David Cox, the driver whose tipper truck crushed to death cyclist Brian Dorling at Bow Roundabout in 2011 has been sentenced to 24 weeks in prison, suspended for a year, according to The Docklands and East London Advertiser.
The 49-year-old pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving after he drove his lorry into Brian Dorling, 58, on the morning of October 24 2011. [Editor's note: the case was originally misreported as causing death by dangerous driving.]
Mr Dorling was on his way to work at the Olympic Park at the time, using the blue cycle lane by which Cycle Superhighway 2 traverses Bow Roundabout. He was pronounced dead at the scene.
At the Inner London Court on Monday, Cox was sentenced to 24 weeks in prison, suspended for one year; disqualified from driving for two years; and ordered to complete 100 hours of community service.
Det Supt Helen Lambert, from the Metropolitan Police’s road death investigation unit, said: “Brian Dorling’s family have been left devastated by his untimely and sudden death.
“This was a tragic incident involving two different road users and it highlights the vulnerability of cyclists who ride alongside large vehicles.”
Many commenters on Twitter expressed surprise and outrage that Cox was not jailed and did not recieve a lifetime driving ban.
However, Tom Edwards, Transport and Environment Correspondent for BBC London pointed out that Cox has not driven since the accident and that Brian Dorling’s widow Debbie did not want him jailed.
“You can see he’s remorseful and see that he’s haunted. He is a broken man, said Debbie Dorling. “Putting him in prison is not going to achieve anything.”
Sara Dowling of campaign group Road Peace drew our attention to the error in the the original reporting of this case, and commented: "Causing death by careless driving is a charge that rarely results in a custodial sentence, in fact less than 30% of drivers charged with causing death by careless driving get a custodial sentence. And RoadPeace would argue that increased use of longer driving bans is a much more appropriate response to careless driving than prison.
"The real issue here is the misuse of the careless driving charge – time and time again we see it being used for cases that should be considered dangerous. In this case the driver went through a red light, surely falling far below the standard of a careful and competent driver. But yet again the CPS shifts towards the more lenient charge. A guilty plea means no trial and fewer costs.
"But even with a causing death by dangerous driving charge a longer driving ban would be unlikely as the courts are very reluctant to ‘punish’ drivers in this way – nearly half of drivers who kill receive no disqualification (12.7% endorsed, 33.6% need to retake test so can drive with a qualified driver)."
Bow's deadly roundabout
Dorling was the first of two people on bikes to be killed by trucks on Bow roundabout in 2011. Less than three weeks later 34-year-old Svitlana Tereschenko was killed by a tipper truck at approximately 4.45pm on the evening of Friday, November 11.
The inquest into Ms Tereschenko’s death returned a narrative verdict. Deputy coroner Dr Shirley Radcliffe ruled that Ms Tereschenko died "as a result of traumatic road death". Although the driver, Gurpreet Shergill failed to indicate and was talking on a mobile phone at the time, Dr Radcliffe went on to conclude "that nobody is to blame".
The two deaths led to improvements to Bow roundabout, including the fitting of advance traffic lights to allow cyclists to move off ahead of dangerous motor vehicles.
London Cycling Campaign had warned before Cycle Superhighway 2 was built that routing cyclists through Bow roundabout was extremely dangerous, and that the rest of the route, largely an intermittent blue stripe on the road was totally unfit for purpose.
After the deaths of Mr Dorling and Ms Tereschenko it emerged that in the planning of Cycle Superhighway 2, Transport for London had ignored recommendations from the civil engineering firm, Jacobs Consultancy to install traffic signals specifically for cyclists and pedestrians, as well as separate cycle tracks.
55 thoughts on “Updated: Driver who killed cyclist Brian Dorling at Bow roundabout gets suspended sentence”
WTF!
WTF!
WTF indeed.
The man pleads
WTF indeed.
The man pleads guilty to causing death by dangerous driving and gets let off, completely. Yes, I know they get a lighter sentence if they plead guilty but this is no punishment. He has killed someone and he is at liberty to do it again.
Also noticed that he has been disqualified from driving, not banned. Does this mean he will get his licence back and be able to kill legally again?
