[Closed] To be read by every single one of you

Ms Purcell must be well connected.

Wear hi viz? Have you ever been driving in twilight and seen a grey/silver car with no lights on? Why should drivers not all have to drive bright yellow cars?

I agree she didn't necessarily cause the death which may have been prevented with a helmet (and in court it can be that cut and dry), but she's clearly not driving with care and attention if she didn't even stop!

I can't help feel that CDF have let inexperience beat them here. If they had known the expert witness would undermine the case they could have called their own expert to give contrary views. I don't know how experienced their prosecutor was, but I am sure if it had been a high profile case the CPS would have had a barrister on it who knew the case law inside out, was used to defence tactics around it being too difficult to drive on busy streets, and would have asked pointed questions to point out the apparent failings in the accident investigators evidence.

How does a case like the get reviewed? There just seems so many errors, and wider issues of attitude and wording of guidelines.

I'm not sure if it has already had an inquest - that would seem to be the only prospect now for questioning some of the comments. However I am not sure that the inquest remit really stretches to the investigation? The right coroner would have some robust words though. The wrong coroner may just reinforce the issues.

.       Mr Mason was displaying lights on his bike, but these lights could have easily be lost to a driver’s sight in a busy London road in the dark where there are numerous other lights displayed.

This seems to be the crux of the aquittal. The driver consistently maintained she didn't see Mr Mason, and the police agree that this could easily be the case. Or at least in the opinion of the reviewing officer. Add that no witnesses saw the actual "collision" I'd have been more suprised if a guilty verdict had been given.
The whole thing is very sad and difficult for the Mason family, they very much have my condolences .

Thanks Bez, in that case the result makes sense to me given how the courts work. It also explains some of the attitude of the police since they would have known they couldn't get a guilty verdict on that charge. I'm curious why they tried for that though, perhaps shooting for a bigger penalty?

Causing death by careless driving is the lowest charge that could have been brought in relation to causing a death. Are you thinking of causing death by dangerous driving?

I can't help feel that CDF have let inexperience beat them here. If they had known the expert witness would undermine the case they could have called their own expert to give contrary views.

Pc Gamble was not an expert witness, he was the investigating officer. Both prosecution and defence obtained reports from expert witnesses and the former's was indeed called.

Exactly one week ago I spent 4 hours riding all over the centre of a busy capital city with my kids.
No hi-vis
No helmets
No danger
No assertive or especially vigilant cycling required.
Just efficiently and safely going from a to b.

The difference being it was Copenhagen.

And now we are home I just despair.

It isn't just infrastructure that makes Copenhagen work. It is attitude. Doing the decent thing. Everybody obeying the rules and respecting each other (drivers, cyclists and pedestrians).

I'd love to see the same thing here, but simply don't know how such a total change in attitude could be achieved.

Read a report many years ago how a motorcyclist tested out different levels of visibility enhancing equipment each month & read similar report more recently by cyclists - the only apparel that made any difference to drivers behaviour was to have the appearance of a police officer 🙁
Sadly the only reason i wear hi viz and helmet is to attempt to prevent victim blaming should the worst occur.
I also think there is a certain amount of truth in at fault drivers not being able to mentally accept what a terrible thing they have done so somehow blank out reality.
I have said it before but having been a witness to a near fatality accident - if you are ever unfortunate enough to be in a similar situation, record and photograph as much as you can, do not expect or rely on the authorities to do it 🙁
Thoughts to any family's involved in such tragic circumstances.

Notwithstanding the MET's deplorable approach to this case, I agree that the crux of the problem in this and other cases is the way the legislation for careless and dangerous driving is understood, explained and applied.

Duty of care, required skill set & knowledge upon anyone operating said machinery in any other environment than the PH requires routine testing to ensure the operators skill are still upto speed.

For some **** reason this train of thought is NOT deemed applicable or reasonable for the majority of road users............

The sad fact of it is your right, because if 'we' (society) tasked everyone to drive with the care they really should the police and courts would be overloaded in days. Look at how many cars crash into each other, and nothing is done about 99% of those incidents, it just goes through insurance.

In this case, driver in a complex and busy environment was clearly fixated on what most drivers are, the red traffic light they were approaching. There are accidents every day of drivers crashing into a car directly in front of them because the driver is looking BEYOND what is in front of them.

It isn't just infrastructure that makes Copenhagen work. It is attitude. Doing the decent thing. Everybody obeying the rules and respecting each other (drivers, cyclists and pedestrians).

I'd love to see the same thing here, but simply don't know how such a total change in attitude could be achieved.

