A motorist who killed a cyclist after “inexplicably” cutting across her path has been given a suspended prison sentence after pleading guilty to causing death by careless driving.
The Manchester Evening News reports that Patricia Goulden was also banned from driving for two years and ordered to carry out 200 hours of unpaid work by a judge at Manchester Magistrates’ Court earlier this week.
Louise Harrott, a 43-year-old mum and member of Saddleworth Clarion Cycling Club, was killed in March 2021 while riding on the Huddersfield Road in Oldham when Goulden, driving a Range Rover, turned across her path and struck her.
Harrott was airlifted from the scene of the crash and taken to Manchester Royal Infirmary for surgery, but died from her injuries the following morning.
Her mother, Doreen McGivern, told the court this week that “my beautiful daughter Louise died doing the thing she loved”.
> Cycling club lead ‘cycle of honour’ for mum killed in collision
Louise fell in love with cycling in 2013 and, according to her mum, “had a true sense of belonging in her cycling club. She was happiest out riding and socialising with her friends in sunshine or rain.”
At her funeral, members of Saddleworth Clarion Cycling Club rode in their group colours to accompany the procession, with Louise’s coffin draped with a Clarion banner as relatives and friends said their final farewell to the much-loved mother-of-one.
Some of her ashes were scattered at Nont Sarah’s in Yorkshire, one of her favourite rides, where she enjoyed the long steady climb up Buckstones Hill.
In the wake of her death, Louise’s family called for better “road sharing education” to prevent more people from being killed doing the thing they love.
British Cycling said her death was “symptomatic of a road network that prioritises driving over cyclists and pedestrians” and that “no-one should have to be brave to go for a cycle”.
> Hit-and-run driver who left cyclist “for dead” has prison sentence overturned
Defending Goulden in court, Peter Grogan said that the motorist has a “deep sense of remorse” and regret over the incident.
He described Goulden’s driving as “inexplicable” and claimed she displayed “a momentary lapse of concentration”.
“The consequences of your actions will remain with Louise’s family and friends forever,” District Judge Mark Hadfield told Goulden.
“Of course, you will have to live with the consequences of your actions.
“This tragic accident was caused by a lapse of concentration by you. However, there is no explanation or reason why you failed to see Louise.”
Accepting that her remorse was genuine and that she was of “positive good character”, with no previous convictions, the judge sentenced Goulden to 26 weeks in prison, suspended for 12 months, as well as implementing a two-year driving ban.
The sentence was sharply criticised on Twitter by a member of Saddleworth Clarion Cycling Club, who wrote: “Louise was my friend and clubmate. She was kind and funny and intelligent. She left behind a teenage son. According to the law, however, she’s just roadkill.”
Louise was my friend and clubmate. She was kind and funny and intelligent. She left behind a teenage son. According to the law, however, she’s just roadkill. https://t.co/y5iQIyQad3
— Cycling Folkie ? (@VeganCyclist4) June 25, 2022
Earlier this week, a motorist who left a 51-year-old former army major “for dead on the side of the road” had a 12-week prison sentence overturned on appeal.
61-year-old William Jones, from Burton, Staffordshire, was instead given a suspended sentence and banned from driving for a year after leaving Cathal O’Reilly critically ill with a broken back, protruding leg bone and other serious injuries in a hit and run incident near Holyhead in September 2021.
66 thoughts on “Driver spared jail after killing cyclist in “momentary lapse of concentration””
Jesus. How awful. Absolutely
Jesus. How awful. Absolutely tragic both incidents. And bugger all punishment.
It’s time to stop using a
It’s time to stop using a ‘momentary lapse of concentration’ as a defence.
Even if this lapse did only occur at the most critical moment (which is highly unlikely), it’s still an abject failure to have control over your vehicle in the most typical and undemanding of road conditions. That ought to be a massive aggravating factor.
Yet again no justice and a driver free to continue to put people at risk on the roads after a short ban, without any reasonable explanation why this happened or indeed how they could prevent this happening in the future.
I wonder how many momentary
I wonder how many momentary lapse of attentions a train driver or pilot is allowed?
Might this be a clue as to why the death rate on roads is so high?
I can’t think of any other situation, think in a factory for example, where lack of attention could lead to death or serious injury, where having a ditzy moment is considered an acceptable excuse for manslaughter.
In the workplace, if you can
In the workplace, if you can’t do something safely, you are trained until you can…..
mikewood wrote:
So if you can’t drive safely, you pay someone to train you until you can to a much higher standard than the test you’ve previously passed
My question is, how many
My question is, how many momentary lapses of concentration are allowed for on a driving test?
