# Dooring kills cyclist, verdict "Accidental death"



## dawesome (9 Aug 2012)

http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/9..._s_death_was_an_accident_says_inquest/?ref=mr

Looks like no charges. Beyond belief. Cycle out of the door zone and you get bibbed and suffer revenge overtakes, cycle in the door zone and someone could kill you and nothing happens.


----------



## Red Light (9 Aug 2012)

That's the Coroner's inquest whose job is to determine the cause of death, not the responsibility which is the Court's job. The outcome is not surprising for an inquest. The Court outcome should be quite different.


----------



## dawesome (9 Aug 2012)

What court outcome? There's no mention of charges.


----------



## Red Light (9 Aug 2012)

dawesome said:


> What court outcome? There's no mention of charges.



Because the trial probably hasn't taken place yet and its not the concern of the inquest. If it does come to trial it is an offence under the Road Vehicles Construction and Use Regulations to open a car door so as to endanger or cause harm to someone so I would expect at least that charge.


----------



## dawesome (9 Aug 2012)

> It emerges today that the inquest into the death of James has instead recorded a verdict of ‘accidental death’, once again casting the death of a cyclist caused directly by the actions of another road user as a simple consequence of fate.
> 
> I don’t understand how this can be the case.
> 
> ...


 
http://www.darkerside.org/bikestuff/doored/


----------



## Darkerside (9 Aug 2012)

Yup, I'll freely admit (and included in the post) to my low legal knowledge, but I'm surprised and disappointed it didn't even justify a narrative verdict. Unlawful killing is closer to my impression of what's gone on, but that's clearly quite emotive language and presumably had a whole host of prerequisites.

Clearly inquests work within existing legal definitions, but there's so much implied by the word accidental I don't see how it won't affect any subsequent court case.

Will update post to make that a bit clearer.

Edit - further reading suggests that Unlawful Killing would be far too severe based on the definitions I can find on Wikipedia, so Narrative seems the fairest of the options available.


----------



## dawesome (9 Aug 2012)

The reporting is dreadful too.


----------



## Darkerside (9 Aug 2012)

You're knowledge here is clearly far greater than mine, so hope you don't mind if I pick your brains. What's the point of the inquest then? I can understand a coroner giving their opinion on a cause of death, but that's surely based solely on medical evidence. There'll be some overlap given the medical investigation will look at the mechanism of injury, but do we then ask the same person to give a finger in the air assessment of whether it was, in their opinion, intentional? 

I'm familiar with rail/air/marine investigation reports where an incident is investigated and conclusions drawn, but they don't then attempt to group the whole thing under a simplistic summary heading.

I suspect this is going to come down to a well defined legal term having a slightly different meaning in normal usage.


----------



## Cubist (9 Aug 2012)

Coroners can however make recommendations, most often in the case of "Unlawful Killing" and "Narrative verdicts"


----------



## Darkerside (9 Aug 2012)

Thanks both.


----------



## StuartG (10 Aug 2012)

The issue here comes down to the word 'accidental'. IANAL so will not comment on its legal meaning. However language is always evolving. Accident is more definitely associated in the vernacular with 'no blame', 'fate', 'chance' etc. It is pejorative. Hence is there a case the legal language should also change?

Here in London the traditional yellow signs put up by the Met seeking witnesses now refer to the more neutral 'Incident' rather than 'accident'. Indeed I'm now shocked with some provincial forces who have yet to catch up. The use of a pejorative word could so easily prejudice people's perception - as here with the OP. Worse if it was an investigating officer.


----------



## AnotherEye (10 Aug 2012)

User said:


> The purpose of an inquest is to answer four questions:
> 
> who has died
> where they died
> ...


 & to establish what can be done to avoid further deaths in the future under similar circumstances.


----------



## srw (10 Aug 2012)

AnotherEye said:


> & to establish what can be done to avoid further deaths in the future under similar circumstances.


 
[sits and waits for the inevitable pedantry...]


----------



## lordloveaduck (10 Aug 2012)

srw said:


> [sits and waits for the inevitable pedantry...]


 
Excuse me. Your sitting on my hand


----------



## psmiffy (10 Aug 2012)

My understanding was that Inquests were adjourned if there was a court case pending so that the inquest did not prejudice the outcome - so no charges?


