[Closed] Driver cleared of causing cyclist's death

zilog - A criminal offence was committed which DIRECTLY lead to a death. How can that not be manslaughter?

However, even if you determine that there was an offence and it did lead to death that does not automatically mean manslaughter - otherwise we wouldn't need offences of "Causing death by dangerous/careless driving".

A criminal offence was committed which DIRECTLY lead to a death. How can that not be manslaughter?

Are you refering to his blacked out windows when you talk of a criminal act or the opening a door into the path of a cyclist or both? I think I'd be happier with a legal system that punished the act rather than the consequence. i.e. if blacking out the windows of your car could lead to serious harm it should get a much bigger punishment than the £60 odd fine it does now but I think I'd feel happier if this bloke got the same new harsher punishment too (for that section of breaking the law).

It's a bit like that bloke in Selby that fell asleep at the wheel and fell off the road causing a fatal train crash and got 5 years in prison. There was that statistic about the number of people that also fell off the road that month in a sleep deprived state and all the others just got a wrap on the knuckles. They all did the same daft thing; the only thing was the ditch he fell into had a couple of trains in it. I'd have been happier to see them all treated the same - be that all getting 5yrs or all getting another, lesser punishment. Punishment should fit the crime not the consequence imho.

parked up cars need a wide birth at all costs

It's not helped by the fact that cycle lanes are often placed in the door zone. It takes awareness and confidence to move out of a marked cycle lane into a busy traffic lane. e.g. http://goo.gl/maps/6ADe9

What was the criminal offense?

Road Vehicle Regulations Reg.105 – “No person shall open, or cause, or permit to be opened, any door of a vehicle on a road so as to injure or endanger any person”

Are you refering to his blacked out windows when you talk of a criminal act or the opening a door into the path of a cyclist or both?

No court has determined that - so it is only alleged that an offence took place.

It's not helped by the fact that cycle lanes are often placed in the door zone. It takes awareness and confidence to move out of a marked cycle lane into a busy traffic lane

Very true - nothing set to anger motorists more. And then you face potential road rage. You can't win 🙁 . To be honest I try to choose a different route if that's possible when faced with two such delightful choices, even if it's further - although some ardent cycle rights types would call that giving in.

What was the criminal offence that was committed? remember the jury is "12 resonable men and women" and remember it's not 12 people have found him not guilty it's that 9-3 couldn't decide so you may well have 3 who said he's not guilty but you need at least the majority verdict. Serious cases every day end in not guilty verdicts you're all just jumping on this one as it involves a cyclist, we have rapists get off rape on a daily basis etc etc!

unfortuately have to suck it up as it's the way our criminal justice system works whether you like it or not!

The responses on this thread are almost as moronic as the sensationalist responses you get on Road CC.

People going on about jury's and judicial system after skim reading some badly reported piece on the BBC/Road CC website.

Our judicial/jury system is revered all over the world and works. Do you not think the judge will have given guidance to the jury, focus on the facts presented and distance yourself from the emotion.

yes we know that but that does not mean they reached the correct verdict

Would really love to know how the defence got a jury to believe this though. Especially with the eye-witness evidence of the people on the bus.

Clearly none have you have ever sat in a court and listened to the BS taht defence barristers come out with! remember you only need that element of doubt and they get to go last, as already said it may only be 3 people who don't think he did it. Try getting 12 people on THIS forum to agree on something, guess what IT WOULDN'T HAPPEN!

zilog6128 - Member

Road Vehicle Regulations Reg.105 – “No person shall open, or cause, or permit to be opened, any door of a vehicle on a road so as to injure or endanger any person”

So what's the criminal offense?

Should the bus have been able to stop in time? Following vehicle keep clear and all that...

Could have been in the processs of overtaking and the rider was thrown across the road into it's path. Or even that the cyclist had just undertaken the bus. Not enough info to judge in that article.

I could be imagining this, but I'm sure the highway code used to say, that when overtaking, you should leave cyclists enough room to fall in the road. Which, whilst almost as vague as it is now, it generates a good picture in most peoples' minds, as well as the potential consequences. I prefer that description. And it sounds like one that the bus driver didn't adhere to ... but as you say, we don't know the facts.

