Hatred, stupidity or both?

[kwackers]

Nice (and quite surprising) to see that that Beeb Norfolk story now has a little sidebar thingy explaining about road tax

I suspect they've been inundated with irate cyclists pointing it out.

[Geriatrix]

Not much has been mentioned of the cyclist so far:

I was riding on a country B-road with a friend, and descending a hill on a blind right hand corner", I was sticking to the left as the corner was blind. A car came round in the opposite direction going much too quickly to make the corner safely. It missed the rider in front of me but hit me, my right leg caught the front right wing. I was thrown up onto the bonnet, I hit the side of windsrceen and the wing mirror. I bounced back off the car and went through a hedge for about 20 metres. I managed to keep control of the bike; the back brake had locked on but I managed to rejoin the road and stop in the middle of it

That would be worthy of a YouTube vid.

Myself and my friend burst out laughing when we finally came to a stop, more out of shock than anything else", he said. "You count your limbs and carry on

And he finished the sportiv.

[ChrisButch]

It is 'innocently' shared by many drivers who in other respects have no particular malice

I come from a profession which required government certification before a supervisory position could be held (not unlike the concept of a drivers licence). Part of the certification was proof of a sound understanding of the H&S legal framework in which the industry operated. It was not just requirement to pass the test, but to maintain the knowledge with ongoing legislation changes. (that's still the status quo, I just used past tense because I have left that industry).

Is that not also true of a drivers licence? If it is, then you can't be innocently ignorant of your obligations.

My 'innocently' was in inverted commas for precisely that reason. My point was that the false assumption of priority doesn't necessarily require malice. It''s as likely - indeed probably more likely - to proceed from ignorance rather than malice. And this suggests pretty basic inadequacies in driver training.

[DBridge]

Someone warn the girl it might be a tractor next time.

[661-Pete]

Someone warn the girl it might be a tractor next time.

Better still, it may be towing one of these...

[rand]

From ipayroadtax

Ms Way was quickly identified from her Facebook page and the police were sent other examples of her poor driving: she had taken taking photographs of herself tailgating other motorists, and even photographed her speedometer showing a speed of 95mph.

Is this just one bad egg or is it a social trend in young drivers?

I think tarring 'young' drivers is unjustified, sure they are a bit less experienced but we all had to start somewhere, if you check out the lenient sentencing thread and count up how many drivers who are over 30 & are killing/maiming you'll find it outweights the u30s by a fairly large margin.
The 'social trend' of abusing/admonishing/threatening cyclists has been going on for decades and it is more often the older generation who are mostly to blame as far as I can see..

I don't think ayone was being "tarred": Geriatrix, simply posed the question.

Rand.

[Ayesha]

Does a motorist qualify for the Darwin Awards if they knowingly knock down a cyclist, and the cyclist subsequently beats them to death?

[Elizabethsdad]

I have twice been in the situation of cycling normally on my side of the road when a driver coming the opposite way pulled out to get past parked cars and blocked my progress. In the ensuing conversation, they made it quite clear that they expected me to get out of their way.

They were both young women, at school leaving time. (I live beside a school, and almost all the drivers are women, so there may be observational bias.)

This has happenned to me quite a lot too - usually with a fair amount of abuse thrown in for good measure.

[Tonyf33]

Nice (and quite surprising) to see that that Beeb Norfolk story now has a little sidebar thingy explaining about VED

Corrected that for you...lol

[RickH]

Nice (and quite surprising) to see that that Beeb Norfolk story now has a little sidebar thingy explaining about VED

Corrected that for you...lol

No! I think Danfoto had it right - the side bar's title is The so-called 'Road Tax' (did you look at it?)

Rick.

[snibgo]

This has happenned to me quite a lot too - usually with a fair amount of abuse thrown in for good measure.

Oh, yes, I had the abuse. I think that, in both my cases, the drivers were convinced that they were right -- that if they need to use the wrong side of the road to get past parked cars, but a cyclist is coming towards them, the cyclist is obliged to get out of their way.

From their point of view, I was totally wrong in not cycling off the road to get out of their way. Might is right.

I suspect ChrisButch is correct: not malice but ignorance. And I might add that I very rarely encounter this apparent ignorance, but it is something to be wary of.

[Michael R]

There is such a thing as culpable ignorance. Drivers have passed their test and needed to know the Highway Code . If they now do not know they arefailing in their responsibilities as drivers and thus culpable

[jezer]

As an OAP I passed my driving test in 1965. It was easier in those days, with no on-line theory tests. However, we felt a driving licence was granted as something earned. Not so today, with everyone thinking they have a right to drive were ever they like, and never mind the consequences.

[Geriatrix]

I suspect ChrisButch is correct: not malice but ignorance.

I suspect ChrisButch is correct as well and the most serious get wrapped in language like involuntary manslaughter. Human error will always create a moral dilemma; how we deal with these cases without losing accountability for cases of outright negligence?

Lets take a man who is over-tired, falls asleep at the wheel, drives into a tree and kills his family. He definitely didn't do it out of malice and he is more likely to evoke sympathy than punishment. Let's twist the outcome a bit. No family involved this time but the same over-tired man falls asleep at the wheel, drives over an embankment onto a railway line and causes one train to derail into the path of another. The resulting crash kills 10 people and injures more than 80 others. Same mistake, but the man won't evoke public sympathy and it will result in a different legal outcome.

There is a legal term called mens rea, or guilty mind. It means done with intent and as a principle of jurisprudence it is a necessary element of guilt. So how do you then punish cases of death through ignorance or carelessness? Someone showing off to his mates how fast his car can go before he ploughs into a pedestrian crossing the road. He didn't mean to kill the ped - there was ignorance but no malice or intent. The way the law treats that is if you know that your actions could cause harm then in legal terms that is mens rea. That's the critical point. If you know your actions could cause death but do so anyway then you are guilty.

One of the fundamental principals of a driving license is not just to ensure that you have the technical ability to do drive, but to also ensure that you understand the consequences of whatever you do, and will be held accountable for your actions.

Holding people accountable may take the wisdom of Solomon but its not something you can afford to throw out the window.

[Tonyf33]

Nice (and quite surprising) to see that that Beeb Norfolk story now has a little sidebar thingy explaining about VED

Corrected that for you...lol

No! I think Danfoto had it right - the side bar's title is The so-called 'Road Tax' (did you look at it?)

Rick.

Jeez, the 'lol' after the sentence was a hint, it isn't 'road tax' (despite what was actually on the page) but is actually VED...never mind...