BBC LINK

the cyclist died, somehow, for some reason, and yet its brushed aside as a sad accident. a HGV with trailer passed him when he was about to overtake a parked car, and somehow he died in a “tragic accident” that no one was at fault?

During proceedings, the court heard that accident investigators were unable to prove that Mr Stewart had acted illegally.

In his closing speech on Thursday afternoon, defence advocate Steve Love described Mr McNicoll’s death as “sad” – but said the evidence surrounding the incident pointed to it being a “tragic accident” as opposed to a criminal act.
This would be the more important part to quote.
It’s how the legal system works, some may say it’s a bad thing but the premise that somebody must prove you broke the law to be convicted is one worth supporting. Laws on the other hand may be the issue, it’s not IMHO the fault of the court or the jury.

Hmm I find it hard to believe an experienced cyclist got boxed in by a lorry and couldn’t stop before he ran into a parked car. Trailer cutting him up and running (or actually knocking) cyclist into parked car seems much more likely. Sounds like the investigation couldn’t prove it was the latter and seeing as how so many much more cut and dried looking cases come out with a not guilty verdict I wouldn’t be surprised if most of the jury went with the former scenario.

Mike do you not think there seems to be a lot of bias for drivers in jury cases? I think something should be done about that. Charging and sentencing would appear to be inconsistent too. Driver hits someone it’s careless driving, cyclists hits someone it’s GBH.

I know I wasnt there, I wasnt a witness but if youre clipped by the trailer attached to a lorry then it seems to me that logically the driver didnt overtake safely, didnt leave enough room or allow enough time to overtake, probably misjudged the cyclists speed, thought he was safe to move back in and clipped the cyclist. all a guess of course. either way tragic. maybe not criminal but fault sounds like it lies with the driver.

its actually pretty horrendous for everybody involved and that includes the driver who has to come to terms with this to BUT the underlying trend where drivers seem to get away with this is the biggest worry. it doesnt re-enforce to drivers that they must take care/attention around vunerable road users. thats what annoys me.

A tragic accident, very sad.

The driver was tried by a jury of his peers and was found “not proven”.

Mike do you not think there seems to be a lot of bias for drivers in jury cases? I think something should be done about that.

Ignorance but not bias.

What ti_pin_man describes has happened twice to me – once the t-bar at the back of the trailer caught my jacket and made a hole, the other time I had to steer into the bushes to avoid it.
Now, i know the drivers didn’t do it on purpose but isn’t there a law against DANGEROUS OR CARELESS DRIVING?
No-one causes accidents on purpose, so that makes almost every death on the road a “tragic accident” and “oh well”..?

Mike do you not think there seems to be a lot of bias for drivers in jury cases? I think something should be done about that.

Change laws, change what you want but leave innocent until proven guilty in place. Many more have died to create and protect that.

It’s tragic and difficult but there is a very fine line between justice and a police state.

In the circumstances I would say there is no way the lorry could have been overtaking safely.

That location is a downhill 40mph zone with two lanes in each direction, parked cars in the inner lane and a traffic island just before where the collision occurred. Cyclist would have probably been doing 25-30mph down that hill.

Google map of location https://goo.gl/maps/s9lw3– check streetview to see the traffic island. The Lanark Road sign in the photo from the BBC news article is just behind the silver Ford Ka.

In that case how would you have convinced a jury of your peers that the driver had committed the offence?

In the circumstances I would say there is no way the lorry could have been overtaking safely.

Can you equate that to the law?

I’m not defending killing cyclists or bad driving but the legal principles.

Didn’t say anything about changing innocent until proven. Driving cases (not just driver v cyclist) presided over by a jury full of drivers? A lot of whom could thinking “that could be me in the dock”

“There but for the grace of god go I” seems to be a recognised problem with juries. Have a google. For cases where the jury is liable to be biased do we need to adjust the system a little? Panel of judges instead? professional jurors? In driving cases maybe just a standard jury with atleast 50% none drivers? (if you can find that many)

Can you equate that to the law?

Thats what the prosecutors did. It was decided that they were wrong. By a jury of drivers.
God this has made me angry. If the driver that clipped me had actually hit me properly, he couldv’e got away with it for the same reasons. I actually spoke to the driver – he had actually seen me! but had no idea that he’d hit me.
Wish I hadn’t opened this thread.

What’s really tragic is that (had the collision not occurred) the lorry would have arrived at the traffic lights 500m down the road about 15 seconds earlier by overtaking the cyclist rather than waiting behind like he should have done.

