[Closed] New Forest cyclist death - driver not dangerous...

Mr Onslow added: “The Highway Code says that cyclist must wear brightly colour clothing but regrettably on this day Mr Dix was wearing black clothing.”

No, it actually doesn't say that.

Says this at the bottom of the article:

Parekh, of Deacon Road, Southampton, will appear at Southampton Crown Court on Thursday, December 21 to be sentenced for causing death by careless driving.

So does this mean he has been found guilty causing death by careless driving but not dangerous driving?

Whole article is shit!

[i]No, it actually doesn't say that.[/i]

We know that - but how does a "defence barrister" get away with saying it?!

Ah, I couldn't read as far as the Careless Driving court appearance. So he was cleared of Dangerous Driving, cos yeah, he was just a bit [i]careless[/i] eh?
**** me.

well if it's not the drivers fault maybe they'll change the junction.

There have been at least two cyclist deaths there and nearly anyone local has a near miss story.

I've almost been hit there, by a car who never slowed down.

Death by dangerous driving - up to 14 yrs
Death by careless driving- up to 5 years

Sentence reduced by 1/3 for a guilty plea

Three n a half years max - out in 18 months most likely

Mr Onslow added: “The Highway Code says that cyclist must wear brightly colour clothing but regrettably on this day Mr Dix was wearing black clothing.”

Mmmm, I don't think it ways that. Didn't give way and didn't see him, how is that not dangerous?

[i]how is that not dangerous[/i]

Someone will come along and explain the nuances between Dangerous Driving and Careless Driving under the law. How Dangerous obviously doesn't actually mean "dangerous"... but the law is clearly ****ed up.

argument would be "didn't see him, so why/how would he give way?"

Course, it's shit

Why do they allow jurors to make these subjective calls ?

"Did he drive through a series of give way signs without slowing?" "Yes" Thank you, jury dismissed. Now, about your sentence ...

Which junction is it ? are the sightlines really bad ?

No defence if they are - makes it more dangerous to drive stright into it IMO

This bit makes it sound like it was all the cyclist's fault. He collided with the van and then was careless enough to go into a coma.

The 23 year old was in the dock after Mr Dix collided with Parekh’s Vauxhall Zafira as he cycled along Beaulieu Road at around midday on December 2, 2016.

Following the collision, Mr Dix went into a coma and died on February 7.

As scaredypants says, this should be enough for a 'dangerous' conviction:

The Crown Prosecution Service believed that because [b]Parekh drove across the junction[/b], that sees Beaulieu Road and Dibden Bottom in the New Forest meet, [b]without reducing his speed despite seeing numerous ‘Give Way’ signs along the road,[/b] his driving was dangerous.

Which junction is it ?

[url= https://www.google.co.uk/maps/ @50.8627543,-1.4546603,3a,75y,68.66h,101.28t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s1B2_qPT9Xhm_MY2SCU5vwg!2e0!7i13312!8i6656]Ipley Crossroads[/url]

are the sightlines really bad ?

If my Google Streetview link has worked, you can see that you could hardly wish for better sight lines.

I appreciate that Dangerous Driving might be difficult to prove without witness evidence etc., but in this case it looks self evident that he drove across the road in breach of the multiple give way signs. Whether he did not see, notice or 'ignored' the cyclist seems beside the point to point to me: this was such a severe and unmitigated piece of bad driving that it is the very definition in layman's terms of what should be considered dangerous driving, rather than simply careless.

I take you point DezB, I know it's a legal term, but driving straight across a give way junction without reducing speed and/or stopping should qualify as dangerous driving, this is from the CPS website for the definition of dangerous driving:

[i]it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.[/i]

It's obvious that not slowing when you don't have right of way is dangerous.

[i]you can see that you could hardly wish for better sight lines[/i]

Yeah, it's the sort of junction that makes driver complacent. And Dangerous.
Only redeeming feature of the whole thing is the link: "Motorist who killed cyclist..."

