(Boris) <--------------------------- country mile --------------------------------> (my point)
To reiterate: if the court has reached a verdict of not guilty on the evidence available to it, yet we the public find this verdict inexplicable on the basis of the more limited evidence available to us, and if we make the assumption that the verdict was the correct one, there is some important piece of evidence which has not been vouchsafed to us in the reporting of this case. And given that some members of the public who start from a different viewpoint ("it was only a cyclist", "shouldn't have been on the road", "accidents happen" etc etc) will be perfectly happy to assume that the reports did include all the salient facts and thus that it is indeed OK to drive on the wrong side of the road into novice cyclists causing them to fall off and die, this is not just a matter of nosiness on our part into something that doesn't affect us, it is actually a serious matter. Because it's not OK to drive on the wrong side of the road into novice cyclists causing them to fall off and die, or at least it shouldn't be, so there really is a moral duty on people involved in court cases which appear to give a contrary impression to come out and tell us why the obvious conclusion is the wrong one. Otherwise, more people driving on the wrong side of the road into novice cyclists causing them to fall off and die, which doesn't seem to me like a desirable outcome
This is a post with which it is difficult to disagree and I have no wish to do so. The part I highlight is completely in line with my thinking. I do not think my post (#157) was as far from yours (#154) as you suggest in your graphic, but I cannot disagree with the core sentiment of the above.
One of the things that gets my goat when I'm riding alone or with one of my offspring is when cars enter my lane to overtake when we are clearly present and riding towards them. The horror is not lost on me. My kids are older and wiser and ride with verve now, but one still has those momentary visions of bad things straight after a close pass. It seems to be a part of parenthood.
I've been clear all the way through this thread that drivers (all drivers) need to be aware that some cyclists are novices and may respond differently to a perceived threat. In this case there is a suggestion (cyclist witness Alison Bell) that the fall was not connected with or caused by the overtaking car, but whether that is the case or not it does not alter the absolute that the decision to pass was a very poor one and may well have been the primary cause of the fatality. I agree with you that we don't know enough about the evidence to understand why the jury disagreed.
Nonetheless, the verdict was as it was and has not (yet) been challenged. Nor did the judge express any surprise that it was as it was. The court records are there. The transcripts are there. We are discussing this on the basis of some flimsy reporting (some of it supporting a particular viewpoint) in the media.
It is the job of the media (if they choose to take it) and of campaign groups (who ought to feel the obligation) to challenge this verdict if it is a poor one and to do so on the basis of all the evidence presented in court. This discussion (some of it understandably aggressive in tone) is based on a partial picture formed by partial reporting.
Broadly, I agree with your post. If it was an injustice (and it may have been), then this will be proved or at least challenged by a vigorous campaign by parties who have access to all the evidence submitted.
I fear such a challenge will not come. The fury will stay on the Internet and dissipate slowly like a stale fart. The tragedy will stay with all involved and nothing will take away the ache.
