I still think its easy to point the finger and blame the judicial system. Its very emotive to select cases where the punishment definitely doesn't fit the crime. However, many judges are just as infuriated by the limited legal framework they sometimes have to work within.
Maybe I'm using the wrong terms. Judicial system, legislative system... whichever term represents the sum of statute, case, judge and jury. There are different flaws in different parts but the piece as a whole certainly falls way short of adequately aiding in road safety.
Most people would assume if you run over and kill a cyclist you could expect a custodial sentence. The judicial system has limited resources ... If Petre Beiu's case was in court along with a random city center stabbing and you as the judge can only give one custodial sentence, which one do you give it to?
I don't personally believe that custodial sentences are generally appropriate for cases which are attributable to incompetence rather than malice, so I don't see the issue here. You've imagined a piece of the argument which I haven't made.
I don't mean to sound like, 'its shit, so you just have to put up with it'.
It does very much come across as that
I agree there are laws there which should protect vulnerable road users but the practicalities of implementing them nationally 24/7 are impossible. Which leaves us with the situation of taking every precaution you can to look after yourself.
You've missed one of my main points completely. Time and time again we see people mown down and the evidence is clear but they either aren't brought to court (for example Tim Sanders' killer was not prosecuted because of a malicious witness, something that would be addressed by presumed liability; William Honour was hit by three - three! - cars, with the first driver stating that he didn't see him until he heard the bang and looke din his mirror, on a clear stretch of straight road, and none were prosecuted because the coroner ruled it was accidental death) or they appear in court and are acquitted or are given derisory sentences.
This part, which is the main thing I was responding to last week, is nothing to do with practicalities. We're talking about cases where the facts are known, the investigation is done, the killers are in court, the whole due process is complete and the practicalities are done and dusted - and still they walk out with no punitive measures, little or no suspension from the roads, little or no requirement to undergo any additional training.
The Crown spends a whole heap of time and money dealing with these cases and the net value in terms of improving road safety is, at best, absolutely zero. It would be far cheaper to simply turn up at a crash, give the driver a cup of tea and say 'you must be feeling awful for killing someone, go home and put your feet up', kick the bicycle into the verge and forget the whole thing.