Sentencing for motorists vs equivalent offences for cyclists?

[Time Waster]

I've read a few threads on Grant Schapps on a few forums recently and a poster made a comment I found curious. The site concerned tends towards the cyclists are the victims and can't do anything wrong but here seems more balanced in opinion. So I'll ask what you people think.

The statement went along the lines of the maximum sentence for a cyclist should be no greater than the minimum sentence of a motorist. I'm interested in how you people take this idea. Do you think it has merit in all offences, only certain offences or no offences?

I know there's little equivalency between motoring specific laws with cycling laws in many cases but for simplicity perhaps we should base this on all motoring and cycling laws have an equivalent or the same laws for both modes of transport.

Basically would that idea not mean an end to blind justice? With offences getting sentences passed according to who the guilty is and the offence not just what the offence is.

 

[All uphill]

I think it's the person not the vehicle that gets sanctioned, hopefully in proportion to the danger/ harm caused.

If I am in a 2000kg car at 50 mph it's likely I will be a bigger danger than me on my bike at 90 kg going 12 mph.

 

[Arrowfoot]

The Europeans got it right with the presumed liability. It based on logic and makes sense. It is also a powerful deterrent for large vehicle operators who are likely to be more cautious.

Presumed liability should the starting point on any attempt to changes laws and sentencing guidelines for cyclist. More people will take to bicycles if this is done. You can see it in Europe where nearly all ages are more comfortable cycling on their streets compared to the UK.

A motorised vehicle because of its size and speed places a greater responsibility to the operators compared to the bicycle so that starting point cannot be the same even if it involves death.

 

[Andy in Germany]

The Europeans got it right with the presumed liability. It based on logic and makes sense. It is also a powerful deterrent for large vehicle operators who are likely to be more cautious.

Presumed liability should the starting point on any attempt to changes laws and sentencing guidelines for cyclist. More people will take to bicycles if this is done. You can see it in Europe where nearly all ages are more comfortable cycling on their streets compared to the UK.

A motorised vehicle because of its size and speed places a greater responsibility to the operators compared to the bicycle so that starting point cannot be the same even if it involves death.

It also applies to a cyclist if we hit a pedestrian: we're at fault unless we can prove otherwise, because in that situation we're responsible for the greater risk.

 

[wafter]

I have my doubts about presumed liability; in that I think everyone has a responsibility not to be a dick on the roads so blame should be objectively apportioned accordingly.

On the other hand penalties should scale with the severity of the potential repurcussions. A three-ton chelsea tractor ploughing into a building of orphans and puppies is likely to be more unpleasant than a cyclist doing the same at a comparable speed..

 

[glasgowcyclist]

The Europeans got it right with the presumed liability.

I agree, we should have presumed liability here, but let’s not confuse that with criminal responsibility, which is what we’re talking about here.

edited to correct a typo

 

[Time Waster]

Criminal cases don't have presumed liability in other European countries (we're still European BTW). You're mistaking two different legal systems.

Sentencing aiui is about guidelines which define bands of sentencing options and if imprisonment is going to happen there's reductions in the sentence for various things such at admitting guilt early in the process. Aiui certain aspects of your crime can put you in higher or lower bands within the guidelines. Or something like that. As in fairly well defined guidance for judges.

If this is understood correctly it would allow for the view to be taken that similar offences by larger, heavier road users are in higher sentencing band than lighter users. However it could be set up that the basic facts of the case irrespective of user type defines the sentencing bands.

I'm not 100% on how sentencing guidelines work but I do not see how a cyclist who killed a pedestrian is much different in offence to the motorist who killed a pedestrian or cyclist. Is it not easier to kill with a car than a bike? In that case would the cyclist not be possibly more serious case?

I really don't know but if like to know. If not then my tendencies are for most equivalent offences being sentenced in the same way. Kill in a car or on a bike your decisions have resulted in loss of life. That's no difference between road users. Speeding on a bike is potentially less likely to cause harm as much as speeding in a car so a difference is present with that case. If harm has been done then perhaps the offence is equivalent and should have similar sentences. Without physical harm, such as speeding or RLJ then potential for causing harm could be argued as more relevant meaning higher sentencing for drivers than cyclists.

This is just my take on it. I would like to see some equivalency should be in place especially where death or serious injury has resulted. Perhaps motorists and cyclists should be subject to the same laws in this respect.

 

[steveindenmark]

People often mistake presumed liability meaning as cyclist you can do whatever you please. You can't. You have to adhere to all the laws of the road. If there is an accident and it is proved that the cyclist is at fault. The cyclist will be held responsible. We do not carry get a get out of jail free card.
Presumed liability makes the motorist really carry out those checks before turning right across a cycle path or exiting a premises over a cycle path. There are other examples. But in Denmark those are probably the 2 main causes of cycling accidents.

