Woman admits A32 Wickham cyclist death

[PhilDawson8270]

Are you claiming you have never made a mistake driving, or not seen something despite looking?

The question may only apply if you do drive and have driven a reasonable distance - let's say a few 100,000 miles.

Of course, this isn't an excuse for not seeing hazzards, but to pretend to perfection, isn't normally a good recipe for improvement. My observation skill improved a lot after doing motorcycle training, where a very systematic approach was pushed. But even so I can still make mistakes - usually caught as I'm more systematic, but still, I'm not arrogant enough to believe I'm perfect

I'm not pretending perfection. But I have covered 180k miles since I passed my test in a car and on a bike without crashing into other traffic. I have made mistakes before, and not noticed something. But I have never pulled out of a junction in front of traffic, or drove into the back of somebody.

I'd agree, I did my bike test 1 year after my car. And my attitude to roads did change. Mainly because your own mortality seems to make you far more aware than when you only drive a car.

But it still doesn't cover that if the distribution of accidents was random, then you wouldn't expect incidents to gather around certain statistics like it does.

 

[Karlt]

They aren't but the consequences do have to be taken into account.

Indeed. But at the moment the consequences can mean the difference between a small fine and a long ban and prison sentence, at least in theory. I'm not sure the balance is quite right.

And how else would it even come to light that someone had made the error, unless there was an accident that got reported?

Indeed, but the disconnect in penalties doesn't happen at the reported/not reported disconnect - it happens at the person killed/person not killed disconnect.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Why are those who cause an injury so much more blameworthy than those who make exactly the same mistake but by chance do not do so?

That happens in a lot of cases, not just in car accidents.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Because people get very upset when consequences aren't taken into account and that has to be taken into account when setting policy. Me, I'm not convinced it should be so big a factor. Two drivers can do exactly the same thing, by the Grace of God only one causes a death, and the penalty for exactly the same action can be wildly different.

The point I'm getting at here is that "looked but failed to see" happens hundreds of times per day. In 90% of cases, probably, evading action avoides a collision. In another 9.9% there is a property damage only collision. In a tiny proportion there is an injury, and in a tiny proportion of that tiny proportion a death. And the outcome has very little to do with the degree of failure of the driver. If we are to say that every bit of careless driving should result in a life ban, there'll be no-one on the roads. If we focus almost entirely on outcome, then it's a lottery whether you get a life ban or no penalty at all beyond an increase in premiums. Steering a line between these is a difficult task.

To be clear here, I don't support a life ban for every bit of careless driving. Someone else must have suggested that but not me!


GC

 

[Karlt]

I'm not pretending perfection. But I have covered 180k miles since I passed my test in a car and on a bike without crashing into other traffic. I have made mistakes before, and not noticed something. But I have never pulled out of a junction in front of traffic, or drove into the back of somebody.

I'd agree, I did my bike test 1 year after my car. And my attitude to roads did change. Mainly because your own mortality seems to make you far more aware than when you only drive a car.

But it still doesn't cover that if the distribution of accidents was random, then you wouldn't expect incidents to gather around certain statistics like it does.

Actually, you would. Clumping is a common counter-intuitive artefact of randomness - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson_clumping

 

[Karlt]

To be clear here, I don't support a life ban for every bit of careless driving. Someone else must have suggested that but not me!


GC

You're right; I think I got carried away and answered two points in one post.

 

[Karlt]

That happens in a lot of cases, not just in car accidents.

That it happens doesn't mean I can't question the justice of it.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Indeed. But at the moment the consequences can mean the difference between a small fine and a long ban and prison sentence, at least in theory. I'm not sure the balance is quite right..

I agree. The penalties for causing an accident should be more severe regardless of the outcome.

The guy who drove his HGV trailer over the bonnet of my better halfs car at a junction got away with nothing. Police merely just checked paperwork and let him go.

What if that was a cyclist, or a motorcyclist at the junction?

 

[Starchivore]

Indeed. But at the moment the consequences can mean the difference between a small fine and a long ban and prison sentence, at least in theory. I'm not sure the balance is quite right.

Indeed, but the disconnect in penalties doesn't happen at the reported/not reported disconnect - it happens at the person killed/person not killed disconnect.

Right, it is more tough when the difference is the chance of how severely someone's injured. it's a tough one for usre.

 

[Karlt]

I'm not pretending perfection. But I have covered 180k miles since I passed my test in a car and on a bike without crashing into other traffic. I have made mistakes before, and not noticed something. But I have never pulled out of a junction in front of traffic, or drove into the back of somebody.

.

Yet. It took my father 40 years and a good half million miles before the right - or rather wrong - combination of traffic and human fallibility got him.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

That it happens doesn't mean I can't question the justice of it.

If you push a 18 year old in the street.

Then another person does the same push on a 90 year old guy who falls and hits his head resulting in death.

The penalty should be the same as the offence was identical?

 

[Karlt]

I agree. The penalties for causing an accident should be more severe regardless of the outcome.

The guy who drove his HGV trailer over the bonnet of my better halfs car at a junction got away with nothing. Police merely just checked paperwork and let him go.

What if that was a cyclist, or a motorcyclist at the junction?

Indeed, but this is where the practicalities come in. There's a law in statistics, can't recall the name, but it's basically that the more extreme the outcome the smaller proportion of events have that outcome. Common sense really. Which means that for every bit of careless driving that does result in injury (and will probably end up in court) there are ten that don't. I'm not sure we have the resources to do it. It's unlikely that doing so would pay for itself in deterrence, because there's seldom a deliberate point of decision that you could expect someone to be rationally deterred from - very few people think "Oh, I'll plough into the back of that Zafira; it'll probably not go to court if no-one's injured".

 

[Karlt]

If you push a 18 year old in the street.

Then another person does the same push on a 90 year old guy who falls and hits his head resulting in death.

The penalty should be the same as the offence was identical?

No, because pushing a 90 year old is a different action to pushing an 18 year old. The difference in likely outcomes is quite obvious before the fact.

And now I am leaving, because I think I've said everything that I needed to say.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

No, because pushing a 90 year old is a different action to pushing an 18 year old. The difference in likely outcomes is quite obvious before the fact.

What if you push the same person twice, but they fall and die the 2nd time? After all, it was the same as the first push that did nothing.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

driving, perhaps more than any other activity that people regularly indulge in, can so easily turn a minor error into a very serious outcome

I see a large part of the problem as being the daily normality of the act of driving in most people's minds. They don't pause to consider that they are in control of a heavy and potentially lethal machine, which with even a moment's inattention can cause serious damage to people or property. This normalisation (there's a better word but it escapes me) numbs them to the possibilities and that's why we have people doing other normal but stupid things whilst driving like texting, applying makeup, eating ice-cream etc.

Until we have proper enforcement, and enough cops on the streets to achieve that, we'll be forever at the mercy of crappy drivers and juries with the view that there but for the grace of god...

GC