^ This x 1000
Sadly our Brexiters seem to be largely of the Daily Mail/Soaraway Sun - 'I hate cyclists' mindset, and with some kind of 'road-tax' on the horizon it seems set for their aggressively-voiced entitlement mentality to only increase on our roads.

In this case, driver in a complex and busy environment was clearly fixated on what most drivers are, the red traffic light they were approaching.

I suspect it was the elephant in the room of mobile phone use, not impending traffic signals. The witnesses imply that the driver was not concentrating on her surroundings. (Faster than the rest... etc.)

Similarly the helmet or absence of such is completely irrelevant. Quite aside from there being no evidence that Mr Mason would have survived the result of the driver's actions had he been wearing a helmet, in English law you take your victim as you find them. It's not the case that the law allows you to excuse yourself from criminal liability because the victim could have taken further precautions to mitigate the impacts of your actions upon them.

The police making the absence of a helmet an issue, let alone their implication that it would have changed the outcome, is utterly deplorable.

It's all very well discussing it amongst ourselves here in our safe, warm and secure forum, but what do we do about it? We can't all move to Copenhagen. Anyone got any ideas?

[quote=eulach ]It's all very well discussing it amongst ourselves here in our safe, warm and secure forum, but what do we do about it? We can't all move to Copenhagen. Anyone got any ideas?

The frustration from such cases and the lack of any indication that a change in the law or even a change in the guidelines is even being considered suggests that the only answer to that is vigilantism

It isn't just infrastructure that makes Copenhagen work. It is attitude. Doing the decent thing. Everybody obeying the rules and respecting each other (drivers, cyclists and pedestrians).

I'd love to see the same thing here, but simply don't know how such a total change in attitude could be achieved.

Obsessing over the punishment of a tiny minority of drivers whose actions cause a fatality won't do it. Even if Gail Purcell had been found guilty, it would not act as a deterrent to other bad drivers, because they do not consider themselves to be bad drivers, and they would not identify with her and think that they could just as easily similarly kill a cyclist or pedestrian, and so they will not modify their behaviour and driving.

Every day tens/hundreds of thousands of other drivers drive just as badly as Gail Purcell or worse. Even though 99.999% of the time there is no accident and no one is hurt, that is where we need to focus our attention.

My own view is that some of the approaches used in workplace health and safety and in management systems generally should be introduced. So the priority should be on reducing all 'deviations' (bad driving) by 'corrective actions', rather than punishing a tiny minority who just happen to fall foul of the law of large numbers and be the one whose mistake causes a death or injury (I'm not suggesting for one minute that they should not be punished, but that their punishment is not the priority when it comes to achieving improved road safety). By 'corrective action' I mean things like giving police traffic officers the power to require a driver to re-take their driving test for careless driving (not as a criminal punishment, but as a 'corrective action', in the same way a warehouse manager might decide a fork lift driver who has had an accident should undergo early refresher training and testing). Similarly, if a driver exceeds a certain number of points on their licence, take it a step further and require the driver to pass an advanced driving test. I suspect that fear of being required to pass a test would also be a far more effective deterrent than fines and points.

I would even extend the same approach to cyclists, so for example a cyclist who jumps a red light is required to do a cycling proficiency course.

[quote=slowster ]Even if Gail Purcell had been found guilty, it would not act as a deterrent to other bad drivers, because they do not consider themselves to be bad drivers, and they would not identify with her and think that they could just as easily similarly kill a cyclist or pedestrian, and so they will not modify their behaviour and driving.

nail, head interface - though it's worse than that, I don't think Gail considers herself to be a bad driver, and nor apparently does PC Gamble or 12 people sitting in a courtroom.

Hence whilst I agree that the focus needs to be on all the bad drivers, including the majority who are lucky, you have to start by changing those attitudes before you can get anywhere with addressing the bigger picture. The scale of punishment for drivers causing death certainly isn't the most important thing, but you do at least have to find fault with their actions!

I suspect that fear of being required to pass a test would also be a far more effective deterrent than fines and points.

I would even extend the same approach to cyclists, so for example a cyclist who jumps a red light is required to do a cycling proficiency course.

I suspect you're right, and that punishment needs to be separated from licensing. Satisfying as it might have been, it's not obvious that locking up Purcell would have been useful, or even justified. Stopping her driving, either permanently or until she had demonstrated sustained attention and competence might have been both.

Even better might be to make the bad drivers pass Bikeability first.

Whilst the views expressed by Slowster are admirable, I fear we lack the numbers of traffic police to make any significant impact on people's driving standards. I speed on my motorbike because I know the chances of getting caught are slim. If the odds of getting caught became much higher I'd not do it. I know where the fixed cameras are and the prospect of being seen by a police car are slight. I seldom see them when on the road, likewise camera vans.

