glenn forger
Guest
Yep, it's a lottery as to which force even accepts video footage, let alone acts on it. (Zero convictions from Roadsafe).
Cyclist brings first private prosecution for dangerous driving
- Thread starter TwickenhamCyclist
- Start date
-
- Tags
- cyclist
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
jefmcg
Guru
This seems different from the description of the video in court. As far as I could tell, Martin took no evasive action and no contact made, so a non-cyclist could judge it was "safe". You don't have to be a cyclist to see that the van forced the rider into the gutter and brake. Even then, it was lucky it wasn't a more serious incident.
Origamist
Legendary Member
More info here (my bolds):
Mr Kayardi, 33, who denied the charge, said he overtook the cyclist to 'protect his life' not endanger him, the court was told. Café owner Mr Kayardi, of Feltham, west London claimed cyclist Martin Porter was cycling in the middle of the lane holding up cars behind him. Drivers behind were becoming frustrated at the delay and were tailgaiting him. One driver sounded his horn, he claimed.
He feared one of the drivers might try and overtake him and the cyclist together and put other drivers at risk. Instead he carried out the overtaking manoeuvre himself when he judged it was safe to do so.
He denied he was travelling at more than 50 mph on the 30 mph stretch of the A315 Hounslow to Staines road in West London in February 2015.
He insisted he was a regular cyclist himself with two bikes as well as a motorcyclist and appreciated the difficulties of being on two wheels on the roads.
Mr Kayardi said he was very familiar with the road and had been along it 'millions of times' as it was close to his home. He described himself as a "careful and competent driver who overtook Mr Porter "in accordance with the Highway Code."
The court heard Mr Kayardi, a cafe owner, was previously a qualified driving instructor who had passed a difficult instructors course first time and had gone on to teach nearly 100 people how to drive. He said he had never been convicted or cautioned by police and had a clean licence.
He denied passing so close that the cyclist “could have reached out and touched him” and described expert evidence that his car was travelling more than 50mph in a 30mph zone as "wrong" and based on "an estimate not what really happened." The expert evidence was based on a video of the incident shot by a camera on the cycle handlebars.
Barrister Jake Taylor, defending him, suggested to the jury the reason for the prosecution was that the cyclist Mr Martin Porter, was a senior barrister who represented victims of cycling accidents. Mr Porter saw an opportunity for publicity if Mr Kayardi was convicted. He said the Metropolitan Police had rejected prosecuting the case and had not referred it to the Crown Prosecution Service.
Mr Ellis Sareen, prosecuting, told the jury the truth of the matter was that Mr Kayardi, who was driving his "dream car", an Audi R8 Spyder, was "playing with his big boy's toy." "He was only really interested in the thrill of his speed," he said.
Afterwards Mr Porter, a QC known as the ‘cycling silk’ said: “Whilst I respect the verdict of the jury, I believe it is only right that Mr Kayardi was required to justify his driving before a Court of Law. Every Defendant is entitled to the benefit of any doubt and my assessment of his driving has to bow to that of the jury.
An acquittal does not imply that a prosecution was not properly brought, although there are of course a number of lessons which I shall endeavour to draw from this experience and which I hope may also benefit others.
My hope is that lessons can be learned from this prosecution with benefit to all those interested in reducing road danger."
Roger Geffen, Trustee of the Cyclists’ Defence Fund, who helped fund the case said the verdict "highlights the huge challenge we face in raising driver awareness of the need to respect the safety of cyclists and other vulnerable road users."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-motorist-for-dangerous-driving-a6922176.html
Mr Kayardi, 33, who denied the charge, said he overtook the cyclist to 'protect his life' not endanger him, the court was told. Café owner Mr Kayardi, of Feltham, west London claimed cyclist Martin Porter was cycling in the middle of the lane holding up cars behind him. Drivers behind were becoming frustrated at the delay and were tailgaiting him. One driver sounded his horn, he claimed.
He feared one of the drivers might try and overtake him and the cyclist together and put other drivers at risk. Instead he carried out the overtaking manoeuvre himself when he judged it was safe to do so.
He denied he was travelling at more than 50 mph on the 30 mph stretch of the A315 Hounslow to Staines road in West London in February 2015.
He insisted he was a regular cyclist himself with two bikes as well as a motorcyclist and appreciated the difficulties of being on two wheels on the roads.
Mr Kayardi said he was very familiar with the road and had been along it 'millions of times' as it was close to his home. He described himself as a "careful and competent driver who overtook Mr Porter "in accordance with the Highway Code."
The court heard Mr Kayardi, a cafe owner, was previously a qualified driving instructor who had passed a difficult instructors course first time and had gone on to teach nearly 100 people how to drive. He said he had never been convicted or cautioned by police and had a clean licence.
He denied passing so close that the cyclist “could have reached out and touched him” and described expert evidence that his car was travelling more than 50mph in a 30mph zone as "wrong" and based on "an estimate not what really happened." The expert evidence was based on a video of the incident shot by a camera on the cycle handlebars.
Barrister Jake Taylor, defending him, suggested to the jury the reason for the prosecution was that the cyclist Mr Martin Porter, was a senior barrister who represented victims of cycling accidents. Mr Porter saw an opportunity for publicity if Mr Kayardi was convicted. He said the Metropolitan Police had rejected prosecuting the case and had not referred it to the Crown Prosecution Service.