Also, if a motorist is showing remorse, I would consider that anything less than voluntarily giving up their driving licence permanently is just platitudes for the court.
The suspended prison sentence is a bit of a joke to anyone affected by this unlawful killing, but I can understand the reasoning behind it. The two year driving ban makes no sense at all as there is no guarantee that the driver can maintain concentration and there’s certainly definitive proof that they are a danger to others.
Well – that should be scaled
Well – that should be scaled to fit the expected incidence of these over a lifetime’s driving, no? Because we only test once. So probably you can have 0.0001 or something (maybe a lot higher?). So not zero.
For all I know that might actually coincide with the average number of faults driving examiners miss of course making this all “balance”.
I’m sure the comprehensive road safety review will be suggesting that we both test (or have “refreshers”) more than once per lifetime. And that we look at the evidence standards / process in court for these offenses.
In my experience DVSA
In my experience DVSA examiners miss very, very few driving faults during a test. Much more relevant is the weight they are compelled to give to individual faults, ‘minor’ or ‘serious’ or ‘dangerous’. Senior managers in the agency seem fixated with giving the candidate the benefit of any doubt in almost all circumstances. You may think this is to minimise the number of tests, and therefore the number of examiners employed. I couldn’t possibly comment.
Thanks – had wondered about
Thanks – had wondered about that.
Points to fundamental belief in this being a “right”. Understandable I guess given the social “requirement” for adults to drive. (Turns out Maggie was channelling the people – or was it leading them?)
Fucking disgusting
Fucking disgusting
It’ll be interesting to see
It’ll be interesting to see what comes of the latest law changes?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-61940351
I won’t hold my breath.
Longer maximum sentences for
Longer maximum sentences for causing death while driving! Huh! Yeah!
What are they good for?
Absolutely nothin’.
Careless/dangerous driving I despise, ‘cos it means destruction of innocent lives … but does anyone have any evidence the current maximum of 14 years (or 9 1/3 for guilty plea) has ever been awarded?
Possibly it might marginally increase the sentences in a few of the most egregious cases. Overall I think this is mostly beside the point. We should be working to prevent these from happening (road safety review people!). And more importantly making it *feel* safe and convenient to walk or cycle so that people do.
This will likely be an
This will likely be an unpopular opinion, but I’m not that bothered by the suspended sentence as I’m not able to identify any social good that would be accomplished by incarcerating the driver (at considerable cost to the state, no less).
What does bother me is that the driver in this case was apparently just doing what multitudes of other drivers do every single fucking day–treating a speeding 2,000kg death machine as if it’s an inconsequential toy–and hardly anyone fucking cares. Society doesn’t fucking care. The authorities don’t fucking care. Lives are constantly sacrificed so entitled kings and queens of the road can use social media and do their make-up and eat their take-out and rush to wait in line a couple of seconds sooner at the upcoming red light, and nobody who matters fucking cares. This is an eminently preventable category of death and destruction, if only people would fucking care–but they refuse, and it’s infuriating.
And so I understand why folks are thirsty for blood, but what is to be genuinely gained by locking this one driver up? Practically speaking, she’s no different from the rest of the drivers out there (plenty of people you know and like, and even love, no doubt), bad luck aside. And we’re kidding ourselves if we think anyone will be deterred by seeing her locked up: if they’re not already deterred by the immediate threat of killing someone and being prosecuted over it, they’re not going to be deterred by the outside prospect of jail at some indeterminate point in the distant future–that’s just not how people think. In the end, I’m afraid there’s simply precious little the court could have done here, as the relevant changes need to be made elsewhere in the society and are totally outside the scope of the court’s authority.
Longer ban maybe though?
Longer ban maybe though?
Keep the rest of us a bit safer for longer.
That’s what I thought at
That’s what I thought at first too, and I’m still open to considering the possibility, but I have at least two concerns:
1) It’s not clear to me that she has proven herself to be a particular threat on the road relative to other drivers. True, she had the bad fortune of destroying a life due to her self-absorbed carelessness, but that has more to do with the randomness of events than with any particular danger she herself poses, again, relative to other drivers.
2) One potential problem with banning people from driving is that (depending on the circumstances) it risks putting substantial burdens on other people who now have to provide transportation and services for the suspended driver. That’s not a dispositive point in and of itself, but it’s hard to justify any costs and burdens when the punishment doesn’t seem to have any significant benefits in the first place.
I agree, I’m not a big fan of
I agree, I’m not a big fan of custodial sentences. In truth behaviour is not deterred by the the punishment but by the chance of being caught. In most of these cases, I believe, drivers will have exhibited poor driving skills previously that have never been punished. The system has failed when someone is dead or injured and locking up one individual doesn’t make cycling safer.
