Suspended sentence for driver as cyclist left unable to speak or walk

[Tin Pot]

Aaaccident does not imply no blame.

Accident means not deliberate.

There is no suggestion that driver deliberately hit the victim.


As for murder? I think even the poost defence lawyer could defeat a murder charge by the lack of any one being killed!
That is without even going into the lack of mens tea.



Yes, the motorist is guilt of an offence, but it's no more murder than it is child abuse or rape.

People need to engage their brains before typing emotional but legally non sensical rubbish

Really? I am many things but I've never been accused of not engaging my brain - quite the opposite. Feel free to quote my posts as to where you think my logic is faulty...

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Rubbish

Such rubbish that he admitted his carelessness and pleaded guilty? He clearly didn't agree with you.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

[QUOTE 4795730, member: 259"]Why is it not an accident?[/QUOTE]
Because it didn't happen by chance and because it has an identifyable cause?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

It is quite possible that they saw the cyclist but assumed that the cyclist would not cross in front of them.

Then the driver is a knobjockey. A careless nobber and should not be on the roads.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Because it didn't happen by chance and because it has an identifyable cause?

What was the cause?

The car with no lights? Or turning in front of the car?

 

[GrumpyGregry]

What was the cause?

The car with no lights? Or turning in front of the car?

Carelessness. Which he pleaded guilty to being. Neglecting to turn the lights was the first link in a chain of consequences. Right turning cyclists aren't the hardest things in the world to avoid hitting.

 

[PhilDawson8270]

Carelessness. Which he pleaded guilty to being. Neglecting to turn the lights was the first link in a chain of consequences. Right turning cyclists aren't the hardest things in the world to avoid hitting.

Depends how late he turned across him.

My point is that there were still factors in addition to a careless act, there was opportunities for both to avoid the accident.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

Depends how late he turned across him.

My point is that there were still factors in addition to a careless act, there was opportunities for both to avoid the accident.

I don't disagree that both may share degrees of responsibility, however the person with the baseball bat carries more than the one with the feather pillow.

 

[I like Skol]

Then the driver is a knobjockey. A careless nobber and should not be on the roads.

Greg, you are beginning to look a bit foolish on this one. Are you actually thinking about what you are saying or just looking for an internet fight? Actually I can guess the answer to that Q.
If every road user had to guess or assume that every other approaching road user was going to turn in front of them we would not get anywhere at all. When you drive you will encounter hundreds if not thousands of oncoming vehicles and if you had to treat each one as if it could randomly turn in front of you your journey would be impossible. We have to make the judgement based on signals, road position, speed etc. By all accounts none of these signs were present in this case. This may be because the car was unlit so the victim was unaware she needed to signal, but the driver was unaware he was driving unlit so had no reason to suspect he would be difficult to see. The driver really may have had no reason to expect the cyclist to turn in front of him.

 

[oldstrath]

Aaaccident does not imply no blame.

Accident means not deliberate.

There is no suggestion that driver deliberately hit the victim.


As for murder? I think even the poost defence lawyer could defeat a murder charge by the lack of any one being killed!
That is without even going into the lack of mens tea.



Yes, the motorist is guilt of an offence, but it's no more murder than it is child abuse or rape.

People need to engage their brains before typing emotional but legally non sensical rubbish

Maybe in lawyer-land 'accident' is the same as 'unintentional act of idiotic stupidity', but that is only in lawyer-land. Where the rest of us live, events generally have causes, and we can generally find them - in this instance one cause was the driver's failure to illuminate his car. No, I don't imagine this was a deliberate decision on his part, which is, I agree, a reasonable argument against jailing him. BUT it probably is evidence that he is not completely fit to drive his car - he may need further training, or he may be medically unfit to drive, or the system in which he operates should be changed (for example, he and others might be required to have lights which illuminate automatically). This is what should be assessed, and appropriate action taken, just as it would be if a worker's careless act were found to be the cause of an incident or deviation at work.

 

[oldstrath]

[QUOTE 4795940, member: 259"]Are you saying he intended to do it?[/QUOTE]
Whether he intended to do it is not the same as whether it was 'an accident' (that is, an event without assignable causes).

 

[Dismount]

Whatever definition you want to associate the act was not deliberate. For those saying he should be accessed, people make mistakes daily, fail to signal at a turn, signal to late, do not approach roundabout correctly, do not slow down when passing a line of parked vehicles, I could go on. If everyone were to be accessed for such actions nobody driving on the road. Each of us make mistakes and

Tragic yes.

Accident? No.

He admitted carelessness. That is not an accident.

Poppycock - he did not intentionally run into the cyclist nor did he intend for the cyclist to run into him. I think before each of us pass judgement we should ask ourselves if we've ever made a mistake driving, each one of us without doubt have, we are fortunate enough it did not lead to a tragic incident.

 

[Markymark]

However drivers don't bother to properly check what they're doing because the law doesn't punish them when it goes wrong.

Make the punishment severe and I bet the number of times cars drive off without their lights on drops.

 

[oldstrath]

Whatever definition you want to associate the act was not deliberate. For those saying he should be accessed, people make mistakes daily, fail to signal at a turn, signal to late, do not approach roundabout correctly, do not slow down when passing a line of parked vehicles, I could go on. If everyone were to be accessed for such actions nobody driving on the road. Each of us make mistakes

Which is not a reason to fail to reassess people when their errors become visible (which means when they are caught or when they cause an incident). I do agree though that regular reassessment (say every 5 years) of all licence holders would be a very good thing

Poppycock - he did not intentionally run into the cyclist nor did he intend for the cyclist to run into him. I think before each of us pass judgement we should ask ourselves if we've ever made a mistake driving, each one of us without doubt have, we are fortunate enough it did not lead to a tragic incident.

Think you still miss the point - without his behaviour this event probably would not have happened, therefore we can assign at least one cause, therefore 'accident' is not correct. Inadvertent, or unintentional, I (probably) agree, but those are not synonyms for accidental.

 

[jefmcg]

I've seen a lot of cars without their lights on in a built up area (ie with good street lighting). I have never NOT seen a car without it's headlights on. They do not suddenly appear a few metres away, springing from the ether like a wraith. You can see them from hundreds of metres away, just like the trees and the houses and the parked cars and lamp posts and pedestrians.

Yes, his lights should have been on, but one should take a good shoulder check before moving across several lanes of traffic on a 100kph road. If she had, she would have seen him.