Jeremy Vine tweet tonight (cycling related)

Laughing said:
That isn't a motoring offence its a criminal offence, assuming dangerous driving was the charge. It's in the same band of offences that covers drink/drug driving.

There is no comparison between the actions of the two participants, none at all.
Click to expand...
Driver is definitely to blame for the accident. No question.

But without proving intent, it’s a motoring offence.
 
Hap said:
Driver is definitely to blame for the accident. No question.

But without proving intent, it’s a motoring offence.
Click to expand...

I feel that this is where the law needs to change. If you are hitting someone like that in a car it should be a criminal charge. There is no excuse for it whatsoever really. It is really inept driving.
 
MolteniArcore said:
I feel that this is where the law needs to change. If you are hitting someone like that in a car it should be a criminal charge. There is no excuse for it whatsoever really. It is really inept driving.
Click to expand...
Definitely inept driving. If there was more footage you could add some context, but you see the car and an immediate collision.
 
I
Hap said:
Driver is definitely to blame for the accident. No question.

But without proving intent, it’s a motoring offence.
Click to expand...
looked this up Hap, interestingly enough, there doesn't seem to be much difference between a motoring offence v criminal offence with most offences. The differentiator, in practical terms is how long it takes for the conviction to become spent. Dangerous driving is 10 years, same as drink driving. For lesser offences it seems to be 5 years.

For clarity, the site I looked at, categorized almost all motoring offences as criminal convictions, which surprised me.
 
Hap said:
Driver is definitely to blame for the accident. No question.

But without proving intent, it’s a motoring offence.
Click to expand...
Can't a motoring offence also be a criminal offence if another person is involved, even without intent?
Or at least lead to a criminal record?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hap
Corcaigh_the_Cat said:
It can but not every accident involving an injury to the person struck is a criminal offence, nor should it be.
Click to expand...
If the driver is at fault it should be.

In this case both cyclist and driver were at fault. But the car driver has more responsibility for safety of others than the cyclist. Luckily it doesn't appear that anyone was injured.
 
Hap said:
Driver is definitely to blame for the accident. No question. But without proving intent, it’s a motoring offence.
Click to expand...

Laughing said:
there doesn't seem to be much difference between a motoring offence v criminal offence with most offences.

For clarity, the site I looked at, categorized almost all motoring offences as criminal convictions, which surprised me.
Click to expand...

Specific motoring offences were introduced because juries (comprised of drivers) were not finding other drivers guilty of other offences against the person (assault, ABH, GBH or manslaughter) because although the law allows for it to be the result of reckless behaviour rather than intent to harm, juries were saying they were unfortunate accidents.

Death by Dangerous Driving was introduced in the 50’s, Death by Careless Driving in the 00’s as again juries (of drivers) were no reluctant to classify behaviour they themselves do on occasion as falling "far below the minimum standard expected of a competent and careful driver" and now have the option to classify overtaking a stream of vehicles, hitting & killing someone coming the other way as just "below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver".
 
Rofesleg said:
Can't a motoring offence also be a criminal offence if another person is involved, even without intent?
Or at least lead to a criminal record?
Click to expand...
I'm sure it can. Drink driving is a criminal offence, for example. This isn't likely to be treated as Common Assault or ABH though, which can carry jail terms.

There's also a significant difference between careless driving and dangerous driving - this has to be dangerous driving imho:

Examples of dangerous driving include speeding or driving aggressively (link to RAC site) and the penalty available is 3 - 11 points and a driving ban of some sort.

I think if you can prove intent, which can't be proven based on this footage alone, then it could move toward a serious assault charge.
 
Corcaigh_the_Cat said:
So what if a cyclist or pedestrian is at fault, should it also be a criminal offence?
Click to expand...
Well obviously that depends on the specifics of an incident. If you are on about this one then it looks like the cyclist has committed an offence by not having any lights. The car driver has probably commited the more serious offence, maybe dangerous driving or worse.

But as I said, you should always bear in mind that in general the car driver has a greater responsibility than the cyclist or pedestrian.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hap
For example, if I get in my car now and deliberately drive it into a pedestrian with the intent of killing them, that is murder. If I didn't mean to kill them, but they die anyway, that is manslaughter.

They're not solely motoring offenses.
 
Rofesleg said:
Well obviously that depends on the specifics of an incident. If you are on about this one then it looks like the cyclist has committed an offence by not having any lights. The car driver has probably commited the more serious offence, maybe dangerous driving or worse.

But as I said, you should always bear in mind that in general the car driver has a greater responsibility than the cyclist or pedestrian.
Click to expand...
I'm not referring to this particular case but it's difficult to make a judgement from the footage shown, with regards to lighting and other vehicles on the road.

