# Cyclist brings first private prosecution for dangerous driving



## TwickenhamCyclist (8 Mar 2016)

Fairly close to home as well... the trial continues today in Isleworth

A cyclist who was nearly knocked off his bike after a sports car driver overtook him closely at speed has brought what is believed to be the UK’s first private prosecution for dangerous driving.
Barrister Martin Porter brought the case after police declined to take action, Isleworth Crown Court heard on Monday.
LINK


----------



## jefmcg (8 Mar 2016)

What is wrong with people??? The article is about a car going at 50 in a 30 zone, thus posing as a severe risk to all other road users, yet the commenters are all about cycles needing insurance.

I would much rather be hit by an uninsured cyclist than a heavily insured driver travelling at 50 mph


----------



## steveindenmark (8 Mar 2016)

That could open the flood gates if he wins. I hope the driver gets costs against him because this would not have been a cheap prosecution to undertake.


----------



## Milkfloat (8 Mar 2016)

I am a bit confused by him being accused of pursuing a personal vendetta - surely every private prosecution is exactly that. What matters is that Martin Porter has the skills to do it, whilst the rest of us do not. Good on him I say.


----------



## hatler (8 Mar 2016)

Good on him. I hope he gets a result.


----------



## Dogtrousers (8 Mar 2016)

Milkfloat said:


> I am a bit confused by him being accused of pursuing a personal vendetta - surely every private prosecution is exactly that. What matters is that Martin Porter has the skills to do it, whilst the rest of us do not. Good on him I say.


A vendetta is a prolonged campaign of revenge. Often escalating beyond the original wrong. Simply going to the law doesn't qualify as a vendetta. Its an utterly daft word to use.


----------



## Banjo (8 Mar 2016)

The really disgusting fact to emerge is that the idiot driver is a driving instructor.

Also that's the first time I have heard of heart rate monitor info being used as evidence. His big jump in heart rate immediately after the close pass proves he was alarmed.


----------



## mjr (8 Mar 2016)

Banjo said:


> The really disgusting fact to emerge is that the idiot driver is a driving instructor.


Oh wow. I'd not seen that before. So many worrying aspects to this case


----------



## ianrauk (8 Mar 2016)

..and all the usual cretinus anti-cycling comments being left.


----------



## Lonestar (8 Mar 2016)

ianrauk said:


> ..and all the usual cretinus anti-cycling comments being left.



Yup,I saw that,totally missing the point as usual.

J*ulia
That's a great idea. They should pay the same as people who drive electric cars. Also pedestrians should pay pavement tax, since they don't pay for the pavements they use. They should also be prosecuted if they cross the road and not use the pedestrian crossing that's built especially for them. They should also pay pedestrian insurance if they want to cross the road.*

**

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/tran...-for-child-cyclists-say-parents-a3197961.html

Also is this by some hypocritical parents who make the roads dangerous?


----------



## HLaB (8 Mar 2016)

I hate a sue culture but this is one sue I'd like to see set a successful precedent!


----------



## gavintc (8 Mar 2016)

I had to stop reading the comments, it was making me angry.


----------



## HLaB (8 Mar 2016)

User said:


> This is a prosecution.


I must admit I'm not up with the whole legal thing I find it all pretty disgusting tbh!


----------



## derrick (8 Mar 2016)

All because the police will not do there job properly. Am still waiting to here back from the police complaints officers, After my wife was knocked of her bike on a roundabout, the police refused to prosecute her even though the car was unfit to be on the road. Unbelievable. 
Lets just hope he gets a result.


----------



## CopperCyclist (8 Mar 2016)

I'm hoping he gets a result. Very brave to go straight for the dangerous drive rather than the much easier careless too. 

I hope the driver then appeals to a higher court, and loses as that will then give you a good bit of case law for close passes...


----------



## NorthernDave (8 Mar 2016)

Banjo said:


> The really disgusting fact to emerge is that the idiot driver is a driving instructor.



In my experience, driving instructors are some of the worst drivers around - some of the worst close passes I've suffered have been from "school of motoring" vehicles, which is pretty unforgivable given they are meant to be preparing their students for life on the road.


----------



## Shut Up Legs (8 Mar 2016)

NorthernDave said:


> In my experience, driving instructors are some of the worst drivers around - some of the worst close passes I've suffered have been from "school of motoring" vehicles, which is pretty unforgivable given they are meant to be preparing their students for life on the road.


They are preparing their students for life on the road, which is a daily round of doing dangerous driving and getting away with it.


----------



## jefmcg (8 Mar 2016)

Banjo said:


> The really disgusting fact to emerge is that the idiot driver is a driving instructor.
> 
> Also that's the first time I have heard of heart rate monitor info being used as evidence. His big jump in heart rate immediately after the close pass proves he was alarmed.


HRM and cadence (or power meter) "heart rate rose suddenly, even though his work rate slowed"

I wonder how many times the "quantified life" has shown up in court?


----------



## Apollonius (8 Mar 2016)

This could be really important. Police and courts generally go with the received wisdom that Car is King and Might is Right. If a court is obliged to look at it logically and without those prejudices, then we could see a real shift in the way the law is applied. OK, I am an optimist, but this could just work.


----------



## jefmcg (8 Mar 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> That could open the flood gates if he wins. I hope the driver gets costs against him because this would not have been a cheap prosecution to undertake.


Does anyone know if you can be ordered to pay costs in a criminal prosecution? I'd guess not, but if you can, then "wow". Martin Porter is a QC, and apparently (thanks google) they come at something over £1000/hour. Can you imagine losing your license and your career and having to hand the guy who did it to you enough money to buy a flat?


----------



## derrick (8 Mar 2016)

Nothing will change unless the likes of Boris or Jeremy get knocked of there bikes or worse. Then you may see a change but don't hold your breath.


----------



## jefmcg (8 Mar 2016)

derrick said:


> Nothing will change unless the likes of *Boris* or Jeremy get knocked of there bikes or worse. Then you may see a change but don't hold your breath.


yeah, not boris. He was one of the cyclists here.



Embedded media from this media site is no longer available


That would make me devote my life to cycle safety. Not boris.


----------



## jefmcg (8 Mar 2016)

User said:


> Yes, I think that in bringing the prosecution privately, Martin Porter is vulnerable to paying costs in the event of an aquital.