I know a guy named Brian Dorling, who lives in London and about the same age and when I saw the initial report of Mr Dorling’s death my heart sank. It was not the same man and I felt guilty for being relieved as the dead Mr Dorling’s family had to come to terms with his death and now to add insult to injury the laughable ‘punishment’ of his killer.
This MUST receive a judicial review, surely!!
jova54 wrote:Also noticed
Correct. He received a two year ban:
http://www.wharf.co.uk/2013/07/motorist-admits-killing-cyclis.html
The fact that killing people through negligent use of a vehicle does not attract a mandatory lifetime ban says everything about the country’s attitude to driving. It’s a god-given right; and, no matter how matter how much collateral damage is caused through incompetence or infirmity, no mere man dare deny you that right.
The perpetrator was not done
The perpetrator was not done for ‘Dangerous driving’ but ‘Careless (or inconsiderate) driving’.
The problem lies with the Police & CPS charging the perp with the lesser offence. They usually say they have insufficient evidence to make the higher, Dangerous driving charge successful.
It’s easier for the CPS to get someone to plead guilty to the lesser charge than to go for the higher one and lose the case.
The law needs changing in my view so there is a smaller gap between the two offences. This means that the higher charge would need a lower degree of evidence than at present.
Who do you write to get a
Who do you write to get a appeal lodged? I am sure anybody can contest a sentence if they feel it is unduly lienent.
mrmo wrote:Who do you write
It happened in Scotland recently but not sure it’s the same in England. It’s just incredible, I thought things might start getting better but they’re getting worse.
From
From http://road.cc/content/news/76282-family-cyclist-killed-tottenham-considering-appeal-against-lenient-sentence
“Victims, their families and other members of the public who believe a sentence in a given case is unduly lenient can complain to their local Crown Prosecution Service office, which may then decide to refer the issue to the Attorney General to consider whether an appeal should be lodged.
There is a 28-day limit between the date of sentencing and the case being referred by the Attorney General to the Court of Appeal, with no possibility of extension.”
BUT this seems to conflict with that:
https://www.gov.uk/complain-about-low-crown-court-sentence
dear oh dear, the madness
dear oh dear, the madness continues, murder and he gets away with it …
I think I will send a letter
I think I will send a letter tonight. It has to be worth doing if only to get the courts to understand this kind of sentence is unacceptable.
If you don’t say anything there isn’t a problem. Isn’t that the argument used about not voting?
mrmo wrote:I think I will
and you think they’re going to listen to your opinion, do u?
Karbon Kev wrote:mrmo wrote:I
and you think they’re going to listen to your opinion, do u?— mrmo
and are you going to do anything or just accept dangerous driving?
Well said.
Well said.
mrmo wrote:Karbon Kev
and you think they’re going to listen to your opinion, do u?— Karbon Kev
and are you going to do anything or just accept dangerous driving?— mrmo
Well said
http://road.cc/content/news/8
http://road.cc/content/news/88888-ask-your-mp-attend-parliamentary-debate-cycling-and-have-your-voice-heard
Add this travesty to the list of things you want your MP to speak about during the upcoming debate.
Follow the link above to the related article.
They’ve sentenced within the
They’ve sentenced within the guidelines, albeit at the more lenient end of what is possible.
As others have said, the attitude and behaviour of motorists will not change until prosecutions come with meaningful sentences for taking a life.
Lobby your MP
Its the judiciary and the old
Its the judiciary and the old scrote judges,they do not cycle,they are motorists,they are cunts
They doll these lenient sentences out because they do not want to set a precedent whereby putting the onus of responsibility onto the motorist-its called corruption
Where to.start?
Where to.start? Speechless,.angry, pissed off doesn’t even describe how I feel about this fucking joke! And the otherone was on his mobile and did not indicate and still got off??? Come on!!! No wonder the killings don’t stop happening…
Very Emotive subject But…
Very Emotive subject But… There are better ways of expressing your point of view especially as this is an open forum with no age limits/adult only filtering.
