Motorists who kill cyclists

"Scrumpy Joe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I was pondering this the other day:

Why do motorists who kill cyclists get off (for the most part) with a non-custodial sentence,
slapped wrist, driving ban (maybe) and a not so

hefty

Quoted message said:

fine when people who write computer viruses get two or more years in jail? Bearing in mind that
for the most part viruses only affect people who stupidly open email attachments with executables
and therefore are usually too stupid to own a computer anyway.

Intention.

Motorists who kill other motorists also get away with non-custodial sentences in the main.

Road accidents are just that - accidents.

If it can be shown that the accident was caused by intentionally poor driving then the culprit
usually gets banged up for a year or two.

Intentionally poor driving = speeding = on the phone = drunk = a load of other reasons I suppose.

John

"Scrumpy Joe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I was pondering this the other day:

Why do motorists who kill cyclists get off (for the most part) with a non-custodial sentence,
slapped wrist, driving ban (maybe) and a not so

hefty

Quoted message said:

fine when people who write computer viruses get two or more years in jail? Bearing in mind that
for the most part viruses only affect people who stupidly open email attachments with executables
and therefore are usually too stupid to own a computer anyway.

Intention.

Motorists who kill other motorists also get away with non-custodial sentences in the main.

Road accidents are just that - accidents.

If it can be shown that the accident was caused by intentionally poor driving then the culprit
usually gets banged up for a year or two.

Intentionally poor driving = speeding = on the phone = drunk = a load of other reasons I suppose.

John

"Scrumpy Joe" wrote (snipped)

Quoted message said:

Why do motorists who kill cyclists get off (for the most part) with a non-custodial sentence,

Because there is only one reason for writing a virus, and that is to cause criminal damage.

Many road deaths are accidents, caused by a moment's inattention or perhaps sheer bad luck.

So it's all in the intent.

Innit?

"Eatmorepies" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why do motorists who kill cyclists get off (for the most part) with a non-custodial sentence,
slapped wrist, driving ban (maybe) and a not so

hefty

Quoted message said:

fine

I'd like to see some proper stats on this. There is a common assumption that this is the case, but
no real evidence. A proper study comparing, say, people who 'accidentally' kill using their cars and
people who 'accidentally' kill after getting dragged into fights outside pubs would be genuinely
interesting.

Quoted message said:

"Scrumpy Joe" Replied <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Intention.

Fair enough, but isn't the difference between murder and manslaughter also intent? And it's not
usual to get a slap on the wrist for manslaughter, is it?

--
Rob

Please keep conversations in the newsgroup so that all may contribute and benefit.

Eatmorepies said:

Intention.

For that we have the offences of manslaughter and criminal negligence. We have special offences of
"causing death by dangerous driving" which do not require an intent to drive dangerously and
rightly so.

Quoted message said:

Road accidents are just that - accidents.

Some may be. It's far from universal.

"Bystander" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Scrumpy Joe" wrote (snipped)

Quoted message said:

Why do motorists who kill cyclists get off (for the most part) with a non-custodial sentence,

Because there is only one reason for writing a virus, and that is to cause criminal damage.

Many road deaths are accidents, caused by a moment's inattention or

perhaps

Quoted message said:

sheer bad luck.

So it's all in the intent.

Innit?

If are in a situation where a moments inattention can result in the death of another person and you
kill another person by your inattention then it is hardly an unavoidable accident or act of G*d.
This is recognised by the charge of DWDCAA and CDBDD although the latter is very hard to prove. The
relevant laws should be overhauled to place more responsibility on drivers and the possibility of
heavy sentences where they have been criminally negligent.

"Scrumpy Joe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I was pondering this the other day:

Why do motorists who kill cyclists get off (for the most part) with a non-custodial sentence,
slapped wrist, driving ban (maybe) and a not so hefty fine when people who write computer viruses
get two or more years in jail? Bearing in mind that for the most part viruses only affect people
who stupidly open email attachments with executables and therefore are usually too stupid to own a
computer anyway.