During his cross examination, Parekh told the court that moments before the crash he had “checked both sides and straight ahead” as he approached the crossroads.

Not very well though. Dangerously badly, in fact.

Jesus Christ, I can only assume the jury was not shown a picture of the junction. You could be wearing camoflauge and still expect to be seen there!

Sickens me that this sort of thing is not taken seriously and one pedestrian gets killed by a cyclist and they want to change the laws...

Ah, I know that crossroads and, yeah, it's wide open

Driver - ****wit
Jury - arseholes to a man/woman
Defence Barrister - cock. Can you complain about misrepresentation of the law to a jury (and why didn't the judge pull him on it anyway) ?

Yeah, pillar blind-spot - easy to avoid. Slow the **** down.

According to [url= http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/15099151.Hampshire_crossroads_named_one_of_most_dangerous_for_cyclists_in_UK/ ]this article[/url] there was another cyclist killed at that location in 2012.

It seems that a lot of (probably local) drivers are used to driving across that junction without slowing down. It's not heavily trafficked, and I can imagine it's very easy for a bad driver to get in the habit of not checking properly when approaching and crossing the junction, because it's rare that another car will be on the other road and necessitate slowing or stopping. The suggestion in the article that it be altered to a staggered junction seems a good one: the dozy idiots who drive through the junction without checking properly and slowing down are just as likely to drive into a car as a cyclist.

For careless driving the driver has to be driving at a standard that is below that expected of a careful and competent driver.

For dangerous driving then the driving standard is FAR below that expected of a careful and competent driver.

Juries almost never convict of death by dangerous, as they are all drivers. Hence the much more recent offence of death by careless. A lower penalty, which for a plea often results in a suspended sentence.

you can see that you could hardly wish for better sight lines

agreed but there is something about it; wheter its the fact thats its not square, or that the sight lines are [i]too [/i]good (thats why roundabouts now have restricted views).

[url=see this from local councillor] https://www.dharrison.org.uk/ipley-crossroads/ [/url]

not seeing a vunerable road user - in a national park exactly where you could expect to see a cyclist, Not slowing for a junction, and ultimatley resulting in a persons death. How can that not be dangerous.

Someone will come along and explain the nuances between Dangerous Driving and Careless Driving under the law. How Dangerous obviously doesn't actually mean "dangerous"... but the law is clearly **** up

The whole problem with these two offences, is that the benchmark against which they are tested are the standards of a careful and competent driver. Which is bordering on meaningless since drivers of all standards invariably think they are good. It's stupid. A jury of 12 advanced police drivers and a jury of 12 just passed learners and a jury of 12 doddery old 40mph-at-all-times duffers all probably believe they're competent drivers, but their driving ability and judgment will vary massively.

There can't be many instances where taking someone's life can be referred to as 'careless'

'He dropped the concrete block out of the window and it landed on someone's head, killing them instantly''

'Well that was careless'

Sounds a bit churlish, doesn't it?

Think I may have cycled through that crossroads once this summer with a work colleague, who said something about how it's infamous for being a lethal cyclist hotspot, because of the speed cars travel through it and how they misjudge the speed at which cyclists are capable of riding through it.

How the hell did the defence lawyer get away with saying "“The Highway Code says that cyclist must wear brightly colour clothing (but regrettably on this day Mr Dix was wearing black clothing)” without being challenged?

I not a big fan of the trend of recent years for ninja black bikes and ninja black cycling gear, but I don't wear yellow/blue/red gear because the Highway Code says I must!

And besides, at about midday on December 2nd 2016, I'd expect the silhouette of a dark clothed cyclist to be a decent contrast unless it was an extremely overcast day.

On a bike, driving a car or anything up to a 6.5 Tonne lorry, I've never travelled through a "give way" junction at anything more than ~15mph tops (and that higher speed would be on a bike, I don't think I've driven through such a junction at more than ~10mph in 2nd gear in a motor vehicle).