We do not know the whole
We do not know the whole story in either case but the reports that Cox is a broken and haunted man, suggest that his sentence through his own mores and conscience is far greater than any court could impose. Given time I suspect that he could provide a more powerful advocate for managing the risks out of this HGV-cycle issue than any of us who have never been through such an experience.
Back in 1973 I knocked down a small boy who ran out in to the path of the car I was driving. The fact that I’d slowed down because I’d seen the group messing about on their way to school, and just managed to avoid any wheel going over him, meant he had a very sore head from hitting the headlight cowl, and was taken in to the nearby mill nurse’s room to recover, before the ambulance came to take him for a check-up. But I can still vividly recall the shocked eyes looking up over the front of the car as he realised the situation he’d run in to.
That has made me especially aware of schools and kids at play by the roadside. I was lucky, being alert, and slowing down avoided a real tragedy. Others have a heavier burden to carry.
From this I’d presume that the sentencing for Gurpreet Shergill has yet to take place but from the description, the failures to indicate and use of the mobile phone may be reflected in the sentencing.
Sadly TfL still ignores the most sensible solution of removing the cycle traffic entirely from the continued hazard of a left turning vehicle or a vehicle entering the roundabout, the solution that 70% of the cyclists going East-West at this point already use – cycling straight over the flyover – by far the safest route and since most of the motor traffic is actually turning on or off the A102 for the Blackwall Tunnel, there are times when there are more cycles crossing the flyover than cars! Any sensible traffic engineer would spend a little time making observations and through this make the appropriate changes.
NB the huge fudge of traffic movements at this junction has both East side slip roads with 2-way traffic and a mess of cut-through lanes, plus a set or traffic signals to make the mess work (after a fashion). Westbound also one of the 2 lanes on the flyover is (was?) permanently ‘closed’ by hatched lines, easily providing the space for a 3 metre wide walking and cycling route.
I’m broadly in agreement but
I’m broadly in agreement but despite “the solution that 70% of the cyclists going East-West at this point already use – cycling straight over the flyover – by far the safest route” and I’d add QUICKEST route by far it can be tricky to the point of being unnervingly dangerous getting out of the inside lane to the middle lane to get onto the flyover. When traffic is dense it’s easier but if it’s free flowing and so at speed – say early in the morning – it can be a tad tricky to move over – sometimes one feels very vulnerable once committed to the manoevre.
Absolutely agree that a cycle lane – perhaps tidal – one side in the morning and the other in the evening is the way to go. But I fear it’s a step too far too bold for tfl.
Yours ever
How many more times do we
How many more times do we have to read stories like this where a lenient sentence is handed out and there is no justice for the cyclist involved or his grieving family.Sadly this seems to be a weekly occurrence where a cyclist loses their life and the road is full of ignorant drivers so its never going to change any time soon.
I emailed my MP last week at
I emailed my MP last week at the invitation of the “Times” Cities fit for Cycling campaign. I specifically mentioned that the judiciary was badly letting down the families of cyclists killed by drivers by handing down laughably light sentences.
I quoted to him that in my area, car owners who do not provide the name of a driver when required to do so by the police regularly receive fines of £600. I also cited two typical recent cases of killers of cyclists who were not jailed but received a slap on the wrist.
I also pointed out that he was part of the community with the wherewithal to change laws.
I did received a reply the same day which seemed as if it had already been composed in anticipation of the emails he would receive via the campaign. I’m perfectly sure he did not even read my message as it was full of platitudes and did not mention any of the specific points I made.
“…I did received a reply
“…I did received a reply the same day which seemed as if it had already been composed in anticipation of the emails he would receive via the campaign. I’m perfectly sure he did not even read my message as it was full of platitudes and did not mention any of the specific points I made.”
I did the same and received a similar vague response from my local Councillor. The letter did have a nice picture of her on it, so that made it okay.
“After the deaths of Ms
“After the deaths of Ms Dorling and Ms Tereschenko it emerged that in the planning of Cycle Superhighway 2, Transport for London had ignored recommendations from the civil engineering firm, Jacobs Consultancy to install traffic signals specifically for cyclists and pedestrians, as well as separate cycle tracks.”
Could this be considered sufficient grounds for someone to sue TfL?