Writing a virus is a melodious act with premeditation there is seldom mens rea in running down
a cyclist.

Eatmorepies said:

"Scrumpy Joe" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I was pondering this the other day:

Why do motorists who kill cyclists get off (for the most part) with a non-custodial sentence,
slapped wrist, driving ban (maybe) and a not so

hefty

Quoted message said:

fine when people who write computer viruses get two or more years in jail? Bearing in mind that
for the most part viruses only affect people who stupidly open email attachments with
executables and therefore are usually too stupid to own a computer anyway.

Intention.

Motorists who kill other motorists also get away with non-custodial sentences in the main.

Road accidents are just that - accidents.

Speaking as someone who has crashed five cars, one badly, road accidents are rarely just that.
My tally is

(i) Driving too fast for the conditions. Damage to two cars, no injuries.
(ii) Driving with a bald tyre (OK, it wasn't my car and I didn't know the tyre was bald, but I
hadn't checked) - car rolled and written off, no injuries.
(iii) Losing grip on an unfamiliar road in snow at low speed. Minor damage to two cars, no injuries.
(iv) Driving too fast having drunk alcohol. I was breathalised and wasn't over the limit but I'm
moderatly confident I would not have hit that bend (which I knew) that fast when completely
sober. Car hit a tree and written off, no injuries.
(v) Driving too fast when too tired, in a car with 'interesting' handling. Car rolled (repeatedly)
and written off, I broke my back.

Accidents don't happen by themselves. I can think of one accident which I know of which didn't have
any immediate human cause - the lower offside front wishbone of a friend's car snapped at speed due
to a manufacturing fault - but in my experience the overwhelming majority of road accidents are due
to carelessness and negligence.

You may feel that someone who deliberately attacks artefacts is more culpable than someone who
negligently smashes steel into human beings, but I don't - even when the negligent person is me.

Cars are _very_ lethal weapons. Driving a ton of steel at sixty miles an hour one is controlling a
phenomenal amount of energy, probably greater than 90% of all the bombs detonated in the Irish
troubles. When that energy is released explosively (as it is in a crash situation) it's hardly
surprising that people are killed. Driving should not be seen as a right, or something to be
undertaken casually.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗ -----BEGIN GEEK CODE
BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GP/CS s++: a+ C+++ ULBVCS*++++$ L+++ P--- E+>++ W+++ N++ K w--(---) M- !d-
PS++ PE-- Y+ PGP !t 5? X+ !R b++ !DI D G- e++ h*(-) r++ y+++ ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

"Neil" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Bystander" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

. The

Quoted message said:

relevant laws should be overhauled to place more responsibility on drivers and the possibility of
heavy sentences where they have been criminally negligent.

All hinges on the understanding of "criminally negligent"

A moments inattention is unlikely ever to fall in that category.

pk

Scrumpy Joe said:

I was pondering this the other day:

Why do motorists who kill cyclists get off (for the most part) with a non-custodial sentence,
slapped wrist, driving ban (maybe) and a not so hefty fine when people who write computer viruses
get two or more years in jail? Bearing in mind that for the most part viruses only affect people
who stupidly open email attachments with executables and therefore are usually too stupid to own a
computer anyway.

Generally, you get a more severe sentence if you do a little harm to a lot of people rather than a
lot of harm ot one person. It may be morally wrong but that is how the courts see it.
--

Alasdair Baxter, Nottingham, UK.Tel +44 115 9705100; Fax +44 115 9423263

"It's not what you say that matters but how you say it.
It's not what you do that matters but how you do it"

Scrumpy Joe said:

I was pondering this the other day:

Why do motorists who kill cyclists get off (for the most part) with a non-custodial sentence,
slapped wrist, driving ban (maybe) and a not so hefty fine when people who write computer viruses
get two or more years in jail? Bearing in mind that for the most part viruses only affect people
who stupidly open email attachments with executables and therefore are usually too stupid to own a
computer anyway.