That seems reasonable. But in a conviction?


----------



## Andrew_P (8 Mar 2016)

ianrauk said:


> ..and all the usual cretinus anti-cycling comments being left.


Worse still we share the roads with people thinking like this, I avoid reading them these days far too depressing.


----------



## fossyant (8 Mar 2016)

derrick said:


> All because the police will not do there job properly. Am still waiting to here back from the police complaints officers, After my wife was knocked of her bike on a roundabout, the police refused to prosecute her even though the car was unfit to be on the road. Unbelievable.
> Lets just hope he gets a result.



Same here - Leigh Day are still on the back of GMP for me. I won't let it drop.


----------



## ufkacbln (8 Mar 2016)

jefmcg said:


> HRM and cadence (or power meter) "heart rate rose suddenly, even though his work rate slowed"
> 
> I wonder how many times the "quantified life" has shown up in court?



OT, but an answer to the above

In the US there have been a couple of cases

One was where the record from a fitness monitor was used to prove that an accident victim was affected by an accident and unable to achieve the same fitness level as before the accident

In another case an alleged assault was "disproved" and one of the key elements was that at the time of the assault the victim was shown to be walking normally and a normal heart rate at the time of the assault

It is only a matter of time before these are used more


----------



## Origamist (8 Mar 2016)

I see that the case is being heard in a Crown Court - it means stiffer custodial sentences are available to the judge, if the driver is found guilty. Not that I think a prison term is likely...

Clearly, by opting for the more serious charge of Dangerous Driving, Martin Porter and his team will have a tougher job, but I did rub Buddha's belly this afternoon, so I hoping for a guilty verdict. 

If the driver is acquitted, Porter will have further evidence that the current legislation is not capable of providing redress for cyclists who are endangered by idiots behind the wheel. That said, the fact that the CPS would not prosecute in the first place, is evidence enough of the limitations of the legislation.


----------



## PK99 (8 Mar 2016)

Milkfloat said:


> I am a bit confused by him being accused of pursuing a *personal vendetta* - surely every private prosecution is exactly that. What matters is that Martin Porter has the skills to do it, whilst the rest of us do not. Good on him I say.



A key professional interest and business of his is cycling cases:

http://www.2tg.co.uk/ImageLibrary/Martin Porter - Cycling Weekly.pdf

http://www.2tg.co.uk/barristers/profile/martin-porter-qc


----------



## 400bhp (8 Mar 2016)

PK99 said:


> A key professional interest and business of his is cycling cases:
> 
> http://www.2tg.co.uk/ImageLibrary/Martin Porter - Cycling Weekly.pdf
> 
> http://www.2tg.co.uk/barristers/profile/martin-porter-qc



What's your point?


----------



## PK99 (8 Mar 2016)

400bhp said:


> What's your point?



@Milkfloat said he was confused by the suggestion of personal vendetta. I was helping mf see where that suggestion came from.


----------



## the snail (8 Mar 2016)

Origamist said:


> ...That said, the fact that the CPS would not prosecute in the first place, is evidence enough of the limitations of the legislation.


I don't think it's anything to do with legislation, more that the CPS has limited resources, and take an over-cautious approach. Plus it was only a cyclist and nobody died.


----------



## Drago (9 Mar 2016)

And the obvious mistake in the reporting of the story is...?


----------



## flake99please (9 Mar 2016)

Unless the CPS can forcefully take over a private prosecution, I think your concerns are not necessary. I doubt there are many people in the UK who are better qualified to handle this case. Best of British luck to him I say in getting a satisfactory outcome.


----------



## Origamist (9 Mar 2016)

the snail said:


> I don't think it's anything to do with legislation, more that the CPS has limited resources, and take an over-cautious approach. Plus it was only a cyclist and nobody died.



I would not disagree that the CPS are part of the problem, but the current road traffic legislation on these matters is (still) weak and the penalties not severe enough.


----------



## Pale Rider (9 Mar 2016)

The case has already started before a jury, the CPS cannot now take it over.

Ultimately, the Director of Public Prosecutions can halt a private prosecution at any time.

I think that would have happened already if it was going to, so it appears this one will be allowed to proceed to a conclusion.


----------



## Milkfloat (9 Mar 2016)

PK99 said:


> @Milkfloat said he was confused by the suggestion of personal vendetta. I was helping mf see where that suggestion came from.



I was more confused as to why it would not be a personal vendetta - I was stating that every private prosecution is one. I also don't think that this is anything negative.


----------



## Spinney (9 Mar 2016)

Milkfloat said:


> I was more confused as to why it would not be a personal vendetta - I was stating that every private prosecution is one. I also don't think that this is anything negative.









Porter isn't pursuing a vendetta, he's after simple justice. If he wins, the driver will be prosecuted and that will be the end of it. 

It's a personal prosecution, yes, but that does not make it a vendetta. The only difference between Porter doing this and me doing it (should I be unfortunate enough to need to do something like this), is that I would have to fork out for a barrister.


----------



## Pale Rider (9 Mar 2016)

Milkfloat said:


> I was more confused as to why it would not be a personal vendetta - I was stating that every private prosecution is one. I also don't think that this is anything negative.



For this legal purpose, a vendetta would be a long running dispute.

Porter didn't know the driver until the incident, and clearly would not have gone after him had the incident not happened.

Thus Porter is safe from allegations of pursuing a vendetta against the driver.

Porter has made a determined attempt to get this matter before the courts, but happily an injured party is allowed to do that.


----------



## Pale Rider (9 Mar 2016)

Porter is paying someone else to prosecute it.

Probably wise, there is an old saying among lawyers 'a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client', meaning as a lawyer you are too close to case in which you are personally involved to do a good job of it.

Also, Porter's expertise may not be in criminal law and he may not have prosecuted many or any dangerous driving cases.

Far better to get someone experienced in those cases to do it.


----------



## SavageHoutkop (9 Mar 2016)

Interesting that he's paying someone else to do it. I hope he wins, would set a precedent. Driving like that, especially from a driving instructor!!, should never be tolerated. 
I seem to recall he's previously had lots of 'I forgot to issue the notice of intended prosecution in time' type of response from his police service, to the extent that he's issued them himself. They need to be issued within 14 days or there's no case. Perhaps this was the final straw.


