# The family shouted at the jury : “Were you not listening?”



## glenn forger (20 Mar 2015)

Utterly incredible:





> The trial of a man accused of killing a teenage cyclist while texting in his van ended dramatically this afternoon in NOT GUILTY verdicts.
> 
> The family of teenage cyclist Daniel Squire shouted at the jury : “Were you not listening?”, “What a waste of time” and “I can’t believe that” after the acquittal.
> 
> ...



http://www.kentonline.co.uk/deal/news/van-driver-cleared-of-causing-33772/


----------



## david k (21 Mar 2015)

They should be ashamed of theirselves


----------



## glenn forger (21 Mar 2015)

Warning, may cause rage:

https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2015/03/21/somethings-not-quite-right-here/

How does a driver who claims not have been looking at his phone ascertain that it has 1% of battery remaining?

How does a driver who claims to be doing no more than 50mph cover approximately 1.2 miles in under 55 seconds?

How does a driver who claims to have seen a cyclist also claim not to have seen the cyclist?

How does a driver who claims to have seen the cyclist approximately 600 feet before colliding with him come to be unable to avoid a collision through apparently being unable to see him?

Why does a cyclist who is nervous about the road he is on stop in the carriageway to mount the pavement, and then—with the pavement continuing onwards—return to the road less than 300ft later?

How long does it take to type four words and (most curiously) three punctuation marks on a phone, and how long does it take to halt a car, pick up a phone, dial 999, and connect the call? And why (assuming this didn’t happen because it would have been an absolutely pivotal point in the case and presumably would have been reported, given that reports include precise timing) didn’t investigators establish minimum possible times for these things and subtract them from the 55 seconds in order to determine the maximum possible time between Sinden discarding his phone and the collision occurring?

None of these things make any sense. None of them seem to be backed up by evidence. The defence, _if_ it genuinely is as reported, appears to be full of holes.


----------



## Drago (21 Mar 2015)

That's human beings for you. You can bet they're nearly all car drivers, so straight away at more likely so subconsciously align their sympathy with the offender.

Hopefully in light of the admissions made by the offender the family will bring a civil prosecution against him for damages.


----------



## Sara_H (21 Mar 2015)

What directions had the Judge given?


----------



## mcshroom (21 Mar 2015)

From Beyond the Curb - https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2015/03/21/somethings-not-quite-right-here/

If he is accurate, then I don't know how the jurors can sleep at night after that travesty of justice!


----------



## Pale Rider (21 Mar 2015)

Sara_H said:


> What directions had the Judge given?



I wasn't there, but he will have told them to try the case on the evidence they heard in court.

The jury deliberated for nearly eight hours, that's a long time arguing the toss with a bunch of strangers.

There were clearly features of the case that made it not so straightforward as it first appears.

Only someone, like the jury, who sat through the whole trial can know what those features were.


----------



## Arrowfoot (21 Mar 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Warning, may cause rage:
> 
> https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2015/03/21/somethings-not-quite-right-here/
> 
> ...



With all things that has been mentioned, I do wish that something can be done. Usually the Police evidence will show that phone was in use at the time of accident. Hard to dispute such evidence.


----------



## BigAl68 (21 Mar 2015)

One thing about this case which locals have commented on on road.cc and the newspapers website is there isn't a pavement where the collision took place. I really can't understand how this man got off and it makes me so angry.


----------



## glenn forger (21 Mar 2015)

Arrowfoot said:


> With all things that has been mentioned, I do wish that something can be done. Usually the Police evidence will show that phone was in use at the time of accident. Hard to dispute such evidence.



The driver flatly contradicted his own evidence and nobody in court noticed.


----------



## glenn forger (21 Mar 2015)

So, we know that the jury did NOT convict on the evidence shown, because Sinden offered two versions.


----------



## Hitchington (21 Mar 2015)

I seriously have given up cycling on busy roads because of the amount people using their phones, eating, reading while driving. Also there's a percentage of drivers who are deliberately aggressive and drive dangerously, as well as those who are completely self absorbed and unaware of vulnerable road users. When I read stories like this it justifies my descision. I live in a part on London where mainly I can use cycle paths away from roads for the majority of my journeys (work and weekend riding) and I can use the odd quite residential road if needed. My journey times have doubled as a result, but if it keeps me safe then it's a fair trade off.

I find cycling in the countryside less fraught with danger (c roads and NC routes) than cycling on the roads in London. It's a shame but there are car/taxi/van/bus drivers who have really got it in for cyclists and every time I try the main roads again I come across them.


----------



## glenn forger (21 Mar 2015)

[QUOTE 3601180, member: 9609"]So was there no punishment whatsoever ? no fine or penalty points ?
one comment under the article suggests "Sinden had sent 19 texts and received 22. While he was driving".[/QUOTE]

That's in the evidence. Sinden didn't even get fined for using a mobile while driving, which he admitted.


----------



## Origamist (21 Mar 2015)

Spokes, the local cycle campaign group attended the trial and I hope they will make public their report of the proceedings.

My thoughts are with family.


----------



## Trickedem (21 Mar 2015)

Don't blame the jury. Blame the CPS. They should have countered the idea that the cyclist was on the pavement, by showing how unlikely this was. I think they thought the driver was banged to rights because of the texting, however this is hard to prove beyond reasonable doubt. As a result they didn't bother producing more evidence.


----------



## jarlrmai (21 Mar 2015)

I can't believe than any cyclist would try and ride on that tiny tiny overgrown pavement...


----------



## Ern1e (21 Mar 2015)

Having had the great fortune to have done jury service I can say that it's not justice that wins it's quite simply the best bloody act wins !!! The guys in wigs on the floor make every atempt to stop yu hearing things they don't want you to. Once you get sent out to beliberate your case it then gets down to who belives what who ever said and seems to be the most believable, I feel so sorry for this young mans family etc and one can only hope that karma takes it's coarse.


----------



## slowmotion (21 Mar 2015)

@Pale Rider made a good point about the length of the jury's deliberations. I wouldn't be too harsh on them. They clearly thought long and hard about the case. Maybe they got it wrong. At least they tried.


----------



## glenn forger (21 Mar 2015)

Not one member of the jury was screened for driving convictions, including using a mobile. They weren't even shown that road.


----------



## glenn forger (22 Mar 2015)

User said:


> We don't do that



Two potential members were dismissed for being local, apparently, two more were excused for knowing the accused.


----------



## Arrowfoot (22 Mar 2015)

I understand from folks that have kept up with case from the start that they had been campaign and focus by the family that might have backfired. I mentioned earlier that 2 relatives of the victim was removed from the jury and eventually the judge had rule out jury members residing within 2 miles from the town. The fact that a family member berated the jury after the verdict is quite interesting. 

Not sure if all this added to the outcome but I found it strange that despite some overwhelming evidence, the driver was acquitted.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (22 Mar 2015)

glenn forger said:


> That's in the evidence. Sinden didn't even get fined for using a mobile while driving, which he admitted.


Was he indicted for that? Can only be punished if found or pleading guilty for the charges put before the court.


----------



## slowmotion (22 Mar 2015)

Quite a lot of people have driving convictions. I doesn't automatically make us sinister uncaring petrolhead maniacs. You can't expect the jury to comprise solely of nuns.


----------



## oldstrath (22 Mar 2015)

slowmotion said:


> Quite a lot of people have driving convictions. I doesn't automatically make us sinister uncaring petrolhead maniacs. You can't expect the jury to comprise solely of nuns.


No, but just as we (I hope ) wouldn't allow people with burglary convictions to try someone accused of burglary, surely someone accused of a motoring offence should be tried solely by people with no history of motoring offences. We do exist, you know.


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Mar 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Two potential members were dismissed for being local, apparently, two more were excused for knowing the accused.



There is a difference between being screened and declaring a "conflict of interest"


----------



## shouldbeinbed (22 Mar 2015)

oldstrath said:


> No, but just as we (I hope ) wouldn't allow people with burglary convictions to try someone accused of burglary, surely someone accused of a motoring offence should be tried solely by people with no history of motoring offences. We do exist, you know.


Nobody is saying we don't exist, but a jury is a cross section of society not a star chamber of the legally and morally unimpeachable.

Doing the devils advocate thing: If you had people purposefully vetted against such (as they are seen in law) minor convictions as driving offences then maybe the defence would be more likely to raise objections to a jury that has insufficient experience on which to impartially try the case.

Has there been anything published that details the *criminal* history of this jury to merit the line of thinking that there are sufficient motoring felons amongst them to exert that mentality on deliberations and sway the decision?


----------



## slowmotion (22 Mar 2015)

oldstrath said:


> No, but just as we (I hope ) wouldn't allow people with burglary convictions to try someone accused of burglary, surely someone accused of a motoring offence should be tried solely by people with no history of motoring offences. We do exist, you know.


I think that the general idea of a jury is that you are judged by your "fellow man". I have one speeding conviction in thirty years. I don't think that should disqualify me for a serving as a juror involving motoring. Besides, it's impractical...there's a limited supply of nuns.

EDIT: cross post with my learned colleague above ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


----------



## glenn forger (22 Mar 2015)

Fewer than two per cent of the population are regular cyclists. The AA survey found that more than eighty per cent of drivers admit speeding and contemporaneously claim to be good drivers, so bad driving is ingrained, criminal driving is normalised. So, if a jury are being asked to decide whether playing with a mobile phone while driving is dangerous, or even careless, then to my mind it would without question be a conflict of interest if the same person had a criminal Record for the very same crime.


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Mar 2015)

User said:


> Excellent another TMN for me, and I have been light on them of late.




Nice try..... however the "Conflict of Interest" was a new aspect and invalidates your claim!


----------



## oldstrath (22 Mar 2015)

slowmotion said:


> I think that the general idea of a jury is that you are judged by your "fellow man". I have one speeding conviction in thirty years. I don't think that should disqualify me for a serving as a juror involving motoring. Besides, it's impractical...there's a limited supply of nuns.
> 
> EDIT: cross post with my learned colleague above ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


I'm not a nun (nor even the more physically achievable monk), but if you are really correct that a jury of people without a history of motoring convictions is 'impractical ', that is sad. What I think likelier is that most of us have internalised the idea that bad driving, even though it has more potential to kill than many other criminal acts, is not 'really' criminal. Which is even sadder.


----------



## glenn forger (22 Mar 2015)

People who use mobiles while driving either don't care about the law or don't think that it's dangerous or careless, so they are not best placed to a judge whether another person using a mobile at the wheel was being careless or dangerous.


----------



## ufkacbln (22 Mar 2015)

I watched a programme a few years ago about US Juries and it was amazing ..... a simple trial can go through several hundred jurors before they settle on the final ones.