As I mentioned earlier, the lightness from camera footage doesn't represent the actual light that the motorist has.
 
Corcaigh_the_Cat said:
I'm not referring to this particular case but it's difficult to make a judgement from the footage shown, with regards to lighting and other vehicles on the road.

As I mentioned earlier, the lightness from camera footage doesn't represent the actual light that the motorist has.
Click to expand...
I don't think the exact quality of light is as relevant as you seem to think. The cyclist shouldn't have been fannying about but he wasn't invisible and the driver shouldn't have driven in to him.
 
MolteniArcore said:
The national driving test didn’t do much good here did it?

Off the top of my head I once read something that 80% of adult cyclists have also passed their driving test so it would be a bit of a waste of time having a national cycling test. Plus the lad in question is a kid, you can’t be banning kids from cycling until they have passed something like a national test - it is totally unenforceable.
Click to expand...
It's really about allowing people who have the correct mindset out on the public roads. Kids when trained are unlikey to go out on the road at night, ride in the middle of the road without lights , reflective jacket helmet and ride like a prat. It might, just might reduce some of the road traffic accidents involving cyclists. The test I did at school was an afternoon session on riding skills and road awareness. No big deal and made me aware of my responsibilities as a road user.
Now back to the video, if the lad had been riding at the side of the road, with lights then it's likely there would have been an oppertunity for the car driver to clearly see him, and to get past hime safely. The're are 3 reasons I can think that caused the collision, The driver didn't see him, misjudged the overtaking move or it was a road rage incident. How can we judge that from the evidence? The driver 'behind' in a road traffic accident is deemed always to be at fault unless there were other influnces so on the balance of probabilities he's has to carry the majority of the blame.
 
tripleheader said:
Now back to the video, if the lad had been riding at the side of the road, with lights then it's likely there would have been an oppertunity for the car driver to clearly see him, and to get past hime safely. The're are 3 reasons I can think that caused the collision, The driver didn't see him, misjudged the overtaking move or it was a road rage incident. How can we judge that from the evidence? The driver 'behind' in a road traffic accident is deemed always to be at fault unless there were other influnces so on the balance of probabilities he's has to carry the majority of the blame.
Click to expand...
The car horn being sounded before the collision is a clear indication that cyclist visibility wasn't the issue here.
The driver not stopping after the collisison is a clear indication it wasn't a misjudged overtaking move.
 
newusername said:
The car horn being sounded before the collision is a clear indication that cyclist visibility wasn't the issue here.
The driver not stopping after the collisison is a clear indication it wasn't a misjudged overtaking move.
Click to expand...

I agree with the visibility not being an issue - why would the motorist be that far into the middle of the road, unless they were trying to pass something.

If the driver didn't stop, that still wouldn't prove any intention to collide with the cyclist - only that the driver was willing to risk leaving the scene. But the footage doesn't continue on long enough to show whether the driver stopped, or not.
 
Last edited:
tripleheader said:
It's really about allowing people who have the correct mindset out on the public roads. Kids when trained are unlikey to go out on the road at night, ride in the middle of the road without lights , reflective jacket helmet and ride like a prat. It might, just might reduce some of the road traffic accidents involving cyclists. The test I did at school was an afternoon session on riding skills and road awareness. No big deal and made me aware of my responsibilities as a road user.
Now back to the video, if the lad had been riding at the side of the road, with lights then it's likely there would have been an oppertunity for the car driver to clearly see him, and to get past hime safely. The're are 3 reasons I can think that caused the collision, The driver didn't see him, misjudged the overtaking move or it was a road rage incident. How can we judge that from the evidence? The driver 'behind' in a road traffic accident is deemed always to be at fault unless there were other influnces so on the balance of probabilities he's has to carry the majority of the blame.
Click to expand...

The video shows the driver hit the cyclist. The circumstances leading up to that are largely irrelevant. You shouldn’t be driving if you can’t see a person on a bike right in front of you.

How do these drivers see other black cars? How do they see pot holes? Hedges? Dogs?

What the driver did was indefensible, so it’s maybe best not to try.
 
MolteniArcore said:
The video shows the driver hit the cyclist. The circumstances leading up to that are largely irrelevant. You shouldn’t be driving if you can’t see a person on a bike right in front of you.

How do these drivers see other black cars? How do they see pot holes? Hedges? Dogs?

What the driver did was indefensible, so it’s maybe best not to try.
Click to expand...
I did say that 'the're are 3 reasons I can think that caused the collision, The driver didn't see him, misjudged the overtaking move or it was a road rage incident'. How is that defending the actions of the driver.


 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top