"I can't help it if a cyclist falls over"

[400bhp]

What is careless driving:

A person drives carelessly or inconsiderately when the way they drive falls below the minimum acceptable standard expected of a competent and careful driver.

Hmmmm

 

[glenn forger]

Subjective. Ask a cyclist and a driver what a close pass is and you get different answers, the HC just has a picture and tells you to

"leave the same space as for a car" .

 

[Origamist]

Absolutely. It is extremely difficult. But the jury seems to have imagined that scenario, in all probability on the basis of evidence that we have not read.

That is my point precisely. The driver appears to have driven incautiously and much of what has been reported seems to suggest that she caused the death. The jury, who heard rather more than we have read, disagreed.

There may be a case here for a campaign group to question the outcome, but it would have to be done on the basis of all the evidence, not just the contentious ticklers put out by the media to make a story or garner support for their view.

I do not think that will be done. I think any response will be limited to angry and incompletely-informed rage on the internet.

I’m still clinging to the hope that there is a significant and persuasive piece of evidence (or an agglomeration of mitigating detail*) that is absent from the multiple press reports that would make the exculpation of Dr Measures easier to understand. If there isn’t, this is a verdict that should scare all road users shitless, especially vulnerable road users, regardless of their level of experience.

*And I don't mean stuff like Dr Measures was a respected bell-ringer.

 

[glenn forger]

The press coverage is strange, only the Mail and Henley paper recorded the verdict, the Mail stopped allowing comments after 9 comments appeared. All the discussion is on forums and blogs:

http://cyclingfront.blogspot.co.uk/

 

[theclaud]

If she was explicit in saying that she started to overtake when aware that she was unable to see the road ahead for a safe distance, then I'd agree with you that one ought to question the verdict. It would seem to hinge on the initial decision to overtake. My impression was that she failed to see the oncoming cyclists but thought she had a clear view ahead. I may be wrong; I often am.

Well obviously she didn't have a clear view ahead because, er, she failed to see the oncoming cyclists. Yet there they were, in all their flesh-and-blood actuality. If she had a clear view, she would have seen them. Because they were there. The reference to thinking is entirely misguided.

 

[glenn forger]

If overtaking on a corner and being surprised by oncoming traffic isn't driving dangerously, they might as well just bin the law.

 

[mr_cellophane]

From one bit I read, it said that the girl came accross in front of the car at right angles. That means it isn't as simple a case as clipping a passing cyclist because you left too little room. From that she obviously had a major loss of control and, possibly, would have gone in front of the car even if it had been on the correct side of the road. I know that doesn't get away from the fact that if it had have been on the correct side the man wouldn't have braked and the girl wouldn't have clipped his rear wheel which caused the loss of control.

Does anyone know if the cyclists were going down hill ?

 

[glenn forger]

From that she obviously had a major loss of control and, possibly, would have gone in front of the car even if it had been on the correct side of the road.

The witness evidence was the car was wholly on the wrong side of the road at impact.

 

[Origamist]

From one bit I read, it said that the girl came accross in front of the car at right angles. That means it isn't as simple a case as clipping a passing cyclist because you left too little room. From that she obviously had a major loss of control and, possibly, would have gone in front of the car even if it had been on the correct side of the road. I know that doesn't get away from the fact that if it had have been on the correct side the man wouldn't have braked and the girl wouldn't have clipped his rear wheel which caused the loss of control.

Does anyone know if the cyclists were going down hill ?

That's what Dr Measures said in testimony. I can't cycle at right angles, but I can topple sideways from my bike...

The road in question appears to be the B480 and the collision took place near Stonor (other national papers list an A road, but I'd take the local paper's word). The lanes are narrow around Stonor - have a look on Street View. It looks pretty flat to me...

 

[mr_cellophane]

The witness evidence was the car was wholly on the wrong side of the road at impact.

Yes I did read that bit !

That's what Dr Measures said in testimony. I can't cycle at right angles, but I can topple sideways from my bike...

but if you hit something your front wheel could be knocked at right angles to the direction you were travelling in.

Just trying to add some ideas as to the thought process of the jury.

 

[snorri]

Yes I did read that bit !.

Where?

Miss Perinova wobbled on her bike and fell into the road, although it is not known whether she made contact with the car.
The reports cast doubt if there was any impact.

 

[glenn forger]

Falling off your bike doesn't make you move down the road into the entrance to a field. Nobody argued there was no impact, if there was doubt it would have been exploited. Denisa's helmet was smashed, ribs were broken and head injured, not the usual results of falling from a bike.

Sandra Beck, prosecuting asked her, “You are relying on other road users avoiding you when you are on their side of the road?”

 

[mr_cellophane]

Where?

Miss Perinova wobbled on her bike and fell into the road, although it is not known whether she made contact with the car.
The reports cast doubt if there was any impact.

In the Mail article

However, Miss Perinova came at her at a 'right angle' after losing control of her bike

 

[Origamist]

Yes I did read that bit !


but if you hit something your front wheel could be knocked at right angles to the direction you were travelling in.

Just trying to add some ideas as to the thought process of the jury.

I can understand trying to empathise with the jury, but right angles, acute angles, obtuse angles, I don’t think it really matters, mr_c. Two cyclists were confronted with a driver approaching them on a bend at up to 50mph in their lane of travel. The first cyclist managed to take emergency avoiding action, the second cyclist was not so fortunate. If the defensive riding of the first cyclist contributed to the second cyclist coming off her bike, the judge was quite clear when instructing the jury that they should consider whether “Dr Measures’ driving was careless and set in motion a chain of events which led to Miss Perinova’s death”.

 

[ComedyPilot]

Verdict can't be appealed, can complaints be made officially about Janick Fielding's filthy little outburst?

Why can't the verdict be appealed?