We need to strengthen the fact that a licence is a privilege, not a right. The more that privilege is withdrawn the better things might become. We also need to treat those who drive without a licence more rigorously. I've lost count of the number of time I've seen disqualified drivers given little more than another disqualification on shows like Traffic Cops and the like. What's the Point? They didn't stop driving the first time, what makes the courts think that they'll obey the order this time. Lock them up.

We won't change people's mind set by being nice, they'll continue to take the piss. The more we read about the likes of Ms Purcell getting away with murder the more well think that we will too. I doubt that she meant to kill, but she did and should be punished in my opinion.

If nothing else, hopefully this tragedy will get the Police to take a long hard look at how they investigate these cases. Their failure to follow up witnesses and evidence at the time is what has caused this terrible saga to drag on, and so influenced the jury to acquit.

Let's concentrate on pushing them to get that right for the future. Nothing to be gained now from continuing to point out how crap the driving/observation was.

How do we get rid of 'careless driving' from the statue? It seems to be that dangerous driving is used basically never in RTCs involving cyclists. Online petitions seem to be ineffectual so how do we lean on justice ministers

how do we lean on justice ministers

Via your MP.

makes for an interesting read. I can understand not seeing bikes on the road even when they having lights in some circumstances. There is also the issue of ineffectual and poorly positioned lights. I've lost count of the number of people in Glasgow that don't have lights, don't wear helmets, have lights in stupid places or pointing down so you can hardly see them.

How does not wearing a hat excuse an inability to see someone?

its not, I'm assuming its listed because it contributed to his death

Only in the same way that not having one "contributes" to the death of a pedestrian killed by someone hitting them with a car.

Anyway, you'd dropped it into a list of reasons for not seeing someone, which was what I took to be the context. Hence my error 😉

You're assuming? You listed it!

If you're referring the report in the OP, then there appears to be no evidence that the lack of helmet made any difference - though it's fundamentally irrelevant to the liability of the driver and appears to have been thrown in simply to shift responsibility (which amongst other things leads me to question the motivations of PC Gamble - if I was inclined to vigilantism I'd be tempted to start with him rather than the driver, thankfully he has retired and hopefully is an example of a dying breed).

I referenced because of the unsafe manner of people I see in Glasgow cycling.

Did the CDF forget to cross examine PC gamble? Surely any competent brief could have pissed holes in that 'evidence'?

This bit boils my wee:

"..... in a further interview, she explained that she heard an impact to the right of her car, but she “didn’t know if it was a pedestrian or if something had come from the sky, a bag of potatoes”.

So, what's more likely to have caused an impact in the middle of London? A sack of spuds falling from the sky, or an actual person? So she carries on driving, presumably because she thought it most likely to be the potatoes?

Imagine a scenario where everything is the same except she didn't hit the cyclist but, instead, she hit and killed a police officer crossing the road.

Does anyone think there would be the same legal outcome?

Why are cyclists consistently regarded as second rate citizens?

Utterly disgusting.

This concluding point is a biggy IMO:

The current classification of careless and dangerous driving offences, how driving standards are assessed, and charging standards, are simply not fit for purpose. They must be changed, with the standard of driving required being more objectively determined. Currently, the law requires jurors to consider whether another driver’s standard of driving fell "below", or "far below" the standard which they believe would be expected of "a careful and competent driver", whatever that standard might be. One person might well think they’re a careful and competent driver as they overtake a cyclist whilst speeding, leaving a 30 cm gap. I would disagree, so our perspectives on what falls "below the competent and careful driver" test will be irreconcilable. We are asking jurors to apply a standard that few understand, and which is far too subjective.

It's easy to blame the jury, and say they simply carry the prejudices and bad habits of drivers in to court with them, but if the measurement of "careless" or "dangerous" isn't actually defined with clear measurable criteria then prosecutions will continue to fail or defendants plead down to lesser charges...

Such a definition might not be particularly easy to come up with but it would be worthwhile.

We're essentially disposable on the roads.
Every time another of these private prosecutions fails, it subtly reinforces the idea that basically a driver can get away with pretty much anything. So long as you're not blind drunk or more than about 50mph above the speed limit, so long as you stop and express great remorse you'll be let off.

Assuming death of the cyclist, at every single point the courts will seek to blame that individual. They shouldn't have been riding on that particular road, they should have been wearing a helmet/hi-vis, they should have had lights, they shouldnt have swerved/been that far out in the road, there is a good cycle path only half a mile away which they should have been using...