It was also unexpected objections as well

For instance a young black offender would NOT want a white jury, but would also object to middle aged or elderly black people on the Jury as they tend to be o the opinion thatthe community has been let down and therefore more likely to return a guilty verdict. 

Firearms offences would not want ex-military jurors as they tended to be more responsible about gun ownership and be more likely to return guilty verdicts


----------



## oldstrath (22 Mar 2015)

shouldbeinbed said:


> Nobody is saying we don't exist, but a jury is a cross section of society not a star chamber of the legally and morally unimpeachable.
> 
> Doing the devils advocate thing: If you had people purposefully vetted against such (as they are seen in law) minor convictions as driving offences then maybe the defence would be more likely to raise objections to a jury that has insufficient experience on which to impartially try the case.
> 
> Has there been anything published that details the *criminal* history of this jury to merit the line of thinking that there are sufficient motoring felons amongst them to exert that mentality on deliberations and sway the decision?



That's precisely the problem. Describing criminal acts with a lethal weapon as 'minor' is ridiculous, even if it is the 'legal view'. Until this idiocy changes, killers who use cars will get away with it.


----------



## glenn forger (22 Mar 2015)

shouldbeinbed said:


> Nobody is saying we don't exist, but a jury is a cross section of society not a star chamber of the legally and morally unimpeachable.
> 
> Doing the devils advocate thing: If you had people purposefully vetted against such (as they are seen in law) minor convictions as driving offences then maybe the defence would be more likely to raise objections to a jury that has insufficient experience on which to impartially try the case.
> 
> Has there been anything published that details the *criminal* history of this jury to merit the line of thinking that there are sufficient motoring felons amongst them to exert that mentality on deliberations and sway the decision?



The "minor" criminal acts you refer to killed eleven people last year, almost certainly many more.. We know that using a mobile effects driving to the same degree as being drunk


----------



## albion (22 Mar 2015)

User said:


> The one positive of this case is that it got to court. Kent Police and the Kent CPS do seem to have tried to get justice.If this had happened in London, the Met Traffic Injustice Unit would have been looking for reasons to blame the victim...



They had best appeal otherwise justice is even more seriously seen to be not served.


https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2015/03/21/somethings-not-quite-right-here/


----------



## slowmotion (22 Mar 2015)

oldstrath said:


> I'm not a nun (nor even the more physically achievable monk), but if you are really correct that a jury of people without a history of motoring convictions is 'impractical ', that is sad. What I think likelier is that most of us have internalised the idea that bad driving, even though it has more potential to kill than many other criminal acts, is not 'really' criminal. Which is even sadder.


Fine. Polish your halo.

BTW, is a speeding conviction a criminal act?

EDIT: From a quick peek, probably.http://www.findlaw.co.uk/law/motoring/vehicle_crime/500320.html


----------



## glenn forger (22 Mar 2015)

slowmotion said:


> Fine. Polish your halo.
> 
> BTW, is a speeding conviction a criminal act?



Yes.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (22 Mar 2015)

oldstrath said:


> That's precisely the problem. Describing criminal acts with a lethal weapon as 'minor' is ridiculous, even if it is the 'legal view'. Until this idiocy changes, killers who use cars will get away with it.


It may be ridiculous but unfortunately here and now it is factually accurate. I don't disagree at all that the law for random acts of inadequate and negligent driving leading to killing with a car is monumentally unjust to us squishy road users and our loved ones in terms of charges inevitably brought & punishment/revenge outcomes available, as opposed to say wandering through a crowded shopping centre with a partly loaded revolver and randomly pulling the trigger.


----------



## glenn forger (22 Mar 2015)

shouldbeinbed said:


> It may be ridiculous but unfortunately here and now it is factually accurate. .



It's not remotely factually accurate, every one of us is more likely to be killed by a driver on a mobile than by a terrorist.


----------



## Eurostar (22 Mar 2015)

This type of collision is why I believe in a decent mirror.


----------



## glenn forger (22 Mar 2015)

albion said:


> They had best appeal otherwise justice is even more seriously seen to be not served.
> 
> 
> https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2015/03/21/somethings-not-quite-right-here/



Sinden clearly lied in court, it is not physically possible for events to have taken place the way he described.


----------



## Origamist (22 Mar 2015)

Eurostar said:


> This type of collision is why I believe in a decent mirror.



Given the decision in this case and many others, you might as well believe in a mirror, a rabbit's foot, a sprig of white heather etc, as faith in the justice system seems even more ludicrously misplaced.


----------



## Wobblers (22 Mar 2015)

shouldbeinbed said:


> Nobody is saying we don't exist, but a jury is a cross section of society not a star chamber of the legally and morally unimpeachable.
> 
> Doing the devils advocate thing: If you had people purposefully vetted against such (as they are seen in law) minor convictions as driving offences then maybe the defence would be more likely to raise objections to a jury that has insufficient experience on which to impartially try the case.
> 
> Has there been anything published that details the *criminal* history of this jury to merit the line of thinking that there are sufficient motoring felons amongst them to exert that mentality on deliberations and sway the decision?



The problem is that you can't expect a jury stuffed full of motoring convictions to be in some way more impartial. Quite the reverse, I'd argue: there are no shortage of motorists with speeding convictions who will claim until they're blue in the face that they were "hard done by" and will bring this attitude with them, whether it be conscious or not. They'll use the same weak justifications to excuse their own behaviour to excuse the accused - no matter what the facts are. As has already been commented, this leads to the normalisation of the idea that piss poor driving is normal and excusable. Perhaps barring people with motoring convictions from jury service for motoring offences would be a good first step into reinforcing the idea that this is not acceptable. After all, that motoring conviction has already demonstrated that this person has questionable judgement in such matters - how can someone with such poor judgement be expected to be even remotely objective?


----------



## CopperCyclist (22 Mar 2015)

Do away with the jury system in its current form entirely. Have professionally trained, legally educated jurors as a profession and use them instead. Alternatively a panel of 3 judges. 

In the current system jurors can be too easily swayed, too easily confused with difficult legal points, and will almost always bring their own prejudices.


----------



## glenn forger (22 Mar 2015)

this is from hissingsid from the BTL comments:



> The following are matters of public record, having been heard within the trial.
> 
> There is a time period of 80 seconds between the last use of SINDEN’S phone, and the time of the report to Kent Police of the collision. This does not account for time spent with the BT operator, which could not be ascertained by the police investigators.
> 
> ...


----------



## GrumpyGregry (22 Mar 2015)

slowmotion said:


> Quite a lot of people have driving convictions. I doesn't automatically make us sinister uncaring petrolhead maniacs. You can't expect the jury to comprise solely of nuns.


I think it demonstrates a tendency towards both anti-social and illegal behaviour, and an inability to drive to the required standard, otherwise there would be no need to prosecute, would there?

And, ime, many nuns are shite drivers, and I know a few with driving convictions.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (22 Mar 2015)

oldstrath said:


> I'm not a nun (nor even the more physically achievable monk), but if you are really correct that a jury of people without a history of motoring convictions is 'impractical ', that is sad. What I think likelier is that most of us have internalised the idea that bad driving, even though it has more potential to kill than many other criminal acts, is not 'really' criminal. Which is even sadder.


Could you post that again so I can give it more than one like?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (22 Mar 2015)

Eurostar said:


> This type of collision is why I believe in a decent mirror.


Is that a decent lucky mirror? If so please direct me to the appropriate retailer.

My mirrors have done chuff all in the two rear enders I've been involved in.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (22 Mar 2015)

There are rules which exclude certain folk, with certain track records, from serving on juries. These rules need to be changed imo, to exclude those with motoring convictions from serving on juries in motoring cases.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (22 Mar 2015)

McWobble said:


> The problem is that you can't expect a jury stuffed full of motoring convictions to be in some way more impartial {never said I did, never in fact mentioned a jury as you describe}. Quite the reverse, I'd argue: there are no shortage of motorists with speeding convictions who will claim until they're blue in the face that they were "hard done by" and will bring this attitude with them, whether it be conscious or not. {yep} They'll use the same weak justifications to excuse their own behaviour {yep} to excuse the accused - no matter what the facts are {prejudicial speculation, do,you have any factual information to back that up?} As has already been commented, this leads to the normalisation of the idea that piss poor driving is normal and excusable.{Legislation from.government down does this,,abetted by the way policing is directed & dreadful initiatives such as GMP Op Grimaldi/Considerate, the issue is the piss poor attitude from the highest levels of authority permeating down} Perhaps barring people with motoring convictions from jury service for motoring offences would be a good first step into reinforcing the idea that this is not acceptable {where do you stop that, are people with spent burglary convictions not allowed to sit on such cases, how do we evaluate the im/partiality of victims of crime to ensure fair, blind justice?} After all, that motoring conviction has already demonstrated that this person has questionable judgement in such matters {ok} - how can someone with such poor judgement be expected to be even remotely objective? {no idea, never said they could}


On my phone not got different colours to play with, my sometimes confused comments in {} in the quote.

You still seem to be perpetuating the supposition that jurys are all drivers convicted of some motoring offence that would sway their judgement.

Bringing it back to the topic for a moment, Have I missed the publication of this jury's motoring rap sheets? Some.of us are simply pouring our own prejudices onto the situation and imposing judgements on the jury based on smoke and mirrors. Aren't we also forgetting that there may well be grand/parents on that jury deliberating on the killing of a teenage boy by someone not simply going too fast but repeatedly sending and receiving texts up to seconds before they killed the lad. Is it really feasible that IF they do all have speeding tickets then these would be more of a factor in their decision than the love and protective instinct they would feel towards their own grand/children with such a dangerous reckless individual in their midst?


----------



## Dan B (22 Mar 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> And, ime, many nuns are shite drivers, and I know a few with driving convictions.


S'true, some of them do seem to have acquired some bad habits


----------



## winjim (22 Mar 2015)

Dan B said:


> S'true, some of them do seem to have acquired some bad habits


Zing!


----------



## jonny jeez (22 Mar 2015)

Jury objectivity is good reason in itself to abandon a jury based court system.

Not to mention intellect, comprehension, patience and bias.

I wouldn't enjoy being on a jury I know my own bias would inevitably come into every decision and I would be thinking of all the things i should be doing rather than sitting I a dock all day. 

However, the alternative is equally unappealing.


----------



## Arrowfoot (22 Mar 2015)

CopperCyclist said:


> Do away with the jury system in its current form entirely. Have professionally trained, legally educated jurors as a profession and use them instead. Alternatively a panel of 3 judges.
> 
> In the current system jurors can be too easily swayed, too easily confused with difficult legal points, and will almost always bring their own prejudices.



Agree. The concept and ideal of "Jury of his or her peers" is a dream at best. Lawyers engaged in court craft learn to work the jury and all their human frailities and you can't blame them. 