----------



## Spinney (9 Mar 2016)

Pale Rider said:


> Porter is paying someone else to prosecute it.


Thanks - I hadn't registered that!


----------



## SavageHoutkop (9 Mar 2016)

fossyant said:


> Same here - Leigh Day are still on the back of GMP for me. I won't let it drop.


That's disappointing. I was at the Cycle Forum last night and three GMP members specifically from the Traffic division were present to discuss Operation Considerate. They all seemed genuinely concerned for road safety; probably as they are the ones who get involved in cases where people have died and have to deal with grieving family members. I wonder if this is a case of the average police officer not caring much whereas the traffic-specific ones might? I know there are not many specific traffic officers given the size of GM, which probably doesn't help. I know you have the solicitors on the case so no point inquiring personally but if that need ever did arise I'll see if I can fish out the names of the officers who attended for you so you can inquire via them.


----------



## Pale Rider (9 Mar 2016)

Spinney said:


> Thanks - I hadn't registered that!



As a minor point, Porter will have lots of friends in the law.

This means he knows who will be good for this job, and like any trade or profession, 'mates rates' exist in the law.

It may be the prosecutor has agreed to do it at a discount, or even as a favour.

All perfectly proper, Porter's relationship with his barrister is a matter for the pair of them.


----------



## hatler (9 Mar 2016)

This all sounds like mildly positive progress. Does anyone have any idea when the trial will finish ?

This is the sort of thing the CDF should be involved with, but if Mr Porter is willing to fund this on his own, then all power to him (and the CDF can save their cash for another day).


----------



## glenn forger (9 Mar 2016)

_Mr Kayardi, 33, who had been a driving instructor since 2009 and has taught over 200 people to drive, accused Mr Porter of cycling dangerously.

The motorist, who has a clean licence and no previous convictions, said he checked ahead before overtaking and did so when the road was clear and there was a safe distance between him and the cyclist.

‘I did not put Mr Porter’s life in danger. I did it when it was quite safe to do so,’ he said.

‘I did not cause any harm to him or oncoming traffic.’

But he said when Mr Porter came to confront him, the cyclist crossed over the white lines to the wrong side of the road and later ‘cut him up’ as he weaved through traffic to tell a nearby policeman.

The officer spoke to both men but let them go, and Mr Kayardi assumed it was the end of the matter._


----------



## benborp (9 Mar 2016)

hatler said:


> ...
> 
> This is the sort of thing the CDF should be involved with, but if Mr Porter is willing to fund this on his own, then all power to him (and the CDF can save their cash for another day).



road.cc says that the prosecution is being brought with the support of the CDF.


----------



## fossyant (9 Mar 2016)

SavageHoutkop said:


> That's disappointing. I was at the Cycle Forum last night and three GMP members specifically from the Traffic division were present to discuss Operation Considerate. They all seemed genuinely concerned for road safety; probably as they are the ones who get involved in cases where people have died and have to deal with grieving family members. I wonder if this is a case of the average police officer not caring much whereas the traffic-specific ones might? I know there are not many specific traffic officers given the size of GM, which probably doesn't help. I know you have the solicitors on the case so no point inquiring personally but if that need ever did arise I'll see if I can fish out the names of the officers who attended for you so you can inquire via them.



The officer that attended was 11249 Doughty and attended hospital. Nothing was done for over 6 weeks as they recorded me as minor injuries and home same day (not severe injuries and over 6 weeks in hospital).

The officer who picked up the case was Officer Pennington, and his attitude was shocking, and according to my solicitors they broke just about every rule they have ! I have no time for GMP - Operation Considerate, my bottom, Operation Cyclists are gutter trash more like.

We have one station now in Cheadle which covers the whole of South Manchester, and they literally have a couple of traffic cars. They don't have the officers on the ground so can' be bothered. You see it time and time again on here - motorists are free to run cyclists down.


----------



## SavageHoutkop (9 Mar 2016)

Isn't 'GMP Traffic' a different division though? I think they might be unrelated to the local police on the ground.


----------



## machew (9 Mar 2016)

Pale Rider said:


> Porter is paying someone else to prosecute it.
> 
> Probably wise, there is an old saying among lawyers 'a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client', meaning as a lawyer you are too close to case in which you are personally involved to do a good job of it.
> 
> ...


His field is the personal injury. And he holds a British Cycling Category 3 racing licence.


----------



## glenn forger (9 Mar 2016)

The driver thinks there's nothing wrong with it. The jurors will think there's nothing wrong with it cos I doubt they're regular cyclists.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (9 Mar 2016)

Kayardi acquitted. Martin Porter will issue a statement later.


GC


----------



## Spinney (9 Mar 2016)

Bugger.


----------



## hatler (9 Mar 2016)

Balls.


----------



## Scoosh (9 Mar 2016)




----------



## fossyant (9 Mar 2016)

No surprise in that outcome.


----------



## Shadow (9 Mar 2016)

Disappointing outcome.
Is he likely to appeal? If not, I'd like to line the jury up on bikes and have a car pass them at arms length at 50mph.


----------



## Banjo (9 Mar 2016)

Bo££ocks.


----------



## Glow worm (9 Mar 2016)

Entirely predictable and utterly pathetic.


----------



## Milkfloat (9 Mar 2016)

What a shame - has his vedeo been published so we know what is 'acceptable?'


----------



## Nibor (9 Mar 2016)

steveindenmark said:


> That could open the flood gates if he wins. I hope the driver gets costs against him because this would not have been a cheap prosecution to undertake.


Significantly cheaper if you are the actual Barrister


----------



## numbnuts (9 Mar 2016)

So it's OK to do 50 in a 30 speed limit and scare the shoot of of cyclists


----------



## Tim Hall (9 Mar 2016)

Nibor said:


> Significantly cheaper if you are the actual Barrister


But although Martin Porter is a barrister, he didn't represent himself.


----------



## Nibor (9 Mar 2016)

He wasn't defending anything he brought a prosecution. and I am sure there are mates rates.


----------



## benborp (9 Mar 2016)

BikeBiz piece on the aquittal.


----------



## CopperCyclist (9 Mar 2016)

Disappointing, but unfortunately I'm not surprised. I wonder if it would have been different had they have gone for careless instead of dangerous?


