Law at times makes you wonder...

[tom73]

I know this guy is total plank and what happen is just plan wrong. Makes us all look bad at the same time but leaves you wondering what’s going off when he gets a 216 quid fine plus extra costs totalling £926.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-47009149

This women admits not seeing a cyclist and hitting him leaving him with life changing injuries and gets £200 fine.
https://road.cc/content/news/255259-driver-fined-after-pulling-out-triathlete-roundabout

The law maybe being applied as it stands but makes you wonder.

 

[steveindenmark]

The difference here is that the cyclist knew exactly what was going on and what he intended to do. Regardless of the risk. The other incident is lack of attention.

The cyclist was a total prat who got what he deserved

 

[Racing roadkill]

I know this guy is total plank and what happen is just plan wrong. Makes us all look bad at the same time but leaves you wondering what’s going off when he gets a 216 quid fine plus extra costs totalling £926.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-berkshire-47009149

This women admits not seeing a cyclist and hitting him leaving him with life changing injuries and gets £200 fine.
https://road.cc/content/news/255259-driver-fined-after-pulling-out-triathlete-roundabout

The law maybe being applied as it stands but makes you wonder.

The law is an ass.

 

[Unkraut]

In the first case, consider the location: competitors start and finish the race near Windsor Castle. It's the Royal Windsor Triathlon.

In the second case, Nottinghamshire. South Muskham

Or is that me being unduly prejudiced?

The punishment where serious injury has occurred and less serious injury might have occurred but didn't seem very inconsistent. Strange priority of horse against man. The former attracts a ban, the latter doesn't. An utterly disproportionate fine. You don't need to worry too much about a cyclist, but whatever you do don't go anywhere near a horse. That seems to be the message of this.

As ever, we don't know all the details from what has been reported. It might just be in the second Nottingham case the driver really is distraught and this is considered punishment enough. Can't say this is very likely though. Could be real, could be good acting to try to get off. A ban would be more in order on the face of it.

 

[tom73]

@steveindenmark I agree he got what was coming. What it shows more than anything is as most know already traffic law needs a bit of rethink.

 

[Drago]

I've no real issue with it. I don't like paying fines, so I don't commit offences. Cause and effect. Brain surgery it is not. Even worse when you deliberately commit them.

 

[winjim]

You've not quite given all the facts there. Motorist was fined £200 + £85 costs + £30 surcharge so total of £315 and six points on her licence. Her punishment will have been reduced thanks to her guilty plea. The cyclist as far as I can see pleaded not guilty and had to go to trial so no discount on the fine and increased costs.

 

[lane]

I remember seeing the thing with the horse at the time. I really do think the cyclist got what he deserved. I wouldn't feel so certan regarding the motoring offence.

 

[lane]

But there are lots of double standards in life, society and the media so really the law won't be immune. You only have to look at the publicity and publc reaction for certain crimes compared with others that are really just as bad or worse. I suppose its a value judgement at the end of the day.

 

[PK99]

In the first case, consider the location: competitors start and finish the race near Windsor Castle. It's the Royal Windsor Triathlon.

In the second case, Nottinghamshire. South Muskham

Or is that me being unduly prejudiced?
.

That is most definitely you being unduly prejudiced.

 

[Glow worm]

Always baffles me how British drivers are quite happy to roar past me at 60mph within a whisker of my handlebars, but as soon as there's a horse, they'll slow to walking pace and pass it with yards to spare (as they should of course). If they could get out, pick up their car, pop it under their arm, and tip-toe past the horse, then get back in again, I'm sure they would. But cyclists - no, screw you. I've lived here all my life but I'll never understand this f***ing country.

 

[winjim]

Here's a bit of fun. I looked up the sentencing guidelines for careless driving.

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.u...-without-due-care-and-attention-revised-2017/

Lets's give it a go for the driver:

Step 1: I reckon category 2, lower culpability with greater harm. None of the factors indicating higher culpability but definitely injury to others.

Step 2: Category 2 offence gives us a band B fine with 5-6 penalty points. So that's a starting point of 100% of weekly income with a range of 75-125%. I can't see any aggravating factors but she seems to have shown remorse which is a mitigating factor so let's put the fine at the lower end, say 75-100% of weekly income.

Step 3: Not sure this bit is relevant.

Step 4: Assuming she admitted guilt at the earliest opportunity that's a third off the sentence so we're down to about 50-66% of weekly income.

Step 5: Not applicable.

Step 6: £30 surcharge.

So a £200 fine as half to two thirds the weekly income of a 'hospital worker' (probably not a professional or she'd be described as such)? Sounds about right to me. Plus the points and surcharge of course.

I can't find guidelines for the cycling offence but it looks like a level 3 standard fine which is maximum £1000. So, given his not guilty plea and subsequent trial, the cyclist may in fact have got off rather lightly with £216.

Looking at the fines though, it does seem a bit odd that one is related to income and the other seems not to be, so it is a bit difficult to compare the two.

 

[Slick]

Always baffles me how British drivers are quite happy to roar past me at 60mph within a whisker of my handlebars, but as soon as there's a horse, they'll slow to walking pace and pass it with yards to spare (as they should of course). If they could get out, pick up their car, pop it under their arms, and tip-toe past the horse, then get back in again, I'm sure they would. But cyclists - no, screw you. I've lived here all my life but I'll never understand this f***ing country.

Good point well made I'd say. Regardless of how others rationalise it, I reckon 6 points and 200 notes is far too light for crushing a cyclist you should have seen and very little of the above attitude is ever likely to change until courts are able to deliver sentences appropriate to the injuries sustained.

 

[tom73]

I understand that and have said the law has been applied as given. it just shows what a dog dinner the law is. We have one high profile case of a plank on a bike killing someone and everyone is up in arms and a review is ordered into the law but here again yet another chance to fix it has been missed.

Most don't set out to kill or injure someone in a car and accidents do happen and law needs to be applied and worded to understand it. Equally not all cases are clear cut and don't stand up and won't hold up in court.

But many do set out to drive like a prat, drunk, drugged up, and now increasingly stoned or happy to drive the day after the night before. It looks like the responsibility having a licence brings is not fully backed up by law and or willingness to apply it correctly. Equally it's not all at laws door public option has to move the right way too which is often the hardest part.

 

[steveindenmark]

In the first case, consider the location: competitors start and finish the race near Windsor Castle. It's the Royal Windsor Triathlon.

In the second case, Nottinghamshire. South Muskham

Or is that me being unduly prejudiced?

The punishment where serious injury has occurred and less serious injury might have occurred but didn't seem very inconsistent. Strange priority of horse against man. The former attracts a ban, the latter doesn't. An utterly disproportionate fine. You don't need to worry too much about a cyclist, but whatever you do don't go anywhere near a horse. That seems to be the message of this.

As ever, we don't know all the details from what has been reported. It might just be in the second Nottingham case the driver really is distraught and this is considered punishment enough. Can't say this is very likely though. Could be real, could be good acting to try to get off. A ban would be more in order on the face of it.

I dont think where it was has any bearing. The fine was not extortionate for what he did. But the costs were high. We dont know what made the costs so high and the guy is obviously such a fool, the high costs could be of his own doing.