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

[glasgowcyclist]

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.

It's Scott Hastings and from his performance promoting the idea on BBC Radio Scotland yesterday he's not doing a great job. By the way, it's not presumed fault but presumed liability in subsequent civil proceedings.

GC

 

[glenn forger]

Porsche driver overtakes a 77 year old lady on a bike, turns left across the cyclist, kills her, doesn't even notice, community service:

http://www.i4u.com/2013/09/peter-sp...it-driver-killed-way-77-cyclist-porsche-grave

Andrew Hussey, prosecuting, said: “The car hit the front wheel knocking it off balance. Mrs Ward fell heavily into the carriageway, causing serious head and chest injuries and sadly this proved to be fatal. Unaware of the collision the defendant continued her manoeuvre into the Porsche centre and parked.”

He said one witness went to help Mrs Ward while his wife went to Capal. “She was sat in her car and the witness had to knock on the window to get her attention.

Mrs Ward, who lived on the Lakes Estate in Handforth, was known to neighbours as ‘the lady on the bike’ and would cheerfully wave at people as she cycled past.

 

[chriss2.0]

Daily Hell link, soz:

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



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.

although i totally agree with you, what he was doing was clearly dangerous. however the terms used are abit tick boxy and bureaucratic. the terms used in law to describe an action or attitude arent always as common sense dictates

the strongest example of this is the legal term "insane",
in our world if someone goes on a killing rampage, insisting we live in the matrix, and he is
"freeing people" or maby beveling they will re-spawn like in a game,

this person is clearly not sane, but he is not insane",
to be insane in the legal sense he must not know what he is doing
and is not responsible for his actions.
however this man is knowing that he is killing people, his reasons for doing it are of no matter.

same with "dangerous driving" to have this charge, you need to tick a few or the right (or wrong) boxes

 

[Poacher]

Reading the CPS guidelines on what is the appropriate charge to bring to court gives an indication why so many of the cases most of us would class as "dangerous " are only tried as "careless". Too lengthy (but quite clear and not unnecessarily verbose) to reproduce here, but the gist is that to be dangerous, the driving must be "far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous" while careless driving" falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver".
Non-cycling jurors may easily be assumed to think "there but for fortune" in most of the instances we've seen lately, although I see this as an indictment of driving standards in the UK. Of course, the CPS also has its KPIs to consider, and a string of failed prosecutions would be unthinkable....

 

[glenn forger]

So basically, as a society, we accept institutionalised slack standards.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23967547

Motorist on 42 points, still driving around Isleworth.

As I understand it if that woman is letting her car to be driven by banned drivers the offence is Aiding and Abetting, which is pretty serious.

So, it's in her interests to just stay schtum. Makes sense dunnit, they can't do her for the more serious offence.

If she fesses up the driver gets an IN10 endorsement plus 6 to 8 points and a fine, she gets endorsement code IN12 and the points and fine too. Or, she tells the old bill to do one and gets three points.

14 times, by the looks of it.