And 99.99% of those gainfully engaged elsewhere chosen to do jury duty prefer not to be there in the first place.


----------



## jonny jeez (22 Mar 2015)

User said:


> Why? There are quite a few modern justice systems that operate without juries, or where jury trial is limited, and which seem fair and robust.


Doesn't that rather proove my point?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (22 Mar 2015)

Dan B said:


> S'true, some of them do seem to have acquired some bad habits


b'dish!


----------



## Origamist (22 Mar 2015)

An account from the comments section of Kentonline. If it's an accurate account of the admissable evidence, it makes the decision of not-guilty seem even more perverse.




> 22/03/2015 14:25:10
> hissingsid wrote:
> The following are matters of public record, having been heard within the trial.
> 
> ...



http://www.kentonline.co.uk/deal/news/van-driver-cleared-of-causing-33772/#comments


----------



## glenn forger (22 Mar 2015)

Sinden changed his story several times, lied to the police, lied about the last text, lied about his phone and claimed not to have seen the cyclist then saw him ride off the pavement.


----------



## albion (22 Mar 2015)

Yes, the whole not guilty thing sounded quite disgusting.

Normally you can see a reason for it, however slight. This time there is not even a slight.


----------



## glenn forger (22 Mar 2015)

Daniel's parents live near Sinden. There are reports of Sinden celebrating the verdict.


----------



## snorri (22 Mar 2015)

One does wonder if the defence objected to any potential jurors who were cyclists being selected for duty on this case?
It was the case in Scots law that objections could be raised to any would be juror without needing to disclose reasons for objection.


----------



## ComedyPilot (22 Mar 2015)

User said:


> A jury of drivers who probably do exactly the same thing...


This sums it up perfectly IMO. People have got used to motorists being 'hard done to' that they now expect to be absolved of responsibility for poor driving, and 'driver' juries are more likely to sympathise because the jurors believe 'that could have been me'


----------



## Tin Pot (22 Mar 2015)

So is it because the evidence of wrongdoing was all circumstantial? I don't get it...?


----------



## glenn forger (22 Mar 2015)

As Ronald Reid says:

Juries are usually well instructed but in cycling cases a jury of peers they are not.

Road users are overwhelmingly drivers, only about 2% on average are made up of cyclists. Jurors are either more likely to be drivers or passengers and will be unable to relate to the cycling experience. After-all, cyclists don’t carry passengers unless you count the insignificant percentage in child carriers, who can’t be jurors anyway.

We are all on the other hand drivers or car passengers. Therein lies the problem. I’ll paraphrase Edmund King, president of the AA, who in a R4 debate said “all road users are blind to their own misdemeanors”. A point adequately supported by a 2012 RAC survey which found that 83% of drivers admit to being regular speeders and yet 92% say they are law abiding. You don't need a venn diagram to spot the delusion.

Therein lies the problem. Any juror who is also driver is being asked to judge someone who in all likelihood behaves just like them on the road. Many on the jury are judging themselves as much as the accused. 

A guilty verdict is unlikely.


----------



## spen666 (22 Mar 2015)

Drago said:


> That's human beings for you. You can bet they're nearly all car drivers, so straight away at more likely so subconsciously align their sympathy with the offender.
> 
> Hopefully in light of the admissions made by the offender the family will bring a civil prosecution against him for damages.


A civil prosecution?

Not sure how a prosecution (a criminal law term) will result in damages (a civil law remedy).

A civil law suit may result in damages. A prosecution if successful will result in a criminal punishment.


----------



## slowmotion (22 Mar 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> There are rules which exclude certain folk, with certain track records, from serving on juries. These rules need to be changed imo, to exclude those with motoring convictions from serving on juries in motoring cases.


As a matter of interest, does anybody have any figures for the percentage of motorists who have never had any convictions? I'm not seeking to 'normalise' bad driving (or make excuses for my speeding offence) but I'm curious to find out if barring them from serving is a realistic proposition. Thank you.


----------



## Wobblers (23 Mar 2015)

shouldbeinbed said:


> On my phone not got different colours to play with, my sometimes confused comments in {} in the quote.
> 
> You still seem to be perpetuating the supposition that jurys are all drivers convicted of some motoring offence that would sway their judgement.
> 
> Bringing it back to the topic for a moment, Have I missed the publication of this jury's motoring rap sheets? Some.of us are simply pouring our own prejudices onto the situation and imposing judgements on the jury based on smoke and mirrors. Aren't we also forgetting that there may well be grand/parents on that jury deliberating on the killing of a teenage boy by someone not simply going too fast but repeatedly sending and receiving texts up to seconds before they killed the lad. Is it really feasible that IF they do all have speeding tickets then these would be more of a factor in their decision than the love and protective instinct they would feel towards their own grand/children with such a dangerous reckless individual in their midst?



Err, no. It was an example to illustrate your argument was based on a supposition. One that is not based on evidence.

I also find it more plausible to suggest that as the majority of the jury were almost certainly motorists, their attitude would be far more likely to be one where a cyclist is merely regarded as an inconvenient obstacle to get round. At best. And that is most certainly not supposition. A very casual perusal of the comments section on anything cyclist related will illustrate _that _one. As motorists, they will have a tendency to identity with the accused. As motorists, they are more likely to be thinking "There for the grace of god". As motorists they will be less keen to blame the accused, for that would also be to blame their own driving habits. I hope that you are right, that the jurors' instinct would be to remove a dangerous idiot off the roads. But I lack any faith in that, as the widely held prejudicial beliefs that all cyclists are habitual law breakers, so it must have been his fault, despite the evidence will certainly be in play, even if only subconsciously.


----------



## slowmotion (23 Mar 2015)

McWobble said:


> But I lack any faith in that, as the widely held prejudicial beliefs that all cyclists are habitual law breakers, so it must have been his fault, despite the evidence will certainly be in play, even if only subconsciously.


 
Isn't that a bit extreme? I think that those who suggest that all the jurors were Mr Toads are stretching it a bit. It's reasonable to assume that a lot of them drive, and that's fine by me. Do you want the case assessed by people who have never been in a car before, or ridden a bike for that matter? I have no idea if the jury were all plants from the driver's family. That they thought about it for eight hours suggests to me that they were, at least, taking the matter seriously.


----------



## snorri (23 Mar 2015)

slowmotion said:


> It's reasonable to assume that a lot of them drive, and that's fine by me. .


It would be fine if it were not also known that 90%** of drivers consider themselves to be better than average drivers.

** or whatever the impossibly high figure is.


----------



## slowmotion (23 Mar 2015)

snorri said:


> It would be fine if it were not also known that 90%** of drivers consider themselves to be better than average drivers.
> 
> ** or whatever the impossibly high figure is.


 Crikey! Jurors Are Human shock? I believe that the figure for those who think they are better than average drivers is closely mirrored by that of those who think they are better than average lovers.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (23 Mar 2015)

slowmotion said:


> Isn't that a bit extreme? I think that those who suggest that all the jurors were Mr Toads are stretching it a bit. It's reasonable to assume that a lot of them drive, and that's fine by me. Do you want the case assessed by people who have never been in a car before, or ridden a bike for that matter? I have no idea if the jury were all plants from the driver's family. That they thought about it for eight hours suggests to me that they were, at least, taking the matter seriously.


Or that three of the jurors held out and when it was obvious none of the other nine were going to change one of them decided they wanted to go home for their tea and agreed not-guilty.

I've not served on a jury, I've a friend who has done it twice, the experience convinced him that (in Medway anyway) he'd never want to be tried by a jury as their overwhelming worries were 'did they look guilty' and 'how quick can we get this over with, we've stuff to do'. Fair to say, he wasn't sold on our justice system. I'd say maybe it's improved, but...


----------



## glenn forger (23 Mar 2015)

slowmotion said:


> Crikey! Jurors Are Human shock? I believe that the figure for those who think they are better than average drivers is closely mirrored by that of those who think they are better than average lovers.



If a panel of people are being asked to decide whether a certain behaviour is careless then it's relevant to ask whether they themselves ignore the law and behave that way themselves.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (23 Mar 2015)

slowmotion said:


> Isn't that a bit extreme? *I think that those who suggest that all the jurors were Mr Toads are stretching it a bit.* It's reasonable to assume that a lot of them drive, and that's fine by me. Do you want the case assessed by people who have never been in a car before, or ridden a bike for that matter? I have no idea if the jury were all plants from the driver's family. That they thought about it for eight hours suggests to me that they were, at least, taking the matter seriously.


Have you not seen how people drive day-to-day on the roads in Britain? Mr Toad is alive and well and everywhere.

"Make way! Make Way!" Parp, parp.


----------



## Tin Pot (23 Mar 2015)

w00hoo_kent said:


> Or that three of the jurors held out and when it was obvious none of the other nine were going to change one of them decided they wanted to go home for their tea and agreed guilty.
> 
> I've not served on a jury, I've a friend who has done it twice, the experience convinced him that (in Medway anyway) he'd never want to be tried by a jury as their overwhelming worries were 'did they look guilty' and 'how quick can we get this over with, we've stuff to do'. Fair to say, he wasn't sold on our justice system. I'd say maybe it's improved, but...



I have, and it was a bit more like Twelve Angry men (Hancocks Half Hour version) than mature justice you might expect. I convinced the last hold out that the guy was innocent after a couple of hours.

It's the best system unless you trust judges.

A lot of the people did want to leave but others were keen that their judgement be heard, and at the end of the day the right result was heard.

I would expect that the judge gave direction on this case, ours did and emphasised the actual law over what we might feel about the situation.

It may have been that they were discouraged to accept purely circumstantial evidence - beyond reasonable doubt and all that?


----------



## glenn forger (23 Mar 2015)

Why do you think Sinden changed his story at the last minute?


----------



## benb (23 Mar 2015)

This, and the Mason case, are just so depressing.

I am completely bemused how the jury returned not guilty. I don't understand how it's possible.


----------



## Mugshot (23 Mar 2015)

slowmotion said:


> Isn't that a bit extreme?


Unfortunately it doesn't seem so. I happened across a Facebook page this morning, Idiots on Uk Roads or something like that, which has numerous videos of atrocious driving posted. Some appeared to involve cyclists, it appeared though that the majority did not. I watched 6 or 7 videos and what I found interesting was that in the comments section of the videos where there was no cyclist involved there was always the comment "It was the cyclists fault". Now I'm quite sure that this was intended as a humorous remark and maybe I'm being a little precious about things, but it suggested to me that when @McWobble says this;



McWobble said:


> But I lack any faith in that, as the widely held prejudicial beliefs that all cyclists are habitual law breakers, so it must have been his fault, despite the evidence will certainly be in play, even if only subconsciously.