Jonathing wrote:”After the
There is very good grounds to pursue TfL with corporate manslaughter charges over their (mis)handling of work carried out at Kings Cross, yet the Met Police have done nothing about it so far.
We have seen time and again that when the police screw up, no-one is held accountable. WHen TfL screw up, no-one is held accountable. When drivers kill cyclists and someone is held accountable, the punishment is so lenient that its an insult.
I have lost complete faith in TfL, the police and the judiciary to do anything about the public sanctioned mass murder occurring on our streets. I never had any faith in Boris to do fuck all except spout bluster and bullshit.
i have been friends with dave
i have been friends with dave cox for over 30 years,and reading what some of you people on here are saying is making my blood boil! dave was a professional and competent driver and to say he ran a red light and murdered the poor man is incredible! it was a tragic accident, read the police report and what was said by the victims widow before you spout anymore venom at a man whose life is finished as well! Try blaming the real villains the TFL and boris bloody johnson!
Larryyosh wrote:i have been
Not stopping at a red and talking on his mobile, does not appear proffessional and competent to me.
Think you are confusing this
Think you are confusing this case with the later one that week? @Meursault
Larryyosh wrote:Think you are
Apologies, may have got confused with both cases. Point still stands though, about the red light, but I accept I wasn’t in court and didn’t hear the evidence.
meursault wrote:Larryyosh
David Cox is in no way a competent driver Meursault you are spot on. In my opinion however the murdering Mr Cox took away a life a husband a farther Cox ought to be in prison until he finds a way to replace these.
@larrylosh, he has been
@larrylosh, he has been convicted of death by careless driving, think about it. His actions killed someone. He is alive, he can go home, as for the man he killed? To be honest i don’t care if he is haunted by his actions.
You choose to take a driving licence, you accept the rules that accompany it. Far too many drivers forget there is no right to drive, how many drivers think nothing of speeding, of jumping lights, of overtaking on double white lines, squeezing past cyclists. 99% of the time they get away with it no damage done.
However to say no damage is done is actually wrong, every driver, by cutting corners making the roads more intimidating than they need to be. They dissuade people from cycling and walking, more people end up driving, the roads get less safe. How many parents let there kids walk or cycle to school anymore? We are all loosing to the car!
Problem is death at the hands of motorists carries no penalty, have a read of the number of people killed each year by drivers, have a read of the penalties.
Until drivers understand there responsibilities to those around them, and are properly punished when they get it wrong, this will keep on happening. What does it say when you can kill someone and in a couple of years be back on the road driving?
Remember the sentence serves two purposes, punishment and deterrent. Currently sentences do neither!
Larryyosh wrote:i have been
I admire your courage Larryyosh for coming onto a cycling forum to defend your friend, very admirable, but we are becoming an ever more reactionary and intolerant lot, especially where our lives are concerned, and if you kill one of use expect our ire and an ‘unreasonable’ level of vitriol and abuse. No driver has the right to use their vehicle to kill another road user.
And please don’t try shifting the blame. It must have been an awfully big cab for the whole of TfL and Boris to have been in charge of the vehicle.
The word ‘accident’ has been removed from the police lexicon as it implies no fault. Your friend Dave Cox was at fault here, not TfL nor Boris or Mr Dorling.
He killed him by his incompetence and other cyclists, pedestrians and motorists need to be protected from him doing the same thing in the future. I’m sure he’s remorseful and I’m happy to hear that Mrs Dorling has come to terms with her husband’s needless death but, as others have commented, there is a wider problem to be addressed; that of the ongoing manslaughter of other cyclists.
We have no protection from bad drivers and 20 tonne trucks apart from preventing them from coming together ever again. If your friend is so remorseful perhaps you can suggest to him that he surrenders his driving licence for good.
In terms of the sentence, it is clearly not enough of a deterrent and I have already written to my MP requesting that she speak on this matter in the upcoming debate. If I were to go into the street with a lawfully held shot gun and discharge in the general direction of the population and ‘accidentally’ killed someone it would be manslaughter. Please explain how your friends actions are any different.
