any chance your dad might boot him in the cods on our behalf ?The defence barrister is a close friend of my dad's
this should go to appea
You can't appeal a not guilty verdict.
[quote=Bez ]You can't appeal a not guilty verdict.
...and there appears no obvious sanction for defence lawyers wilfully distorting the facts. Hence they continue to do so. Scumbag lawyer Janick Fielding comes to mind for the lies and victim blaming in his summing up.
I know the judge who fell asleep during a child abuse case .
I would not want him judging any court case I was involved in.
Judges are like the House of Lords Lords imo, full of doddery old toffs out of touch with the real world who get a load of money for doing bugger all , and can get away with being utterly incompetant
Mind you , prosecution lawyer should have objected the comments re the Highway dress code for cyclists
Surprised they didnt blame the helemt / sun in your eyes either
Or one from Bez's blog - defence lawyer says to ignore the HC because of "real life" and gets away with it:
“Those of you who drive and those of you who are road users, you’ll be aware of Highway Code and aware that that photo is not what it looks like when driving. How often do you get that sunny road, that marking, that opportunity? No, this is real life.”
Though it's worse, another blog linked from that has the judge telling the jury to ignore the HC 🙄 The whole system is just completely ****ed up.
either the law has to be changed - so that the [i]consequence[/i] of the driving in question designates the charge -
ie. careless driving - the accused didn't look sufficiently and knocked over a bin = Careless
The accused didn't look sufficiently and broke a woman's leg = Dangerous
Or we just have to keep going and live in hope of not meeting someone [i]careless[/i] who we can't avoid.. or/and... wait for driverless cars to take over.
Is it just me, but has the comment about brightly coloured clothing been removed from the article?
Not just you - it wasn't there when I first looked several hours ago, I presume it went in an earlier edit for whatever reason.
Not just you - it wasn't there when I first looked several hours ago, I presume it went in an earlier edit for whatever reason.
driver is a proven liar
I think the prosecution is only allowed to go after the chaps character if he claims he is of good character.
I rode that junction about 3 hours before the victim. very hard to see how that wouldn't be dangerous driving imo. lots of visibility there. wonder what the charge would have been if he'd hit a car and killed another motorist.
it has genuinely shook me up a bit and I've ridden much much less this year, now I have kids I worry about leaving them orphaned through no fault of my own.
[quote=DT78 ]I think the prosecution is only allowed to go after the chaps character if he claims he is of good character.
It's not an issue of his character, it's a question of the value of his evidence - ie not directly attacking him, just pointing out that his evidence is worthless.
I rode that junction about 3 hours before the victim. very hard to see how that wouldn't be dangerous driving imo. lots of visibility there. wonder what the charge would have been if he'd hit a car and killed another motorist.it has genuinely shook me up a bit and I've ridden much much less this year, now I have kids I worry about leaving them orphaned through no fault of my own.
I sympathise greatly.
Ironically I suspect that a cyclist would be better able than a driver to be able to see and anticipate that the car was not slowing down - sufficiently or at all - and brake/swerve. I am not suggesting that the cyclist who was killed was in any way at fault, simply noting that on a bike you can often have better awareness of cars - e.g. hearing engine noise and judging speed etc. (i.e. heightened senses triggered by the potential threat the cars represent) - and more reaction time than other car drivers encased in their own metal bubble travelling twice as fast.
However, I increasingly find such increased awareness to be a curse rather than a blessing: hearing a car behind me on quiet country roads like the one in the accident instantly makes me concerned about where the car is, how far away, what its speed is etc., prompting multiple shoulder checks as it gets closer to me. It feels as though just to try to stay reasonably safe I need to exercise a level of constant vigilance that verges on paranoia about other road users, which spoils the experience of riding on what should be very safe country roads.
I was involved in a serious accident this year so had a traffic officer explain the difference. In a nutshell, dangerous driving involves a sustained period of carelessness (i.e. driving at a standard that would fail the driving test or "driving without due care and attention") or a single incident with multiple factors. The example I was given was - causing an accident by failing to stop at a give way sign, while speeding, and knowingly having failed brakes.