He's spot on.


----------



## Drago (23 Mar 2015)

If the Judge gave a direction then why did the jury deliberate for so long?


----------



## adscrim (23 Mar 2015)

w00hoo_kent said:


> Or that three of the jurors held out and when it was obvious none of the other nine were going to change one of them decided they wanted to go home for their tea and agreed guilty.
> 
> I've not served on a jury, I've a friend who has done it twice, the experience convinced him that (in Medway anyway) he'd never want to be tried by a jury as their overwhelming worries were 'did they look guilty' and 'how quick can we get this over with, we've stuff to do'. Fair to say, he wasn't sold on our justice system. I'd say maybe it's improved, but...


 
I did Jury service a couple of years ago in relation to a mugging. Two young men had thrown a middle aged woman to the ground after she'd used a cash machine - one sat on her while the other took her purse and handbag. The two were identified by the woman aswell as other eye witnesses. They were caught in possession of the stolen items and one of the accused plead guilty and appeared as a witness for the prosecution. I thought it seemed obvious that the chap on trial was guilty. The Judge commented that even if he wasn't the person who 'took' the items, he would still be guilty by association.

While in the deliberation room, there were a number of arguments against a guilty verdict put forward. These included 'it will ruin his life', 'what if we meet him in the street', 'maybe it was just a one off'.

My faith in the Jury system destroyed for ever.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (23 Mar 2015)

Drago said:


> If the Judge gave a direction then why did the jury deliberate for so long?


Because being a bunch of there-but-for-the-grace-of-God drivers enough of them wanted to acquit the driver that it dragged on a bit?


----------



## Arrowfoot (23 Mar 2015)

adscrim said:


> While in the deliberation room, there were a number of arguments against a guilty verdict put forward. These included 'it will ruin his life', 'what if we meet him in the street', 'maybe it was just a one off'.
> 
> My faith in the Jury system destroyed for ever.



Thanks for sharing. It tells you how flawed it is and why it has no place in society. Another one of the things that sounds good and noble but has fundamental issues.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (23 Mar 2015)

Trained, qualified, professional jurors, with chaired supervised debates watched over by a judge who has not heard the evidence in the case, is the way forwards.


----------



## Pale Rider (23 Mar 2015)

User said:


> What a horrible job to do day in day out.



And the system would allow daylight to intrude on magic, or in this case, black magic.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (23 Mar 2015)

User said:


> What a horrible job to do day in day out.


Gong farming was a dirty job, but someone had to do it.


----------



## slowmotion (23 Mar 2015)

User said:


> What a horrible job to do day in day out.


 Not as horrible as being a juror under the current system. Out of the two weeks I was on jury service, I spent less than two days in court or in the jury room. The rest of it was spent twiddling our thumbs in a waiting room waiting for a case. It's a hugely wasteful process. The two cases I saw didn't disillusion me too much with British justice. Both juries grasped the idea of reasonable doubt, debated the issues carefully, and acquited. BTW, it was in the days before the internet. Today I suspect that social media and endless easy communication may well make an unbiased jury a rare beast.


----------



## Pale Rider (23 Mar 2015)

Court staff do their best to send waiting jurors home early if there is no work for them.

The process defies organisation.

What happens many times is a case is listed for trial, but 'cracks' after an hour or two of negotiation between prosecuting and defence counsel.

Cynical defendants play a part.

They will commonly stick out for trial, but plead guilty on the morning of the trial when they are informed the prosecution witnesses have turned up and the case against them will proceed.

A cynical observer might say all the defendant is doing in some cases is waiting to see if his efforts at intimidating witnesses have succeeded or failed.


----------



## slowmotion (23 Mar 2015)

None of us was ever sent home before lunch. Maybe the system has changed.


----------



## Pale Rider (23 Mar 2015)

slowmotion said:


> None of us was ever sent home before lunch. Maybe the system has changed.



I suspect the notion of 'customer service' for jurors is a relatively new one.

Trials do not routinely start on a Friday, so if you are not already hearing a case you should have been told there is no need to come in that day.

That at least limits your hanging around to four days in a week.

But if anyone asks me about jury service, I tell them to be prepared to do a lot of waiting.


----------



## slowmotion (23 Mar 2015)

I'm not whinging too much about it really. I think that jury service is one of the few times when people can perform a really important service as a citizen. It's a huge responsibility that is not often given to you. Quite humbling.


----------



## benb (23 Mar 2015)

I quite enjoyed jury service, and found it interesting.
But I did watch a lot of films on the laptop and read about 6 books!


----------



## spen666 (23 Mar 2015)

benb said:


> I quite enjoyed jury service, and found it interesting.
> But I did watch a lot of films on the laptop and read about 6 books!


 Hopefully not in the court room 

I've never been called for jury service yet


----------



## albion (23 Mar 2015)

deleted so as not to confuses.

I mixed up the two recent cases.


----------



## albion (23 Mar 2015)

https://www.justgiving.com/justiceformichael
Not just for Michael, for every single cyclist who is now more likely to be the next total failure of the justice system.

edit - note that this does not refer to this this case in question.


----------



## slowmotion (23 Mar 2015)

User said:


> Are you not excluded as a solicitor?


 Disqualifieds, ineligibles and excused etc are here....
http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/scotl...otland.htm#h_who_is_disqualified_from_serving


----------



## w00hoo_kent (23 Mar 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Sinden clearly lied in court, it is not physically possible for events to have taken place the way he described.


Forgive my ignorance on legal matters, but can't this be appealed? Or do we fall in to serious costs to the family if the decision is upheld? (Or either way for that matter?)


----------



## Origamist (23 Mar 2015)

glenn forger said:


> Warning, may cause rage:
> 
> https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2015/03/21/somethings-not-quite-right-here/
> 
> ...


 
A further update from Bez:
https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2015/03/23/somethings-seriously-wrong-here/#comments


----------



## spen666 (23 Mar 2015)

User said:


> Are you not excluded as a solicitor?


 As regulator says


----------



## Pale Rider (23 Mar 2015)

w00hoo_kent said:


> Forgive my ignorance on legal matters, but can't this be appealed? Or do we fall in to serious costs to the family if the decision is upheld? (Or either way for that matter?)



Short answer is 'no', but this being the law there is a lot longer answer.

Generally a person cannot be tried twice for the same offence, there has been a not guilty verdict and that is final.

However, some 'grave crimes' can now be retried if there is 'new and compelling' evidence.

A couple of murderers have been convicted in this way.

I don't know if death by dangerous or careless driving qualifies, but I suspect it does not.


----------



## Profpointy (23 Mar 2015)

I rather get the impression that an awful lot of non-cyclists genuinely believe the "wobblin' about all over the place, jumping red lights, don't pay any effin' road tax type stuff" and hence are all too ready to see cyclists as a hazard to motorists, even if they themselves can drive actually adequately well, but are still inclined to give "the hard pressed motorist" the benefit of the doubt unless they're objectively drunk or whatever. Contrast this with the chap who fell asleep and crashed into a train. If he'd crashed into some cyclists it's inconceivable he'd have been as severely treated.

This attitude is re-enforced by the likes of Clarkson, references to lycra-louts crashing into grannies and all the rest. I think a daily mail journalist reported her granny had been killed by pavement cycling or two or three separate occasions. People believe this stuff. I don't think I'm over-dramatizing


----------



## MontyVeda (23 Mar 2015)

glenn forger said:


> ... if a jury are being asked to decide whether playing with a mobile phone while driving is dangerous, or even careless ....



I'm confused with this... since using a mobile phone whilst driving is an offence, surely the jury would simply have to decide whether or not the accused was using his phone whilst driving.


----------



## benb (23 Mar 2015)

MontyVeda said:


> I'm confused with this... since using a mobile phone whilst driving is an offence, surely the jury would simply have to decide whether or not the accused was using his phone whilst driving.



Driving whilst using a mobile wasn't the offence they were charged with.
Theoretically I suppose it's possible to be using a mobile phone yet still not guilty of driving without due care. That, for some bizarre reason, is what the jury believed.


----------



## Tin Pot (23 Mar 2015)

Is it possible for the judge to make a statement to the public in the case explaining this whole thing?

I mean, we're obviously at a disadvantage for the jurors to reach this conclusion - we must be missing something key.


----------



## Origamist (23 Mar 2015)

The two charges were: causing death by dangerous driving and causing death by careless driving.

The guidelines for the former, under the second of the three levels of seriousness state:



> *Level 2 - This is driving that creates a substantial risk of danger and is likely to be characterised by:*
> 
> Gross avoidable distraction such as reading or composing a text message over a period of time...



You would imagine, given the admission of texting only seconds before the collision (which the defendant had earlier blamed on things landing on his phone) that a conviction would be more likely than not.


----------



## Origamist (23 Mar 2015)

Tin Pot said:


> Is it possible for the judge to make a statement to the public in the case explaining this whole thing?
> 
> I mean, we're obviously at a disadvantage for the jurors to reach this conclusion - we must be missing something key.



In this case, you would hope there is some missing piece of evidence that would make the decision of the jury more understandable. As it currently stands, one can only assume they accepted the "single witness suicide swerve" from the pavement.


----------



## Wobblers (23 Mar 2015)

slowmotion said:


> Isn't that a bit extreme? I think that those who suggest that all the jurors were Mr Toads are stretching it a bit. It's reasonable to assume that a lot of them drive, and that's fine by me. *Do you want the case assessed by people who have never been in a car before, or ridden a bike for that matter*? I have no idea if the jury were all plants from the driver's family. That they thought about it for eight hours suggests to me that they were, at least, taking the matter seriously.



Most do not cycle. In fact, I give good odds that there was not one cyclist on that jury. We already have this situation which you fear - and it's all one sided, loaded against the cyclist. If no one's there to explain what secondary position is, and why a cyclist would sensibly occupy it, is it any surprise that there would be a tendency to see this as just another self-righteous cyclist who got his just desserts? No, not by all jurors certainly - but I bet more than one did harbour exactly that thought. Just as some jurors automatically assume guilt if the accused is from a certain part of town (that was exactly what happened when I did jury service).


----------



## slowmotion (23 Mar 2015)

McWobble said:


> Just as some jurors automatically assume guilt if the accused is from a certain part of town (that was exactly what happened when I did jury service).



There were a couple of people like that on one of the juries I was on. Fortunately there were enough stubborn people as well who were were prepared to hang out indefinitely to persuade them that they should just judge the accused on the evidence presented in court. My cases were heard in Southwark in London which has a huge pool of jurors to choose from. The likelihood of any of the jurors knowing anything about the accused was really remote. I can see that that could be problem elsewhere, and as mentioned before, social media etc is going to be a problem more recently.


