London cyclist may have hit door

[sabian92]

The judge is wrong - the accused is a winner, he directly caused the death of another human being by his own (admitted) failure to act in accordance with the law, and is getting away with it. It's so depressing.

Although in prison he'd have gotten a pool table, xbox and a free gym....

Bad ruling though. I feel awful for the cyclist's family.

 

[Graham]

Although in prison he'd have gotten a pool table, xbox and a free gym....

Bad ruling though. I feel awful for the cyclist's family.

Its not a Judge ruling though - A jury of 12 decided it wasn't manslaughter.

 

[albion]

http://www.london24.com/news/sam_ha..._was_due_to_move_in_with_girlfriend_1_1737081

“Sam Harding collided with the open door and he was flung under the bus coming after him."

Another small fine for a 'careless fatality' then?

 

[teekay421]

I feel sick also. See this attitude so often and typical of the type who darken their windows just flinging doors open. Total arrogance I see regularly and with this kind of system who cares? Irresponsible self important inconsiderate sorry venting

 

[benborp]

It happens again and again and again. Juries seem to be hugely reluctant to convict motorists of any offence that establishes any culpability for causing death. This is despite the creation of new offences that were supposed to plug the gaps that forced the CPS to prosecute on lesser charges as the likes of manslaughter and causing death by dangerous driving were perceived by juries as carrying too harsh a penalty. This has led to several cases where juries have refused to find drivers guilty of causing death by careless driving but then found them guilty of a reduced charge of careless driving. This despite the only fact being relevant as to which offence was committed being whether their victim is dead or not. It is perverse.
In this case, after the presentation of the prosecution evidence, the defendant had little choice but to retract his previous statement and pretty much admit and apologise for his direct, illegal action causing the death of Sam Harding. The jury still found him not guilty.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

I think in these cases many jurors take the view that "there but for the grace of God..." and don't want to judge others on a mistake they'd easily have made themselves. It's a perverse judgement if there was evidence to support a conviction.


GC

 

[Sore Thumb]

I don't think it matters what evidence there was.

Most people dislike cyclists. Simple

 

[albion]

Are the jury looking after number one?

Maybe they ensure they have 6 driving and non driving households.

 

[gavintc]

'Beyond reasonable doubt' makes conviction a real challenge when there is any doubt. I have sat on trials on the jury and can guarantee you that during deliberations it is very difficult to claim that the decision you make is beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Boris Bajic]

I don't think it matters what evidence there was.

Most people dislike cyclists. Simple

It is deeply sad that a cyclist died this way. I know the road well and it can be challenging at any time of day or night.

The verdict may seem eccentric to those of us who are unaware of all the circumstances. It may be eccentric even to those who know all the details.

But to post as you do here, Sore Thumb, may not be helpful and may not add constuctively to the debate.

As a driver and cyclist of some decades' enjoyment, I am pretty sure that most drivers do not hate cyclists.

To think that such a mindset is widespread and would affect a verdict in a court case may be fanciful.

 

[Oldspice]

On the radio i heard that, because the vehicle was parked it is not a driving offense, due to a loop hole in the law.

 

[benborp]

On the radio i heard that, because the vehicle was parked it is not a driving offense, due to a loop hole in the law.

There is no loophole in the law.

The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986

Opening of doors
105. No person shall open, or cause or permit to be opened, any door of a vehicle on a road so as to injure or endanger any person.

The Construction and Use regulations cover many offences. Offences such as driving with worn tyres, defective steering or brakes are covered by this legislation. So is driving with excessively tinted windows.

 

[Oldspice]

There is no loophole in the law.


The Construction and Use regulations cover many offences. Offences such as driving with worn tyres, defective steering or brakes are covered by this legislation. So is driving with excessively tinted windows.

I did write. On the radio i heard that etc. Have a word with the BBC

 

[Davidsw8]

Looks like you can literally get away with murder in the UK. What with this and those two yobs being cleared of mugging that lad in the London riots (caught on camera) recently, I have no confidence that justice will be served by the courts here

By opening his car door in to oncoming traffic, this man caused another human being to be dead, that sounds like manslaughter to me, but maybe I just don't understand the concept clearly enough...

Why does someone need heavily tinted windows on a car anyway? I guess maybe James Bond on a secret mission??

 

[Markymark]

I don't know why you guys are getting upset, it's not like he drew on a picture which gets you 2 years........