Forum menu
over on road.cc someone suggests in the comments that SPOKES the local cycling advocacy group plan on producing some documentation of the trial, might be interesting to see what the Jury heard in detail and what directions the JUdge gave - back when the driver pleaded not guilty the newpaper report stated that the trial would take 5 days and "numerous" expert witnesses would be called
very sad - the loss of young person's life because the driver failed to have any regard for the safety of others and that the message given by this failure of justice to other drivers that don't give a .... is that that's ok, that's all fine and dandy
can't help but think that failure to secure [b]any[/b] conviction in this case suggests that both the Police investigation and the CPS case in court must have been very weak - next month it's two years since the House of Commons published its report "Get Britain Cycling"....only had 18 recommendations to act on one of which was:
[i]Strengthen the enforcement of road traffic law, including speed
limits, and ensuring that driving offences - especially those resulting
in death or injury - are treated sufficiently seriously by police,
prosecutors and judges.[/i]
and another one
[i]The Government should produce a cross-departmental Cycling
Action Plan, with annual progress reports[/i]
if any one can point me to this Action Plan and the annual progress report will be pleasantly surprised
Years ago I did jury service. It wasn't a road case but the principle remains. The prosecution came out with a very weak case based on the evidence of one person with a grievance against the accused.
It was a Friday afternoon, & despite the flawed evidence over half of the jury were ready to convict just to get it over with.
I saw at first hand how people are swayed by one or two more forceful personalities and will acquiesce with them because they are essentially lazy.
Transpose that to a case similar to this & imagine a Clatksonesque gobshite ranting about cyclists in the jury room & I can all too easily imagine a scene where the jury will swing behind the 'poor persecuted motorist'.
*I refused to convict & managed to hold out for a Not Guilty verdict.
^ '12 Bored Drivers' to become the '12 Angry Men' remake?
[quote=poly ]If the crown case was focussed on the mobile phone use and they thought it was convincing they may well choose not to "waste" either court time or the officers time following up on the speed suggestion. At the end of the day the prosecutor is a human being who will make mistakes. It is inevitable that prosecutors vary in standard and experience - its quite likely that the person allocating this case saw it as "straight forward" and "just road traffic" and so allocated it to a less experienced prosecutor.
Wow. I'm not disputing your suggestions there, I'm sure you're right, but given the conviction rate for DBDD and DBCD (particularly where vulnerable road users are involved) it seems almost as incredible as the verdict that the CPS would decide they didn't need their best prosecutor and all the available evidence. Is there no auditing of prosecution rates, or more importantly post case analysis within the CPS? If there was, then surely they would get their best team on cases like this and make sure not to mess it up. We are being badly let down by the legal system.
(I'm tempted to suggest we are being let down by the legal system regarding other aspects you mention about admissibility of evidence - it's almost as if getting the procedure right is more important than getting the right verdict)
Well this hasn't cheered up my Saturday mornings.
I have to admit thinking about this whole issue, the legal system failing us this badly is justification for vigilantism. What can we legally (or undetectably) do as a community to **** up the lives of lying scum like Philip Sinden?
Probably start by not revealing such thoughts so publicly!
[quote=bails ]I read (can't find the link now, will look for it) that the last text was sent less than 60 seconds before the driver called 999 to report the crash. That sounds relevant to me.
It's here:
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/deal/news/van-driver-killed-cyclist-while-33310/
What was the text the driver "had to send"?
Why was it OK to be doing this while driving?
This case stinks.
Based on the newspaper reports it is really hard to see how a jury did not convict. As Polly has rightly pointed out you never get the same picture of the actual evidence from press reporting but still ffs cyclist hit from behind by someone who had received a text and was engaged in composing a reply I would have confidently expected death by due care as a bare minimum.
Further to that, once you read Bez's blog article on it, with all the timings/sums, it's hard to see how it wasn't DBCD [u]regardless[/u] of whether or not he was texting at the time.
Aracer - I'll answer your question, but I think you need to seriously consider your vigilante position. CPS are highly likely to divert a lot of resources in to a case where they feel people are taking the rule of law into their own hands. In fact you may want to remove (or ask a mod to remove) your post as even threatening or inciting it could get you in the brown sticky stuff!
