# "I can't help it if a cyclist falls over"



## glenn forger (2 Oct 2013)

Says over-taking driver on wrong side of the road who killed a cyclist:



> The former parish church bell ringer said she had not seen the cyclists coming from the other direction when she overtook, and thought there was 'sufficient room' to make the manoeuvre.
> 
> Measures said she was 'surprised' to see Mr Pontin and his girlfriend coming towards her as she rounded the curve in the road - but felt they still had enough room to get past.
> 
> ...




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...d-cyclist-bike-ride-boyfriend-jury-hears.html

A rather combative stance, I suppose.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (2 Oct 2013)

Since I refuse to click on any links to that rag of a newspaper I found the story elsewhere.

_The 51-year-old divorced mother-of-four, herself a keen cyclist, told Oxford Crown Court: "I can't help it if a cyclist, with all due respect, falls over as I'm approaching them and comes into my line of travel._​Keen cyclist my arse.

What a vile, contemptible woman. Sadly, I can predict that even if she is convicted she will retain her licence due to the extreme hardship a ban would cause in her lifesaving oncology work blah blah blah...

GC


----------



## on the road (2 Oct 2013)

I'm dreading the daily s***e turning on the comments.


----------



## BSRU (2 Oct 2013)

What a load of crap she is spewing to justify *killing *a fellow human being


----------



## glenn forger (2 Oct 2013)

> Asked if she had a chance to brake, she cried and slumped over the witness stand with a tissue clasped in her hand.
> 
> Through her tears, she whispered: "No."
> 
> ...



She saw them, and decided to carry on.


----------



## GrasB (2 Oct 2013)

As far as I'm concerned she incriminated her self.
- She didn't expect anything to be there, so must have been unsighted at the start of the manoeuvre, or probably just wasn't actually looking.
- Wasn't concerned about, or even aware?, of the increase in risk level in completing the manoeuvre (I wouldn't say as planned as I doubt she had planned the manoeuvre in the first place!)
- Did not give adequate space to oncoming traffic avoid any in-lane obstacles.


----------



## Bryony (2 Oct 2013)

By the sound of it she was overtaking the first cyclists on a bend which on its own is wreck less driving! 
But how dare she blame the poor girl for falling over in front of her for causing the accident especially when she is no longer with us to defend herself! 
I don't care how many lives this woman has saved with her services to oncology she is a poor specimen of a human being!


----------



## tyred (2 Oct 2013)

*'I had my daughter in the car. I do not drive without due care and attention.'
*
This stands out for me. I would consider it driving without due care and attention or even dangerous driving to overtake when there is traffic coming the other way and/if you cannot see it that there is anything coming towards you due to poor sight lines.*
*
Also, does she mean it's okay to drive without due care and attention if you don't have a child in the car?


----------



## Arjimlad (2 Oct 2013)

C'mon, it's her Human Right to drive and to overtake dangerously on a bend, after all. I'd like to see what this bend is like..


----------



## SamC (2 Oct 2013)

The cognitive dissonance is astounding. I was overtaking on a bend, I didn’t see them, I didn’t expect to see them, I saw them but didn’t think there was any danger, I thought there was sufficient room, blah blah blah blah. Either you saw them or you didn’t, either you drive safely or you overtake on bends, you can’t have it both ways.


----------



## sabian92 (2 Oct 2013)

CarlP said:


> Oh Christ! I know this lady in fact she is a client of mine, I had no idea this was going on. What a bloody awful shame for everyone, especially the poor girls family.



I do hope you refuse to continue business with this cretin of a human....


----------



## EltonFrog (2 Oct 2013)

sabian92 said:


> I do hope you refuse to continue business with this cretin of a human....



Steady old chap, this lady is a mother with children of her own, it is a dreadful thing to happen, and I don't know the full facts any more than you, but what I do know is, that before this happened she was (and still is) a very nice lady, with a charming family, ( I have also met the little girl who was in the car at the time and I have met the lady's partner). It is possible,( though I accept unlikely) that it may not have been her fault. So let's wait and see shall we. If she is found guilty then she needs to go to jail and be banned from driving for life. It is also possible that the cyclist was at fault. I shall be following this case with interest.


----------



## sabian92 (2 Oct 2013)

CarlP said:


> Steady old chap, this lady is a mother with children of her own, it is a dreadful thing to happen, and I don't know the full facts any more than you, but what I do know is, that before this happened she was (and still is) a very nice lady, with a charming family, ( I have also met the little girl who was in the car at the time and I have met the lady's partner). It is possible,( though I accept unlikely) that it may not have been her fault. So let's wait and see shall we. If she is found guilty then she needs to go to jail and be banned from driving for life. It is also possible that the cyclist was at fault. I shall be following this case with interest.



Maybe so but judging by what is written she is a moron of epic proportions. Overtaking on a blind bend? How thick do you have to be?


----------



## Chris Norton (2 Oct 2013)

What would have happened if it was a car she hit? The speed impact suddenly doubles, the pair of cyclists that were overtook would possibly have been taken out, plus the damage done to the people in the cars. Simply put though, it was a very bad decision by the car driver and thats it.


----------



## Cycling Dan (2 Oct 2013)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Since I refuse to click on any links to that rag of a newspaper I found the story elsewhere.
> 
> _The 51-year-old divorced mother-of-four, herself a keen cyclist, told Oxford Crown Court: "I can't help it if a cyclist, with all due respect, falls over as I'm approaching them and comes into my line of travel._​Keen cyclist my arse.
> 
> ...


This extreme hardship BS is cropping up more and more. Why don't they just buy a bus pass with the savings of not paying for fuel??
I really don't care if its harder for you. Get up more early and walk the extra distance if required or for the early bus to arrive on time. At the end of the day you killed someone due to you being a terrible driver who evidently can't drive safely and show a utter disregard for every road user around you.. I don't want you on the road so why should I let you in other words I will not let you is the line I would take as a judge.


----------



## Gravity Aided (3 Oct 2013)

Certainly instructive as to why I should not read the Daily Mail. Poor journalism, trying to make it sound like the rider was thrown by the loss of control of her bicycle, while we bring in past bell ringing to the doctors' defense. And the comment about it being a second hand bicycle is also rather low. I see poor cyclists with bad habits every day as a bus driver, and people exercise care, thereby avoiding killing them. And if they did kill someone, the newspapers would not spend the greater part of an article making excuses for them. But I'm in the US, and we have our own journalistic problems.


----------



## Shut Up Legs (3 Oct 2013)

The extreme hardship angle is I think a symptom of our** society, which places too much value on owning a car. They're considered to be absolutely essential, and so by extension, not having one is considered to be a great hardship. In other words, too many people refuse to consider the possibility of using a combination of public transport and/or cycling, and leaving private motor vehicles as a last resort.

** i.e. Australia's, and various other countries.


----------



## Accy cyclist (3 Oct 2013)

Why mention that the poor girl was on a £300 second hand bike? It's as if they're trying to say the thing wasn't road worthy! No doubt the bitch will be let off lightly as "she's an important member of the community". Unlike us mere cycling peasants!


----------



## glenn forger (3 Oct 2013)

Cleared:

http://road.cc/content/news/95681-p...-killed-cyclist-while-driving-wrong-side-road


----------



## Gravity Aided (3 Oct 2013)

Very sad. Young life, cut short by irresponsibility.


----------



## Accy cyclist (3 Oct 2013)

glenn forger said:


> Cleared:
> 
> http://road.cc/content/news/95681-p...-killed-cyclist-while-driving-wrong-side-road




"The jury deliberated for three hours before returning a ‘not guilty’ verdict."

How many of those jurors have ever been on a bike,and how many are of the "they don't pay road tax,so they aren't worthy" mentality?!


----------



## hopless500 (3 Oct 2013)

That is the most appalling verdict. I hope there is an appeal.


----------



## Archie_tect (3 Oct 2013)

No censure whatsoever? Not even a reprimand or a caution or a suspended sentence? ...where's the proportionate punishment at least for dangerous driving....


----------



## fossyant (3 Oct 2013)

Un effing believable


----------



## glasgowcyclist (3 Oct 2013)

Archie_tect said:


> No censure whatsoever? Not even a reprimand or a caution or a suspended sentence? ...where's the proportionate punishment at least for dangerous driving....


 
She's been found not guilty so there can be no punishment.


GC


----------



## numbnuts (3 Oct 2013)

Nothing is going to bring the cyclist back to life
so make sure it doesn't happen again
she should be banned from driving for life.


----------



## Archie_tect (3 Oct 2013)

I appreciate the jury verdict was not guilty at the trial... but I would have expected the Police and CPS would have had other options for the lack of care and other driving errors, at the very least...


----------



## fossyant (3 Oct 2013)

Archie_tect said:


> I appreciate the jury verdict was not guilty at the trial... but I would have expected the Police and CPS would have had other options for the lack of care and other driving errors, at the very least...


 
So would I, but it's perfectly acceptable to drive on the wrong side of the road into folk obviously. Don't think the driver would be saying that if the cyclist was replaced with a big nasty HGV ?


----------



## Bryony (3 Oct 2013)

What a terrible result this has made me feel very sad. Whether the girl did fall off her bike in her line of travel (probably in blind panic at the sight of a car heading towards her at a speed between 40 and 50mph) she should NOT have been over taking on a bend!!! She says she didn't see them or expect to see them well sorry if you overtake on a bend you should expect to see something coming towards you!!


----------



## BSRU (3 Oct 2013)

Sadly it seems the best way to kill someone(and get off scot free) is kill them with your car then blame the cyclist for being in the wrong place.


----------



## Bryony (3 Oct 2013)

Also judging by what she said she has no remorse for what she's done


----------



## Boris Bajic (3 Oct 2013)

What a terrible story.

Several points struck me about this. First, as a parent who taught all my children to ride on relatively fast-flowing roads, I feel there may be a need to impress upon all road users (particularly motorists) that just as some drivers are novices, so some cyclists are. I think quite a lot of road users assume that any novice will have L-Plates... which they will not necessarily.

I felt that with my children, their diminutive stature gave the clue that they may wobble all over the place. In the case of the victim in this collision, there was no such clue - even if the driver had seen her in time. *All drivers (all road users) need to make allowances for the novice road user*.

No mention is made in any press coverage of the motorist crossing an unbroken line, nor was she prosecuted for doing so. I wonder whether the curve in this case was an extremely gentle one. I do not write this as some sort of mitigation, but it may in part explain the verdict. If the curve offered visibility ahead, then the jury may have decided it was safe (in the absence of other vehicles) to pass.

Another thing that struck me (again with relation to riding with my children when they were learning) is that the victim appears to have ridden into the back of her boyfriend's bicycle. This would suggest that he braked and she collided with him. This almost happened to me and my children a couple of times before I opted to ride behind and slightly outside them as they found their feet. This is not an attempt at blaming the victim. To my mind the driver was in the wrong.

But... if the victim clattered into the back of her boyfriend's bike as he braked, then that may also account for the verdict. He says himself that she collided with his rear wheel and then fell, so this does seem to be what happened.

Many users of these pages will teach their own offspring to cycle. This story (without my wanting to blame the victim) does highlight the advantage of the novice riding to the front, not the rear, of the 'teacher' or experienced rider.

This is a terrible story. I do not for one moment blame the victim, but I can well understand why the jury reached the verdict it did... although if there was an unbroken white line I am surprised by the levity of the charge.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (3 Oct 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> But... if the victim clattered into the back of her boyfriend's bike as he braked, then that may also account for the verdict. He says himself that she collided with his rear wheel and then fell, so this does seem to be what happened.


 
I disagree.
My reading of the published account is that Mr Pontin did not witness what happened to his girlfriend.

_"He felt his girlfriend’s wheels touch his bike and when he looked round she had been hurled into the entrance of a field."_
and
_"During the trial Dr Measures claimed that Ms Perinova had fallen into her path."_​It is the killer who claims that the victim fell into her path and, frankly, from her comments I wouldn't be surprised if she felt not one iota of blame. She strikes me as a particularly heartless b'stard.

GC


----------



## mcshroom (3 Oct 2013)

It would be interesting to know how you can both fall into the path of a car and then be hurled into a gate at the side of the road at the same time.

I would also like to know how the defendant both managed to not see the cyclists and decide that there was room to pass them at the same time. 

From what has been reported, the defence evidence is complete bollocks, and the jury's decision an utter travesty.


----------



## Bryony (3 Oct 2013)

mcshroom said:


> It would be interesting to know how you can both fall into the path of a car and then be hurled into a gate at the side of the road at the same time.
> 
> I would also like to know how the defendant both managed to not see the cyclists and decide that there was room to pass them at the same time.
> 
> From what has been reported, the defence evidence is complete bollocks, and the jury's decision an utter travesty.


totally agree!!


----------



## Born2die (3 Oct 2013)

victor said:


> The extreme hardship angle is I think a symptom of our** society, which places too much value on owning a car. They're considered to be absolutely essential, and so by extension, not having one is considered to be a great hardship. In other words, too many people refuse to consider the possibility of using a combination of public transport and/or cycling, and leaving private motor vehicles as a last resort.
> 
> ** i.e. Australia's, and various other countries.


I gave up the car 4 years ago when I lost my job. I see the shopping as an excuse for an elongated farmers walk to the bus station (always remember backpack for milk etc). Can get most places within 40/50 miles on the bike (good excuse for a ride) and if I need to ferry my 8yo there are buses we can take the bikes etc and a local coach company visit all the major attractions. I really don't see the need for a car now and how half of those on the dole afford it is beyond me. I couldn't afford the petrol let alone insurance tax repairs etc


----------



## Trickedem (3 Oct 2013)

mcshroom said:


> From what has been reported, the defence evidence is complete bollocks, and the jury's decision an utter travesty.


I really think it is wrong to blame the Jury unless you know what direction was given to them by the judge. I have sat on a jury and it is a very difficult job and as citizens we should respect their decision. 
However, I think we should be discussing whether the CPS did a good job and also the attitude of the legal system to cyclists. I think this is the real problem.


----------



## mcshroom (3 Oct 2013)

Trickedem said:


> I really think it is wrong to blame the Jury unless you know what direction was given to them by the judge. I have sat on a jury and it is a very difficult job and as citizens we should respect their decision.
> However, I think we should be discussing whether the CPS did a good job and also the attitude of the legal system to cyclists. I think this is the real problem.