 

[Arrowfoot]

It also applies to a cyclist if we hit a pedestrian: we're at fault unless we can prove otherwise, because in that situation we're responsible for the greater risk.

Thanks Andy, that's really helpful. Yes, its the same principle fairly applied.

Its beggars believe that UK is not following this.

 

[Andy in Germany]

People often mistake presumed liability meaning as cyclist you can do whatever you please. You can't. You have to adhere to all the laws of the road. If there is an accident and it is proved that the cyclist is at fault. The cyclist will be held responsible. We do not carry get a get out of jail free card.
Presumed liability makes the motorist really carry out those checks before turning right across a cycle path or exiting a premises over a cycle path. There are other examples. But in Denmark those are probably the 2 main causes of cycling accidents.

I don't know about Denmark, but it's also graded according to the vulnerability of the other road user; if I hit a child, for example, no matter where I am or if I'm adhering to the speed limit (bearing in mind that's 7km/h or 4 mph in some streets) I am at fault. If a child fell out of the sky and landed on me while cycling, I'm at fault unless I can prove otherwise.

I don't know how that applies in criminal law; I think it becomes criminal if I leave the scene before the police arrive.

 

[Arrowfoot]

I agree, we should have presumed liability here, but let’s not confuse that with criminal responsibility, which is what we’re talking about here.

edited to correct a typo

Criminal cases don't have presumed liability in other European countries (we're still European BTW). You're mistaking two different legal systems.

Sentencing aiui is about guidelines which define bands of sentencing options and if imprisonment is going to happen there's reductions in the sentence for various things such at admitting guilt early in the process. Aiui certain aspects of your crime can put you in higher or lower bands within the guidelines. Or something like that. As in fairly well defined guidance for judges.

If this is understood correctly it would allow for the view to be taken that similar offences by larger, heavier road users are in higher sentencing band than lighter users. However it could be set up that the basic facts of the case irrespective of user type defines the sentencing bands.

I'm not 100% on how sentencing guidelines work but I do not see how a cyclist who killed a pedestrian is much different in offence to the motorist who killed a pedestrian or cyclist. Is it not easier to kill with a car than a bike? In that case would the cyclist not be possibly more serious case?

I really don't know but if like to know. If not then my tendencies are for most equivalent offences being sentenced in the same way. Kill in a car or on a bike your decisions have resulted in loss of life. That's no difference between road users. Speeding on a bike is potentially less likely to cause harm as much as speeding in a car so a difference is present with that case. If harm has been done then perhaps the offence is equivalent and should have similar sentences. Without physical harm, such as speeding or RLJ then potential for causing harm could be argued as more relevant meaning higher sentencing for drivers than cyclists.

This is just my take on it. I would like to see some equivalency should be in place especially where death or serious injury has resulted. Perhaps motorists and cyclists should be subject to the same laws in this respect.

If you have presumed liability, all those who use vehicles will more likely become more cautious. The situation turning into criminal conduct reduces.

So a cyclist in Sweden, Germany etc is less likely to plough thru a pedestrian crossing at speed because of presumed liability. I don't expect some to change but others know they carry a defined responsibility and burden.

You always start fixing an issue at the very start and not at the tail end with enhanced sentencing etc.

 

[Illaveago]

So where does a pedestrian who is busy on their mobile phone who walks out into the road without looking causing a collision with a cyclist come out of this ?

 

[steveindenmark]

If you have presumed liability, all those who use vehicles will more likely become more cautious. The situation turning into criminal conduct reduces.

So a cyclist in Sweden, Germany etc is less likely to plough thru a pedestrian crossing at speed because of presumed liability. I don't expect some to change but others know they carry a defined responsibility and burden.

You always start fixing an issue at the very start and not at the tail end with enhanced sentencing etc.

You are right. Presumed liability is not a big stick to hit motorists with. Its a gentle prod to advise them to take a bit more care.

 

[Andy in Germany]

So where does a pedestrian who is busy on their mobile phone who walks out into the road without looking causing a collision with a cyclist come out of this ?

Under SL, I'd have to wait until the police came and then they'd look at the log of the pedestrians phone. Otherwise it would be my fault as a cyclist.

It may still be my fault as I should have been able to stop in time.

 

[Illaveago]

Under SL, I'd have to wait until the police came and then they'd look at the log of the pedestrians phone. Otherwise it would be my fault as a cyclist.

It may still be my fault as I should have been able to stop in time.

That's not right as the pedestrians should also have responsibility over their actions ! I have noticed that some people have developed a sly way of crossing at Zebra crossings. Most people seem to indicate that they are about to cross by their body language . They will either slow down or look behind them as they approach the crossing . This gives a cyclist or motorist a hint that they are about to cross .
The Stealth crossers give no indication and will just walk along the pavement and then suddenly cross without looking ! Even if you were doing 1 mile an hour you couldn't prevent such an accident .