Cycling UK Forum

Ben Lovejoy wrote:

Sares wrote:I think a hit & run driver should lose their licence for life.

After serving a significant gaol sentence.

Ben

I would settle for just the automatic loss of licence. This should happen even cases where no one has been seriously injured. If there is a gaol sentence then maybe it looks unfair in some cases as gaol time tends to rest on the consequences and intent of the crime. And there is no space in the gaols anyway so they would tend to get overlooked for those who have murdered, etc.

But to me, once a driver has hit someone and driven off, they have irrevocably broken the terms of their licence and they should lose it. It seems no less than proportional to the act committed, even if they were otherwise driving carefully, and the person hit was only slightly injured. Then the other circumstances would determine the gaol sentence/fine/points etc.

Sares wrote:I think a hit & run driver should lose their licence for life.

Trouble with this is that most hit and runs are because people lack licences (and other paperwork) so they don't have a license to loose!

Then they should be prosecuted and severely punished for driving unlicensed even if they haven't hit someone and driven off. Unfortunately although driving unlicenced/uninsured is widely acknowledged as a problem, people don't seem too concerned with catching them before they get in a crash.

The driver might have a licence and be driving drunk, or they just might not think it warrants them stopping...My friend was hit and run on last year, and so was I this autumn, in neither case were injuries serious. The hit & run incidents I know of personally outnumber the ones where the driver stopped. Surely everyone can't be unlicenced!

Sares wrote:

Ben Lovejoy wrote:

Sares wrote:I think a hit & run driver should lose their licence for life.

After serving a significant gaol sentence.

I would settle for just the automatic loss of licence.

As Fatboy says, in many cases they don't have a valid licence to lose.

To me, hit-and-run is an extremely serious offence, far more so than many other things for which we gaol people. Driving off vs stopping to call for an ambulance can mean the difference between life and death, or between saving a limb and losing it. The law should come down on such people like the proverbial tonne of bricks.

Ben

Sares wrote:Unfortunately although driving unlicenced/uninsured is widely acknowledged as a problem

the uninsured part of that is easily solved, by adding a bit to each litre of fuel, and letting the retailer find 3rd party insurance for all its customers.

every driver pays a bit, and directly proportional to the miles they do.

no-one would ever find that they have suffered a loss for which there is no possibility of claiming

Driving off certainly can be the difference between life & death, but I think many people would think that a gaol sentence was excessive in a case where the driver and witnesses could see that the injured party got up right away. A collision where the victim was knocked to the ground but not seriously hurt. That's why I think the consequences/manner of driving/intent are best dealt with separately.

As well, I can think of a number of reasons why licenced, insured drivers wouldn't stop:
1) they are under the influence of drink or drugs, and either don't understand what happened, or don't want to be caught
2) they don't want a claim on their insurance
3) they don't want points on their licence
4) they are in a hurry and don't want to wait around

The insurance reason would disappear with hubgearfreak's suggestion that insurance should be added to petrol prices.

The problem with this, though, is that people have no incentive to drive well to avoid insurance increases. If insurance costs the same for everyone, then while no one is uninsured (except perhaps for those using homemade biodiesel), automatic (civil) liability for cars when they have struck vulnerable road users (as on the Continent) makes no difference at all to driving habits, as that relies on drivers trying to avoid insurance claims by driving more carefully.

The number of accidents might well increase although compensation would be easier to get.

There have been cases of people standing up after an accident and then keeling over dead later; I see it as too risky to make exceptions. It's an extremely serious offence and should be treated as such, in my view.

I would oppose putting insurance on petrol for exactly the reason you suggest: when people don't have to consider their no-claims discount, a certain segment of the population would drive even more carelessly than they do now.

The MIB fund already covers cases where someone is injured by an uninsured driver.

