Pedestrian killed by cyclist

[mattc]

When I did a turn serving on a jury, it was re-emphasised to us time and time again by the judge: we may only convict the defendant if it has been proved beyond a shadow of doubt that he/she was guilty.  We as a jury heeded that warning.

I think there is plenty of room for doubt in this case.  The cyclist should appeal.

...except he hasn't been found guilty of anything yet (I think).

[Wendy]

...except he hasn't been found guilty of anything yet (I think).

DKUATB!

[Dave]

When I did a turn serving on a jury, it was re-emphasised to us time and time again by the judge: we may only convict the defendant if it has been proved beyond a shadow of doubt that he/she was guilty.  We as a jury heeded that warning.

I think there is plenty of room for doubt in this case.  The cyclist should appeal.

...except he hasn't been found guilty of anything yet (I think).

From the Beeb article in Roger's post:

"Howard, 36, of Buckingham, was fined £2,200 on Tuesday after being convicted of dangerous cycling in the town."

[Kathy]

When I did a turn serving on a jury, it was re-emphasised to us time and time again by the judge: we may only convict the defendant if it has been proved beyond a shadow of doubt that he/she was guilty.  We as a jury heeded that warning.

Lucky you. The time I did jury service, the judge didn't bother telling us anything of the sort, which rather suprised me. It also meant the more than one member of the jury was of the "He must of [sic] done it, otherwise they wouldn't of arrested him."

Note this is still 2.2 times the fine received by the van driver who killed Andrew Rawlings on the Dun Run.  He was driving on the wrong side of the road, tried to leave the scene and according to those who dragged him from the cab, had been drinking (although he was within the legal limit).

This comparison has crossed my mind too, and left me rather upset.

I do not know the full details of this case; I would just like to see some consistency in the law.

[Regulator]

Just as an aside, 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' or 'beyond a reasonable doubt' should no longer be used.  The correct phraseology is now 'so that you are sure'...

I will be interested to see if this goes to appeal and in some ways I hope that it does.  I think there are some important issues that need to be addressed, in particular about cyclists and speed.

One thing that surprised me about this case (though on reflection I shouldn't be surprised) is that the police, CPS and court seemed to find it difficult to believe that a cyclist can do 20+mph.  I routinely do so such speeds on my commute, where the road is relatively clear (e.g. along the Mall).  If this judgement stands, will it be used to condemn me? Yes, I know it's not precedent setting but that won't sop people from trying to use it.

Also, as a matter of inteest, I wonder whether there were any cyclists on the jury - or whether it was all drivers?

[Pete]

Just as an aside, 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' or 'beyond a reasonable doubt' should no longer be used.  The correct phraseology is now 'so that you are sure'...

My jury service was 16 years ago.  Evidently things have changed since.

Also, as a matter of inteest, I wonder whether there were any cyclists on the jury - or whether it was all drivers?

Magistrates court.  No jury.  You might wish to ponder, were any of the Magistrates/District Judge, cyclists?

[Dave]

Just as an aside, 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' or 'beyond a reasonable doubt' should no longer be used.  The correct phraseology is now 'so that you are sure'...

My jury service was 16 years ago.  Evidently things have changed since.

Also, as a matter of inteest, I wonder whether there were any cyclists on the jury - or whether it was all drivers?

Magistrates court.  No jury.  You might wish to ponder, were any of the Magistrates/District Judge, cyclists?

Or parents of teenage daughters?

[Regulator]

Just as an aside, 'beyond a shadow of a doubt' or 'beyond a reasonable doubt' should no longer be used.  The correct phraseology is now 'so that you are sure'...

My jury service was 16 years ago.  Evidently things have changed since.

Also, as a matter of inteest, I wonder whether there were any cyclists on the jury - or whether it was all drivers?

Magistrates court.  No jury.  You might wish to ponder, were any of the Magistrates/District Judge, cyclists?

My apoligies - one report says Magistrates Court, one says Crown Court.  If it was Magistrates Court then I'm willing to place money it was heard before a District Judge rather than a bench.

[Gattopardo]

So guilty and a fine of £2200.  Nothing else, just a fine.

No having to take a cycle refresher course, nothing else.  Wonder if that includes costs?

[Gattopardo]

BBC NEWS | England | Beds/Bucks/Herts | Death cyclist fine angers family

Note this is still 2.2 times the fine received by the van driver who killed Andrew Rawlings on the Dun Run.  He was driving on the wrong side of the road, tried to leave the scene and according to those who dragged him from the cab, had been drinking (although he was within the legal limit).

Van drivers have impunity, even when caught after leaving the scene of an accident, with lots of witnesses, causing injury, no insurance and CPS didn't prosecute.

[rafletcher]

Well I've just skimmed the foregoing posts - there seems an awful lot of defensiveness towards the cyclist. Seems to me he was pissed off at a group of kids walking in the road in his way and decided not to bother slowing/swerving. The resulting collision caused a death. He was fines the maximum for the offence of dangerous cycling. I think because of the element of intent - he's said to have shouted "get out of the way (because) I'm not stopping.

BBC NEWS | England | Beds/Bucks/Herts | Death cyclist fine angers family

[PhilO]

Well I've just skimmed the foregoing posts - there seems an awful lot of defensiveness towards the cyclist. Seems to me he was pissed off at a group of kids walking in the road in his way and decided not to bother slowing/swerving. The resulting collision caused a death. He was fines the maximum for the offence of dangerous cycling. I think because of the element of intent - he's said to have shouted "get out of the way (because) I'm not stopping.

