Motorists Cleared of Careless Driving Death

[glasgowcyclist]

The disturbing aspect of this and similar cases is that juries are saying that not adapting your driving to conditions where you can't properly see the road ahead is acceptable, even when it results in someone's death. This is truly farked up. Maybe this type of trial should not be heard by a jury.


GC

 

[glasgowcyclist]

No, they just need to be given proper guidance and reminded what constitutes reasonable behaviour.

I don't doubt they're given proper guidance and I'm pretty sure they know what constitutes reasonable behaviour, it's the manifestation of the 'there but for the grace of god' sentiment that creates the problem. Jurors can't bring themselves to convict someone for something they might do on their way to work the next day.

GC

 

[Pale Rider]

Perhaps, heaven forbid, the jurors looked at the evidence.

It's weak against the woman driver in particular.

She is alleged to have clipped the cyclist, or possibly his bike, with her door mirror.

He fell to the ground and was run over, twice, by following drivers.

Even if you accept the woman is entirely culpable for knocking the cyclist off his bike, it seems a stretch to me to find her responsible for his death.

The evidence against the van driver looks stronger, but given there was another vehicle known to have hit the cyclist, it may be the jury thought they couldn't rule out the possibility of a third - it's not clear how long the cyclist was lying in the road.

The decision suggests the jury could not be satisfied so that they were sure it was the van driver whose vehicle killed the cyclist.

It may the jurors said: "He killed him right enough, but that could be one of us next week so not guilty."

But I doubt all 12 would have agreed on that, even if one or two might have thought it.

 

[glenn forger]

according to his passenger:

“The van was going about 40 to 50 mph. We went over something in the road, about a mile and a half from Craven Arms. It felt like going over a log or something. Russel said to me ‘What was that?’ and I replied, ‘I don’t know’.”

Hm? Nothing sounding like a problem there? You’re in a van doing 40-50mph and you can’t see what you’re actually driving over and that’s ok?

That’s “driving at a safe speed”?

https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2014/11/17/fark-this/

Lest we forget, of course, our dear friends the expert witnesses. These are the people who tell us there’s no need to move sideways at all if there’s a cyclist ahead in your lane and who will comment on a cyclist’s lean with regard to the camber of the road and who will tell you that hi-viz is camouflage if you’re killed whilst wearing it and who will basically make any possible excuse for a driver who kills:

 

[benb]

Sickening verdict.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

In the same way as SMIDSY should be seen as an admission of guilt, so should DBLS(dazzled by low sun). But somehow it's okay to plough on into god knows what while at the wheel of a motor vehicle and unable to see what's in the road in front of you. Would these morons drive at 40-50mph into thick fog? Probably, and any hapless pedestrian or cyclist in the way would discover the universal truth of Shìt Happens.

It makes absolutely no sense to say that continuing to drive at such a speed where visibility is so seriously affected that you run into someone without realising, meets "the standard expected of a competent and careful driver".

GC

 

[Cycling Dan]

Its a court system, not a justice system.
All should have been found guilty but hay thats the system .

 

[Cycling Dan]

Yes they would

I think banning them all would be more benifical to everyone around them. Not sodding courses.

Doing 40-50mph in 25 yard visibility. You would hit whatever is in front of you before you could lose half your speed

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Yes they would

Aye, that was the one I was thinking of. Bunch of farkwits.

GC

 

[fimm]

The "Beyond the Kerb" link has been edited by the swear filter...

 

[glenn forger]

When I saw the headline "Kentish drivers in a hundred-car pile-up" I assumed it was a misprint.

I'm also uneasy about the hagiographies printed about the five teenagers killed near Doncaster, on the way to buy burgers and chips. A surviving driver is facing charges, had one of the other drivers survived they may face charges too, nobody's mentioning this.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

The "Beyond the Kerb" link has been edited by the swear filter...

I spotted that too. For those who haven't found it, http://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2014/11/ and choose the obvious blog entry.

GC

 

[glasgowcyclist]

Can this reasonably suggest they were all driving badly?

It reasonably suggests (to me) that their driving falls below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver.


GC

 

[Drago]

Its a court system, not a justice system.
All should have been found guilty but hay thats the system .

I'd go as far as to say that it's a game, with rules to be adhered to or ignored dependent on what is convenient to the CPS at any given moment, but that's another story.

The irony here is that probably.at least half the members of the jury were car drivers of average standard, which means they also would probably plough on regardless of being blinded by a low Sun. We're asking people who's road behaviour is probably offtimes as bad as those on trial to assess the alleged actions of those on trial.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

But in doing so suggests that all the drivers using the bridge at that time were below standard. Does this mean that we can by and large assume all drivers are driving below acceptable standard?

Not all of the time.

GC