Live blog: MP says yesterday's Commons debate on road justice "absolutely not" about motorists vs cyclists, cyclist in Canada loses his sh*t literally (well, throws it at driver), "Cycling is better for your sex life" says government minister + more

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Also that the current thinking of reducing severity of charge because bias same acting peers of the accused will not condemn/find guilty because they themselves act in this criminal manner yhus can see little wrong is unwholly suitable as part of a civilised justice system. As mentioned before it's akin to the white man going on trial for killing a black man in the deep south BITD. Without enforcement and judges giving out penalties that reflect the severity of the act and the above change needed for judging guilty/not guilty it's meaningless waffle.

Reading BTL on that Guardian article, and on one in the Bristol Post today (), you so often see people writing that the police need to crack down on law breaking cyclists, who need insurance and registration so that they don't get away with it...  They completely fail to see/notice that many, MANY, motorists 'get away with it' despite (usually) having insurance and registration... 

The Grauniad had an op-ed recently about removing rape cases from juries, as juries can't be trusted to deal with such cases open-mindedly/disinterestedly.  They said they think that there's an awful lot of  "Do we really want to ruin this young man's life just because of some youthful high jinks / sexual assault?" going on (both in juries, and even in the police).

I wonder whether something similar ought to be tried out for anything involving motoring/cycling?  Remove juries from the equation, make sure such cases don't just sit with low-level magistrates (whose range rovers are sitting outside in the car park...).

brooksby wrote:

I wonder whether something similar ought to be tried out for anything involving motoring/cycling?  Remove juries from the equation, make sure such cases don't just sit with low-level magistrates (whose range rovers are sitting outside in the car park...).

Either that, or involve expert witnesses more.

Studies and surveys consistently show that people (ie. representative samples of society) overestimate their (particularly driving) abilities.

So if a jury is also a representative sample of society, it will be made up of people who overestimate their driving ability.

And in these cases, they are judging what is careless or dangerous against their version of 'reasonable'. But we already know that their version of 'reasonable' is probably flawed - because they most likely overestimate their driving ability. They are not qualified to judge driving standards.

The man on the Clapham Omnibus could do with a lot more help these days - or being removed from judgement calls completely.

davel wrote:

brooksby wrote:

I wonder whether something similar ought to be tried out for anything involving motoring/cycling?  Remove juries from the equation, make sure such cases don't just sit with low-level magistrates (whose range rovers are sitting outside in the car park...).

Either that, or involve expert witnesses more.

Studies and surveys consistently show that people (ie. representative samples of society) overestimate their (particularly driving) abilities.

So if a jury is also a representative sample of society, it will be made up of people who overestimate their driving ability. And in these cases, they are judging what is careless or dangerous against their version of 'reasonable'. But we already know that their version of 'reasonable' is probably flawed - because they most likely overestimate their driving ability. They are not qualified to judge driving standards.

The obvious answer is to use driving test examiners. If someone's driving would fail a driving test, then it's clearly below the required standard.

hawkinspeter wrote:

davel wrote:

brooksby wrote:

I wonder whether something similar ought to be tried out for anything involving motoring/cycling?  Remove juries from the equation, make sure such cases don't just sit with low-level magistrates (whose range rovers are sitting outside in the car park...).

Either that, or involve expert witnesses more.

Studies and surveys consistently show that people (ie. representative samples of society) overestimate their (particularly driving) abilities.

So if a jury is also a representative sample of society, it will be made up of people who overestimate their driving ability. And in these cases, they are judging what is careless or dangerous against their version of 'reasonable'. But we already know that their version of 'reasonable' is probably flawed - because they most likely overestimate their driving ability. They are not qualified to judge driving standards.

The obvious answer is to use driving test examiners. If someone's driving would fail a driving test, then it's clearly below the required standard.

...as any collision with a cyclist, that was caused by the driver, would. Anyone can envisage that scenario failing a test: it's substandard and that should be fairly straightforward to agree.

