Sentencing for motorists vs equivalent offences for cyclists?

[DaveReading]

Is it not easier to kill with a car than a bike? In that case would the cyclist not be possibly more serious case?

Interesting logic.

 

[Slick]

If by interesting you mean madness, then I agree.

Interesting logic.

 

[Jameshow]

I think that of there are differing degrees of dangerous driving from an accident to pre meditated murder with the vehicle as a weapon.

However the thought that if you use a 16oz hammer you get a lesser sentence than 20 Oz hammer seems immaterial. It's the intent and the effect that should determine the sentence???

 

[Profpointy]

So where does a pedestrian who is busy on their mobile phone who walks out into the road without looking causing a collision with a cyclist come out of this ?

If it's a cyclist then they would be imprisoned. If it was a motorist then they would not be charged. Whilst to an extent I'm being facetious, there may be a grain of truth in my comment

 

[Profpointy]

I think that of there are differing degrees of dangerous driving from an accident to pre meditated murder with the vehicle as a weapon.

However the thought that if you use a 16oz hammer you get a lesser sentence than 20 Oz hammer seems immaterial. It's the intent and the effect that should determine the sentence???

How about a rolled up newspaper vs a 2lb hammer ?

 

[Jameshow]

Pillow! Vs shotgun!!

 

[Arrowfoot]

That's not right as the pedestrians should also have responsibility over their actions ! I have noticed that some people have developed a sly way of crossing at Zebra crossings. Most people seem to indicate that they are about to cross by their body language . They will either slow down or look behind them as they approach the crossing . This gives a cyclist or motorist a hint that they are about to cross .
The Stealth crossers give no indication and will just walk along the pavement and then suddenly cross without looking ! Even if you were doing 1 mile an hour you couldn't prevent such an accident .

You do have a point and it important. Pedestrians who have not been on the road as a motorist or as a cyclist may not be road savvy or at times blind to oncoming traffic. And there is Mr entitled whose pace must not be stopped even it means stopping a bus full of passengers.

I also noticed pedestrians who deliberately slow down their approach for cyclist to pass as they know of momentum and unlike cars we take more effort to start again from a standing stop.

Have also seen those who dart thru With no indication. I don’t take chances and slow down.

 

[Andy in Germany]

That's not right as the pedestrians should also have responsibility over their actions !

It depends on the situation: if it's a Shared Space street the speed limit is 7km/h, or walking speed. If the police find a black line where I was braking then I was well over the speed limit and I'm partially liable. On a main road then the circumstances would be different.

I have noticed that some people have developed a sly way of crossing at Zebra crossings. Most people seem to indicate that they are about to cross by their body language . They will either slow down or look behind them as they approach the crossing . This gives a cyclist or motorist a hint that they are about to cross .
The Stealth crossers give no indication and will just walk along the pavement and then suddenly cross without looking ! Even if you were doing 1 mile an hour you couldn't prevent such an accident .

We have to assume anyone approaching a crossing will cross; in my driving lessons this was repeated many times. I often see cars slowing as a pedestrian approaches a crossing whether or not they give any indication they will cross the street.

 

[sheddy]

As a motorist, I should be aware of approaching a zebra crossing and preparing to stop anyway.

 

[Alex321]

Criminal cases don't have presumed liability in other European countries (we're still European BTW). You're mistaking two different legal systems.

Sentencing aiui is about guidelines which define bands of sentencing options and if imprisonment is going to happen there's reductions in the sentence for various things such at admitting guilt early in the process. Aiui certain aspects of your crime can put you in higher or lower bands within the guidelines. Or something like that. As in fairly well defined guidance for judges.

If this is understood correctly it would allow for the view to be taken that similar offences by larger, heavier road users are in higher sentencing band than lighter users. However it could be set up that the basic facts of the case irrespective of user type defines the sentencing bands.

I'm not 100% on how sentencing guidelines work but I do not see how a cyclist who killed a pedestrian is much different in offence to the motorist who killed a pedestrian or cyclist. Is it not easier to kill with a car than a bike? In that case would the cyclist not be possibly more serious case?

I really don't know but if like to know. If not then my tendencies are for most equivalent offences being sentenced in the same way. Kill in a car or on a bike your decisions have resulted in loss of life. That's no difference between road users. Speeding on a bike is potentially less likely to cause harm as much as speeding in a car so a difference is present with that case. If harm has been done then perhaps the offence is equivalent and should have similar sentences. Without physical harm, such as speeding or RLJ then potential for causing harm could be argued as more relevant meaning higher sentencing for drivers than cyclists.

This is just my take on it. I would like to see some equivalency should be in place especially where death or serious injury has resulted. Perhaps motorists and cyclists should be subject to the same laws in this respect.

I tend to agree with most of this.

There are certainly some "equivalent" crimes where the potential repercussions are much lower, and I feel the sentencing for those should also be lower (as is generally the case - the range of sentences for careless or inconsiderate cycling is lower than that for careless or inconsiderate driving for instance).
But where the outcome is similar, there should be a similar sentence available.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

However the thought that if you use a 16oz hammer you get a lesser sentence than 20 Oz hammer seems immaterial.

It’s more like using a bit of paper vs. Sledgehammer to hit someone with.

 

[PK99]

How about a rolled up newspaper vs a 2lb hammer ?

Be careful on that one if you ever choose to hit someone over the head with a newspaper: The legal rule "Eggshell skull" or "Take your victim as you find him" apples.

The term implies that if a person had a skull as delicate as that of the shell of an egg, and a tortfeasor who was unaware of the condition injured that person's head, causing the skull unexpectedly to break, the defendant would be held liable for all damages resulting from the wrongful contact, even if the tortfeasor did not intend to cause such a severe injury.

In criminal law, the general maxim is that the defendant must "take their victims as they find them", as echoed in the judgment of Lord Justice Lawton in R v. Blaue (1975), in which the defendant was held responsible for killing his victim, despite his contention that her refusal of a blood transfusion constituted an intervening act.[6]