So you think that the driver should have been sent down for this without question?
Lorry blind spots; a get out of jail free card?
- Thread starter glasgowcyclist
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
So you think that the driver should have been sent down for this without question?
He didn''t need exonerating - he needed to get around without being killed.
He didn't deserve to die, no question. Does the driver deserve to be sent to prison?
You have failed to answer yet.
I don't believe I've mentioned sentencing, have I? I consider that the coroner's statements are a disgrace, and that Howson killed the boy by driving negligently. The law, unfortunately, does not take very seriously the responsibility of drivers not to kill people. In these circumstances I don't think the perpetrator should ever drive again - whether it serves any purpose to send her to prison is another question.
So sorry - I was typing answers while you were typing non sequiturs...
If the driver unequivocally broke the law, then they should be punished for it. I take the fact that you agree with her not being locked up, as she wasn't 100% to blame.
The responsibility is shared by the driver and (if the blind spot thing is to be credited) those on whose behalf she was driving. I am happy for the law to divvy this responsibility up, but not for it to transfer it to the victim. Not being an enthusiast of the lock-em-up-and-throw-away-the-key school of justice, my sentencing preferences tend towards the non-custodial. I'm sorry if that doesn't answer your question. Actually, I'm not really all that sorry, because your question is a distraction, but I'm a peaceable sort.
I am like minded in a balanced approach, hence my points. I also enjoy the discussion, much like you clearly do.
steveindenmark
Legendary Member
This is a 15 year old youth but everyone keeps calling him a child. I was serving full time with the army at 16. At 15 I certainly knew how to ride a bike correctly on the road.
The cyclist also had a responsibility which it seems he failed to acknowledge. The driver didn't "partially manage to shift the blame". It would appear they were both at fault.
The cyclist also had a responsibility which it seems he failed to acknowledge. The driver didn't "partially manage to shift the blame". It would appear they were both at fault.
Fair enough. Where do you think the cyclist should put themself on this risk scale when asking whether they should cross in front of a truck when riding from the pavement, without looking and listening to their headphones?
Where do they put themself on the experience scale when doing so where they have already stated that they have nearly been knocked off their bike at this very position on numerous prior occasions?
Second Mod Note:
Some more posts have been Deleted.
Stop trying to score points off others and either introduce some new angle to the discussion, ignore the posts which cause you to get angry or the thread will probably be Closed, as it's going nowhere new.
Some more posts have been Deleted.
Stop trying to score points off others and either introduce some new angle to the discussion, ignore the posts which cause you to get angry or the thread will probably be Closed, as it's going nowhere new.
BrevetRider
Guest
Just above zero, as most things we do carries a wee bit of risk. Regarding not looking, this is not a stated fact, merely implied by the assistant Coroner.
As for experience, I'd say it's pretty much sound but of course has no bearing what so ever and is a strawman invented by yourself.
The driver is at fault, they've failed on so many levels it's sickening to think about, No awareness, no checking, blaming something that does not exist on a class II vehicle (blind spots). It's common law that drivers of large vehicles whether it be buses or HGV's have a duty to look out for all other road users, and this did not happen in this case.
Feel free to cherry pick the above as you have done with other posts.
[QUOTE 3399201, member: 9609"]I would imagine in the vast majority of accidents mistakes are made on both sides, and I would also imagine that if the person who was not technically to blame had been a better driver/rider, then it is likely there may never have been an accident at all. However in the eyes of the law good driving is keeping within the bounds of the highway code, in reality good driving is all about predicting what is likely to happen. Not predicting that a young lad cycling on the pavement may rejoin the road at any moment and without any warning is very poor driving.[/QUOTE]
I agree. On today's busy roads and pavements, it is nigh on impossible to predict every event before it happens though.
I agree. On today's busy roads and pavements, it is nigh on impossible to predict every event before it happens though.
The risk is the same for the Cyclist, whichever party if assessing the risk. The stakes are hugely higher for the cyclist, so why would they not do everything in their power to safeguard themself too.
Last edited by a moderator:
Point me in the direction of the official stats to support this? Genuinely interested whether this has been proven.
Other than that, I think we have now exhausted this one?