Will CPS have their "best" prosecutor on the case? Well no they are probably working on a murder trial, or perhaps a major organised crime gang...
I don't profess to know the inner workings of the CPS. But, I do have a reasonable idea what goes on there. People are often surprised that the Crown aren't "in it to win at all costs". I am sure prosecutors are measured on their "success rate", but success may well not be "conviction" but rather case resolved! I expect it is a mixture of these. Your best guy gets through the most cases with a good conviction rate. When you are managing a budget getting through maximum cases with minimum resources is probably the aim - especially since whilst the CPS can be awarded "costs" they probably are always making a loss, and the prospect of actually getting paid costs from someone sent to prison is tiny!
Essentially evidence costs money. Presenting evidence in court costs even more (court time, expert witnesses etc) so you don't really want excessive amounts of evidence.
I am sure there is post case analysis - but its too late for that case. Almost every profession has people in it who will screw up from time to time. The smart ones learn and improve, but they all start somewhere. I'm not sure how CPS organise their 'teams' I suspect it is geographical (this makes sense for a practical perspective) but it can mean they haven't dealt with a traffic trial for the last 6 months because they've happened to be doing domestic violence, drugs, theft or other cases. A well funded defence though will have a road traffic specialist.
[quote=poly ]CPS are highly likely to divert a lot of resources in to a case where they feel people are taking the rule of law into their own hands. In fact you may want to remove (or ask a mod to remove) your post as even threatening or inciting it could get you in the brown sticky stuff!
Presumably more into chasing somebody complaining about injustice on a forum than they divert into prosecuting drivers who kill? 🙄
I've reread my post, and happy that I'm not actually inciting let alone threatening anything illegal.
Will CPS have their "best" prosecutor on the case? Well no they are probably working on a murder trial, or perhaps a major organised crime gang...I don't profess to know the inner workings of the CPS. But, I do have a reasonable idea what goes on there. People are often surprised that the Crown aren't "in it to win at all costs"
I am sure there is post case analysis - but its too late for that case. Almost every profession has people in it who will screw up from time to time
I think the point is that these "screw-ups" are the norm
I don't care whether it's incompetence, bad luck or them deliberately not prioritising these cases - it's unacceptable regardless of cause
People are being killed and drivers pretty much know that they can drive badly/dangerously with impunity. As a result, many of them do
Sooner or later someone is going to go all Michael Douglas after one of these verdicts.
I think the point is that these "screw-ups" are the norm
I think it's because of the way the law operates in the UK. It's adversarial - prosecution versus defence. Whoever has the better council will probably prevail. The emphasis ought to be on determining the truth. It isn't.
But then that's the way government operates too. Serious flaws in our systems.
[i]Based on the newspaper reports it is really hard to see how a jury did not convict.[/i]
Presumably the Judge directed them to a 'not guilty' verdict?
It's the Judges' summing up that really decides the verdict.
"Will CPS have their "best" prosecutor on the case? Well no they are probably working on a murder trial"
Just out of interest, whats the difference between a murder and a death by careless driving, from the victims perspective?
Presumably the Judge directed them to a 'not guilty' verdict?It's the Judges' summing up that really decides the verdict.
No its not. If the judge intentionally steered them there might be a cause for appeal. The judges directions are to ensure the Jury understand what they have to do in law. People perceive that Judges steer juries because they narrow the scope of the "question" the jury must consider - but that is not deciding the verdict that is applying the law! As it happens the only brief quote I saw from the Judge seemed to hint at a degree of surprise!
Intent. You can say that doesn't matter from the victims perspective but that neither does a pure accidental death or a murder. I'm not sure the "victim's" perspective is the aim of justice. Afterall if it were, using a mobile phone and not causing an accident is "victimless" and not really a crime.Just out of interest, whats the difference between a murder and a death by careless driving, from the victims perspective?
Just out of interest, whats the difference between a murder and a death by careless driving, from the victims perspective?
Intent.
From a prevention of deaths perspective ?
I assume most folk intending to commit a murder will be well ware that their behaviour is illegal and that they're likely to be pursued by the law. Similarly, no member of the public would be encouraged to act murderously on grounds that society considers it acceptable.