I didn't think I did blame them. The decision was a travesty of justice IMHO (from the evidence reported)

Where the fault lies for that I don't know, but it was a travesty.


----------



## Kookas (3 Oct 2013)

Wouldn't this be negligent manslaughter if it weren't on the road?


----------



## GrasB (3 Oct 2013)

Trickedem said:


> I really think it is wrong to blame the Jury unless you know what direction was given to them by the judge. I have sat on a jury and it is a very difficult job and as citizens we should respect their decision.
> However, I think we should be discussing whether the CPS did a good job and also the attitude of the legal system to cyclists. I think this is the real problem.





Accy cyclist said:


> "The jury deliberated for three hours before returning a ‘not guilty’ verdict."
> 
> How many of those jurors have ever been on a bike,and how many are of the "they don't pay road tax,so they aren't worthy" mentality?!



Actually in a straw pole today 6 out of 7 of our admin staff (all non-cycling car owners) thought that it was completely the cyclists fault for not keeping their bike upright. 

This strengthens my view that motoring offences should not be convicted by jury but by trained judges.


----------



## MetalPig (3 Oct 2013)

Oh My God. Only just heard about this case but boy does this make my blood boil. How the hell can it be fine to overtake on a blind bend and then KNOWINGLY CARRY ON WHEN YOU SEE NOT ONE BUT TWO CYCLISTS coming towards you? All this does is reinforce the message that a cyclists' life is worth nothing in the eyes of not only a large number of drivers, but also the law itself.


----------



## Glow worm (3 Oct 2013)

What a totally scandalous decision. 'Justice' is a complete joke in this country. And as cyclists we're completely f*cked, as the place is clearly run by drivers for drivers. We're just the weirdos who get in their way, slow them down and damage their precious cages when they run us over. What a backwards sh*theap of a country this is.


----------



## Whiskey88 (3 Oct 2013)

The problem is that if people continually get away with this sort of manslaughter, or receive laughable sentences, then we will see a form of mob justice start to occur. Then there could be some really nasty stuff happening. The justice system in the UK definitely requires a kick up the arse.


----------



## lukesdad (3 Oct 2013)

^ I think you've been watching too many 'Arnie' Movies


----------



## Whiskey88 (3 Oct 2013)

Actually that is taken from a JFK quote, just altered slightly to suit the situation:



> Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, will make violent revolution inevitable.


----------



## Saluki (3 Oct 2013)

So its not her fault if someone falls off their bike in her path.
Does that mean that its not my fault if someone gets in the way when I am loosing arrows from my compound?

That was somebodies child that she killed and she has got off scott free. That sends a very positive message to the great unwashed, don't you think?


----------



## hopless500 (3 Oct 2013)

Saluki said:


> So its not her fault if someone falls off their bike in her path.
> Does that mean that its not my fault if someone gets in the way when I am loosing arrows from my compound?
> 
> That was somebodies child that she killed and she has got off scott free. That sends a very positive message to the great unwashed, don't you think?


I know. Stinks doesn't it. Driving on the wrong side of the road. Scares someone into falling off. Kills them. Passes the buck.
Nice woman.


----------



## glenn forger (3 Oct 2013)

A case so bafflingly callous and incredible even the daily mail readers are united against the verdict. Only a demented sociopath could defend the verdict. The jurors are effectively saying that ploughing into someone doing nothing wrong whilst overtaking on the wrong side of the road, on a blind bend, is just one of those things. They should be stripped of their driving licences.

There seems to be a radical disconnect in this driver's brain.

_ "It's not my fault the cyclist fell over, as I drove at her on the wrong side of the road at 50mph".
_


----------



## 400bhp (3 Oct 2013)

This seems really odd.

In court on the wrong count?


----------



## Archie_tect (3 Oct 2013)

glenn forger said:


> A case so bafflingly callous and incredible even the daily mail readers are united against the verdict. Only a demented sociopath could defend the verdict. The jurors are effectively saying that ploughing into someone doing nothing wrong whilst overtaking on the wrong side of the road, on a blind bend, is just one of those things. They should be stripped of their driving licences.
> 
> There seems to be a radical disconnect in this driver's brain.
> 
> _ "It's not my fault the cyclist fell over, as I drove at her on the wrong side of the road at 50mph"._


Are there circumstances where a verdict can be challenged by a Higher Court so the verdict could be set aside as unsound and a retrial ordered?


----------



## sheddy (3 Oct 2013)

I'm astonished by this verdict.

She HAS caused death by careless driving. Her reckless driving has caused someone to wobble. Her failure to stop (in the distance seen to be clear) has resulted in a heavy collision.
These points (plus a few others) are all covered in the Highway Code.


----------



## glenn forger (3 Oct 2013)

Archie_tect said:


> Are there circumstances where a verdict can be challenged by a Higher Court so the verdict could be set aside as unsound and a retrial ordered?



Not as far as I know, that's the verdict. There may be a civil claim. Denisa had no children so her life won't be worth much in the civil case either.


----------



## lukesdad (4 Oct 2013)

MetalPig said:


> Oh My God. Only just heard about this case but boy does this make my blood boil. How the hell can it be fine to overtake on a blind bend and then KNOWINGLY CARRY ON WHEN YOU SEE NOT ONE BUT TWO CYCLISTS coming towards you? All this does is reinforce the message that a cyclists' life is worth nothing in the eyes of not only a large number of drivers, but also the law itself.


 How do you know it was a blind bend, the reporting seems a bit vague in this respect. As a matter of fact the reporting of the whole incident seems rather vague, there were at least 5 witnesses that we know about(not including the young girl) and probably more we don't know about. Initially the jury would seem to be split, some obviously taking the stance of the majority on here, it only took 3 hrs for them to be convinced otherwise. I suggest we might not know all the facts to this case and the ones we do -bellringer,£300 bike are totally irrelevant to the case. If you are going to convict someone based on what you read in the press you are no better than a lynch mob. Fortunately our legal system protects us not only from criminals and wrong doers, it also protects us from people like you lot too.


----------



## Bromptonaut (4 Oct 2013)

mcshroom said:


> I didn't think I did blame them. The decision was a travesty of justice IMHO (from the evidence reported)
> 
> Where the fault lies for that I don't know, but it was a travesty.



I'm concerned that the jury failed to convict but they heard ALL the evidence, not just the bits the press chose to report. They also presumably had the benefit of at least pictures of the site if not a visit to it. 

Death by careless is a newish offence created on the back of public/press hoo hah focussing on the consequences of particular actions. I suspect a careless only charge would have suceeded. Reluctance of juries to convict when a custodial sentence, which they may see as disproportinate, is in play was a possibility well canvassed at time the legiislation was proposed.

In this case there are too many doubts and ifs - if the cyclist were more experienced, if as Boris B suggests she'd ridden in front - for the jury to be convinced beyond reasonable doubt. While the comments about falling over seem to betray a harsh attitude there are other descriptions of the defendants demeanour that suggest she does recognise the gravity etc.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (4 Oct 2013)

hopless500 said:


> I know. Stinks doesn't it. Driving on the wrong side of the road. Scares someone into falling off. Kills them. Passes the buck.
> Nice woman.


 
I hope she has many years of nightmares, reliving the moment she hit that young woman, and wakes up screaming. She doesn't deserve a moment's peace for the rest of her life.

GC


----------



## Boris Bajic (4 Oct 2013)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I hope she has many years of nightmares, reliving the moment she hit that young woman, and wakes up screaming. She doesn't deserve a moment's peace for the rest of her life.
> 
> GC


 
She will undoubtedly have nightmares for a few years to come, so you get that wish. 

Nonetheless, she did show remorse in court. She does deserve some peace, unless we are savages. 

I find the original charge eccentric and am (very) surprised and saddened that she has not a mark against her record, but do not know enough to question it. However, a serious prosecution and a serious defence put their cases and a serious jury found her NG. I believe we may not have read details of the case not considered suitably newsworthy.

Motorists do need to start treating cyclists as though they may be novices. It appears that the inexperience of the victim and the boyfriend's lack of experience teaching a novice were not entirely unconnected with the outcome. Neither shares any blame, but I imagine that both were factors and that the jury might have thought so too.


----------



## glenn forger (4 Oct 2013)

lukesdad said:


> How do you know it was a blind bend



Because the driver admits it.



> Measures overtook on a blind bend and, on suddenly seeing two oncoming cyclists, decided not to brake (“_if I had been concerned, I would have stopped suddenly_“) but consciously chose to pass close to them. Or, at least, so she hoped. Tragically, Perinova was unable to keep to the small gap afforded her by Measur es, and was flung nearly 50 feet, sustaining severe head injuries from which she later died.



http://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2013/10/03/the-law-and-the-road-things-must-change/



> “_I can’t help it if a cyclist, falls over as I’m approaching them [at speed on the wrong side of the road, by my own volition]_”



The cyclist had done nothing wrong, blaming her in any way is extremely distasteful. What would you do if you saw a car coming at you on the wrong side of the road at 50mph? Jiggle the front wheel, be uncertain, be convinced the driver must slow down or take avoiding action? Panic, or at least be completely terrified that a vehicle's hurtling towards you on your side of the road? Maybe fall off? The driver's actions caused the cyclist to fall, then the driver killed her. There is NOTHING to suggest Denisa was a novice rider, her bike was new but the press report, and Boris, predictably, seize upon something they have zero evidence for. 







Failed by the justice system, then slagged off by internet twats.


----------



## glenn forger (4 Oct 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> She will undoubtedly have nightmares for a few years to come, so you get that wish.
> 
> Nonetheless, she did show remorse in court.




No she didn't, the despicable psycho bitch tried to blame the cyclist for her own death. And stop trying to divert blame onto Denisa by repeating the "novice cyclist" bollocks. Is someone a "novice driver" just because they're in a new car? Idiot.


----------



## Flying Dodo (4 Oct 2013)

2688488 said:


> It is part of living in a country where the law values property over life.


 
That's one of the key issues, sadly. The other one is that 100 years of thousands of people dying each year in road "accidents" means an almost complete acceptance of those deaths as a normal thing. 

If I swing a hammer around and accidently let go and kill someone, I'd probably be locked up. If my foot accidently slips on the accelerator and my car hits someone who dies, statistically it's very unlikely I'd suffer much of a penalty.


----------



## glenn forger (4 Oct 2013)

The scary thing is, this charge was decided upon because, guess what, juries are reluctant to convict under Death By Dangerous Driving. "There but for the grace of God".


----------



## glasgowcyclist (4 Oct 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> ...she did show remorse in court.


 
I must have missed that. What did she say?



> She does deserve some peace, unless we are savages.


 
Count me in on this occasion.


GC


----------



## User6179 (4 Oct 2013)

If only there was some sort of device fitted in a car to slow it down when approaching vulnerable road users , maybe something similar to a brake on bicycle.

Someone is basically dead because someone else didn't slow down , 2 seconds of a person life verses the rest of the other persons life.


----------



## Spinney (4 Oct 2013)

glenn forger said:


> http://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2013/10/03/the-law-and-the-road-things-must-change/



I've emailed that link to my MP. And put it on my facebook page.

Neither guaranteed to change anything, but let's keep plugging the message...


----------



## Boris Bajic (4 Oct 2013)

glenn forger said:


> No she didn't, the despicable psycho bitch tried to blame the cyclist for her own death. And stop trying to divert blame onto Denisa by repeating the "novice cyclist" bollocks. Is someone a "novice driver" just because they're in a new car? Idiot.


 
I am* explicit* in not blaming the victim. I am *explicit* in blaming the motorist. You quote me selectively.

The press reports that this was her first bike ride, not her first ride on that bike. She is referred to in several articles as a novice. I did not know her and do not know whether this is accurate. From descriptions of the incident from all parties, she appears to have been displaying the hesitancy of a novice. My point (had you quoted me in full) was to say that motorists should expect there to be novice cyclists on the road.

As a father who taught all his children to ride, I am familiar with being nudged from behind by an unsteady novice when I brake or slow unexpectedly. That's why I quickly learned to place my children ahead of me. I do not make this point in a critical way. It's just an observation. I do not blame the woman who was killed. The fault lies with the motorist.

This is a thread about a dreadful incident, not another invitation to go all_ 'attack dog'_ on any poster you have issues with. But I forgive you. 

I probably am an idiot, but not for the reasons you cite.


----------



## glenn forger (4 Oct 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> The press reports that this was her first bike ride, not her first ride on that bike.



where?


----------



## jefmcg (4 Oct 2013)

fossyant said:


> So would I, but it's perfectly acceptable to drive on the wrong side of the road into folk obviously. Don't think the driver would be saying that if the cyclist was replaced with a big nasty HGV ?



Oh, she would have had a plan for that: brake heavily and move left. Sure, she might have killed the two cyclists she was overtaking, but should would have tearfully explained in court how she had no choice, with her daughter's life at risk.

This must be why drivers often overtake cyclists on blind bends: they can get out of the way with only cosmetic damage to their car if required.

I always take an aggressive primary around this bend if there's a car behind me, it's so common for them to overtake when they can't see what's coming that a cyclist is inevitably going to be crushed against that wall.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (4 Oct 2013)

This....



> Mr Pontin said he was forced to aim for a 'tiny' gap and then felt his girlfriend’s wheel touch the back of his bike before looking around and seeing she had been flung 15 yards away in the collision.



...suggests to me that Mr Pontin may have caught Miss Perinova's front wheel as he went for the only gap available ahead of him. This would have the effect of throwing her off balance and possibly into the line of the oncoming car. In a race it would probably go down as a ''racing incident'' but in the context of the fatality, it was the driver's recklessness that forced the emergency manoeuvre. It's a possibility extrapolated from the reported accounts but, crucially, it _*doesn't bring Miss Perinova's competence into question*_. Whereas, to Mrs Measure's lifelong shame, she does not accept blame for an accident caused by her own asininity.


----------



## glenn forger (4 Oct 2013)

I hope whatever Measures bought at the garden centre was worth a young woman's life.