----------



## buggi (24 Mar 2015)

The very fact he says he was not looking at the phone when he was texting, is an admission that he was texting while driving and as that carries a charge of dangerous driving how can the jury possibly not convict. As said early on, the jury have put themselves in the position of the driver because they do it themselves. I wish I'd been on that prosecution team because I would have given him his phone while he stood in the witness box and told him to reply to my message without looking at his phone. A feat that is simply impossible to do on modern day smart phones


----------



## ufkacbln (24 Mar 2015)

Only guessing here..

There was a question as to whether the bike had come off the pavement in front of the vehicle

If that was the case then it could have been decided by the Jury that the accident was unavoidable (phone or not) and hence the driving at the point of the collision not dangerous


----------



## Origamist (24 Mar 2015)

Cunobelin said:


> Only guessing here..
> 
> There was a question as to whether the bike had come off the pavement in front of the vehicle
> 
> If that was the case then it could have been decided by the Jury that the accident was unavoidable (phone or not) and hence the driving at the point of the collision not dangerous




Yes, the old Single Witness Suicide Swerve. In this case, the defendant only came up with the pavement story at the trial. Before that he said the cyclist swerved to avoid a drain, or that he didn't see the cyclist at all. Inconsistencies abound.

The pavement in question is very narrow, over-grown, with no dropped kerbs and muddy. There was no physical evidence that the cyclist was on the pavement (i.e. tyre marks). 

Furthermore, it seems inconceivable that the jury were denied a site visit to examine the road and pavement.


----------



## ufkacbln (24 Mar 2015)

OT...

I had a very close shave with a liveried van in which the wing mirror clipped me at a "pinch point" when the van forced its way through. Am email complaint followed

The response was that I was unlit and swerving all over the road, and had ridden into their vehicle!

Asked for confirmation thatthis was the driver's statement and that they should get it in writing.

Then sent in the video which showed a perfect straight line, a clear shoulder check and right turn signal as I pulled into primary well in advance of the pinch point and both the road sign and their vehicle it up by my lights

3 days later I had another reply... very apologetic, the driver had been formaly interviewed, had retracted his statement and was no longer employed!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Mar 2015)

Origamist said:


> Yes, the old *Single Witness Suicide Swerve*. In this case, the defendant only came up with the pavement story at the trial. Before that he said the cyclist swerved to avoid a drain, or that he didn't see the cyclist at all. Inconsistencies abound.
> 
> The pavement in question is very narrow, over-grown, with no dropped kerbs and muddy. There was no physical evidence that the cyclist was on the pavement (i.e. tyre marks).
> 
> Furthermore, it seems inconceivable that the jury were denied a site visit to examine the road and pavement.


Precisely that.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Mar 2015)

User said:


> Who says they were denied?
> 
> It's the decision of the prosecution what evidence to put forward, including whether they feel a visit to the scene would be helpful - they didn't seem to think it added anything. The defence could also request a visit if they felt it would help their case. And if the jury were that concerned, then they could ask to visit the scene.
> 
> There is no suggestion that a request to visit was made and denied.


It has been reported that a visit was proposed but discounted on cost and complexity grounds.


----------



## Origamist (24 Mar 2015)

User said:


> Who says they were denied?
> 
> It's the decision of the prosecution what evidence to put forward, including whether they feel a visit to the scene would be helpful - they didn't seem to think it added anything. The defence could also request a visit if they felt it would help their case. And if the jury were that concerned, then they could ask to visit the scene.
> 
> There is no suggestion that a request to visit was made and denied.


 
From what I understand (from someone who attended the trial), was that a site visit for the jury had been agreed (requested by the prosecution), but then it never took place due to issues of cost and organization. I don't know any more than that, I'm afraid.

If anyone knows anything more about this aspect of the case, I'd be interested to know.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (24 Mar 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> It has been reported that a visit was proposed but discounted on cost and complexity grounds.


Presumably partly because it being relevant was brought in to play so late in proceedings?



McWobble said:


> Most do not cycle. In fact, I give good odds that there was not one cyclist on that jury. We already have this situation which you fear - and it's all one sided, loaded against the cyclist. If no one's there to explain what secondary position is, and why a cyclist would sensibly occupy it, is it any surprise that there would be a tendency to see this as just another self-righteous cyclist who got his just desserts? No, not by all jurors certainly - but I bet more than one did harbour exactly that thought. Just as some jurors automatically assume guilt if the accused is from a certain part of town (that was exactly what happened when I did jury service).



Would it not make sense for one of the cycling lobby groups to be hitting the CPS with the offer of expert witnesses who could stand up and explain the process of cycling safely on a UK road? Seems it wouldn't take a lot of court time and going through the basics in front of the jury could explain a lot of cyclists actions that they have no clue about when it was relevant to the case.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (24 Mar 2015)

Origamist said:


> From what I understand (from someone who attended the trial), was that a site visit for the jury had been agreed, but then it never took place due to issues of cost and organization. I don't know any more than that, I'm afraid.
> 
> If anyone knows anything more about this aspect of the case, I'd be interested to know.


It sounds like three or four photographs or a minute of video could have given them all they needed to know about the likelihood someone had chosen to cycle on that bit of footpath.


----------



## Origamist (24 Mar 2015)

w00hoo_kent said:


> It sounds like three or four photographs or a minute of video could have given them all they needed to know about the likelihood someone had chosen to cycle on that bit of footpath.


 
Yes, it would have been the next best thing to a site visit, but like the proposed site visit, no footage of the road/pavement was used in evidence. Instead, there were lawyerly discussions about adverbs...


----------



## Pale Rider (24 Mar 2015)

It is most unlikely the case was presented without a site plan and photographs.


----------



## Origamist (24 Mar 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> It is most unlikely the case was presented without a site plan and photographs.


 
You'd certainly hope so!


----------



## Pale Rider (24 Mar 2015)

It was probably decided a site visit wouldn't assist the jury over and above the information they were already being given.

Visits can be difficult to organise.

I don't know the site, but it appears to be a busy A road.

You can't have 12 jurors, lawyers and a judge wandering around playing with the traffic.

So for a visit to have any meaning, it may be a road closure would have been needed.

In a public place, there's always the risk someone - meaning no harm - may speak to one of the jurors, so there's quite a bit of shepherding to be done.

Then there's the risk someone takes a photograph - 'look what I saw today' appearing on twitbook is a big problem if it shows any of the jurors' faces.

It's easy to see why site visits are avoided unless they are absolutely necessary.


----------



## albion (24 Mar 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> It was probably decided a site visit wouldn't assist the jury over and above the information they were already being given....I don't know the site, but it appears to be a busy A road....



Far to dangerous when there is no real pavement. It was certainly not one that would ever be used by a cyclist and 100% certainly never used by anyone on a road bike !


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Mar 2015)

w00hoo_kent said:


> Presumably partly because it being relevant was brought in to play so late in proceedings?


My understanding is the visit was proposed from the outset but then someone said "oh chuff it, it is just another dead cyclist let's not bother."




> Would it not make sense for one of the cycling lobby groups to be hitting the CPS with the offer of expert witnesses who could stand up and explain the process of cycling safely on a UK road? Seems it wouldn't take a lot of court time and going through the basics in front of the jury could explain a lot of cyclists actions that they have no clue about when it was relevant to the case.


Every case involving a cyclist's death, or their serious, significantly life-changing injury, should go to court. If the defendant is innocent the courts will find them so.
Every case should involve expert testimony from folk the CDF/CTC
Every case should involve a pro-cycling lawyer with significant expertise in the area.


----------



## Origamist (24 Mar 2015)

I'm not going to attach too much credence to a comment that derives from the bottom half of the internet, but nonetheless, here is a post about the planned site visit from "Mark B" that appears pertinent:



> Originally the prosecution was asking for the jurors to be driven to the site of the collision. The reason given for this not going ahead was the difficulty in closing the road. But it’s not a motorway and short-term diversions could have been arranged. Also it would have taken only 4 days to organize from when it was suggested on Day 2 of the Trial.



https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2015/03/21/somethings-not-quite-right-here/

I'm waiting to hear more about this, as I think a site visit would have been very helpful.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (24 Mar 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Every case involving a cyclist's death, or their serious, significantly life-changing injury, should go to court. If the defendant is innocent the courts will find them so.
> Every case should involve expert testimony from folk the CDF/CTC
> Every case should involve a pro-cycling lawyer with significant expertise in the area.


And I presume pedestrian deaths should have someone from the RA and a non-driving lawyer representing them? Which group do we use if someone dies swimming?
I agree if it looks suspect it should go to court and if it goes to court then the correct people should be present to make sure the facts are put across correctly, every time a cyclist dies? I had a friend died of a heart attack while cycling last year, who are we prosecuting for that? I mean, he was on the road and everything.


----------



## w00hoo_kent (24 Mar 2015)

User said:


> If the Prosecution had thought that a site visit was important, why hadn't this been agreed and arranged prior to the hearing commencing as you would expect? It seems to me that this may have been something that came up during the course of the trial and an application made.
> 
> Something doesn't sound right.


The discussion here has made it clear that the accused made a number of u turns in their claims (I think we're at 4 or 5 dealing with varied bits of the case), among them only bringing up the defence that the victim was on the footpath during the trial.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Mar 2015)

w00hoo_kent said:


> And I presume pedestrian deaths should have someone from the RA and a non-driving lawyer representing them? Which group do we use if someone dies swimming?
> I agree if it looks suspect it should go to court and if it goes to court then the correct people should be present to make sure the facts are put across correctly, every time a cyclist dies? I had a friend died of a heart attack while cycling last year, who are we prosecuting for that? I mean, he was on the road and everything.


If you're relaxed about cases where drivers who kill cyclists not going to court well... hope it stays fine for you, your family, your friends and any members of any cycling club you may be a member of.

Your strawman arguments are distasteful in the context of this thread btw.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Mar 2015)

User said:


> You are misinterpreting the intent here.


You may be right. And if I have and caused upset I shall apologise. The misinterpretation is not wilful. But I can't ascertain _intent_ from a post and can only respond to its content. I thought the subject matter of the thread sufficient to give context to my use of case and not bring the Ramblers and deaths by drowning into it but I will spell it out. I think...

Every case of an RTC involving a cyclist's death, or their serious, significantly life-changing, injury, should go to court. If the defendant is innocent the courts will find them so.
Every case of an RTC that goes to court involving a cyclist's death, et cetera, should involve expert testimony from folk at the CDF/CTC
Every case of an RTC that goes to court involving a cyclist's death, et cetera, should involve a pro-cycling lawyer with significant expertise in the area


----------



## Pale Rider (24 Mar 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Every case of an RTC involving a cyclist's death, or their serious, significantly life-changing, injury, should go to court. If the defendant is innocent the courts will find them so.