Because in the first case it is not done intentionally - carelessness, not thinking yes, but
deliberately no in most cases. In the latter its deliberate. The law tends to punish according to
the severity of the action, not the severity of the consequences Otherwise the punishment for doing
something really bad behind the wheel but luckily getting away with it would not be punished as
heavily as a momentary lapse with because of bad luck/timing had tragic consequences. </philosophy>

Tony

--
"If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything." Mark Twain

Simon Brooke said:

Speaking as someone who has crashed five cars, one badly, road accidents are rarely just that. My
tally is

(i) Driving too fast for the conditions. Damage to two cars, no injuries. (ii) Driving with a
bald tyre (OK, it wasn't my car and I didn't know the tyre was bald, but I hadn't checked) -
car rolled and written off, no injuries.
(iii) Losing grip on an unfamiliar road in snow at low speed. Minor damage to two cars, no
injuries.
(iv) Driving too fast having drunk alcohol. I was breathalised and wasn't over the limit but I'm
moderatly confident I would not have hit that bend (which I knew) that fast when completely
sober. Car hit a tree and written off, no injuries.
(v) Driving too fast when too tired, in a car with 'interesting' handling. Car rolled
(repeatedly) and written off, I broke my back.

I would hazard to suggest that your tally is not typical of most individuals and I hope you have
either stopped driving or reassessed your approach to driving.

Quoted message said:

Accidents don't happen by themselves. I can think of one accident which I know of which didn't
have any immediate human cause - the lower offside front wishbone of a friend's car snapped at
speed due to a manufacturing fault - but in my experience the overwhelming majority of road
accidents are due to carelessness and negligence.

The airline industry reckons something like 80% of accidents are due to human error and only 20%
system. Pilots (Egyptair excepted) generally do not set out to crash their planes and have a
high awareness of the consequences of their actions yet they still have accidents they didn't
intend to have.

Quoted message said:

Driving should not be seen as a right, or something to be undertaken casually.

Based on the list above I trust you have voluntarily given up your right.

Tony

--
"If you tell the truth you don't have to remember anything." Mark Twain

"Eatmorepies" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Road accidents are just that - accidents.

No, they are the inevitable result of small risks taken very large numbers of times. Most crashes
are the result of driver error, inattention being a prime cause in the case of cyclist fatalities.

Calling them accidents and pretending they are an inevitable part of life is part of the problem.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗

"PK" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

All hinges on the understanding of "criminally negligent" A moments inattention is unlikely ever
to fall in that category.

Given that the consequences of inattention are widely known, I think failure to pay sufficient
attention is a far more serious matter than you make out.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗

"Just zis Guy, you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"PK" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

All hinges on the understanding of "criminally negligent" A moments inattention is unlikely ever
to fall in that category.

Given that the consequences of inattention are widely known, I think

failure

Quoted message said:

to pay sufficient attention is a far more serious matter than you make

out.

I would challenge any driver to say - hand on heart - that they have *never* had a lapse of
concentration that could have had tragic consequences. I'm not talking about being distracted by
opening a sweetie, or telling off the kids, or answering the phone, or having a row with a
passenger, nor the habitual daydreamer who passes 10's of miles with no recollection.

pk

Tony Raven said:

Simon Brooke said:

Speaking as someone who has crashed five cars, one badly, road accidents are rarely just that.
My tally is

(i) Driving too fast for the conditions. Damage to two cars, no injuries.
(ii) Driving with a bald tyre (OK, it wasn't my car and I didn't know the tyre was bald, but I
hadn't checked) - car rolled and written off, no injuries.
(iii) Losing grip on an unfamiliar road in snow at low speed. Minor damage to two cars, no
injuries.
(iv) Driving too fast having drunk alcohol. I was breathalised and wasn't over the limit but
I'm moderatly confident I would not have hit that bend (which I knew) that fast when
completely sober. Car hit a tree and written off, no injuries.
(v) Driving too fast when too tired, in a car with 'interesting' handling. Car rolled
(repeatedly) and written off, I broke my back.

I would hazard to suggest that your tally is not typical of most individuals and I hope you have
either stopped driving or reassessed your approach to driving.