----------



## buggi (4 Oct 2013)

" to see Mr Pontin and his girlfriend suddenly coming towards her as she rounded the curve in the road"

i gave a safety talk at work to my colleagues the other day. There was 70 of them. I told them i wanted to teach them what i taught cyclists about "avoidability", ie we tell cyclists, if they can't see round the van or round the corner, not to presume it is clear and that whoever is on the other side also can't see them. It went something like this... 

"10% of you are very good drivers, you pay attention all the time. 10% of you are bad aggressive drivers, you don't care about other road users, you speed regularly, you risk running red lights, you are on your mobile and if someone is in your way you get round them whatever the consequences. The rest of you... Well. [this is the point i know they expected me to say "average"]... Well... you're just not very good. You're distracted, you are fiddling with your sat nav, or your radio, you're thinking about work, or the row you just had with your wife, or frustrated coz you need to drop the kids off before getting to work, and because of this you take small risks all the time, the odd risky overtake, the odd amber light, speed a little, but because nothing untoward happens to you, you carry on and you don't change your behaviour until something does". 

you could hear a pin drop. 

I then went on to say "there is a road that leads to my village that has very tight bends. Since i have lived here i have seen a dozen serious crashes (one person died) on this road, 4 of these crashes were on this corner. Last week, i went round this corner in my car, very slow. The reason i was going slow is because of my experience of being on a bike, and watching drivers take risky moves all the time, i no longer take these risks. When i rounded the blind bend in 2nd gear (so at a speed of no more than 20mph) there was a HGV on my side of the road and, because i was going slowly i was able to pull up on to the verge so the lorry could pass and i have no doubt in my mind that, knowing the lorry missed me by 6 inches, if that had been Joe Bloggs driving through the village, the story would have been very different! So next time you come to a bend in the road, or a curve, or you want to overtake something, think about your line of sight... what can you see? Because if you can't see way past where you want to be, then don't presume that it's clear, or the situation won't change by the time you get there, because you might find there is a HGV, car or a cyclist when you get there. Your perception of how dangerous that risk was will be small if its a cyclist, but if its a HGV your perception will be a lot different as you will be the one in danger, not the other person. 

CLEARLY THIS WOMAN, FROM HER OWN ADMISSION, DID NOT HAVE A CLEAR LINE OF SIGHT WHEN SHE DECIDED TO DRIVE AROUND THIS CURVE AT A SPEED SHE COULDN'T STOP AT. MAKES ME SO MAD

Interestingly my little talk went down very well, considering i told them all they "just weren't very good drivers". I've had six drivers come up to me and tell me that they have changed their behaviour, and my boss got loads of good feedback from the others. So hopefully, 70 drivers are now thinking more clearly than they were last week. can't guarantee how long it will last for though.


----------



## buggi (4 Oct 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> This....
> 
> 
> 
> ...suggests to me that Mr Pontin may have caught Miss Perinova's front wheel as he went for the only gap available ahead of him. This would have the effect of throwing her off balance and possibly into the line of the oncoming car. In a race it would probably go down as a ''racing incident'' but in the context of the fatality, it was the driver's recklessness that forced the emergency manoeuvre. It's a possibility extrapolated from the reported accounts but, crucially, it _*doesn't bring Miss Perinova's competence into question*_. Whereas, to Mrs Measure's lifelong shame, she does not accept blame for an accident caused by her own asininity.



Yep. you've just knocked it on the head and summed it up. shame you are not on the Prosecution team.


----------



## benb (4 Oct 2013)

buggi said:


> So hopefully, 70 drivers are now thinking more clearly than they were last week. can't guarantee how long it will last for though.


Only a few million to go then!


----------



## buggi (4 Oct 2013)

benb said:


> Only a few million to go then!


I'm not a miracle worker!!! LOL


----------



## Gravity Aided (5 Oct 2013)

Someone actually brought this up to me at work today. In the US. I guess news does travel.


----------



## Origamist (5 Oct 2013)

deptfordmarmoset said:


> This....
> 
> ...suggests to me that Mr Pontin may have caught Miss Perinova's front wheel as he went for the only gap available ahead of him. This would have the effect of throwing her off balance and possibly into the line of the oncoming car. In a race it would probably go down as a ''racing incident'' but in the context of the fatality, it was the driver's recklessness that forced the emergency manoeuvre. It's a possibility extrapolated from the reported accounts but, crucially, it _*doesn't bring Miss Perinova's competence into question*_. Whereas, to Mrs Measure's lifelong shame, she does not accept blame for an accident caused by her own asininity.



Quite. It is also possible Mr Pontin would have braked before Miss Perinova (as he would most likely have seen the car first) and she could have clipped his back wheel. However, if Mr Pontin had not taken evasive action (swerving, braking or both) he could have been hit by the driver. What choice did he have when confronted with Dr Measures who had idiotically chosen to overtake two cyclists, riding two abreast, on a right hand bend without ensuring the road ahead was clear? In this awful tragedy, Dr Measures was at fault for overtaking in an unsafe manner.

Why was Dr Measures "surprised" when she suddenly saw two cyclists approaching in single file - because the bend in the road limited her visibility when she attempted the pass? Did she not look properly? 

Does anyone seriously think that Miss Perinova would have died if Dr Measures had not been hurtling perilously close to her at up to 50mph?

I can only hope the jury were presented with persuasive extenuating circumstances that those of us reading the press reports do not have access to. Otherwise, the NG verdict is hard to fathom.


----------



## GrasB (5 Oct 2013)

Origamist said:


> I can only hope the jury were *presented with persuasive extenuating circumstances* that those of us reading the press reports do not have access to. Otherwise, the NG verdict is hard to fathom.



Unfortunately I have a feeling there didn't need to:


GrasB said:


> Actually in a straw pole today 6 out of 7 of our admin staff (all non-cycling car owners) thought that it was completely the cyclists fault for not keeping their bike upright.
> 
> This strengthens my view that motoring offences should not be convicted by jury but by trained judges.


----------



## glenn forger (5 Oct 2013)

Depends how the question's phrased, would the answer be the same if you asked whether a cyclist on the wrong side of the road on a blind bend smashed into your mum crossing the road and killed her should the cyclist get away with no penalty whatsoever? Might get a different answer.


----------



## GrasB (5 Oct 2013)

But that's not the same scenario is it?.. We're talking about a motoring hitting a cyclist & killing them. An 'out group' member is the victim & the perpetrator is in the 'in group'. A cyclist hitting a pedestrian, no matter how similar the situation, is a different scenario as the 'in group' member is the victim.


----------



## 400bhp (5 Oct 2013)

Just thinking about this in a different way.

Replace the two cyclists with a car.

Collision occurs. Car driver (not the accused) is dead.

Dead car driver has just passed her test and it was her first time on the road unassisted.

Would the outcome be different?


----------



## numbnuts (5 Oct 2013)

400bhp said:


> Just thinking about this in a different way.
> 
> Replace the two cyclists with a car.
> 
> ...


 
Possible, but if a person fell from a bridge on to the road and a car him/her and killed them who would be at fault, none of us were there and the woman is lying out of her teeth and she got away with it.


----------



## glenn forger (5 Oct 2013)

numbnuts said:


> Possible, but if a person fell from a bridge on to the road and a car him/her and killed them who would be at fault, none of us were there and the woman is lying out of her teeth and she got away with it.



I don't get that comparison at all. If someone is driving on the wrong side of the roads and collides head-on with someone coming the other way in their lane then it's plainly careless.


----------



## 400bhp (5 Oct 2013)

numbnuts said:


> Possible, but if a person fell from a bridge on to the road and a car him/her and killed them who would be at fault, none of us were there and the woman is lying out of her teeth and she got away with it.



eh? Nothing like a valid comparison.


----------



## ComedyPilot (5 Oct 2013)

glenn forger said:


> The scary thing is, this charge was decided upon because, guess what, *juries are reluctant to convict under Death By Dangerous Driving. "There but for the grace of God"*.



"There but for the grace of god.........because we, like a lot of drivers in the uk drive like complete twunts, and could find ourselves in just such a situation where our dangerous driving could kill someone.....best let the killer off...."


----------



## ComedyPilot (5 Oct 2013)

glenn forger said:


> Depends how the question's phrased, would the answer be the same if you asked whether a cyclist on the wrong side of the road on a blind bend smashed into your mum crossing the road and killed her *should the cyclist get away with no penalty whatsoever*? Might get a different answer.


NO they farkING SHOULDN'T


----------



## ComedyPilot (5 Oct 2013)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...killing-77-year-old-cyclist-with-Porsche.html

There but for the grace of god.....


----------



## ComedyPilot (5 Oct 2013)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-24240127

There but for the grace of god.....


----------



## ComedyPilot (5 Oct 2013)

http://road.cc/content/news/90037-d...ist-found-not-guilty-dangerous-driving-guilty

There but for the grace of god.....


----------



## ComedyPilot (5 Oct 2013)

http://road.cc/content/news/81530-s...who-admitted-killing-cyclist-taking-part-time

There but......


----------



## ComedyPilot (5 Oct 2013)

http://road.cc/content/news/81618-d...cyclist-hit-and-run-sentenced-five-years-four

For balance.


BTW, This happened a mile from where I was rehearsing one night.......



> The All Party Parliamentary Cycling Group’s Get Britain Cycling report, published tomorrow, is expected to urge the government to get tougher on sentencing in cases in which cyclists are the victims, also the subject of a campaign launched last year by British Cycling and CTC, among others.


----------



## ComedyPilot (5 Oct 2013)

GrasB said:


> But that's not the same scenario is it?.. We're talking about a motoring hitting a cyclist & killing them. An 'out group' member is the victim & the perpetrator is in the 'in group'. A cyclist hitting a pedestrian, no matter how similar the situation, is a different scenario as the 'in group' member is the victim.


A right wing thug charged with racially aggravated assault tried by jury of white male skinheads.........

We wouldn't accept an 'in group' trying an 'in group', so why is it ok to do it for a cyclists death?


----------



## glenn forger (5 Oct 2013)

Didn't they have mono-racial juries in apartheid South Africa?


----------



## ComedyPilot (5 Oct 2013)

2692889 said:


> Juries are nominally random so, with low numbers thereof, skinheads forming a jury would be unlikely and trying a fellow even more so. Drivers, on the other hand, are two a penny. It would be unlikely for a whole jury of non-drivers to be assembled.


A couple of cycling/drivers wouldn't go amiss?


----------



## ComedyPilot (5 Oct 2013)

Adrian, it is abundantly clear our judicial system is failing vulnerable and non-vulnerable road users on an almost daily basis. 

Now we can sit here all night throwing analogies at one another, but the stark reality is the general public has become so ensconced in the motoring world that they cannot (IMO) objectively and fairly try a (vulnerable) road death case.


----------



## theclaud (5 Oct 2013)

ComedyPilot said:


> Now we can sit here all night throwing analogies at one another



Let's not. They're usually bad ones.


----------



## ComedyPilot (5 Oct 2013)

theclaud said:


> Let's not. They're usually bad ones.


Oi....that was cutting.....like a prized topiary being cleavered


----------



## glenn forger (6 Oct 2013)

[QUOTE 2692934, member: 9609"]Haven't read the whole story (too depressing) but I gather the driver was entirely blameless and received neither fine nor penalty points; So is the cyclist to blame for coming off her bike before the collision ? Could the drive claim for damage to her car ? For cyclists to be blameless must they stay on the bike until the collision occurs?
I would have thought if you went onto the wrong side of the road, collided with something it would be your fault - but apparently not.[/quote]

That's about the size of it. We get an abject failure by the justice system, then we get scumbag journalists and Boris trying to smear the dead girl by claiming she's never ridden a bike before and therefore maybe to blame. Ms Measures is a terrible, indecent human being, so are the people trying to blame Denisa.


----------



## Dan B (6 Oct 2013)

ComedyPilot said:


> Now we can sit here all night throwing analogies at one another,


Analogy is the blunt rusty saw of internet discussion forums


----------



## Dan B (6 Oct 2013)

2694330 said:


> You need a like there


@theclaud has now obliged - thanks!


----------



## ComedyPilot (6 Oct 2013)

[QUOTE 2694332, member: 30090"]''A person who causes the death of another person by driving a mechanically propelled vehicle on a road or other public place without due care and attention, or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road or place, is guilty of an offence.''[/quote]
Not if the victim was at fault due to 'your' driving.....


----------



## snorri (6 Oct 2013)

2692980 said:


> Yes they would. If you were charged with some crime, such as defrauding an insurance company, do you think that allocating a couple of employees of said company onto the jury "because they understand the issues" would be a good thing?


No, but one would hope the defence solicitor would be raising objections if the jury was seen to be all drivers and no cyclists.


----------



## benb (7 Oct 2013)

snorri said:


> No, but one would hope the defence solicitor would be raising objections if the jury was seen to be all drivers and no cyclists.



How would they know?


----------



## Pale Rider (7 Oct 2013)

benb said:


> How would they know?



They wouldn't.

Jury questioning for the purposes of sifting is very rare in trials in this country.


----------



## avalon (7 Oct 2013)

Glow worm said:


> What a totally scandalous decision. 'Justice' is a complete joke in this country. And as cyclists we're completely f*cked, as the place is clearly run by drivers for drivers. We're just the weirdos who get in their way, slow them down and damage their precious cages when they run us over. What a backwards sh*theap of a country this is.


It's not just the UK. it's an international problem.


----------



## Gravity Aided (7 Oct 2013)

Pale Rider said:


> They wouldn't.
> 
> Jury questioning for the purposes of sifting is very rare in trials in this country.


Wow! I've been rejected for cause on juries more often than by women or perspective employers...


----------



## Pale Rider (7 Oct 2013)

Gravity Aided said:


> Wow! I've been rejected for cause on juries more often than by women or perspective employers...



From what I gather from over here, jury selection in America can take days of court time.

In the UK you get what you are given.


----------



## Gravity Aided (7 Oct 2013)

Days, or about 10 minutes. I grew up in a small city,27,000 or so at the time. It was the county seat as well. I'd get called for juries, walk in the room, and hear "rejected", turn around, and walk back out. In criminal trials, I believe the prosecution and defense have a certain number of jurors from pool they can reject without giving a reason.


----------



## snorri (7 Oct 2013)

Pale Rider said:


> In the UK you get what you are given.