It's also true , I believe, that virtually all murderers select their victim and specifically target their "dangerous" behaviour at that person.
Dangerous drivers, on the other hand, threaten lives indiscriminately and essentially with the acceptance, even approval, of their peers and the tacit acceptance of authorities representing society at large.
My logic would tell me that pursuing dangerous drivers thoroughly and punishing them appropriately would result in a greater safety benefit to our society than would pursuing murderers.
I'm not actually proposing a reversal of the priorities, but maybe a bit of balancing.
scaredypants.. an excellent precise summary
Like a lot the people on here I'm both a cyclists and driver, and although it's an absolute tragedy when there are fatalities on the roads, you don't have to be texting or surfing the net to hit another Road user.
I was knocked off my bike many years ago, a car pulled out on me when I was travelling at some speed down a hill. Since then I have learned the hard way never to take anything for granted on our roads. Where I drive to and from work or to a spot I like to ride, I'm constantly encounter idiots who think they're in the tour de France weaving in and out of a pack of riders without any thoughts to who or what is coming from behind. Not all riders do this but very nearly rear ended one in matlock a couple of weeks ago. My heart was in my mouth then followed quickly by some very choice words. So all I'm saying is, it's not always the drivers fault
What does piss me off is they will chase a stock broker half the way around the world with all the necessary means available, and when they eventually catch them after spending vast amounts of money and lengthy court proceedings the key gets thrown away, but kill someone and its almost as they are saying that's not a problem. Something is really f*c*k*d up with the UK justice system.
My heart was in my mouth then followed quickly by some very choice words. So all I'm saying is, it's not always the drivers fault
Not sure what your point is on this thread. It's not *always* the driver's fault, and no-one was saying it is, but all the research shows that it is in the majority of cases and, since the driver is the one piloting the vehicle that has the potential to cause serious harm they should be taking the utmost care when they're driving it.
This guy's story is a pack of lies but he ADMITS he was using his phone to send and receive texts while driving. He had to swerve to avoid a pedestrian violently enough that stuff was thrown around his cab (where exactly was his laptop for it to end up in his lap and even if not being used why wasn't it stowed safely?), a driver coming the other way supposedly flashed him to let him know about the pedestrian (very odd - was he driving way to fast perhaps?).
The Police and Legal system just isn't doing enough to protect the vulnerable and excuses and normalises unacceptable behaviour from drivers. The *start* of tightening this up should be rigid enforcement of speed limits as a point of principle. 1mph over, 2mph over - penalties.
My logic would tell me that pursuing dangerous drivers thoroughly and punishing them appropriately would result in a greater safety benefit to our society than would pursuing murderers.I'm not actually proposing a reversal of the priorities, but maybe a bit of balancing.
I'm not particularly disagreeing. Statistically you are far more likely to be killed on the roads (not just as a cyclist) than murdered.
However, as I have said here before, focussing on the bad drivers who happen to kill someone is probably misplaced. To prevent the casualties, you need to target those who have so far been lucky enough not to kill someone. Unfortunately those caught committing such offences think the police should be focussing on "real crimes".
there isn't a "UK" Justice system. The crown's priorities may be different from the court's priorities. That is not necessarily a bad thing.Something is really f*c*k*d up with the UK justice system.
IMO that's why you need to highlight the "real crimes" - those drivers who actually do manange to kill or maim somebody while "only sending a quick text".To prevent the casualties, you need to target those who have so far been lucky enough not to kill someone. Unfortunately those caught committing such offences think the police should be focussing on "real crimes"
These can be exemplars of the hazards of driving like a **** and when the next arsehole bleats about real crimes, the traffic copper/somebody on facebook can point at convictions for exactly the same behaviour that led to the death of another human being. At the moment all they see is "empty" accusations and ultimate apparent vindication of the shit behaviour of yet another crap driver
IMO that's why you need to highlight the "real crimes" - those drivers who actually do manange to kill or maim somebody while "only sending a quick text".
These can be exemplars of the hazards of driving like a **** and when the next arsehole bleats about real crimes, the traffic copper/somebody on facebook can point at convictions for exactly the same behaviour that led to the death of another human being. At the moment all they see is "empty" accusations and ultimate apparent vindication of the shit behaviour of yet another crap driver
I think you are wrong!
