swadey, your talking bollocks in the second paragraph how would you be giving them the opportunity to get away with trying to injure or kill themselves..
anagallis_arvensis, just read it and that's terrible.
They should be prosecuting. The law acts in several ways, one of them is a deterent to others. Now I read articles too often about cyclists being killed. It seems that the risk of killing someone by driving like a tw@ isn't enough to make people behave. The next best thing might be to remove there licence and let them do some time so that everyone else is a little more focused on the road.
To be honest I'm not sure they should be prosecuting but yesterdays inquest declaring "accidental death" seems so far removed from reality its bizare. They said the cyclist were riding correctly and doing nothing wrong but now one is dead to me thats not as simple as an accident.
I have seen all the evidence in the case of Anthony Maynard, who was killed, and Dave Ivory who was seriously injured.
They were cycling along the a 4130, a dual carriageway, out of Henley going up a hill.
A van driven at a speed in excess of the speed limit moved from the outside lane to the inside lane without noticing the 2 cyclists. The statement made by the driver of the van at the inquest proved that for approximately 600 meters prior to the collision he had good visibility, but a moment before the collision and just after he changed lanes he was dazzled by low sun, and then hit the cyclists (He actually hit Anthony, and Dave was knocked off his bike by Anthony)
The driver of a following car (the one the van driver overtook) saw Anthony's bike in the road and stopped. A lorry driver following the car saw it too and stopped. The fact that the van driver didn't notice them before he hit them indicates he wasn't paying attention.
The driver was by his own admission not being careful enough to see that the road was clear. But the Crown Prosecution Service chose not to prosecute him. He has apart from his own guilt got away scot free.
In addition, ( and this wasn't covered at the inquest) the driver was speeding. He had been delayed on the M4 and turned off to go through Henley where he was further delayed by regatta traffic. This was his first opportunity to put his foot down, and he left a 40 mph zone and accelerated up the hill to a speed in excess of 60 mph (the limit for a van on this road).
Anthony and Dave were less than 1 meter from the edge of the carriageway.
That the CPS chose to not prosecute the driver is scandalous.
This has deeply affected his many friends and family.
If all what you have put there is indeed right, I'm not doubting you, then the CPS really have ballsed up on his occasion.
Shows how daft trial by jury can be, when the twelve members of the jury all feel like it could easily be them in the defendant's position so are very unlikely to find guilty. Sadly, I bet a cyclist would be excluded from the jury if this did go to court, because they would be biased.
Mike, I heard that used to be the case with trials for motoring offences. However it's a common misconception that a jury can still come to their own verdict, a la "12 Angry Men" etc. I think these days they're pretty much told what to decide by the judge.
Did you know more people ride a bike as a physical activity than anything else? So it would be hard put to find a jury that didn't have somebody who rides or had ridden a bike at some stage in their life, so how do we define a cyclist?
But surely better to go before jury and see our justice system go to work rather than let a civil servant decide on guilt.
This topic has been closed to new replies.