Van driver cleared of driving without due care and attention after collision with cyclists

[andyfraser]

http://www.swindonadvertiser.co.uk/...ver_cleared_of_Sally_Pussey_Inn_horror_crash/

This is shocking. From the report it sounds like the driver just ploughed into the two cyclists. I know that road quite well. It's national speed limit but there's plenty of room for vehicles to overtake cyclists.

 

[LCpl Boiled Egg]

I don't understand how these two statements match up:

"During the routine journey he sent and received several text messages. Some had been using the hands free set, and others using his hands and eyes.”

and

The bench cleared Mr Ballard of driving without due care and attention.

What the shuddering fark?

 

[Drago]

I'm against presumed liability, but stuff like this does make me wonder...

 

[Markymark]

Pathetic.

 

[flake99please]

Unbelievable. Driving without due care & attention should have been an absolute minimum the driver should have been found guilty of. Shame on the jurors...

 

[Inertia]

Sounds like they are lucky to be alive, one veering into his path doesn't seem to be a reason for ploughing into the second.

 

[andyfraser]

I don't understand how these two statements match up:

"During the routine journey he sent and received several text messages. Some had been using the hands free set, and others using his hands and eyes.”

and

The bench cleared Mr Ballard of driving without due care and attention.

What the shuddering fark?

The Swindon Advertiser isn't know for it's award winning journalism. Quite a lot about the story doesn't add up. My hope is that the driver is shaken up enough to be more careful in future and to not break the law if it turns out that that's what he did.

 

[Drago]

It's not justice. It's just a big game designed to provide nourishment and succour to those who feed off the system like lemoras. That 2 innocent people can sustain serious injuries, and the person that caused them escape punishment is in no way justice.

Alas, this type of crap is all too common for me so I'm kind of switched off to it, but it still boils my pith.

 

[Pale Rider]

I'm against presumed liability, but stuff like this does make me wonder...

Same here.

The bench heard the evidence, so were presumably not satisfied - to the high standard of proof required - the driver drove without due care.

Looks like his explanation of one of the cyclists swerving into his path was just enough to establish a seed of doubt, which is all the defence has to do.

 

[Markymark]

He does seem like a nice chap....

 

[Drago]

A serial pecker.

 

[andyfraser]

Sounds like they are lucky to be alive, one veering into his path doesn't seem to be a reason for ploughing into the second.

Not only that but the witness travelling in the opposite direction says the cyclists were riding single file close to the verge. That doesn't sound like one of them veering into the van driver's path to me.

 

[Pale Rider]

A serial pecker.

Who knows his way around a magistrates' court.

 

[Tin Pot]

Unbelievable. Driving without due care & attention should have been an absolute minimum the driver should have been found guilty of. Shame on the jurors...

When the law doesn't protect its citizens it isn't long before vigilante justice arises.

 

[Pale Rider]

Not only that but the witness travelling in the opposite direction says the cyclists were riding single file close to the verge. That doesn't sound like one of them veering into the van driver's path to me.

Agreed, although the defending lawyer quite skilfully cast doubt on that evidence this way:

"But Charley Pattison, defending Ballard, of Box Bush Lodge, Brinkworth, said the couple had passed out of his field of vision at the time of the collision, and nobody had actually seen what caused the crash."