Text and Drive

[ajones]

I once had a ciggy butt flung from the car in front fly straight into my lap, so I'd adjust your equation a little:

male groinal area + ciggies don't go

[stroberaver]

Are cyclists actually compelled to stop at red lights?

lol. People could be forgiven for genuinely asking that question, the way many cyclists ride. For every good one, there's about 5 cocks riding at dusk with no lights, blindly running pedestrian crossing red lights, weaving through traffic, or generally only surviving because of the awareness and courtesy of the other road users.

I don't have any more sympathy for a cyclist getting killed as a result of running a red light than I do for a car driver who dies because he/she has jumped the light.

Question is, would a texting driver have been jailed if they'd killed another driver who ran a red, rather than the cyclist?

[ajones]

Question is, would a texting driver have been jailed if they'd killed another driver who ran a red, rather than the cyclist?

It shouldn't make a difference.

I agree to a point that as I'm loosing respect for cyclists everytime I see them barrelling down a busy road at 30 in their lycra shorts when there's a perfectly good cycle path next to the road.

Cyclists in my area seem to forget a basic tenant. Bodies are soft and squishy, motor vehicles are not. When soft and squishy meets hard metal, you get a splat. Cyclists should not behave as though road vehicles should give way, and treat every journey as a potential death sentence.

However, the cyclist running the red light is not the issue here. The driver should not be texting. It's against the law.. period.

You don't need a license to ride a bicycle. You are trained to drive a car and part of that training is to be aware that there are idiots everywhere that could potentially jump a red light and that you should be prepared to stop.

She's been imprisoned for breaking the law and killing someone, and has to retake her license as this very simple premise was obviously lost on her. In my eyes it's q completely justifiable sentence.

[JPreston]

the average sentence for causing death by dangerous driving is 44 months. this case would seem to be waaaaay more negligent than usual, so I also think this sentence is too lenient. this would seem to be akin to firing a gun, randomly, in public, while blindfolded. OK there is no intent and most times you won't harm anyone but it's still a gobsmackingly stupid and unnecessary thing to do.

never mind having to re-sit her test...I think it would be appropriate for everyone who kills someone through dangerous/careless driving to receive an automatic lifetime ban. this would be a far greater deterrent to this kind of unthinking stupid recklessness.

[ajones]

the average sentence for causing death by dangerous driving is 44 months. this case would seem to be waaaaay more negligent than usual, so I also think this sentence is too lenient. this would seem to be akin to firing a gun, randomly, in public, while blindfolded. OK there is no intent and most times you won't harm anyone but it's still a gobsmackingly stupid and unnecessary thing to do.

never mind having to re-sit her test...I think it would be appropriate for everyone who kills someone through dangerous/careless driving to receive an automatic lifetime ban. this would be a far greater deterrent to this kind of unthinking stupid recklessness.

here-here

One problem with the lifetime ban. People would just drive none-the-less. It's like uninsured drivers. They shouldn't do it but the do it all the same. It's us poor saps who see their premiums go up every year without even making a claim that have to pay for it.... Although that could initiate another rant on insurance companies...

[SilentDeath]

However, the cyclist running the red light is not the issue here. The driver should not be texting. It's against the law.. period.

Yes and jumping a red light, whether on a bike or in a car is not against the law? I think you forget which is the more serious of the two. Is it just a case of they need to prosecute someone but the cyclist is already dead?

There is no evidence that her concentration was not fully on the road. Would you take the same view if she was smoking rather than using a phone, becuase to me that is equally as distracting.


Saracen: that duty of care works both ways. The cyclist also has a duty of care. Lets suppose it was another car rather than a cyclist then the accident is clearly the fault of the other driver/cyclist.

What if the cyclist was to have lived?


If it were the other way round, the driver with the phone, jumping the red light, then 100% agree with everyone, but this is not the case.

i have seen what I think would be a similar accident as it happened before. The driver could not stop intime for the other car which pulled out.
I dont think even in the best circumstances you could expect the driver at the green side of the junction to stop in time to prevent a collision, given the distances involved. As somebody said above, cyclists go squish very easily when hit by a car.

[TheAnimus]

yes and jumping a red light, wheather on a bike or in a car is not against the law?

