Driver kills 2nd cyclist, avoids prison

[movingtarget]

Update on this case, seems the lenient sentence is to be appealed against:

http://local.stv.tv/edinburgh/227573-crown-to-appeal-unduly-lenient-sentence-of-driver-gary-mccourt/

Great news. Hope something substantial results from the appeal. Let's face it if he had killed two pedestrians or two drivers, the guy would be in prison already.

 

[nick101]

its pretty bad here in nz, cyclists are treated as a menace. drivers will push us off the road and throw stuff at us, and buses do the same, completely ignoring our existence. cyclists are considered vehicles so should be treated just like cars or other vehicles and given respect. if a car crashed into another car causing death, that driver would most likely be charged right?? whereas if its a cyclist usually the driver usually receives a much lesser offence or even just a warning. hundreds of cyclists have been killed and its getting worse each year. something needs to be done

 

[DirtyWorks]

I do not believe in helmet laws or seat belt laws. People should have the right to be as stupid as they choose.

Mmm right. In public health terms that's really, really, really expensive. It is far cheaper to require someone to wear a seat belt in a modern car than have them fly out of the cabin, shatter the windscreen with their forehead and pay for their possible rehabilitation. The same argument is true for requiring motorcyclists and bicyclists to wear helmets.

The entire point is to keep medical costs and deaths down. Which it does. Very well. Plenty of opportunities for the same people to be stupid elsewhere and cost everyone a whole lot less.

 

[DirtyWorks]

At least in California the they (on occasion) prosecute motorists for "road raging" against bicyclists.

Except the penalties in most municipalities/counties are not serious. Unless the case generates a ton of attention, most are not prosecuted. It's gotten better, but still not great.

A mate of mine lives in Tennessee, where they enacted a law a couple of years back requiring motorists to leave a gap of no less than three feet when overtaking bicyclists. Since then, there have been at least three (helmet-wearing, adult) cyclists struck and killed by motorists, yet none of the three guilty drivers was charged with violating the "3-foot" law.

If the law was poorly written so it is difficult to win a case, a DA won't use it. There are many laws written with no meaningful penalties either.. Just because it's on the books doesn't mean it's enforced or enforceable.

And then the average DA's office is very sensitive to the politics of threatening auto drivers sense of dominance. That costs votes!

 

[alitogata]

No they're not. Depressingly common are collisions that are the result of impatience, aggression, negligence, inattention, incompetence, poor judgement, distraction and even criminal intent, though.

Whatever the are, they're not "accidents".

I totally agree with you. There are no car accidents, there are road crimes. A car doesn't move by itself, it doesn't turn or collide without having someone on the drivers wheel to do so. On the other hand, the driver or any motor vehicle knows that his vehicle has lot more weight and motor power to make damage in case of a traffic collision. By knowing that has no excuses for not being enough careful in order to avoid collisions and this knowledge makes him/her totally responsible for all of or any of the possible damages, including the death of other people.

That's true.

However, someone's stupidity always takes a toll on others. For instance, medical resources can be saved when there's a law on helmets and seatbelts. Not wearing one can end up engaging more resources (and perhaps personnel) than necessary, had the person been more careful about their own safety.

I don't agree and I don't believe in helmet laws too.

The use of a bicycle can not kill by itself the average cyclist. It is neither that fast, nor the kind of a very dangerous vehicle. Bicycle is just a very light human powered vehicle.
Most fatal accidents happen when another vehicle collides with a bicycle, when the cyclist is run over by a car or a motor bike for example, when the door of a vehicle gets on the way, not by their own, on an empty street.

So any state that demands by law from cyclist to wear a helmet tries to transfer its own ( state) responsibility of regulating effectively (any) motor vehicle drivers, on to the cyclists claiming that they don't protect properly themselves.

I'm not against the use of a cycling helmet, when is really needed, but I don't accept either this responsibility shedding, from the part of (any) state. In other words I don't want to renounce my right to use the street without having to wear a helmet, by the time that my bicycle is not dangerous for me by its nature, just because the state of any country cannot regulate the motor powered vehicles drivers, who usually underestimate the dangerousness of their vehicles and overestimate their own driving skills.

And as someone said above driving a motor vehicle is not a right of ( any) driver, and neither streets are property of motor vehicles drivers only.

Streets are public space. They exist in order to be used safely by anyone.

 

[Altitude]

Mmm right. In public health terms that's really, really, really expensive. It is far cheaper to require someone to wear a seat belt in a modern car than have them fly out of the cabin, shatter the windscreen with their forehead and pay for their possible rehabilitation. The same argument is true for requiring motorcyclists and bicyclists to wear helmets.

The entire point is to keep medical costs and deaths down. Which it does. Very well. Plenty of opportunities for the same people to be stupid elsewhere and cost everyone a whole lot less.

Until it's illegal to smoke cigarettes and eat cheeseburgers, I cannot support your position.