Cleared of killing a cyclist

[Ian Cooper]

Cyclists are hated by many because we "don't pay road tax" or we "ignore the highway code",and because we are generally fitter than the average slob motorist, which they hate, but are in denial about)! Why should the ones like ....pay the ultimate price for someone elses's bad attitude?

Here in the US, we have 'hate crime' legislation. Sadly, cyclists aren't considered a protected class.

 

[Accy cyclist]

"

Mr Hodson said: “Asked what he thought the stopping distance at 60mph was, he put it was about 18 metres, not the 73 metres required in the Highway Code".​

And then they say that us CYCLISTS don't know the Highway Code!!! ​

​

 

[Ian Cooper]

"
Mr Hodson said: “Asked what he thought the stopping distance at 60mph was, he put it was about 18 metres, not the 73 metres required in the Highway Code".

Isn't 18 metres about the stopping distance for a bicycle going <20mph? What sort of moron thinks you can bring 3,000lbs of metal to a stop from 60mph in 18m?

 

[Hip Priest]

It seems on the face of it that the accident was caused by aggressive tailgating from the accused. In which case, one wonders why he wasn't found guilty of dangerous driving. But the jury heard the whole case and I didn't, so there you go.

 

[MrJamie]

It seems on the face of it that the accident was caused by aggressive tailgating from the accused. In which case, one wonders why he wasn't found guilty of dangerous driving. But the jury heard the whole case and I didn't, so there you go.

I guess its probable that because the driver's on the right of the vehicle, the van in front would obscure the view of the left side of the road ahead but it would otherwise look clear and he wouldnt see the impending need to overtake until the van in front went for a ninja overtake through a gap that was only big enough for one. In which case he would be driving too fast for his visable distance and should drop back, but I dont think many people do that and thats probably why the jury sided/empathised with him. It really is massive speculation though.

 

[Arch]

"

Mr Hodson said: “Asked what he thought the stopping distance at 60mph was, he put it was about 18 metres, not the 73 metres required in the Highway Code".​

And then they say that us CYCLISTS don't know the Highway Code!!! ​

​

​

To be fair, I have no idea of stopping distances in metres or yards - I think I learned by rote when learning and promptly forgot. But I have a decent visual idea of them on the road (using the 2 second rule), and hope to err on the cautious side at all times.

 

[Boris Bajic]

Here in the US, we have 'hate crime' legislation. Sadly, cyclists aren't considered a protected class.

I'm not sure whether you believe that cyclists should be considered an oppressed minority subject to protection under 'hate crime' legislation. I rather fear you are.

There is hate crime legislation in the UK too. Cyclists are not an oppressed minority. We have no need of protection under hate crime legislation.

If you were joking, I'm not sure I get the joke. If you were serious, I find your use of the word 'sadly' unusual.

 

[Boris Bajic]

I am in agreement with other posters who prefer the legal system here to that in almost any other country.

To convict, a jury must believe that the case has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt. They will be guided in matters of law by the judge. They will have heard cases put both by the defence and the prosecution.

In this (the OP's) case the jury did not convict. We know only what was written in a fairly skimpy newspaper piece.

There have been miscarriages of justice in the UK in the past. There will be more in the future. On the basis of what little we can read in the article, this verdict does seem eccentric, but conjecture about jurors being motorists who will bring a bias with them seems scarily paranoid.

Ghastly business nonetheless and condolences to the loved ones left behind.

 

[Pauluk]

It is so sad that people dying on our roads is often thought of as just one of those things, hopefully one day attitudes will change and an attitude of unacceptability will prevail.

I'd like to think so and its a great hope. I won't be holding my breath though as I'm afraid things are going to get worse as money gets ever more tighter and the roads get busier with more aggressive driving behaviour.

 

[Pauluk]

A large part of the world would fight [and many would willingly die] for a legal system such as ours [even with it's flaws and mistakes,and there are many]. The very fact that we can freely critisize it in open forum is some proof of that.

I agree with this to a large extent with regard to the legal system (although I do believe that it is far too incestuous), but I still say that in my opinion criminal justice is poor and weak in the UK.

 

[snorri]

many of us would fight tooth and nail for our right whenever possible to be judged by a jury..

Would the wish for a jury trial have more to do with avoiding punishment and little to do with justice?

 

[Ian Cooper]

...I'm afraid things are going to get worse as money gets ever more tighter and the roads get busier with more aggressive driving behaviour.

With oil prices set to either go through the roof or bring in a new recession in the next couple of years, I think we'll see fewer people driving and more people cycling. That has to be a good thing.

 

[steveindenmark]

I think it is difficult to be objective when you only hear what the papers report.

It sounds like the cyclist had all the right gear on and was experienced. On the evidence of the newspaper report it does sound like the van driver was tailgating the other van BUT a jury of people just like you and I, some of them possibly cyclists, have found him not guiltty.

That makes me believe that there is more to this case than has been reported.

Steve

 

[Nihal]

I repeat,everyone in that jury were either too fat to ride cycles or too lazy or not interested or.............

 

[dawesome]

Here in the US, we have 'hate crime' legislation. Sadly, cyclists aren't considered a protected class.

That was one of the PCC rulings after a nasty piece appeared in the Times advocating attacking cyclists- you cannot discriminate against a section of society based on their method of transport. Therefore, stuff that would be illegal to print were it about jews or blacks is absolutely fine if the target is cyclists.

What do you reckon would happen to a paper that carried:

"We should run over and kill black people on the roads, they get in the way, we should smash their skulls and slice their throats, they don't pay anything, they should be killed"?