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

[Jaded]

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.....

Utter bollocks. Proof? We need proof for this forum? Civil or criminal?

I'm with Reg on this one.

Legislators, police, journalists, juries, judges, prosecutors, defenders, the public are motorists. Even if they were occasional cyclists we'd get some fucking wanky shit about wearing helmets, or hi vis or other victim blaming cuntishness.

[Ham]

It's not about what the cyclists were doing, that's the whole point.

The test is

if (and only if) the way he or she drives falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver.

(my bold full text here)

To understand we need to know how the *****  the facts were presented such that the jury could believe what she was doing was an ordinary standard of careful driving. How would an average person be convinced going around a corner on the wrong side of the carriageway could be careful driving?

[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.....

Utter bollocks. Proof? We need proof for this forum? Civil or criminal?

I'm with Reg on this one.

Legislators, police, journalists, juries, judges, prosecutors, defenders, the public are motorists. Even if they were occasional cyclists we'd get some fucking wanky shit about wearing helmets, or hi vis or other victim blaming cuntishness.

Ad you both cant see that is the same attitude? What hope is there, then.

[Jaded]

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.....

Utter bollocks. Proof? We need proof for this forum? Civil or criminal?

I'm with Reg on this one.

Legislators, police, journalists, juries, judges, prosecutors, defenders, the public are motorists. Even if they were occasional cyclists we'd get some fucking wanky shit about wearing helmets, or hi vis or other victim blaming cuntishness.

Ad you both cant see that is the same attitude? What hope is there, then.

You'll have to explain in words with apostrophes.

[mattc]

Earlier this week a driver of <something vaguely Audi-shaped, not sure> overtook an HGV on a straight, but clearly didn't give a shit about me riding towards him.

OK, so there was room for the 3 of us, but a less experienced/bolshey rider would have been VERY rattled. To say the least. (I was calm enough to er ... gesticulate rather expressively.)

Presumably this is considered ordinary careful driving 

[Ham]

Maybe I over reacted and possibly omitted the occasional gratuitous punctuation, but it seems to me that Reg and yourself are saying that the jurors returned a not guilty verdict because they are motorists. While there will be occasions that common experience might be relevant, in this instance they should have been asked to decide on a clear point, whether or not it fell into the definition of careful.

As to bias, from where we are sat there is no reason to suppose the jury was biased in the favour of the motorist as opposed to the victim and to take the attitude you do demonstrates the same prejudice that you are accusing the jury of having.

I don't have rose tinted spectacles and I recognise that drivers often don't give a tuppeny shit about cyclists, but driving around corners on the wrong side of the road appears careless by any construct. And then, not seeing the cyclists - had it been a skip in the road, the outcome would have been different.

[Jaded]

Given that most people have forgotten more than they ever knew about the Highway Code, I doubt that there will ever be a situation where justice as intended will be served.

We live in an era where lives are changed in 'accidents', where getting a parking fine is akin to being waterboarded, private choice absolutely trumps community and the motorist is all powerful - more powerful than the law.

And yes I am grumpy. Tomorrow is my 14th anniversary and I can't help it.

[matthew]

And yes I am grumpy. Tomorrow is my 14th anniversary and I can't help it.

hope you get through today without too many painful memories or otherwise in the company of good friends.

[CrinklyLion]

Ditto.  Be kind to yourself.

[clarion]

Given that most people have forgotten more than they ever knew about the Highway Code, I doubt that there will ever be a situation where justice as intended will be served.

We live in an era where lives are changed in 'accidents', where getting a parking fine is akin to being waterboarded, private choice absolutely trumps community and the motorist is all powerful - more powerful than the law.

And yes I am grumpy. Tomorrow is my 14th anniversary and I can't help it.

Shouldn't the summing up for the Jury include reminders of what is and isn't careless.

[Jaded]

And yes I am grumpy. Tomorrow is my 14th anniversary and I can't help it.

hope you get through today without too many painful memories or otherwise in the company of good friends.

Thanks both.

It's been particularly crap this year. So much for time heals.

[fuzzy]

Given that most people have forgotten more than they ever knew about the Highway Code, I doubt that there will ever be a situation where justice as intended will be served.

We live in an era where lives are changed in 'accidents', where getting a parking fine is akin to being waterboarded, private choice absolutely trumps community and the motorist is all powerful - more powerful than the law.

And yes I am grumpy. Tomorrow is my 14th anniversary and I can't help it.

We live in an era where, for most, thier rights trump their responsibilities. Things need to change.