As for the tinted windows, perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see anywhere in that article where it stated which windows were tinted. Normal protocol would be to do the rears only, and there would be no offence there at all.

This case makes me very sad, and I feel for everyone involved (yes even the guy who opened the door).

The reality is several people made mistakes of varying degrees on that day.

A man* riding a bike was not giving enough room when passing parked cars.
A man* getting out of his car didn't check it was clear.
A man* driving a bus was driving close enough that he was not able to stop.

In isolation none of these things would have caused this chain of events, and the same mistakes are made time and time again by people every day with no consequences at all.

But on this day they all happened together, in the same place, at the same time, and a man lost his life.

It is very very sad in every respect.

* I refuse to label them as cyclist, motorist etc, they were people going about their daily business, and the more we can drum into everyone that we are all people sharing the roads the better

The problem is juries. Specifically, juries are made up of people who probably drive a car. So of course they say "that could have been me" - and they're not talking about the cyclist when they say that.

I'm pretty angry about this, it's a disgrace. The driver lied, he said the cyclist lost control of his bike. Maybe because you opened your car door on him you stupid idiot. As for bus drivers, some of them shouldn't be allowed to ride a moped never mind drive a huge bus.

I'm pretty angry about this, it's a disgrace. The driver lied, he said the cyclist lost control of his bike. Maybe because you opened your car door on him you stupid idiot. As for bus drivers, some of them shouldn't be allowed to ride a moped never mind drive a huge bus.

Sorry, your anger is based on a bunch of assumptions made from a heavily abbreviated press report. We don't know the context that the driver said the cyclist lost control - he could well have said just exactly what you said. You might have some beef about bus drivers in general but I don't see you have anything but loose assumptions from what you can read about this case here that give you reason to feel aggrieved about them now.

I think sad rather than angry is a better human response from what you actually [u]know[/u] rather than can attempt to assume here. Focus on the loss rather than the blame that I'm not sure you are qualified to judge.

This case makes me very sad, and I feel for everyone involved (yes even the guy who opened the door).

The reality is several people made mistakes of varying degrees on that day.

A man* riding a bike was not giving enough room when passing parked cars.
A man* getting out of his car didn't check it was clear.
A man* driving a bus was driving close enough that he was not able to stop.

In isolation none of these things would have caused this chain of events, and the same mistakes are made time and time again by people every day with no consequences at all.

But on this day they all happened together, in the same place, at the same time, and a man lost his life.

It is very very sad in every respect.

* I refuse to label them as cyclist, motorist etc, they were people going about their daily business, and the more we can drum into everyone that we are all people sharing the roads the better

Most sensible post ever on Singletrack?

edited because it will probably get me arrested.

A man* driving a bus was driving close enough that he was not able to stop.

Load of rubbish , if someone falls off the pavement in front of you as youre overtaking them at 30 mph or even less, and they fall without warning, how are you supposed to stop, human reaction time , brake efficency, road conditions , wet dry etc, or even the state and make of the tyres.

Buses weigh about 1 tons plus , then there are the passengers to add extra weight.

Sadly tragic accidents happen,get investigated, and sometimes the wrong verdict is given to people who just want a result, but thats how things happen.

Just remember next time youre in your car,(along with your passengers) or van, look for cyclists, and always give us room when passing us.

Rest in peace fellow cyclist, and condolances to his family and freinds.

Load of rubbish , if someone falls off the pavement in front of you as youre overtaking them at 30 mph or even less, and they fall without warning, how are you supposed to stop, human reaction time , brake efficency, road conditions , wet dry etc, or even the state and make of the tyres.

You shouldn't really be that close to them in the first place. Or you should be adjusting your speed accordingly.

bencooper - Member
The problem is juries. Specifically, juries are made up of people who probably drive a car. So of course they say "that could have been me" - and they're not talking about the cyclist when they say that.

mmm.... most people agree juries are appropriate for the most serious offences. However it would be a little unusual if all 12 people on a Jury were car drivers and none ever rode a bike - especially in London.

34 Million people with a full driving license in the UK, or around 49 million adults = c. 70%. Not all license holders regularly drive, 42% of London households report not having regular access to a car.

