More than half of drivers who kill cyclists escape jail

Part of the problem is there are very few actual alternatives to driving, unless you live in a large town or city, public transport is as good as not there, and rural roads are mostly too dangerous for your average cyclist.
Driving has become a necessity and this is the root of all the problems, the justice system is in fairness to it, responding to the lack of alternative means.
The problem is that for those who are brave/foolish/hardy/sensible/too poor or pain just insistent on not driving, they fall outside of the system.
The infrastructure is so bad, not just for us cyclists but for all users, it's got a loose framework designed 99% for motorised vehicles and only then relies on drivers being experienced and well behaved, while the justice system then compensates by assuming human error. "Driving is oh so hard, poor person, they weren't expecting that silly cyclist to come crashing through their windscreen, oh poor driver."
It's like designing a lathe with no safety features, giving a one off safety talk and expecting the user to behave exactly like they did the first time they switched it on. Of course when you don't, you are judged as only human.
We all know that unless you factor out the human error as much as you can with the infrastructure - with segregation, proper speed restrictions, only then stricter licencing and harsher penalties for breaching the conditions of the licence, and actual realistic alternatives to car ownership, like integrated public transport, the deaths will continue.
They are doing this in Mainland Europe, they have a long way to go too, but they are 40 years ahead of where we are.

Part of the problem is there are very few actual alternatives to driving, unless you live in a large town or city, public transport is as good as not there, and rural roads are mostly too dangerous for your average cyclist.
Driving has become a necessity and this is the root of all the problems, the justice system is in fairness to it, responding to the lack of alternative means.
The problem is that for those who are brave/foolish/hardy/sensible/too poor or pain just insistent on not driving, they fall outside of the system.
The infrastructure is so bad, not just for us cyclists but for all users, it's got a loose framework designed 99% for motorised vehicles and only then relies on drivers being experienced and well behaved, while the justice system then compensates by assuming human error. "Driving is oh so hard, poor person, they weren't expecting that silly cyclist to come crashing through their windscreen, oh poor driver."
It's like designing a lathe with no safety features, giving a one off safety talk and expecting the user to behave exactly like they did the first time they switched it on. Of course when you don't, you are judged as only human.
We all know that unless you factor out the human error as much as you can with the infrastructure - with segregation, proper speed restrictions, only then stricter licencing and harsher penalties for breaching the conditions of the licence, and actual realistic alternatives to car ownership, like integrated public transport, the deaths will continue.
They are doing this in Mainland Europe, they have a long way to go too, but they are 40 years ahead of where we are.

Words have power, therefore can we get something straight?

A 'Ban' is a curtailment of a 'right'. You can be banned from going into a town centre, going out after dark or owning a dog because normally there would be no restriction on these actions.

You DO NOT have a right to drive: You DO NOT have a right to hold a driving licence; this is a privilege and as such its removal is not a ban but a revocation!

This may seem like a minor point but it changes your mind-set. If a privilege has been revoked, you might not get it back. A Ban is like grounding a sulky teenager.

Try saying these two phrases and see which has the most impact.
"You are banned from driving!"
"Your licence is revoked!"

Quote:

A 26-year-old who is being taken to court for knocking down a cyclist and who cannot be named for legal reasons, said it was wrong to penalise those who kill or injure a cyclist in what could be seen as unfortunate accidents.

"I don't think it's fair because I wasn't driving dangerously, I wasn't driving erratically," he said. "I just failed to see someone who was on the road."

As the AA spokesperson said the courts do have the powers but the attitude towards cyclists (and I suspect pedestrian) injuries and deaths needs to change - the young driver quoted above (from the referenced article) is typical of our culture that accepts the idea that being in the way of a vehicle means that "accidents" are a by product of vulnerable parties putting themselves deliberately at risk

Pleased to see a decent bit of journalism from the BBC

"and of those drivers found guilty, only 44 percent went to jail; 26 percent were not even banned from driving.

Words fail me. To be found guilty of Killing someone due to your reckless actions, not be sent to prison and not even receive a Driving Ban. Its the ultimate insult!!!!
Being found guilty of Killing a cyclist Has to carry a mandatory lifetime driving ban, no ifs, no buts, no maybes. When are people going to realize that a driving licence is a privilege, not a right, and that privilege needs revoking if your not capable of driving without going around killing someone.

Words fail me except these: This is a fucking disgrace, shameful!

It's been known for years that people who kill at the wheel are treated more leniently than people who commit other criminal offences that result in death. This study is from 2007, and the only thing that's changed since is there are fewer police officers on our roads. http://www.jake-v.co.uk/content/cycling.php

Clear logical opinion from Chris Boardman again. Ban more people and more people will be more careful. It is that simple. Kill a cyclist or pedestrian? Banned.

Actually, the comments seem Faily Dail, while there's some useful info in the article for once.

What's discussed is actually quite complex legally.

Morally though, what should happen is the more vulnerable the injured party is, the more stringently the judging should be once guilt is proven.

However, proving guilt in complex, low speed collisions like in city driving is harder.

Driving bans all round though, for very long periods, would have a great inhibitory effect on everyday careless driving.

But the AA seems to see nothing wrong with the more lenient treatment of drivers who kill cyclists.

The AA obviously don't see what the issue is of prvelidge and discrimination. I'm sure with that attitude Lorna Lee would not have a problem with being paid less than her male counter parts, after all who needs equal treatment.

Ridiculous.

So if you kill a driver or a passenger you are more likely to go to gaol than if you kill a cyclist.....

Wow. I'd love to see some more detail on the figures and some exploration of causal factors behind them. It does seem shockingly low, though to be fair the 60% figure for total road deaths seems too low as well.

Yet more depressing evidence that the judiciary has some kind of secret belief that cyclists are partly to blame for getting themselves killed by being on the road in the first place. Sigh*

AA