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

[glenn forger]

"The Best Justice Money Can Buy"

A wealthy woman employs an extremely expensive lawyer (check his self-congratulatory website) and gets away scot free with killing a young woman by deciding to drive at her on the wrong side of the road. The woman, in her defence, blames the girl's boy friend, apparently just for being there. If I were Mr Pontin I have no idea whether I'd be so affected as to buy a car and drive it into Mr Fielding's family.

 

[Pale Rider]

Then that is a damming statement about the justice system, where the facts are less important than how they can be twisted.

One problem is there are few facts.

The jury is asked to decide if an overtake between cyclists amounts to careless driving.

It's all about interpretation.

Did the overtake fall below the standards of a careful and competent driver?

It must be possible to overtake safely between cyclists, but it may not have been in this case.

The woman claimed nothing would have gone wrong had not the cyclist 'fallen over' in front of her.

Should a competent and careful driver have allowed for a possible swerve by the cyclist and hung back?

 

[glenn forger]

It's likely there were few cyclists on the panel, it may have shed light on the known evidence to have the jurors stand in the road as a car goes past at 50mph with two feet clearance? Focus their minds, you know, possibly something they've never experienced before. Decide whether it's careless or not.

 

[Markymark]

I expect car drivers to overtake me with plenty of room. I am over 6ft, if whilst cycling I fell sidways to the right my head would probably be near the white line even from secondary on a typical London road. If you inlcude some momentum from the force that knocked me sideways, I may also slide an extra few inches to the right. I would not normally expect a vehicle to pass me with that much space.

 

[Dan B]

None of us knows the exact circumstances of this tragedy, nor what presented fact, facts or evidence caused the jury to return a verdict of NG.

This is true, and to the extent that the justice system is supposed to provide a deterrent effect and a reinforcement of cultural norms, the fact that the verdict has not been (or cannot be?) explained as reasonable is itself an indictment of the system. What are we supposed to learn from this incident? "shoot happens"?

 

[glasgowcyclist]

"s*** happens"

That was the killer's defence.

GC

 

[glenn forger]

Well, she went further and blamed the boyfriend.

 

[Boris Bajic]

This is true, and to the extent that the justice system is supposed to provide a deterrent effect and a reinforcement of cultural norms, the fact that the verdict has not been (or cannot be?) explained as reasonable is itself an indictment of the system. What are we supposed to learn from this incident? "s*** happens"?

Well, sh'it does happen. That is one of the first lessons in life. But I don't think it's the lesson that was planned in this case.

Had the verdict been inexplicable or unable to be explained as reasonable, then the judge would have made reference to that and that is the story the media would have picked up. The media love a story like that, so we may be able to assume that he didn't. If the judge didn't find the verdict inexplicable, perhaps it wasn't.

The justice system is (as you rightly say) supposed to provide a deterrent effect. But in this case the jury decided that in terms of the charges brought no crime had been committed, so there is no need for any deterrent. A judge will not and cannot say "You've been found Not Guilty, but I need to establish a deterrent here, so you're going down."

Similarly, the Not Guilty verdict suggests that cultural norms have not been exceeded, even though that judgement or assessment is not really the place of the Crown Court.

I believe that anyone wanting to obtain a copy of the transcript of the trial would be able to do so. Until they have it, they have (as we have) only press reporting to go on. By its nature this will be incomplete, little more than a veneer. In-depth reporting is reserved for cases involving Cabinet Ministers and Hamstead Heath.

The verdict in this case is one with which many CC members do not agree. As far as I am aware, none of the CC members is in possession of all the evidence put before the jury. On that basis, this is not an indictment of the system. It seems if anything to be further proof that the system functions; it just doesn't function as we may want it to.

The angry villagers are not meant to burn down Frankenstein's Castle. The suspected rustler is not meant to be lynched. The courts are there to allow justice to function, not to put it in the hands of people who read something in a newspaper and wrongly predicted the outcome.

I find the verdict uncomfortable and wrong-headed on the basis of all that I've read, but it is not an indictment of the system.

 

[glenn forger]

I expect car drivers to overtake me with plenty of room. I am over 6ft, if whilst cycling I fell sidways to the right my head would probably be near the white line even from secondary on a typical London road. If you inlcude some momentum from the force that knocked me sideways, I may also slide an extra few inches to the right. I would not normally expect a vehicle to pass me with that much space.

There was a lack of any guidance in this case. Jurors faced with a similar situation, one which as I said they may never have experienced before in their lives, and who experience an identical close pass by a vehicle could not possibly have remained of the opinion it wasn't careless.

 

[glenn forger]

The press reports that this was her first bike ride, not her first ride on that bike. .

No press reports made any such claim, stop making stuff up.

 

[Origamist]

Accordring to the local rag: "Judge Patrick Eccles QC told the jury they would have to consider whether Dr Measures’ driving was careless and set in motion a chain of events which led to Miss Perinova’s death".

Put like that, the verdict remains difficult to comprehend.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I thought, ‘What a stupid manoeuvre’. I just couldn’t believe the person driving had overtaken at that point.”

Mr Pontin says he “feathered” his brakes before hearing Miss Perinova try to talk to him, asking something like “Benny, what are you doing?” He then aimed for a “tiny gap” of around 2ft between the car and the kerb.

Mr Pontin said: “All I remember was a massive ‘whoosh’ just next to me. Then I felt Denisa’s bike touch the back of my bike. I turned round, expecting Denisa to be in the seat behind me but she was maybe 15 metres back down the road.”

Alison Bell, one of the other cyclists, said she saw Miss Perinova lean forward in her saddle and talk to Mr Pontin when her foot slipped on the pedal, leading her to become unbalanced and fall.

She said Dr Measures’ car was already over the central line as Miss Perinova fell into its path but she did not see any impact.

Summing up, Mr Fielding said: “Ben Pontin said it was a stupid decision to overtake. It was nowhere near as stupid as Mr Pontin’s decision to put Denisa Perinova on that bike in the first place.

“He ought not to have been so reckless with the life of his young girlfriend and he failed with terrible consequences.”

Janick Fielding is a see you next tuesday.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Accordring to the local rag: "Judge Patrick Eccles QC told the jury they would have to consider whether Dr Measures’ driving was careless and set in motion a chain of events which led to Miss Perinova’s death".

Put like that, the verdict remains difficult to comprehend.

Drivers kill more vulnerable road users, and each other, every day. The jury in this case judged it an 'accident'.

 

[Boris Bajic]

No press reports made any such claim, stop making stuff up.

I read that in the Telegraph and see that I misread it. It said that it was her first ride with her boyfriend. I apologise for that.

"Denisa Perinova, a 21-year-old waitress, was on her first bike ride with her new boyfriend, Ben Pontin, when she was killed in the collision."

That misreading of a news article over breakfast does not altter any of the views I offer in this thread. Some might disagree.

 

[glenn forger]

It means you make things up. You originally explained how anxious you were to avoid looking as if you are victim-blaming, then you make up something that isn't true in order to imply the cyclist was at fault. Go away.