GUILTY

[TheDoctor]

To be fair to Mr Moon, if I was overtaking a cyclist who then turned right into me, I probably wouldn't be able to avoid hitting them either. The rear light and hi-viz thing is irrelevant - if you're going past someone and they turn into your path, you can't stop in time. You can't even see them in time...

 

[Red Light]

To be fair to Mr Moon, if I was overtaking a cyclist who then turned right into me, I probably wouldn't be able to avoid hitting them either. The rear light and hi-viz thing is irrelevant - if you're going past someone and they turn into your path, you can't stop in time. You can't even see them in time...

But "they swerved suddenly into my path and I couldn't avoid them" is a bit like SMIDSY in fatalities. Its very often claimed and the victim is not around to gainsay it. That's why they are called Single Witness Suicide Swerves in the US. So rather than be fair, question whether its just the standard Get Out of Jail Free excuse.

 

[G-Zero]

But "they swerved suddenly into my path and I couldn't avoid them" is a bit like SMIDSY in fatalities. Its very often claimed and the victim is not around to gainsay it. That's why they are called Single Witness Suicide Swerves in the US. So rather than be fair, question whether its just the standard Get Out of Jail Free excuse.

Fortunately this incident had several witnesses to it.

 

[Red Light]

Fortunately this incident had several witnesses to it.

There is no reference in the article to any witnesses other than the driver's passenger. I am not sure I would treat them as an independent witness. Of course there could be other witnesses or CCTV footage but it says nothing about that.

But none of that will have come out in Court because he pleaded guilty. I know of at least one other cyclist death where the driver pleaded guilty and gave his mitigation reasons and got a wrist slap which totally frustrated the police who had video evidence showing otherwise that they never got a chance to show.

 

[dawesome]

An illegal driver killed someone and got away with it. There is no way you can overtake someone according to the HC and hit them.

 

[G-Zero]

There is no reference in the article to any witnesses other than the driver's passenger.

I didn't read the article.

 

[Red Light]

I didn't read the article.

So what is the basis for your defence of the driver - were you there or are you clairvoyant?

 

[G-Zero]

So what is the basis for your defence of the driver - were you there or are you clairvoyant?

I didn't realise that I'd defended the driver, that was certainly not my intention.

Clairvoyancy is not an attribute of mine, which doesn't leave many other options open from your list of choices.

 

[Red Light]

I didn't realise that I'd defended the driver, that was certainly not my intention.

Clairvoyancy is not an attribute of mine, which doesn't leave many other options open from your list of choices.

True but if you were there and a witness then it would be simpler if you were to say it rather than leave it to ambiguous implications. If you were not then of course your comment about there being witnesses - other than the drivers workmate - is presumably pure speculation on your part.

The reason its of importance is because the driver has made the standard defence claim of the cyclist swerving suddenly into their path. Now its not beyond the bounds of possibility that that happened but its also known to be a common post hoc defence which the dead victim is unable to counter. Independent witnesses could resolve it but if the driver pleaded guilty they will never have been called and their evidence never heard.

 

[G-Zero]

True but if you were there and a witness then it would be simpler if you were to say it rather than leave it to ambiguous implications. If you were not then of course your comment about there being witnesses - other than the drivers workmate - is presumably pure speculation on your part.

The reason its of importance is because the driver has made the standard defence claim of the cyclist swerving suddenly into their path. Now its not beyond the bounds of possibility that that happened but its also known to be a common post hoc defence which the dead victim is unable to counter. Independent witnesses could resolve it but if the driver pleaded guilty they will never have been called and their evidence never heard.

My hands are tied sir

 

[addictfreak]

Fortunately this incident had several witnesses to it.

Of course I could be way off the mark(not for the first time). But that would suggest to me that perhaps the cyclist may not have swerved or tried to turn right. Maybe (and I am speculating) the driver pleaded guilty in an attempt to prevent the witnesses being able to give evidence in open court.
Had the cyclist indeed turned/swerved into the path of the car then any witness evidence would state that? The fact that he did not have a licence would not necessarily mean he was driving in dangerous manner.
Had he pleaded not guilty and the witness evidence was heard, perhaps the sentence would have been different.

Whatever happened someone has tragically lost their life. A fact I am reminded of everytime I cycle along the same road.

 

[benb]

Is it really the case that if someone pleads guilty, no witnesses are called and they're basically free to give whatever version of events they feel like in "mitigation"?

 

[addictfreak]

Is it really the case that if someone pleads guilty, no witnesses are called and they're basically free to give whatever version of events they feel like in "mitigation"?

I would suspect that the defensive/prosecution and Judge still see the written statements, but that the defendant is given some form of leniency in return for his guilty plea. Again Im guessing, as I have and never hope to be in a similar position.