2011-11-04 - Rider Down, East Smithfield / Dock St Junction

A tragic avoidable accident, followed by a terrible avoidable injustice.
This whole thing stinks.
All the best to you Mary and your family.

Father of Mary Bowers, the Times writer knocked off bike by driver, speaks out

[URL="http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/article3632283.ece"][/URL]

These cases prove time and time again that Britain needs continental-style stricter liability laws that put the onus firmly on the drivers to prove they were not at fault. Even though they affect civil liability only they have a remarkable effect on the behaviour of drivers on the continent towards cyclists and motorcyclists.

If BC, The Times, CTC, LCC and all the others campaigned with a cohesive and achievable demand like this it would be very difficult to stop it. Instead it seems like we have a load of disparate organisations effectively saying "what do we want - erm, not really sure, just make it better somehow"

I don't see why you people are so angry about him not being convicted of dangerous driving? It would serve no purpose to convict the man.

A friend of mine lost his daughter in a road accident. She was a pedestrian and was hit by a lorry. She died, my friend lost his daughter. At the inquest he was expecting to feel anger towards the driver however he saw how it had destroyed the driver's life. He was a broken man.

I think those of you who are calling for him to punished more severely should seriously reconsider your positions. Ultimately it matters not what sentencing the driver receives, a young woman's life has been ruined also the drivers life has been ruined. Imagine waking up each day and having to live with the knowledge that you have torn a family apart and destroyed that womans life. That surely is punishment enough? It makes no difference what your criminal record states as many lives have been ruined, including the driver of the HGV. If he receives a more damaging sentence it's not going to make your morning commute more safe it's just going to further cause damage to him.

Don't think of drivers and cyclists, just think of people. People get hurt, physically and emotionally. I'm a person, I drive a car, I ride a bike. I would never like to be terminally damaged by getting knocked off my bike, I would also never like to be terminally damaged by knocking someone else off a bike.

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.

Repped^

Being sorry and 'broken' after the event is too late! Deterrent sentences help drivers to wake up and NOTICE cyclists and pedestrians. Failure to notice/ 'see' cyclists is a major cause of death and injury.
Sam Harding was killed at lunchtime in August.
Mary Bowers would have been visible to the driver of the truck that crushed her for over 10 seconds. The fact she wore ordinary clothes was used to reduce this from a charge of dangerous driving.
We need better deterrent enforcement of our laws.

http://www.stewartpratt.com/?p=580

Dear British Judicial System,

I write to you as a cyclist, a motorist and a pedestrian. As someone’s son and as someone’s father. As someone who seeks to go about his daily business in reasonable safety, and as someone who has no greater or lesser claim to that desire than any other in this land over which you preside, nor any greater or lesser right to it.

You fail me.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with your support of 'deterrent' sentencing. You would have to agree that the ultimate 'deterrent' is threat of the death penalty no? However in America the murder rate in states with the death penalty has been consistently higher than in states without capital punishment since 1990.

Now I'm aware that yes, we don't live in America and it's an entirely different kettle of fish. However if you continue to push for more severe sentencing then you will ultimately end up getting an HGV driver trialled for murder to 'make an example' of him in order to prevent traffic accidents.

I think maybe you should strive to be humane rather than 'utilitarian' in these cases.

The families of victims of road crashes suffer immensely when justice is not seen to be done for their lost loved one. That is not humane.
Few of the bereaved have the strength to fight so others fight on their behalf.

I's been said ad nauseam. HIT THE POOR STANDARDS IN THE POCKET AND IT WILL CHANGE OVER NIGHT. If you can't pay then cars are impounded. If you fuck up a certain number of time then re-take your driving test. Start treating driving as a privilege NOT some kind of human right.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with your support of 'deterrent' sentencing. You would have to agree that the ultimate 'deterrent' is threat of the death penalty no? However in America the murder rate in states with the death penalty has been consistently higher than in states without capital punishment since 1990.

Now I'm aware that yes, we don't live in America and it's an entirely different kettle of fish. However if you continue to push for more severe sentencing then you will ultimately end up getting an HGV driver trialled for murder to 'make an example' of him in order to prevent traffic accidents.

I think maybe you should strive to be humane rather than 'utilitarian' in these cases.

That's comparing apples and oranges. Most murders aren't premeditated, they happen spontaneously so naturally the murderer isn't thinking about consequences of punishment.

This driver had broken the law before and flouted the laws on safe driving. He was chatting on a mobile, failed to notice someone in clear daylight right in front of him, drove into her and crushed her and then jumped out of the lorry without putting the handbrake on. Transparently dangerous driving.

The message the verdict gives out is that these lethal machines can be driven with even less care because even if you kill someone you merely suffer some mild inconvenience.

It makes me feel like us cyclists are expected to introduce ourselves to anyone queueing in traffic behind us who is using a mobile and say:

*"Excuse me! Sorry, sorry to interrupt, just to let you know I'm here! Thanks!" *

Ms Bowers was waiting in an advanced stop area when a lorry driven by Petre Beiu set off. Beiu had failed to observe the cycle lane and had failed to observe Ms Bowers despite her being visible through his windscreen for at least 10 seconds. He was using a telephone at the time, and was using it to give directions to a colleague who was also driving. He drove his lorry over Ms Bowers, had to be alerted by others to the fact, and failed to stop his vehicle properly. Upon being questioned by the police, he lied to try to cover his own back, denying his use of the telephone. He has admitted other offences.