----------



## Markymark (9 Mar 2016)

Maybe the CPS know what they're doing, made the right call and the problem simply lies in the public as a whole on average not caring about the dangers cyclists face.


----------



## Origamist (9 Mar 2016)

CopperCyclist said:


> Disappointing, but unfortunately I'm not surprised. I wonder if it would have been different had they have gone for careless instead of dangerous?



Quite possibly. I certainly think there would have been a greater chance of a conviction, but going for the more serious charge was clearly a tactical decision. I'd be interested to hear the reasoning behind the Dangerous Driving charge.

I think for many jurors the "fact" that it was "only" a near hit/close call, probably led to the acquittal - regardless of the excessive speed and proximity to the cyclist.

Given that close passes and speeding are fairly regular occurrences on our roads, that rarely have serious consequences and usually go unpunished, it is not surprising that 12 jurors did not consider Kayardi's driving to:

fall *far below* the minimum acceptable standard expected of a competent and careful driver; *and*
it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous.

as it is normalised behaviour.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (9 Mar 2016)

Here is Martin Porter's statement on the acquittal: http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/private-prosecution-results-in-aquittal.html

GC


----------



## RoubaixCube (9 Mar 2016)

well, With results like this its no wonder that people think they can drive like pillocks with complete disregard for the safety of other road users with impunity.

Unless the justice system & police take a strong stance against drivers that behave badly & potentially put others at risk then standards will continue to drop.

Why does the Highway Code even exist if people are going to be allowed to blatantly abuse it? you might as well throw out the need for driving exams & driving licenses as people dont need to follow the rules anyway.


----------



## Banjo (9 Mar 2016)

Lets hope the camera footage doesn't go on the net for the car worshippers to gloat at .

I feel gutted at the verdict .Hard to imagine Martin Porters disappointment though I suspect he will not be as naïve as me and was probably more prepared for such an unforgivable miscarriage of justice.


----------



## Markymark (9 Mar 2016)

If nobody outside court has seen the footage, how bad do we know it is? I understand we've been told by the defence, but do we know what the experts calculated it to be?


----------



## Banjo (9 Mar 2016)

An expert witness calculated the cars speed at 51 to 57 mph in a 30 zone and the distance between car and shoulder between 60 and 80 cms.


----------



## jefmcg (9 Mar 2016)

Banjo said:


> An expert witness calculated the cars speed at 51 to 57 mph in a 30 zone and the distance between car and shoulder between 60 and 80 cms.


Yes.

Do we know if the defence had an expert? Did he agree with that speed and distance?

It's possible the jury decided that 50 mph and 60 cms were acceptable. It's also possible that they decided he was slower and further away than the prosecution claimed.


----------



## CopperCyclist (9 Mar 2016)

It's a very difficult one. If the jury were made up from people on here, the result would be different. But a normal, balanced person who had never ridden a bicycle on our streets... 

I fear that for that "normal" person, the argument from the defence of simply that will always win the burden of proof test would be: "The driver saw and was aware of the cyclist. They moved to leave a space. NO contact was made. The cyclist did not fall over or have their journey impeded in any way. The driver drove as any competent driver would. I suggest a non competent driver would have not seen, collided with, or caused the cyclist to fall off"

No, I don't agree with it - but I can see how a defence could quite easily use that argument every time to win a case of this matter. 

The solution now can only be to lobby for something measurable and defined - a true "minimum passing distance" for example, which would have its own issues - however under the current system I personally can't ever see a successful prosecution for a close pass that doesn't cause a collision - regardless of whether you and I know of it was dangerous or not.


----------



## RoubaixCube (9 Mar 2016)

@CopperCyclist

Maybe its time to start up a petition regarding cyclists safety on london roads and try to get it debated in parliament. Not that it hasnt been debated (or debated to death even) already - Im sure it has on many occasions especially with the accidents and the unfortunate loss of life on london roads of the previous 5 years but more needs to be done apart from giving cyclists their own dedicated 'cycle superhighway' separated from the rest of the traffic.

Cycling in a cycle lane isnt required by law so protection must be extended or offered to those who choose not to.

Then again with all that said and done even if the petition was a success and new rules/laws/regulations were rolled out, our police force are hardly going to pick up the ball and run with it and actually start enforcing them and thats another problem that needs to be taken care of but thats an issue that runs quite deep.

Im sure there are many hard working individuals in the police force who do actually care about their jobs, the communities and the people that they serve but more often than not it seems these are few and far between and a bit of a coin toss to see what sort of copper you'll get to deal with your incident.



Attitudes need to change.


----------



## PK99 (9 Mar 2016)

CopperCyclist said:


> It's a very difficult one. If the jury were made up from people on here, the result would be different. But a normal, balanced person who had never ridden a bicycle on our streets...
> 
> I fear that for that "normal" person, the argument from the defence of simply that will always win the burden of proof test would be: "The driver saw and was aware of the cyclist. They moved to leave a space. NO contact was made. The cyclist did not fall over or have their journey impeded in any way. The driver drove as any competent driver would. I suggest a non competent driver would have not seen, collided with, or caused the cyclist to fall off"
> 
> ...



I'm puzzled as to why the prosecution was for Dangerous rather than Careless or Inconsiderate Driving.

Given the definitions and, in particular, the examples here>> http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/dangerous_driving/ , the facts (as given) would seem to better fit Careless/Inconsiderate


----------



## User482 (9 Mar 2016)

Origamist said:


> Quite possibly. I certainly think there would have been a greater chance of a conviction, but going for the more serious charge was clearly a tactical decision. I'd be interested to hear the reasoning behind the Dangerous Driving charge.
> 
> I think for many jurors the "fact" that it was "only" a near hit/close call, probably led to the acquittal - regardless of the excessive speed and proximity to the cyclist.
> 
> ...



One wonders how a "competent and careful driver" can find themselves exceeding the speed limit by more than 20mph.


----------



## CopperCyclist (9 Mar 2016)

RoubaixCube said:


> @CopperCyclist
> 
> Maybe its time to start up a petition regarding cyclists safety on london roads and try to get it debated in parliament.
> 
> ...



I don't disagree with you. Well, I'd change "London roads" to "roads" but that's about it! 