BBC NEWS | England | Beds/Bucks/Herts | Death cyclist fine angers family

Yes, we got all that. What you've missed by skimming the thread is that most of it was posted before the court had reached its conclusion.  The 'defensive' comments you refer to are mostly pointing out that all the statements made in the papers had, at that point, the status of allegation, not fact, and so we shouldn't jump to conclusions based on inflamatory reporting.

Now that the court has ruled against him, I for one am quite happy to see him hung out to dry.

Presumed innocent until proven guilty, remember. He hadn't been proven guilty. Now he has.

[ian]

Well I've just skimmed the foregoing posts - there seems an awful lot of defensiveness towards the cyclist. Seems to me he was pissed off at a group of kids walking in the road in his way and decided not to bother slowing/swerving. The resulting collision caused a death. He was fines the maximum for the offence of dangerous cycling. I think because of the element of intent - he's said to have shouted "get out of the way (because) I'm not stopping.

BBC NEWS | England | Beds/Bucks/Herts | Death cyclist fine angers family

The story is a good example of how the world isn't black and white. There's a cyclist. And there are a group of drunk teenagers. Ultimately, I think it came down to the fact that regardless of what the teens were doing, the cyclist had opportunity to take avoiding action, and should have done. He didn't for whatever reasons and was consequently found guilty. It sounds reasonable as does the punishment, what he did wasn't criminal but it was negligent.

[pcolbeck]

If he hadn't been on the pavement it would have all been moot. One should have a reasonable expectation of not been mowed down on the pavement whether drunk or sober.

[Gattopardo]

Well I've just skimmed the foregoing posts - there seems an awful lot of defensiveness towards the cyclist. Seems to me he was pissed off at a group of kids walking in the road in his way and decided not to bother slowing/swerving. The resulting collision caused a death. He was fines the maximum for the offence of dangerous cycling. I think because of the element of intent - he's said to have shouted "get out of the way (because) I'm not stopping.

BBC NEWS | England | Beds/Bucks/Herts | Death cyclist fine angers family

The story is a good example of how the world isn't black and white. There's a cyclist. And there are a group of drunk teenagers. Ultimately, I think it came down to the fact that regardless of what the teens were doing, the cyclist had opportunity to take avoiding action, and should have done. He didn't for whatever reasons and was consequently found guilty. It sounds reasonable as does the punishment, what he did wasn't criminal but it was negligent.

Man on cycle not a cylist IMO.  He sounded like he'd be an idiot what ever mode of transport he used.

[Gattopardo]

If he hadn't been on the pavement it would have all been moot. One should have a reasonable expectation of not been mowed down on the pavement whether drunk or sober.

Was that proved or just a could have been.

[blackpuddinonnabike]

If he hadn't been on the pavement it would have all been moot. One should have a reasonable expectation of not been mowed down on the pavement whether drunk or sober.

But that's one of the issues. It STILL isn't clear if he was on the pavement or not.

I think Ian has got it spot on.

The story is a good example of how the world isn't black and white. There's a cyclist. And there are a group of drunk teenagers. Ultimately, I think it came down to the fact that regardless of what the teens were doing, the cyclist had opportunity to take avoiding action, and should have done. He didn't for whatever reasons and was consequently found guilty. It sounds reasonable as does the punishment, what he did wasn't criminal but it was negligent.

[Regulator]

If he hadn't been on the pavement it would have all been moot. One should have a reasonable expectation of not been mowed down on the pavement whether drunk or sober.

He wasn't on the pavement.  The judgement makes it clear he was on the road and that the teenagers were in the road.  The bit about him 'mowing her down on the pavement' was pure press speculation.

[mattc]

...except he hasn't been found guilty of anything yet (I think).

DKUATB!

Sorry! (And could you stick to more common abbreviations for us dunces?)

[pcolbeck]

If he hadn't been on the pavement it would have all been moot. One should have a reasonable expectation of not been mowed down on the pavement whether drunk or sober.

He wasn't on the pavement.  The judgement makes it clear he was on the road and that the teenagers were in the road.  The bit about him 'mowing her down on the pavement' was pure press speculation.

That's different then. I had missed that.

[Greenbank]

...except he hasn't been found guilty of anything yet (I think).

DKUATB!

Sorry! (And could you stick to more common abbreviations for us dunces?)

JFGI.

[Chris N]

JFGI.

WSWFHT?

[andygates]

Dipping in late on this: Killing people by negligence should attract a manslaughter charge no matter what vehicle (or none) is involved.  This fine is as offensive as the paltry fines given out to motorists who kill, no more, no less.   

[ian]

Dipping in late on this: Killing people by negligence should attract a manslaughter charge no matter what vehicle (or none) is involved.  This fine is as offensive as the paltry fines given out to motorists who kill, no more, no less.   

No, it shouldn't. The girl's death was accidental.

[blackpuddinonnabike]

Dipping in late on this: Killing people by negligence should attract a manslaughter charge no matter what vehicle (or none) is involved.  This fine is as offensive as the paltry fines given out to motorists who kill, no more, no less.   

No, it shouldn't. The girl's death was accidental.

Manslaughter doesn't have to involve intent - a reckless disregard is sufficient. Again, depends on the EXACT facts.