Because he only hurt himself, and i think that technically bikes don't have to stop at red lights, same way pedestrians don't.

[SilentDeath]

yes they do. They are not required to pass a driving or riding test to use the roads but they are expected to know and follow the highway code, the law of the road.

Pedestrians don't becuase they are not using the road, but crossing it. If this were the case of the above accident then I would have far less sympathy for the driver, although if the person just stepped out at the last second there is nothing much any driver could do.
I have seen this happen too, where the pedestrian did not look.


Is its normal for a relatively young driver to have seen so many accidents?

[ajones]

Yes and jumping a red light, whether on a bike or in a car is not against the law? I think you forget which is the more serious of the two.

It is not I who is missing the point.

Any idiot (my apologies to cyclists who are not idiots, but cyclists who jump red lights and generally cause a nuisance of themselves are!) can jump onto the back of a bike. And yes, a policeman will pull a cyclist for running a red.

Car drivers are trained to watch out for idiot bikers who run red lights.

If in swerving to avoid a cyclist running a red you hit and killed someone else, then the cyclist should be done. But this is not the case.

She's approaching a controlled junction and is supposed to be controlling her speed so that if the lights change from green she can stop in time. Remember that an Amber light means stop too... unless it is unsafe to do so. She obviously wasn't as 45 mph > 30 mph.

In this case both the cyclist and the driver were idiots, but unless you have deific powers there is no way you can tell the cyclist that he is a naughty boy!

[SilentDeath]

I think you would find, if you applyed the brakes at 30mph, at the last second, you would still not be stopped untill the other side of the junction. The cyclist would still have been hit, still be squished..

Swerve onto the pavement? I think you need to retake your test

[TheAnimus]

I think the notion is that if she hadn't been texting, it wouldn't of been the last minuite.

[Splash]

(my apologies to cyclists who are not idiots, but anyone who jumps red lights and generally cause a nuisance of themselves are!)

Fixed that for you. As has already been demonstrated people run red lights in all kinds of vehicles, and they all annoy the hell out of me.

And yes, a policeman will pull a cyclist for running a red.

And so they should. The lights are there to keep people safe at junctions, not just to look pretty.

[ajones]

I think you would find, if you applyed the brakes at 30mph, at the last second, you would still not be stopped untill the other side of the junction. The cyclist would still have been hit, still be squished..

Swerve onto the pavement? I think you need to retake your test

If I am approaching a junction at 30 mph, I am actively watching the other vehicles at the junction. I am not texting nor am I accelerating. In all likelihood, if I've noticed that the lights have been green for some time, I am coasting and my speed is beginning to drop. In other words I am prepared to stop.

If when I am at the junction some idiot (whether on a bike or not) leaps in front of me, I have done everything in my power to prevent it. There is nothing I can do, and as your overly simplistic example states, I will slam my anchors on and stop on the other side of the junction with bits of idiot brain all over my bumper.

IF however, I was speeding, texting away to my mates on my mobile, someone leapt out in front of me, I'd accept that fact that I'd been a complete and utter f**kwit.

Get this... Good drivers don't stop learning the day they've passed their test. They continue to develop their skills to make themselves safer. This does not require further training like the advanced test, it just requires them being sensible, trying to keep out of trouble, and realising that they are driving a half ton lethal weapon.

Regardless of whether the cyclist had been there or not, the lady in the OP was in the wrong. What she did is not even in the same ball park as a cyclist jumping a red light,and it's disturbing that you should be arguing the toss about it, especially since the cyclist received a far greater punishment for his mistake than she did.

[malfunction]

If I am approaching a junction at 30 mph, I am actively watching the other vehicles at the junction. I am not texting nor am I accelerating. In all likelihood, if I've noticed that the lights have been green for some time, I am coasting and my speed is beginning to drop. In other words I am prepared to stop.

If when I am at the junction some idiot (whether on a bike or not) leaps in front of me, I have done everything in my power to prevent it. There is nothing I can do, and as your overly simplistic example states, I will slam my anchors on and stop on the other side of the junction with bits of idiot brain all over my bumper.

IF however, I was speeding, texting away to my mates on my mobile, someone leapt out in front of me, I'd accept that fact that I'd been a complete and utter f**kwit.