Enforcing them - yes I agree - even if new laws are brought in, the likelihood of having a traffic officer with the opportunity to police it is slim. Maybe though a few targeted operations would still be a start, and at the very least stop this sort of defence seen in this trial? 

As for it being a coin toss as to what sort of officer you get... Again, you aren't wrong. I do stick by something I said a long time ago when I first started cycling and joined this forum though (I even did a thread on it!) - please remember it's not a case of simply a good cop or a bad cop. Before I started cycling, I had no idea about primary position, reasons for taking a lane, close passes etc. I was as ignorant to them as the jury in this matter were - not because I was bad, but just because I had never cycled, and no one had ever explained it to me. At that time, it seemed logical for me for a cyclist to ride as close to the left as you could to keep "safer". This is almost inconceivable now, but I won't forget how I was a decent person, but simply ignorant of the reality. I'd always urge any cyclist in this sort of scenario to be ready to calmly explain the above to an officer, without resenting them for not already knowing. 

As you say, attitudes need to change. The driving test would possibly be an excellent place to start - you could make extra employment by hiring people to wait on the test route and check the driver passes safely!


----------



## Origamist (9 Mar 2016)

User482 said:


> One wonders how a "competent and careful driver" can find themselves exceeding the speed limit by more than 20mph.



Perhaps he was distracted by a text...ahh, that excuse isn't going to work


----------



## RoubaixCube (9 Mar 2016)

CopperCyclist said:


> you could make extra employment by hiring people to wait on the test route and check the driver passes safely!



somewhat pointless as bad habits are usually picked up after you've passed the exam when you have no driving instructor sitting in the car with you and grading your every move


----------



## jefmcg (9 Mar 2016)

Related to this, I wondered how one could be suspended as a driving instructor. 

https://www.gov.uk/driving-instructor-suspension-your-rights/when-you-can-be-suspended



> [..]you pose a significant threat to public safety.
> For example, if you:
> 
> have been convicted of a sexual or violent offence
> are giving dangerous instruction that’s a major risk to the safety of your pupils and other road users



So it sounds like this conviction (if it had happened) wouldn't have been enough to stop him teaching, and that it's ok to teach poor driving as long as it's not a "major risk".


----------



## boydj (9 Mar 2016)

PK99 said:


> I'm puzzled as to why the prosecution was for Dangerous rather than Careless or Inconsiderate Driving.
> 
> Given the definitions and, in particular, the examples here>> http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/dangerous_driving/ , the facts (as given) would seem to better fit Careless/Inconsiderate



As it was a private prosecution, the decision on the charge was Martin Porter's.


----------



## PK99 (9 Mar 2016)

boydj said:


> As it was a private prosecution, the decision on the charge was Martin Porter's.



Yes, but I'm puzzled as to why he chose the Dangerous option as the hurdle is much higher.


----------



## davefb (9 Mar 2016)

CopperCyclist said:


> Disappointing, but unfortunately I'm not surprised. I wonder if it would have been different had they have gone for careless instead of dangerous?


I do find the wording wierd.
I'd have thought careless would be 'maybe going for a cig, your hand slips, you carelessly wobble about the lane' , whereas dangerous is actively making a decision to drive at an illegal speed and make a move by choice..
You can't 'carelessly' be going that fast .. 
It does feel like they need some different laws and clearly guidelines for 'driving like an idiot endangering' whilst not nesc being dangerous...


----------



## boydj (9 Mar 2016)

PK99 said:


> Yes, but I'm puzzled as to why he chose the Dangerous option as the hurdle is much higher.



There may well be some technicality which limits the level of charge which can be brought in a private prosecution - possibly a 'careless' charge would be too low a level to be brought. 

And anyway, I think that Martin has a very definite point to be made in highlighting what a serious cyclist considers to be dangerous. How many comments have been made on here about decisions to charge 'careless' when the consensus is that 'dangerous' should have been charged?


----------



## 400bhp (9 Mar 2016)

jefmcg said:


> Related to this, I how one could be suspended as a driving instructor.
> 
> https://www.gov.uk/driving-instructor-suspension-your-rights/when-you-can-be-suspended
> 
> ...



I suspect, given he drives an R8, he owns a driving instruction company and has a number of employees that carry out the instruction.


----------



## glenn forger (9 Mar 2016)

_I have been asked for my video but am hesitant to put it into the public domain. There is clearly a risk that it will be held up as driving that has been found to be perfectly acceptable._

Porter.

This is very frightening. Boy racers could see footage of the pass and be encouraged to drive like that on purpose.


----------



## CopperCyclist (9 Mar 2016)

davefb said:


> I do find the wording wierd.
> I'd have thought careless would be 'maybe going for a cig, your hand slips, you carelessly wobble about the lane' , whereas dangerous is actively making a decision to drive at an illegal speed and make a move by choice..
> You can't 'carelessly' be going that fast ..
> It does feel like they need some different laws and clearly guidelines for 'driving like an idiot endangering' whilst not nesc being dangerous...



It's an objective thing. The burden of proof for both is similar. For careless (due care) the standard of driving has to be "below" the standard of a competent driver, and for dangerous it has to be "far below". That's the legal definition. 

Both can be either intentional driving, or 'accidental'. 

The decision is obviously an objective one. CPS give some guidance of when they would charge with which offence - I believe someone actually linked to them earlier, if not it's easily Googleable.


----------



## PK99 (10 Mar 2016)

CopperCyclist said:


> It's an objective thing. The burden of proof for both is similar. For careless (due care) the standard of driving has to be "below" the standard of a competent driver, and for dangerous it has to be "far below". That's the legal definition.
> 
> Both can be either intentional driving, or 'accidental'.
> 
> The decision is obviously an objective one. CPS give some guidance of when they would charge with which offence - I believe someone actually linked to them earlier, if not it's easily Googleable.




It's important also to recognise that "careless" and "dangerous" are being used as legal terms with a meaning distinct from normal usage. While, in normal usage, driving that is careless is dangerous, the legal usage does not follow.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (10 Mar 2016)

CopperCyclist said:


> however under the current system I personally can't ever see a successful prosecution for a close pass that doesn't cause a collision .



