Driver on trial in private prosecution

[Gattopardo]

It seems that failing to be aware of what's in front of you while you're driving is an acceptable mistake, not careless, and that no explanation for that failure is necessary.

It's not rocket science - if you fail to see something or someone directly in front of you, in broad daylight, there are only a limited number of possibilities:

a) you were unsighted (by low sun, glare, reflection, etc) - in other words you were driving too fast for the conditions

b) your eyesight is defective - in which case you shouldn't be driving at all

c) you were looking somewhere other than where you were going - at your passenger/satnav/mobile, etc.

Hard to argue that any of those are acceptable.  Have I missed anything ?

falling from the sky 

Teleport?

[Gattopardo]

From a quick perusal of what I could find she didn't even present an excuse as to why she didn't see him. She just didn't see him. It seems to have got worse. At least a couple of years back you needed a flimsy excuse (the sun was in my eyes, suddenly unaccountable nerve spasm, etc.) Now drivers don't even have to bother. Simply not noticing the person right in front is good enough. Since we hold drivers to no standard, demand no duty of care, that's not even considered careless.

But that's how it's going to go. A jury of drivers will see themselves in the dock. They'll vote accordingly.

Oi don't drag drivers in to this.  Car owners/occupiers.

[Sergeant Pluck]

I am glad to see that Mr. Mason’s death is continuing to get some attention in the media, rather than disappearing off the radar completely.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-37307463

I am not sure that I agree that the way forward is to further increase the discrepancy between causing death by using a vehicle incorrectly vs causing death by any other means. I don’t think jurors fail to convict drivers because they are reluctant to see people go to jail FFS. They fail to convict (in those cases in which they really should) due to inadequate investigation and evidence gathering, their own preconceptions of cyclists and motorists, and so forth.

[Pingu]

They also don't find drivers guilty because of the bizarre wording of the laws 

[simonp]

My view is that the drop in road policing numbers is a big factor in the way things are going.

[Cudzoziemiec]

I think we need to move to a view that if there is some sort of injury or damage, anything from death to a bump or scrape, then something has gone wrong and someone (or possibly some mechanical failure) is responsible. What we have at the moment seems to be a situation where no one at all is responsible.

[orienteer]

Which is why we need presumed liability in the UK.

[alexb]

It seems that the wording around driving offences could so easily be redirected in a way that all drivers could understand.
For example, careless driving could be phrased as anything that would get you a "fail" on your driving test. We all understand that. Speeding, hitting something, becoming distracted, etc... all a fail, all careless driving.

Dangerous driving - anything that gets the instructor to fail you on the spot and stop the test immediately?

As it is the law makes it very difficult to prove that the driver did anything wrong, despite the evidence to the contrary, including sadly, dead bodies.

[matthew]

No I think it is worded quite nicely, it is just the definition of the standard expected of a competent driver that is poorly defined / understood.

Personally I expect full compliance with the Highway code guidance on how to drive. Breech the HWC and in my view you are driving carelessly. Show scant regard to multiple stipulations in the HWC and you are far below the expected standard and driving dangerously.

[Veloman]

No I think it is worded quite nicely, it is just the definition of the standard expected of a competent driver. Personally I expect full compliance with the Highway code guidance on how to drive. Breech the HWC and in my view you are driving carelessly. Show scant regard to multiple stipulations in the HWC and you are far below the expected standard and driving dangerously.

Full compliance with HWC? Does that include parts that are legal requirement in addition to recommendations?

Don't forget recommendations for cyclists that are not a legal requirement and may be at considerable odds to what some folk believe is appropriate. Does breaching the guidance regarding helmets mean you are cycling carelessly? Or does cycling at night without helmet and high viz clothing/reflective belt show scant regard and mean you are below the expected standard and cycling dangerously?

[alexb]

No I think it is worded quite nicely, it is just the definition of the standard expected of a competent driver. Personally I expect full compliance with the Highway code guidance on how to drive. Breech the HWC and in my view you are driving carelessly. Show scant regard to multiple stipulations in the HWC and you are far below the expected standard and driving dangerously.

Full compliance with HWC? Does that include parts that are legal requirement in addition to recommendations?

Don't forget recommendations for cyclists that are not a legal requirement and may be at considerable odds to what some folk believe is appropriate. Does breaching the guidance regarding helmets mean you are cycling carelessly? Or does cycling at night without helmet and high viz clothing/reflective belt show scant regard and mean you are below the expected standard and cycling dangerously?

But this is the cyclist' behaviour and it is the driver who is in the dock, so it is their behaviour that has to come under scrutiny first and foremost. If a driver is driving to a standard that would meet all of the HWC/driving test parameters, then the other party has to deviate from those parameters in order for the two to come into conflict.

So a lit cyclist, riding straight ahead cannot be the responsible party in such a situation.

We've seen this before with the lorry driver who killed Eilidh Cairns. That driver should have been wearing glasses and later went on to kill a pedestrian when he was, once again, not wearing glasses.

[Jaded]

Obviously it has to be the 'must' not the 'should'.

Must is law should is not.

[Gattopardo]

No I think it is worded quite nicely, it is just the definition of the standard expected of a competent driver that is poorly defined / understood.

Personally I expect full compliance with the Highway code guidance on how to drive. Breech the HWC and in my view you are driving carelessly. Show scant regard to multiple stipulations in the HWC and you are far below the expected standard and driving dangerously.

The person was in the middle of the lane and she didn't see him.

DID NOT SEE HIM!  Was she blind?

[Gattopardo]

No I think it is worded quite nicely, it is just the definition of the standard expected of a competent driver. Personally I expect full compliance with the Highway code guidance on how to drive. Breech the HWC and in my view you are driving carelessly. Show scant regard to multiple stipulations in the HWC and you are far below the expected standard and driving dangerously.

