Suspended sentence for cyclist who seriously injured pedestrian

Legin wrote:

Many of the really poor cycling I see comes from Cameron's "new working poor" who would be driving cars or using public transport if they could afford to, instead they ride bikes as badly and as inconsiderately as they would drive.

If that's the case, and I would debate that, where's the evidence?, let's hope they remain "poor". Think of the havoc they would bring to the world if they were driving motor vehicles.

The evidence is on the streets of London and in areas like Southend during commuting times.

tourdelound wrote:

Legin wrote:

Many of the really poor cycling I see comes from Cameron's "new working poor" who would be driving cars or using public transport if they could afford to, instead they ride bikes as badly and as inconsiderately as they would drive.

If that's the case, and I would debate that, where's the evidence?, let's hope they remain "poor". Think of the havoc they would bring to the world if they were driving motor vehicles.

Perhaps I could have worded this better but I get the feeling you have deliberately missed the point.

Legin wrote:

tourdelound wrote:

Legin wrote:

Many of the really poor cycling I see comes from Cameron's "new working poor" who would be driving cars or using public transport if they could afford to, instead they ride bikes as badly and as inconsiderately as they would drive.

If that's the case, and I would debate that, where's the evidence?, let's hope they remain "poor". Think of the havoc they would bring to the world if they were driving motor vehicles.

Perhaps I could have worded this better but I get the feeling you have deliberately missed the point.

I'm sorry Legin, I may well have missed your point, but I can assure you it was/is not deliberate.

Guyz2010 wrote:

Fair sentence for the crime, looks about similar to what a car driver would get for a similar offence typically.
I hope the young girl made a full recovery.

'About similar'?

You clearly haven't seen any reported 'sentences' for motorists who've maimed or killed cyclists recently then. A sentence, even suspended, is very rare.

jmaccelari wrote:

Wow. Wonder what some of the comments would have been if this was a motorist who had hit a cyclist in a cycle lane. Mass indignation and self righteous criticism, no doubt. This maniac seriously injured a young girl and should have been more severely punished.

Indeed. I'd go as far as to say a short prison sentence or, at least, a suspended one. The max sentence here is 2 years. Had this been on the road then there is no custodial sentence.

My view? He should be in jail. Short because he did admit to the offence. Therefore, in line with all sentencing, he is entitled to credit.

But the bigger question here is whether, if we look at other road users sentencing, this is an unduly lenient sentence. My view is that it is not. Indeed, it's actually fairly consistent.

My view is that all road (or indeed pavement) offences need to be taken much more seriously.

jmaccelari wrote:

Wow. Wonder what some of the comments would have been if this was a motorist who had hit a cyclist in a cycle lane. Mass indignation and self righteous criticism, no doubt. This maniac seriously injured a young girl and should have been more severely punished.

Is it only 'self rightousness' and 'mass indignation' when its _other people_ talking about maniacs and demanding more severe punishments? When you do it its fine, right?

drfabulous0 wrote:

Pavement riding is a menace, I don't care about anyone who goes along slowly and is considerate of everyone else, but there are loads of people who hurtle around at road speeds on the pavement and something should be done. Perhaps providing somewhere better for people to ride.

What about pavement driving?
The pavement cycling danger is a myth propagated by junk journalists, writing for junk tabloid pseudo-newspapers. It's a man bites dog story, blown out of all significance. Motor-vehicles injure and kill people daily, it's not newsworthy and is rarely more than local news, whereas a cyclist killing someone on the pavement has received national coverage.
Between 2005 and 2009 (five years), pavement drivers killed 266 pedestrians, whereas between 2000 and 2009 (ten years) pavement cyclists killed three pedestrians. That's a ratio of 151:1. That's one every eight days for pavement drivers vs one every three years four months for pavement cyclists.
I don't believe the statistics are much different now. DfT statistics.
If improving Public safety is the target, one can safely ignore pavement cycling and concentrate on pavement drivers and vehicles parked on the pavement, which must have been driven there.

As for hurtling around on the pavement - utter BS & fiction. I've never seen anyone cycling fast on the footway / pavement, they're almost always on BSO pseudo-mountain bikes with underinflated knobbly tyres, in the wrong gear (often the small chainring to small rear sprocket) and very slow.
I normally ride on the road, but occasionally use shared paths and very infrequently pavements alongside busy fast roads where cycling on the road would be suicidal and there aren't any pedestrians anyway. These surfaces are so rough that 'hurtling' anywhere is a pipe-dream.

paulrbarnard wrote:

Contrast this sentence with the £150 fine and 3 point a woman was awarded for killing a cyclist in Devon because "her baby kicked". The sentence in this case was right, the cyclist deserved it. I just wish the law treated car drivers with the same level of conviction.

http://road.cc/content/news/102198-pregnant-woman-blames-collision-elder...

The cyclist didn't die. Please don't sensationalize the argument, that is exact what the anti-cycling brigade do. It is your job to be more reasonable than them.