Magnatom achieved a conviction for this non-collision close pass - driver fined £175 and 5 points on his licence for careless driving: 
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1itCTjbtKsw


GC


----------



## glenn forger (10 Mar 2016)

Yep, it's a lottery as to which force even accepts video footage, let alone acts on it. (Zero convictions from Roadsafe).


----------



## jefmcg (10 Mar 2016)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Magnatom achieved a conviction for this non-collision close pass - driver fined £175 and 5 points on his licence for careless driving:
> View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1itCTjbtKsw
> GC



This seems different from the description of the video in court. As far as I could tell, Martin took no evasive action and no contact made, so a non-cyclist could judge it was "safe". You don't have to be a cyclist to see that the van forced the rider into the gutter and brake. Even then, it was lucky it wasn't a more serious incident.


----------



## Origamist (10 Mar 2016)

More info here (my bolds):


*Mr Kayardi, 33, who denied the charge, said he overtook the cyclist to 'protect his life' not endanger him, the court was told. *Café owner Mr Kayardi, of Feltham, west London claimed cyclist Martin Porter was cycling in the middle of the lane holding up cars behind him. Drivers behind were becoming frustrated at the delay and were tailgaiting him. One driver sounded his horn, he claimed.

*He feared one of the drivers might try and overtake him and the cyclist together and put other drivers at risk. Instead he carried out the overtaking manoeuvre himself when he judged it was safe to do so.*

*He denied he was travelling at more than 50 mph on the 30 mph stretch of the A315 Hounslow to Staines road in West London in February 2015.

He insisted he was a regular cyclist himself with two bikes as well as a motorcyclist and appreciated the difficulties of being on two wheels on the roads.*

Mr Kayardi said he was very familiar with the road and had been along it 'millions of times' as it was close to his home. He described himself as a "careful and competent driver who overtook Mr Porter "in accordance with the Highway Code."

The court heard Mr Kayardi, a cafe owner, was previously a qualified driving instructor who had passed a difficult instructors course first time and had gone on to teach nearly 100 people how to drive. He said he had never been convicted or cautioned by police and had a clean licence.

*He denied passing so close that the cyclist “could have reached out and touched him” and described expert evidence that his car was travelling more than 50mph in a 30mph zone as "wrong" and based on "an estimate not what really happened." The expert evidence was based on a video of the incident shot by a camera on the cycle handlebars.*

Barrister Jake Taylor, defending him, suggested to the jury the reason for the prosecution was that the cyclist Mr Martin Porter, was a senior barrister who represented victims of cycling accidents. Mr Porter saw an opportunity for publicity if Mr Kayardi was convicted. He said the Metropolitan Police had rejected prosecuting the case and had not referred it to the Crown Prosecution Service.

Mr Ellis Sareen, prosecuting, told the jury the truth of the matter was that Mr Kayardi, who was driving his "dream car", an Audi R8 Spyder, was "playing with his big boy's toy." "He was only really interested in the thrill of his speed," he said. 

Afterwards Mr Porter, a QC known as the ‘cycling silk’ said: “Whilst I respect the verdict of the jury, I believe it is only right that Mr Kayardi was required to justify his driving before a Court of Law. Every Defendant is entitled to the benefit of any doubt and my assessment of his driving has to bow to that of the jury.

An acquittal does not imply that a prosecution was not properly brought, although there are of course a number of lessons which I shall endeavour to draw from this experience and which I hope may also benefit others.

My hope is that lessons can be learned from this prosecution with benefit to all those interested in reducing road danger."

Roger Geffen, Trustee of the Cyclists’ Defence Fund, who helped fund the case said the verdict "highlights the huge challenge we face in raising driver awareness of the need to respect the safety of cyclists and other vulnerable road users."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-motorist-for-dangerous-driving-a6922176.html


----------



## glasgowcyclist (10 Mar 2016)

jefmcg said:


> This seems different from the description of the video in court. As far as I could tell, Martin took no evasive action and no contact made, so a non-cyclist could judge it was "safe". You don't have to be a cyclist to see that the van forced the rider into the gutter and brake. Even then, it was lucky it wasn't a more serious incident.



Every incident will be different, my point was that it was a conviction in a no-contact example of bad driving.

GC


----------



## Origamist (10 Mar 2016)

jefmcg said:


> This seems different from the description of the video in court. As far as I could tell, Martin took no evasive action and no contact made, so a non-cyclist could judge it was "safe". You don't have to be a cyclist to see that the van forced the rider into the gutter and brake. Even then, it was lucky it wasn't a more serious incident.



It’s interesting and I’m speculating here, but the circumstances encountered by Magnatom meant he had more time to react to the developing situation – a poorly timed, slowish pass and squeeze from a long vehicle (which he handled well). Whereas Porter would have to have taken preemptive avoiding action to create more of a buffer between himself and a car travelling in the region of 55mph at sub 3 feet. I find the latter harder to deal with. What’s more, in Magnatom's case it's careless and not dangerous driving that was pursued – so a lower standard – below and not far below the standard of a competent driver. Has anyone discovered why Porter and his team did not opt for the lesser charge?

Sadly, it does seem likely that these cycle cam cases would be aided by cyclists emitting a panicked shriek/shout (Magnatom is highly skilled in this regard), or attempting some kind of avoiding action (even if it's belated), or stopping immediately after the incident to give a potential jury or Magistrate a clear indicator of how they were endangered.

EDIT: Porter swerved to the kerb during the overtake.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (10 Mar 2016)

Origamist said:


> Has anyone discovered why Porter and his team did not opt for the lesser charge



Careless driving was included as an alternative charge, the jury acquitted on that too.

GC


----------



## Arjimlad (10 Mar 2016)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Magnatom achieved a conviction for this non-collision close pass - driver fined £175 and 5 points on his licence for careless driving:
> View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1itCTjbtKsw
> 
> 
> GC




A guilty plea in a Magistrate's Court rather than a Crown Court trial - different beasts.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (10 Mar 2016)

Arjimlad said:


> A guilty plea in a Magistrate's Court rather than a Crown Court trial - different beasts.





glasgowcyclist said:


> my point was that it was a conviction in a no-contact example of bad driving.



GC


----------



## Origamist (10 Mar 2016)

glasgowcyclist said:


> Careless driving was included as an alternative charge, the jury acquitted on that too.
> 
> GC



Thank you. That's even more disappointing.