They do need some punishment. In this case I would say something like 1000 hours unpaid work (even that only amounts to giving up weekends for just over a year -perhaps in a job that will bring them in to conflict with drivers like traffic warden or litter picking on a busy road), they should also give up a small percentage of their future income to road safety charities and obviously they should never hold a license again. Honestly, if they were really remorseful they’d probably be volunteering to do all this.
IanMK wrote:
Well said. It’s a failure of the system, and punishing one person won’t fix it.
I see where you’re coming from, and considering this particular driver was in a Range Rover it’s hard to feel too much concern for her circumstances. But as a general policy matter it’s worth remembering that 1000 (or whatever large number of) hours of unpaid work, salary forfeiture, and a permanently suspended license would be quite calamitous for many people’s lives (not to mention the lives of anyone who depends on them). Yes, one person’s life has already been destroyed, but destroying more lives won’t fix that or prevent more destruction in the future.
Quite calamitous for the
Quite calamitous for the driver? What was the consequence for the cyclist was that also calamitous?
It should be a strict liability offence, kill another road-user through inattention and you get to pay someone to transport you (or cycle) for the rest of your life. No if’s, but’s or wriggling. Maybe then those in charge of vehicles would take more care when driving.
Hamster wrote:
No, they won’t. That’s wishful thinking, unfortunately.
But of course not as
But of course not as calamitous as going to prison. I’m sure even severe non custodial sentences can be adapted to the individual. Actually, I believe that a truly remorseful person could embrace such punishment and grow from it. A bit like enforced karma.
One thousand hours of work is
One thousand hours of work is just over six months of a normal full time job, doesn’t seem that harsh for the taking of an innocent person’s life, which would have been quite calamitous for their family and friends.
The conclusion of this is
The conclusion of this is that no crime involving the death or serious injury of another should be punished.
Driving is a priviledge not a right.
Don’t have any idea how you
Don’t have any idea how you find that conclusion in my post.
And, you think is no punishment here? Living the rest of your life with the knowledge that you killed someone is punishment. Having your license suspended for two years is punishment. Having a conviction on your record for the rest of your life is punishment. Being prosecuted, regardless of the outcome, is punishment. Having your name and face and story plastered all over the news and social media is punishment. Do you really think that if you were to go through all of that you’d feel you’d gotten off free?
ejocs wrote:
It isn’t. Or, at least, that isn’t how it should be used or viewed. It’s a risk reduction measure.
Those two things–punishment
Those two things–punishment and a risk reduction measure–aren’t mutually exclusive. Putting someone in prison, for example, is clearly both. Indeed, all formal punishment should be a risk reduction measure, else there’s no way to justify it.
In this case, though, the
In this case, though, the withdrawal of the license to drive because you’ve demonstrated lack of competence is not a punishment, any more than refusing to give a licence in the first place because you failed your test is a punishment.
Punishments can also be risk reduction, but that doesn’t make all risk reduction measures punishments.
I’m not following the
I’m not following the distinction you’re making. Or, to put it more precisely, I don’t see what’s at stake in the distinction you’re making. How does the analysis or our understanding of the situation improve if we accept your categorization over mine?
Better yet, I’m happy to drop the label “punishment” and just call it a negative consequence (that is, a consequence that the driver herself will experience negatively, as something she and other prospective wrongdoers would prefer to avoid). The point I was trying to make when I called it punishment in the first place was simply that, even without jail time or a longer driving ban, the driver has already suffered a great number of negative consequences of her behavior and is unlikely to feel that she has gotten off free. I made that point not to beg sympathy for her but to try to explain that those negative consequences she has already incurred ought to go a long way toward satisfying deterrence and retribution without our investing in enhanced formal sanctions against her.
What’s at stake is that
What’s at stake is that treating it as a ‘punishment’ bolsters the narrative that driving is a ‘right’ which has been taken away. It’s not – it’s a privilege which is conditional on your demonstrating your competence and suitability to be allowed to do it. The loss of that privilege simply reflects that you’re no longer considered safe to be behind the wheel.
The idea that driving is a ‘right’ and removing it a ‘punishment’ plays into the epidemic of ‘exceptional hardship’ defences allowing people to continue driving with humungous numbers of points on their licences, and magistrates carefully stopping short of enough points to push people past the limit, because taking away that ‘right’ is seen as almost unnatural, and something to be done only in the most extreme of cases.
Hmm, I don’t see it that way-
Hmm, I don’t see it that way–who, for example, would object to calling it “punishment” when a child’s privilege of playing with a toy is taken away as a consequence of the child’s bad behavior / demonstrated inability to play with the toy responsibly? In any event, as I said, I’m happy to drop the disputed label as it doesn’t matter at all to my point.
