Drivers killing cyclists – the system really is broken

Home Forum Bike Forum Drivers killing cyclists – the system really is broken

Viewing 45 posts - 91 through 135 (of 174 total)
  • Drivers killing cyclists – the system really is broken
  • Premier Icon aracer
    Subscriber

    If you look up the Guittierez-Perez case (drunk driver killing infant in pushchair) – although he took the case on she did not win her appeal (unless she appealed again?)

    He says as much on his webpage – the issue I think is with him taking on such cases in the first place. You could argue that somebody has to, but the obvious alternative would be to advise the client not to appeal.

    From the infant’s mother:
    “Then in April we found out that she had decided to appeal against her sentence.
    “Since that time we have lived with the anguish that the woman who had taken our precious son away from us quite clearly feels no remorse.”

    Incidentally I wonder whether they have web tracking on their website and are noticing all the hits coming from here – I’d like to think it a good thing him seeing what others think of him, but in reality I doubt he has enough empathy to care.

    trail_rat
    Member

    moral compass already screwed – sited perminantly at C so i doubt a few cyclists thinking hes a c**t will make much difference.

    natrix
    Member

    I sometimes do deliveries to Kings Bench walk in Temple. If I see him I’ll [Comment removed at the request of the barrister’s chambers – Mod]

    Well said mudmonster. 😛

    Once you’ve done that we’ll all buy you a bl**dy big drink and slap you on the back 8)

    retro83
    Member

    This has made me really sad and cross. 🙁 What exactly can we do here? Who can we write to to get this looked at again?

    Premier Icon ir_bandito
    Subscriber

    This has been niggling me all night, how can she get away with it? Surely there are times when the evidence is so bleeding obvious a jury isn’t needed? I know I can’t change the legal system, and that bastard lawyer is just earning money doing what he can, but, but, but… 🙁

    Anyway, I got to thinking, would it possible, if you were the cyclist, or representative of the cyclist, in this situation can you hire a greedy, horrible, devious lawyer to act as the prosecution? Ensure that the driver/killer never drives again and receives a suitable penalty?

    Premier Icon lowey
    Subscriber

    Beggars belief.

    That brief will probably be laughing as he opens another bottle of champers while reading this.

    Premier Icon bails
    Subscriber

    Who can we write to to get this looked at again?

    No one.

    The jurors heard the case and decided that she was not guilty. Nothing can be done, unless there is significant new evidence. Not sure if even that would allow a retrial tbh.

    Or you could join / fund one of the campaigns mentioned more than once on this thread and attempt to effect a sea change through lobbying and raising awareness. Seems like a tiny thing to do in the face of such indifference but it’s one of the very few options available…

    mrmo
    Member

    Or you could join / fund one of the campaigns mentioned more than once on this thread and attempt to effect a sea change through lobbying and raising awareness. Seems like a tiny thing to do in the face of such indifference but it’s one of the very few options available…

    Also don’t forget, i know it may sound like a waste of time, write to your mp and you know those expensive pointless Police commissioners no one voted for? write to them!

    Basically either do nothing and except that killing cyclists and pedestrians or join the CTC/BC/LCC etc etc pester mp’s, am’s, etc etc. If enough people show they are not happy things will change but it is going to take time.

    google “Stop de Kindermoord”

    duckman
    Member

    Please tell me she lives in a small village where at least everybody will point and whisper. Mind you,she would probably then decide she was being unfairly picked on.

    It’s this kind of thing that makes me think about jacking it all in and becoming a full time vigilante, like batman to deal out some justice!

    mrmo
    Member

    It’s this kind of thing that makes me think about jacking it all in and becoming a full time vigilante, like batman to deal out some justice!

    Just make sure you know before you start!

    http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/29/vigilante-murder-paedophile-bristol-bijan-ebrahimi

    allthepies
    Member

    How that lawyer sleeps at night I don’t know. Mind you looking at his case history I guess his moral compass was removed many years ago.

    mrmo
    Member

    How that lawyer sleeps at night I don’t know. Mind you looking at his case history I guess his moral compass was removed many years ago.

