http://www.expressandstar.com/news/2016/12/21/adam-jones-death-driver-cleared-as-court-case-collapses/

Does the law need changing? ISTM that hitting a cyclist with your car should be sufficient evidence of a criminal action. WTF on the “excuse” about only having 0.89s to react.

Does the law need changing?

What would you change the law to? The article reads there was insufficient evidence for the defendant to be properly convicted by a jury

er, did you read the whole post? Quite clearly not just from this case, there is an issue with the standard of evidence required to prove a driver was doing something wrong when they’re in a collision with a cyclist – which I can only presume is based upon dodgy assumptions about correct behaviour of cyclists and drivers.

Trying to look at this objectively (and ignoring the fact the guy was uninsured and acted like an idiot after the collision), it would be harsh to say it was his fault.

He was said to be driving within the limit and not erratically. The cyclist was wheely-ing in the road near a junction and the drivers view was obscured by the car in front. That car only just avoided the cyclist when they had a clear view. I wouldn’t expect to be held liable for that accident if I were the driver.

That said I’d be fully insured and I would have stopped immediately and called the emergency services. The guys behaviour (assuming it was him at the wheel of the car) was awful.

er, did you read the whole post? Quite clearly not just from this case, there is an issue with the standard of evidence required to prove a driver was doing something wrong when they’re in a collision with a cyclist – which I can only presume is based upon dodgy assumptions about correct behaviour of cyclists and drivers.

I’d disagree, and ask you if you read the whole post?
What I read was that the kid was doing tricks on his bike in the street and already made one driver swerve to avoid him.

Whilst this bloke does indeed seem like a tool, sadly being a tool is not a criminal offence.

too close to the car in front then – supposed to be a 2 second gap. that why he hit him

TJ has it – if you can’t avoid something because the car in front is obscuring it until the last minute you are at fault.

I don’t really care what the kid was doing in the street – it’s still the car drivers introducing the danger to the situation.

I’m not fully in agreement here. Yes the guy shouldn’t be too close, but at potentially 40mph that gap would close very quickly if the guy in front swerved last minute. It could also be that the cyclist encroached even further into the road after the other car served, making it even more difficult to avoid him.

Without the full detail however we’re all working on some guesswork.

The cyclist wheelying around erratically in the road is arguably introducing more danger here for me. Not sure what the light conditions were like at the time either. Probably dark at 7.34pm in March? Did the cyclist have lights on / is the road lit / what colour clothes did the cyclist have on etc would have a big bearing on this for me.

What’s going to happen when the cyclist hits something?

Sunset was 6:42pm on that date so yes would have been dark.

Guy driving seems like a disgusting human being but without the full facts its difficult to judge this one. The experts, who had the full facts, based their decision on them.

Leaving the scene of an accident, driving without insurance etc etc, yes he’s guilty of that. But from the information presented it’s difficult, if not impossible to say he’s sufficiently at fault in the accident to be convicted of careless/dangerous driving even if there was more evidence.

TJ has it – if you can’t avoid something because the car in front is obscuring it until the last minute you are at fault.

If that were enough to get a conviction then we’d never have an ‘accident’ and every car crash would end in prison.

Yeah, can’t help but agree with the general thrust here. But leaving the scene, driving without insurance and licence, and what sounds like perverting the course of justice, let’s have him for that. And probably driving without due care and attention.

It really sounds like the judge wanted there to be a case tbh.

Perhaps a law change in the direction of ‘caught driving without a licence and its an immediate custodial sentence’? Full prisons for a while perhaps but eventually the message might catch on. Seems they still deciding whether to progress other charges.

That’s one of those cases I’m very glad someone else had to judge on. Cyclist acting like a pillock, driving just plain scum for his actions afterwards and driving in the car in the first place but no real evidence that the driver was actually at fault for the crash itself.

Surely leaving a mortally injured person and doing a runner (and no licence or insurance) is enough for a prison term in itself when they go back for round two.

Leaving the scene of an accident ought to suffice, surely?

A racer – 2 points on what’s going to happen if the cyclist hits someone.

A) they swerve and knock down a pedestrian on or off the road.

B) the car that has to swerve round them mounts a pavement and knocks down a pedestrian – or swerves into the path of another incoming vehicle.. I note the article says the car in front had to swerve left, so there’s every chance they may have mounted the pavement.

Leaving the scene of an accident ought to suffice, surely?

I presumed the rest of the charges must have been, or will be, tried separately.