I should point out that I’m not wholly opposed to severe driving bans, only those that don’t serve any evident purpose (and I’ve explained above why I don’t think this one would, because this driver’s behavior seems to have been unexceptional and within the boundaries of inevitable human faultiness). But when it comes to the repeated violation of bright line laws–Don’t use your phone! Don’t run red lights! Don’t close pass!–I think there’s a much stronger justification for them because now we’ve got 1) a driver who’s proven himself to be a particular menace and from whom the society needs particular protection and 2) deterrence has a better chance of success because we’re targetting behavior that people can clearly avoid–there’s a bright line between using your phone and not using your phone, between running red lights or stopping for red lights–rather than vague and unrealistic admonitions to pay perfect attention at all times. There will still be costs to implementing severe driving bans in these cases, and those costs should still be taken into account, but I think it’s probable that they can often be outwieghed by the benefits.
I’m with you on some of this.
I’m with you on some of this. I think we’re much more likely to see a bigger effect (but also a *ton* of other benefits) from moving beyond our current model. We seem to take crashes in isolation and mostly deal with them as a legal matter.
I suggest a “health and safety” model (actually a “sustainable safety” model – much more than “vision zero”) would be more appropriate.
Though I don’t believe we can police our way to “subjectively safe roads” we can certainly do more. We shouldn’t discard the legal side. Clearly some people have intent or are “criminally negligent”. On this I think what people here are objecting to is the “desert” part. Humans want to feel that justice has been done even if they are not directly affected by the process. That includes punishment – even when they can’t agree on what it is. “Voluntary” things are rarely felt to be punishment – so the “she was really cut up about it!” doesn’t satisfy.
Unfortunately “cyclists” are a minority so the majority opinion *is* as you suggest – that losing your licence is a severe “punishment” not merely a logical consequence / reasonable safety precaution.
chrisonatrike wrote:
Yeah, I think justice (and fairness and desert and lots of other things most people hold dear) is a false and dangerous concept, so I often have a hard time dealing with normal people.??
I take it you’re familiar with https://www.youtube.com/c/NotJustBikes? If not, I think you’d really like it.
ejocs wrote:
Yeah, I think justice (and fairness and desert and lots of other things most people hold dear) is a false and dangerous concept, so I often have a hard time dealing with normal people.??— chrisonatrike
I strongly advise staying out of politics. Or public life in general unless you can disguise that pretty well!
Yup, thanks – aware but always a good recommendation. I was raised in the age of Richard’s Bicycle Book but in the last decade I’ve retrained on David Hembrow, Bicycle Dutch, Ranty Highwayman, KatsDekker, As Easy as Riding a Bike, the Alternative Department for Transport, the Cycling Embassy of Great Britain, BikeSnobNYC (who might chime more with you) etc.
You wrote
You wrote
“Yes, one person’s life has already been destroyed, but destroying more lives won’t fix that or prevent more destruction in the future.”
So what is anyone supposed to conclude other than “no crime involving the death or serious injury of another should be punished.”
Or perhaps you could explain whether someone who takes the life of another by careless driving or greater should be punished (if at all)? And what the punishment should be ? (Given your previous restrictions of “but destroying more lives won’t fix that or prevent more destruction in the future”)
I already explained at length
I already explained at length that I don’t think additional punishment is justified in this case based on the particular characteristics of this case, because the costs to society would outweigh any benefits, again, in this case. I also illustrated the ways in which this particular driver has already been punished, and acknowledged that I remain open to the possibility of further increasing her driving ban (although at this point I’m skeptical of the benefits and wary of the costs). All a very far cry from no punishment ever for someone who causes death or severe injury.
In general, if we’re going to punish someone, we should be able to point to specific ways that it will, at an acceptable cost, decrease the amount of unwanted behavior in society through some combination of 1) incapacitating a wrongdoer who presents a unique threat to the society (which I explained I don’t think this driver does because the tragedy in this case seems to have been the result of the same sort of vaguely negligent driving that many are guilty of every day–that doesn’t make it right, but it does mean that we don’t make society safer by removing this one person from it) and 2) deterring future wrongdoing (which I explained I don’t think will happen in this case, again because the wrongdoing here seems to have been based on vague negligence rather than an overt bright-line violation, and because the kind of wrongdoing here causes severe harm (and would therefore lead to the kind of formal punishment we’re debating) only in the statistical aggregate and will continue to be seen as non-risky from the perspective of any given driver). Since additional punishment here wouldn’t seem to produce any benefits but would incur not-insignificant costs, then, I don’t think additional punishment is justified in this case.
ejocs wrote:
^THIS
As exemplified by her Barristers own, standard apologist Bollocks “a momentary lapse of concentration”
Fuck. Off.