Full compliance with HWC? Does that include parts that are legal requirement in addition to recommendations?

Don't forget recommendations for cyclists that are not a legal requirement and may be at considerable odds to what some folk believe is appropriate. Does breaching the guidance regarding helmets mean you are cycling carelessly? Or does cycling at night without helmet and high viz clothing/reflective belt show scant regard and mean you are below the expected standard and cycling dangerously?

But this is the cyclist' behaviour and it is the driver who is in the dock, so it is their behaviour that has to come under scrutiny first and foremost. If a driver is driving to a standard that would meet all of the HWC/driving test parameters, then the other party has to deviate from those parameters in order for the two to come into conflict.

So a lit cyclist, riding straight ahead cannot be the responsible party in such a situation.

We've seen this before with the lorry driver who killed Eilidh Cairns. That driver should have been wearing glasses and later went on to kill a pedestrian when he was, once again, not wearing glasses.

He got another job, and killed again.  What do you have to do to lose the privileged to drive?

[Cudzoziemiec]

He got another job, and killed again.  What do you have to do to lose the privileged to drive?

Perhaps we won't manage that while it's thought of as a norm rather than a privilege.

[Gattopardo]

He got another job, and killed again.  What do you have to do to lose the privileged to drive?

Perhaps we won't manage that while it's thought of as a norm rather than a privilege.

Maybe I'm old but I was told it is a privilege as I have to pass a very basic competency test.

This really annoys me, how can I didn't see him be a valid excuse?

[Philip Benstead]

Cyclist Defence Fund – Brings Private Prosecution
Postby dodbinmule » 10 Apr 2017, 7:37pm

Cyclist Defence Fund – Brings Private Prosecution

The death of any individual either pedestrian or cyclist as the result of a person using motor vehicle not showing due care and attention or executing irresponsible behaviour is to condemn and that measure need to be put in place in the form of education, enforcement or engineering solutions to reduce and if possible eliminate such occurrences.

Even though there is a degree of responsibility on all road users to use due care and attention IMHO the balance is uneven in this case lopsided.

This private prosecution was limited in it effect in terms punishing the driver of the vehicle, it did highlight this lack of balance, but may have given the impression to some drivers that can get away with bad driving.

What is needed?

Many people are put off from cycling by traffic and reports of poor driving.

We need to campaign for presumed liability, but CYCLING UK appear to give up on this?
In addition, CUK should campaign for local authorities to conform to the 1988 Road Traffic Act, Section 39,

ALL the local authorities have legal duty to provide road safety measures. Unfortunately, this the theory but with little practices.

Road Traffic Act
The 1988 Road Traffic Act, Section 39, puts a "statutory duty" on the local authority to undertake studies into road traffic collisions, and to take steps both to reduce and prevent them.
The pertinent wording from the Act is:
39.2 Each local authority must prepare and carry out a programme of measures designed to promote road safety and may make contributions towards the cost of measures for promoting road safety taken by other authorities or bodies.
39.3 Each local authority -
•   Must carry out studies into accidents arising out of the use of vehicles on roads or parts of roads, other than trunk roads, within their area
•   Must, in the light of those studies, take such measures as appear to the authority to be appropriate to prevent such accidents, including the dissemination of information and advice relating to the use of roads, the giving of practical training to road users or any class or description of road users, the construction, improvement, maintenance or repair of roads for which they are the highway authority and other measures taken in the exercise of their powers for controlling, protecting or assisting the movement of traffic on roads

http://www.roadsafetyevaluation.com/hel ... trafficact
http://www.roadshare.co.uk/why-presumed-liability
http://www.cyclealert.com/presumed-liability-the-facts/
https://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/wiki ... -play-nice
https://www.yellowjersey.co.uk/what-is- ... liability/
http://www.heraldscotland.com/opinion/1 ... liability/
http://www.slatergordon.co.uk/media-cen ... vs-europe/
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/sco ... ampaigners
https://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/scotsnet/2 ... r-cyclists
http://www.sustrans.org.uk/blog/driver- ... r-presumed
https://www.change.org/p/pass-a-member- ... edestrians
http://lcc.org.uk/pages/presumed-liability

[Gattopardo]

Cabbie, in London, on a handsfree phone call killed a motorcyclist.  The killer didn't see the motorcyclist so he was going to fast.  The motorcyclist was on a cocaine downer so all fine to be killed.

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/ballet-star-jonathan-ollivier-died-in-motorbike-crash-while-on-cocaine-comedown-a3512676.html?google_editors_picks=true

[Steph]

No I think it is worded quite nicely, it is just the definition of the standard expected of a competent driver that is poorly defined / understood.

Personally I expect full compliance with the Highway code guidance on how to drive. Breech the HWC and in my view you are driving carelessly. Show scant regard to multiple stipulations in the HWC and you are far below the expected standard and driving dangerously.

The person was in the middle of the lane and she didn't see him.

DID NOT SEE HIM!  Was she blind?

Many years ago, MAG (motorcycle action group) suggested a process for SMIDSY.
1. Test driver's eyesight. Inadequate? Prosecute and ban as unfit to drive.
2. Check state of windows. Dirty? Check whether washers work. If not, prosecutre and ban, and crush vehicle. If they do, prosecute and ban.
3. Windows clean? Eyesight OK? Prosecute and ban.

[Steph]

Many years ago, MAG (motorcycle action group) suggested a process for SMIDSY.
1. Test driver's eyesight. Inadequate? Prosecute and ban as unfit to drive.
2. Check state of windows. Dirty? Check whether washers work. If not, prosecutre and ban, and crush vehicle. If they do, prosecute and ban.
3. Windows clean? Eyesight OK? Prosecute and ban.