Sadly, "causing death by careless driving" and "causing serious injury by careless driving" didn't make it into law despite being drafted.
In my case the driver pleaded guilty to careless driving.
The example I was given was - causing an accident by failing to stop at a give way sign, while speeding, and knowingly having failed brakes.
Far be it from me to question the police (yeah, right) but I don't think that's actually a great example. Yes, that almost certainly would constitute dangerous driving, but the last of those factors would probably be sufficient on its own.
As an example: if I recall, death by dangerous driving was the offence for which a minibus driver was found guilty last year when he drove along a motorway knowing he had a failing clutch. (He was thus travelling at a relatively low speed; someone else drove into the back of his minibus and some of his passengers died. No charge was, of course, made against the person who drove into the back of him.)
In the case under discussion here, the CPS clearly thought that failing to observe a give way sign and failing to reduce speed and failing to look properly were sufficient to amount to dangerous driving. There may be other unreported factors.
Sadly, "causing death by careless driving" and "causing serious injury by careless driving" didn't make it into law despite being drafted.
Eh? The former has been an offence since 1988.
[quote=I_did_dab ]In a nutshell, dangerous driving involves a sustained period of carelessness (i.e. driving at a standard that would fail the driving test
Therefore the standard I suggested above - I suspect if you kill a vulnerable road user who is doing nothing wrong you would fail your driving test! (I don't think there is any question that the driver involved in this incident would have failed his test for not giving way properly, even if the cyclist hadn't been there).
Just to reiterate the point though, that's what the standard should be in any reasonable system (in theory it's what it should be with our laws), but typical jurors won't even consider things which would fail you your test to be careless driving.
Bez - well it was one that he had recently prosecuted successfully, so not a made up example. I stand corrected on "causing death by careless driving".
Judges are like the House of Lords Lords imo, full of doddery old toffs out of touch with the real world who get a load of money for doing bugger all , and can get away with being utterly incompetant
And how would 'being in touch with the real world' help? Judges work from evidence not subjective points of view. Just because you don't agree with a judge doesn't mean they're incompetent. It just means you're not in possession of all the facts and have not sat through the case listening to evidence on both sides.
The former has been an offence since [s]1988[/s] the Road Safety Act 2006
Bez - well it was one that he had recently prosecuted successfully, so not a made up example
Sure; I've no doubt that those three things together constitute dangerous driving. What I question is his implication (or your inference perhaps) that such a combination represents the threshold between careless and dangerous: I think it's well above it.
The former has been an offence since the Road Safety Act 2006
Yes, apologies.
No worries - I remember it coming in!
The CPS has charging guidelines which say this about Dangerous Driving:
Dangerous driving includes situations where the driver has of his or her own free will adopted a particular way of driving, and also where there is a substantial error of judgement, that, even if only for a short time, amounts to driving falling far below the required standard. If the driving that caused the danger was taken as a deliberate decision, this would be an aggravating feature of the offence....
The following examples of circumstances that are likely to be characterised as dangerous driving are derived from decided cases and the SGC Definitive Guideline:
-racing or competitive driving;
-[b]failing to have a proper and safe regard for vulnerable road users such as cyclists[/b], motorcyclists, horse riders, the elderly and pedestrians or
...
-a brief but obvious danger arising from a seriously dangerous manoeuvre. This covers situations where a driver has made a mistake or an error of judgement that was so substantial that it caused the driving to be dangerous even for only a short time. Cases that illustrate this principle include:
Att.Gens' Reference No 32 of 2001 (2002) 1 Cr.App.R. (S) 121 (offender [b]failed to stop at a junction where there was a give way sign, failing to see a taxi that was being driven across the junction perfectly properly and colliding with it)[/b];
This case is textbook dangerous driving, which is why he was charged with it.
[quote=wobbliscott ]Judges work from evidence not subjective points of view.