I think most people who have been driving as long as I have have had a bump or two, if they're
honest. I certainly drive less these days and most of the time drive slower. I probably even
drive better - at least some of the time. And I certainly don't drive within 24 hours after
drinking alcohol.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) jasmine.org.uk~simonOpen ↗

A message from our sponsor: This site is now in free fall

On Thu, 4 Sep 2003 23:49:54 +0100 someone who may be "Depresion" <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Why do motorists who kill cyclists get off (for the most part) with a non-custodial sentence,
slapped wrist, driving ban (maybe) and a not so hefty fine when people who write computer viruses
get two or more years in jail?

Writing a virus is a melodious act with premeditation there is seldom mens rea in running down
a cyclist.

Perhaps you could apply your theory to the following case and the utterly inadequate sentence that
the courts, supposedly there to protect the public from maniacs, dished out.

conwyctc.fsnet.co.ukshort sentce.htmOpen ↗

news.bbc.co.uk2725329.stmOpen ↗

This bod got a so-called two year sentence, but he appears to have considered even that as far
too harsh given his wrist slitting activities when sentenced. Sadly he did not die from this
little outburst.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

"PK" <[email hidden]> wrote in message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Given that the consequences of inattention are widely known, I think

failure

Quoted message said:

to pay sufficient attention is a far more serious matter than you make

out.

Quoted message said:

I would challenge any driver to say - hand on heart - that they have

*never*

Quoted message said:

had a lapse of concentration that could have had tragic consequences.

Is that a plea in mitigation or an admission of liability? Dangerous machine tools are subject to
very strict guidelines and substantial penalties for their infringement. The most dangerous machine
most of us will ever use is subject pathetically inadequate penalties for misuse, if the deterrent
effect of such penalties is any measure of their adequacy.

The fact that "it could happen to anybody" is a reason for raising the general standard, not
excusing the behaviour.

--
Guy
===

WARNING: may contain traces of irony. Contents may settle after posting.
chapmancentral.comchapmancentral.comOpen ↗

Simon Brooke said:

I think most people who have been driving as long as I have have had a bump or two, if they're
honest. I certainly drive less these days and most of the time drive slower. I probably even
drive better - at least some of the time. And I certainly don't drive within 24 hours after
drinking alcohol.

Hi Simon

Thanks for being honest and laying the facts before this not-always-pro-car NG.

As an epileptic, I'm I no longer permitted to drive. (Regulars: sorry for repeating what you already
know.) However, when I was younger, I was quite a tearaway and used to enjoy driving at silly
speeds. I'm not proud of this. In my early 20s I was banned from driving for one year, having been
correctly convicted of D&D. (I pleaded guilty.) In the few years between my conviction and the
injury which caused me to become epileptic (not car-related, BTW), I, like you, never drove within
one day of having drunk any alcohol. Even a pint of shandy would mean that I wouldn't drive during
the following 24 hours.

In my youth, I was quite capable of pranging my car (more normally, my mother's car/cars) with the
best of them. But, I can quite truthfully say that all the incidents were entirely my own fault. My
punishments were my self-imposed fines - aka repair bills.

However, I agree with Guy when he says : "Calling them accidents and pretending they are an
inevitable part of life is part of the problem."

I doubt that the majority of car accidents are intentional but I am quite sure that most are down to
a lack of attention or inability on the part of the car driver. I used the verb to doubt as some
drivers do seem to use their large vehicles a a weapon to remove smaller and slower vehicles (bikes)
out of their way. Driver/pilot/cyclist error is more often than not to blame, IMO.

Today, I was almost involved in a left-hook incident similar to
<http://homepage.ntlworld.com/c.butty/Bike%20Crash.txt> or <http://makeashorterlink.com/?I56C33FC5>.
In fact, todays left-hook manoeuvre happened at the very same mini-roundabout. My shouting "Don't
you even think of turning left here!" though an open passenger's window seemed to deter the lady,
which was nice.

James

--
"Sorry mate, I didn't see you" is not a satisfactory excuse.