That was not my impression, it's maybe different south of the border.
(but I won't argue, 'cos I really have no expertise in the field)


----------



## mcshroom (7 Oct 2013)

More details on the case here: -
http://www.henleystandard.co.uk/news/news.php?id=1354657

This quite from the judge defense lawyer is infuriating me: -


> Summing up, Mr Fielding said: “Ben Pontin said it was a stupid decision to overtake. It was nowhere near as stupid as Mr Pontin’s decision to put Denisa Perinova on that bike in the first place.
> 
> “He ought not to have been so reckless with the life of his young girlfriend and he failed with terrible consequences.”



So cycling on a country lane is now more stupid than overtaking on the wrong side of the road in a car!!!


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (7 Oct 2013)

mcshroom said:


> More details on the case here: -
> http://www.henleystandard.co.uk/news/news.php?id=1354657
> 
> This quite from the judge is infuriating me: -
> ...


It wasn't the judge, Fielding was the gobshite for the defence.


----------



## mcshroom (7 Oct 2013)

Good point - still infuriating though


----------



## 400bhp (7 Oct 2013)

It's a particularly nasty thing to say too.

Her boyfriend must be feeling the guilt anyway and that language rubs it in.


----------



## Boris Bajic (7 Oct 2013)

Those are very unhelpful words from the defence counsel and quite heartless in the circumstances.

There is a point to be made, but not in that place and not at that time.

The motorist is wholly culpable in that it was her overtaking manoevre in the face of oncoming cyclists that brought about contact between car and cyclist (if contact there was - it seems in doubt).

Nevertheless, there are ways to shield a novice and places to ride with a novice. Another reason I rode behind my children rather than in front was so that I could watch them and they could hear my instructions and advice. If the victim was a novice (as press coverage suggests she was) then riding immediately to her front on a fast section of road may not have been the best decision. 

At the same time, all motorists really must start allowing for the pesence of novice cyclists out there. That was something that made me pretty nervous about taking my own children onto the fast A-Roads of the Three Counties when they were still very young. Before they ventured out into the traffic, we'd spent hours and hours on basketball courts and car parks learning the basics of control. Grabbing a handful of brake, missing obstructions, signalling and just being comfortable and being able to throw the bike around and react are all skills that need to be grasped before the fast roads are joined. That the motorist made the ovrtaking manoevre having failed to see the oncoming riders is troubling and wrong. As I've said before on this thread, no blame rests with the victim of her boyfriend.

Not victim blaming - she was not culpable in her own demise and nor was the boyfriend... the motorist was.


----------



## Archie_tect (7 Oct 2013)

Mr Fielding, pile on the guilt why don't you... insensitive prat-faced buffoon.

[Edit: Just TMN'd myself!]


----------



## Archie_tect (7 Oct 2013)

One can only hope that the car driver will not be the heartless person she portrays herself to be and be riddled with remorse when, in her quietest moments, she's trying to come to terms with what she's done. With time it may make her a better person.... let's hope.


----------



## Pale Rider (7 Oct 2013)

The defence they were running was the dead cyclist was the architect of her own misfortune by losing control of the bike and 'falling over' in front of the motorist.

One possibility we ought to consider is the motorist's account is true.

The jury, who heard lots of evidence, apparently believed it.

At the very least they were not satisfied the driving by the motorist was careless.

Her story could be true, she was only overtaking a cyclist, not a vehicle, so there should have been plenty of room for cyclist-car-cyclist across the width of the road.

What if the cyclist did swerve out in front of her?


----------



## mcshroom (7 Oct 2013)

Pale Rider said:


> The defence they were running was the dead cyclist was the architect of her own misfortune by losing control of the bike and 'falling over' in front of the motorist.
> 
> One possibility we ought to consider is the motorist's account is true.
> 
> ...



But that's not what he said. He referred to the victim's boyfriend as being 'reckless with the life of his young girlfriend'.

I don't know where to start.

Perhaps with the sexism, where a woman can't make a decision to ride a bike (her boyfriend must make it for her and thus be deemed responsible), or with the idea that riding a bicycle along a rural road is somehow reckless? If there hadn't been a car bearing down on them at 50mph (which the driver admitted to driving on the other side of the road to overtake other cyclists without being able to see if the road was clear, and admitted to not slowing down when she did notice the cyclists coming the other way) would the same incident have occurred?


----------



## Spinney (7 Oct 2013)

And where are you supposed to get experience of riding a bike on the roads other than riding a bike on the roads?


----------



## mcshroom (7 Oct 2013)

You're not - you're supposed to grow up and drive a car! - I mean, they don't even pay road tax!!


----------



## 400bhp (7 Oct 2013)

Pale Rider said:


> The defence they were running was the dead cyclist was the architect of her own misfortune by losing control of the bike and 'falling over' in front of the motorist.
> 
> One possibility we ought to consider is the motorist's account is true.
> 
> ...



Remove the [supposed 2 abreast cyclists] with a car.

Is that an acceptable overtake by the woman when she collides with the car?


----------



## Archie_tect (7 Oct 2013)

There is something twisted about the prosecution and the way the whole case has proceeded.... what a pity the Lord Chief Justice can't intervene and call a mis-trial to right some 'indescretions' on the part of the defence, Judge and prosecution. Their combined ineffectiveness has caused more harm than good, and must have devastated the boyfriend... I can't start to imagine his ordeal and mind-set.


----------



## Boris Bajic (7 Oct 2013)

Spinney said:


> And where are you supposed to get experience of riding a bike on the roads other than riding a bike on the roads?


 
I, my siblings, my own children, my nephews and neices all learned in our own gardens, on school playgrounds, in supermarket car parks, on sports fields...

I was thrust out onto the roads to ride at a young age, but traffic density in those days was the square root of sod all. I did the same to my children and was roundly condemned for it by family friends who take a more cautious approach. 

Nonetheless, none of ours went onto the road before they'd had hours and hours of stopping, turning, high-fiving other siblings, going in and out of slaloms made of jumpers... There is a case to be made for really teaching as much as can be taught before heading onto the highway.

I do not know the true detail of this case or what persuaded the jury to go NG, but if a relative lack of competence was thought (or shown) to have had a contributary effect, then the verdict is no surprise. For all that, the driving of the motorist sounds incautious and wrong.


----------



## snorri (7 Oct 2013)

It rather looks to me as if the guy saw the car coming towards him and braked, his friend failed to brake sufficiently hard, collided with him, lost her balance and fell into the road. It may well have been that if balance had not been lost the car would have got through without a contact. Although there would have been no collision without the overbalancing, it appears to have been ignored that it was driver action that caused the cyclists to brake and one to overbalance.


----------



## lukesdad (7 Oct 2013)

snorri said:


> It rather looks to me as if the guy saw the car coming towards him and braked, his friend failed to brake sufficiently hard, collided with him, lost her balance and fell into the road. It may well have been that if balance had not been lost the car would have got through without a contact. Although there would have been no collision without the overbalancing, it appears to have been ignored that it was driver action that caused the cyclists to brake and one to overbalance.


 From the report in the local paper, it would seem there is some doubt if there was any contact between the car and the cyclist ?


----------



## Pale Rider (7 Oct 2013)

2697319 said:


> "Flung 15 yards"



That quote seems to be from the boyfriend, most of the action happened behind him and it looks like he was unable to say if the MINI struck the killed cyclist or not.

The car would have been examined very closely, maybe some evidence there has not been reported, but the jury will have heard it.


----------



## theclaud (7 Oct 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> *There is a point to be made*, but not in that place and not at that time.



No there isn't. Except that, as long as we focus on the behaviour of the victim and not that of the perpetrator, the breathtaking arrogance of dangerous drivers will continue to intimidate novices off the road, or kill them.


----------



## Origamist (8 Oct 2013)

Two cyclists *get left a gap of circa 2ft* by a car coming in the opposite direction, *wholly in their lane*, on a right hand bend, travelling at up to 50mph. 

It sounds like the jury did hear more detail, but if anything, it makes Dr Measures sound more culpable, not less.


----------



## Lincov (8 Oct 2013)

There are two contributing factors here, one is that a reckless overtaking, over the centre of the road, without clear visibility, and the second the inexperience of the cyclist who panicked in the face of the oncoming car. However, from any objective standpoint it seems completely clear that without the drivers reckless manoeuvre the inexperience of the cyclist would have been irrelevant. 

We need a very clear message that dangerous, intimidating, or otherwise careless driving around cyclists is illegal, regardless of the consequences of the manoeuvre. It is up to the person driving the large metal box weighing several tons to take *extra* care around the person with no exterior protection, who may (let's be honest) be more likely to wobble or be unpredictable if they haven't yet clocked up hundreds of miles of experience. Not up to the vulnerable cyclist to be capable of dealing with all the vagaries of the car driver. Seems obvious enough to me...


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (8 Oct 2013)

The law courts have just said about that 'predatory' 13 year old something to the effect that ''under-age victims need more protection, not less.'' 
Similarly, inexperienced riders need more protection not less.


----------



## Ron-da-Valli (8 Oct 2013)

I'm absolutely fuming at this verdict. A doctor, pharmaceutical consultant, cancer specialist, ex parish bell ringer, keen cyclist and mother, drives on the wrong side of the road, killing an " immigrant" waitress on a 2nd hand bike. That's what it boils down to. I'd like to know who the judge was in this case and if he had any previous similar cases. He ultimately " instructs" the jury. I consider myself to be an experienced cyclist but even I would have panicked at the sight on an oncoming car at speed. The inconsistencies of the drivers statement should have been enough for any jury.First she didn't see the cyclists, then when she did she decided to carry on, at speed, and it was the cyclists fault for "falling over". An absolutely disgusting travesty of justice.


----------



## Ron-da-Valli (8 Oct 2013)

Oh and apparently Miss Perinova was wearing an old helmet of her boyfriends that had been adjusted to fit her. So the head injuries were her own fault were they? And aren't all helmets " adjusted" to fit the wearer?


----------



## glenn forger (8 Oct 2013)

Verdict can't be appealed, can complaints be made officially about Janick Fielding's filthy little outburst?


----------



## Origamist (8 Oct 2013)

glenn forger said:


> Verdict can't be appealed, can complaints be made officially about Janick Fielding's filthy little outburst?


 
The defence might have been distasteful, but from Janick's LinkedIn page (my bolds) this is a run of the mill case for him:



> Janick is an heavyweight criminal defence practitioner, with a well established practice in London and the South East. *Well known for his fearless cross- examination and excellent closing speeches, Janick is often instructed by those solicitors that have attracted difficult clients who adamantly refuse to plead in the face of overwhelming evidence.* Many of his finest results have come from those cases where the client has already sacked previous counsel after unwanted pressure to crack the case has been applied. *No matter how narrow the defence, regardless of how implausible it may seem on the facts, if the client insists on running it then Janick will be only too pleased to fight it.*


 
http://www.linkedin.com/pub/janick-fielding/34/281/407


----------



## glenn forger (8 Oct 2013)

Measures was going to a garden centre so maybe her work insurance didn't cover her? Maybe she just paid a load of money to get off killing a young woman by employing a Mr Loophole sleazebag.


----------



## Boris Bajic (8 Oct 2013)

None of us knows the exact circumstances of this tragedy, nor what presented fact, facts or evidence caused the jury to return a verdict of NG.

They did return that verdict and it seems an unusual one. The initial charge also seems unusual, as one might expect an unbroken centre line where passing was dangerous and yet there is no charge related to that. But that was the outcome of the case. The judge will have made it clear to the jury what they had to consider and where they had to weigh up one testimony against another. I haven't seen a transcript of the case. Has any of us? 

If there is an appeal or a complaint to be made about the case, the defence counsel or the handling of the case, this forum is not the place to make it.

There is a lot of invective being poured on the defence barrister. Without wanting to defend a summing-up I have not read, we can imagine for a moment that we are being hauled in front of the Crown Court ourselves on a matter where the punishment would be severe and where we consider ourselves (rightly or wrongly) to be innocent. Our solicitor offers us two barristers to represent us in court: "*Ms Able* will make a good case, present the facts as they are and the jury will find you guilty. But* Mr Baker* will use every trick in the book, play on the insecurities of the jury, try to read and to play to their prejudices and tear every prosecution witness apart with absolutely no punches pulled".

Which counsel would you choose, Ms Able or Mr Baker? I would choose Mr Baker every time. I believe most of us would. Our issue with him is when he wins for the client we don't approve of. 

He was doing his job. He won. Far from sullying his reputation, he has enhanced it.


----------



## Spinney (8 Oct 2013)

Then that is a damming statement about the justice system, where the facts are less important than how they can be twisted.


----------



## mcshroom (8 Oct 2013)

Spinney said:


> Then that is a damming statement about the justice system, where the facts are less important than how they can be twisted.



"The Best Justice Money Can Buy"


----------



## glenn forger (8 Oct 2013)

mcshroom said:


> "The Best Justice Money Can Buy"



A wealthy woman employs an extremely expensive lawyer (check his self-congratulatory website) and gets away scot free with killing a young woman by deciding to drive at her on the wrong side of the road. The woman, in her defence, blames the girl's boy friend, apparently just for being there. If I were Mr Pontin I have no idea whether I'd be so affected as to buy a car and drive it into Mr Fielding's family.


----------



## Pale Rider (8 Oct 2013)

Spinney said:


> Then that is a damming statement about the justice system, where the facts are less important than how they can be twisted.



One problem is there are few facts.

The jury is asked to decide if an overtake between cyclists amounts to careless driving.

It's all about interpretation.

Did the overtake fall below the standards of a careful and competent driver?

It must be possible to overtake safely between cyclists, but it may not have been in this case.

The woman claimed nothing would have gone wrong had not the cyclist 'fallen over' in front of her.

Should a competent and careful driver have allowed for a possible swerve by the cyclist and hung back?


----------



## glenn forger (8 Oct 2013)

It's likely there were few cyclists on the panel, it may have shed light on the known evidence to have the jurors stand in the road as a car goes past at 50mph with two feet clearance? Focus their minds, you know, possibly something they've never experienced before. Decide whether it's careless or not.