Turning heel for a moment –
Turning heel for a moment – from the “normal person’s” perspective it would seem bizarre to punish the driver at all.
Any evidence of intent? No. Did the driver have any “previous”? Apparently not. Is the activity (driving) lawful? Yes, driver presumably licenced. Were they carrying out the activity in a manner (up until to the crash) where it was foreseeable that this could happen ***? No evidence so the court can’t consider that they were. Will the driver do this again? No way to say certainly but on the evidence of cycling being statistically safe / nothing else against the driver, no.
So an “accident” – so punishment serves neither “justice” (e.g. fault with intent) nor prevention / public protection!
Of course that’s not how
Of course that’s not how people who cycle might see it. I think the real point is at ***. Unless we’re deluding ourselves we implicit accept – by having “universal driving” – that crashes will happen. So having any drivers is implicitly not “vision zero”! However since road travel in the UK is globally very “safe” this allows most people not to encounter this reality, most of the time.
How to change things? I can see two: monitoring and much better separation of vulnerable road users. Monitoring – unless we suddenly find triple the police – would be “tech”: detect dangerous behaviour before crashes so drivers get feedback or “enhance” the car so e.g. it can spot when you’re above to drive into someone. (Or complete “autonomous vehicle”).
I’m going for the low-tech solution – with a ton of “incidental” benefits – better separation. I may be on the wrong side of history in the UK but I know it “works” in general.
chrisonatrike wrote:
I’m going to have to disagree with you on that point, there is neither the budget or the willpower to implement a completely separate infrastructure for active travel users everywhere and if you don’t have a complete system the we either have to still share some roads with cars or avoid some places. With the current evidence on climate change we probably don’t even have the time if we wanted to, so for me the answer is education of drivers and increased enforcement of the rules of the road either by increased police budgets/priority or technology.
Disagree on the whole and the
Disagree on the whole and the parts. It’s a fallacy that infra must be entirely separate to work. That’s not even the case in The Netherlands. Or are they a failure?
So you’re correct – there will be sharing. Looking at NL, wikipedia says they’ve 139,000 km of public roads, 35,000 km of which have separate cycle paths, 4,700 km have bike lanes (not separate). Even allowing for motorways that is a lot of sharing. And that’s NL – other “successful” places have much less dedicated bike infra.
It’s about where you put it. Road danger is not evenly distributed. Junctions in particular are problems and certain main routes will need fixed. Paris, Seville etc. show that while far from being as cheap as paint if you start with the right principles (a network, certain minimum standards) you can built relatively inexpensively. Further some fairly quick changes can make a place where lots of people (not just an extra 1%) *will* make trips. Now you’ve a poplation of people who are aware and invested in cycling.
As for expense and political will I agree that’s how it looks now. We’ve been hearing the same refrain of “prioritising active travel” (with crumbs) for more than a quarter century in the UK. However that’s not set in stone. Cycling infra costs much less than motor infra. It’s all about choices – what do we prioritise?
I don’t think you can police or educate drivers (that is certainly not cheap either!) into making the roads feel safe places to cycle. People don’t cycle because it doesn’t feel safe or convenient, not because they’re aware of the numbers (it’s already a “safe” activity). So that will have zero impact on climate change. I’d love more enforcement but I think we’ll quickly hit a point of diminishing returns on additional police required per number of crashes reduced.
Detail here:
https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/23/it%E2%80%99s-too-expensive-to-provide-for-cycling
https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/16/higher-standards-of-driving-would-make-cycling-safe
chrisonatrike wrote:
I’ve not been there but from what I’ve seen and read they have done a good job.
approximately 25%, that’s a big chunk of infrastructure even allowing for quick wins by stealing an existing lane, we will be a long time getting there.
we still don’t have these minimum standards, a new bypass near me has a cycle lane to avoid a roundabout, it stops at a pile of dirt round a blind bend on a 60mph limit road without even a dropped kerb. I have no faith in the people who think this is acceptable.
I think we will see a bigger change in the next 10 years as petrol costs and the price of electric cars prices large numbers of the working class out of cars.
You’re always going to reach a point of diminishing returns on any action you take on road safety but current enforcement is so far below what it was when I started driving that I think we could usefully increase it at the moment. On the education front again I see far more drivers who are not up to the standard I would like to see, most people seem to think that passing the test makes them perfect but I was taught that passing the test meant you had reached the minimum standard and you should continue to learn and improve from that point.
