Tangled Metal wrote:Is it fair to ignore the inconsistent prosecution options for cyclists compared to motorists on the grounds of it being less common, less likely or result in injury to the offender? Put simply a death on the roads due to the actions of one user resulting in death of another should receive equal treatment no matter how the offender and victim traveled to that collision.
I find it illogical to argue that the offence is less because the offender is 80kg with a 10kg carriage over a 1000+kg carriage. No matter how heavy the carriage / driver or rider total weight is the death is the same end result. Duty of care does not stop below a certain weight or if the risk is lower. It's there for all the times your taking that mode of transportation. If you don't exercise it then you should be equally liable for prosecution for the resulting offence.
Speaking in general rather than strictly legal terms, the difference is one of reasonably foreseeable risk to others.
Example 1: I'm walking along the pavement and for a couple of seconds I look overhead at a passing aircraft. I continue to walk and fail to notice an elderly lady whose path crosses mine. I bump into her and she stumbles and falls to the ground, sustaining a head injury which proves to be fatal.
Example 2: I'm driving along the road and for a couple of seconds I look overhead at a passing aircraft. I continue to drive and fail to notice an elderly lady whose path crosses mine. I hit her and inflict fatal injuries.
The latter carries greater responsibility because of the reasonably foreseeable risk to others: hitting someone with a car is quite obviously far more likely to cause serious or fatal injuries than is walking into someone, even though the distraction and the result were identical in each case.
A pedal cycle falls somewhere between these two cases. Where in that range it falls is a matter of debate.
I don't think anyone's arguing that we should "
ignore the inconsistent prosecution options". But in the perfectly valid debate about them, there is a reasoned argument that inconsistent prosecution options are actually the right approach; there is another argument that if consistency is the goal then it is better achieved by statute other than the current Road Traffic Act; and from those evolves the point that if consistency is the goal then consistency of
legislation does not equate to consistency of
justice.