“I can’t help it if a cyclist <snip> falls over as I’m approaching them"

[henshaw11]

..whilst overtaking on a corner, at 40-50mph

http://road.cc/content/news/95681-pharmaceutical-consultant-who-killed-cyclist-while-driving-wrong-side-road

[mcshroom]

It's becomming more and more clear that if you want to murder someone and get away with it in this country, do it in a car.

Why this country is so subservient to deadly metal cages and makes so many allowances for them they wouldn't anywhere else in life both bemuses and depresses me.

[MartinC]

Yes, this is a chilling verdict.  The jury's decided that cyclists are obliged to take whatever evasive action is necessary in the circumstances irrespective of whether it's possible or not. 

I'd be interested to see the Judge's summing up before the jury retired, specifically any reference to the the established principle of the "cyclist being entitled to a wobble".

[mcshroom]

Unfortunately one of the road.cc commentors has sent an email of complaint to the Attourney General and they say that as she has been aquitted then there is nothing they can do

[TimC]

Unfortunately one of the road.cc commentors has sent an email of complaint to the Attourney General and they say that as she has been aquitted then there is nothing they can do

AIUI, they can't review it for being 'unduly lenient' because she was acquitted. I presume, however, the prosecution could appeal the verdict?

[matthew]

Unfortunately one of the road.cc commentors has sent an email of complaint to the Attourney General and they say that as she has been aquitted then there is nothing they can do

AIUI, they can't review it for being 'unduly lenient' because she was acquitted. I presume, however, the prosecution could appeal the verdict?

Not really, that is what the double jeopardy law is about. Double jeopardy was only relaxed in major criminal cases where substantive new evidence is available.
Wanting to beat a jury round the ears for a perverse verdict and therefore asking for a retrial with a new jury just because you don't like the verdict is heading to percecution of the suspect.

However I would like to see a critical review by those that know of the way the judge / magistrate handled the trial to see if that has steered the Jury to the aquital. If so then the judge / Magistrate should be taken outside for a serious talking to, if not then the CPS prosecutor should be taken outside and read the riot act for loosing the clearest case he could expect.

[hellymedic]

I'm sure nothing can be done about this verdict.

It's a *very* long time since I learnt to drive. I hardly drove after I passed my test but I'm sure I read somewhere (?Roadcraft  ?Highway Code) that your driving manoeuvres should not 'hinder or baulk' other road users.

Seems that in this case, the cyclist *was* (predictably) baulked by this overtaking manoeuvre, which the driver could have helped (or prevented by not going fast round a blind bend on the wrong side). It is unfortunate this was swallowed whole by judge and jury.

[Ham]

I too want to see the transcript when it becomes available. Most of our disgust over court outcomes is often centred around our unhappiness with the choice of crime for prosecution or the range of appropriate sentences in the law; this seems entirely perverse.

She was charged with causing death by careless driving, overtaking on a bend without seeing oncoming traffic does seem to be careless, I would have thought that was the decision the jury had to make. The "causing death by" just follows, surely?

[hellymedic]

Yebbut she didn't apparently collide directly with the cyclist. Cyclist fell off because of her driving which 'she couldn't help'.

[TimC]

I have written to my MP asking him to investigate why the legal system is increasingly regarding cyclists as no better than roadkill, and how this squares with the government's stated intention to increase cycling as a share of the national transport matrix.

[Domestique]

Didn't Cameron make some kind of statement about it not being right that every time you get on your bike you shouldn't feel you are taking your life in your hands?
And iirc he was going to do something about it

[David Martin]

Yebbut she didn't apparently collide directly with the cyclist. Cyclist fell off because of her driving which 'she couldn't help'.

I thought she did collide with the cyclist. The car appears on the wrong side of the road, the lady touched wheels and fell into the path of the car which then hit her. The car didn't stop. I may be wrong about the last bits.

..d

[Ham]

I read it as the following from the facts in the text (my comments in parentheses):

Driver:

-> I decide to overtake two cyclists on a bend on the other side of the road (we don't know which direction the bend is)
-> I think it is safe because it is clear
-> At some point I see two cyclists in a line. I admit I should have seen them sooner, I don't know why I didn't
-> I decide that there's enough room to drive past at around 50mph (squeezing them into the side of the road coz they're bikes and don't take up any room and fuck 'em anyway)
-> One falls in front of me and I kill them (she does stop)

Cyclists
-> Lead cyclist and g/f  see the car coming straight at them ( FUUUUUCK)
-> Lead cyclist - takes evasive action, slows down (and pulls to the side?)
-> Following cyclist clips the rear wheel (this is the really tough bit for the lead cyclist - apparently he slowed, suggests that his g/f didn't react the same way, I don't want to imagine what he must be feeling but it ISN'T HIS FUCKING FAULT)
-> Girl falls into path of car and is killed

[mcshroom]

You do have to ask why she considered it acceptable to drive close enough to the two cycles that you can hit one if they fall over, at 50mph?

[mrcharly-YHT]

I read it as the following from the facts in the text (my comments in parentheses):

Driver:

-> I decide to overtake two cyclists on a bend on the other side of the road (we don't know which direction the bend is)

It was a right hand bend.

So by pulling out to overtake she reduced her ability to see around the bend.

[Ham]

You do have to ask why she considered it acceptable to drive close enough to the two cycles that you can hit one if they fall over, at 50mph?