I would like to point out a
I would like to point out a couple of anomalies about this string of communication. The photograph of the roundabout is not where Brian died it is where Ms Treschenko died, also Ms Dorling did not die; my 2 daughters and I are very much still alive. Mr Dorling died. I am appalled by the vitriolic tone to many of these comments I cannot believe that so many opinionated people who are not aware of the facts can be quite so nasty. We met Mr Cox yesterday, my 16 year old daughter told him she didn’t hate him because he didn’t mean to kill her dad, my son made his peace and I do not hate. We are human we have the ability to rise above and see the bigger picture, well some of us do. My family and I have been through hell and back; Mr Cox is living a constant hell and I would like to hold out my hand and ask him to help RoadPeace along with me promote the “See me Save Me” campaign………….Mr Cox? (I don’t know where the “talking on his mobile” came from; because there was no evidence of that in court. Regards Debbie Dorling.
Thank you mrs dorling and
Thank you mrs dorling and family for your kindness towards dave, after speaking to him on monday, i spoke to him after and i am very worried that some of these comments on here could do more damage than good. Hopefully people will read your post and think before they type?
“You can see he’s remorseful
“You can see he’s remorseful and see that he’s haunted. He is a broken man, said Debbie Dorling.
In my opinion, this is preferable to slapping someone in prison who isn’t remorseful.
How many of you have never
How many of you have never made a mistake when riding or cycling?
The difference between a fatal accident or non injury accident may be a fraction of a second. We don’t have a verdict of a driving accident, but we do have careless driving. The punishment now seems to be dependent on the outcome not the act. There is a big difference between an accident through a moment of in attention and deliberately driving in a dangerous or reckless fashion.
i dont know what the answer
i dont know what the answer is but surely something must be done here!
if a cyclist sped through a green light and hit a pedestrian who shouldnt have been crossing, and killed them what would the punishment be then?
i just dont understand why so much weight is given to drivers.
is it because without roads our economy would come to a stop, so without vehicles we are nothing? is this the only incentive the people at the top have to keep us driving and not give out meaningful punishments?
the fact that the hgv driver is remorseful means nothing.
if i commit murder but regret it after does it get me let off? no! i still go to prison!
he went thru a red light and through his bad driving he ended a life. who cares if he regrets it, he broke the law, killed someone and ruined a family.
bang him up and let it be a message to other people who drive motor vehicles!
until there is a meaningful deterrent why would people bother to take care?!!!
Debbie, his widow,
Debbie, his widow, says;
“Putting him in prison is not going to achieve anything.”
Although she has my sympathy she is absolutely wrong about this. A stiff sentence acts as a deterrance to others.
Imagine if, over the years, every tipper driver who killed a cyclist was jailed for 5 years (we’re not talking about 1 or 2 drivers here, its dozens). That would send a pretty clear message to other tipper drivers and they’d be a lot more careful.
Had this happened over the years, there’s a good chance Brian would still be alive today.
Debbie, you say you have been able to step back and see the bigger picture, but I’m not sure you have. The bigger picture is that cyclists are killed by tipper/skip lorries on a worryingly regular basis. Every loss is tragic, but the bigger picture is that its been happening for years, and unless something changes it will continue to happen in the future.
This bigger picture is that next week it could be me, or someone else on this forum. That’s why people on here get emotional about it. They are worried for their own safety.
I have a family too, and I don’t want them to go through what you’re going through. The driver may well feel guilty and may well never drive again, but that’s not a big factor in affecting other people’s behaviour.
There are probably hundreds of tipper/skip drivers on the roads of London today. The thoughts going through their minds are probably;
– It was probably the cyclists fault
– It will never happen to me, I’m a good driver
– I’d better get a move on as I need to deliver three loads today or I’m out of pocket
What everyone on a bike (and their families, and their friends) wants to be going through their minds is;
– I’d better be really careful around that cyclist because if I’m not I’m going to jail for five years.
Debbie, his widow is right in
Debbie, his widow is right in that locking up David Cox, achieves nothing in this case. It does not bring Brian back, it does not undo the error the driver made.
