Dangerous vs. Careless

Martin Porter, who blogs at The Cycling Silk, has recently mentioned the case of Karl Austin, the time-trialling cyclist who was killed on a dual carriageway in Derbyshire in June last year when he was struck from behind by an HGV driven by Michael Bray.

Mr Austin is, unfortunately, just the latest in a long line of time-trailling or sporting cyclists who have been killed after they were driven into on dual carriageways; Anthony Maynard, Rob Jefferies, Tomas Barrett, Pat Kenny, Gareth Rhys-Evans and William Honour the ones that immediately spring to mind, although there are undoubtedly more.

In all of these cases, the drivers had – or should have had – ample opportunity to see the human beings travelling along the road in front of them, yet somehow managed to take no avoiding action whatsoever. Several of these drivers – those who killed Maynard, Jefferies and Barrett – claimed to have been blinded by the sun. The unnamed driver who killed Maynard escaped any prosecution whatsoever, as did the three who collectively killed William Honour.

This issue of ‘dazzling’ has been discussed at length in this excellent previous post by Martin, so I won’t revisit it much here (the post is particularly worth a read because it notes how one case – that of a young woman who killed a child in a car park while learning to drive – far outstrips the others in the severity of sentencing because the woman was uninsured). Suffice to say I don’t think, like Martin, it is much of an excuse, especially given that the amount of time the individuals had to adjust their driving was ample, and that the sun didn’t seem to affect the ability of the countless other drivers who were on these roads at precisely the same time to observe and move around the cyclists who were later killed. Unfortunately it is seemingly still being accepted as mitigation.

As Martin remarks, this excuse again resurfaced in the Karl Austin case; there was some vague talk of the sun ‘troubling’ Michael Bray in the minutes before he killed Karl Austin -

Bray, 61, told police he had not seen Mr Austin. He said he was unsure why this was the case but it could have been because they were driving into the sun. Alex Wolfson, prosecuting said Mr Austin was wearing brightly-coloured clothes and had a bright, pulsating light on the rear of his bike. “Without explanation, he went straight into Karl Austin,” said Mr Wolfson. He said another motorist told police the sun had been “an annoyance” but the visibility was good.

Also

Part of [Bray's] defence was that the sun was bright and posing a problem to him; he had lowered his sun visor and was ‘thinking of pulling in and putting on his sun glasses’. Yet a police questionnaire sent to 300 drivers using that road on that evening found that most had no real problem with the sun.”

To be clear, driving towards the sun is not as easy as driving away from it, but it should not be any impediment to spotting ‘obstacles’, human or otherwise, in the road in front of you.

The police themselves state that Bray had 45 seconds to spot Austin ahead of him, presumably taking into account the speed of Austin (no doubt well over 20 mph) relative to the speed of Bray, 56 mph. This is an incredible period of time to be effectively driving blind, which is what this amounts to; it is even more incredible when you consider  that Austin had a 75 lumen Exposure Flare attached to his bicycle, a particularly bright rear light that I believe far outstrips the brightness of car tail lights. Frankly I have no idea what Mr Bray was doing over that period; it is, to me at least, incomprehensible that he could fail spot Austin, and take no avoiding action whatsoever.

Now my personal opinion is that the speed differentials involved when cycling along dual carriageways with national speed limits are too great for safety, particularly of the subjective kind, and that cyclists should, in an ideal world, have the excellent dedicated provision alongside these kinds of roads that you can see in the Netherlands. Be that as it may, however, I do not believe that ‘accidents’ involving cyclists who currently use dual carriageways (as I myself occasionally do when I have to) are somehow inevitable. Drivers should expect to see cyclists on these roads, and should drive in a manner that will enable them to take sensible action around them. That is; sticking to speed limits; keeping a safe distance from the car in front; spotting cyclists early enough to enable action to be taken smoothly and sensibly (namely merging into the outside lane sufficiently in advance).

All of this is, or should be, standard practice. Unfortunately it is not, given the extraordinary rate at which the few cyclists who do use these roads are being killed or seriously injured. Perhaps it is a function of scarcity – drivers do not ‘expect’ to see cyclists on these roads, precisely because they are so uncommon. (This is not surprisingly, given how unpleasant these roads can be, even for experienced cyclists.) But even if you do not expect to encounter something (setting aside how arguments about competent drivers should expect to encounter cyclists, however scarce they may be), part of being a competent driver should surely include an ability to react safely to the unexpected, something all these drivers who killed manifestly failed to do.

