Hitting a cyclist from behind "Careless" not "Dangerous"

[glenn forger]

Daily Hell link, soz:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ashed-bicycle-60mph-road-eating-sandwich.html

A lock-keeper has been spared jail despite killing a fireman when he crashed into the back of his bicycle while eating a sandwich.

Paul Brown, 30, failed to see Joseph Wilkins, 39, as he drove along the country road between Appleton and Eaton, Oxfordshire.

Mr Wilkins was thrown from his bike and landed on a grass verge while on a ride with friend Philip Forbes at 9.10pm on May 24 last year.

Brown broke down in tears as Mr Recorder Andrew Burrows QC said that Mr Wilkins had two children who had been left fatherless.

He said: 'He was killed instantly when the Ford Focus driven by you from the direction of Appleton hit him from behind on a straight section of Eaton Road.

'He leaves behind Nicci Saunders, his partner of seven years, and the rest of the family and close friends.

'She has known him since she was five years old and they have two daughters aged two and five years.

'Nicci Saunders attended each day of the trial for causing death by dangerous driving and I would like to take this opportunity to extent the sympathy of the court to her and the family for the loss.'

Brown was cleared by a jury of causing death by dangerous driving but admitted the lesser charge of causing death by careless driving.

During the trial the court heard that Brown, who looks after several locks along the River Thames in Oxfordshire, had been eating a sandwich shortly before the crash.

However, Mr Recorder Burrows told the court that although he had been holding the sandwich, Brown had his eyes on the road ahead of him and had not been distracted by a mobile telephone or radio as he drove between 55 and 60mph.

'We're dealing with facts significantly below dangerous driving,' said Mr Recorder Burrows. You simply failed to see Joseph Wilkins. One might describe it as momentary inattention.

Still daylight, clear road. The jury thinking "There but for the Grace of God", but there's this indistinction between what's careless and what's dangerous since, clearly, smashing into a cyclist from behind is dangerous. Forgetting your front door key is careless.

 

[glenn forger]

Compare:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-sat-nav-driving-50mph.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...av-driver-who-killed-cyclist-spared-jail.html

Three distracted drivers. One gets 18 months, two avoid jail. Identical outcomes, three people dead, it's difficult to understand.

Conlan’s defence argued that the satnav had not registered the crossroads and had not warned Conlan of the hazard on his approach.

WTF?

According to CPS charging and prosecution guidance 'driving whilst avoidably and dangerously distracted such as whilst reading a newspaper/map, talking to and looking at a passenger, selecting and lighting a cigarette or by adjusting the controls of electronic equipment' is considered dangerous driving. The Highway Code also states that 'there is a danger of driver distraction being caused by in-vehicle systems such as satellite navigation systems, congestion warning systems, PCs, multi-media, etc. You MUST exercise proper control of your vehicle at all times.'

 

[Twelve Spokes]

I don't get it either.Car culture,sod the cyclist.

 

[fossyant]

He was a fireman as well. No hope for anyone killed on a bike. (Like us joe public).

I shall promise I will not die until I can shove a bike part up said drivers botty. Preferably a broken carbon seat post.

 

[ComedyPilot]

It is both patently and plainly obvious that a cyclist's life in this country means nothing to the judiciary, the legal system and to the driving public.

The reason we are getting so 'in people's faces' is because we are vulnerable, and are being killed at an alarming rate.

Not only is there nothing being done about preventing this, the law is also failing to give victims and their families justice after a cyclist is killed........

 

[Linford]

That is more than a bit rubbish I had a very close call a couple of days ago when a 7.5 tonner nearly took me out

If it is any consolation, motorcyclists get similar treatment....'oh, I'd never let my billy on a motorbike, they are dangerous....Motorcyclists...that is short for 'Organ donors' innit, etc,etc

I've seen some incredibly stupid actions by car drivers which have caused accidents to both other cars as well as motorbikes. I've also been taken out myself as a teenager on a motorbike by a cyclist who didn't look when they changed lanes and cut across my path (I missed him, but binned the bike avoiding him)

 

[fossyant]

Motorcyclists...that is short for 'Organ donors' innit, etc,etc

Aye, Cyclist, short for healthy organ donor !