At every possible turn, the cyclist's actions will be questioned, picked to pieces and they will be blamed while the driver (who remember is of previously unblemished character / a good Christian / a charity fundraiser*) will be left to get away with a "momentary lapse" caused no doubt by her two angelic children in the back or some other such harmless "it could have happened to anyone" scenario.

*all of these have been used in court cases where the driver has killed a cyclist.

It really is disgusting.

A momentary lapse of justice.

Adopting Strict Liability as law as in Holland and Denmark could help a lot. Not just for poor drivers but also for poor cyclists.

[quote=thestabiliser ]Did the CDF forget to cross examine PC gamble? Surely any competent brief could have pissed holes in that 'evidence'?

I suspect the issue there is the standard of proof required - which seems the angle defence solicitors work in all similar cases. All they have to do is find some aspect of the case to introduce "reasonable doubt", and the word of a police officer however discredited it might be under cross examination is sufficient for that with a jury which is likely to be sympathetic when told about the difficulties faced by drivers.

It's easy to blame the jury, and say they simply carry the prejudices and bad habits of drivers in to court with them, but if the measurement of "careless" or "dangerous" isn't actually defined with clear measurable criteria then prosecutions will continue to fail or defendants plead down to lesser charges...

Such a definition might not be particularly easy to come up with but it would be worthwhile.

Don't need it. Presumed liability , automatic suspension and reassessment of anyone driving a vehicle involved in a fatal accident, together with requiring retesting every 5 years or on accumulation of 6 points would deal with most of the issues. Would also take power out of the hands of game playing lawyers and driving juries.

[quote=cookeaa ]It's easy to blame the jury, and say they simply carry the prejudices and bad habits of drivers in to court with them, but if the measurement of "careless" or "dangerous" isn't actually defined with clear measurable criteria then prosecutions will continue to fail or defendants plead down to lesser charges...

It's a failure of both the jury and the law - I'm not quite sure which is easier to fix.

We need to get to position ensure that any RTA that results in a death is heard in court. When you're in charge of a couple of tonnes of speeding machinery there comes a certain responsibility.

To say 'Oops, I didn't see..' and to be allowed to get away with it is inexcusable, both from the driver, the Police and CPS.

Absolutely shocking to read that, thanks for linking to it Bez.

Too stunned to know exactly what to think but these two quotes by others on here hit a nerve about how I, as a regular cyclist, is viewed by drivers that I would consider friends:

It appears to suggest that you can be a sh1t driver, cause an accident & stand a good chance of getting away with it.

The narrative around cyclist and cycling has been allowed to sink so low that anything goes, your just a **** cyclist and asking to be killed.

I've had to walk out of a room after a friend of many years called me a dangerous idiot for cycling to work every day. Driving is seen as a right and anyone who questions someone's skill level or ability is seen as the enemy.

Hope they put pressure on the Police, CPS and government to have this changed, we need to be seen as equals when using public infrastructure legally on a bicycle.

Crushing miscarriage of justice. 🙁

This concluding point is a biggy IMO:

The current classification of careless and dangerous driving offences, how driving standards are assessed, and charging standards, are simply not fit for purpose. They must be changed, with the standard of driving required being more objectively determined. Currently, the law requires jurors to consider whether another driver’s standard of driving fell "below", or "far below" the standard which they believe would be expected of "a careful and competent driver", whatever that standard might be. One person might well think they’re a careful and competent driver as they overtake a cyclist whilst speeding, leaving a 30 cm gap. I would disagree, so our perspectives on what falls "below the competent and careful driver" test will be irreconcilable. We are asking jurors to apply a standard that few understand, and which is far too subjective.

It's easy to blame the jury, and say they simply carry the prejudices and bad habits of drivers in to court with them, but if the measurement of "careless" or "dangerous" isn't actually defined with clear measurable criteria then prosecutions will continue to fail or defendants plead down to lesser charges...

Such a definition might not be particularly easy to come up with but it would be worthwhile.

It's not a biggy, and not only would it not be worthwhile, it would be a waste of time, effort and resources that could be better directed into actions that would genuinely improve road safety and reduce the number of such fatalities.

The sanctions imposed in the form of fines, points, bans and in extreme cases imprisonment by the criminal justice system probably have a relatively low impact on road safety, especially when assessed against the cost of the system.

If you want people to behave in a certain way, whether that be at work, in the emergency services, in the military, or driving on the roads, you do it best by training them, not by the threat of punishments or sanctions.

aracer

you have to start by changing those attitudes before you can get anywhere with addressing the bigger picture.