But this is not about this case, it is about making drivers aware of their responsibilities. By letting a driver walk away from court what does it say about the value of life? what does it say about the responsibilty that drivers have to those around them? Allowing him the option to have a licence at a future date (whether he actually wants to drive again is largely irrelevant) again gives a signal. Should the signal be slap on the wrist, or should it be you are not fit to drive as you can not be trusted?
In this case no one wins, but the discussion is not about this case, it is about a system that fails cyclists, horse riders and pedestrians. A system that seems only to care about cars and lorries, that regards deaths as acceptable.
I disagree entirely with the
I disagree entirely with the suggestion that “a stiff sentence acts as a deterrance (sic) to others.”
People who cause death on the road do not believe it is something that they will cause. Such people do not set out to kill. You can’t have a deterrent against an act which someone believes they will not commit.
The idea that the thought of “I’d better be really careful around that cyclist because if I’m not I’m going to jail for five years” would help is utterly ludicrous. If you haven’t seen the cyclist, how could you possibly even have that thought?
The problem is that driving standards are low, they slip lower, and we do nothing about that. We do not retest drivers except in the most extreme circumstances, when they probably should have received a lifetime ban. We fine people a paltry and forgettable £100 for using the phone, an act we know is dangerous. We allow people to use hands-free phones, an act we know is equally dangerous. We allow people to operate satnavs (see http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3823515.ece). We allow car manufacturers to produce cars with satnavs that can be reprogrammed whilst the car is in motion and the driver is alone in the vehicle.
Lengthy imprisonment after a death would be revenge. It would not be a deterrent. It would not be rehabilitation (it would be quite the opposite). It would arguably send a message that we take road death seriously, but I would vehemently argue that this is better done with lifetime bans and community service, not to mention some firm words from judges and coroners rather than the appallingly dismissive “there but for the grace of God go I” and victim-blaming rhetoric we so often hear.
Responding to these events by calling for killers to be imprisoned is futile and wildly misses the point.
Respond by demanding measures that prevent people becoming killers.
More: http://www.stewartpratt.com/?p=556
“If you haven’t seen the
“If you haven’t seen the cyclist, how could you possibly even have that thought?”
because the person driving the vehicle would be MORE careful and look about – noticing the cyclist and not running them over!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes, it is a system problem.
Yes, it is a system problem. But the problem is not that it fails vulnerable road users in handing out insufficient punishments to those who kill. The problem is that it fails us in allowing ordinary people to become killers, and for people to die at their hands.
We need to be clear about cause and effect and the way in which death occurs. It is usually because people’s bad habits – negligent practices, if you like – just happen to be going on when someone was in the way. Driving a bit fast, cleaning a window while driving, jumping a red light, poking a satnav, overtaking on a bend, having a drink, passing a cyclist with only inches to spare… all potentially fatal.
But we don’t punish those unless death or injury occurs.
We need the system to recognise that those are dangerous – not careless, dangerous – acts even if no-one dies.
Calls for imprisonment of killers will do nothing to prevent death.
And surely that must be what we need to achieve.
How regrettable that opinion
How regrettable that opinion is expressed in such hateful terms, and massive respect is due to the family for their truly forgiving approach to a personal tragedy. To vilify people as some posters have done really achieves very little except possibly causing a divide between perceived “tribes”. One of which has very forcefully expressed their views. But wait, could they be included with some traffic I observed last evening?
At the junction of Tottenham Court Road and New Oxford Street, buses, coaches, all struggling to cross junctions, plenty of hooters going, a large tipper going steadily through but looking very menacing to any vulnerable pedestrian or two wheel road users.
In the midst of all this, I watched cyclists. Probably saw 50 or more in 10 minutes, which was good to see. The issue, all but one simply rode through red lights, ignored give ways, swung from a side road (against red) into streams of traffic on Oxford Street. The massive majority of drivers must think these people are mad, and take avoiding action to not hurt another person.
Before the rabting brigade start, we need our own house in order. I don’t ind it necessary to rant, don’t cross reds on either two whels or four, and those that do should think very carefully before condemning anyone else. It’s not “safer” to jump reds. It’s utter arrogance and stupidity, and tars all cyclists with the same bruch. The loony lot do us no favours.