Well I’ll agree with anyone
Well I’ll agree with anyone who points out that much UK infra is not just not trying but is bordering on evidence of misconduct in public office – a total waste of cash. I live somewhere (Edinburgh) where it’s possible to see the whole spectrum – both the “usual” (awful) but also some good stuff. Some new but not all of it. Some surprisingly simple and effective (and no doubt cheap). From a very selfish perspective I’m on a traffic-free mini-network which connects in to quiet streets and some “historic LTNs” so I can link a lot of journeys with little or no traffic. It’s a UK rarity but it illustrates that you can often start with a relatively small amount of “good stuff” – if done thoughtfully.
As for “we will be a long time getting there” we’ve been several generations getting all our motor vehicle infra. Yes, the Netherlands started from a high point and yes they have spent years (and fought for) reversing putting motor vehicle infra first. I mentioned other places to illustrate that you really can start from where you are.
But you have to start. I’d say the UK’s efforts have never effectively done that.
I agree that I see more terrible driving “in the wild”. It’s almost like once you passed that was it. Plus we have more drivers and fewer police. And despite not being “able to afford” cheaper cycling infra we’re still building plenty more new expensive motor vehicle infra.
As always – unless the external circumstances change as you suggest, someone has to make a first bold move (history says a good way is to ask “what about the kids?”). Without that we’ll be a decade or a quarter century down the line saying exactly the same thing.
Not been to NL (or Malmo, or
Not been to NL (or Malmo, or Copenhagen, or Seville, or Bern, or Paris …)? I highly recommend a virtual tour – but with an informed guide. The detail is important. Here’s a quick “normal person” perspective. Bicycle Dutch has a wonderful video library. Ranty Highwayman is an actual UK civil engineer who blogs about how we can and are starting to do this sort of thing in the UK.
chrisonatrike wrote:
I suspect many drivers, and I’d include myself when I’m not taking care, drive on the assumption that they need to scan the road for other cars (and larger). That often leads to assumptions, where it is clear from a limited view of the way ahead that there is no possibility of a car bring present, ignoring the possibility that a cyclist could yet be concealed.
I’m pretty sure that’s how most people drive, and most of the time it makes little difference, because you have a complete view ahead. But pulling out of some junctions etc, cyclists can seemingly appear “out of nowhere”, which is to say, out of where a whole car could not have been concealed, but a cyclist could.
Kinda points to “design
Kinda points to “system” or “design issues” then, no? Where the question should not be “is this safe for use by a careful, competent driver?” but “is this safe for use by the average human driver? How safe it it for the large number of foreseeably impaired drivers?” Or “how do we make a system safer given that is how people drive (and we permit / encourage it)?”
As I’ve said before I don’t know if merely “locking up the real wrong’uns” would be the low hanging fruit. I suspect it would be equally effective / simpler to look at the mass. So not homicidal but complacent and only looking for other large motor vehicles. Frequently distracted – indeed allowed to be on a phone call, kids in the back, in a hurry. Last read the highway code 30 years ago or more. They may also not be able to turn their head properly, their vehicle may have multiple “blind spots” (because they’re not checking or because even if they did it’s physically impossible to see), their eyesight, hearing and reaction times may be far below the “average” (however we judge that).
Basically trying to mitigate
Basically trying to mitigate a systematic issue at an individual level. The jury / judge, understanding this, are reluctant to find individuals wholly responsible for this. (There but for the grace of god go I). So nothing further happens to improve the situation because it’s been to court and been dealt with.
No you numpty. If you’re
No you numpty. If you’re driving around in a 2 Tonne lump of metal and you kill somebody (who really is innocent of committing any crime), due to your driving, then you are guilty of killing that person and you do need to be punished appropriately. Other motorists need to see the appropriate punishment and, only then, might things begin to change.
100% agree. When a driver
100% agree. When a driver kills somebody out of pure incompetence/ lack of attention/sun in their eyes whatever they need to be bent double and shafted hard AF. Patricia took somebodies mum, daughter, aunt maybe even nan… 26 weeks suspended and 2 year ban. Fucking joke.
Christopher TR1 wrote:
That has as much chance of happening as you have of winning the argument by calling your opponent a name. There’s emotional appeal to it, sure, but no functionality (or at least not the functionality that’s hoped for).
But – again, today I’m just
But – again, today I’m just trying to see it from the other perspective – if you’ve done everything to comply with the law (and society normalises this activity and the authorities set the standards bar so this is accessible to all), have done so for time, have got complacent (as most do, repeated activity with no bad consequences / negative feedback) and then “I made a slip and something happened” – how’s e.g. banging this person up for life going to help? Granted – it will presumably deliver a feeling of justice for the relatives – although I’d still be livid we continue to facilitate this occurring. Without cheerleading for the driver however we make this far too easy / likely so I think e.g. in many cases a life sentence wouldn’t be proportionate.