So how often does either of those actually happen and result in somebody’s death? In any case for your second scenario (and possibly your first) it’s still not the cyclist providing the danger.

Going just on the evidence of that story, does sound difficult to convict him of killing the boy.

Did he get done for the other stuff? i’m assuming so?

Aracer- how can it possibly be not the cyclists fault if they inappropriately wheely and that causes an accident? If they do something reckless that causes someone to have to take evasive action then the consequence is very much the cyclist’s fault.

That driver in this case should definitely be done with driving with no insurance and leaving the scene of an accident if there is sufficient evidence to prove it was him driving though. Sounds a bit like pond life imo.

As far as I can gather, it would be too difficult to prove, and to play devil’s advocate, just because he was uninsured doesn’t mean he caused that cyclists death, he may well have had no time to react, so the judge is correct in that sense.

BUT ..given the grave outcome, I’d expect the driver to receive the harshest possible punishment for driving uninsured and the other traffic offences he appears to be completely guilty of.

Although as is typical with news reporting, there’s precious little info available on his other offences, the mere fact the driver thinks he’s victorious in some sick sense makes me feel very uneasy.
Someone is dead becausew he ran them over, there’s no victory in that.

Leaving the scene of an accident, driving without insurance etc etc, yes he’s guilty of that. But from the information presented it’s difficult, if not impossible to say he’s sufficiently at fault in the accident to be convicted of careless/dangerous driving even if there was more evidence.

pretty much this

however…

I’m pretty sure the OP has more knowledge and insight into this case than both the judge and CPS, so I’m going to assume they are wrong and he is, as usual, correct..

This driver may not have been particularly at fault of causing the rider’s death but I think in general terms that the onus of proof is too high for motoring offences. Riding through Zones 1 and 2 of London every day I see so many drivers using their phones, going too fast (its a speed limit, not a target!!) and generally being reckless with others (bearing in mind they are in a 2 tonne metal box and we’re only clothed and helmeted.

A mate of mine who was in the Met said no point reporting bad driving as its ‘just your word against his’ and I think that is poor.

The undercover police operation (in the west Midlands coincidentally) is he sort of pro active policing we deserve. Magistrates and judges should take peoples licences away for years and for life. This idea that ‘I need it for my job’ shouldn’t wash. If it matters then learn to drive as though you care about others.

I find the prosecution, conviction and sentencing of drivers in relation to most offences, including killing cyclists, is pretty shit poor.

However, I’m a bit tired of the “all drivers are killers and all cyclists are beyond reproach” attitude spouted on here by some. It’s just bollocks.

The driver here was clearly pond life, and should be done for all the offences that there is evidence to prosecute for. But reading about the cyclists actions just made me think “Darwin”, however tragic it is for his friends and family.

I’m not sure why the lad had a court case for this allegation.

Based on STW law he should have been hung already, I mean who in their right mind might think that cyclists can be at fault or indeed accidents happen… pah.

On a side note the guy is clearly a d*ck for other reasons.

not sure that if someone jumps into the road a car sees it and i dint have time to react it MUST be my fault- d p you really want to argue i cannot do something to make you hit me when you are in the car?

I don’t really care what the kid was doing in the street – it’s still the car drivers introducing the danger to the situation.

pretty sure wheelying in the road in the dark erratically adds the greater danger than simply the fact a car is in the road.
Not defending the scumbag but the evidence seemed to be they could not prove he was driving not about whether he would have been or the driver guilty

if you can’t avoid something because the car in front is obscuring it until the last minute you are at fault.

not sure that if someone jumps into the road a car sees it and i dint have time to react it MUST be my faultthing is I’m pretty sure this has been used before to defend a driver when the cyclist was JRA, someone too close to the cyclist, swerved last minute to avoid, driver tailgating just mowed them down. Similar when 1st driver clips the cyclist and the second kills them. There doesn’t seem to be a way of dealing with 2 people driving badly unintentionally collaborating to kill someone. 1st one didn’t kill anyone so no DbDD there, second claims “but car in front, etc etc” so little chance of guilty verdict.

saving that for the next time someone says “the driver will already be haunted by killing someone no need to drag them through the courts aswell” or similar. (i’ve no doubt some genuinely will be affected, others will explain it away as the cyclist/pedestrians fault, “it’s a dangerous road, they shouldn’t have been there” and some ****s like exhibit A will walk out laughing and smiling about it)