What speed was Viral Parekh doing, when he travelled through such a junction without slowing down (despite apparently saying he did to police initially if I read the article correctly)?

Saw this article earlier, but decided not to comment at the time because I thought I might write something I might regret later, but now I cannot see any comments or create a comment of my own... Has this article brought out the hardline factions of polar opposites and caused The Echo to stop further comments?

[quote=thegreatape ]The whole problem with these two offences, is that the benchmark against which they are tested are the standards of a careful and competent driver. Which is bordering on meaningless since drivers of all standards invariably think they are good. It's stupid. A jury of 12 advanced police drivers and a jury of 12 just passed learners and a jury of 12 doddery old 40mph-at-all-times duffers all probably believe they're competent drivers, but their driving ability and judgment will vary massively.

The trouble is, there's a court of appeal judgement which specifically instructs juries to judge such things on the basis that they are competent drivers themselves - the ridiculously low standard is built into the system. This law desperately needs revising with some absolutes - IMHO killing a vulnerable road user (cyclist/ped) where it can be shown that they were doing nothing wrong should be sufficient proof on its own of dangerous driving - because fundamentally if you take the driving culture thing out of it, killing somebody through your actions is the very definition of dangerous.

This is the sort of change which could be made as part of the review of road safety regarding cyclists - instead they'll ignore it and waste their time talking about helmets and hi-viz.

So he was cleared of Dangerous Driving, cos yeah, he was just a bit careless eh?
**** me.

I’m going play devils advocate here, but yes, I can see the difference (in general) between the two.
Who here has had a car accident and thought afterwards ‘yep. My fault. I messed up’
I have. I got a written warning for it as it was a work van.
But, as I said to my boss at the time, it was just a mistake. I wasn’t driving like a nutter. I didn’t break any laws, I simply made a mistake (lack of proper observation in my case)
My dad did similar. He drive into the back of someone after they’d both stopped. He thought they’d pulled off (he was looking right and turning left) but they hadn’t and he ran into them. Simple mistake.
So yeah, I get it. I wasn’t in court for this and not was anyone on this thread, but I can imagine that there’s a very specific difference between dangerous and careless driving and once you have the facts it’s easy to decide what’s what. He’s not been found not guilty. Everyone knows he did it, that’s not in dispute. Yes it’s sad someone died but baying for blood won’t change that. I know 2 people that have killed a pedestrian whilst driving. Neither of them meant to do it. Both of them could have maybe avoided it if given the same situation again (maybe not) but it was just the luck of the draw in both cases.

The trouble is, there's a court of appeal judgement which specifically instructs juries to judge such things on the basis that they are competent drivers themselves - the ridiculously low standard is built into the system. This law desperately needs revising with some absolutes - IMHO killing a vulnerable road user (cyclist/ped) where it can be shown that they were doing nothing wrong should be sufficient proof on its own of dangerous driving - because fundamentally if you take the driving culture thing out of it, killing somebody through your actions is the very definition of dangerous.

I've thought a similar thing.

Seems to be a case of self-reinforcing circular reasoning here. If jury judges this as "not dangerous" and that is publicised in the media, the jury in the next trial will have read that and used that to determine what id dangerous and what is careless and make a similar judgement etc.

The system needs an objective way of determining what is dangerous.

Has this article brought out the hardline factions of polar opposites and caused The Echo to stop further comments?

The comments section on The Echo's cycling articles is a particular hornets' nest even by the usual standards. Possibly related:

How the hell did the defence lawyer get away with saying "“The Highway Code says that cyclist must wear brightly colour clothing (but regrettably on this day Mr Dix was wearing black clothing)” without being challenged?

I would not rule out the entirely plausible possibility of misreporting. The Echo (along with its Gannett-owned Newsquest siblings such as Brighton's Argus) very much appears to enjoy poking the anti-cycling coals.