    Premier Icon cookeaa
    Subscriber

    This incident made our local news, and I’ve been mulling this over all night and half the morning since reading the OP’s link, Piss boiling and teeth grinding etc…

    I’m in Berkshire, not all that far from Henley really, and I am probably overtaken of approaching from the opposite direction at least once every couple of weeks under similar “Marginal” circumstances, where impatient drivers hedge their bets around me or other cyclists on a blind bend or crest, the potential consequences of their actions seemingly irrelevant to them as they rush to join the next queue at a set of traffic lights…

    I find the whole thing pretty disgusting really, I’m not sure what penalty or punishment would really have been be appropriate had the correct verdict (IMO of course) actually been reached, but I do know that Doctor Measures driving licence should have been taken away from her, for the protection of the general public…

    She failed the simplest measure of Driving competence, taking appropriate actions to avoid collisions with other road users.

    I really can’t fathom how being on the wrong side of the road (overtaking cyclists or otherwise) with insufficient visibility to see what is ahead, not being able to stop or accommodate any oncoming traffic (a couple of cyclists, let alone another car or van) to avoid a collision, can be seen as anything other than dangerous driving…

    As a medical professional she should, arguably, be more aware than most of the vulnerability of a Human when struck by a heavy, mobile object such as a car, that “Greater understanding of consequences” should have moderated her actions behind the wheel, not be cited as evidence of her “Good Character”…

    The man to write to with any concerns surrounding this case would be John Howell, MP for Henley (Con’) it’s his constituency, and of course he took the seat over from everyone’s favourite Tory, Boris. Who as we all know ‘champions’ the cause of the cyclist, and I’m sure still holds some sway with the great and the good in that area of the world…

    Bare in mind that the area is prime Conservative, London commuter belt, territory, and that a good chunk of the locals will spend time away from London in South Oxfordshire enjoying the countryside and quieter roads, Cycling, walking and riding Horses no doubt, The key point to make is that with Dr Measures still on the roads, his constituents, his voters, are less safe, hence this case demands his attention, it is not “Just” a cycling safety issue but a general road safety issue.

    I don’t know if an MP could request a review of a case, or examination of the evidence from which Jury’s decision was reached, but it’s certainly worth asking the question IMO.

    Premier Icon GrahamS
    Subscriber

    Interesting comparison case spotted by the CTC Road Justice campaign today:

    Driver overtakes on a blind corner, screws up and kills another driver.

    Sentence: six years in jail and a ten year driving ban.

    Bit of a difference eh?

    http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/boy-racer-gets-six-years-2655307

    trail_rat
    Member

    Didnt pull a successful lance armstrong defence then ?

    Just goes to show how shitty the prosecution were on the dr measures case, thats the sentence she should have got!

    Premier Icon GrahamS
    Subscriber

    Yeah I think the difference, aside from the vehicle of the victim, was that the bloke in the second case was, in the words of the judge, “something of the stereotype of the boy racer” due to his “ludicrously powerful motor car” (a 2 litre Clio).

    I’m sure if he’d been a nice doctor type he’d have been let off 👿

    IanW
    Member

    The difference is the young lady was riding a bike which is an inherently dangerous pastime requiring safety equipment and hi viz. you are actually putting yourself in harms way by choosing to cycle.

    The second was a bloke going about his business in a normal way.

    That and the the defendant being an educated person with a good doctor means its carry on as you were.

    sbob
    Member

    ir_bandito – Member

    This has been niggling me all night, how can she get away with it?

    She overtook towards two cyclists.
    If they were in single file and remained in single file she would not have hit either as one of the cyclists certainly managed to avoid a collision.

    There is your reasonable doubt.

    Please don’t shoot the messenger.

    trail_rat
    Member

    Well thats bullshine anyway. Missed the part where we made up rules for the defence….

    Hopefully the next time she overtakes on a blind bend there’s a bus/lorry/tractor coming the other way!

    oldgit
    Member

    A bit with you there sbob. going to read all this tonight.
    Headlines using words like ‘wrong side of the road’ don’t help. there is no wrong or right side as such. Yes we drive on the left, but we drive to the conditions of the road and if that means crossing broken white lines we can do so.
    Off to work now.

    trail_rat
    Member

    “but we drive to the conditions of the road and if that means crossing broken white lines we can do so.”

    there is no condition of the road that warrents crossing a broken white line on a blind corner at 50mph

    Premier Icon GrahamS
    Subscriber

    She overtook towards two cyclists.

    No, by her own admission she overtook on a bend when she couldn’t see oncoming traffic. She didn’t see the oncoming cyclists till she was mid-overtake.

    From The Telegraph story:

    ” Asked if she had a chance to brake, she cried and slumped over the witness stand with a tissue clasped in her hand.