 

[TheJDog]

I wonder if the judges are directing the juries in some way. Surely being charged with dangerous driving + smashing into someone in broad daylight = convicted of dangerous driving unless you are told otherwise. They should also have a review of the jury's deliberations. If they are acquitting for reasons other than evidence or law, the jury members should be prosecuted.

 

[Linford]

I was a witness a few years ago to a smash. about 3 cars in front of me when on my motorbike, a Landrover stopped mid way along a sweeping left hander to turn right into a farm and waited for oncoming traffic to pass. Cars backed up behind it, one in a Saxo got impatient and decided to overtake the stationary landrover, as the overtaking saxo pulled level with front of the landrover in the opposite lane, a Vectra coming the other way hit the saxo head on.

The driver and passengers of the saxo neded to be cut out of the car and sustained a few injuries.


I gave a witness statement the following week, and asked if the saxo driver was goign to get done....they said he would likely go on a driver re-education course....me = WTF, if that had been me on my motorbike comingthe other way, I could easily have been killed given it was a 40mph road, and the Vectra was doing roughly that speed.
I asked what they classed as 'dangerous driving andthey said 'aiming for someone deliberately'......

 

[bianchi1]

I wonder if the judges are directing the juries in some way. Surely being charged with dangerous driving + smashing into someone in broad daylight = convicted of dangerous driving unless you are told otherwise. They should also have a review of the jury's deliberations. If they are acquitting for reasons other than evidence or law, the jury members should be prosecuted.

What if the jury were told that the cyclist had no lights or reflectors after sunset? They would have to take that into account wouldn't they?

 

[Linford]

4 or 5 years ago, a club cyclist from Gloucester was out for a training ride with his brother, neither had lights, came down a hill towards the city after dark at an estimated 35-40mph (big hill) a car pulled out of a side junction and the cyclist T-boned the car killing him pretty much instantly. Coroner ruled that the car could not realistically have been able to see him coming down the road as his lights were not pointing up the road before he entered it.

 

[TheJDog]

What if the jury were told that the cyclist had no lights or reflectors after sunset? They would have to take that into account wouldn't they?

yes, yes they would. And is that what happened in this case, or in any of the other cases we've been hearing about?

 

[bianchi1]

yes, yes they would. And is that what happened in this case, or in any of the other cases we've been hearing about?

It would be my guess that a defence lawyer would have made the point. The press are reporting he had no lights or reflectors and a quick google search shows that sunset was one minute to nine on the day in question. I have no idea as to the weather conditions on the day, but I guess they may have played a part (in the defence)

Please don't think I am excusing the drivers actions, it is clear (to me) that 55-60 mph on country lanes while eating a sandwich is dangerous, I'm just interested as to how the jury have come to their decision, and what other factors they have taken into account.


Edited to add (in the defence)

 

[HLaB]

4 or 5 years ago, a club cyclist from Gloucester was out for a training ride with his brother, neither had lights, came down a hill towards the city after dark at an estimated 35-40mph (big hill) a car pulled out of a side junction and the cyclist T-boned the car killing him pretty much instantly. Coroner ruled that the car could not realistically have been able to see him coming down the road as his lights were not pointing up the road before he entered it.

Fortunately, I had nothing that bad (hence, I'm still typing) but I must admit when comming back from a club runs, in that twilight period both (without and with lights) I've had a few close shaves at rbts

 

[Mr Foldy]

Gavin Hastings - a genuinely great rugbyist - is heading up a campaign in Scotland. Where there is a collision between a car and a bike, the car is presumed to be at fault. There has to be proof that the bike reversed at high speed etc. I intitially thought that was an over the top suggestion, now I must admit I'm a bit keen on the idea. 10 Scottish cyclists have been wiped this year. That can't continue.