A life needlessly lost so that the lorry could save 15 seconds (or nothing at all if the lights had been red).

This piece of road should be a 30 zone in my opinion.

The driver was tried by a jury of his peers

with a good chance many of them were prejudiced against cyclists?

Cyclists are viewed as scum by a huge majority of drivers. The odds are high that a few find their way onto jurys and their minds are made up before the evidence is even heard.

Cyclists are viewed as scum by a huge majority of drivers.

Really?

their minds are made up before the evidence is even heard.

Seems like your mind is made up about how juries are all flawed.

In which case the prosecution should have raised concerns about the jury.

The chap in question lived just along the road from me.

There was some doubt about whether or not he had done a “lifesaver” before pulling to pass the parked car. Given my experience of commuting in and out of Edinburgh he would have been in a very small minority if he had done so.

That section of the Lanark Road has a 40 mph speed limit and yet there are lots of unlit parked cars on it. I believe this is in violation of traffic law. However, as far as I can understand this, possibly contributory factor, did not come up in court.

isn’t there a law against DANGEROUS OR CARELESS DRIVING?

There is, but in any criminal case you have to prove it. This is not always easy, unfortunately.

Cyclists are viewed as scum by a huge majority of drivers.

I really don’t think that’s true. By some, yes, and those are the ones you notice, and remember, but the majority? I really don’t think so.

I think “scum” is probably minority view but would wager “cyclists are a nuisance” would be a fairly widely held view amongst drivers, which is still pretty negative and not a world away from “shouldn’t be there” from there you have nice easy transition from “if I had been driving more carefully…” to “if the cyclist hadn’t been there…”

isn’t there a law against DANGEROUS OR CARELESS DRIVING?

There is, but in any criminal case you have to prove it. This is not always easy, unfortunately.

That’s because it’s a very difficult and subjective thing to define.

Should someone go to prison for making a “genuine mistake”?

Accidents happen. Unfortunately for us, if we are cycling and come in to contact with a larger, heavier vehicle then it’s usually serious and sometimes fatal.

how many cyclists have to die before a judge will make an example of a driver who drives without due consideration to a cyclist who winds up dead as a direct result of their actions?

a judge will make an example of a driver

That doesn’t seem like justice to me.

The judge can only work with in the parameters set by the law.

Also, are you aware that other drivers and pedestrians also die as the result of poor driving?

Should someone go to prison for making a “genuine mistake”?

when genuine mistake amounts to gross negligence then yes they should.

That’s because it’s a very difficult and subjective thing to define.

there are pretty good definitions of what careful driving is unfortunately when charged with careless driving the legal system added a line about driver is guilty if their driving ‘fell below the standard expected of a careful and competent driver’ but pretty much 100% of drivers consider themselves careful drivers (and most of them are dead wrong) so if juror is a crap driver and is presented with a defendant who drives just like them they can consider the defendant not guilty.

I have had a lot of close passes from drivers and while there were probably a few punishment overtakes I reckon a lot of drivers thought they were driving safely. A lot of drivers appear to be ignorant of the law and what safe driving is – and these are the ones deciding whether drivers who maim/kill are guilty or not

a judge will make an example of a driver
That doesn’t seem like justice to me.

There is a lot of precedent for verdicts done as a deterrent
Is it justice I am not sure either but it does happen

the really issue is that many jurors are drivers and think it could have been them, dont cycle and consider us to be a nuisance and dont reach great conclusions

What we do – no idea but the law seems to disproportionately favour drivers i assume because juries are largely made up of them rather than cyclists.

when genuine mistake amounts to gross negligence then yes they should.

I agree.

However gross negligence is long way from careless.

The judge can only work with in the parameters set by the law.

but those parameters aren’t black and white are they?

The judge has SOME discretion to vary the sentence for the crime of which a person is convicted. But no-one was convicted in this case.

However gross negligence is long way from careless.

true but you asked about prison, careless driving covers a large remit and I’m not suggesting every careless driving charge should receive a jail term but gross negligence should definitely equal prison.

Everyone guilty of careless driving should have their licence removed and atleast have to retest – plus whatever ban judge feels adequate, at the moment some careless drivers appear to be driving away from court. TBH I think every driver who injures someone should have to do a retest within a month of the incident (no pass and you get your licence taken away until you can – irrespective of any bans you may or may not receive from legal action) to show they can actually drive to test standard.

true but you asked about prison, careless driving covers a large remit and I’m not suggesting every careless driving charge should receive a jail term but gross negligence should definitely equal prison.