    Through her tears, she whispered: “No.”

    She said she was “surprised” to see Mr Pontin and his girlfriend suddenly coming towards her as she rounded the curve in the road, but felt they still had enough room to get past.

    “I don’t know why I didn’t see them,” she said. “

    If they were in single file and remained in single file she would not have hit either as one of the cyclists certainly managed to avoid a collision.

    Not that is should be relevant but they were single file. Again her own testimony quoted in The Telegraph:

    “I had to make a decision of what to do. I felt the safest decision was to continue straight ahead because they were in single file.”

    There is your reasonable doubt.

    The charge was “Death by Careless Driving”.

    You haven’t said anything that casts reasonable doubt on whether overtaking at 50mph on a blind corner is “careless driving”.

    Premier Icon cookeaa
    Subscriber

    She overtook towards two cyclists.
    If they were in single file and remained in single file she would not have hit either as one of the cyclists certainly managed to avoid a collision.

    There is your reasonable doubt.

    Please don’t shoot the messenger.

    I see where you’re going, its victim blaming and you’re fundamentally wrong…

    She overtook a cyclist on a bend, placing her on the wrong side of the road, she could not see what was oncoming, that initial action was the dangerous part…

    The consequences we already know, when presented with two oncoming cyclists, it is not the job of a cyclists to present a minimal cross section or magically disappear in order to allow impatient drivers to try and squeak past at 50Mph, her avoiding action should have been to slow down and wait until she had rounded the bend, and could see to safely pass, her actions created a situation she could not control and which was quite likely to lead to a collision…

    Putting aside the consequences for a moment, her driving was inherently Dangerous are you actually going to dispute that?

    Unfortunately it did lead to a death, therefore she caused death by dangerous driving, how does this not compute exactly?

    She may not have struck the first cyclist (who from my understanding had to take avoiding action) but she did hit the second, whether the second cyclist was tumbling off or unsteady as a result of the lead riders sudden forced braking (having to avoid Dr Measures oncoming car) or through simple inexperience is quite frankly immaterial, she had every right to expect that car drivers (whatever their direction of travel) would allow sufficient space, plus a margin to pass a cyclist safely or else simply not execute the maneuver…

    Premier Icon D0NK
    Subscriber

    She overtook towards two cyclists.
    If they were in single file and remained in single file she would not have hit either as one of the cyclists certainly managed to avoid a collision.

    There is your reasonable doubt.this is getting close to the driver mentality that I’ve seen/heard a lot, “if I didn’t hit you whilst overtaking it was a safe pass” which as we know is complete bollocks. Successfully completing your journey without hitting someone does not necessarily equal safe driving, it could just mean you were lucky this time.

    Anyway as Graham and cookeaa said this was careless driving charge, not sure how overtaking at 50 round a blind bend can not be viewed as careless.

    oh and can I call troll on IanW?

    sbob
    Member

    cookeaa – Member

    I see where you’re going, its victim blaming and you’re fundamentally wrong

    You obviously don’t.
    All I’m doing is pointing out how she might have gotten away with it, as it is clear there are a lot of people that don’t really know what goes on inside the courtroom.

    How many people here, without having been there or heard all the evidence of the court have used the phrase “blind bend”?

    Mr Pontin said he saw Dr Measures make a “stupid manoeuvre” on a curve in the road

    So it wasn’t a blind bend. 💡

    GrahamS – Member

    She overtook towards two cyclists.

    No, by her own admission she overtook on a bend when she couldn’t see oncoming traffic. She didn’t see the oncoming cyclists till she was mid-overtake.

    Why are you trying to argue with me?
    She did overtake towards two cyclists, that is why there was a fatal collision.
    Your bit in bold is made up. The cyclist saw her so she could and should have seen him. The fact that she didn’t and openly admitted it makes the lack of conviction even more surprising.

    Premier Icon GrahamS
    Subscriber

    So it wasn’t a blind bend.

    Are you really arguing that a “curve on the road”, where you can’t see oncoming traffic, is not a blind bend.

    From the parent’s letter:

    “She said that she looked ahead and did not see anything approaching. She gave evidence to the judge that if she had seen any cyclist approaching she would not have commenced an overtaking manoeuvre. She further stated that she could not see 100 per cent of the road ahead when she commenced overtaking.”

    Why are you trying to argue with me?