But the real problem the system currently seems to be having is with whether it falls into careless, dangerous, or neither. And my argument is that a jury is not qualified to answer that.

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/delivery-driver-who-...

This van driver waved a family (mum and daughter) across the road, then mounted the kerb and hit and killed the daughter (a four year-old girl). There was no doubt that he caused death by driving. A jury cleared him of causing death by dangerous driving, and death by careless driving. Somehow, 12 good men and true thought that this was a mistake that doesn't fall into 'dangerous' or even 'careless'.

'Fucked up' doesn't begin to cover it.

CygnusX1 wrote:

Glad to see things have moved on massively in terms of driver behaviour around cyclists since the 1970s (not).

many thanks to all the cyclists who persisted over the years since then, often in the face not only of danger but of ridicule and ignorance, and cleared the way for us to reap the recent benefits.

ConcordeCX wrote:

CygnusX1 wrote:

Glad to see things have moved on massively in terms of driver behaviour around cyclists since the 1970s (not).

many thanks to all the cyclists who persisted over the years since then, often in the face not only of danger but of ridicule and ignorance, and cleared the way for us to reap the recent benefits.

Thank you.  I can only wish that the progress was rather more than what was promised to us forty years ago.  If they had done what I and others told them then, we wouldn't have to be fighting now, but they ignored it then, and they are ignoring it now.

john1967 wrote:

Doesn't do much for your sex life if your squashed under an artic. I'd prefer to see MPs discussing cycling safety.

They did.  https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-11-20/debates/7CCA537F-54DB-4...

Completely ignored in the media, just as they are ignoring road safety week.

Brilliant to see club volunteer Dean Barnett getting to the last 3 of the Unsung Hero award. 

burtthebike wrote:

john1967 wrote:

Doesn't do much for your sex life if your squashed under an artic. I'd prefer to see MPs discussing cycling safety.

They did.  https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-11-20/debates/7CCA537F-54DB-4...

Completely ignored in the media, just as they are ignoring road safety week.

Even if the media made a noise about it every driver would think "That's not an issue for me, I'm a competent driver".

burtthebike wrote:

john1967 wrote:

Doesn't do much for your sex life if your squashed under an artic. I'd prefer to see MPs discussing cycling safety.

They did.  https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-11-20/debates/7CCA537F-54DB-4...

Completely ignored in the media, just as they are ignoring road safety week.

Worth reading that Hansard article in full.

Rory Stewart also said, shortly after the sex life comment:

'We have therefore concluded that we must now extend the maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous driving to a life sentence, and the maximum penalty for causing death by careless driving under the influence of drink—alcohol—to a life sentence as well. That has been a difficult decision because of the question of balancing the impact on the victim with the culpability of the individual. However, in the end, the conclusion must be that someone who commits an extremely dangerous act in a vehicle is driving a weapon and committing an unlawful act. Ultimately, if a death results, that is morally equivalent to unlawful act manslaughter. Individuals under the influence of drink or drugs who get into a vehicle knowingly propel an extremely dangerous weapon, having consciously made a decision to incapacitate themselves. That is in direct contravention of their duty of care towards other road users and is therefore equivalent to gross negligence manslaughter. They should therefore face the penalty of a life sentence as a maximum.'

That is excellent news ...

jaysa wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

john1967 wrote:

Doesn't do much for your sex life if your squashed under an artic. I'd prefer to see MPs discussing cycling safety.

They did.  https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-11-20/debates/7CCA537F-54DB-4...

Completely ignored in the media, just as they are ignoring road safety week.

Worth reading that Hansard article in full.

 

Absolutely worth a read.... Now we just need to keep reminding the politicians to actually get something done, just discussing it is not enough.

jaysa wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

john1967 wrote:

Doesn't do much for your sex life if your squashed under an artic. I'd prefer to see MPs discussing cycling safety.

They did.  https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-11-20/debates/7CCA537F-54DB-4...

Completely ignored in the media, just as they are ignoring road safety week.