----------



## Markymark (8 Oct 2013)

I expect car drivers to overtake me with plenty of room. I am over 6ft, if whilst cycling I fell sidways to the right my head would probably be near the white line even from secondary on a typical London road. If you inlcude some momentum from the force that knocked me sideways, I may also slide an extra few inches to the right. I would not normally expect a vehicle to pass me with that much space.


----------



## Dan B (8 Oct 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> None of us knows the exact circumstances of this tragedy, nor what presented fact, facts or evidence caused the jury to return a verdict of NG.


This is true, and to the extent that the justice system is supposed to provide a deterrent effect and a reinforcement of cultural norms, the fact that the verdict has not been (or cannot be?) explained as reasonable is itself an indictment of the system. What are we supposed to learn from this incident? "shoot happens"?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (8 Oct 2013)

Dan B said:


> "s*** happens"


 
That _was_ the killer's defence.

GC


----------



## glenn forger (8 Oct 2013)

Well, she went further and blamed the boyfriend.


----------



## Boris Bajic (8 Oct 2013)

Dan B said:


> This is true, and to the extent that the justice system is supposed to provide a *deterrent effect* and a *reinforcement of cultural norms*, the fact that the verdict has not been (or cannot be?) explained as reasonable is itself* an indictment of the system*. What are we supposed to learn from this incident? "s*** happens"?


 
Well, sh'it does happen. That is one of the first lessons in life. But I don't think it's the lesson that was planned in this case.

Had the verdict been inexplicable or unable to be explained as reasonable, then the judge would have made reference to that and that is the story the media would have picked up. The media love a story like that, so we may be able to assume that he didn't. If the judge didn't find the verdict inexplicable, perhaps it wasn't.

The justice system is (as you rightly say) supposed to provide a deterrent effect. But in this case the jury decided that in terms of the charges brought no crime had been committed, so there is no need for any deterrent. A judge will not and cannot say "You've been found Not Guilty, but I need to establish a deterrent here, so you're going down."

Similarly, the Not Guilty verdict suggests that cultural norms have not been exceeded, even though that judgement or assessment is not really the place of the Crown Court.

I believe that anyone wanting to obtain a copy of the transcript of the trial would be able to do so. Until they have it, they have (as we have) only press reporting to go on. By its nature this will be incomplete, little more than a veneer. In-depth reporting is reserved for cases involving Cabinet Ministers and Hamstead Heath.

The verdict in this case is one with which many CC members do not agree. As far as I am aware, none of the CC members is in possession of all the evidence put before the jury. On that basis, this is not an indictment of the system. It seems if anything to be further proof that the system functions; it just doesn't function as we may want it to.

The angry villagers are not _meant_ to burn down Frankenstein's Castle. The suspected rustler is not _meant_ to be lynched. The courts are there to allow justice to function, not to put it in the hands of people who read something in a newspaper and wrongly predicted the outcome.

I find the verdict uncomfortable and wrong-headed on the basis of all that I've read, but it is not an indictment of the system.


----------



## glenn forger (8 Oct 2013)

0-markymark-0 said:


> I expect car drivers to overtake me with plenty of room. I am over 6ft, if whilst cycling I fell sidways to the right my head would probably be near the white line even from secondary on a typical London road. If you inlcude some momentum from the force that knocked me sideways, I may also slide an extra few inches to the right. I would not normally expect a vehicle to pass me with that much space.



There was a lack of any guidance in this case. Jurors faced with a similar situation, one which as I said they may never have experienced before in their lives, and who experience an identical close pass by a vehicle could not possibly have remained of the opinion it wasn't careless.


----------



## glenn forger (8 Oct 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> The press reports that this was her first bike ride, not her first ride on that bike. .



No press reports made any such claim, stop making stuff up.


----------



## Origamist (8 Oct 2013)

Accordring to the local rag: "Judge Patrick Eccles QC told the jury they would have to consider whether Dr Measures’ driving was careless and set in motion a chain of events which led to Miss Perinova’s death".

Put like that, the verdict remains difficult to comprehend.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (8 Oct 2013)

_I thought, ‘What a stupid manoeuvre’. I just couldn’t believe the person driving had overtaken at that point.” 

Mr Pontin says he “feathered” his brakes before hearing Miss Perinova try to talk to him, asking something like “Benny, what are you doing?” He then aimed for a “tiny gap” of around 2ft between the car and the kerb. 

Mr Pontin said: “All I remember was a massive ‘whoosh’ just next to me. Then I felt Denisa’s bike touch the back of my bike. I turned round, expecting Denisa to be in the seat behind me but she was maybe 15 metres back down the road.” 

Alison Bell, one of the other cyclists, said she saw Miss Perinova lean forward in her saddle and talk to Mr Pontin when her foot slipped on the pedal, leading her to become unbalanced and fall. 

She said Dr Measures’ car was already over the central line as Miss Perinova fell into its path but she did not see any impact. 

Summing up, Mr Fielding said: “Ben Pontin said it was a stupid decision to overtake. It was nowhere near as stupid as Mr Pontin’s decision to put Denisa Perinova on that bike in the first place. 

“He ought not to have been so reckless with the life of his young girlfriend and he failed with terrible consequences.” _

Janick Fielding is a see you next tuesday.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (8 Oct 2013)

Origamist said:


> Accordring to the local rag: "Judge Patrick Eccles QC told the jury they would have to consider whether Dr Measures’ driving was careless and set in motion a chain of events which led to Miss Perinova’s death".
> 
> Put like that, the verdict remains difficult to comprehend.


Drivers kill more vulnerable road users, and each other, every day. The jury in this case judged it an 'accident'.


----------



## Boris Bajic (8 Oct 2013)

glenn forger said:


> No press reports made any such claim, stop making stuff up.


 
I read that in the Telegraph and see that I misread it. It said that it was her first ride with her boyfriend. I apologise for that. 

"Denisa Perinova, a 21-year-old waitress, was on her first bike ride with her new boyfriend, Ben Pontin, when she was killed in the collision."

That misreading of a news article over breakfast does not altter any of the views I offer in this thread. Some might disagree.


----------



## glenn forger (8 Oct 2013)

It means you make things up. You originally explained how anxious you were to avoid looking as if you are victim-blaming, then you make up something that isn't true in order to imply the cyclist was at fault. Go away.


----------



## glenn forger (8 Oct 2013)

http://www.yasni.ca/patrick+eccles/check+people/oxford

The judge hasn't covered other cycling fatalities that I can see, he jailed a drunk driver who rear-ended a lad on a moped and killed him.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (8 Oct 2013)

Have a read of the defence barrister's CV and weep. My bet is this case will be added to his tally when it is next reviewed.


----------



## glenn forger (8 Oct 2013)

Yeah, I saw that. It's quite oddly written, strikes me as a bit disgustingly self-satisfied.


----------



## glenn forger (8 Oct 2013)

> R v Rattan [2009 – 10] – drink driving
> The defendant, a retired professor, had been found unconscious, in a pool of his own blood, on the floor of a
> property he was having renovated. After receiving some first aid from his builder, his next recollection,
> several hours later, was of being stopped by the police while driving a high performance BMW that was not
> ...









"Young Polish blonde"- presumably a female, Mr Fielding doesn't bother to distinguish. These eastern Europeans, eh?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (8 Oct 2013)

glenn forger said:


> Yeah, I saw that. It's quite oddly written, strikes me as a bit disgustingly self-satisfied.


Well, in their own words, it is a "*Specailist CV"* after all

ffs!


----------



## Boris Bajic (8 Oct 2013)

glenn forger said:


> It means you make things up. You originally explained how anxious you were to avoid looking as if you are victim-blaming, then you make up something that isn't true in order to imply the cyclist was at fault. Go away.


 
I am not victim-blaming. I have been consistent in putting the blame for this incident squarely at the door of the driver on the basis of all that I know.

I find your attack-dog harassment of me slightly creepy, stalkerish and vindictive. I have tried to add constructively to this thread, which deals with a tragic instance many of us will have seen the like of. I have apologised for misinterpreting the quote you pulled me up on and have corrected myself. 

The incident was tragic, the outcome of the court case is puzzling. I do not imply anywhere that the cyclist was at fault. I do note that there is plenty in the press coverage that would lead a jury to return a Not Guilty verdict. There is and they did.


----------



## SamC (8 Oct 2013)

mcshroom said:


> More details on the case here: -
> http://www.henleystandard.co.uk/news/news.php?id=1354657
> 
> This quite from the judge defense lawyer is infuriating me: -
> ...


 
That quote makes me more furious than I can express in words. It makes me want to grab Mr Fielding by the throat. I'm on an observer, and reading that makes me practically incoherent with rage.


----------



## Origamist (8 Oct 2013)

GregCollins said:


> Drivers kill more vulnerable road users, and each other, every day. The jury in this case judged it an 'accident'.



Which is astonishing. Overtaking on a bend without clear sight lines of approaching traffic is akin to playing Russian roulette with the lives of fellow road users.


----------



## glenn forger (8 Oct 2013)

That quote makes me feel a bit sick. It's like saying the attack on a black person was the black person's fault for being there. Dr Helen Measures decided to overtake through a narrow gap directly at two oncoming cyclists, and her defence is it was the stupid cyclist's fault for being there.


----------



## Chris Norton (8 Oct 2013)

Beggers belief, but rest assured next time it could well be a hgv in which case she'll be dead.

We are really held in little regard by the general public despite cycling being as popular as it is now.

The defence barrister was just doing his job, as seedy as it gets, he just gets around it all.

I would like to read the transcript's though.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (8 Oct 2013)

Chris Norton said:


> Beggers belief, but rest assured next time it could well be a hgv in which case she'll be dead.


HGV? Nah. Not a problem, for the likes of her, she would simply have taken out the cyclists she was overtaking. See it done.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (8 Oct 2013)

Origamist said:


> Which is astonishing. Overtaking on a bend without clear sight lines of approaching traffic is akin to playing Russian roulette with the lives of fellow road users.


Defence barrister sold it to them and the jury fell for it. And the jury will mainly be drivers. Drivers who play similar Russian roulette games themselves with alarming regularity.


----------



## snorri (8 Oct 2013)

glenn forger said:


> . It's like saying the attack on a black person was the black person's fault for being there. .


----------



## Dan B (8 Oct 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> Well, sh'it does happen. That is one of the first lessons in life. But I don't think it's the lesson that was planned in this case.


(Boris) <--------------------------- country mile --------------------------------> (my point)

To reiterate: if the court has reached a verdict of not guilty on the evidence available to it, yet we the public find this verdict inexplicable on the basis of the more limited evidence available to us, and if we make the assumption that the verdict was the correct one, there is some important piece of evidence which has not been vouchsafed to us in the reporting of this case. And given that some members of the public who start from a different viewpoint ("it was only a cyclist", "shouldn't have been on the road", "accidents happen" etc etc) will be perfectly happy to assume that the reports _did_ include all the salient facts and thus that it is indeed OK to drive on the wrong side of the road into novice cyclists causing them to fall off and die, this is not just a matter of nosiness on our part into something that doesn't affect us, it is actually a serious matter. Because it's not OK to drive on the wrong side of the road into novice cyclists causing them to fall off and die, or at least it shouldn't be, so there really is a moral duty on people involved in court cases which appear to give a contrary impression to come out and tell us why the obvious conclusion is the wrong one. Otherwise, more people driving on the wrong side of the road into novice cyclists causing them to fall off and die, which doesn't seem to me like a desirable outcome


----------



## Boris Bajic (9 Oct 2013)

Dan B said:


> (Boris) <--------------------------- country mile --------------------------------> (my point)
> 
> To reiterate: if *the court has reached a verdict of not guilty on the evidence available to it, yet we the public find this verdict inexplicable on the basis of the more limited evidence available to us, and if we make the assumption that the verdict was the correct one, there is some important piece of evidence which has not been vouchsafed to us in the reporting of this case.* And given that some members of the public who start from a different viewpoint ("it was only a cyclist", "shouldn't have been on the road", "accidents happen" etc etc) will be perfectly happy to assume that the reports _did_ include all the salient facts and thus that it is indeed OK to drive on the wrong side of the road into novice cyclists causing them to fall off and die, this is not just a matter of nosiness on our part into something that doesn't affect us, it is actually a serious matter. Because it's not OK to drive on the wrong side of the road into novice cyclists causing them to fall off and die, or at least it shouldn't be, so there really is a moral duty on people involved in court cases which appear to give a contrary impression to come out and tell us why the obvious conclusion is the wrong one. Otherwise, more people driving on the wrong side of the road into novice cyclists causing them to fall off and die, which doesn't seem to me like a desirable outcome


 
This is a post with which it is difficult to disagree and I have no wish to do so. The part I highlight is completely in line with my thinking. I do not think my post (#157) was as far from yours (#154) as you suggest in your graphic, but I cannot disagree with the core sentiment of the above.

One of the things that gets my goat when I'm riding alone or with one of my offspring is when cars enter my lane to overtake when we are clearly present and riding towards them. The horror is not lost on me. My kids are older and wiser and ride with verve now, but one still has those momentary visions of bad things straight after a close pass. It seems to be a part of parenthood.

I've been clear all the way through this thread that drivers (all drivers) need to be aware that some cyclists are novices and may respond differently to a perceived threat. In this case there is a suggestion (cyclist witness Alison Bell) that the fall was not connected with or caused by the overtaking car, but whether that is the case or not it does not alter the absolute that the decision to pass was a very poor one and may well have been the primary cause of the fatality. I agree with you that we don't know enough about the evidence to understand why the jury disagreed. 

Nonetheless, the verdict was as it was and has not (yet) been challenged. Nor did the judge express any surprise that it was as it was. The court records are there. The transcripts are there. We are discussing this on the basis of some flimsy reporting (some of it supporting a particular viewpoint) in the media.

It is the job of the media (if they choose to take it) and of campaign groups (who ought to feel the obligation) to challenge this verdict if it is a poor one and to do so on the basis of all the evidence presented in court. This discussion (some of it understandably aggressive in tone) is based on a partial picture formed by partial reporting.

Broadly, I agree with your post. If it was an injustice (and it may have been), then this will be proved or at least challenged by a vigorous campaign by parties who have access to all the evidence submitted.
I fear such a challenge will not come. The fury will stay on the Internet and dissipate slowly like a stale fart. The tragedy will stay with all involved and nothing will take away the ache.


