The family shouted at the jury : “Were you not listening?”
- Thread starter glenn forger
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
david k
Hi
- Location
- North West
They should be ashamed of theirselves
OP
OP
glenn forger
Guest
Warning, may cause rage:
https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2015/03/21/somethings-not-quite-right-here/
How does a driver who claims not have been looking at his phone ascertain that it has 1% of battery remaining?
How does a driver who claims to be doing no more than 50mph cover approximately 1.2 miles in under 55 seconds?
How does a driver who claims to have seen a cyclist also claim not to have seen the cyclist?
How does a driver who claims to have seen the cyclist approximately 600 feet before colliding with him come to be unable to avoid a collision through apparently being unable to see him?
Why does a cyclist who is nervous about the road he is on stop in the carriageway to mount the pavement, and then—with the pavement continuing onwards—return to the road less than 300ft later?
How long does it take to type four words and (most curiously) three punctuation marks on a phone, and how long does it take to halt a car, pick up a phone, dial 999, and connect the call? And why (assuming this didn’t happen because it would have been an absolutely pivotal point in the case and presumably would have been reported, given that reports include precise timing) didn’t investigators establish minimum possible times for these things and subtract them from the 55 seconds in order to determine the maximum possible time between Sinden discarding his phone and the collision occurring?
None of these things make any sense. None of them seem to be backed up by evidence. The defence, if it genuinely is as reported, appears to be full of holes.
https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2015/03/21/somethings-not-quite-right-here/
How does a driver who claims not have been looking at his phone ascertain that it has 1% of battery remaining?
How does a driver who claims to be doing no more than 50mph cover approximately 1.2 miles in under 55 seconds?
How does a driver who claims to have seen a cyclist also claim not to have seen the cyclist?
How does a driver who claims to have seen the cyclist approximately 600 feet before colliding with him come to be unable to avoid a collision through apparently being unable to see him?
Why does a cyclist who is nervous about the road he is on stop in the carriageway to mount the pavement, and then—with the pavement continuing onwards—return to the road less than 300ft later?
How long does it take to type four words and (most curiously) three punctuation marks on a phone, and how long does it take to halt a car, pick up a phone, dial 999, and connect the call? And why (assuming this didn’t happen because it would have been an absolutely pivotal point in the case and presumably would have been reported, given that reports include precise timing) didn’t investigators establish minimum possible times for these things and subtract them from the 55 seconds in order to determine the maximum possible time between Sinden discarding his phone and the collision occurring?
None of these things make any sense. None of them seem to be backed up by evidence. The defence, if it genuinely is as reported, appears to be full of holes.
Drago
Legendary Member
- Location
- Suburban Poshshire
That's human beings for you. You can bet they're nearly all car drivers, so straight away at more likely so subconsciously align their sympathy with the offender.
Hopefully in light of the admissions made by the offender the family will bring a civil prosecution against him for damages.
Hopefully in light of the admissions made by the offender the family will bring a civil prosecution against him for damages.
mcshroom
Bionic Subsonic
- Location
- Egremont, Cumbria
From Beyond the Curb - https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2015/03/21/somethings-not-quite-right-here/
If he is accurate, then I don't know how the jurors can sleep at night after that travesty of justice!
If he is accurate, then I don't know how the jurors can sleep at night after that travesty of justice!
Pale Rider
Legendary Member
I wasn't there, but he will have told them to try the case on the evidence they heard in court.
The jury deliberated for nearly eight hours, that's a long time arguing the toss with a bunch of strangers.
There were clearly features of the case that made it not so straightforward as it first appears.
Only someone, like the jury, who sat through the whole trial can know what those features were.
With all things that has been mentioned, I do wish that something can be done. Usually the Police evidence will show that phone was in use at the time of accident. Hard to dispute such evidence.
OP
OP
glenn forger
Guest
-
The driver flatly contradicted his own evidence and nobody in court noticed.
OP
OP
glenn forger
Guest
So, we know that the jury did NOT convict on the evidence shown, because Sinden offered two versions.
Hitchington
Lovely stuff
- Location
- That London
I seriously have given up cycling on busy roads because of the amount people using their phones, eating, reading while driving. Also there's a percentage of drivers who are deliberately aggressive and drive dangerously, as well as those who are completely self absorbed and unaware of vulnerable road users. When I read stories like this it justifies my descision. I live in a part on London where mainly I can use cycle paths away from roads for the majority of my journeys (work and weekend riding) and I can use the odd quite residential road if needed. My journey times have doubled as a result, but if it keeps me safe then it's a fair trade off.
I find cycling in the countryside less fraught with danger (c roads and NC routes) than cycling on the roads in London. It's a shame but there are car/taxi/van/bus drivers who have really got it in for cyclists and every time I try the main roads again I come across them.
I find cycling in the countryside less fraught with danger (c roads and NC routes) than cycling on the roads in London. It's a shame but there are car/taxi/van/bus drivers who have really got it in for cyclists and every time I try the main roads again I come across them.
OP
OP
glenn forger
Guest
[QUOTE 3601180, member: 9609"]So was there no punishment whatsoever ? no fine or penalty points ?
one comment under the article suggests "Sinden had sent 19 texts and received 22. While he was driving".[/QUOTE]
That's in the evidence. Sinden didn't even get fined for using a mobile while driving, which he admitted.
one comment under the article suggests "Sinden had sent 19 texts and received 22. While he was driving".[/QUOTE]
That's in the evidence. Sinden didn't even get fined for using a mobile while driving, which he admitted.
Last edited by a moderator:
Don't blame the jury. Blame the CPS. They should have countered the idea that the cyclist was on the pavement, by showing how unlikely this was. I think they thought the driver was banged to rights because of the texting, however this is hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt. As a result they didn't bother producing more evidence.
