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

[glenn forger]

What are you talking about? You can't appeal a jury's decision.

R v Rattan has the best untold story of that sad collection.

with an unknown young Polish blonde in the seat alongside him

Doesn't even dignify the person with a gender, that cv is written with a kind of gushing adoration, presumably self-penned.

 

[Boris Bajic]

What are you talking about? You can't appeal a jury's decision.

I do not mention an appeal.

 

[glenn forger]

You can't challenge a jury's verdict. This was established quite early on.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Doesn't even dignify the person with a gender,

Blonde = Female
Blond = Male


GC

 

[glenn forger]

Really? I never knew that. Strange story.

 

[glenn forger]

I remember Mattingburg's most famous case, the case of the bloody knife.
A man was found next to a murdured body, he had the knife in his hand,
thirteen witnesses that seen him stab the victim, when the police
arrived he said, "I'm glad I killed the bastard." Mattingburg not
only got him off, but he got him knighted in the New Year's Honors
list, and the relatives of the victim had to pay to have the blood
washed out of his jacket.

http://www.suslik.org/Humour/FilmOrTV/BlackAdder/ba4-2.html

 

[Origamist]

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.

If the driver had exercised caution and not fecklessly overtaken, it is extremely difficult to imagine a scenario in which Miss Perinova would have died on that bend.

 

[Boris Bajic]

If the driver had exercised caution and not fecklessly overtaken, it is extremely difficult to imagine a scenario in which Miss Perinova would have died on that bend.

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.

 

[glenn forger]

Compare and contrast:

Last December, in Durham, Raymond Jenkins left his delivery van parked on the A68 near a bend and such that drivers had to cross double white lines in order to pass it, in order to deliver building supplies to premises which were not accessible by the van.

Ten minutes later, another van driver rounded the bend and ploughed into the back of Jenkins’ van at an estimated 50-60mph. He was killed instantly.

Jenkins was charged with causing death by careless driving, and was found guilty.

Although Jenkins’ defence team argued that this charge was not valid since he had ceased driving ten minutes prior to the collision, this was rejected not only by the judge in the case but also subsequently by three more judges at appeal.

Jenkins was sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment in addition to being disqualified for two years.

http://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2013/10/03/when-not-driving-is-driving-and-when-its-not-driving/

 

[benb]

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.

What possible evidence could there be that exonerates the driver?
Surely it couldn't matter even if the cyclists were weaving all over their side of the road. She was overtaking into their side of the road without knowing that it was clear.

You are giving the jury more credit than they deserve IMO. It seems much more likely to me that they were simply very sympathetic towards the driver, and willing to forgive what they saw as just one of those things and something that the driver really shouldn't be held responsible for.

 

[glenn forger]

We've got Dr Helen Measures' own words, she admitted over taking when she couldn't see the road ahead, it's in her evidence.

 

[Boris Bajic]

What possible evidence could there be that exonerates the driver?
Surely it couldn't matter even if the cyclists were weaving all over their side of the road. She was overtaking into their side of the road without knowing that it was clear.

You are giving the jury more credit than they deserve IMO. It seems much more likely to me that they were simply very sympathetic towards the driver, and willing to forgive what they saw as just one of those things and something that the driver really shouldn't be held responsible for.

Yes, it does seem 'more likely'. One cannot think otherwise. But there is a gulf between 'more likely' on the basis of press reporting (which is all we have to date) and the verdict of a jury. We do not know all the evidence put to the jury and we have not read all the eyewitness tstimonies they sat through.

The decision to overtake looks dreadful, but we do not have all the evidence. I do not say that Dr M is innocent. I say only that she was found not guilty and that I do not see that verdict necessarily as an indictment of British justice.

We've got Dr Helen Measures' own words, she admitted over taking when she couldn't see the road ahead, it's in her evidence.

I hadn't read her evidence in detail. 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.

I'm ducking out of this thread now. A family has lost a loved one and there seems to be an unbridgeable gulf of disagreement on a matter that is causing pain and anguish to all involved.

 

[400bhp]

Was it a majority verdict or 100% not guilty?

RE: "Careless driving" charge. What exactly is the description of this? How is that different to other driging charges? What I am trying to understand is what exactly the judge is asking the jury to determine a guilty/not guilty verdict.

I could probably look it up on the internet but CBA.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Was it a majority verdict or 100% not guilty?

RE: "Careless driving" charge. What exactly is the description of this? How is that different to other driging charges? What I am trying to understand is what exactly the judge is asking the jury to determine a guilty/not guilty verdict.

I could probably look it up on the internet but CBA.

Here ye go, ya lazy nobber!

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/dangerous_driving/

GC

 

[glenn forger]

Was it a majority verdict or 100% not guilty?

RE: "Careless driving" charge. What exactly is the description of this? How is that different to other driging charges? What I am trying to understand is what exactly the judge is asking the jury to determine a guilty/not guilty verdict.

I could probably look it up on the internet but CBA.

Unanimous. The legal definitions of Careless are woolly and vague and subjective. That's what I meant about relative close passes, I think it's likely that no jury member had ever been on a bike that's been over taken head on at 50mph with 2 foot clearance. Not many people have, so don't know what it's like. They may even have carried out such an overtake themselves, perhaps?