----------



## glenn forger (9 Oct 2013)

What are you talking about? You can't appeal a jury's decision.


2699256 said:


> R v Rattan has the best untold story of that sad collection.





> with an unknown young Polish blonde in the seat alongside him



Doesn't even dignify the person with a gender, that cv is written with a kind of gushing adoration, presumably self-penned.


----------



## Boris Bajic (9 Oct 2013)

glenn forger said:


> What are you talking about? You can't appeal a jury's decision.


 
I do not mention an appeal.


----------



## glenn forger (9 Oct 2013)

You can't challenge a jury's verdict. This was established quite early on.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (9 Oct 2013)

glenn forger said:


> Doesn't even dignify the person with a gender,


 
Blonde = Female
Blond = Male


GC


----------



## glenn forger (9 Oct 2013)

Really? I never knew that. Strange story.


----------



## glenn forger (9 Oct 2013)

> I remember Mattingburg's most famous case, the case of the bloody knife.
> A man was found next to a murdured body, he had the knife in his hand,
> thirteen witnesses that seen him stab the victim, when the police
> arrived he said, "I'm glad I killed the bastard." Mattingburg not
> ...



http://www.suslik.org/Humour/FilmOrTV/BlackAdder/ba4-2.html


----------



## Origamist (9 Oct 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> I've been clear all the way through this thread that drivers (all drivers) need to be aware that some cyclists are novices and may respond differently to a perceived threat. * In this case there is a suggestion (cyclist witness Alison Bell) that the fall was not connected with or caused by the overtaking car,* but whether that is the case or not it does not alter the absolute that the decision to pass was a very poor one and may well have been the primary cause of the fatality. I agree with you that we don't know enough about the evidence to understand why the jury disagreed.


 
If the driver had exercised caution and not fecklessly overtaken, it is extremely difficult to imagine a scenario in which Miss Perinova would have died on that bend.


----------



## Boris Bajic (9 Oct 2013)

Origamist said:


> If the driver had exercised caution and not fecklessly overtaken, it is extremely difficult to imagine a scenario in which Miss Perinova would have died on that bend.


 
Absolutely. It is extremely difficult. But the jury seems to have imagined that scenario, in all probability on the basis of evidence that we have not read. 

That is my point precisely. The driver appears to have driven incautiously and much of what has been reported seems to suggest that she caused the death. The jury, who heard rather more than we have read, disagreed.

There may be a case here for a campaign group to question the outcome, but it would have to be done on the basis of *all the evidence*, not just the contentious ticklers put out by the media to make a story or garner support for their view.

I do not think that will be done. I think any response will be limited to angry and incompletely-informed rage on the internet.


----------



## glenn forger (9 Oct 2013)

Compare and contrast:



> Last December, in Durham, Raymond Jenkins left his delivery van parked on the A68 near a bend and such that drivers had to cross double white lines in order to pass it, in order to deliver building supplies to premises which were not accessible by the van.
> 
> Ten minutes later, another van driver rounded the bend and ploughed into the back of Jenkins’ van at an estimated 50-60mph. He was killed instantly.
> 
> ...



http://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2013/10/03/when-not-driving-is-driving-and-when-its-not-driving/


----------



## benb (9 Oct 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> Absolutely. It is extremely difficult. But the jury seems to have imagined that scenario, in all probability on the basis of evidence that we have not read.
> 
> That is my point precisely. The driver appears to have driven incautiously and much of what has been reported seems to suggest that she caused the death. The jury, who heard rather more than we have read, disagreed.
> 
> ...



What possible evidence could there be that exonerates the driver?
Surely it couldn't matter even if the cyclists were weaving all over their side of the road. She was overtaking into their side of the road without knowing that it was clear.

You are giving the jury more credit than they deserve IMO. It seems much more likely to me that they were simply very sympathetic towards the driver, and willing to forgive what they saw as just one of those things and something that the driver really shouldn't be held responsible for.


----------



## glenn forger (9 Oct 2013)

We've got Dr Helen Measures' own words, she admitted over taking when she couldn't see the road ahead, it's in her evidence.


----------



## Boris Bajic (9 Oct 2013)

benb said:


> What possible evidence could there be that exonerates the driver?
> Surely it couldn't matter even if the cyclists were weaving all over their side of the road. She was overtaking into their side of the road without knowing that it was clear.
> 
> You are giving the jury more credit than they deserve IMO. It seems much *more likely* to me that they were simply very sympathetic towards the driver, and willing to forgive what they saw as just one of those things and something that the driver really shouldn't be held responsible for.


 
Yes, it does seem 'more likely'. One cannot think otherwise. But there is a gulf between 'more likely' on the basis of press reporting (which is all we have to date) and the verdict of a jury. We do not know all the evidence put to the jury and we have not read all the eyewitness tstimonies they sat through.

The decision to overtake looks dreadful, but we do not have all the evidence. I do not say that Dr M is innocent. I say only that she was found not guilty and that I do not see that verdict necessarily as an indictment of British justice.



glenn forger said:


> We've got Dr Helen Measures' own words, she admitted over taking when she couldn't see the road ahead, it's in her evidence.


 
I hadn't read her evidence in detail. If she was explicit in saying that she started to overtake when aware that she was unable to see the road ahead for a safe distance, then I'd agree with you that one ought to question the verdict. It would seem to hinge on the initial decision to overtake. My impression was that she failed to see the oncoming cyclists but thought she had a clear view ahead. I may be wrong; I often am.

I'm ducking out of this thread now. A family has lost a loved one and there seems to be an unbridgeable gulf of disagreement on a matter that is causing pain and anguish to all involved.


----------



## 400bhp (9 Oct 2013)

Was it a majority verdict or 100% not guilty?

RE: "Careless driving" charge. What exactly is the description of this? How is that different to other driging charges? What I am trying to understand is what exactly the judge is asking the jury to determine a guilty/not guilty verdict.

I could probably look it up on the internet but CBA.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (9 Oct 2013)

400bhp said:


> Was it a majority verdict or 100% not guilty?
> 
> RE: "Careless driving" charge. What exactly is the description of this? How is that different to other driging charges? What I am trying to understand is what exactly the judge is asking the jury to determine a guilty/not guilty verdict.
> 
> I could probably look it up on the internet but CBA.


 

Here ye go, ya lazy nobber!

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/dangerous_driving/

GC


----------



## glenn forger (9 Oct 2013)

400bhp said:


> Was it a majority verdict or 100% not guilty?
> 
> RE: "Careless driving" charge. What exactly is the description of this? How is that different to other driging charges? What I am trying to understand is what exactly the judge is asking the jury to determine a guilty/not guilty verdict.
> 
> I could probably look it up on the internet but CBA.



Unanimous. The legal definitions of Careless are woolly and vague and subjective. That's what I meant about relative close passes, I think it's likely that no jury member had ever been on a bike that's been over taken head on at 50mph with 2 foot clearance. Not many people have, so don't know what it's like. They may even have carried out such an overtake themselves, perhaps?


----------



## 400bhp (9 Oct 2013)

What is careless driving:



> A person drives carelessly or inconsiderately when the way they drive falls below the minimum acceptable standard expected of a competent and careful driver.



Hmmmm


----------



## glenn forger (9 Oct 2013)

Subjective. Ask a cyclist and a driver what a close pass is and you get different answers, the HC just has a picture and tells you to

_ "leave the same space as for a car" ._


----------



## Origamist (9 Oct 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> Absolutely. It is extremely difficult. *But the jury seems to have imagined that scenario, in all probability on the basis of evidence that we have not read. *
> 
> That is my point precisely. The driver appears to have driven incautiously and much of what has been reported seems to suggest that she caused the death. The jury, who heard rather more than we have read, disagreed.
> 
> ...


 
I’m still clinging to the hope that there is a significant and persuasive piece of evidence (or an agglomeration of mitigating detail*) that is absent from the multiple press reports that would make the exculpation of Dr Measures easier to understand. If there isn’t, this is a verdict that should scare *all* road users shitless, especially vulnerable road users, regardless of their level of experience.

*And I don't mean stuff like Dr Measures was a respected bell-ringer.


----------



## glenn forger (9 Oct 2013)

The press coverage is strange, only the Mail and Henley paper recorded the verdict, the Mail stopped allowing comments after 9 comments appeared. All the discussion is on forums and blogs:

http://cyclingfront.blogspot.co.uk/


----------



## theclaud (9 Oct 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> If she was explicit in saying that she started to overtake when aware that she was unable to see the road ahead for a safe distance, then I'd agree with you that one ought to question the verdict. It would seem to hinge on the initial decision to overtake. *My impression was that she failed to see the oncoming cyclists but thought she had a clear view ahead*. I may be wrong; I often am.



Well obviously she _didn't_ have a clear view ahead because, er, she failed to see the oncoming cyclists. Yet there they were, in all their flesh-and-blood actuality. If she had a clear view, she would have seen them. Because they were there. The reference to thinking is entirely misguided.


----------



## glenn forger (9 Oct 2013)

If overtaking on a corner and being surprised by oncoming traffic isn't driving dangerously, they might as well just bin the law.


----------



## mr_cellophane (9 Oct 2013)

From one bit I read, it said that the girl came accross in front of the car at right angles. That means it isn't as simple a case as clipping a passing cyclist because you left too little room. From that she obviously had a major loss of control and, possibly, would have gone in front of the car even if it had been on the correct side of the road. I know that doesn't get away from the fact that if it had have been on the correct side the man wouldn't have braked and the girl wouldn't have clipped his rear wheel which caused the loss of control.

Does anyone know if the cyclists were going down hill ?


----------



## glenn forger (9 Oct 2013)

mr_cellophane said:


> From that she obviously had a major loss of control and, possibly, would have gone in front of the car even if it had been on the correct side of the road.



The witness evidence was the car was wholly on the wrong side of the road at impact.


----------



## Origamist (9 Oct 2013)

mr_cellophane said:


> From one bit I read, *it said that the girl came accross in front of the car at right angles*. That means it isn't as simple a case as clipping a passing cyclist because you left too little room. From that she obviously had a major loss of control and, possibly, would have gone in front of the car even if it had been on the correct side of the road. I know that doesn't get away from the fact that if it had have been on the correct side the man wouldn't have braked and the girl wouldn't have clipped his rear wheel which caused the loss of control.
> 
> Does anyone know if the cyclists were going down hill ?


 
That's what Dr Measures said in testimony. I can't cycle at right angles, but I can topple sideways from my bike...

The road in question appears to be the B480 and the collision took place near Stonor (other national papers list an A road, but I'd take the local paper's word). The lanes are narrow around Stonor - have a look on Street View. It looks pretty flat to me...


----------



## mr_cellophane (9 Oct 2013)

glenn forger said:


> The witness evidence was the car was wholly on the wrong side of the road at impact.


Yes I did read that bit !



Origamist said:


> That's what Dr Measures said in testimony. I can't cycle at right angles, but I can topple sideways from my bike...


but if you hit something your front wheel could be knocked at right angles to the direction you were travelling in.

Just trying to add some ideas as to the thought process of the jury.


----------



## snorri (9 Oct 2013)

mr_cellophane said:


> Yes I did read that bit !.


Where?

Miss Perinova wobbled on her bike and fell into the road, although it is not known whether she made contact with the car.
The reports cast doubt if there was any impact.


----------



## glenn forger (9 Oct 2013)

Falling off your bike doesn't make you move down the road into the entrance to a field. Nobody argued there was no impact, if there was doubt it would have been exploited. Denisa's helmet was smashed, ribs were broken and head injured, not the usual results of falling from a bike. 



> Sandra Beck, prosecuting asked her, “You are relying on other road users avoiding you when you are on their side of the road?”


----------



## mr_cellophane (9 Oct 2013)

snorri said:


> Where?
> 
> Miss Perinova wobbled on her bike and fell into the road, although it is not known whether she made contact with the car.
> The reports cast doubt if there was any impact.


 In the Mail article


> However, Miss Perinova came at her at a 'right angle' after losing control of her bike


----------



## Origamist (9 Oct 2013)

mr_cellophane said:


> Yes I did read that bit !
> 
> 
> but if you hit something your front wheel could be knocked at right angles to the direction you were travelling in.
> ...


 
I can understand trying to empathise with the jury, but right angles, acute angles, obtuse angles, I don’t think it really matters, mr_c. Two cyclists were confronted with a driver approaching them on a bend at up to 50mph in their lane of travel. The first cyclist managed to take emergency avoiding action, the second cyclist was not so fortunate. _If_ the defensive riding of the first cyclist contributed to the second cyclist coming off her bike, the judge was quite clear when instructing the jury that they should consider whether “Dr Measures’ driving was careless *and set in motion a chain of events which led to Miss Perinova’s death*”.


----------



## ComedyPilot (9 Oct 2013)

glenn forger said:


> Verdict can't be appealed, can complaints be made officially about Janick Fielding's filthy little outburst?


Why can't the verdict be appealed?


----------



## glenn forger (9 Oct 2013)

Cos it's a verdict, only if there was evidence of tampering or something else improper. IANAL.


----------



## lukesdad (9 Oct 2013)

It would be helpful to know what direction the judge gave the jury at the trial.


----------



## Custom24 (9 Oct 2013)

To my imagination, the jury found not guilty because there were one or more reasonable doubts left in their minds about whether the defendant caused death by dangerous or careless driving. I'm not sure if there need to be some salient facts that were not reported in order to explain this.

Juries are not representative. Look at this one - 10 females and 2 males. When I served on a jury, there was a painful lack of employed males in the room. Men tend to get out of jury service by getting letters from their employer, or finding other reasons not to serve. Despite the letter that you get saying it's not possible to opt out, in practice it is. Employers are under no obligation to pay you during your jury service and many don't, so many people worm their way out of it. The loss of earnings you can claim is minimal.

Now, don't shoot me, because this is not my opinion, but the reasonable doubts that would have been in their non-representative minds might have played out a scenario where this happened;

"The car had left enough* room, but when the lead cyclist braked/slowed down, the deceased leaned forwards to ask what he was doing, slipped a foot off the pedal, causing a loss of control (she was a novice), the bicycle turned at right angles into the road and into the path of the car, with not enough time left at that stage for the defendant to react"

Of course "enough" falls back to the subjective standard of a careful and competent driver. Remember above how I said the juries were not representative...