The punishment for this is a £2700 fine and an 8 month ban.

I should point out, my dear Judicial System, that were I to be so abhorrently incompetent as to have committed that offence, such a sentence would have little impact on my life. The fine is not a punitive amount. The ban, whilst clearly an issue for a professional driver, would be inconsequential to me. I have a wife who can drive, and I can buy train tickets.

Therefore the message that you send to me, and millions of others in similar positions, is that I can destroy someone’s life, a life saved only by the country’s exceptional medical care, and I can destroy the lives of all who are close to them, with entirely negligible consequences to myself.

Of course, had Ms Bowers died, you would have been empowered to do a little more. But you chose to conduct sentencing while she exists in some appalling limbo. And you, the British Judicial System, make a huge distinction between someone whose actions result in death, and someone whose actions result in someone being in a long-term coma with no quality of life and surely a desperate prognosis; a state that some, indeed apparently Ms Bowers’ own father, might be inclined to argue as a state worse than death.

http://www.stewartpratt.com/?p=580

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with your support of 'deterrent' sentencing. You would have to agree that the ultimate 'deterrent' is threat of the death penalty no? However in America the murder rate in states with the death penalty has been consistently higher than in states without capital punishment since 1990.

Now I'm aware that yes, we don't live in America and it's an entirely different kettle of fish. However if you continue to push for more severe sentencing then you will ultimately end up getting an HGV driver trialled for murder to 'make an example' of him in order to prevent traffic accidents.

I think maybe you should strive to be humane rather than 'utilitarian' in these cases.

Two different things here that are actually separate.

You are taking as a fact that the drivers who caused these deaths are racked with remorse, broken men etc- I would submit that this is an assumption on your part, and that, based on a) human nature and b) what I have observed often the driver of the vehicle will believe the cyclist was at fault, against all reason.

One of the purposes of a custodial sentence is to punish those who have transgressed - to guarantee that they suffer the censure of society, rather than relying on the transgressor to feel suitably upset at their own actions.

You can talk about the effect of incarceration on recidivism and so forth, but right now we have very little idea as to whether routine custodial sentences would have a deterrent effect on drivers who inadvertently or not use their vehicles to harm others- as almost invariably they get let off, or 3 points and a small fine.

I have noticed recently that people who kill cats are sentenced to three months...

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree with your support of 'deterrent' sentencing. You would have to agree that the ultimate 'deterrent' is threat of the death penalty no?

I am going to have to disagree with you.
Almost all sentences are there to deter people from committing the crime in the first place.
The crime committed was driving dangerously, the penalty could be imprisonment. The driver got away, possibly because the jury think it is OK to kill a cyclist.
The impact of a driver being exonerated sends shock waves through a family of a victim, as well as the cycling community.
It also sends out a message that dangerous driving is acceptable, and that is what outrages me.

I don't think the jury think it 'OK' to kill a cyclist. I think the jury think the driver has made a dreadful mistake which 'anyone can make'. They didn't mean to maim or kill so we can be sympathetic.
IMO inadequate sentencing is an insult to the dead, injured and bereaved.

It's the "any driver can make a dreadful mistake" culture that needs to be challenged. It should not be considered acceptable to let your attention drift when in charge of deadly machinery. As long as we fall for the myth that lapses in concentration are only to be accepted the roads will be more dangerous than they need to be.

Agreed, brokenbetty.

Perhaps the worst element here is the eight-month disqualification. That's a joke.

I'd suggest a minimum 5 year (to life) driving ban for causing serious injury through careless or dangerous driving.

A minimum 10 year (to life) ban for causing death by the same.

Any restitution of licence subject to taking a remedial course and passing an advanced driving test...

I've got a different idea- ban all fossil fuel powered transport inside the south and north circular.

Tourists would love it, as proper Hackney Carriages would return to the streets, and it'd create a lot of employment opportunities for blacksmiths, stable-hands and so on.

I've got a different idea- ban all fossil fuel powered transport inside the south and north circular.

Tourists would love it, as proper Hackney Carriages would return to the streets, and it'd create a lot of employment opportunities for blacksmiths, stable-hands and so on.

And create a market for electric HGVs. The fossil fuel issue is a red herring here - it's the nature of the HGVs that's the problem.

Better liability laws could make the insurance companies make the HGV operators install better mirrors and proximity sensors and care more about only hiring good drivers. Maybe.

Post 62 on wards contravene the rules of this sub forum, however, in lieu of anywhere more suitable to move the discussion I will leave the posts here.

Any post made after this, which breaks the rules, will be deleted without question.

Fair do's. Probably best to merge the offending posts with Cycle Campaigning thread or similar?

I've emailed Oliver as the unofficial LFGSS campaign manager to see if he could recommend a thread for me to direct these types of discussions towards.

A post incident legal / moral discussion thread perhaps?