It is demonstrably safer to
It is demonstrably safer to cross on a red. I’m not saying it’s right or wrong, but it is a lot safer.
Just because some cyclists go through red lights doesn’t mean it’s OK for lorries to run people over. Your logic is very very odd.
You’re arguing against
You’re arguing against “perceived tribes” in the same post as you suggest we should have collective responsibilty for people on bikes who jump red lights. Um…
“It is demonstrably safer to
“It is demonstrably safer to cross on a red”
[citation needed]
Home page headline “No jail
Home page headline “No jail for killer driver” is highly inaccurate.
Please go too the evening
Please go too the evening standard and read!
I’m with Doc on this one.
I’m with Doc on this one. I’ve been off the bike for 5 months with a knee injury so I get to see a lot more cyclists from the pavement now. The ratio of law-abiding cyclists is anecdotally a lot lower than car drivers from my individual point of view and its very disappointing. But my real concern is the amount of crazy, reckless cycling I see… Quite a few people act like pedestrians rather than full road users and are just asking to be splatted.
On the other hand, I caught myself opening a door to get out at the lights from the passenger seat yesterday and I would have doored any cyclist in the cycle lane. We all just need to think a bit more and drive / ride confidently but defensively. Those who have convinced themselves that not wearing a helmet, or going through red lights is actually defensive, I find ridiculous in my humble opinion.
My thoughts above do not relate to the article. I live about 300m from Bow flyover and it seems perfectly possible to ride defensively on the roundabout underneath and still get killed there, it’s no place for a bike because of the unusual turning patterns, and the motor vehicles aren’t expecting cyclists to come off or join the a12, where bikes are banned. I only ever go on the flyover, and I ride to the tesco off the on-ramp via a different route. Sorry to all involved in the article.
“The law needs changing in my
“The law needs changing in my view so there is a smaller gap between the two offences. This means that the higher charge would need a lower degree of evidence than at present.”
The law at least need changing so that the distinction between the two offences is well defined. At the moment it is an incredibly flimsy distinction that is wide open to interpretation.
The other common complaint is that the “careless” charges are badly named. “Negligent” is often suggested. This isn’t something which would affect sentencing of course, but might conceivably play differently in the minds of jurors and might at least diminsh the extent to which bad driving is normalised.
Of course, we could do away with “careless driving” altogether. If careless driving can cause injury and death, it’s dangerous. Why not roll the two into a single charge that is at least equivalent in severity to the current dangerous driving charge? At the very least this seems fair where death or injury occurs. You don’t get suddenly killed by stuff that isn’t dangerous, right?
Bez wrote:”You don’t get
Tyre blow out? Having seen a lorry tyre go, the debris could kill someone?
But basically the system doesn’t work, and to an extent i do agree that locking up isn’t the solution.
Risk pyramid thing, anyone caught doing something that COULD be dangerous, ie transgressing ANYTHING in the highway code should be prosecuted for it. If the highway code is best practice then surely anything that is not by the book is dangerous?
But to get the system to change? how many politicians see nothing wrong in speeding, or getting there wives to take points….
mrmo wrote:Tyre blow out?
Sure, but that’s nothing to do with the driver’s actions per se and therefore not a driving offence (setting aside an illegally-worn tyre, of course). There’s no culpability of the driver there. I’m saying that where someone does something on the road that does cause death or injury, that is dangerous – not that everything that is potentially dangerous should cause someone to be prosecuted.
Quite. Everyone’s got their fat fingers in a normalised-crappy-driving pie.
We all need to look out for
We all need to look out for each other and actually care. The only thing in the world I take seriously is driving, it requires 100% concentration 100% of the time. If all other road users took the same attitude then I believe we’d all be safer on the road.
Beaufort wrote:We all need to
+ Plenty. Spot on. Hope you take your safety seriously on the bike, too.
boo hoo, the hgv driver is
boo hoo, the hgv driver is upset. who cares! someone is DEAD!
whethere he is remoreseful or not is NOT the point!
he broke the law and someone died, he should server a stronger punishment. it will deter other people killing more cyclists on a regular basis!
maybe others wont care so much!