    I mistook your soliloquy for a discussion.
    Are we not allowed to question you?

    She did overtake towards two cyclists, that is why there was a fatal collision.

    Yes, but she didn’t/couldn’t see the oncoming cyclists at the start of her overtake.
    So she didn’t make a decision to “overtake towards two cyclists” – she made a decision to overtake towards what she hoped would be clear road.

    That’s an important distinction.

    Your bit in bold is made up.

    Not by me it isn’t. It is quoted directly from the bits of testimony reported.

    The cyclist saw her so she could and should have seen him.

    What evidence is there that the cyclists were plainly visible the entire time and she just didn’t see them?

    I’ve not seen anything to suggest that – even from the parents or the other cyclist.

    sbob
    Member

    Are you really arguing that a “curve on the road”, where you can’t see oncoming traffic, is not a blind bend.

    No, what I was saying was that if the cyclist could see the driver then it wasn’t a blind bend.
    Why I was saying it was as another example of how doubt is introduced, FFS.

    Are we not allowed to question you?

    Feel free, but there was nothing to question. I was just answering another poster’s question by pointing out how doubt can be introduced.

    Yes

    So arguing for no reason then Graham?

    So she didn’t make a decision to “overtake towards two cyclists”

    Never said she did, I just stated a fact that you then disputed, hence me asking why you were trying to argue with me.
    So don’t give it the “Oooh, are we not allowed to ask questions now?” bullshit when you are either trolling or so full of emotional rage you are having trouble comprehending what I have written.

    What evidence is there that the cyclists were plainly visible the entire time and she just didn’t see them?

    I’ve not seen anything to suggest that – even from the parents or the other cyclist.

    This: “Mr Pontin said he saw Dr Measures make a “stupid manoeuvre” on a curve in the road”.

    No go and eat a bacon sarnie and come back when you’ve calmed down a bit. 🙂

    trail_rat
    Member

    indeed – making a manouver lasts more than the nano second you innitiate the manouver though

    your still making the manouver right up till the moment you finish making the manouver – that would be the point when your back on your own side of the road.

    thus coming into my view (as a cyclist) on the wrong side of the road while your traveling round the corner – id say to someone who asked me ” i saw you making a stupid manouver on a blind bend”

    he did not say anywhere he watched her initiate a stupid manouver

    mrmo
    Member

    This: “Mr Pontin said he saw Dr Measures make a “stupid manoeuvre” on a curve in the road”.

    No go and eat a bacon sarnie and come back when you’ve calmed down a bit.

    All this says is that at some point Mr Pontin saw Dr Measures make a stupid manouvre. In fact the dead body does rather support the statement that someone made a stupid manouvre.

    I know what you are trying to do, but the reality is that if you can’t see the whole road, and know that the manouvre you are trying can be completed safely in the road you can see then you shouldn’t try. Dr Measures made an assumption that the road was clear, that it was safe to go, clearly it wasn’t.

    There are very few accidents on the road, most of what are referred to as such are driver negligence.

    eg

    A few years ago cycling on the road from Seven Springs towards Andoversford (near Cheltenham) going up the hill, blind corner, very busy road, come face to face with two cars side by side coming down the hill towards me.

    I can tell you someone made a stupid manouvre even though i did not see the whole manouvre.

    sbob
    Member

    It’s down to tense and semantics, and isn’t really worth discussing.

    The simple facts are:

    The driver cocked up.
    This led to the death of a cyclist.
    The driver got away with it.
    STW’s regular “heroes” carry on misconstruing posts for no purpose.

    I apologize if this has ended the “discussion” early.

    Premier Icon GrahamS
    Subscriber

    You pick some odd topics to troll sbob, but okay…

    Why I was saying it was as another example of how doubt is introduced

    Your argument is that she didn’t overtake and hope there was no one there. But instead she overtook without looking properly (and then lied about it in court). Yes?

    How does that introduce any doubt that her driving was “careless”?

    Never said she did, I just stated a fact that you then disputed

    I tried to clarify.

    Obviously she was heading towards the two cyclists.

    But whether she knew that or not is an important distinction.
    Your phrase “She overtook towards two cyclists” implied (to me anyway) that she knew they were there and overtook anyway, which isn’t what the testimony says.

    This: “Mr Pontin said he saw Dr Measures make a “stupid manoeuvre” on a curve in the road”.

    I see.

