice to householders - I see no difference here.

As a observation I'm finding the generalised near hysterical tone in many posts and the general witch hunt of cars and other road users on this site a bit tedious, frankly.

None of us want these accidents to happen but sadly they do down to a whole host of issues from simple distraction to an inability to accept we're not upto it anymore.
I've both been the victim and culprit on both bicycle and car thankfully in my case, they havent yet resulted accidents more near misses! Sadly none of use are perfect no matter how much we may try to convince ourselves we are.

As far as i can, the driver made a mistake, accepted his punishment (albeit weak) and now the police are using this example to make a point to other drivers and also serve to remind cyclist that it's best otmake yourself as visibile as possible.

allez neg wrote:

Cranky Acid wrote:

Oh they've started down that road now too:

htps://twitter.com/kent_police/status/461379517400223744

Why is it the Police feel it is appropriate to call for high viz and helmets yet never infrastructure and space for cycling?

Perhaps for similar reasons that rather than address the root cause of acquisitive crime first regardless of cost (poverty, inequality of wealth, drug addiction, a general feeling of disenfranchisement with wider society, nihilistic thrill seeking etc etc..) plod will recommend that to reduce the risk of being burgled you should maybe lock your doors, get a dog or some security lighting etc.

How about punishing the crimes appropriately so that there is a disincentive to do them? In the driving case: Automatic ban for ANY driving offence with the duration dependent on the severity of the offence. Need for retest in any situation that resulted in injury. Confiscation and crushing of vehicles if un-licensed, uninsured, convicted of dangerous driving or death caused.

birzzles wrote:

A few weeks ago I saw a middle aged woman drive along a straight a road in day light into a big sign saying road closed. I saw the whole thing from a side junction.

Quite often there is a lot going on for the motorist to contend with, unfamiliar roads and traffic, and pedestrians, so it can be hard to see everything.

It can be hard to see everything. But that's the responsibility you take on when you drive - you accept that what you are doing could seriously harm others, and that you should put yourself in a position that allows you not to do that unless someone else does something that supersedes it (like running out in front of you). If you don't have time to take everything in, slow down. It's not that hard.

In this instance it simply sounds like she was distracted. It is her responsibility to manage that distraction, either by ignoring it or stopping. Lucky for her she didn't do any real damage, by the sound of it.

birzzles wrote:

Yesterday I saw a guy get out of a car shaking so badly he could hardly stand. I think he had some sort of disease.

Clearly, if his disease impairs his ability to drive safely, he shouldn't drive. That may make his life even more difficult, yes, but having a difficult life is not a reason to allow someone to put others in danger.

birzzles wrote:

If you don't take all the precautions you can, you can only blame yourself.

I full disagree. If you don't take the precautions you reasonably should, you may reasonably be partly to blame. Anything stronger than that is just making excuses for other's poor behavior. Would I knowingly put myself in significant (but faultless) danger to prove a point? No. But that doesn't mean that the danger (or it's consequences) is my fault in the first place.

Why is it so hard for people to accept that significant responsibilities can still arise from everyday tasks? It seems that it's a good excuse to say 'I am willingly doing something potentially dangerous to others, but I do it all the time so I don't need to take a lot of care when I do it'. I can't help but think that a strict/presumed liability regime is required to change that attitude.

SB76 wrote:

allez neg wrote:

I've both been the victim and culprit on both bicycle and car thankfully in my case, they havent yet resulted accidents more near misses! Sadly none of us are perfect no matter how much we may try to convince ourselves we are.

How bloody refreshing! That's where I come from as well.

KiwiMike wrote:

@Hoski - The internet really is crap for mistaking intent, isn't it?

I am not trivialising anything. I am highlighting how odious it is to have an officer of the law *trivialise* what could have very easily been the death of a child by using it as an excuse to trot out victim-blaming tropes. Clearly others saw nothing wrong with what the officer said, or their use of this video in this way. Others agree with me that he was totally out of order. You read it as trivialising something that obviously is not. I'm a husband and father of two girls. Do you seriously expect me to think like that?

