Driver who killed cyclist on roundabout near Bristol given community order

HoarseMann wrote:

Unbelievable.

He failed to look properly. That falls well below the standard that would be required. 

My neighbor nearly wiped me out a while ago. I was about to turn right into our road, 1400 lumen front flashing light, bright yellow luminous jacket and a clear day. They slowed briefly for the junction give way, gave a quick glance to the left then pulled out to turn right in front of me. Luckily I had anticipated they had not seen me and came to a halt just as they pulled across my path. They then saw me and were very apologetic and wondered how they hadn’t seen me. They looked a bit dumbfounded when I suggested they didn’t look properly and it’s amazing what the human eye can miss...

So all of you have never made a mistake? How do you know the next one you make won't harm anyone? Your neighbour made a mistake and you were lucky as you anticipated it, Have you never made a mistake when cycling or walking or in the kitchen or DIY even a little one. There are some crimes that deserve harsh sentences, e.g. over the limit, dangerous or reckless driving etc but accidents do happen even with the best will in the world.

OldMixte wrote:

HoarseMann wrote:

Unbelievable.

He failed to look properly. That falls well below the standard that would be required. 

My neighbor nearly wiped me out a while ago. I was about to turn right into our road, 1400 lumen front flashing light, bright yellow luminous jacket and a clear day. They slowed briefly for the junction give way, gave a quick glance to the left then pulled out to turn right in front of me. Luckily I had anticipated they had not seen me and came to a halt just as they pulled across my path. They then saw me and were very apologetic and wondered how they hadn’t seen me. They looked a bit dumbfounded when I suggested they didn’t look properly and it’s amazing what the human eye can miss...

So all of you have never made a mistake? How do you know the next one you make won't harm anyone? Your neighbour made a mistake and you were lucky as you anticipated it, Have you never made a mistake when cycling or walking or in the kitchen or DIY even a little one. There are some crimes that deserve harsh sentences, e.g. over the limit, dangerous or reckless driving etc but accidents do happen even with the best will in the world.

True. On the other hand, the motorist driving behind the collider saw the cyclist and the collider's wife in (presumably) the front passenger seat saw the cyclist. But the guy legally and actually in control of the car failed to look/failed to see.

OldMixte wrote:

HoarseMann wrote:

Unbelievable.

He failed to look properly. That falls well below the standard that would be required. 

My neighbor nearly wiped me out a while ago. I was about to turn right into our road, 1400 lumen front flashing light, bright yellow luminous jacket and a clear day. They slowed briefly for the junction give way, gave a quick glance to the left then pulled out to turn right in front of me. Luckily I had anticipated they had not seen me and came to a halt just as they pulled across my path. They then saw me and were very apologetic and wondered how they hadn’t seen me. They looked a bit dumbfounded when I suggested they didn’t look properly and it’s amazing what the human eye can miss...

So all of you have never made a mistake? How do you know the next one you make won't harm anyone? Your neighbour made a mistake and you were lucky as you anticipated it, Have you never made a mistake when cycling or walking or in the kitchen or DIY even a little one. There are some crimes that deserve harsh sentences, e.g. over the limit, dangerous or reckless driving etc but accidents do happen even with the best will in the world.

So you don't consider failing to look properly as dangerous driving? Sadly most of the legal profession appear to agree with you, but have to say it baffles me. Of course we all make most stakes, but shouldn't the consequences to us bear some relationship to the seriousness of the possible effects on others?

OldMixte wrote:

HoarseMann wrote:

Unbelievable.

He failed to look properly. That falls well below the standard that would be required. 

My neighbor nearly wiped me out a while ago. I was about to turn right into our road, 1400 lumen front flashing light, bright yellow luminous jacket and a clear day. They slowed briefly for the junction give way, gave a quick glance to the left then pulled out to turn right in front of me. Luckily I had anticipated they had not seen me and came to a halt just as they pulled across my path. They then saw me and were very apologetic and wondered how they hadn’t seen me. They looked a bit dumbfounded when I suggested they didn’t look properly and it’s amazing what the human eye can miss...

So all of you have never made a mistake? How do you know the next one you make won't harm anyone? Your neighbour made a mistake and you were lucky as you anticipated it, Have you never made a mistake when cycling or walking or in the kitchen or DIY even a little one. There are some crimes that deserve harsh sentences, e.g. over the limit, dangerous or reckless driving etc but accidents do happen even with the best will in the world.

The problem is these lenient sentences are sending a message that it’s ok to drive badly. As long as you aren’t reckless, well, it could have been anyone, never mind.

The driver behind and the passenger clearly saw the cyclist. The car slowed but didn't stop. So the driver probably failed to look properly.