----------



## Origamist (10 Mar 2016)

Origamist said:


> Thank you. That's even more disappointing.



The jury took 20 mins, FFS!

Judge's summing up: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MH7n17fqlZkRuwpqLdpRRdull9elvdpOhCB6uWS7DP4/mobilebasic?pli=1


----------



## hatler (10 Mar 2016)

Blimey. Something must have gone horribly wrong, or, well, I'll come to that.

Evidence from the video, explained and analysed by an ex-Met Police expert witness, 60cm - 80cm passing distance, at 50 - 57 mph, and car not crossed the central line.

Defendant's view, not doing 50mph, crossed the white line, wasn't close to the cyclist.

Words vs video evidence. One person with a real incentive to lie. One with no axe to grind and a good few years experience under his belt.

Only conclusion, the jury (unanimously ?) believe the evidence of the motorist and not the evidence they've seen with their own eyes (which is bananas).

Or, they're all motorists and do stuff like that themselves all the time so of course it would be unfair to convict.

Normalising lunacy, that's where we're at. Not a nice place to be.


----------



## benb (10 Mar 2016)

That (very fair and thorough) summing up by the judge makes the acquittal utterly incomprehensible. How is driving at nearly double the speed limit, whilst giving well under a metre of space not "careless" at the very least? Did the jury simply decide the prosecution evidence was a load of bollocks? 

I'm sad and angry about this whole farce.


----------



## growingvegetables (10 Mar 2016)

Origamist said:


> Judge's summing up: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MH7n17fqlZkRuwpqLdpRRdull9elvdpOhCB6uWS7DP4/mobilebasic?pli=1


One phrase from that leaves me livid ....


> So it’s a *high* threshold members of the jury.


B@ll@x.
Absolute b@ll@x.
Terminal and complete b@ll@x.


----------



## Glow worm (10 Mar 2016)

benb said:


> That (very fair and thorough) summing up by the judge makes the acquittal utterly incomprehensible. How is driving at nearly double the speed limit, whilst giving well under a metre of space not "careless" at the very least? Did the jury simply decide the prosecution evidence was a load of bollocks?



It's simple. We live in a country run my motons for motons. Juries are just another bunch of motons. Judges/ Police the same . I really don't think there's much of a hope for us to be honest. Sickening.


----------



## mjr (11 Mar 2016)

Glow worm said:


> It's simple. We live in a country run my motons for motons. Juries are just another bunch of motons. Judges/ Police the same . I really don't think there's much of a hope for us to be honest. Sickening.


What we need to do is also simple: organise cycle rides and events for newcomers and keep inviting and encouraging police, judges, decision-makers, legislators and potential jurors  to come for a ride. Then they may appreciate that a car passing without crossing the lane/centre line is scarily close.


----------



## Pale Rider (11 Mar 2016)

Always worth bearing in mind the standard of proof - 'satisfied so that you are sure, nothing less will do'.

All 12 members of the jury may have thought the driver probably drove dangerously, but in those circumstances the correct verdict is not guilty.


----------



## Simontm (11 Mar 2016)

mjray said:


> What we need to do is also simple: organise cycle rides and events for newcomers and keep inviting and encouraging police, judges, decision-makers, legislators and potential jurors  to come for a ride. Then they may appreciate that a car passing without crossing the lane/centre line is scarily close.


My wife once put a photo like this up on Facebook:



With the comment:
"You wouldn't stand over the line when a train's coming through...How do you think cyclists feel every day."

Surprising how many people replied: "I hadn't thought of it that way."


----------



## mjr (11 Mar 2016)

User said:


> You think they don't know? People don't let their children ride on the road because it is dangerous. The only step they shy away from taking is acknowledgement of the fact that they themselves are the danger.


I think they don't think it through (HT @Simontm for that example).

I also feel that not letting children ride is more to do with the modern tendency not to let children out of their sight except to go to school or similar approved places. Even in fairly cycling-y places with plenty of cycle tracks, it's fairly rare to see children cycling alone now, although I see them accompanied. Myself, my brother and my cousin (I think) once just rode off and did 30 miles around our nearest city and I'd be surprised if many parents would let them now.

That's all guesswork though: has anyone surveyed why parents don't let children cycle? I found some ranting about a nutty school in 2010 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/mo...dren-be-allowed-to-cycle-to-school-alone.html and nothing quantitative but I probably didn't spend long enough looking to find the right search terms.

And I just found this from LCC: http://lcc.org.uk/articles/sign-for-cycling-campaign-launch "This comes as our recent survey revealed that parents think London’s roads are far too dangerous for children to cycle; with 69% of people with children in their household saying cycling was ‘dangerous’ or ‘very dangerous’ for children in their borough" but I can't find the blooming survey. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/tran...-for-child-cyclists-say-parents-a3197961.html gives a few more details: 2064 people. I've tweeted to ask for the basic info and a reply may appear at https://mobile.twitter.com/mjray/status/708241963418591232 - but also, that's London and I suggest that Londoners' views will be different to more rural Norfolk or Somerset.


----------



## mjr (11 Mar 2016)

https://open.library.ubc.ca/cIRcle/collections/undergraduateresearch/34125/items/1.0075681 has some interesting Findings about cycling to school but they're not entirely consistent, there seems little attempt to estimate the relative importance of the four themes and it's from a far away cycling-hostile place.


----------



## RoubaixCube (12 Mar 2016)

And the irony of all this is that Aslan is a driving instructor. Coaching others on how not to obey the highway code. An issue like this should drag his job or reputation into question


----------



## jefmcg (12 Mar 2016)

RoubaixCube said:


> And the irony of all this is that Aslan is a driving instructor. Coaching others on how not to obey the highway code. An issue like this should drag his job or reputation into question



(I'm not a lawyer but) it looks to me like even a conviction wouldn't affect his right to teach.


jefmcg said:


> Related to this, I wondered how one could be suspended as a driving instructor.
> 
> https://www.gov.uk/driving-instructor-suspension-your-rights/when-you-can-be-suspended
> 
> ...


----------



## ufkacbln (12 Mar 2016)

OT

A few years ago I was at a set of lights when a Driving School Vehicle vehicle came alongside

Instructor leaned out and gave me a rollicking for not being on the cycle path

When asked where he had got that from he stated it was the law!