This behaviour is treated as simply careless, both in common everyday parlance, and also judicially. The drivers who were charged – with the notable exception of Katie Hart – were convicted of causing death by careless driving. Martin Porter is quite right to question why, if Katie Hart’s failure to see a cyclist over a considerable period of distance and time, and her failure to take evasive action, should be seen as dangerous, Michael Bray’s similar failure to see Karl Austin should be treated as merely careless – especially given that Bray was driving a vehicle that posed a substantially greater danger, relative to Hart’s small car.

It is noteworthy that Level 3 – the lowest –of the sentencing guidelines [pdf] for causing death by dangerous driving covers

Driving that created a significant risk of danger

I think there is something seriously wrong when the behaviour a man who piloted a 26 tonne vehicle along a road for a nearly a minute, apparently completely oblivious to any human beings who might be the road ahead of him, is not considered to fall into this category, and is instead treated as ‘careless’.

But maybe that’s just me.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Car dependence, Dangerous driving, Driving ban, Infrastructure, Road safety, Subjective safety, The judiciary. Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Dangerous vs. Careless

  1. Don says:

    Drivers ‘should’ do many things more carefully, but they don’t and the law shows us it doesn’t really care. I ‘retired’ from cycling on busy ‘A’ roads years ago and frankly, I think cycling on a dual carriageway is insane. I disagree that casualties on these roads are not inevitable. Maybe not inevitable every time; but if you mix two types of user with such huge differentials in mass and speed, then inevitably someone will be killed sooner or later, IMHO.

    • To an extent, I think casualties are inevitable on any kind of road or street – people will always make mistakes. I suppose the point I was trying to make is that the ‘inevitability’ of a large number of the casualties on dual carriageways is overstated; the casualties I refer to could and should have been avoided if the drivers had been paying attention and driving sensibly.

      But I do agree with you; my post does make the point that the differentials in speeds on these kinds of roads are not a good recipe for safety, regardless of how much more attentive drivers could be. The obvious answer would be the provision of high-quality dedicated cycle infrastructure alongside any road that has motor traffic travelling at a high speed on it and/or in large volumes, something this country’s transport planners have singularly failed to provide.

      • davidhembrow says:

        Sustainable safety works precisely by reducing how often mistakes like these can have fatal consequences. So far as cyclists are concerned, this means removing cyclists from situations where there are such differentials in speed and mass.

        I think all three of us are in agreement that this is a good thing.

  2. fonant says:

    I think the main problem between “careless” and “dangerous” sentences is that the state usually prosecutes the case. The state, in the form of the CPS, prefers to aim for a charge that’s more likely to be provable than a charge that’s probably more relevant but much harder to prove.

    So the CPS prefers to see people who have killed on the roads charged and found guilty of “careless driving” rather than charged and found not guilty of “dangerous driving”. I think.

    Of course the separation into two categories, and the special treatment for road deaths, is the problem. The charge should simply be “manslaughter”, the same charge that would be used if the killer had been using anything other than a motor vehicle when they killed. I suspect that motoring law was written in the days when only the rich (also generally the law-makers) were able to afford to drive motor vehicles.

  3. It is has been brought up many times recently by cyclists, that if you want to murder someone in the UK, just run them over. Admit the offence, apologise profusely, and blame the weather.

    Damning and true.

  4. Luke says:

    Out of interest, have a look at the Metro for 18 April. A gas fitter did a bad job on boiler, leading to the death by carbon monoxide poisoning of a young woman. The judge apparently said “There is no prospect at all of you committing further offences.” Sentence – 3 years. Compare and contrast.

    http://www.metro.co.uk/news/896455-gas-fitter-jailed-after-fumes-killed-graduate-in-shower

  5. A lot of work needs to be done regarding mixing the vast numbers of cycling commuters now hitting our roads. The problems will only increase and with the natural response being to blame the vehicles. With the speeds travelled on dual carriage ways it is inevitable that cyclists will get hit at some point, Personal thery should not be allowed, the variance is speeds are too drastic and add to the risks for all as drivers have to look to avoid them.

    I commute 36 miles a day and I would not dream of risking my life by cycling on a dual carriageway. I think any one who does is barmy and whilst not exactly asking to be hit is definately increasing their risks quite significantly? it not brave is daft

    I think we need to consider this in legal terms so that we can look to better either provide safe havens for cyclists on these roads or ban us from them. I am also a bit advocate of proficiency training for cyclists and mandatory insurance in case of accidents. Us commuttes whilst arguing for greater protection need to accept greater regulation as part of the bargain

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s