If you want things to change, do your jury service.

Edited - last sentence was missing "want"


----------



## 400bhp (9 Oct 2013)

Sounds about right Custom24.


----------



## theclaud (9 Oct 2013)

Custom24 said:


> "The car had left enough* room, but when the lead cyclist braked/slowed down, the deceased leaned forwards to ask what he was doing, slipped a foot off the pedal, causing a loss of control (she was a novice), the bicycle turned at right angles into the road *and into the path of the car, *with not enough time left at that stage for the defendant to react"



That would be the car that was on the wrong side of the road, in the act of performing an unsafe overtaking manoeuvre, then?


----------



## glenn forger (9 Oct 2013)

The bicycle and young woman were unlucky enough to be in "My line of travel" in Dr Measures' own, chilling words.


----------



## jarlrmai (9 Oct 2013)

This really is a disgrace.


----------



## Buddfox (10 Oct 2013)

Shouldn't the court transcript be a matter of public record? Is there any way to get hold of a copy - even if that meant going in person to the Court? Like others I remain utterly perplexed at this verdict. I can only rationalise it by thinking that there was an additional piece of evidence that has not been reported - but if it was so important, surely it must have been? It would be interesting to read the whole thing if it was made available in any way.


----------



## glenn forger (10 Oct 2013)

Search Again 
*Crown Court Archive*Results: 10 
DATE LOCATION COURT CASE N0. DEFENDANT/S




02-10-2013Oxford Crown Court2T20120416Helen Rachel Measures

I think you have to write to the court to get the transcript.


----------



## glenn forger (10 Oct 2013)

This chap pleaded guilty:



> Adam Garthwaite jailed for St Giles-in-the-Heath crash which killed Paul Garcia
> 
> 
> "Before this accident, while driving through St Giles-in-the-Heath, you overtook at speed near a bend and in the face of oncoming traffic.
> ...



Plead not guilty, hire a doberman lawyer who doesn't mind about grossly offensive and sexist remarks and get off scot free.


----------



## Custom24 (10 Oct 2013)

User13710 said:


> Hmmm, I think a firing squad might be justified for that.


For getting out of jury service? A bit harsh, but I agree in principle.


----------



## Origamist (10 Oct 2013)

Custom24 said:


> To my imagination, the jury found not guilty because there were one or more reasonable doubts left in their minds about whether the defendant caused death by dangerous or careless driving. I'm not sure if there need to be some salient facts that were not reported in order to explain this.
> 
> Juries are not representative. Look at this one - 10 females and 2 males. When I served on a jury, there was a painful lack of employed males in the room. Men tend to get out of jury service by getting letters from their employer, or finding other reasons not to serve. Despite the letter that you get saying it's not possible to opt out, in practice it is. Employers are under no obligation to pay you during your jury service and many don't, so many people worm their way out of it. The loss of earnings you can claim is minimal.
> 
> ...



Your imagined jury room deliberations are missing a few known, key facts, but perhaps the jury forget them too...

As regards the diversity and composition of juries, I am afraid you are wildly extrapolating. 

The employed are over-represented among serving jurors, and the retired and unemployed are in fact under-represented. What's more, jury pools at individual courts closely reflect the local population in terms of gender and age, and the self-employed are represented among serving jurors in direct proportion to their representation in the population. This may conflict with your personal experience, but don't take my word for it, check with the Ministry of Justice...


----------



## Custom24 (10 Oct 2013)

You appear to be correct about the jury representativeness. I stand corrected. Thank you.

http://4wardeveruk.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/p.Diversity-Fairness-in-the-Jury-System.pdf

I only served once, and out of perhaps 60 jurors in the room, there were probably only 10 men, and of those half were retired. I was a few years ago, mind you.


----------



## mr_cellophane (10 Oct 2013)

Just looked up the B480 in street view. Shame she wasn't there the same day as the camera car

http://goo.gl/maps/BMHo6


----------



## tommyp669 (14 Oct 2013)

glenn forger said:


> A wealthy woman employs an extremely expensive lawyer (check his self-congratulatory website) and gets away scot free with killing a young woman by deciding to drive at her on the wrong side of the road. The woman, in her defence, blames the girl's boy friend, apparently just for being there. If I were Mr Pontin I have no idea whether I'd be so affected as to buy a car and drive it into Mr Fielding's family.



If you read the articles carefully you will see that the woman was legally aided, so paying an expensive lawyer is not the case. All Mr Fielding did was put her defence across to a jury, which any of us would be entitled to. 

The bigger question is why the CPS failed to secure a conviction on what seems to be a straight forward case from comments made. The answer unfortunately is in-house advocates. Cheap and cheerful prosecutors that cost the government as little as possible and this can be the result.


----------



## glenn forger (14 Oct 2013)

Oh, thanks, Mr Fielding seems to be some sort of specialist, he boasts about other motoring offences cases he's handled, Dr Measures was lucky there.


----------



## PK99 (14 Oct 2013)

Origamist said:


> That's what Dr Measures said in testimony. I can't cycle at right angles, but I can topple sideways from my bike...
> 
> The road in question appears to be the B480 and the collision took place near Stonor (other national papers list an A road, but I'd take the local paper's word). The lanes are narrow around Stonor - have a look on Street View. It looks pretty flat to me...



Have you ever clipped the wheel of the bike in front? I have, bringing down the whole club ride in the process. I pretty much went at right angles* across the group taking out the guy to my right. Fortunately, there were no cars in either direction, but it was very quick and totally uncontrolled.

*Wrt the ground, it was at an angle, wrt the group it was pretty much a right angle, a following driver would have seen it as a right angle.


----------



## Origamist (14 Oct 2013)

Interesting anecdote, but irrelevant.


----------



## jarlrmai (14 Oct 2013)

Would this case have gone down differently if it had been recorded by a helmet camera worn by either of the riders? It seems that when people describe events there's enough wiggle room for the lawyers to create doubt


----------



## Jezston (14 Oct 2013)

Anyone actually know the legal thing on such matters - I understand a sentence can be appealed by the public if they feel it was too lenient, and a guilty verdict can always be appealed, but can an innocent verdict be appealed? Can't seem to find any info online.


----------



## benb (14 Oct 2013)

AFAIK you can't appeal an innocent verdict unless new evidence comes to light, triggering a new trial.


----------



## Bromptonaut (14 Oct 2013)

An NG verdict by a jury cannot be appealed, at least not in any way that will lead to a different outcome. 

IIRC there may be circs in which cases can be referrred to a more senior court on a point of law - eg misdirection by Judge - but there's no re-trial because of double jeopardy. Only new evidence, as in Stephen Lawrence, and then only exceptionally will hearing be re-staged.


----------



## Jezston (14 Oct 2013)

Thought that might be the case.
Can the victim's boyfriend potentially then initiate a civil trial against the driver?


----------



## MattyKo (22 Oct 2013)

Strange !! how it is considered acceptable for a driver to overtake cyclists at 40 to 50 mph. 

Had it been someone on horse back the acceptable thing to do would be; radically reduce speed in order not to spook the horse, and therefore ensure the rider is able to retain control of the horse. 

However, once the other animals are removed from the equation it appears to be everyone for themselves.

Unfortunate that this just is another addition to the 2013 count for road fatalities, from another Collision !! (Collisions not Accidents).

The question of justice and the outcome from the judicial process, reaches as far back as the legislation enacted by Parliament, and the "executive" permitted to administer / prepare files ? ! ?

Nevertheless Sorry to Hear that a further individual powering themselves upon a cycle suffered.


----------



## Lockring (22 Oct 2013)

I think I agree but my english is not better. but to pass horse and to pass bicycle is not one thing the same to each other. to pass a horse you must slow becuase he (she) (it) do not understand the traffic and can go crazy. A person onbicycle do understand traffic and you must not have to slow so much. but the story here is about a lady who pass too fast for horse and too fast for bicycle and too fast to not be dangrose. she is wrong, but a story about pass a horse is not need here. the lady on a bicycle has no shance when a driver do this. not guilty is not good.


----------



## jarlrmai (28 Oct 2013)

http://www.henleystandard.co.uk/news/news.php?id=1363185


----------



## hopless500 (28 Oct 2013)

jarlrmai said:


> http://www.henleystandard.co.uk/news/news.php?id=1363185


That is so sad. Is there really no recourse for the family and no possibility of retrial or overturning the given verdict? 
I know the reporting of the event has been less than factual in some instances, but this just seems even more of a complete travesty when you read their side of it.


----------



## mr_cellophane (28 Oct 2013)

> our daughter was an experienced and competent cyclist, having cycled since a very early age


That's a new bit that I haven't read before. I thought the whole thurst of the defence and reporting was that she had just got the bike a couple of days before. Implying that she was new to cycling.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (28 Oct 2013)

A deeply touching letter and a deeply frustrating lack of (what I call) justice.


----------



## jarlrmai (28 Oct 2013)

mr_cellophane said:


> That's a new bit that I haven't read before. I thought the whole thurst of the defence and reporting was that she had just got the bike a couple of days before. Implying that she was new to cycling.



I thought that as well.


----------



## Lincov (28 Oct 2013)

jarlrmai said:


> http://www.henleystandard.co.uk/news/news.php?id=1363185


That's heartbreaking, I am still shocked by this terrible verdict. Even if the judge opted for a light sentence for whatever reason, to call Dr Measures "not guilty" is a travesty of justice.


----------



## glenn forger (28 Oct 2013)

> In his summing up, the judge laid great emphasis as to Dr Measures’ character. Why? At no stage were we permitted to give evidence as to the character of our daughter — even to confirm her previous cycling experience.


----------



## glenn forger (28 Oct 2013)

The driver blamed the dead girl for..being there. I doubt Dr Helen Measures feels anything but relief that her lawyer got her off, she has never once expressed regret and instead said it was Denisa's fault, and her lawyer said it was Mr Pontin's fault for taking her for a bike ride on a sunny Sunday morning.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (28 Oct 2013)

If evidence was presented that the victim was an inexperienced cyclist and thus she and her boyfriend were the authors of her misfortune and that inexperience is not actually the case then justice has not been served.


----------



## Spinney (28 Oct 2013)

It sounds as if the prosecuting counsel was not doing his/her job very well...


----------



## Boris Bajic (28 Oct 2013)

GrumpyGregry said:


> If evidence was presented that the victim was an inexperienced cyclist and thus she and her boyfriend were the authors of her misfortune and that inexperience is not actually the case then justice has not been served.


 
Well, in part, yes.

However, inexperience itself ought not to get one killed if other road users are behaving considerately. I made this point upthread. It behoves all road users not to assume that others are not inexperienced or novice.

But... I disagree about the raising of the 'inexperience' issue being the point at which justice was not served. It seems perfectly reasonable for a defence counsel to raise the spectre of inexperience. It is for the prosecution to demonstrate that this is not so, if indeed it is not so. 

A good defence barrister will raise any doubt they can think up in the lavatory. It is their job. It is the job of the prosecution to show that the doubt is inaccurate or wrong. It would appear that in this case they did not do so.

It is not the job of the grieving parents to make that point through the press some weeks after the case has been heard - and several months after the death.

Nonetheless, inexperience itself should not be a death sentence (or even a reason for road bullying). 

Having heard all the evidence presented by defence and prosecution and having heard the cross-examination of all witnesses presented, a jury found the defendant not guilty - a verdict which did not elicit comment from the judge. That in itself suggests (but doesn't prove) that there is more to this case than has been reported.


----------



## glenn forger (28 Oct 2013)

GrumpyGregry said:


> If evidence was presented that the victim was an inexperienced cyclist and thus she and her boyfriend were the authors of her misfortune and that inexperience is not actually the case then justice has not been served.



http://www.pcc.org.uk/complaints/makingacomplaint.html



> Top cancer specialist cleared of killing 21-year-old novice cyclist in car crash



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ing-21-year-old-novice-cyclist-car-crash.html

Let down by the justice system ,then lied about in the press.


----------



## Lincov (28 Oct 2013)

Spinney said:


> It sounds as if the prosecuting counsel was not doing his/her job very well...


I agree, been thinking about this on and off over the last hour. Would the parents of the victim be able to appeal the judgement if they could get funding for a better prosecutor? I know very little about how the legal system works in this country!


----------



## jarlrmai (28 Oct 2013)

I think new evidence needs to come to light.


----------



## Origamist (29 Oct 2013)

That is a desperately sad and incredibly moving eulogy from Denisa's devastated parents. 

Edit: Issue sorted.


----------



## Spinney (29 Oct 2013)

Best if you report offending posts like that using the report button - mods don't read all the threads...


----------



## glenn forger (29 Oct 2013)

The newspaper are being contacted with letters from the cycling community, or just cyclists if you prefer, to express sympathy, and bafflement, and anger. Not directly, through the paper who can forward them. Above all embarrassment, at least for me, I'm embarrassed that the parents were put through that hideous ordeal and that lies can be printed about their daughter with no come back whatsoever. Anyone who wants to can join in, nothing can ease the suffering but at least they know they're not alone in their feelings.


----------



## Origamist (1 Nov 2013)

If anyone wants to write a letter of condolence, pm me as I have the email details of the news editor of The Henley Standard.


----------



## Origamist (1 Nov 2013)

Origamist said:


> The road in question appears to be the B480 and the collision took place near Stonor (other national papers list an A road, but I'd take the local paper's word). The lanes are narrow around Stonor - have a look on Street View. It looks pretty flat to me...


 
CrashMap has the location of the fatality.http://www.crashmap.co.uk/Search (type Stonor and it is the only black flag on the map). StreetView is enabled.

Notice how narrow the lanes are in the vicinity of the crash site on the bend. It is also clear that sightlines would have been compromised (more so than Street View suggests as Dr Measures' car was either partially or wholly in the opposing lane - unlike the Street View car).


----------



## Frood42 (1 Nov 2013)

Wow, the more I read about this the more I really despair about the decision making and sanity of people...
While I may not have all the facts, at this point in time I do not understand how this came to be not gulity...