I suspect that the majority of the non bike riding public, if asked "what happens if you drive into and kill a cyclist when sending a text" thinks "jail time".
However the majority of text sending drivers thing "I won't his anyone".
Its like drink driving in the 70s. Lots of people did it. They didn't believe they were really doing anything that bad because they didn't expect to harm anyone. The deterrent for drink driving today isn't, "well if I am unlucky enough to kill someone, I'm going to get jail time" - its "if I get caught at all I will get a year ban, and be a social leper".
So given that even when brought to court these people can get off, how would you enforce penalties against those who just drive badly? There are far, far too few police on the roads to actually collect evidence in real-time
You've seen the comments on facebook/top gear/online articles by shit chefs - the dismissive/hostile attitude is ingrained in a very considerable section of the public.
The way to make these people social lepers is to publicise cases where exactly these "trivial" behaviours have (been deemed, in law, to have directly) led to deaths. At the moment we can't do that.
There are far, far too few police on the roads to actually collect evidence in real-time
A good start would be zero tolerance. How often do you hear about the Police letting people off speeding/mobile use/bad driving with a verbal warning? These aren't single occurrences - they're people who probably drive badly the whole time. And what happens the one time in maybe a decade they get picked up on it? "Don't do it again sir"
[quote=poly ]However, as I have said here before, focussing on the bad drivers who happen to kill someone is probably misplaced. To prevent the casualties, you need to target those who have so far been lucky enough not to kill someone. Unfortunately those caught committing such offences think the police should be focussing on "real crimes".
FWIW I (now) tend to agree with you - you and others have persuaded me that this is what we should be aiming for. The trouble is the cultural issue you identify in your last sentence - I'm not sure how we're ever likely to get to the point where behaviour which sometimes results in drivers killing is punished harshly enough to stop people from doing it when so many people think that driving is a right (and all the other bollocks people come up with about driving). Not until we get a benign dictatorship.
Hence for now all we have is sorting out the issue that even when they do kill drivers get away with it.
there isn't a "UK" Justice system. The crown's priorities may be different from the court's priorities. That is not necessarily a bad thing.Something is really f*c*k*d up with the UK justice system.
So something is really ****ed up with either the crown or the court (I'd suggest both - better laws are needed, starting with an automatic assumption of at least careless driving if you manage to hit and kill a vulnerable road user - better application is needed in the courts, including a CPS which handles such cases better, lawyers not being allowed to victim blame and judges allowed to direct juries to disregard the HC).
starting with an automatic assumption of at least careless driving if you manage to hit and kill a vulnerable road user
Why only a vulnerable road user? Should be automatic assumption of careless driving if you have any sort of collision. The fact that it's a bollard or traffic light rather than a pedestrian this time shouldn't make a difference. You hit a piece of street furniture, or drive your car off a corner into a field, your fitness to drive a vehicle should be reassessed. That's how we'd deal with a pilot, or a train driver. Why not a motorist?
And while we're at it, the local authority should recover the cost of the repairs to street furniture from the driver (or their insurance). I don't see why my tax should pay to repair the damage from a reckless driver.
well the only obvious way is mandatory bans! It wouldn't be a vote winner though!I'm not sure how we're ever likely to get to the point where behaviour which sometimes results in drivers killing is punished harshly enough to stop people from doing it when so many people think that driving is a right
I understand why people say this but there was a case (in Aberdeen?) where, as I recall it a school age child on a bike simply rode into the path of a truck. His mother witnessed it and said there was absolutely nothing the driver could have done. It reminded me of being a passenger on a bus 20 yrs ago which hit a three year old who ran out her garden gate - she lived (after surgery) but another inch and she might not have.starting with an automatic assumption of at least careless driving if you manage to hit and kill a vulnerable road user
Both those drivers were seemingly faultless, absolutely devastated but under your proposal would be assumed guilty. Your approach assumes vulnerable road users never do anything wrong. Yet we know not all cyclists and pedestrians are as responsible as we'd like.
as I understand it they already do (or at least the Highways Agency do in places they maintain).And while we're at it, the local authority should recover the cost of the repairs to street furniture from the driver (or their insurance). I don't see why my tax should pay to repair the damage from a reckless driver.