Ben

I'm with you, Ben. The idea of hitting someone when you're driving and then just clearing off because you hope for the best, and not leaving your details as required by law, is just plain wrong.

i hadn't thought of that consequence of insurance on fuel..i've changed my mind about it now.

hit and run should be punished hard, if not the offenders will only more tempted to do it

It was mentioned several times earlier in this thread that roads are safer for cycling than non-roads. I'm surprised that this apparent misinterpretation of statistics has passed unchallenged. Here is why I challenge it. Consider the characteristics of cyclists using each type of facility. You will find two distinctly different sets of characteristics. Road users are on average more experienced, more skillful, higher mileage, better equiped, more confident, more aware of hazards than non-road users. I know that most cyclists use both roads and non-roads, but I am talking about the average profile of each category. In short, the road users are better cyclists. Hence it is hardly surprising that roads appear safer than non-roads - this may or may not be true - when really it is road-using cyclists that are safer than non-road-users.

In order to compare cycling safety of roads versus non-roads, one must eliminate profile differences between road and non-road cyclists in the analysis. I don't know if this has ever been properly done - it would seem none too easy. Please tell me if it has.

The corollary of this is that for me, or any other individual, it may be safer in general to cycle on road, or on non-road, or both may be equally safe - we simply do not know.

One thing we do know however, is that the doubly inaccurate perception amongst the vast majority of the less-committed and novice cycling community that non-road infrastructure is safer than road tends to keep these people off the roads and perpetuates the state that road-using cyclists are safer than non-road-users. A curious vicious cycle!

I don't know what evidence you have for these profiles?

I think we need to look behind the statistics for the reasons why on-road appears safer than off-road. If we take motorways and A-roads as a comparison for motorised traffic, then motorways are safer, despite having higher than average speeds and probably greater traffic flows. One of the reasons they are safer is because many of the hazardous design features of other roads have been removed. For example, traffic is one-way only, no right turns, better sight lines etc. There is less room for operator error.

Looking at cycle routes a major problem seems to be in the design of junctions with vehicle roads which encourages operator error. If every cyclist using these cycle routes were to stop at junctions then presumably a lot of the accidents wouldn't happen. But many cyclists will say that is a pain and that they should be able to have a stop-free ride or that they should have priority at these junctions. At the same time we are often calling for motorists to change their behaviour, but seem reluctant to change our own.

We're never going to persuade the reluctant cyclists that roads are relatively safe, (and could be made safer by reducing traffic volumes among other things), yet we're stuck with off-road cycle routes which have their own peculiar hazards and which many cyclists appear unwilling to modify their cycling behaviour to cope with. Impasse!

Auchmill wrote:We're never going to persuade the reluctant cyclists that roads are relatively safe, (and could be made safer by reducing traffic volumes among other things),

That's a wild generalisation. Some people may never be persuaded. But others will, as we see when the price of petrol rises - some people do start cycling.
One big problem is that these "newbie" cyclists often cycle rather dangerously. It's not a matter of assertive cycling rather than defensive cycling, but perceptive cycling. The perceptive cyclist realises the dangers of crossing traffic streams and thus tends to avoid doing it. When a perceptive cyclist must cross a traffic stream they position themselves where they can be seen - i.e they take the path used by many motorists.

George Riches wrote:

Auchmill wrote:We're never going to persuade the reluctant cyclists that roads are relatively safe, (and could be made safer by reducing traffic volumes among other things),

That's a wild generalisation.

Yes, it is, but more people taking up cycling when the price of petrol goes up doesn't mean they think roads are safe. But it's kids we want to get cycling as well as they are the future.

Your description of the Perceptive cyclist sound like my Defensive cyclist. It's maybe just a case of semantics. It's an attitude and trying to stay clear of dangerous situations before they develop such as you describe at junctions.

The trouble with words is that the meaning of any particular one seems to vary from person to person.

"Defensive" to me implies an over cautiousness. Or an acceptance of an inferior status. Which can be dangerous as well as time consuming. Whether you are riding between pedestrians or cars, the less the speed difference between you and the others the safer things are. So riding fast and not hesitating often has a safety advantage when dealing with cars.

Hence the advantage at roundabouts of cyclists going at much the same speed as the cars.

Defensive implies being prepared for the unforseen. Cyclists negotiate other vehicles for whom an error may mean a visit to the car body repair shop. No such barrier surrounds a rider.
Being right in a hospital bed is small compensation. An element of doubt is the cyclists best friend.