Courier kills cyclist then continues with delivery.

[tom73]

He hit's a cyclist sending him 50 metres killing him instantly. Has a quick look then go's about his delivery.

To top it off he's get's 12-month community order and an 18-month driving ban. Madness

https://road.cc/content/news/251211...river-who-drove-make-delivery-following-fatal

 

[numbnuts]

Broken Britain and broken justice system

 

[Slick]

Disgusting.

There surly must be much more to this than first meets the eye, or is it deliberately vague?

Why is there such varying reports about his light?

 

[marinyork]

Why is there such varying reports about his light?

Pack a vehicle with non-cyclists and pass a cyclist at night. You'll always get the people ranting on about the ninjas and faeries, people that'll say ooh yeap you spotted them, be careful, to people that'll say yeah it's great I can see them 200 metres away, to get that annoying tosser off the road they have an annoying flashing light that I can see!

 

[Slick]

Pack a vehicle with non-cyclists and pass a cyclist at night. You'll always get the people ranting on about the ninjas and faeries, people that'll say ooh yeap you spotted them, be careful, to people that'll say yeah it's great I can see them 200 metres away, to get that annoying tosser off the road they have an annoying flashing light that I can see!

Yeah fair enough, I suppose my question should have been, what was the significance of the report and why was it mentioned in the write up without further explanation?

The reason I ask is, there must be some mitigating factor to get away with such a light sentence and I got the feeling there was much more to the story than what's been reported so far.

 

[marinyork]

Yeah fair enough, I suppose my question should have been, what was the significance of the report and why was it mentioned in the write up without further explanation?

The reason I ask is, there must be some mitigating factor to get away with such a light sentence and I got the feeling there was much more to the story than what's been reported so far.

I've no idea. It could be that the court took the fairy lights theory seriously and was some kind of massive mitigating factor, after all there's been someone on here who killed a cyclist and the police basically said yep ninja there's nothing you could have done, case closed. On the actual topic of lights where I was coming from I was really saying I don't really take the fairy stuff that seriously as often lights are way above legal minimum and people will come out with this nonsense. I'm just saying it exists on a mass scale.

Maybe. Before causing death by careless driving was created some years ago and then beefed up, this sort of sentence wasn't sadly exactly unheard of (substitute cyclist for some other road user).

From my point of view, the interesting bit of the story was it was yet another case where the prosecution for failure to stop didn't go all the way (sounded though like two other charges were taken very seriously). The other bit I found interesting was he seems to have got rumbled by a police officer who saw the recovery truck. 'kin hell.

 

[Levo-Lon]

........... Wtf is wrong with these bastarrds

 

[stowie]

........... Wtf is wrong with these bastarrds

My understanding is that it isn't solely down to the legal profession (judges, CPS etc) not taking driving offences seriously (although I expect that is a factor in some cases). The problem comes down to the fact that juries seem hugely reluctant to convict on dangerous driving related cases even when it results in death.

Therefore actions that should be tried under dangerous driving get downgraded to careless by the CPS to try to get any conviction at all.

I remember a case where a cyclist was simply mown down and killed by a driver on a straight road without any mitigating factors. The driver had been proven to have used his phone to text dozens of times during the journey with the last text being sent a short time before the crash. The jury acquitted the driver of dangerous driving and he walked free presumably because they couldn't be sure he was on the phone even though his story about where he was at the last text sent would have meant he would have had to have defied the law of physics to be at the location of the crash in such a short time.

This is a society problem. We collectively view vehicle accidents as an "act of God" no matter how stupid the driver behaved.

 

[Ming the Merciless]

Disgusting.

There surly must be much more to this than first meets the eye, or is it deliberately vague?

Why is there such varying reports about his light?

Because the defence was a "Sorry mate I did not see him" and drivers are being asked after the fact. So they are being asked about something they did not really think about at the time. A bit like what was the colour of that car you saw at a junction 28 days ago. Would you really remember accurately? They all avoided hitting the guy who died, so he was visible. Perfectly bright lights can seem dim if you are blasting out death rays from the front of your vehicle. Plus straight roads, driver attention wanders.

 

[marinyork]

We need strict liability rather than the shoot happens view of motorised traffic hitting anything non-motorised.

 

[Levo-Lon]

We need strict liability rather than the shoot happens view of motorised traffic hitting anything non-motorised.

A good idea, but with the mentality of this nations something for nothing culture ,we'll have people getting hit on purpose if they think there's a payout..they will call it bash for cash i guess and have their mates accidentally run them over.. Bash the car and take a few kicks for authenticity..

 

[stowie]

We need strict liability rather than the shoot happens view of motorised traffic hitting anything non-motorised.

I think presumed liability for civil purposes is very reasonable, and it is something we have now with crashes involving a rear shunt for instance. Although this wouldn't help with criminal prosecution.

Maybe licenses could be treated differently though. I don't see why license removal should be in the purview of the courts for crashes involving serious injury or death. A license to drive is not a fundamental right.

 

[marinyork]

We don't have presumed liability for civil purposes for a rear shunt at all, only for the special case of where motorised vehicles hit other motorised vehicles. There are many crashes involving a rear shunt of inanimate objects, pedestrians, cyclists and other things where there is no presumed liability and we still have the shoot happens view of the world.

 

[stowie]

We don't have presumed liability for civil purposes for a rear shunt at all, only for the special case of where motorised vehicles hit other motorised vehicles. There are many crashes involving a rear shunt of inanimate objects, pedestrians, cyclists and other things where there is no presumed liability and we still have the shoot happens view of the world.

Yes, I fell into a vehicle-centric view of the world and should have been clearer. Criminal liability would still be unaffected as far as I am aware even if presumed liability was extended to vehicular accidents with cyclists or pedestrians.

 

[DaveReading]

He hit's a cyclist sending him 50 metres killing him instantly. Has a quick look then go's about his delivery.

To top it off he's get's 12-month community order and an 18-month driving ban. Madness

The judge's hands would have been tied by the Sentencing Guidelines.

Rightly or wrongly, if you are found guilty of an offence classed as "Careless or inconsiderate driving arising from momentary inattention with no aggravating factors", you are very unlikely to go to prison.