    So your opinion that that they were visible the entire time and no one, not even Mr Pontin, mentioned this fact when she openly lied about it in court and directly to the judge, is based upon someone at road.cc writing “make” instead of “making”?

    Edit: never mind – I see others have made the point and you’ve ignored them too.

    sbob
    Member

    GrahamS – Member

    You pick some odd topics to troll sbob

    I’m not the one creating arguments, am I Graham?

    All I was doing was explaining how she managed to get let off and how easy it is to introduce reasonable doubt.

    You can spend as much energy as you like ignoring the facts, but arguing with me won’t change them. 💡

    Premier Icon GrahamS
    Subscriber

    I’m not the one creating arguments, am I Graham?

    Erm… I think I’ll let everyone else answer that 😆

    You can spend as much energy as you like ignoring the facts, but arguing with me won’t change them.

    Which facts?

    The one about them not riding in single file, even though the driver testified they were?

    Or the one about it not being a blind bend, even though the driver testified she couldn’t see around the bend and didn’t see the cyclists?

    All I was doing was explaining how she managed to get let off and how easy it is to introduce reasonable doubt.

    Please do – I’d be interested to hear it, but nothing you have said so far raises any reasonable doubt at all.

    Premier Icon Northwind
    Subscriber

    sbob – Member

    No, what I was saying was that if the cyclist could see the driver then it wasn’t a blind bend.

    You seem to be confusing “reasonable doubt” with “absolute nonsense”.

    oldgit
    Member

    there is no condition of the road that warrents crossing a broken white line on a blind corner at 50mph

    Indeed, I’ve never understood why tight/blind bends don’t have solid whites?

    crankboy
    Member

    Please understand i am not seaking to troll this :-
    1) blind bend -the boyfreind says he saw her start her stupid manuvere if he could see that it was not a blind bend.
    2) her Barrister’s chambers choses to advertise his ability to present difficult cases that is his job he is compelled to accept any case he is competent to do . Lawyers do not pick and chose the easy or nice cases, just as Doctors do not specialise in only saving those they deam moraly worthy of treatment . The alternative is that the unpleasant clients have their convictions overturned because they did not get a fair trial.
    3) while i disagree with the verdict on the facts as reported, it is not hard to gleen the nature of the argument that the Jury accepted made them unsure as to the doctors guilt.

    Premier Icon Northwind
    Subscriber

    crankboy – Member

    -the boyfreind says he saw her start her stupid manuvere

    sauce?

    It is in any case a red herring, the overtake was unsafe- the only question is, was it unsafe because she couldn’t see what was ahead or was it unsafe despite the fact that she should have seen what was ahead. In either condition I’d expect to go to jail if I killed someone doing that.

    mrmo
    Member

    Indeed, I’ve never understood why tight/blind bends don’t have solid whites?

    IME it makes no difference.

    crankboy
    Member

    “Mr Pontin said he saw Dr Measures make a “stupid manoeuvre” on a curve in the road” {source bbc.} Make not “making a manoeuver” not “already in the middle of the road”. Bet you a trillion pounds both counsel and the judge explored that element of the evidence in considerable detail

    I agree that her failure to observe what would have appeared as at least one cyclist in the oncoming carrigeway was good evidence upon which the jury could have found her driving to be careless . Then the issue of causation is raised her evidence appears to have been notwithstanding her manouver there would have been no accident if the cyclist had carried straight on in single file and not fallen over in front of her car . So even finding her to be careless the jury would have been compelled to aquit her if they were unsure that the carelessnes caused the death.

    Personally i know how i would have adressed that. Personally i find the reported statement by the defence brief distasteful and i would not have said that in that way inpart for fear of alienating the Jury.

    One does wonder about the presentation of the prosecution case but with only news reports to go on the evidence is going to be padded both ways with supposition.

    Premier Icon Northwind
    Subscriber

    Ah so it’s all just conjecture then on your part, fair dos

    crankboy
    Member

    Northwind the whole thread is conjecture . The only evidence we have is the brief reports and the local knowledge that it was not a blind bend “It’s not quite straight but the curves that are on it are enough to restrict your view to warrant caution as traffic can & does move along it at speed.”
    Who is to say that if we had sat in the Jurys place and listened to the actual evidence we too would not have aquited the Dr.

Viewing 45 posts - 91 through 135 (of 174 total)

The topic ‘Drivers killing cyclists – the system really is broken’ is closed to new replies.