Sure, maybe it’s a one-off mistake. Or maybe it’s the culmination of bad driving. Either way, someone has lost their life due to negligence. 

OldMixte wrote:

HoarseMann wrote:

Unbelievable.

He failed to look properly. That falls well below the standard that would be required. 

My neighbor nearly wiped me out a while ago. I was about to turn right into our road, 1400 lumen front flashing light, bright yellow luminous jacket and a clear day. They slowed briefly for the junction give way, gave a quick glance to the left then pulled out to turn right in front of me. Luckily I had anticipated they had not seen me and came to a halt just as they pulled across my path. They then saw me and were very apologetic and wondered how they hadn’t seen me. They looked a bit dumbfounded when I suggested they didn’t look properly and it’s amazing what the human eye can miss...

So all of you have never made a mistake? How do you know the next one you make won't harm anyone? Your neighbour made a mistake and you were lucky as you anticipated it, Have you never made a mistake when cycling or walking or in the kitchen or DIY even a little one. There are some crimes that deserve harsh sentences, e.g. over the limit, dangerous or reckless driving etc but accidents do happen even with the best will in the world.

Last time I checked, I didn't need to pass a test, have equipment that met a yearly standard nor needed insurance for third parties when I made the dinner tonight nor when I drilled a hole in the wall.

It's one of those irregular verbs though isn't it. 

I made a mistake, you had an accident, the cockwomble was negligent.

OldMixte wrote:

This appears to be a genuine human error, as it is reported he slowed but somehow missed seeing the cyclist. Perhaps a screen pillar was in the way, or as discusssed in these posts recently a case of the brain just not registering seeing the cyclist.

I always try to look twice and on one occasion in particular  it certainly worked.

I am amazed however, of the number of posts where it seems the individual has never made a mistake in their life, aren't they lucky?

Unfortunately accidents happen wherever humans are involved, and it doesn't help when councils allow advertising signs on roundabouts distracting driver. Bbut then that brings in money so it doesn't matter if a couple of cyclists get killed or injured.

There are mistakes, and there are mistakes.
For instance, you wouldn't accidently let your kids run across a motorway, or accidently leave knives in your bed, or accidently drop your hair dryer in the bath when you are in it.

Only the truly feckless do these things.

Point being... not looking around your a-pillar at junctions should be considered just as feckless. There is no accident about it... he made a choice that not checking his blind spot would be ok, because it had been ok every other time he'd not checked it.
He failed in his duty of care as a driver... was rightly convicted for causing death by careless driving... just got the wrong sentence.

It's not about being holier than though, a human being died because another human being couldn't be arsed. Not being arsed is not being unlucky... by not being arsed you are riding your luck every time... eventually that luck will run out.
When it does, do you believe it ok that the only person punished is the victim?

OldMixte wrote:

This appears to be a genuine human error, as it is reported he slowed but somehow missed seeing the cyclist. Perhaps a screen pillar was in the way, or as discusssed in these posts recently a case of the brain just not registering seeing the cyclist.

I always try to look twice and on one occasion in particular  it certainly worked.

I am amazed however, of the number of posts where it seems the individual has never made a mistake in their life, aren't they lucky?

Unfortunately accidents happen wherever humans are involved, and it doesn't help when councils allow advertising signs on roundabouts distracting driver. Bbut then that brings in money so it doesn't matter if a couple of cyclists get killed or injured.

I think some posts reflect the sentence (the lack of) given a previous drink driving conviction.

I don't agree with the idea of mistake as though not knowing about blind spots is something new to a driver. What happened to continuing to check as you complete your manoeuvre?

OldMixte wrote:

This appears to be a genuine human error, as it is reported he slowed but somehow missed seeing the cyclist. Perhaps a screen pillar was in the way, or as discusssed in these posts recently a case of the brain just not registering seeing the cyclist.

I always try to look twice and on one occasion in particular  it certainly worked.

I am amazed however, of the number of posts where it seems the individual has never made a mistake in their life, aren't they lucky?

Unfortunately accidents happen wherever humans are involved, and it doesn't help when councils allow advertising signs on roundabouts distracting driver. Bbut then that brings in money so it doesn't matter if a couple of cyclists get killed or injured.

I've made lots of mistakes, so have all the other people on here, and everywhere else. But surely it is reasonable to demand a greater degree of care from someone in charge of a few tonne of metal than of someone trying to remember whether they fed the cat.

The key points here are surely: first, whether more severe punishment might motivate greater care, and second, whether we shouldn't just remove the privilege of driving from anyone who shows any evidence of possible unfitness to drive. Personally I'd be in favour of a simple rule - any traffic offence or collision, no more licence. After all, this would surely save lives.

