Cyclists who kill

[Chopper the ex Copper]

Causing death by whatever means is an offence, the laws for cycling are already in place, and all other instances, just down to interpretation, which is the same for any law really.

There aren't many to go by because so few are found guilty, but good old Google will show you the significant disparity in the way killer cyclists are sentenced compared to killer drivers.

Lame excuses don't seem to work for cyclists.

 

[Chopper the ex Copper]

Why use a gun, just use the car. An almost legal means of killing somebody.

A most excellent point.

If I made so much as an idle threat to shoot someone, my shotgun would be confiscated (a Beretta Silver Pigeon sporter in rare stainless finish, before anyone asks) and there is no question that I would ever get my ticket back as long as I lived.

Actually kill someone in a car and theres a good chance of not even going to prison, and within a few years at worst will be legally able to get behind the wheel of a kinetic weapon again.

Why the disparity?

Every month motorists kill enough people to fill a decent sized airliner, yet this is somehow just seen by society at large as the cost of doing business rather than a real problem that needs tackling.

 

[mk one]

Come on, you are being a bit selective now. Killing someone with intent, pre meditated etc, or threatening to with a gun is different from accidentally knocking someone over in a car, with so many variables too. Of course, if someone goes out with the intent to kill using a car then that is the same. If someone kills someone because they should not be behind a wheel then the same laws can be applied as with a cyclist, or a cow even, causing the death, Negligence etc.

I am not saying the courts or the system as a whole is just, far from it, as someone pointed out earlier, there needs to be consistency in the legal system, which as with most things is easily bent with money and/or personal interest.

 

[M_Chavez]

Killing someone with intent

Chopper wasn't talking about shooting. He was talking about making an idle threat to shoot.

 

[mk one]

Chopper wasn't talking about shooting. He was talking about making an idle threat to shoot.

?

 

[Chopper the ex Copper]

Come on, you are being a bit selective now. Killing someone with intent, pre meditated etc, or threatening to with a gun is different from accidentally knocking someone over in a car, with so many variables too.

There is actually no difference to the victim - they're just as dead either way, and their life should hold the same value regardless of the mode of death.

Just because a death is not premeditated does not mean that there was not wilful negligence or deliberate recklessness - while death may not have been intended, it is nevertheless a reasonably foreseeable outcome of such behaviour and people should be held accountable accordingly.

And secondly, you've fallen into societies car-death-justification mode. They aren't "accidents". Negligence or recklessness are not accidental, and you should not be triviliasing road death with such language.

?

Yes. Read that post again carefully. I was talking about simply making an "idle threat", not actually shooting anyone, and the consequences that would bring.

 

[legrandefromage]

This has really got under my skin, there's something fundamentally flawed here

https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/202...ifying-moments-before-crash-which-killed-baby

 

[CassidyAce]

This has really got under my skin, there's something fundamentally flawed here

https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/202...ifying-moments-before-crash-which-killed-baby

She was found not guilty on account of insanity, due to the Alzheimer's. In other words, she has been judged incapable of criminal responsibility, which begs the question, why was she not assessed as incapable of driving responsibly before this awful event occurred instead of after? I'm not doubting that the verdict was appropriate but there should be measures in place to stop this type of scenario happening in the first place.

 

[BerthaPog]

She was found not guilty on account of insanity, due to the Alzheimer's. In other words, she has been judged incapable of criminal responsibility, which begs the question, why was she not assessed as incapable of driving responsibly before this awful event occurred instead of after? I'm not doubting that the verdict was appropriate but there should be measures in place to stop this type of scenario happening in the first place.

Please tell me that she no longer has a driving license or drives.

 

[Siish]

In theory, according to DVLA guidelines her license should of automatically be revoked,