Worth reading that Hansard article in full.

Rory Stewart also said, shortly after the sex life comment:

'We have therefore concluded that we must now extend the maximum penalty for causing death by dangerous driving to a life sentence, and the maximum penalty for causing death by careless driving under the influence of drink—alcohol—to a life sentence as well. That has been a difficult decision because of the question of balancing the impact on the victim with the culpability of the individual. However, in the end, the conclusion must be that someone who commits an extremely dangerous act in a vehicle is driving a weapon and committing an unlawful act. Ultimately, if a death results, that is morally equivalent to unlawful act manslaughter. Individuals under the influence of drink or drugs who get into a vehicle knowingly propel an extremely dangerous weapon, having consciously made a decision to incapacitate themselves. That is in direct contravention of their duty of care towards other road users and is therefore equivalent to gross negligence manslaughter. They should therefore face the penalty of a life sentence as a maximum.'

That is excellent news ...

No it isn't.  Excellent news would be that they had passed a law about it, hot air doesn't count, especially when we've heard it all before.   Excellent news would be that they were going to implement the promise they made in 2014 about an inquiry into road laws, but there is no sign of that.

Judge people by their actions, not their words.

burtthebike wrote:

john1967 wrote:

Doesn't do much for your sex life if your squashed under an artic. I'd prefer to see MPs discussing cycling safety.

They did.  https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-11-20/debates/7CCA537F-54DB-4...

Completely ignored in the media, just as they are ignoring road safety week.

Thanks burtthebike, it all sounds quite promising.Some very level headed thinking going on there.There also seemed to be a general consensus that the cyclist being a danger to pedestrians is a white elephant.if only the debates on cycling forums could be as calm and respectfull as that one was.:-)

john1967 wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

john1967 wrote:

Doesn't do much for your sex life if your squashed under an artic. I'd prefer to see MPs discussing cycling safety.

They did.  https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2018-11-20/debates/7CCA537F-54DB-4...

Completely ignored in the media, just as they are ignoring road safety week.

Thanks burtthebike, it all sounds quite promising.Some very level headed thinking going on there.There also seemed to be a general consensus that the cyclist being a danger to pedestrians is a white elephant.if only the debates on cycling forums could be as calm and respectfull as that one was.:-)

As someone rather longer in the tooth than perhaps some others here, no, that isn't promising and I've heard it all before too many times to count.  This was a pr stunt to make it look as if the government was listening, nothing else.  Sure there are some MPs who understand the problem, but the government drives cars, it make billions out of fuel tax and ved, and their mates make billions out of building more roads for more cars.  We need to break the cycle, no pun intended.

dup post

post.

john1967 wrote:

Doesn't do much for your sex life if your squashed under an artic.

<northern-comic>

That's no way to talk about t'missus!

</northern-comic>

brooksby wrote:

RE: 10 ways drivers make cyclists feel unsafe - so, even on the Grauniad, some of the BTL comments are a bit worrying... 

The fact that they had to close the comments section says something too... 8 of the first 10 comments were removed.  People claiming the guy filming had a thing about saying "Woah" . . while a range rover is pretty close to turing him into a pizza. . .  I think I might have said more that that.... 

brooksby wrote:

RE: 10 ways drivers make cyclists feel unsafe - so, even on the Grauniad, some of the BTL comments are a bit worrying... 

Normally I quite like the Guardian's comments section; there are some really clever folk on there.  However, the modération can get a bit odd at times.  I made a perfectly reasonable response to some clown banging on about cyclists wearing headphones and it has been removed, along with a couple of other posts supporting my viewpoint.  Annoying really.

hawkinspeter wrote:

I'm not so sure if cycling is that great for my sex life, but it sure gets some strange looks from the drivers that we pass.

Was it the tandem position?

burtthebike wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

I'm not so sure if cycling is that great for my sex life, but it sure gets some strange looks from the drivers that we pass.

Was it the tandem position?

Suspect it depends on who's the stoker and who's the captain