----------



## mr_cellophane (1 Nov 2013)

Origamist said:


> CrashMap has the location of the fatality.http://www.crashmap.co.uk/Search (type Stonor and it is the only black flag on the map). StreetView is enabled.
> 
> Notice how narrow the lanes are in the vicinity of the crash site on the bend. It is also clear that sightlines would have been compromised (more so than Street View suggests as Dr Measures' car was either partially or wholly in the opposing lane - unlike the Street View car).


Wow - I was expecting to see a proper country road with no verge, grass banks and overhanging trees, not such a wide open road with a pavement. Makes her bad driving look even worse.


----------



## Spinney (1 Nov 2013)

I don't think we're looking at the same thing.

This is what I see - no pavement... (not sure if I'm facing the right way along the road, but it is similar both ways).


----------



## Origamist (2 Nov 2013)

@Spinney As I understand it, that is the crash site. The perspective you have captured is from the cyclists' viewpoint. If you move forward 70 metres or so and spin 180 degrees you then get the view from the driver's perspective (it is then a right hand bend as mentioned in the court reporting). 

I would never overtake on a bend like that.


----------



## Crankarm (2 Nov 2013)

Spinney said:


> It sounds as if the prosecuting counsel was not doing his/her job very well...



And this wouldn't be the first time .................................

This whole case has a very bad SMELL about it. Justice has not been served. There has been a grave MISCARRIAGE of justice. The woman Measures should have been found guilty and got 5 years in prison without any discount.

Just make sure when posting to use the words Helen Measures and cyclist killer so it will always come top in search engines when cyclist deaths or helen measures are searched for. If the courts refuse to convict her then at least what she did can remain on the internet.


----------



## glenn forger (2 Nov 2013)

> Dr Helen Measure’s defence (an unpleasant individual named Janick Fielding, about which more later) stated that Denisa was an inexperienced cyclist and road user - she’d only been riding a few days. These are the facts that were presented to the jury and reported by the media. They’re also false. She’d been cycling regularly since a young age, held a UK driving license, and drove every day to work.
> There were over ten character references for Helen read out as part of the defence, including her cancer work and weekly church visits.
> The _judge_, when summing up, emphasised Helen’s good character to the jury again.



http://www.darkerside.org/2013/10/helen-measures-and-the-death-of-denisa/

The "facts" presented to the court were completely false.


----------



## ComedyPilot (2 Nov 2013)

Frood42 said:


> Wow, the more I read about this the more I really despair about the decision making and sanity of people...
> While I may not have all the facts, at this point in time I do not understand how this came to be not gulity...


It seems to me like the jury were of a collective mindset 'That could have been me' - yet they meant the car driver not the cyclist, and basically excused the driver for snuffing out an innocent life. 

The FACTS of this case are a driver overtook into oncoming (vulnerable) traffic and killed one of them as a result.


----------



## ComedyPilot (2 Nov 2013)

https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=St...=G6w8Toa-WAM8t-uIQjTIdw&cbp=12,342.14,,0,3.23

So, overtake on a blind R/H bend into oncoming cyclists, kill one of them and the result - not guilty?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (2 Nov 2013)

Five people died on our roads yesterday
Five people will die on our roads today
Five more people will die on our roads tomorrow
and so it goes on, and on, and on.

Our society has decided it can tolerate this; if one or two of the five on a particular day is a cyclist well, society has decided it can tolerate that too. Juries reflect that tolerance.


----------



## Crankarm (2 Nov 2013)

glenn forger said:


> http://www.darkerside.org/2013/10/helen-measures-and-the-death-of-denisa/
> 
> The "facts" presented to the court were completely false.



"Good character" is not the lay meaning ie did lots of charity work etc although the defendant might well have done. Legally it means of no previous criminal convictions, no criminal record. A previous conviction would mean legally she was not of good character even if she was almost a saint in terms of charity work and her counsel would not rely on it. Had she not been of good character then it would have been very difficult of her or her lawyer to impune her deceased victim casting invalid aspirations about her inexperience and lack of cycling ability as hopefully the prosecution would jump at the chance of attacking the bad character of the defendant.


----------



## Boris Bajic (2 Nov 2013)

It is a tragic case and there may be some case for questioning the verdict, although not through the courts. Nonetheless, it was the verdict reached and the judge did not seem to find it unusual or worthy of comment that this was so. Judges who find that the verdict seems out of kilter with the evidence presented usually remark on this and this is usually reported in the media. There was no comment in this case.

There is a proportion of cases in which the CPS considers prosecution a valid step and conviction likely, but the jury disagrees. That is what happened in this case. 

I've read here and elsewhere speculation that juries alter their verdict on the basis of "there but for the grace of God go I..." Along with many other CC members, I've done jury service. I sat on three juries between many long waits, with some common members in all three and some I saw only once. The notion that a jury will openly or tacitly adopt the mindset that leaway should be given 'as this could easily have been them' is one I do not recognise from personal experience.

Just out of curiosity, has anyone in CC sat on a jury where they suspect this mindset had an effect on the outcome or the verdict?


----------



## glenn forger (2 Nov 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> It is a tragic case and there may be some case for questioning the verdict, although blah blah blah



You said exactly the same thing here:

http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/i-cant-help-it-if-a-cyclist-falls-over.140824/post-2736156

And again here:

http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/i-cant-help-it-if-a-cyclist-falls-over.140824/post-2699784

Here too:

http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/i-cant-help-it-if-a-cyclist-falls-over.140824/post-2699740

Again here:

http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/i-cant-help-it-if-a-cyclist-falls-over.140824/post-2699594

Once more here:

http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/i-cant-help-it-if-a-cyclist-falls-over.140824/post-2698405

Your other contributions to the thread were to repeat the lie that Denisa was "inexperienced" and to say that "it is not the job of the parents" to correct the lies printed about their daughter. You said that here:

http://www.cyclechat.net/threads/i-cant-help-it-if-a-cyclist-falls-over.140824/post-2736156

The parents were not called as witnesses, killer driver Dr Helen Measures had eleven character witnesses to say she's a wonderful person, and the parents had to sit and listen to their daughter being lied about with no right of reply, then you criticise them for speaking out.

You're spamming the thread. You're posting the exact same drivel over and over and over and over again. Your comments are despicable, and you're deliberately spamming the thread with repetitive posts. Go away.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (2 Nov 2013)

Boris Bajic said:


> It is a tragic case and there may be some case for questioning the verdict, although not through the courts. Nonetheless, it was the verdict reached and the judge did not seem to find it unusual or worthy of comment that this was so. Judges who find that the verdict seems out of kilter with the evidence presented usually remark on this and this is usually reported in the media. There was no comment in this case.
> 
> There is a proportion of cases in which the CPS considers prosecution a valid step and conviction likely, but the jury disagrees. That is what happened in this case.
> 
> ...


 I was on 2 juries with the same person, in both instances his default position was, I know what the evidence shows but I don't want a conviction on my conscience so will say not guilty.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (2 Nov 2013)

shouldbeinbed said:


> I was on 2 juries with the same person, in both instances his default position was, I know what the evidence shows but I don't want a conviction on my conscience so will say not guilty.


I was on a case once where a cabbie held out for ages against everyone else. Just because the accused came from the same part of East London as him.


----------



## Spinney (2 Nov 2013)

shouldbeinbed said:


> I was on 2 juries with the same person, in both instances his default position was, I know what the evidence shows but I don't want a conviction on my conscience so will say not guilty.


Is this something that should have been reported to the judge? May have causes a mistrial - but anyone with that attitude should NOT be on a jury.


----------



## Crankarm (2 Nov 2013)

shouldbeinbed said:


> I was on 2 juries with the same person, in both instances his default position was, I know what the evidence shows but I don't want a conviction on my conscience so will say not guilty.



O M G !


----------



## lukesdad (2 Nov 2013)

shouldbeinbed said:


> I was on 2 juries with the same person, in both instances his default position was, I know what the evidence shows but I don't want a conviction on my conscience so will say not guilty.


 ... and you let that effect the verdict ?


----------



## lukesdad (2 Nov 2013)

Crankarm said:


> O M G !


 Happens all the time get over it


----------



## Crankarm (2 Nov 2013)

lukesdad said:


> Happens all the time get over it



I detect some hostility in your post. Why?


----------



## lukesdad (2 Nov 2013)

jurys will oppose each other cos some smoke and others don't FFS


----------



## lukesdad (2 Nov 2013)

Crankarm said:


> I detect some hostility in your post. Why?[/quoyou detect wrong


oops you detect wrong


----------



## Arfcollins (2 Nov 2013)

I am view number 8600.


----------



## shouldbeinbed (3 Nov 2013)

lukesdad said:


> ... and you let that effect the verdict ?


No.

you seem to assume he was some sort of Henry Fonda persuader and the rest of us were weak willed or similarly unprofessional in our outlook to go along with him.


----------



## raindog (3 Nov 2013)

shouldbeinbed said:


> No.
> 
> you seem to assume he was some sort of Henry Fonda persuader


That film was on French TV here a couple weeks ago. Never seen it before - pretty interesting.


----------



## Crankarm (3 Nov 2013)

raindog said:


> That film was on French TV here a couple weeks ago. Never seen it before - pretty interesting.



In France the judicial system is fundamentally the reverse of ours - you are guilty until proven innocent. So quite how the French understand 12 Angry Men would be interesting. They have an inquisitorial justice system as opposed to an adversarial and jury system that we have. Probably better to start another thread.

[post edited by moderator]
*Harassment of moderators*
Please do not harass the moderator team or bring their moderator status into discussions where it is not relevant. They volunteer their free time to help keep _your_ community in good order and are allowed to have and post _their own_ opinions, just like you!


----------



## raindog (4 Nov 2013)

Crankarm said:


> In France the judicial system is fundamentally the reverse of ours


It used to be, Crank, but it was modified some years ago.


----------



## Crankarm (4 Nov 2013)

raindog said:


> It used to be, Crank, but it was modified some years ago.



The Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of the Council of Europe says (art. 6.2): "Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law". This convention has been adopted by treaty and is binding on all Council of Europe members, including all members of the European Union.

I forgot this. Ooops .


----------



## Origamist (7 Nov 2013)

After writing a letter of condolence, I received a detailed and heart-felt reply form Denisa's parents (which I do not think is appropriate to post here).

I would only add that they are considering further legal redress and are still trying to come to terms with their loss.


----------



## deptfordmarmoset (7 Nov 2013)

Origamist said:


> After writing a letter of condolence, I received a detailed and heart-felt reply form Denisa's parents (which I do not think is appropriate to post here).
> 
> I would only add that they are considering further legal redress and are still trying to come to terms with their loss.


Very good of you to write. By all accounts it was a sickening case and I wish them all the best in getting some piece of fairness out of the legal system.


----------



## glenn forger (7 Nov 2013)

maybe if someone set up a website highlighting this travesty it could coordinate the attempts of those who would like in any way, with advice or donations?


----------



## Matthew_T (8 Nov 2013)

Bizarrely, my family have been involved in a situation where a cyclist has been hit head on. I am not going into any detail but the road was pitch black and apparently the cyclist just 'appeared out of nowhere'. The cyclist is okay but just has lots of broken bones. I know the cyclist as he is in the local club.


----------



## Frood42 (8 Nov 2013)

Matthew_T said:


> just has lots of broken bones


 


Speedy recovery hoped for then.

(not sure "just" is quite how I would word such injuries , but I get what you mean).


----------



## Matthew_T (8 Nov 2013)

Frood42 said:


> Speedy recovery hoped for then.
> 
> (not sure "just" is quite how I would word such injuries , but I get what you mean).


I mean that there is no serious or life threatening injuries. I have seen the car that he hit today and the design has probably saved him. It did what it was designed to do.


----------



## Browser (9 Nov 2013)

Only just seen this post and am playing catch-up, so I apologise if this has been posted before. I wonder if the reaction would have differed if we substituted the cyclists in thsi story for horses, would the reaction have been the same? (sadly it probably would)


----------



## Browser (9 Nov 2013)

Does anyone have any onformation regarding the location of this incident, which direction the various parties involved were driving in etc?


----------



## Spinney (9 Nov 2013)

Browser said:


> Does anyone have any onformation regarding the location of this incident, which direction the various parties involved were driving in etc?


See pages 13 & 14 of this thread.


----------



## Browser (11 Nov 2013)

Thanks Spinney.


----------



## Browser (11 Nov 2013)

Origamist said:


> CrashMap has the location of the fatality.http://www.crashmap.co.uk/Search (type Stonor and it is the only black flag on the map). StreetView is enabled.
> 
> Notice how narrow the lanes are in the vicinity of the crash site on the bend. It is also clear that sightlines would have been compromised (more so than Street View suggests as Dr Measures' car was either partially or wholly in the opposing lane - unlike the Street View car).



Thanks for this link bud, will have to bookmark this site for future reference.
The scary thing for me is, looking at the Streetview pictures of the incident site, is that the road looks exactly like the type of road that I and I'd imagine a great many of the members on here have or do cycle along on a regular basis. I makes me shudder when I think that that could have been anyone I know, as many cyclists I am aquainted with are nervous around normal, considerate traffic, let along careless and unthinking fools such as Dr Helen Measures. It's sad that she's probably saved or had a part in saving a number of lives in her career only to take one under such tragic and totally avoidable circumstances.
Pardon me for possibly introducing a note of controversy into proceedings, but does anyone else find the inclusion in the Daily Mail article that she was a church bellringer utterly pointless? What possible bearing on the outcome of the incident can the fact that she went to church have? I was in a church choir for 13 years and served as sacristan of the church for a number more, and I don't remember receiving or being offered any how-to-drive-more-safely instruction in all that time.


----------



## Crankarm (11 Nov 2013)

Crankarm said:


> In France the judicial system is fundamentally the reverse of ours - you are guilty until proven innocent. So quite how the French understand 12 Angry Men would be interesting. They have an inquisitorial justice system as opposed to an adversarial and jury system that we have. Probably better to start another thread.
> 
> [post edited by moderator]
> *Harassment of moderators*
> Please do not harass the moderator team or bring their moderator status into discussions where it is not relevant. They volunteer their free time to help keep _your_ community in good order and are allowed to have and post _their own_ opinions, just like you!




Just seen this. What the hell was all this about?


----------

