UK road deaths reach record low

[skwerl]

If you don't have a licence you are not competent to drive. Either you havent passed a test or a court has said you aren't.

not necessarily. you may not hold a licence for that reason or you may have had it revoked as punishment for a driving offence. You may still be competent but legally unable to drive. Driving to the shops with or without a licence has the same intent. ie I need to get to the shops. Going to the shops with a sawn-off shotgun implies another intent.

 

[HJ]

Cycling standards are also appallingly low. Cyclists require no training and no licencing.

There is bad cycling, but cyclist don't weigh 1.5 tons and very rarely kill other people by their misjudgments. The reason there is no licensing for cyclist is because there isn't a need for it. Seven people die every day on the roads and hundreds are seriously injured, almost all of them due to driver error. Why do we put up with it? The main reason is because it is easier to blame the victims then to get drivers to accept their responsibilities. As shown by the attitude of your comment, until such attitudes change the carnage will continue

 

[HJ]

yes but there are people suggesting adopting a 51% rule like the Netherlands. That way, barring evidence to the contrary, the car driver will be found guilty

Nothing wrong with that, it will help to reduce the carnage on our roads, unless to think it is right that seven people should die, unnecessarily, every day...!

 

[Jake]

TV doesnt kill but still need a license - just saying. I think if more people start using bikes and cars less, then the gov' will loose out on revenue, so will start taxing and insureing us too. It will be usuasl garbage about safety and all that, but in the end, it will be another tax. MOT for bikes too. Wont be long. If they can get money out of it, then they will do it.

 

[marinyork]

The SimonCC memorial prize goes to... Jake. TV Licenses indeed.

I actually think the opposite, I think saying you don't need a license and MOT and all that cycling standards cf motoring standards where you do are very high indeed.

 

[skwerl]

There is bad cycling, but cyclist don't weigh 1.5 tons and very rarely kill other people by their misjudgments. The reason there is no licensing for cyclist is because there isn't a need for it. Seven people die every day on the roads and hundreds are seriously injured, almost all of them due to driver error. Why do we put up with it? The main reason is because it is easier to blame the victims then to get drivers to accept their responsibilities. As shown by the attitude of your comment, until such attitudes change the carnage will continue

"The attitude of my comment". Get off your high horse. I have a valid opinion, same as everyone else. Don't assume that because yours appears, on the surface, to be the caring, considerate version that it's somehow more valid than mine.

Many of the deaths on the roads are a result of people killing themselves, e.g. 2/3 of motorcyclists crashing without input from anything or anyone else. Cyclists who ride up the inside of trucks turning left (I saw this the other day and watched said cyclist bitching at the truck driver for his own stupid behaviour).

 

[skwerl]

Nothing wrong with that, it will help to reduce the carnage on our roads, unless to think it is right that seven people should die, unnecessarily, every day...!

So you think that a law that can jail an innocent driver is worth it if it saves lives? What about the impact to the driver and their family? I guess they can just suffer if it "stops the carnage". Please please stop the carnage. Now, where's my Daily Mail?

 

[HJ]

What does seriously injured actually mean. Lot of difference between a broken wrist and brain damage.

As serious injury is generally taken as one requiring hospital treatment, so yes a broken wrist is a serious injury. The actual rate of brain damage due to TRAs is very low, far lower than most of the people seam think, I don't have the figures to hand, but it is less that 1% of all road accident injuries.

 

[skwerl]

It's not about intent. It's about responsibility.

Shooting pigeons on the High St doesn't carry any intent to injure a person, but the owner is still responsible for the gun, its presence and its control.

I think davidc was suggesting an intent to kill by the mention of a sawn-off shotgun - not much use on pigeons, unless they're 3 feet away. He was making a comparison with heading out to blow someone's head off vs driving w/o a licence.

 

[HJ]

not necessarily. you may not hold a licence for that reason or you may have had it revoked as punishment for a driving offence. You may still be competent but legally unable to drive. Driving to the shops with or without a licence has the same intent. ie I need to get to the shops. Going to the shops with a sawn-off shotgun implies another intent.

If you license has been revoked it does mean that you are not a competent driver. If you were a competent driver your license wouldn't have been revoked in the first place. Why do you think we have driving test and licensing of drivers??

 

[Arch]

Take for example the bloke on a bike that rides straight out of a side road and in front of a car. If you automatically apportion 51% of the blame to the driver 9as they do in Holland) and there are no witnesses, the driver's screwed. Unless the cyclist comes clean but what kind of muppet, that does that in the first place, is likely to come clean?

You are assuming that 'no witnesses' means 'no evidence'. I would imagine in a situation like that there would be lots of evidence - dents in the bonnet, skid marks on the road, possibly the nature of the cyclist's injuries and so on.

 

[HJ]

TV doesnt kill but still need a license - just saying. I think if more people start using bikes and cars less, then the gov' will loose out on revenue, so will start taxing and insureing us too. It will be usuasl garbage about safety and all that, but in the end, it will be another tax. MOT for bikes too. Wont be long. If they can get money out of it, then they will do it.

Just ask your self "do I need to take a test to get a TV license?" Then try thinking about why you need to take a test to get a driving license. A driving license has nothing to do with raising revenue, just because the word license is used.

 

[skwerl]

You are assuming that 'no witnesses' means 'no evidence'. I would imagine in a situation like that there would be lots of evidence - dents in the bonnet, skid marks on the road, possibly the nature of the cyclist's injuries and so on.

No, I'm not. Witnesses are going to be key evidence. Dents and skid marks may help but probably not enough to establish fault. I'd imagine the aftermath of a cyclist being hit after riding in front of a car vs a car hitting a cyclist already in the road would be very similar.

 

[HJ]

So you think that a law that can jail an innocent driver is worth it if it saves lives? What about the impact to the driver and their family? I guess they can just suffer if it "stops the carnage". Please please stop the carnage. Now, where's my Daily Mail?

No, I think the law should only be used to imprison the guilty, how would imprisoning an innocent driver safe lives?

 

[marinyork]

No, I'm not. Witnesses are going to be key evidence. Dents and skid marks may help but probably not enough to establish fault. I'd imagine the aftermath of a cyclist being hit after riding in front of a car vs a car hitting a cyclist already in the road would be very similar.

I find your example a rather poor one. If the positions are reversed and a car is in the side road and pulls out at the last minute this is a classic car v cycle encounter that can lead to serious injury and death. It's what'll lead to my death on a bike no doubt. Moaning about the reverse scenario seems small beans.

You are right on the evidence stake. When car v car happens in accidents in this situation it is just swept under the carpet. There is nothing to suggest that wouldn't happen with cycle v car. That doesn't mean the driver going to prison. It's just be dropped.