A mechanism people frequently use when challenging statements from people in positions of authority is to replace the word 'cyclist' (or another minority) with the word 'Jew' or 'Black' or 'Woman' to highlight the minority-bashing, victim-blaming culture embedded in our institutions. Specifically, NOT to trivialise individual or historic wrongs, but to highlight how society now finds such trivialisation or victim blaming of other groups abhorrent, but not those on two wheels. By holding a mirror to and challenging these statements or phraseologies we begin to educate others, and hopefully to change the culture.

It is with no small surprise that I read posts from 'fellow cyclists' that see nothing wrong with current Police approaches. But as has been said, 'cycling is a broad church'.

Victim blaming?

The driver was prosecuted by the police. Convicted by the court and sentenced at the upper end of the sentence guideline for the circumstances of this incident.

Seems to me the right person was not only blamed but punished.

Who blamed the victim again ?

oozaveared wrote:

Who blamed the victim again ?

You did read what the policeman said, right?

"This footage shows a car driver to blame but there have equally been incidents where cyclists have been knocked down after pulling in front of vehicles without looking.

>>> see the huge 'but' in there? Ever tried apologising whilst using the word 'but'? doesn't go down too well does it?

"My message to all road users is look once, look twice and then look a third time if you have to - whatever you need to do to make sure you keep yourself and other people safe.

>>> How would looking have helped this girl at all? Is the inference that she didn't look?

"I would urge all road users to reflect on this and to take that opportunity to double check their view at junctions before passing through.

>>> 'all road users' - except there's only one group of road users who kill/maim others. And again, in this context, no amount of 'checking' would have helped her.

...and 4 out of 5 of the 'Safety tips for cyclists' required the cyclist to do something to hopefully influence the motorist's behaviour.

I accept that some will not read the above as 'victim blaming', more as common sense / general advice. Problem is, that's pretty much *all* the Police ever say. On average 1999/2000ths of road deaths are caused by motorists. The fact that cyclists are almost always lumped into the collectively responsible 'road users' bracket when it comes to Keeping Others Safe is massively misleading. It infers that shit happens, and when it happens to cyclists, well, you're a 'road user' and it's just one of those things. Also frequently gets used as ammo against cyclists, inferring a lawbreaking cyclist is Just As Bad as a lawbreaking motorist. We all know how it works: When it comes to queueing or red lights you have the same obligations dammit, breaking the law engenders the same Daily-Mail-esque hysteria, but you don't have the same rights 'cos you don't pay Road Tax. All of this when you pose an infinitesimally small danger to other 'road users'.

Sadly some live in their little worlds where they dont have their perceived view of the world and they of course are always right. It is a shame they dont actually bother to come up with the modern world or indeed the laws of the world.
We need to ensure we also follow the rules, most do but some dont.

The tax thing is just moronic and shows a lack of awareness, same can be said for peoples views of cyclist positioning (something that isnt aided by sheer number of cars on the road) but it doesnt help when cyclists jump red lights, needlessly cycle unhelpfully.....

The problem with the road at the end of the day isnt motorists, cyclists or even pedestrains but simply W**kers! People who think they own the road and have a devine right ot be where you are, truthfully it doesnt matter to these guys what your mode of transport is, they just hate everyone on the road.

Shit does happen on roads and that will never change but it's the w**kers that needlessly crank up the heat and make it worse.

KiwiMike wrote:

oozaveared wrote:

Who blamed the victim again ?

You did read what the policeman said, right?

"This footage shows a car driver to blame but there have equally been incidents where cyclists have been knocked down after pulling in front of vehicles without looking.

>>> see the huge 'but' in there? Ever tried apologising whilst using the word 'but'? doesn't go down too well does it?

"My message to all road users is look once, look twice and then look a third time if you have to - whatever you need to do to make sure you keep yourself and other people safe.

>>> How would looking have helped this girl at all? Is the inference that she didn't look?

"I would urge all road users to reflect on this and to take that opportunity to double check their view at junctions before passing through.

>>> 'all road users' - except there's only one group of road users who kill/maim others. And again, in this context, no amount of 'checking' would have helped her.

...and 4 out of 5 of the 'Safety tips for cyclists' required the cyclist to do something to hopefully influence the motorist's behaviour.