That could have happened here, although I accept it doesn't look like it.

The notion of prosecuting the surviving party in a road traffic collision is a fairly recent one.

No doubt many years ago some drivers involved in fatal accidents rather got away with a killing, albeit an unintentional one.

But I'm not comfortable with the notion every fatal collision should see the surviving driver prosecuted.

A prosecution should be mounted if there is evidence of careless or dangerous driving, which will often be the case, but not always so.

I recall an incident reported on television in which a lass wiped out a cyclist while driving her Mini late at night.

She hit the cyclist with the front nearside of her car.

Evidence gathered at the scene found he was riding a dark bicycle, had no lights and was wearing dark clothing.

Crucially, the cyclist was very, very drunk.

She knew none of that at the time of her police interview, but her account was he must have swerved into her path.

She was not prosecuted, which I believe was the correct decision.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Mar 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> She was not prosecuted, which I believe was the correct decision.


Had she been would she have been found guilty? No.


----------



## Origamist (24 Mar 2015)

User said:


> If the Prosecution had thought that a site visit was important, why hadn't this been agreed and arranged prior to the hearing commencing as you would expect? It seems to me that this may have been something that came up during the course of the trial and an application made.
> 
> Something doesn't sound right.


 
Not much that I've read about this tragic case sounds "right" to me...


----------



## Dmcd33 (24 Mar 2015)

Profpointy said:


> I rather get the impression that an awful lot of non-cyclists genuinely believe the "wobblin' about all over the place, jumping red lights, don't pay any effin' road tax type stuff" and hence are all too ready to see cyclists as a hazard to motorists, even if they themselves can drive actually adequately well, but are still inclined to give "the hard pressed motorist" the benefit of the doubt unless they're objectively drunk or whatever. Contrast this with the chap who fell asleep and crashed into a train. If he'd crashed into some cyclists it's inconceivable he'd have been as severely treated.
> 
> This attitude is re-enforced by the likes of Clarkson, references to lycra-louts crashing into grannies and all the rest. I think a daily mail journalist reported her granny had been killed by pavement cycling or two or three separate occasions. People believe this stuff. I don't think I'm over-dramatizing


 
Very well put!
I have three examples of comments from professional people, who I get on well with at work as follows;

1. I reference to someone mentioning frustration with two abrest cycling - "no wonder they get run over"
2. In reference to a Dr coming in and seeing my hi vis - "your_ one_ of those cyclists are you? (sarcastic)"
3. Again two abrest cycling - "why do they have to take up the road. I beeped my horn and swerved infront of them and they (cyclists) just looked at me".

These are people that until you have a cycling related conversation, they don't mention their irrational arguments as to why they dislike cyclists e.g. Jump red lights (so do cars), two abrest (takes up the same as one car), they get in my way (actually cars get in my way), we pay taxes and they don't (most cyclists own cars and pay tax), it's my road (really), they come out of nowhere (no such place and so do cars), they weave in and out of traffic (and motorbikes?)...............

Most of them also say that they would love to cycle, but don't feel safe enough. Full of contradictions and the press peddle the myths to get click bait.

In regards to jury service, I did 3 months on a high profile murder trial. One juror had him guilty before hearing evidence. The rest were easily swayed by the more forceful characters and the weaker ones just got ground down and gave up arguing. To be fair I think It was one of the better juror groups that could have been selected, but I would never want to be judged by a jury. Too much emotion and value based systems at play.


----------



## ufkacbln (24 Mar 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> It was probably decided a site visit wouldn't assist the jury over and above the information they were already being given.
> 
> Visits can be difficult to organise.
> 
> ...


Of course a site visit would be dangerous!

They might get hit by a muppet on their mobile phone


----------



## Pale Rider (24 Mar 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Had she been would she have been found guilty? No.



So you trust a jury in that situation, but presumably not in the case at hand.

You can't have it both ways.


----------



## Profpointy (24 Mar 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Had she been would she have been found guilty? No.



whist I sympathise with Grumpy's point, ie far too few prosecutions never mind convictions for killing cyclists, and do agree something needs to change. However always prosecuting isn't really the answer as we'd get a load of jurors sworn in, judge asks the prosecuting brief to state the case "we've not actually got a case m'lud" .....even if preambled with a description of the tragedy, is going to get short shrift off the judge and not achieve anything.

Something is needed though, all the same


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Mar 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> So you trust a jury in that situation, but presumably not in the case at hand.
> 
> You can't have it both ways.


Indeed I can. 

At present in cases of car v bike collisions the process, from often tepid investigation, reluctance to charge, through prosecution to sentencing, if convicted, bends over backwards in favour of the driver.

The case in hand highlights the flaws of the jury system in acquitting the guilty, by way of inept, lacklustre prosecution and through 'smart' or 'grandstanding' defence, and does not speak to the astronomically slim chance of convicting the innocent, in cases that arise a result of RTCs. Even when the guilty are, by what feels like a fluke, convicted they get little more than a slap on the wrist, after all.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Mar 2015)

Profpointy said:


> whist I sympathise with Grumpy's point, ie far too few prosecutions never mind convictions for killing cyclists, and do agree something needs to change. However always prosecuting isn't really the answer as we'd get a load of jurors sworn in, judge asks the prosecuting brief to state the case "we've not actually got a case m'lud" .....even if preambled with a description of the tragedy, is going to get short shrift off the judge and not achieve anything.
> 
> Something is needed though, all the same


Go to Magistrates or some other form of lower court and let them examine the evidence determine if there is a case to answer? Anything is better than letting plod or CPS decide.


----------



## Pale Rider (24 Mar 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Indeed I can.
> 
> At present in cases of car v bike collisions the process, from often tepid investigation, reluctance to charge, through prosecution to sentencing, if convicted, bends over backwards in favour of the driver.
> 
> The case in hand highlights the flaws of the jury system in acquitting the guilty, by way of inept, lacklustre prosecution and through 'smart' or 'grandstanding' defence, and does not speak to the astronomically slim chance of convicting the innocent, in cases that arise a result of RTCs. Even when the guilty are, by what feels like a fluke, convicted they get little more than a slap on the wrist, after all.



There is no general reluctance to charge, a charge follows a fatal accident more often than not.

Road traffic collision investigations are far from tepid.

Quite a lot goes into accident reconstruction - often closing the road to do it - vehicle examination and general inquiries surrounding those involved.

For example, a cyclist who was an occasional customer of my local bike shop was killed in a collision.

Several months earlier, the cyclist and the shop manager had exchanged a couple of emails about the purchase of lights.

After the cyclist was killed, a detective turned up at the shop to 'talk through' the emails.

That indicates a thorough investigation to me, not a tepid one.

A criminal prosecution is adversarial, it is a battle, there is a winner and a loser.

The loser will often hit out in frustration, which is where I put criticism of the jury system.

None of the alternatives routinely put forward appeal to me.

Sentencing is another area in which one party is very unlikely to be satisfied.

Often both sides are hacked off, the defendant because he's got a stretch, the victim's family because the stretch is not long enough.

I've seen some long sentences handed out for death by dangerous, and some short ones.

None caused me to lose any sleep - each decision could be understood if you had sat through the full proceedings.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (24 Mar 2015)

Your experience is very different to mine, and the 'tepid' is, btw, the description of a current traffic officer in my local force.


----------



## spen666 (25 Mar 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> ...
> 
> A criminal prosecution is adversarial, it is a battle, there is a winner and a loser.
> 
> The loser will often hit out in frustration, which is where I put criticism of the jury system.....


 

How can there be anything other than a "winner" and a "loser"?

Whether its a jury or a roll of a die or something else, there will still be winner and loser


----------



## albion (26 Mar 2015)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Go to Magistrates or some other form of lower court and let them examine the evidence determine if there is a case to answer? Anything is better than letting plod or CPS decide.


Got to agree.

Whilst others look bad, this has the appearance of the worst jury incident ever.


----------



## Origamist (26 Mar 2015)

Daniel Squire: Fatal crash parents want text-drive ban

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-32043175


----------



## GrumpyGregry (26 Mar 2015)

Origamist said:


> Daniel Squire: Fatal crash parents want text-drive ban
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-kent-32043175


If taken up that will likely go the same was a non-concurrent bans for those serving prison sentences did. A particular politician will see it get on the books but no government will actually enact (or whatever the right word is) it.


----------



## Lemond (27 Mar 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> I recall an incident reported on television in which a lass wiped out a cyclist while driving her Mini late at night.



Yes, the cyclist was over the drink drive limit, cycling on an unlit section of dual carriageway, dressed in dark clothing with no working lights or reflectors. The driver was arrested for failing to stop, but not charged after the accident investigators reviewed the scene. 

I for one am quite glad she wasn't arrested, charged and then bailed or remanded for months on end as some here suggest should happen. She did nothing wrong and that wouldn't be justice at work, but something far more sinister and prejudicial.


----------



## glenn forger (27 Mar 2015)

Lemond said:


> She did nothing wrong.



She hit a man and killed him and ran away, she didn't even call an ambulance.


----------



## Origamist (27 Mar 2015)

"Daniel Squires' family tell of shock as driver is cleared of cyclist's death"

Read more: http://www.dover-express.co.uk/Fami...tory-26228720-detail/story.html#ixzz3VZXWzc40


----------



## CopperCyclist (27 Mar 2015)

glenn forger said:


> She hit a man and killed him and ran away, she didn't even call an ambulance.



I agree, I saw the same story. I fully agree the collision may have not been her fault - cyclist in black, on unlit road, drunk - but she hit something in the carriageway hard enough to fairly badly damage her car, so she hit him rather than ran over him. After the impact she should have stopped to check what she hit. Legally she was excused, but morally I wasn't impressed.


----------



## Pale Rider (27 Mar 2015)

CopperCyclist said:


> I agree, I saw the same story. I fully agree the collision may have not been her fault - cyclist in black, on unlit road, drunk - but she hit something in the carriageway hard enough to fairly badly damage her car, so she hit him rather than ran over him. After the impact she should have stopped to check what she hit. Legally she was excused, but morally I wasn't impressed.



That's my recollection as well, although she did report the collision when she got home.

Memory fades, but that may have been after some publicity.

It did appear there was no attempt on her part to avoid responsibility, perhaps just delay it a little bit.


----------



## glenn forger (27 Mar 2015)

The cyclist could be a serial killer, it's still hit and run. She didn't call an ambulance at the scene, she didn't call an ambulance when she got home. Charged with nothing. Drivers regularly smash cars into buildings and get charged with nothing.


----------



## Lemond (27 Mar 2015)

glenn forger said:


> She hit a man and killed him and ran away, she didn't even call an ambulance.