The trouble is, there's a court of appeal judgement which specifically instructs juries to judge such things on the basis that they are competent drivers themselves - the ridiculously low standard is built into the system.

Yup, Lord Diplock; mentioned and linked here:

http://singletrackworld.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/the-law-must-be-fixed-mustnt-it/

The suggestion in the article that it be altered to a staggered junction seems a good one

Yes, it is. I know the junction very well and it's curious how it invites such complacency: it's notorious locally and hardly without reason. Staggering the junction would at the very least force people to slow significantly.

The system needs an objective way of determining what is dangerous.

Indeed, I keep meaning to finish an article about that. The most reasonable proposal is the use of driving test critera: driving faults equating to inconsiderate driving, serious faults equating to careless driving and dangerous faults equating to dangerous driving. This also happens to sit well with the approach of West Midland Police (particularly their new Road Harm Reduction Team), which is to ask drivers "would you do that on your driving test?" and also to use this as the yardstick for prosecution decisions.

Naturally, driving examiners are (in theory at least) trained to adhere to a standardised set of criteria, meaning that not only do you have an objective set of measures, but you also have a ready-made pool of expert witnesses.

The system needs an objective way of determining what is dangerous.

The most reasonable proposal is the use of driving test critera: driving faults equating to inconsiderate driving, serious faults equating to careless driving and dangerous faults equating to dangerous driving...

Naturally, driving examiners are (in theory at least) trained to adhere to a standardised set of criteria, meaning that not only do you have an objective set of measures, but you also have a ready-made pool of expert witnesses.

It's an interesting point which I had not thought about, but logically in such cases there should always be expert witnesses who make the case for whether or not it was dangerous driving (depending upon whether they are a witness for the defence or prosecution). The jury members should not be effectively encouraged to be their own expert witnesses in the absence of proper expert witness evidence, because inevitably they will each use their own varying driving standards and experience as the reference. In the same way, a prosecution under work related health and safety legislation would always involve expert witnesses: it would never be left up to the jury to decide in the absence of such evidence whether a negligent act or omission met the threshold for a conviction. In other words the jury should evaluate the (possibly conflicting) expert evidence, which will help them to avoid judging the action by their own - very possibly low or misinformed - standards.

He’s not been found not guilty. Everyone knows he did it, that’s not in dispute.

Yes guilty of death by careless driving. But stepping back and putting personal feelings aside. It does seem a classic case of that. With the way the law is written and applied, I'd have been very very suprised if the dangerous driving verdict had been arrived at.

With the way the law is written and applied

IMO driving onto a crossroads, through a give way when there's a road user (who you've failed to observe despite clear line of sight) coming towards you and you're on a collision course? that's [u]dangerous[/u], that is

but I can imagine that there’s a very specific difference between dangerous and careless driving and once you have the facts it’s easy to decide what’s what.

How specific is [i]far[/i]? Because that's the only practical difference between the two offences. One requires him to drive in a way that falls below what would be expected of a careful and competent driver. The other requires him to drive in a way that falls far below what would be expected of a careful and competent driver.

I'm not particularly impressed by the way that they describe the cyclist as colliding with the car. Whilst this may be technically correct, it does kind of make the cyclist look partly responsible, and I wonder how that influence people's comprehension of the incident?

that's dangerous, that is

It is, but doing something dangerous and the offence of dangerous driving are very different things.

How specific is far? Because that's the only practical difference between the two offences.

In short: not specific at all. However, that’s not the only difference. The other is also problematic and is something I looked at here:

https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/an-obvious-problem/

It is, but doing something dangerous and the offence of dangerous driving are very different things

and that's the trouble

However, that’s not the only difference.

I appreciate that. I left the second bit alone because, at least in everything I've read, it's the below/far below distinction that's problematic for getting S1 convictions, not the obvious danger part. However, I look forward to reading another of your blogs when I get home!