Get this... Good drivers don't stop learning the day they've passed their test. They continue to develop their skills to make themselves safer. This does not require further training like the advanced test, it just requires them being sensible, trying to keep out of trouble, and realising that they are driving a half ton lethal weapon.

Regardless of whether the cyclist had been there or not, the lady in the OP was in the wrong. What she did is not even in the same ball park as a cyclist jumping a red light,and it's disturbing that you should be arguing the toss about it, especially since the cyclist received a far greater punishment for his mistake than she did.

I don't think anyone's arguing that the women is blameless - just that I believe (and it sounds like SilentDeath is with me here) that the punishment is harsh given that the cyclist also did something incredibly stupid - i.e. he was also at fault for his fate. In my book running a red light is more dangerous than speeding by a few mph... Yes she was 50% over the speed limit but we can all think of occasions where the speed limit has been artificially lowered on a road for non-safety reasons and not knowing the road in question it is not reasonable to say how unsafe (as opposed to how legal) such a speed would be. It's easy to say she was approaching a junction and should have slowed down but she could have known that junction - including the timing of the lights - very well and not felt she was doing anything particularly dangerous. Not forgetting that on a busy road where everyone else was doing 30mph at most if would have been very difficult to do 45mph! For me texting while driving is plainly stupid but speeding is more of a grey area - a safe driving speed depends upon the conditions at the time and not what the sign says (e.g. driving at the speed limit can be dangerous as well). And please, don't tell me you always respect the speed limit as well as get ready to stop for every light you ever drive up to / through - no-one drives like a saint all the time.

[TeePee]

This isn't justice, it's revenge.

Massively too harsh. This should be the same as if a cop saw her and pulled her over (for speeding and texting) and no-one was hurt. Her actions were the same. Of course, I'd like to see higher penalties for people texting while driving, like losing their license, because this kind of thing is the result.

As for the cyclist? He caused an accident and died as a result. Killing a cyclist who runs a red light from time to time is a good idea, as it reminds the others what a dangerous pastime it is. Fortunately the girl didn't swerve into any pedestrians. Of course I am a cyclist myself.

[Saracen]

Yes and jumping a red light, whether on a bike or in a car is not against the law? I think you forget which is the more serious of the two. Is it just a case of they need to prosecute someone but the cyclist is already dead?

Yes, jumping a red light is a offence, even on a bike. But so is dangerous driving, even if it doesn't result in a death .... and it did.

Saracen: that duty of care works both ways. The cyclist also has a duty of care. Lets suppose it was another car rather than a cyclist then the accident is clearly the fault of the other driver/cyclist.

Erm .... yes and no. The cyclist has a duty of care, but it isn't the same duty of care. There is a duty on both parties, but it isn't a reciprocal duty. So it depends quite what you meant by "works both ways". Is it all the drivers fault and none of it the cyclists? Nope. The cyclist is in the wrong, too, if he jumped the red light. Between jumping a light and dangerous driving, I know which I'd regard as the more serious .... though there's an element of overlap. Jumping a red light on a deserted road is an offence, but either not dangerous or minimally so. Jumping the same red light in rush hour among heavy traffic is considerably more dangerous. Jumping a red light might well be, IMHO, dangerous driving in it's own right .... circumstances dependent.

There is no evidence that her concentration was not fully on the road.

We have no evidence, one way or the other. Or at least, I don't. I wasn't in court, didn't see the evidence presented and haven't read the transcripts. But I doubt she would have or could have been convicted of causing death by dangerous driving unless there was evidence that her dangerous driving caused the death. Of course, if anyone knows better ..... ?

I dont think even in the best circumstances you could expect the driver at the green side of the junction to stop in time to prevent a collision, given the distances involved. As somebody said above, cyclists go squish very easily when hit by a car.

But that comes back to the fact that she was convicted. If she stood no chance of stopping, I don't see how that conviction was likely, or possible, because it wouldn't have been her driving, dangerous or otherwise, that caused the death.

Of course, short of seeing the evidence and testimony, it's supposition either way.

But it's also precisely because of the squishability of pedestrians and cyclists, and the relative unsquishability of cars that car drivers owe the duty of care that they do. If a car hits a cyclist or pedestrian, the odds of serious injury of death are FAR higher than if it's the other way round ... hence the duty on drivers.