Not really - judges might tell the jury to disregard the highway code when deciding whether a driver has done something wrong. That appears to be a subjective point of view not working from the evidence (in general judges don't decide cases, they simply decide what evidence is allowed and provide guidance to the jury, hence highly subjective).
Just because you don't agree with a judge doesn't mean they're incompetent. It just means you're not in possession of all the facts and have not sat through the case listening to evidence on both sides.
No, but there's something very wrong when judges let defence lawyers get away with distorting the evidence, victim blaming and lying. Something even more wrong when judges tell a jury that drivers aren't required to follow the HC, and that ignoring it doesn't stop somebody from being a competent driver. Unless of course you're suggesting that I'm getting that impression of what has happened in court from completely made up press reporting.
I just checked the Highway Code and this is what it says about clothing etc. Note the word 'should' and not 'must'.
Clothing. You should wear
a cycle helmet which conforms to current regulations, is the correct size and securely fastened
appropriate clothes for cycling. Avoid clothes which may get tangled in the chain, or in a wheel or may obscure your lights
light-coloured or fluorescent clothing which helps other road users to see you in daylight and poor light
reflective clothing and/or accessories (belt, arm or ankle bands) in the dark.
[quote=bails ]This case is textbook dangerous driving, which is why he was charged with it.
Indeed, and you have to wonder whether the jury would have convicted of DD if he had driven in exactly the same way but collided with a taxi as in the referenced case. I can already hear the argument "but it's harder to see a cyclist than a taxi" - hence the earlier bit about failing to have a proper regard for vulnerable road users.
Law is broken.
I think it's well above it.
I'm sure he did too.
Know the junction well. It’s now been changed to “stop” signs instead of give way.
The theory is that it’s so open people don’t slow down and look further down the road and miss cyclists as the6 are close to the junction and travelling relatively slowly.
It’s bizarre that so man6 accidents happen at this j7nction with almost 100% sight lines across 360 degrees. Not just cars and bikes but lots of car accidents as well.
A lot of similar junctions lie this get staggered. Similar issue at bull hill and they put in some build outs there which seem to d9 the trick.
Apologies for the slippery n7mber keys in iOS 1q!
It’s now been changed to “stop” signs instead of give way.
Wonder is driving through a stop sign is counted as dangerous driving or is it still just a bit careless?
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-42456674 ]Sentenced today:[/url]
- Suspended eight-month prison sentence
- 250 hours of unpaid work
- Disqualified from driving for three years.
Cheers for the update slowster.
Doesn't seem much for killing someone.
If the cyclist - RIP - had been a politico or related to one this case would have had a different outcome.
Another example of how little a cyclist's death, when caused by a driver, matters in the eyes of the law.
Lord chief justice's grandson dying in similar circumstances would result in totally different sentence.
That's disgusting. Can it be appealed?
No. TBH checking the sentencing guidelines, it appears to be a possible sentence even if the judge decided it fitted in the most severe category - allowing for the discount due to guilty plea it's not quite at the bottom end for that. I suspect that as seems to usually be the case the aggravating factor of killing a vulnerable road user has been ignored and mitigation has been applied because the driver was inexperienced (FFS how on earth is that allowed as mitigation - it really sums up all that is wrong with the system - [b]new and inexperienced drivers should take more care[/b]). I was prepared to be outraged at the judge deciding it wasn't in the highest category, but I think he has. No I don't think it can be appealed - I suspect if the sentence had been much more than it would have been appealed by the defence though. If I was following the guidelines I'd have struggled to make the sentence much more - the problem is with the sentencing ranges, or more to the point the problem is with the system which allows him to be found not guilty of dangerous driving, despite doing one of the things set out in the sentencing guidelines as being an example of dangerous driving (deliberately ignoring the instruction on a road sign).
Shocking that the driver escaped prison time and was given a suspended sentence. 👿
While this week, we've had a 64-year old killed in an incident near Itchen Bridge and yesterday, a 32-year old was killed in a collision near Brownhill Road.
Yet the Southampton Police started and ceased Operation Close Pass within the blink of an eye last back around October/November.