With something like drink driving, I agree that the change in societal attitudes over the last generation has been very effective, and probably much more so than the threat of of being caught by the police and prosecuted. However, whereas a driver makes a conscious decision to drink and then drive, there is not a similar conscious decision not to concentrate fully at all times and not to drive carelessly.

I suspect that with careless/substandard driving, we need to focus on changing behaviours first by training, and then people's attitudes will follow.

I suggested above that there should be more re-testing of drivers, including testing to advanced driver level, to raise standards of driving overall in the UK. What I implicitly mean by this is that there should be more training, since many drivers would probably struggle to pass their test without paying for lessons to unlearn bad habits, and the requirement to pass the test is really a way of getting people trained.

Switching the emphasis from punishment to what is effectively a competency test necessitating training to pass the test, would also change people's attitudes: people/juries/magistrates/police may have sympathy for someone who was careless and faces a ban, loss of livelihood etc. (there but for the grace of God etc.), but if someone fails to pass their test again when required (or an advanced level test), then others will see that as that specific driver's problem ("If you can't pass the test, you shouldn't be on the road..."). This has the added benefit of making this approach much more acceptable to politicians, who could implement it without being seen as the enemy of all drivers (=voters), and what would really appeal to them is that the drivers would pay for their own training (lessons).

With regard to zanelad's comment about lacking the numbers of traffic police to make any significant impact on people's driving standards, I would suggest a fairly ruthless approach making full use of camera technology, probably without even bothering to stop drivers at the time, simply sending notification in the post of having been seen tailgating, failing to use an indicator etc. etc., and a requirement to take the test within 90 days.

As to whether the numbers involved would have a significant impact, there is not only the deterrent factor, but I suspect also a potential 'critical mass' factor. If you can turn 1,000 bad drivers into good drivers, I suspect that they will have a positive effect on other drivers around them. Put crudely, if some people are not bothering to indicate to change lane, then others may be influenced by them and do similar. Conversely, the more people that do follow the rules, the more that others will behave similarly.

Don't need it. Presumed liability , automatic suspension and reassessment of anyone driving a vehicle involved in a fatal accident, together with requiring retesting every 5 years or on accumulation of 6 points would deal with most of the issues. Would also take power out of the hands of game playing lawyers and driving juries.

I don't think presumed liability is the panacea some think, and it feels an awful lot like introducing a special class of offence where the defendant is "presumed guilty" to a legal system based on the polar opposite principle...

The issue is ambiguity built into the charge as it stands...

...Driving that falls below the standard expected of a competent driver; or. Driving that does not show reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or pathways...

Clarify "the standard" and deciding guilt or innocence becomes a simpler task for any [i]confused[/i] jurors...

nd it feels an awful lot like introducing a special class of offence where the defendant is "presumed guilty" to a legal system based on the polar opposite principle...

[quote=ianbradbury ]Don't need it. Presumed liability , automatic suspension and reassessment of anyone driving a vehicle involved in a fatal accident, together with requiring retesting every 5 years or on accumulation of 6 points would deal with most of the issues. Would also take power out of the hands of game playing lawyers and driving juries.

That's even less likely to happen than any of the other suggestions, given that it pokes holes in the fundamental principle of innocent until proven guilty (which despite these issues is preferable to any other system of justice). There often seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of "strict liability" - where it does apply it is used only in civil cases, not criminal ones. I certainly don't disagree with the principle that if it can be proven beyond reasonable doubt that another road user was sticking to all the rules and it is also proven beyond reasonable doubt that a driver's actions resulted in their death then that should be sufficient for a conviction - but then you just have to see the Helen Measures case for the holes an unprincipled lawyer can stick in proving a driver's actions resulted in a death.

[quote=slowster ]With something like drink driving, I agree that the change in societal attitudes over the last generation has been very effective, and probably much more so than the threat of of being caught by the police and prosecuted. However, whereas a driver makes a conscious decision to drink and then drive, there is not a similar conscious decision not to concentrate fully at all times and not to drive carelessly.

In the general case you're correct. However in the more specific case of driving carefully around cyclists (and other vulnerable road users) there does appear to be a distinct problem with attitude amongst a significant proportion of drivers. They do make conscious decisions not to give them the care they should get by overtaking too closely etc.

Addressing that would help significantly - and I don't think it's even a particularly difficult problem to address. All you have to do is humanise them - they're not a cyclist, they're a father/wife/son/sister. Because most of those people are themselves daughters/husbands/mothers/brothers rather than monsters. If you can actually get people on the roads to relate to other people on the roads at a human level then you've got a significant way towards solving the problem.