32% of the adult population report cycling once a year (on or off road). 11% of people in Greater London cycle on the road at least once a month, with that rising to 30% is some London boroughs.

So an "average" London jury would contain something like:

8 drivers (with licenses)
5 people who never drive a car
4 people who cycle at least occasionally
and 1-4 who cycle regularly.

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20732883 ]Gap in the UK's law on cycling? - BBC[/url]

So why is the bus driver not getting prosecuted?

Presumably because the police/prosecutors decided it wasn't his fault/had insufficient evidence.

What was the criminal offense?

This is what I don't understand. Please clear this up for me. If this tinting is illegal then is the vehicle still allowed on the road?

If it's not, then isn't the criminal act the driver just being there?

Also just trying to think what it's like to check your wing mirror through tinted windows.

As for the tinted windows, perhaps I missed it, but I didn't see anywhere in that article where it stated which windows were tinted. Normal protocol would be to do the rears only, and there would be no offence there at all.

Some of the coverage definitely says it was between a and b pillars - ie was an offence. There are loads around like this now - yet another law the Police seem not to bother enforcing.

Our judicial/jury system is revered all over the world and works. Do you not think the judge will have given guidance to the jury, focus on the facts presented and distance yourself from the emotion.

But it repeatedly fails cyclists. Even when there is a guilty plea or a jury finds guilty the sentences are [url= http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/causing-death-by-careless-driving-some.html ]derisory [/url]

More here now

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20732883

Good article (linked to by ebygomm also earlier).

You'd think it [i]should[/i] also raise issues re. drivers tailgating cyclists* and cyclists taking their lane to avoid doorings...one step at a time I guess.

*I find buses really bad for this...is the 2 second rule meant to apply in town?

project - Member

Load of rubbish , if someone falls off the pavement in front of you as youre overtaking them at 30 mph or even less, and they fall without warning, how are you supposed to stop, human reaction time , brake efficency, road conditions , wet dry etc, or even the state and make of the tyres.

Not what happened though is it- the bus was driving behind the bike, in a stream of traffic.

This is pretty basic stuff tbh. "In slow-moving traffic. You should never get so close to the vehicle in front that you cannot stop safely"

Not the bus driver's fault- he didn't cause the initial crash- but I can't see any way that he's not contributory, if he'd allowed a suitable gap he'd have stopped, and it'd "just" be another car-door incident.

but [b]I can't see any way[/b] that he's not contributory

I've read nothing anywhere to say he wasn't in the process of overtaking the cyclist rather than holding station behind the cyclist. He should of course be leaving a good gap to the right of the cyclist but if the rider "lost control" as the motorist described and veered hard right as he clashed into/avoided the door I can see how there is a way he is not contributory.

In general I agree though - too many motor vehicles of all flavours think it's acceptable to tailgate a bike and this could have happened here. Pure speculation though unless you were at the trial (and the right question was asked).

OK, that's a good point and well made.

Few thoughts on this one..

I still cant quite see how you can open a drivers door into a bus lane? Was there parking to the left of the lane?

Also having watched the fathers statement, I thought he should massive reserve and strength to so calmly summarise the case and the law.

In my experience the police do not rush to prosecute drivers, in this case they thought he was guilty which is telling.

IanW - Member

Few thoughts on this one..

I still cant quite see how you can open a drivers door into a bus lane? Was there parking to the left of the lane?

Yes, in a layby IIRC.

I'm a cyclist, pedestrian and motorist.
I say this to establish that I'm not biased towards any one group.
It certainly seems that if you hurt someone (cyclist or pedestrian) with your car you can rely on a light/no sentence and a minimal fine.
Consider:
1. I am in my car, I'm texting/changing the cd/turning round to look at the kids in the back and I hit a pedestrian with my bumper. It causes brain damage and they die.
2. I am walking along with a replacement bumper for my car over my shoulder (for the purposes of this illustration pretend I do not have a bad back). I hear a text arrive in my phone and I reach for my pocket, the bumper slips around a bit and hits someone on the head, it causes brain damage and they die.
In (1) it will be considered an 'accident' and I will receive a derisory fine and possibly a short ban.
In (2) I would probably go to jail.
You know what? Something needs to be done about this. I'm going to have a think about what.
Suggestions welcome. (Positive please).
I'm quite unwell and already have a full life, but I feel strongly that this issue should be highlighted to the Prime Minister. Yes, I do. How? 38 degrees?