However my main issue is I don’t think it will prevent this continuing.
Most drivers think their standard of driving is at least acceptable. “Major” issues like this are very rare. I don’t think most people will change “normal” behaviour long-term even if there was, say, a much higher detection and conviction rate. I think we would quickly hit the point of diminishing returns.
I certainly agree that we should try to make driving a more “serious” or “thoughtful” undertaking. Test more than once a lifetime. Yes, the law’s currently broken when it comes to motoring offenses (e.g. people who have clearly – to us here! – been deliberately negligent or even malicious). Greatly increased enforcement of existing laws – including the “minor” offenses like phone use and speeding would likely have *some* impact. But I don’t think we can police our way to the roads feeling safe for most people to cycle.
https://cyclingfallacies.com/en/16/higher-standards-of-driving-would-make-cycling-safe
Another one. Should have been
Another one. Should have been permanent removal of licence, car crushed and serving time for manslaughter at least. 26 weeks suspended wtf
I wonder what the impact
I wonder what the impact would be on driving standards of licences were withdrawn for far longer periods. How about if the starting point for a driving ban involving death or serious injury was a permanent ban? No arguing it down to no ban because of exceptional circumstances – there is always a workaround, even if it means spending significant amounts of money hiring a driver. If you can’t afford the penalty, don’t risk the crime.
The main mindset that needs to be achieved is that there is no right to drive and there have to be serious consequences for serious mistakes.
In the UK, custodial sentences are very much last resort and I’m inclined to agree that they are unlikely to be effective in reforming driving or as a deterrent because clearly most drivers don’t believe they are poor drivers about to have an accident. Increase the probability of losing your licence through better enforcement and higher tariffs and I think driving standards would improve. I think the evidence of this is compliance with average speed cameras where people are convinced that the technology is effective so don’t risk the points.
IanMSpencer wrote:
I’m skeptical. Most drivers drive negligently at least some of the time, but most drivers never kill or seriously injure anyone at all, let alone frequently. From an individual driver’s perspective it’s a very low probability event, so the consequences are going to be far too uncertain and speculative to reliably affect many people’s behavior.
I think part of the solution might lie somewhere around your point about speed cameras. There’s a very strong argument to be made that we can and should reliably affect drivers’ behavior by aggressively holding them responsible for common bright line offenses (speeding, phone use, too-close passing) that increase the risk of seriously injuring someone, rather than waiting until a full-blown tragedy occurs and then punishing the driver retroactively out of frustration and rage but without much hope of accomplishing anything substantial.
Agree to the actually
Agree to the actually enforcing the law so there’s more than a passing chance of picking up on offenses. Even where these are “minor”. Several (e.g. speed, mobile use, obvious intoxicated driving) certainly are factors in crashes. Some would be pretty good “pointers” to risk e.g. going around in an illegal motor.
Again though – and I’ve never seen the numbers – I wonder whether this will seriously affect the KSIs. I suspect – just a guess – as well as some obvious wrong-uns wreaking havoc there’s also a large contribution from “millions of unexceptional drivers making the normal human mistakes – and it just happening at ‘the wrong time'”. In that case I suspect not much would change if penalties or even enforcement were enhanced.
There’s also our failure to design vehicles, infra and rules to better prevent or mitigate the consequences of foreseeable situations. This is not exactly “low hanging fruit” as changes here are clearly difficult and costly. However we can at least see what we could do and the consequences by reference to other places. We could see what effects installing good quality cycle infra and lots of it would have, for instance. Or preventing overtaking on fast two-lane roads, or improving vision from large vehicles…
From a hazard management point of view it’s always going to be more effective to remove the hazard (motor vehicles) than try to change the behaviour of the motorists.
Agree that a lot of harm is
Agree that a lot of harm is caused by unexceptional drivers making normal (read: inevitable) human mistakes, and that a big part of the best solution therefore must include improving infrastructure design and cars themselves in order to neutralize the human factor.
Still, I think there is incremental benefit in holding drivers responsible for and attempting to deter them from behavior (such as speeding, phone use, etc.) that increases the risk above the inevitable human baseline, especially since those policies would be relatively (*relatively*) quick and easy to implement, whereas improvements in infrastructure and vehicle design will come around grudgingly if at all (although I am cautiously optimistic that autonomous driving technology will be a big step in the right direction–self-driving cars will still mess up occasionally, but humans mess up constantly, and we shouldn’t confuse a lack of perfection with a lack of improvement).
ejocs wrote:
Normal, or nomalised? A lot of horrendoulsy bad driving habits are normalised.
