Drivers have a high responsibility to be aware of cyclists on the road” Judge Niclas Parry

[Dan B]

+100% and no two ways about it, the law is oten an ass. However IF the victim had been an old lady, knocked over by a footpath cyclist who died as a result of a cracked skull what I wonder would be the reaction of the people who defend cyclists who do this ?

They'd have said "that wasn't a cyclist, that was just a Person On a Bike"

 

[sean8997]

There has to be some give and take with everyone who uses roads, cycle paths etc, we as cyclists are not always the innocent party, we have to get our own house in order before we can argue against anyone else. I am a cyclist and a car driver, I would like to think I give respect to both parties whilst in whatever respective mode of transport I choose. No point blaming everyone else when you see cyclists jumping red lights, cutting up traffic and passing on the inside of motorists, they are asking for trouble!!! All we hear on this site is the motorist is wrong, have a good hard look at ourselves before we cast judgement, we are not all white as sheep!

 

[glenn forger]

Passing on the inside is called filtering and is entirely legal.

Cyclist behaviour is not the problem
Far too many discussions about promoting cycling get bogged down on issues such as cyclists jumping traffic signals, not using proper lights or other misbehaviour. These are a nuisance and antisocial but – and this cannot be stressed enough – very, very rarely a cause of danger, and are thus something of a sideshow.
A Transport Research Laboratory study found fewer than 2% of serious cycling incidents were due to a rider ignoring a red light or stop sign. In London, where this debate is most fierce, analysis of serious accidents showed a likely offence by the rider in just 6% of cases.
This is a hugely important point in shaping the public debate.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2013/jan/16/cycling-parliamentary-inquiry-evidence

Cyclists hardly ever kill. Cyclists hardly ever maim. Cyclists are not the problem.

 

[glenn forger]

They'd have said "that wasn't a cyclist, that was just a Person On a Bike"

I wouldn't. I'd have said that's an idiot who deserves to go to prison. Nobody here would have defended that cyclist. Would you defend this driver?

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2040153_anthony_maynards_father_questions_cps_decision

The unnamed 38-year-old driver of the blue Ford transit van which struck Mr Maynard – who was cycling with a friend – was initially arrested in relation to the incident.
However, no charges were ever brought and on Saturday, November 15, he was released without being prosecuted.
The older Mr Maynard said: “I do not accept the decision.
“While I wouldn’t wish any charge to be brought unless an offence were suspected, were there the slightest grounds for suspicion, then of course, a jury should have that chance to see evidence, then decide guilt or otherwise.
“In my opinion, this CPS decision has removed that opportunity right at the outset.
“The CPS’s own guidelines in these situations state that these decisions must be influenced by the public interest.
“Surely it is in the public interest that a jury have the opportunity to decide guilt when an innocent cyclist is killed from behind on a clear road?
“When a driver collides with an innocent cyclist from behind, in this case two, then barring acts of god, or overwhelmingly adverse conditions, there has to be careless driving involved.
“Accidents just don’t happen.
“Cyclists have a basic right to be spared the constant fear of being hit by motor vehicles.
“The message needs to be driven home that even the slightest lack of care whilst driving can have devastating consequences.
“With driving comes responsibility.”
Mr Maynard, of London Road, Earley, explained his son was a good, experienced rider.
“Anthony, was a known good, safe cyclist, and was not at fault,” he continued.
“The investigation proved that, as if I needed confirmation. He was a competent and proficient amateur sports cyclist who was always mindful of road safety.”

http://www.getreading.co.uk/news/s/2040153_anthony_maynards_father_questions_cps_decision

Drivers can kill cyclists and get charged with.. diddly squat. This has to change.

 

[Accy cyclist]

Will he serve the driving ban while in prison? Oh and Judge! He only showed remorse to get a lighter sentence, wise up man!!

 

[subaqua]

Will he serve the driving ban while in prison? Oh and Judge! He only showed remorse to get a lighter sentence, wise up man!!

and you know that do you ?

 

[glenn forger]

Will he serve the driving ban while in prison? Oh and Judge! He only showed remorse to get a lighter sentence, wise up man!!

No, they changed that stupid rule where bans run concurrent with prison terms, because, pretty obviously, you can't drive in prison.

 

[Lanzecki]

Looking at the OP again, it would have been better for the judge to say "road users have a high responsibility to be aware of road users on the road"

This them V's us is not helping. I got accused by a long term friend of being a cycling 'natzi' when he found out I cycled. Kinda a massive reaction I thought to a cyclist.

 

[Accy cyclist]

and you know that do you ?

No that is my opinion! You do have opinions about things don't you? Remorse counts for nothing. If the killer had kept his mind and eyes on the road, and the cyclist ahead he wouldn't be in this situation!!

 

[subaqua]

No that is my opinion! You do have opinions about things don't you? Remorse counts for nothing. If the killer had kept his mind and eyes on the road, and the cyclist ahead he wouldn't be in this situation!!

yes but i don't present them as fact , as your post certainly read. perhaps " I think he only showed remorse to get a lighter sentence" would be a better way.