Cyclist brings first private prosecution for dangerous driving

[PK99]

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.

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]

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.

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

 

[CopperCyclist]

@CopperCyclist

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

... (snip)

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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



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".

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]

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]

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]

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]

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