She didn't "run away" as you put it. She pulled off at the next junction (the unlit dual carriageway has no hard shoulder), called a family member to collect her, and then called the police to report what she thought was a collision with an animal. The police actually commented on the fact that had she stopped to investigate the accident, she would have put herself and other road users in considerable danger. The only person to have behaved irresponsibly in this instance was, sadly, the cyclist.


----------



## Origamist (27 Mar 2015)

The family are organising a public meeting next week:

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Justice-for-Daniel-Squire/359997557530384


----------



## Lemond (27 Mar 2015)

User said:


> That's a very biased summation of the case.



Biased how? It's what happened.


----------



## Wobblers (28 Mar 2015)

Lemond said:


> Yes, the cyclist was over the drink drive limit, cycling on an unlit section of dual carriageway, dressed in dark clothing with no working lights or reflectors. The driver was arrested for failing to stop, but not charged after the accident investigators reviewed the scene.
> 
> I for one am quite glad she wasn't arrested, charged and then bailed or remanded for months on end as some here suggest should happen. She did nothing wrong and that wouldn't be justice at work, but something far more sinister and prejudicial.



What, leaving someone to die in the middle of the road isn't wrong? 

Have you heard of this thing called "morality"? 

And was there something wrong with her headlights, or was she simply not looking?


----------



## spen666 (28 Mar 2015)

McWobble said:


> What, leaving someone to die in the middle of the road isn't wrong?
> 
> Have you heard of this thing called "morality"?
> 
> And was there something wrong with her headlights, or was she simply not looking?


I'm afraid to tell you that morality or a lack of it isn't usually a ground to arrest someone or charge them.

If you want a legal system based around a notion of morality as a crime, then I think you need a sharia law country


----------



## spen666 (28 Mar 2015)

User said:


> There are western countries with good Samaritan laws.



That makes it an offence not to help. It does not make it an offence to behave immorally. You are not arrested for imoral behaviour, you are arrested for breaking their criminal law.


----------



## spen666 (28 Mar 2015)

User said:


> Yes I am aware of that, we are talking about this in the context of driving off leaving a dead or dying man in the road.


Well thank you for that. I hadn't realised that.


----------



## Lemond (28 Mar 2015)

User said:


> Yes I am aware of that, we are talking about this in the context of driving off leaving a dead or dying man in the road.



The police were in no doubt from the moment they interviewed her: she had no idea that she had hit a cyclist. Questioning her morality is therefore pointless.


----------



## Lemond (28 Mar 2015)

User said:


> Of course she didn't know what she had hit, what with not having stopped to find out.



Why go back and check if you thought you had hit an animal? Besides, as was pointed out previously, this is an unlit dual carriageway with no places to stop safely.


----------



## jarlrmai (28 Mar 2015)

If you hit something and you don't know what it was then it COULD have been a person, you have a duty to go and check that it wasn't. That you later say you thought it was an animal is not good enough, you have to be sure.


----------



## glenn forger (28 Mar 2015)

Lemond said:


> Why go back and check if you thought you had hit an animal?



The classic drunk driver excuse:

http://www.itv.com/news/meridian/20...kills-man-saying-she-thought-he-was-a-badger/

http://road.cc/content/news/111650-...eding-van-driver-jailed-two-years-hit-and-run


----------



## glenn forger (28 Mar 2015)

"What made you think it was an animal?"

"Well, what else could cause that much damage to my car?"


----------



## theclaud (28 Mar 2015)

Lemond said:


> Why go back and check if you thought you had hit an animal? Besides, as was pointed out previously, this is an unlit dual carriageway with no places to stop safely.


Do people actually type this kind of stuff with a straight face? What happened to driving at a speed such that you can stop within the distance you can see to be clear? And, at the risk of getting slightly sidetracked by giving credence to this nonsense about animals, is it generally considered OK just to kill livestock because you are not looking where the fark you are going?


----------



## Lemond (28 Mar 2015)

User said:


> If you don't know what you have hit, you could only think you had hit an animal out of wishful thinking.



Actually, if you know the stretch of road where this happened, that's precisely what you would think.


----------



## Lemond (28 Mar 2015)

User said:


> What you would choose to think and, in this specific case, be wrong.



So if you know the area, you should have no problem understanding how a cyclist dressed in dark clothing, with no lights and no reflectors wouldn't stand out...and that you can drive along that stretch of road and see a dead badger, fox or deer almost every day of the week.


----------



## Wobblers (28 Mar 2015)

spen666 said:


> I'm afraid to tell you that morality or a lack of it isn't usually a ground to arrest someone or charge them.
> 
> If you want a legal system based around a notion of morality as a crime, then I think you need a sharia law country



The legal system is - at least supposedly - based on a system of ethics. That is why it has support from the general public. I suppose I ought not to be surprised that a lawyer doesn't comprehend that. Or that you should try to deflect the argument in this manner.


----------



## Lemond (28 Mar 2015)

User said:


> I wouldn't dispute either but, that does not justify failing to stop to find out what, or in this case who, had been hit. Nor, as Claud says, does it justify failing to drive within the limits of what can be seen.



You ever hit an animal while driving? "Driving within the limits of what can be seen" just doesn't apply, especially so on an unlit dual carriageway. And in this instance, speed was not considered a factor.


----------



## Lemond (28 Mar 2015)

McWobble said:


> The legal system is - at least supposedly - based on a system of ethics. That is why it has support from the general public. I suppose I ought not to be surprised that a lawyer doesn't comprehend that. Or that you should try to deflect the argument in this manner.



Is it morally right to ride a bike with no lights and reflectors on a dual carriageway at night putting yourself and others at risk?


----------



## Wobblers (28 Mar 2015)

Lemond said:


> So if you know the area, you should have no problem understanding how a cyclist dressed in dark clothing, with no lights and no reflectors wouldn't stand out...and that you can drive along that stretch of road and see a dead badger, fox or deer almost every day of the week.



A person on a bike is much larger than a badger - or a deer. This particular motorist had already managed to succeed in not crashing into a large number of _unlit _cars on her journey - many of which are black - so the "can't see something dark" excuse lacks credence. So I ask again: was there something wrong with her headlights?


----------



## Lemond (28 Mar 2015)

User said:


> Why not?



animals have that really annoying habit of running out in front of cars. It's not like they just sit there in the middle of the road where they are easy to see and avoid.


----------



## Wobblers (28 Mar 2015)

Lemond said:


> Why go back and check if you thought you had hit an animal? Besides, as was pointed out previously, this is an unlit dual carriageway with no places to stop safely.



So you're now suggesting that it's perfectly fine to leave an animal that you've hit to die or suffer? Far less a human being? You show a remarkable lack of compassion, so it's more than a little hypocritical to bang on about morality (and in any case the risk to others is very small).


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (28 Mar 2015)

McWobble said:


> The legal system is - at least supposedly - based on a system of ethics. That is why it has support from the general public. I suppose I ought not to be surprised that a lawyer doesn't comprehend that. Or that you should try to deflect the argument in this manner.


And, of course, any ''Samaritan'' law could only be introduced to reflect the aim of introducing a law that fits with a moral purpose, and fits in with a common moral code, in this case, the active protection of the victim. Because - damned morality - that's what the law should be about.


----------



## Wobblers (28 Mar 2015)

Lemond said:


> animals have that really annoying habit of running out in front of cars. It's not like they just sit there in the middle of the road where they are easy to see and avoid.



That cyclist did not "run out in front of cars". He was there to be seen, on the road. Where headlights would have picked him out. Have you any other strawman arguments?


----------



## Lemond (28 Mar 2015)

McWobble said:


> A person on a bike is much larger than a badger - or a deer. This particular motorist had already managed to succeed in not crashing into a large number of _unlit _cars on her journey - many of which are black - so the "can't see something dark" excuse lacks credence. So I ask again: was there something wrong with her headlights?



Unlit cars? What are you talking about? The accident happened at around 11:30pm.


----------



## Lemond (28 Mar 2015)

McWobble said:


> That cyclist did not "run out in front of cars". He was there to be seen, on the road. Where headlights would have picked him out. Have you any other strawman arguments?



Do you have lights on your bike and working reflectors?


----------



## Lemond (28 Mar 2015)

User13710 said:


> Was this driver one of Lemond's relatives do you think?



Nope.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (28 Mar 2015)

So someone drives into something they can't see on a road where they can't stop because of the danger of other people driving into them so they drive on? That's not driving, that's _*being driven*_ *along the road they erroneously thought they were driving along.

EDIT: *and blindly so.


----------



## Wobblers (28 Mar 2015)

Lemond said:


> Unlit cars? What are you talking about? The accident happened at around 11:30pm.



I know this might be difficult to understand, but many roads have these things called _parked cars _along them. Usually they are not illuminated. HTH


----------



## Wobblers (28 Mar 2015)

Lemond said:


> Do you have lights on your bike and working reflectors?



What I have on my bike is utterly irrelevant. Was there something wrong with her headlights?


----------



## snorri (28 Mar 2015)

Lemond said:


> Besides, as was pointed out previously, this is an unlit dual carriageway with no places to stop safely.


You appear to be saying drivers shouldn't be expected to stop at the scene of collisions at night.


----------



## Lemond (28 Mar 2015)

User13710 said:


> I'm just at a loss to know why you feel the need to jump through so many hoops to defend her. Perhaps you have had a similar accident yourself?



Nope. Not at all. You might need to go back a few pages, but you'll see how and why this particular incident started to be discussed.


----------



## Lemond (28 Mar 2015)

McWobble said:


> I know this might be difficult to understand, but many roads have these things called _parked cars _along them. Usually they are not illuminated. HTH



Actually, I doubt she passed a parked car for miles. She was on a dual carriageway.


----------



## Lemond (28 Mar 2015)

User13710 said:


> Interesting.



Really? Why?


----------



## Wobblers (28 Mar 2015)

Lemond said:


> Actually, I doubt she passed a parked car for miles. She was on a dual carriageway.



Yes, I'm sure she never ever passed a parked car at night in her entire life....

Any other desperately weak arguments for us? And was there something wrong with her headlights?


----------



## Lemond (28 Mar 2015)

McWobble said:


> What I have on my bike is utterly irrelevant. Was there something wrong with her headlights?



Thought so. So you're not stupid enough to ride at night without lights and reflectors. Could that be because you figure you'll be harder to see if you didn't?


----------



## glenn forger (28 Mar 2015)

Lemond said:


> Really? Why?



Cos you stated that a driver who killed a cyclist, ran away and didn't bother to call an ambulance had "done nothing wrong".


----------



## jarlrmai (28 Mar 2015)

You see a badger / dog / fox in your headlights and you hit it and you don't stop fair enough, I still think you should stop to see if it needs to be put down. If you don't know what you hit then you surely MUST stop just incase it you hit a person no matter how unlikely it seems, I have been in a car which hit a medium sized dog, a person on a bike weighing quite a lot more and higher up would have been a very noticeable collision and not something you would just drive on.