So took the video and "forgetting" the car details sent it to several local driving schools expressing my concern that this individual was unaware of the law and had misled the student. Also explained why this section was unfit for cyclists (bad design, illegal parking and used by local garage as a work space)

Everyone pointed out the correct School who were very apologetic, the instructor was "educated" and the pupil had been taken out bu another instructor and given the correct instruction about sharing cycle facilities

He passed me a few days later and simply scowled!


----------



## snorri (12 Mar 2016)

I have to wonder if the rather full description of the cyclist could have influenced the jury..............

" , a very experienced cyclist and in 2015 you heard he cycled nearly 8500 miles and passed a number of proficiency tests. He is a safe cycling campaigner and is known as the Cycling Silk, silk being the word used to describe Queen’s Counsel. .......... His bike he told you has very good lights front and back. Described it as a dedicated commuter bike with flat bars, what I believe to be straight handlebars. Wearing distinctive yellow top and on top of handlebars sits device called Garmon Edge which put simply logs power, [energy?], speed and heart rate. ...... which shows you a reading at the relevant time of power, speed and heart rate. Also affixed to the handlebars is a contour rome camera "

I wonder if non cyclists reading this quite lengthy description would be inclined to regard the cyclist as "one of these nerdy cyclists looking to trap a motorist " when compared with the description of the defendant which is fairly brief but includes his driving instructor status?


----------



## midlife (12 Mar 2016)

snorri said:


> I have to wonder if the rather full description of the cyclist could have influenced the jury..............
> 
> " , a very experienced cyclist and in 2015 you heard he cycled nearly 8500 miles and passed a number of proficiency tests. He is a safe cycling campaigner and is known as the Cycling Silk, silk being the word used to describe Queen’s Counsel. .......... His bike he told you has very good lights front and back. Described it as a dedicated commuter bike with flat bars, what I believe to be straight handlebars. Wearing distinctive yellow top and on top of handlebars sits device called Garmon Edge which put simply logs power, [energy?], speed and heart rate. ...... which shows you a reading at the relevant time of power, speed and heart rate. Also affixed to the handlebars is a contour rome camera "
> 
> I wonder if non cyclists reading this quite lengthy description would be inclined to regard the cyclist as "one of these nerdy cyclists looking to trap a motorist " when compared with the description of the defendant which is fairly brief but includes his driving instructor status?



Is there a transcript of the case somewhere for you to get that info?

Shaun


----------



## Origamist (12 Mar 2016)

See below:



Origamist said:


> Judge's summing up: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1MH7n17fqlZkRuwpqLdpRRdull9elvdpOhCB6uWS7DP4/mobilebasic?pli=1


----------



## DrLex (12 Mar 2016)

In which the passage "I now turn to the evidence of Mr Kayardi. [...] he’s a qualified driving instructor who currently runs a business, a cafeteria in Twickenham" appears, indicating that he's fortunately not working as an instructor.


----------



## midlife (12 Mar 2016)

Origamist said:


> See below:



Ah! That was an interesting read, thanks for the link. I see in the summing up the judge gave the opportunity to the jury to find him guilty of careless driving. Or did I read it wrong?

Shaun


----------



## RoubaixCube (12 Mar 2016)

DrLex said:


> In which the passage "I now turn to the evidence of Mr Kayardi. [...] he’s a qualified driving instructor who currently runs a business, a cafeteria in Twickenham" appears, indicating that he's fortunately not working as an instructor.



Driving tuition could be a weekend job for him though


----------



## Origamist (12 Mar 2016)

midlife said:


> Ah! That was an interesting read, thanks for the link.* I see in the summing up the judge gave the opportunity to the jury to find him guilty of careless driving*. Or did I read it wrong?
> 
> Shaun



Yes, acquitted on both counts.


----------



## Drago (13 Mar 2016)

So he flogged this particular horse, and there was still insufficient evidence. Apparently 'chump' is spelled 'silk' in his neck of the woods. Even better, the public purse picks up the bill.

What a tool.


----------



## hatler (13 Mar 2016)

At least he tried. I think that is an unnecessarily negative attitude.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (13 Mar 2016)

Drago said:


> So he flogged this particular horse, and there was still insufficient evidence. Apparently 'chump' is spelled 'silk' in his neck of the woods. Even better, the public purse picks up the bill.
> 
> What a tool.



I expect you have put cases to court which resulted in acquittals; does that mean there was insufficient evidence and you're a tool?

GC


----------



## mjr (16 Mar 2016)

glasgowcyclist said:


> I expect you have put cases to court which resulted in acquittals; does that mean there was insufficient evidence and you're a tool?


And if someone's done it more than once, would they be a multi-tool?


----------



## snorri (23 Mar 2016)

An interesting blog on the case.....
http://beyondthekerb.org.uk/2016/03/23/an-obvious-problem/


----------



## Spinney (23 Mar 2016)

snorri said:


> An interesting blog on the case.....
> http://beyondthekerb.org.uk/2016/03/23/an-obvious-problem/


interesting read - thanks for posting


----------



## Origamist (23 Mar 2016)

snorri said:


> An interesting blog on the case.....
> http://beyondthekerb.org.uk/2016/03/23/an-obvious-problem/



Yes, Bez makes a number of important points. I thought this "revelation" was particularly telling:

"In case you’re sceptical as to the effect of allowing a jury to interpret the statutory definition of dangerous driving, I would ask you to note one thing: *apparently the decision to escalate this case to a Crown court instead of a magistrate’s court, and thus to hand over the decision to a jury, was made by the defence.*"


----------



## fimm (8 Apr 2016)

Martin Porter writes for the Guardian:
http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...al-by-jury-death-cyclists-pedestrians-justice
_"Dangerous drivers should not be allowed to choose trial by jury...I’m going to argue that when it comes to some driving offences that are triable “either way” – when defendants have the option of trial by a magistrate or by judge and jury – the latter option should be removed. This might sound like a curious thing for a QC to propose, but I believe it would make justice more likely, particularly for the most vulnerable road users, cyclists and pedestrians, who are currently too often being failed."_

He has also been blogging about his experience: the first section is here:
http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/lessons-form-private-prosecution-1.html


----------