This is exactly how H&S law
This is exactly how H&S law is supposed to work. Police the circumstances which are conducive to injury and deaths. You fine people for minor things, like not securing ladders etc, rather than waiting for the inevitable before jailing them.
It’s such an obvious part of
It’s such an obvious part of the solution, no? Who wouldn’t prefer to stop a tragedy from occurring rather than waiting for the tragedy to inevitably occur and then impotently pointing the finger of blame? And yet the fuckwit police can’t be bothered. Granted, like any organization they don’t have unlimited resources to pursue every project they might want to pursue, but this clearly beneficial policy strikes me as being firmly within their grasp if only they would give a damn.
Perhaps, given that there are
Perhaps, given that there are 30 million cars and 130,000 police and 280 billion miles driven (based on the first Google results I could see rather than any serious research) we are asking the police to do a task which is wildly beyond realistic.
Given there are 25,000 KSI per annum, at 1 million pounds per incident, a rough figure that I picked up from a mate who worked at British Rail some years ago, so probably out of date, that’s a budget of 25billion per year if you cost it. Why not set up a dedicated road police force with powers to direct the highways authorities to fix accident blackspots and the authority to install whatever surveillance gadgetry they desire as long as it can be shown to have a specific road safety purpose?
Of course the police can’t
Of course the police can’t watch every driver and catch every violator. But they don’t have to. They only have to watch and catch enough people to make the rest of the drivers take seriously the threat of fines or suspended licenses or worse if they continue refusing to follow bright line laws that are in the clear interest of public safety.
I’m with you on bigger budgets and dedicated task forces, and potentially on automated surveillance too. I’ve got the usual privacy concerns about the latter, but maybe we’ve already crossed the Rubicon with regard to technological intrusion into our lives and may as well at least reap whatever benefits there are to be had.
I wonder what police
I wonder what police resources are put into the 600 murders a year? How many of those are preventable due to the risk of being caught rather than in the moment?
As a cyclist we are as likely to be killed by a motorist as to be murdered. Perhaps we should be accorded the same priority given the impact is the same?
I guess though, the point is that to get to the position where drivers have the perception of being at risk, there needs to be a step change in resourcing.
IanMSpencer wrote:
There’s little to no evidence that murders are significantly reduced due to the perceived risk of being caught. The circumstances that precipiate murder–inebriation, in-the-moment rage, living deeply within a lifestyle that is dissociated from the values and incentives and opportunities of the wider society–all but preclude making that kind of calculation.
I would argue it’s actually worse for us as cyclists. Even if the ultimate rate of death is the same, we’re made to fear for our lives every single time out (not to mention all of the severe injuries that don’t result in death).
For sure. I think it’s clear that far too many drivers perceive no risk at all to themselves as a result of their own behavior, and that has to change.
ejocs wrote:
The problem for the politicians is working out how to sell it as an improvement for everyone in the face of any safety improvement being characterised as a way on motorists.
Simple example of behaviour to target that should have support: I was going down the A1, non-motorway stretch, two lane dual carriageway. Car in front passing lorry at 65mph. I am doing 70 (72 on the cruise control, calibrated by GPS, and a couple of other tests), and wait behind motorist and then return to 70 as they pull in, no hassling. I’ve seen van approaching behind. I chug past at my 5mph difference as van sits a couple of metres off. I clear car but not yet at safe pulling in, van closes to about a metre. I pull in at my usual point and van skims past, not waiting for me to clear the lane, and passenger is gesticulating wildly. I point to my rear view mirror and mouth camera, confident that they can’t tell I don’t have one. I do this because there is a high chance of retaliation – from a vehicle demanding to be able to drive at 20mph over his speed limit when I am driving at the maximum I am allowed to do when it is safe. In 4 hours of driving, it was the only incident I had, but as I often say, 1 in a hundred is a reasonable estimate of aggressive drivers who use their vehicles offensively.
The figure for 2017 was £35
The figure for 2017 was £35 billion – https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/755698/rrcgb-2017.pdf
Purely from an economics point of view, spending a few billion pounds per year on prevention (infrastructure, enforcement, education, etc) would pay off massively.
But cycling infra is too
But cycling infra is too expensive…
Fu** this country. Might
Fu** this country. Might remove the restriction on my ebike
Is it cynical of me to
Is it cynical of me to question the sincerity of these people who claim to be utterly remorseful? Do they mean they truly are sorry, or do they mean they truly are sorry that they were caught and prosecuted? I wonder how many voluntarily stop driving after an incident such as this?