Ill

@Rendel Harris He was convicted of not seeing the cyclist when he knocked her off her bike, maybe as he didn't have his sun visor down or didn't check his mirrors enough. He was not convicted of doing a u turn or overtake where one was forbidden for example. In terms of his negligence that will be settled in any civil claim, he has also received a driving ban

@chrisonabike It was not assault occasioning serious bodily harm though was it as he had no mens rea and intention to knock her off her bike. As you state he was not drunk and he stopped at the scene. I agree though he should lose his driving instructor registration. Dick did pass on an apology to the cyclist

@Smoggysteve "again. What is NEEDED, in THIS case?" since i offered an answer and you didn't like it and it seems you already have your own answer, over to you.

@chrisonabike again. What is NEEDED, in THIS case? Spaces? Potentially but not a necessity. I wouldn’t envisage a mass or cyclists suddenly appearing overnight ince the ban is lifted. That’s something that can be reviewed as time goes on. That’s what town planning is about. Not just cycling. And I don't care about your other comment. I didn’t even bother to read most of it since it’s not answering the question I asked.

@SVXY Oh good, the defender of drivers who kill and maim is back. Well down to your usual standard of idiocy, "it was not a criminal manoeuvre". Well yes, it was, because it was a manoeuvre that has resulted in him being convicted of a criminal offence, namely causing serious injury by careless driving. Is there any other sphere of society where one can pretty much destroy another person's life through criminal negligence and idiots will say well they didn't really mean to do it so they shouldn't get more than the tiniest slap on the wrist?

@Smoggysteve "not needed" by whom? Certainly not all infra is "necessary" - and the UK often builds stuff of little utility. Indeed little except for paved surfaces would be needed in the absence of motor traffic - we could bin traffic lights, roundabouts etc. However I note there are plenty of "I cycle what's the problem?" folks in countries like the UK... where very few people *do* cycle. I think having "mass cycling" is a good thing and that ultimately infra plays a significant part **. * Some don't think mass cycling is a good idea, or not possible "here". Or "I'd rather it was just me and my mates". ** FWIW I think it takes lots of things - different "philosophy" of public transport and space, motor traffic reduction, good enough public transport etc The simple "people just need to cycle" and the "encourage / police it better" approaches alone just won't do it, alas - which is why they have't.

@Smoggysteve on the specifics: separate marked spaces might be a good idea, depending on the numbers of cyclists.

@SVXY ah yes, it's a good job that someone has appeared again to remind us that the outcome - equivalent to assault occasioning serious bodily harm is not real crime! Or at least shouldn't be taken so seriously. Of course they weren't also "taking the mick" by eg. being drunk. They didn't mean it! It was an accident! They'll never do it again! (The fact they literally added insult to injury afterwards is just down to shock! Perhaps... but interesting what was on their mind, waiting to come out. Mens rea? Plus see lack of remorse before.) This is by someone who not only should have been driving the car with the alertness and care appropriate to operating dangerous machinery in a public space ... but who might be expected to be able to drive at a high standard. Indeed they are also responsible for training others. There appears to be a lack of the customary plea of remorse here also, you'll note.

@chrisonabike A lot of that isnt needed. why is there a need to add in more infrastructure in this case?

@GMBasix indeed - there are conflicts between "good transport design" and both institional motivations (police making it easier for themselves) but also the overall "criminal safety" brief. In a (much) smaller fashion as there's a fundamental conflict between "freedom to get around by driving" (even in accordance with the licence conditions) and public health and safety (including from "real crime"), to say nothing of costs, ability of non-motorists to get around etc. I would hope that much of "how designing for active travel changes crime patterns" could be resolved by reference to "how it works elsewhere" *. But it's another case of "change *does* mean things do not stay exactly as they are now". * eg the "social safety" design features of non-motor infra elsewhere and how police do police those spaces.