Karinofnine - Member

2. I am walking along with a replacement bumper for my car over my shoulder (for the purposes of this illustration pretend I do not have a bad back). I hear a text arrive in my phone and I reach for my pocket, the bumper slips around a bit and hits someone on the head, it causes brain damage and they die.

In (2) I would probably go to jail.

I don't think that's right at all.

So what do you think is right? Can you not see a vast dichotomy in the way these things are treated?

In (1) it will be considered an 'accident' and I will receive a derisory fine and possibly a short ban.
In (2) I would probably go to jail.

imo I think you have got that 100% the wrong way around. I am aware of motorist going to prison for texting whilst driving and causing an acident. I am not aware of anyone going to prison for a (not so) comedy Laurel and Hardy style package swinging incident.

If enough motorists are punished and if they are punished in the right way is open for debate but your analogies are not good.

Ok my analogies are not good. Fine, accepted. Do you agree that motoring accidents are treated lightly?
More to the point. Have you got any ideas about what to do about it - or are you just content to argue on a forum?

Karinofnine - I think actually you have your likely outcomes for (1) and (2) the wrong way round. (1) Would, assuming there is enough evidence, be prosecuted as causing death by dangerous driving. Ordinarily that would result in a prison sentence (albeit a short one). If it was 'careless' driving (not paying attention rather than using a phone or shouting at the kids) then it might not. (2) Might well be seen as simply an accident - I think the chances of a Jail sentence for accidentally hitting someone on the head whilst walking down the street is pretty low.

I think we agree drivers get off lightly - I was just getting legal on your examples.

I may start wearing a helmet cam on my commutes!

Aha, and that is precisely the point. Car deaths are seen as an "accident" - that's the culture.
Anyway, who has got some positive ideas on how to change this?

Do you agree that motoring accidents are treated lightly?

Certainly, but as in my post some pages back I would like to see the action set the punishment tariff, not the outcome of the action. As per your example, texting whilst driving is really bad news but punish all who commit it the same way, don't just come down hard of the few "unlucky" ones who do the crime and cause the crash/death. This would probably mean a sentence that will seem draconian to those that are caught when there has been no incident and might look lenient when there has been an incident.

I mentioned in another thread... But one way to reduce collisions involving cyclists in bus lanes is to let motorbikes/ptws into them. Counterintuitive, but all the studies have shown little or no impact (so to speak) on ptw vs cyclist collisions, but a significant reduction in collisions overall (11% of reported collisions)

It's not the most positive change tbh, since it's not working on attitudes to cyclists at all, but it's an effective one (the reason it works does seem to be that knobbers will happily step out in front of cyclists/open car doors into them/pull out in front of them, and so don't look, but are less inclined to do so with a motorbike)

convert - hmmmm, thing is if eg you text while driving and hit someone you should be punished.
So, you are in your car, you want to send a text. How do you know that nothing or no-one will get in your way while you are doing so? Crystal ball?
That's why there's a blanket NO TEXTING (phoning etc etc) because we can't see into the future.
It has been demonstrated many times on here that there is a dichotomy in sentencing.
Has anyone got any positive ideas on what to do about it?

Is there this dichotomy though?

If you are done for texting while driving, without causing any collision, wee fine?

If you cause some's death in a collision then you get done for careless/dangerous driving also.

Seems reasonable to me, I think.

Have you got any ideas about what to do about it - or are you just content to argue on a forum?

Another counter intuitive suggestion (that won't be very popular). Make cycles carry the same road tax (or vehicle excise duty if you must) discs as motorised users. Let us pay the same as other low emission vehicles (i.e. nothing!). Why not have a licence plate too (it would have to be small mind- which might be an issue)?

Just get the daft arguments out of the way about not having a proper place on the road. Is that giving in - some would certainly think so but I'd rather have the issue removed and fight the battle of road safety on a more equal foot in the eyes of non cyclists than we are currently are able to.