----------



## AnotherEye (10 Aug 2012)

A few points: "the cyclist hit the car door". Surely this should read "the car door hit the cyclist" or "collision between the car door and the cyclist".
From what I've read (above), it appears that the driver has broken the law and should be prosecuted however a google reveals nothing. In my limited experience (death of Marie Vesco), the date of the inquest is not usually set until after the CPS has decided on a prosecution, ie, the trial will come before the inquest. If I'm correct then we could assume that there will be no prosecution (which troubles me) though a decision could be reversed after considering any new evidence that may emerge from the inquest.
As I've said, it is the driver & not the cyclist who has broken the law; nevertheless it is unwise to ride so close to parked cars at any speed ( & "at around 25 or 30 miles an hour" unnecessary though there may have been a reason that was not reported).


----------



## PK99 (10 Aug 2012)

AnotherEye said:


> A few points: "the cyclist hit the car door". Surely this should read "the car door hit the cyclist" or "collision between the car door and the cyclist".
> .


 

Depends on what happened - from the report it sounds like the door was open (when it should not have been) and the cyclist hit it.

Plus, i agree that sad events such as this emphasise the need to avoid cycling in the door zone - especially at speed.


----------



## dawesome (10 Aug 2012)

It doesn't sound like the door was already open:



> "Mr Darby, of Aviemore Way Road, Beckenham, collided with the door of the car as owner, Lena Pennacchia, opened it to get out of the vehicle."


----------



## dellzeqq (13 Aug 2012)

Motorists don't get charged with manslaughter. That's the way of things. Paul Channon came up with the offence of 'causing death by dangerous driving' and Alastair Darling came up with 'causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving' in 2006 - both, in fairness, to give the justice system another angle for fatal 'accidents'. Around 2008/9 a SWLDA member was killed by a door in Epsom. The bit from the ensuing controversy that comes to mind is this

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. 

Note - the word 'driving'.


----------



## CopperCyclist (13 Aug 2012)

dellzeqq said:


> Motorists don't get charged with manslaughter. That's the way of things.



Not entirely true. Actually when they door people and cause death sometimes they do. It is however true to say "Motorists very rarely get charged with manslaughter"

http://road.cc/content/news/51901-m...er-death-last-year-london-cyclist-sam-harding


----------



## Red Light (13 Aug 2012)

StuartG said:


> The issue here comes down to the word 'accidental'. IANAL so will not comment on its legal meaning. However language is always evolving. Accident is more definitely associated in the vernacular with 'no blame', 'fate', 'chance' etc. It is pejorative. Hence is there a case the legal language should also change?



The use of accidental death (or death by misadventure as it is also called0 is to indicate that it was not the result of a deliberate action intended to kill - which would be suicide, unlawful killing or lawful killing - rather than it was without blame.


----------



## dellzeqq (13 Aug 2012)

CopperCyclist said:


> Not entirely true. Actually when they door people and cause death sometimes they do. It is however true to say "Motorists very rarely get charged with manslaughter"
> 
> http://road.cc/content/news/51901-m...er-death-last-year-london-cyclist-sam-harding


that's very imformative, thankyou


----------



## vernon (16 Aug 2012)

It was enlightening riding through Germany, Austria, Slovakia and Hungary in late July/early August. Motorists there seem to be far more aware of the consequences of their actions and if any doubt about rights of way occurred they always ceded to the cyclists. They took great care to check if it was safe to open the drivers side door and it seemed unnatural. I'm accustomed to seeing doors opened fully without checking in the UK and the protocol in the aforementioned countries seems so be to open the door a smidging, conduct a thorough visual check for approaching traffic, open the door a bid wider and double check before fully opening the door.


----------



## CamPhil (18 Aug 2012)

If the death came about through an unlawful action, then the correct verdict should be unlawful death.
I cannot see any other rational verdict.
Deciding it is "accidental death" devalues the life of the victim and trivialises the offence of killing an innocent victim.
The coroner is colluding in the injustice by passing an incorrect verdict.


----------



## AnotherEye (18 Aug 2012)

CamPhil said:


> .... Deciding it is "accidental death" devalues the life of the victim and trivialises the offence of killing an innocent victim.
> The coroner is colluding in the injustice by passing an incorrect verdict.


Agree, there was a story in yesterdays Evening Standard about someone who was killed when taking a roundabout at about 70 mph in London. Coroners verdict was "accidental death", surely it should have been "death by misadventure"?


----------