The point is should the sentence reflect the level of negligence or the outcome of the incident?

Somebody is driving and on their phone and speeding, they hit a cyclist and he suffers some broken ribs, should they go to prison?

Somebody hits a cyclist in a “genuine” mistake type accident, careless driving passing too close or similar, the cyclist falls, hits their head and dies. Do they deserve a prison sentence?

Also, what is the purpose of the sentence, deterrence or punishment for their actions?

If it’s deterrence o you really think it will make any difference?

every driver who injures someone should have to do a retest within a month of the incident

Sort of agree with your sentiment but that isn’t at all practicable. The DSA can’t cope with new drivers nevermind a load more.

Define injury?

What about both the driver and the other party both being to blame?

Its a tricky one but the answer is probably both, the 1 punch deaths show that. Outcome does make a difference.

Compulsory retest can work both ways, shows whether you can drive safely or not when required, if you can’t manage it when your licence depends on it should you still have a licence? Pedestrian stepped out in front of driver, sure it happens you can’t retest pedestrians tho besides when its car v pedestrian the pedestrian normally has enough to worry about without further action. Driving licence is something you earn not a right and its messed up how difficult it is to lose it. Retests every 5/10 years are a good idea too.

Lots of jurors have got angry and wanted to thump someone – do we automatically assume that they are biased in favour of someone charged with assault?

We may not be happy with the outcomes on some of these cases but on this occassion it seems to me that in the absence of any evidence – that thing in the law that protects all of us from witch hunts – then the driver was rightly not convicted. None of us know the facts, not all accidents causing tragedies are criminal matters.

Lets focus on supporting campaigns to improve the laws that affect us and their enforcement

You consider passing too close to be a “genuine mistake”? 😯

That right there is a big part of the problem.

Sort of agree with your sentiment but that isn’t at all practicable. The DSA can’t cope with new drivers nevermind a load more.[/quote]

So where are all the new drivers coming from? Are you suggesting that this would be inconvenient for those compelled to do a retest?

I commute that road every day – in fact I was about five minutes behind the guy when that happened. Quite a chilling thought that if circumstances were different and I was earlier…

The lanes are wide enough for one vehicle plus a bike if you’re prepared to risk the car door zone, and there is a horrible seam in the road between lanes so you can’t easily ride down the middle – you’re either on one side of the lane or the other.

It’s impossible to know whether the cyclist looked before moving out, however do we know whether he moved into the outside lane or remained in the inside and was clipped by the lorry crossing over? Either way, shouldn’t a following driver always anticipate the movements of a vehicle in front? If the situations were different and it were two cars driving down there, would the second driver be expected to let the first driver overtake the parked car, and thus would its prevention of this be considering unsafe driving?

Don’t forget the result was ‘not proven’ – a get out clause for a gutless jury

^^ @imnotverygood — I don’t see it like that at all in general. If you mean this case, don’t know, but I would uphold the ‘not proven’ verdict as a meaningful one.. means what it says IMO.

Edit – my take is ‘not guilty’ equates to no case to answer, ‘guilty’ is strong belief in conviction on evidence and law – and ‘not proven’ is that, on evidence presented there is not enough belief in a fair convicted verdict. I always read it as ” quite possibly, but need more evidence or present a better case – which is really then down to the police / fiscal..

a get out clause for a gutless jury

Or the conclusion they drew from the evicence – just a thought, like.

I’ve always assumed “not proven” means they think he did it, but there was insufficient evidence – which given the information in that article doesn’t seem that unreasonable. I’m certainly not about to go round screaming about the injustice of this case, when I suspect he might be acquitted even if the law was changed in the way I’d like (that hitting a cyclist with a vehicle is a statutory offence unless you can prove the cyclist was at fault – and for all the advocates of our current legal system who might complain about shifting the burden of proof, such a shift is far from without precedent).

I mean if I’m not complaining too much about the verdict, then it really can’t be that bad.

a proper accident inquiry into a death should investigate all the other factors, the position (&legality) of other vehicles, the quality & appropriateness of the infrastructure, the corporate culture of the company of any employee who was involved in the accident.

That would have a better chance of establishing “why” an accident happened, and so ultimately provide evidence for those who want to stop this sort of thing happening again.

Plane crash investigations are much better at this sort of thing…but people don’t investigate “why” people get killed by road traffic.