You are reading a single comment by @bq and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
London Fixed Gear and Single-Speed is a community of predominantly fixed gear and single-speed cyclists in and around London, UK.
This site is supported almost exclusively by donations. Please consider donating a small amount regularly.
@bq
There are two elements to sentencing, one of which you have completely ignored: punishment and deterrent.
These lenient sentences send a message to all drivers that there is little or no legal consequences to driving an HGV over a young woman while you chat on the phone, or to opening your illegally tinted car door without looking to see if it is safe, thereby causing a man to be crushed to death. They tell the world that cyclists do not matter and it is perfectly acceptable to kill them.
Sentencing should act as a deterrent. In both these cases a conviction for the greater charge and lengthy custodial sentence would have sent a message to drivers that killing cyclists is unnacceptable. That driving while talking on the phone is reckless and unacceptable. That opening a door onto a cyclist is unacceptable. That having illegally tinted windows is unacceptable. That a driver has a responsibility in law to have care for other road users, and if he abrogates this responsibility there will be severe consequences.
By your logic, if when tidying a flat in a tower block I drop a large concrete breezeblock off a balcony and it smashes in the skull of an old lady, I should walk free from court with just a small fine because, well, I didn't mean to kill anyone, and I am jolly upset by the outcome. I'd say that actually I should receive a custodial sentence for doing something so bloody stupid and reckless in the first place.