Don't get too excited, it's quite long and tedious even by my standards 😉

The "obvious" clause does impinge on this case, though. Most people think that if you look in both directions and believe there to be nothing approaching then it's reasonable to carry on at speed.

The fact that you really need to look at least twice in order to counteract cognitive issues like saccades is not obvious to them.

The fact that if you're on a collision path with something else, it remains in the same point of your vision (and therefore if that point happens to lie in a line from your head through the A-pillar you will [i]only[/i] ever see them if you either move your head or slow down significantly) is also not obvious.

No-one is ever taught these things, so they can never be obvious. Driver training and legislation act in concert to shift responsibility away from the driver, and that's not by coincidence or error.

[quote=PeterPoddy ]I wasn’t in court for this and not was anyone on this thread, but I can imagine that there’s a very specific difference between dangerous and careless driving and once you have the facts it’s easy to decide what’s what. He’s not been found not guilty.

Yes, as discussed extensively on this thread and all similar threads, by a jury which consists of drivers who wouldn't pass a test if they took one tomorrow, who are instructed to judge his standard of driving against their own. If (as seems likely) they all think it's perfectly reasonable to do things which would cause you to fail a driving test, then of course they found him not guilty. The issue is that the law is failing, not that this case is particularly unusual.

I know 2 people that have killed a pedestrian whilst driving. Neither of them meant to do it. Both of them could have maybe avoided it if given the same situation again (maybe not) but it was just the luck of the draw in both cases.

I don't know the specifics, but you do seem to allude that they could have done something different. In a general sense though, the vast, vast majority of cases drivers who kill vulnerable road users have made a conscious decision to do something which was a direct cause of the incident (in this case the driver chose not to give way properly, in a way which would undoubtedly have failed a driving test). Of course they didn't mean to kill the pedestrians - most drivers aren't psychopaths - but that doesn't mean they didn't mean to do something which resulted in the death. You're right though, it is luck of the draw, because the majority of people doing such things are lucky and get away with it - that doesn't mean it's not dangerous though. What it does mean is that such dangerous driving is normalised - it's arse backwards, because the majority of people are lucky it's seen as acceptable. Right here is the fundamental problem with the subjective nature of careless and dangerous driving - typical jury members haven't been competent drivers, they've been lucky.

On a different point, the thing which is slightly unusual about this case is that the driver is a proven liar - yet his defence still fundamentally relies upon his claims. I'm not a lawyer of any variety, but surely in any non motoring case the prosecution barrister would suggest to the jury that they couldn't believe a word he said, and that therefore his defence that he looked properly should carry no weight - in any non motoring case the jury would pay attention to such suggestions and find a defendant guilty if his only defence relied upon his own claims.

(I'm not sure it's mentioned in the linked report, you'll have to search, other articles I found suggest that the driver initially stated to the police that he stopped at the give way, then claimed that he slowed down, before the black box in his car proved he didn't slow at all).

Yes, as discussed extensively on this thread and all similar threads, by a jury which consists of drivers who wouldn't pass a test if they took one tomorrow, who are instructed to judge his standard of driving against their own. If (as seems likely) they all think it's perfectly reasonable to do things which would cause you to fail a driving test, then of course they found him not guilty. The issue is that the law is failing, not that this case is particularly unusual.

It's the definition that DD 'falls significantly short of expected driving standards' that causes the problem - the trouble is that something that I think might fall significantly short does not in the view of many members of the public.

Perhaps we need a single charge of death by pisspoor* driving, and the judge to subsequently decide whether the driving is sufficiently dangerous to make it an aggravating factor when it comes to sentencing, or 'merely' careless.

*other legal terms are available.

The defence barrister is a close friend of my dad's. If indeed he did misquote the Highway Code unchallenged then this should go to appeal, without question.

Having been on a jury earlier this year, I find it very strange that the judge didn't demand a citation when the pivotal Highway Code / dark clothing point was mentioned. Let alone the prosecution not destroying that minutes later.