Mr Ellis Sareen, prosecuting, told the jury the truth of the matter was that Mr Kayardi, who was driving his "dream car", an Audi R8 Spyder, was "playing with his big boy's toy." "He was only really interested in the thrill of his speed," he said.
Afterwards Mr Porter, a QC known as the ‘cycling silk’ said: “Whilst I respect the verdict of the jury, I believe it is only right that Mr Kayardi was required to justify his driving before a Court of Law. Every Defendant is entitled to the benefit of any doubt and my assessment of his driving has to bow to that of the jury.
An acquittal does not imply that a prosecution was not properly brought, although there are of course a number of lessons which I shall endeavour to draw from this experience and which I hope may also benefit others.
My hope is that lessons can be learned from this prosecution with benefit to all those interested in reducing road danger."
Roger Geffen, Trustee of the Cyclists’ Defence Fund, who helped fund the case said the verdict "highlights the huge challenge we face in raising driver awareness of the need to respect the safety of cyclists and other vulnerable road users."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-motorist-for-dangerous-driving-a6922176.html
glasgowcyclist
Charming but somewhat feckless
Every incident will be different, my point was that it was a conviction in a no-contact example of bad driving.
GC
Origamist
Legendary Member
It’s interesting and I’m speculating here, but the circumstances encountered by Magnatom meant he had more time to react to the developing situation – a poorly timed, slowish pass and squeeze from a long vehicle (which he handled well). Whereas Porter would have to have taken preemptive avoiding action to create more of a buffer between himself and a car travelling in the region of 55mph at sub 3 feet. I find the latter harder to deal with. What’s more, in Magnatom's case it's careless and not dangerous driving that was pursued – so a lower standard – below and not far below the standard of a competent driver. Has anyone discovered why Porter and his team did not opt for the lesser charge?
Sadly, it does seem likely that these cycle cam cases would be aided by cyclists emitting a panicked shriek/shout (Magnatom is highly skilled in this regard), or attempting some kind of avoiding action (even if it's belated), or stopping immediately after the incident to give a potential jury or Magistrate a clear indicator of how they were endangered.
EDIT: Porter swerved to the kerb during the overtake.
Last edited:
glasgowcyclist
Charming but somewhat feckless
Careless driving was included as an alternative charge, the jury acquitted on that too.
GC
Arjimlad
Tights of Cydonia
A guilty plea in a Magistrate's Court rather than a Crown Court trial - different beasts.
glasgowcyclist
Charming but somewhat feckless
Origamist
Legendary Member
Thank you. That's even more disappointing.
Origamist
Legendary Member
The jury took 20 mins, FFS!
Judge's summing up: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MH7n17fqlZkRuwpqLdpRRdull9elvdpOhCB6uWS7DP4/mobilebasic?pli=1
Blimey. Something must have gone horribly wrong, or, well, I'll come to that.
Evidence from the video, explained and analysed by an ex-Met Police expert witness, 60cm - 80cm passing distance, at 50 - 57 mph, and car not crossed the central line.
Defendant's view, not doing 50mph, crossed the white line, wasn't close to the cyclist.
Words vs video evidence. One person with a real incentive to lie. One with no axe to grind and a good few years experience under his belt.
Only conclusion, the jury (unanimously ?) believe the evidence of the motorist and not the evidence they've seen with their own eyes (which is bananas).
Or, they're all motorists and do stuff like that themselves all the time so of course it would be unfair to convict.
Normalising lunacy, that's where we're at. Not a nice place to be.
Evidence from the video, explained and analysed by an ex-Met Police expert witness, 60cm - 80cm passing distance, at 50 - 57 mph, and car not crossed the central line.
Defendant's view, not doing 50mph, crossed the white line, wasn't close to the cyclist.
Words vs video evidence. One person with a real incentive to lie. One with no axe to grind and a good few years experience under his belt.
Only conclusion, the jury (unanimously ?) believe the evidence of the motorist and not the evidence they've seen with their own eyes (which is bananas).
Or, they're all motorists and do stuff like that themselves all the time so of course it would be unfair to convict.
Normalising lunacy, that's where we're at. Not a nice place to be.
benb
Evidence based cyclist
That (very fair and thorough) summing up by the judge makes the acquittal utterly incomprehensible. How is driving at nearly double the speed limit, whilst giving well under a metre of space not "careless" at the very least? Did the jury simply decide the prosecution evidence was a load of bollocks?
I'm sad and angry about this whole farce.
I'm sad and angry about this whole farce.
growingvegetables
Guru
One phrase from that leaves me livid ....
B@ll@x.
Absolute b@ll@x.
Terminal and complete b@ll@x.
Glow worm
Legendary Member
It's simple. We live in a country run my motons for motons. Juries are just another bunch of motons. Judges/ Police the same . I really don't think there's much of a hope for us to be honest. Sickening.
Last edited:
mjr
Comfy armchair to one person & a plank to the next
What we need to do is also simple: organise cycle rides and events for newcomers and keep inviting and encouraging police, judges, decision-makers, legislators and potential jurors
to come for a ride. Then they may appreciate that a car passing without crossing the lane/centre line is scarily close.