----------



## Wobblers (28 Mar 2015)

Lemond said:


> Thought so. So you're not stupid enough to ride at night without lights and reflectors. Could that be because you figure you'll be harder to see if you didn't?



You do realise that CC doesn't have an award category for the most unpleasant troll I hope?

Was there something wrong with her headlights?


----------



## Dan B (28 Mar 2015)

Is it not the case that you are legally required to report having hit a dog while driving? If so, how on earth are you going to be able to do so if you don't even know whether it _was_ a dog?


----------



## Lemond (28 Mar 2015)

User13710 said:


> Because you seem to be unusually keen to exonerate drivers and blame cyclists at every opportunity, which is odd for someone calling himself "Lemond" and posting on a cycling forum and implies that you have some sort of personal agenda operating. But as McWobble keeps pointing out, your arguments are pretty feeble and you are mostly just making yourself look like a bit of an unpleasant prat, so I think I'll leave it there.



Sorry, no agenda here. And I'm not trying to exonerate anyone. I've commented on two specific instances where the drivers in question were exonerated by the legal system and have defended the legitimate reasons for those outcomes.


----------



## Lemond (28 Mar 2015)

McWobble said:


> Was there something wrong with her headlights?



How would I know? But I think it's safe to assume that the police will have checked?


----------



## Lemond (28 Mar 2015)

User said:


> If you were ever hit by a car, say crossing a road at night, would you prefer it if
> a) The driver stopped, called for help, and marked your location with hazard lights.
> Or
> b) left you in a dark road to get run over some more?



You might not believe this, but I've been hit by a car twice and in both instances the driver didn't stop. Bumps and bruisers both times, so I count myself extremely lucky. But neither of those instances, nor your hypothetical, have anything to do with the incident we have been discussing. 

I happen to believe, given the circumstances, that the police were right not to charge the lady in question, and long may they be allowed to investigate and make these determinations. I don't believe that drivers involved in fatal collisions should be arrested, charged and possibly remanded by default as others suggest.


----------



## Lemond (29 Mar 2015)

Ok, obviously you would want to belive that a driver would come to your aid if they knocked you down. But in instance the driver honestly believed that she had hit an animal, not another human being. As did the police. 

So, if you thought you had hit a fox or badger, why would you stop and check? More importantly, where on that stretch of road would you stop? There is nowhere safe to stop, there's nowhere to turnaround.


----------



## Lemond (29 Mar 2015)

User said:


> Apologies, I appear to be repeating myself.



You know why.: Given all of the factors in play, it was a reasonable assumption for her to have made.


----------



## spen666 (29 Mar 2015)

McWobble said:


> The legal system is - at least supposedly - based on a system of ethics. That is why it has support from the general public. I suppose I ought not to be surprised that a lawyer doesn't comprehend that. Or that you should try to deflect the argument in this manner.



I do comprehend that, hence why I wrote what I did.

Acting in an immoral way is not something you can be arrested for. Breaking the law is something that you can be arrested for.

Your idea of what is moral is different from someone elses, hence the reason why it would be wrong to allow people to be arrested for acting immorally rather than for breaking a law


----------



## Tin Pot (29 Mar 2015)

An _*ad hominem*_ (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"[1]), short for _*argumentum ad hominem*_, means responding to arguments by attacking a person's character, rather than to the content of their arguments.


----------



## Wobblers (29 Mar 2015)

Lemond said:


> How would I know? But I think it's safe to assume that the police will have checked?



It's funny, where I cycle there are no streetlights - but quite a few runners and unlit cyclists. I don't have any trouble spotting them with my measly 220 lumens - even on fast 40 mph descents. So here you are, trying to tell me that this motorist was unable to see an unlit cyclist with 4000 lumens of headlights on a road with considerably better sight lines. It rather sounds like she wasn't paying attention - or her lights were defective. Both are offences.


----------



## Wobblers (29 Mar 2015)

spen666 said:


> I do comprehend that, hence why I wrote what I did.
> 
> Acting in an immoral way is not something you can be arrested for. Breaking the law is something that you can be arrested for.
> 
> Your idea of what is moral is different from someone elses, hence the reason why it would be wrong to allow people to be arrested for acting immorally rather than for breaking a law



You are claiming that the legal system is both better than and superior to a code of ethics. A moment's reflection should be sufficient to understand both are wrong. Would you prefer someone not to run you down - and leave you to die through fear of getting caught or through an understanding that it is wrong?


----------



## Lemond (29 Mar 2015)

McWobble said:


> It's funny, where I cycle there are no streetlights - but quite a few runners and unlit cyclists. I don't have any trouble spotting them with my measly 220 lumens - even on fast 40 mph descents. So here you are, trying to tell me that this motorist was unable to see an unlit cyclist with 4000 lumens of headlights on a road with considerably better sight lines. It rather sounds like she wasn't paying attention - or her lights were defective. Both are offences.



Quite right. Both are offences. But they are both offences that this particular driver in this particular instance wasn't found guilty of committing.


----------



## spen666 (29 Mar 2015)

McWobble said:


> You are claiming that the legal system is both better than and superior to a code of ethics. A moment's reflection should be sufficient to understand both are wrong. Would you prefer someone not to run you down - and leave you to die through fear of getting caught or through an understanding that it is wrong?


Erm, Please don't invent things I am saying.

I have said nothing of the sort.

I have stated what the legal position is and why.




I have simply sad you are not arrested in this country for immorality, you are arrested for breaking the law. It is a rather sad reflection on you if you can manage to twist that into the post you come up with.


I have at no time expressed a view on whether I think it is morally right or wrong what is alleged to have happened in this case.


----------



## Wobblers (29 Mar 2015)

Lemond said:


> Quite right. Both are offences. But they are both offences that this particular driver in this particular instance wasn't found guilty of committing.



She wasn't investigated for either offence. They just took her excuse at face value. The other witness is dead, so whatever account there is of this event is intrinsically biased. A point that you have bent over backwards to ignore.

Neither can you account for the fact that she (claims to have) mistaken running over a human being for some animal. That is a rather difficult thing to do, if you're paying attention, even if he was wearing dark clothes. I, in common with most others, manage to avoid dark clothed pedestrians on unlit streets with little difficulty. Something else you have ignored.

Nor does any of this excuse the fact that she did not stop, and left someone, possibly to die. Saying that stopping is dangerous is another fatuous excuse - her car was equipped with lights and hazard warning lamps. Plenty of people break down in far worse places without consequences. In any case, it would seem advisable to stop merely in order to check that her car was still safe to drive - not doing so seems rather irresponsible.

So, do you have any other feeble excuses for me?


----------



## Wobblers (29 Mar 2015)

spen666 said:


> Erm, Please don't invent things I am saying.
> 
> I have said nothing of the sort.
> 
> ...



So why bring it up in the first place? It's odd, you seem reticent to express any views on any thread, but that doesn't stop you from trying to derail them. Why is that? It is also rather hypocritical to complain about me trying to "twist your post" since you seldom do anything but. Indeed, you did just that with me, by equating morality with sharia law.


----------



## spen666 (29 Mar 2015)

McWobble said:


> So why bring it up in the first place? I.


Erm, I did not bring that up as I said in the post you quoted.


----------



## Pale Rider (29 Mar 2015)

McWobble said:


> She wasn't investigated for either offence.



She was arrested on suspicion of death by dangerous and given police bail.

She was investigated, her car was impounded and examined, the coppers made their usual examination of the crash scene and, as usual, toxicology was taken from the dead person.

The evidence strongly suggested the cyclist was very drunk, there was no evidence of her driving other than her own account.

That was probably assessed as plausible, so the most likely sequence of events was the cyclist wobbled into her path.

You can only follow the evidence, which no one in this thread - apart from @Lemond - has attempted to do.


----------



## Pale Rider (29 Mar 2015)

User said:


> Where is the evidence of any wobble?



There isn't any, but inferences have to be drawn.

He was so drunk as to be incapable of standing, let along riding a cycle.

She was sober and said she was driving responsibly.

She would say that wouldn't she?

But her car will have been torn apart, had she mounted the nearside kerb the tyre may have punctured, or there might be a fresh scrape on the alloys.

Many cars have a secret black box which records some info, speed, for example.

Lots of things can be deduced by point of impact, the amount and type of damage to the car.

All this stuff - and more - will have been closely looked at before the decision to charge or not was made.

Such an investigation takes a lot of time, and if I recall the lass grumbled a bit about being on police bail for months.


----------



## Wobblers (29 Mar 2015)

Pale Rider said:


> There isn't any, but inferences have to be drawn.
> 
> He was so drunk as to be incapable of standing, let along riding a cycle.
> 
> ...



None of which suggests a wobble. Neither does her testimony, in which she states that she thought she hit an animal. In other words, she didn't see him. Perhaps you should take a look at the Michael Mason thread before you assume the competency of police investigations - they are not always as thorough as we'd all like to think.


----------



## Pale Rider (29 Mar 2015)

User said:


> Was any of that done?



I cannot know exactly what the coppers did in that investigation, but I can say from similar circumstance investigations I do know a little bit about, it's the sort of stuff that is routinely done.

You can get a good flavour of investigations by attending a road traffic collision inquest, which are open to the public.

The investigation is usually only outlined for a few minutes by one officer, but it's easy to see how much work must have been done to reach that point.


----------



## Wobblers (29 Mar 2015)

spen666 said:


> Erm, I did not bring that up as I said in the post you quoted.



Erm, no. I originally pointed out that it can hardly be considered moral to drive off leaving someone in the road without finding out whether or not they're alive or need help. You then made an irrelevant comment about how the legal system does not consider issues of morality - complete with fatuous comparison with Sharia law (well done!). So, yes, you did bring up irrelevant comments about the law and morality.


----------



## Pale Rider (30 Mar 2015)

User said:


> So supposition then?



Bit more than that, but hey, the coppers might have nicked off on holiday for a few months for all I know.

Likewise the jury in the thread title.

They could have decided it on best of three arm wrestling.

We will all have to decide for ourselves how the respective decisions were most likely to have been made.


----------



## Origamist (30 Mar 2015)

Cyclists' Defence Fund: "An incomprehensible travesty of justice"

http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/an-incomprehensible-travesty-justice


----------



## mr_cellophane (2 Apr 2015)

Juries make their decisions on two points; The evidence presented and their own experiences. Drivers experience is that they can text and drive safely and cyclists drop off the kerb with out looking. 
Perhaps we need juries to explain why they chose a verdict rather than just Guilty/Not Guilty.


----------