By the way, unless the screen pillar ia independently mobile, which seems unlikely,  " the screen pillar was in the way" actually means " he was too careless or idle to look properly ".

oldstrath wrote:

By the way, unless the screen pillar ia independently mobile, which seems unlikely,  " the screen pillar was in the way" actually means " he was too careless or idle to look properly ".

I'd go further than that, crush his car a it's clearly unsafe!

OldMixte wrote:

This appears to be a genuine human error, as it is reported he slowed but somehow missed seeing the cyclist. Perhaps a screen pillar was in the way, or as discusssed in these posts recently a case of the brain just not registering seeing the cyclist.

I always try to look twice and on one occasion in particular  it certainly worked.

I am amazed however, of the number of posts where it seems the individual has never made a mistake in their life, aren't they lucky?

Unfortunately accidents happen wherever humans are involved, and it doesn't help when councils allow advertising signs on roundabouts distracting driver. Bbut then that brings in money so it doesn't matter if a couple of cyclists get killed or injured.

Angry response...

If you aren't sure you can avoid making such a 'genuine human error' then give up driving.

Otherwise be prepared to accept the concequences of making such errors.  The cyclist in this case had no choice but to take the concequences of someone else's error, why do you think you should be allowed to avoid the concequences of such an error if you were to make it?

Considered response...

If you aren't sure you can avoid making such an error then campaign for and demand segregated cycling/driving routes so that the concequences need not be so drastic for either party.

(Also you talk of 'the brain' not registering the cyclist' as though said brain  was some separate thing from the driver!  I find that quite bizarre!)

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

OldMixte wrote:

This appears to be a genuine human error, as it is reported he slowed but somehow missed seeing the cyclist. Perhaps a screen pillar was in the way, or as discusssed in these posts recently a case of the brain just not registering seeing the cyclist.

I always try to look twice and on one occasion in particular  it certainly worked.

I am amazed however, of the number of posts where it seems the individual has never made a mistake in their life, aren't they lucky?

Unfortunately accidents happen wherever humans are involved, and it doesn't help when councils allow advertising signs on roundabouts distracting driver. Bbut then that brings in money so it doesn't matter if a couple of cyclists get killed or injured.

 

Angry response...

If you aren't sure you can avoid making such a 'genuine human error' then give up driving.

Otherwise be prepared to accept the concequences of making such errors.  The cyclist in this case had no choice but to take the concequences of someone else's error, why do you think you should be allowed to avoid the concequences of such an error if you were to make it?

 

Considered response...

 

If you aren't sure you can avoid making such an error then campaign for and demand segregated cycling/driving routes so that the concequences need not be so drastic for either party.

 

(Also you talk of 'the brain' not registering the cyclist' as though said brain  was some separate thing from the driver!  I find that quite bizarre!)

Angry response to OldMixte 

Get fu@!ed

Considered response

If I had made a mistake equal to this, I would expect a custodial sentence greater than community work and the loss of my licence for good. I would not have made a cock and bull story of making considered checks and that the cyclist appeared from behind. I would feel too ashamed to come up with a story trying to alleviate some of the blame when there are witnesses (one being my own wife) who did see the cyclist. 

This is not a mistake, it is a catastrophic error or judgement that requires more punishment than has been given. Therefore, get fu@!ed!

Valbrona wrote:

James Tucker, defending, conceded that his client had previous convictions for drink driving, but said he had grown into a family man who had started his own window cleaning business.

The window cleaner down my street drives a car that is not taxed or insured, employs an illegal at less than the minimum wage, doesn't declare his income to anyone, tops up aforesaid income by doing the odd burgalry when the opportunity arises, and doesn't work Tuesdays and when he has to sign-on.

Concedes that Valbrona makes a decent point (shudders, and waits for the sky to fall in...  ).

Valbrona wrote:

James Tucker, defending, conceded that his client had previous convictions for drink driving, but said he had grown into a family man who had started his own window cleaning business.

The window cleaner down my street drives a car that is not taxed or insured, employs an illegal at less than the minimum wage, doesn't declare his income to anyone, tops up aforesaid income by doing the odd burgalry when the opportunity arises, and doesn't work Tuesdays and when he has to sign-on.

Full time burglary is probably quite a competetive business. Doing the window cleaning to scope out properties is probably the way forward and a great efficiency saving. He sounds like an enterprising individual who is entitled to run at least one cyclist over during his working life.

Cupov wrote:

another bullshit verdict...and isn't 'think bike' motorcyle related?

Exactly.

And this 'giving a note to the Judge' says to me that there was something deeply flawed with this jury.

Sentencing and punishment is determined by the courts and this is where the change needs to be made for these serious crimes.