No, simple, it was careless - taking insufficient care. You have to ask why the jury didn't consider it such.

[Pickled Onion]

You do have to ask why she considered it acceptable to drive close enough to the two cycles that you can hit one if they fall over, at 50mph?

Not only did she think it acceptable, she still does despite the tragic consequences.
And the members of the jury also think it's acceptable.
And, by inference, the judge thinks it's acceptable.

[Pickled Onion]

I have written to my MP asking him to investigate why the legal system is increasingly regarding cyclists as no better than roadkill, and how this squares with the government's stated intention to increase cycling as a share of the national transport matrix.

There does appear to be a widely prevailing attitude that if you insist on using a bike on the road, you should keep the hell out of the way of anyone in a motor vehicle, and accept the consequences if you don't. There was someone on this very forum only the other day recounting how, having been hit by a car and injured. Even though the driver admitted driving carelessly, the police would take no further action against the driver. If a driver hits a pedestrian in similar circumstances it's far more likely action would be taken.

It feels like cyclists are viewed as if they were choosing to go for a swim in a shark-infested pool. There's no law to say you can't, but if anything happens to you, you've got no-one to blame but yourself.

[hellymedic]

Yebbut she didn't apparently collide directly with the cyclist. Cyclist fell off because of her driving which 'she couldn't help'.

I thought she did collide with the cyclist. The car appears on the wrong side of the road, the lady touched wheels and fell into the path of the car which then hit her. The car didn't stop. I may be wrong about the last bits.

..d

Point I was trying to make was that the cyclist's fall into her path was not from her direct contact.

Twitter yesterday compared this case to the case of a truck driver who was found guilty of careless driving after he had parked and vacated his vehicle on a main road, into which a car had fatally collided.

[matthew]

I have written to my MP asking him to investigate why the legal system is increasingly regarding cyclists as no better than roadkill, and how this squares with the government's stated intention to increase cycling as a share of the national transport matrix.

There does appear to be a widely prevailing attitude that if you insist on using a bike on the road, you should keep the hell out of the way of anyone in a motor vehicle, and accept the consequences if you don't. There was someone on this very forum only the other day recounting how, having been hit by a car and injured. Even though the driver admitted driving carelessly, the police would take no further action against the driver. If a driver hits a pedestrian in similar circumstances it's far more likely action would be taken.

It feels like cyclists are viewed as if they were choosing to go for a swim in a shark-infested pool. There's no law to say you can't, but if anything happens to you, you've got no-one to blame but yourself.

Yebbut she didn't apparently collide directly with the cyclist. Cyclist fell off because of her driving which 'she couldn't help'.

I thought she did collide with the cyclist. The car appears on the wrong side of the road, the lady touched wheels and fell into the path of the car which then hit her. The car didn't stop. I may be wrong about the last bits.

..d

Point I was trying to make was that the cyclist's fall into her path was not from her direct contact.

Twitter yesterday compared this case to the case of a truck driver who was found guilty of careless driving after he had parked and vacated his vehicle on a main road, into which a car had fatally collided.

The point I would make is take the analogus situation of a driver driving on the footway and the pedestrian tripping over whilst trying to jump out of the way and being hit and I think you will find the driver would be convicted.

[spindrift]

Anyone notice the Mail and local press call Denisa a "novice cyclist" cos she only got the bike four days before Measures killed her. So, is someone driving a new car a "novice driver"?

[Regulator]

You do have to ask why she considered it acceptable to drive close enough to the two cycles that you can hit one if they fall over, at 50mph?

No, simple, it was careless - taking insufficient care. You have to ask why the jury didn't consider it such.

I would suggest that this is because the jury were all motorists (or at least a majority were) who see no problem with that sort of careless driving as they do the same themselves. 

[sg37409]

Agreed.   And its why it helps the defence case to make sure that its seen as   , just "has an accident" ,"error of judgement" etc,  then the jury is less likely to convict of DBDD or DBCD, it would be seen as "just one of those things that can happen to any of us."

[Ham]

You do have to ask why she considered it acceptable to drive close enough to the two cycles that you can hit one if they fall over, at 50mph?

No, simple, it was careless - taking insufficient care. You have to ask why the jury didn't consider it such.

I would suggest that this is because the jury were all motorists (or at least a majority were) who see no problem with that sort of careless driving as they do the same themselves.

And they probably all drive Audis as well, eh?

Funny old thing, you've got no proof and no indication that was the case. Because as well as probably being motorists, they probably have daughters,  sisters many of whom cycle as well (ffs even the driver did). The jury system tends to work reasonably well on the case presented, it is likely there that we may see what caused this - to us - strange verdict.

The attitude of blind prejudice or bias you are accusing the jury of is exactly the one you are displaying yourself. You should probably consider that, but I doubt you will.....

[henshaw11]

I disagree. It's not a matter of proof or bias - it's a matter of trying to guess as to *why* the jury might reach that decision . And going by experience - mine, at any rate -  there is a strong possibility that enough members of the jury may take the view that you only need this <> much room to pass a cyclist.
IME, whilst the majority of drivers that overtake do so at a vaguely reasonable distance, when approaching me as oncoming traffic, barging through any gap they've been left seems far more common. Or perhaps its just more easy to see exactly how close they are than when they're approaching from behind.