I accept that some will not read the above as 'victim blaming', more as common sense / general advice. Problem is, that's pretty much *all* the Police ever say. On average 1999/2000ths of road deaths are caused by motorists. The fact that cyclists are almost always lumped into the collectively responsible 'road users' bracket when it comes to Keeping Others Safe is massively misleading. It infers that shit happens, and when it happens to cyclists, well, you're a 'road user' and it's just one of those things. Also frequently gets used as ammo against cyclists, inferring a lawbreaking cyclist is Just As Bad as a lawbreaking motorist. We all know how it works: When it comes to queueing or red lights you have the same obligations dammit, breaking the law engenders the same Daily-Mail-esque hysteria, but you don't have the same rights 'cos you don't pay Road Tax. All of this when you pose an infinitesimally small danger to other 'road users'.

Blimey. Do you feel better.

Let's try again.

Who was reported for the crime?
Who was charged?
Who was prosecuted?
Who was convicted?
Who was fined?
Who had 3 points added to their licence?
Whose insurance premium will go up next year and for the next 5 years?
Who had to pay costs?
Who had to pay the victim surcharge?

Who fails to understand that the police were using a pretty run of the mill careless driving incident on video to make a general point about how easy it is to make a stupid mistake if you don't look carefully enough and what the consequences are for other road users (and you) if you do.

And on the flip side how easy it is for people to be careless and not look carefully enough so making the point about doing everything you can to mitigate the chances that their mistake ends up with you getting hurt.

It's on a par with programmes showing people how easy it is for crooks to pick your pocket or nick your bag and what you can do to reduce their chances of nicking your bag or picking your pocket.

No more no less.

Ush wrote:

jellysticks wrote:

PhilRuss wrote:

[[[[[ Absolutely outrageous comments from Sargeant Carl Naff...
Just who, and who alone, should he be lecturing here?
P.R.

What on earth are you talking about? His comments are entirely appropriate and reasonable. He's not lecturing anyone.

I think he's talking about the tosser from the police force who, in the aftermath of another cretinous motorist ploughing into a cyclist, saw fit to open his trap and vomit forth rubbish about helmets and hi-viz.

Would you like anything else obvious explained to you?

[[[[[ Thanx, USH, for clarifying...seems like some folks have difficulty seeing what's in front of their noses, rather like the driver in this video.
P.R.

oozaveared wrote:

And on the flip side how easy it is for people to be careless and not look carefully enough so making the point about doing everything you can to mitigate the chances that their mistake ends up with you getting hurt.

Please quote the peer-reviewed sciency stuff showing the Hi-Viz reduces collisions. I'm sure a lot of people will want to see it. Particularly the Hi-Viz industry, who - strangely - don't cite any evidence their products improve safety. Rather like the helmet industry, come to think of it...

But I digress. For further proof of the victim-blaming-wrapped-up-as-safety-message bent of this whole thing, look no further than the follow-up article, including comments from the driver himself: http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/11187568.Driver_who_knocked_down_girl_cyc...

"It was my fault that I hit her but she was dressed in all grey on what was a rather grey day.

"It may not have made a difference in this case, but I would urge cyclists to wear bright clothes, or high visibility items."

Spot the two 'buts' in there? This person clearly believes they were not fully responsible. Sure, they have admitted liability - but I bet only because it was on tape.

And I disagree with your comparison that this is akin to taking sensible anti-theft precautions. Theft is a calculated action, minimised by sensible precaution. Road collisions are more often than not the fault of one party, and no amount of precaution or clothing on the part of the other will save you - unless, as requested, you do have that Hi-Viz-works proof. The fact that the Police still bang on about it being an equal responsibility is corrosive. It's victim-blaming.

No more no less.

KiwiMike wrote:

"It was my fault that I hit her but she was dressed in all grey on what was a rather grey day.

"It may not have made a difference in this case, but I would urge cyclists to wear bright clothes, or high visibility items."

And how many cars do you see driving around which are almost exactly the colour of the road or clouds or rain?

Nobody in the safety industry ever goes on record saying that from now on, all cars will only be manufactured in bright and/or hi-viz colours, and yet if hi-viz really made that much difference then it would do so for all modes of transport.

(in the interests of total disclosure - I commute to work by bicycle, and I wear a hi-viz coat if its raining, and a helmet because my wife said she'd kill me otherwise).