As to your anniversary Jaded, I hope you got through with as little stress as you could.

[Palinurus]

http://www.henleystandard.co.uk/news/news.php?id=1354657

[mcshroom]

Summing up, Mr Fielding said: “Ben Pontin said it was a stupid decision to overtake. It was nowhere near as stupid as Mr Pontin’s decision to put Denisa Perinova on that bike in the first place.

“He ought not to have been so reckless with the life of his young girlfriend and he failed with terrible consequences.”

With victim blaming like that then how is there any chance of justice in these cases?

[edit] I mis-read - that was not the judge summing up, but the slime defence barrister attacking one of the victims in open court

[Pingu]

WTF   

[ian]

Summing up, Mr Fielding said: “Ben Pontin said it was a stupid decision to overtake. It was nowhere near as stupid as Mr Pontin’s decision to put Denisa Perinova on that bike in the first place.

“He ought not to have been so reckless with the life of his young girlfriend and he failed with terrible consequences.”

With victim blaming like that then how is there any chance of justice in these cases?

I don't think I can summon up a response rude enough. I don't think the necessary words have been created.

I don't know where to start. Not even with the sexism, where a woman can't make a decision to ride a bike (her boyfriend must make it for her and thus be deemed responsible), which is the cherry on the cake of bizarre, or the unwholesome filling of alleged inexperience that apparently is reasonably addressed with a death sentence, whereas running someone over isn't even considered careless or worthy of any censure. I know it's supposed to be adversarial, but seriously have a fucking conscience. The woman didn't even seem sorry, just a dull pattering of excuses.

[TimC]

I'm not advocating any action from anyone, but I hope I can be forgiven for having a sneaky desire to see the court of popular opinion bestow a somewhat less benign judgement on Dr Meadows. And perhaps her brief as well.

[teethgrinder]

Perhaps that when you're trying to defend the indefendable, you clutch whatever straws you can get a hold of?

[TimC]

He did successfully defend the indefensible, by blaming the boyfriend for placing the victim in danger. That may be legitimate in our adversarial system, but it stinks.

[Pickled Onion]

Popular opinion, as shown by the unanimous decision by the members of the jury, is that it is stupid and reckless to ride a bicycle on the road. The brief's job is to read the jury and reinforce their opinions, and he got it right: they all agreed with his assertion that the victim was to blame. Every single one of them.

They also disagreed that that there was anything wrong with driving at 50-60 mph towards someone with a gap of 2 feet to the kerb. Every single one of them. That's less than the width of a person for fucks sake.

[CJBrewer]

I don't think I can summon up a response rude enough. I don't think the necessary words have been created.

I don't know where to start. Not even with the sexism, where a woman can't make a decision to ride a bike (her boyfriend must make it for her and thus be deemed responsible), which is the cherry on the cake of bizarre, or the unwholesome filling of alleged inexperience that apparently is reasonably addressed with a death sentence, whereas running someone over isn't even considered careless or worthy of any censure. I know it's supposed to be adversarial, but seriously have a fucking conscience. The woman didn't even seem sorry, just a dull pattering of excuses.

Absolutely. Someone on Road.cc said

Its difficult to truly tell what I would do if this had been my partner. But I would be tempted to buy car and kill [Dr Measures] with it.
I hope her children realise how vial (sic.) she is showing no remorse.

I know it's the wrong response but I feel the same. For what it's worth I'd do in her lawyer too.

[spindrift]

http://www.4kbw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Janick-Fielding-CV-Privately-Paid-Road-Traffic-Aug-2013.pdf

[Sergeant Pluck]

Summing up, Mr Fielding said: “Ben Pontin said it was a stupid decision to overtake. It was nowhere near as stupid as Mr Pontin’s decision to put Denisa Perinova on that bike in the first place.

“He ought not to have been so reckless with the life of his young girlfriend and he failed with terrible consequences

.

I'm absolutely shocked by that. I truly feel for Ben Pontin.

[Marmitegeoff]

Summing up, Mr Fielding said: “Ben Pontin said it was a stupid decision to overtake. It was nowhere near as stupid as Mr Pontin’s decision to put Denisa Perinova on that bike in the first place.

“He ought not to have been so reckless with the life of his young girlfriend and he failed with terrible consequences

.

I'm absolutely shocked by that. I truly feel for Ben Pontin.

+1

[hatler]

http://www.4kbw.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/Janick-Fielding-CV-Privately-Paid-Road-Traffic-Aug-2013.pdf

What was that quote about British Justice being the best that money can buy ?