Driver tries to kill cyclist, hits building.

[procel]

Complete nonsense. How do you think people get convicted of theft, which requires the mental element of dishonesty above and beyond merely taking an item.

I think you need to read what I wrote again. Yes, mens rea is an essential part of the law and I did not deny that.

However, in practice, it is not essential to prove mens rea to as high a standard as the proof that the action itself happened. (Otherwise, nearly every shoplifter would get away with stealing pink jackets simply by claiming they were absent minded, which doesn't happen unless they're Richard Madeley - who no doubt was truly absent minded). There are only two possible explanations for this: (1) courts are outrageously constructing evidence; (2) the practice of the courts (i.e. the common law) is not to apply the full strength of 'innocent until proven guilty' to the mens rea element of the offence.

 

[spen666]

I think you need to read what I wrote again. Yes, mens rea is an essential part of the law and I did not deny that.

Except what we're talking about is mens rea, which many jurisprudential scholars do not consider a essential part of the principle. Innocent until proven guilty is about proving that the defendant did the action they were claimed to have done. Otherwise, in the absence of declarations (such as "die you *******, die") from the defendant it would never be possible to infer intent ....

Now to me and to the average reader, this sounds like a denial that mens rea is an essential part of the law

However, don't let your change of position stop you spouting nonsense

However, in practice, it is not essential to prove mens rea to as high a standard as the proof that the action itself happened. (Otherwise, nearly every shoplifter would get away with stealing pink jackets simply by claiming they were absent minded, which doesn't happen unless they're Richard Madeley - who no doubt was truly absent minded). There are only two possible explanations for this: (1) courts are outrageously constructing evidence; (2) the practice of the courts (i.e. the common law) is not to apply the full strength of 'innocent until proven guilty' to the mens rea element of the offence.

This may be the law on cloud cuckoo land, but in England and Wales this is just not the case.

To prove an offence took place, ALL the essential elements have to be proved to the criminal standard of proof - ie beyond all reasonable doubt. There is no lesser standard required to prove mens rea.

Sadly your knowledge of the law is rather less than you think.

 

[ufkacbln]

Ok, we'll go with that, so the driver then how she has to explain why, if she felt the children were in danger, she thought the best option was to drive off the road and into a house. When transporting children it's best to keep the smashing of buildings with your vehicle to an absolute minimum.

Slightly OT but does have relevance.

I used to work in Woolwich /Eltham and a female colleague was "car jacked" at lights

Fearful of her safety, she saw a contractor's minibus and drove straight into it,

8 burly builders got out to speak to her.. the end result being that they "dealt with" the car jacker who had to be "restrained" until the Police arrived.


However the insurance company would not pay up for the damage caused because it was "deliberate"

The contractor was fine and accepted the situation, not pursuing the costs, but she had to foot the bill for the damage to her own car

 

[Markymark]

Bar steward insurance company.

 

[Crankarm]

Now to me and to the average reader, this sounds like a denial that mens rea is an essential part of the law

However, don't let your change of position stop you spouting nonsense

This may be the law on cloud cuckoo land, but in England and Wales this is just not the case.

To prove an offence took place, ALL the essential elements have to be proved to the criminal standard of proof - ie beyond all reasonable doubt. There is no lesser standard required to prove mens rea.

Sadly your knowledge of the law is rather less than you think.

And sadly in the context of motoring offences and offences against the person where a vehicle is instrumental in carrying out an offence, the law and courts are too lenient to drivers whether at the stage of charging, prosecuting, convicting or sentencing. It has been said many times before and I'll say it again, if you want to kill or seriously injure some one in this country do it in a car/vehicle. Driving is a lawful activity until the standard falls below that of a reasonable and careful driver. Most juries are filled with people who drive and will no doubt think, they go I but for the grace of Dog.

I just hope the police are skilful at interviewing any witnesses particularly the children in the car depending on their ages. They may give a good indication of the state of mind of the driver prior to the collision or indeed any previous aggression to road users, vulnerable road users.

 

[jefmcg]

It has been said many times before and I'll say it again, if you want to kill or seriously injure some one in this country do it in a car/vehicle.

Of course, not just this country.

http://freakonomics.com/2014/05/01/the-perfect-crime-a-new-freakonomics-radio-podcast/

 

[spen666]

And sadly in the context of motoring offences and offences against the person where a vehicle is instrumental in carrying out an offence, the law and courts are too lenient to drivers whether at the stage of charging, prosecuting, convicting or sentencing. It has been said many times before and I'll say it again, if you want to kill or seriously injure some one in this country do it in a car/vehicle. Driving is a lawful activity until the standard falls below that of a reasonable and careful driver. Most juries are filled with people who drive and will no doubt think, they go I but for the grace of Dog.

I just hope the police are skilful at interviewing any witnesses particularly the children in the car depending on their ages. They may give a good indication of the state of mind of the driver prior to the collision or indeed any previous aggression to road users, vulnerable road users.

I think the problem goes far beyond the police.

The police do not treat crimes involving the use of motor cars seriously enough. This is probably in part because juries are reluctant to convict motorists or serious enough offences. I would suggest one of the reasons for this is the thought in the minds of jurors of "there but for the grace of god" when thinking of the defendant.

40 years ago, the position regarding racist crimes was similar, but by a sensible and concerted campaign, the anti racists won over public opinion. This is what cyclists need to look at as a template. Its not about calling all motorists murderers and making wild and stupid allegations whenever there is an incident.

In most accidents, they are just that ie accidental. That is not to say there is no blame, but the person responsible did not deliberately cause a crash. We need to appreciate that. In fact, most of us if we are honest do not drive perfectly when we do drive.

We need all cycling bodies to come together to have a joint and co-ordinated campaign to change public opinion regarding driving behaviour and attitudes

 

[spen666]

Your part of the equation has to bear some responsibility. If juries never get to hear cases in the first place they will never convict on any of them.

What is my part of the equation?


I'm a bit puzzled

 

[Sheffield_Tiger]

Well, just for those banging on about acting in a certain way and preparing for the consequences..

SOMETIMES, people have insurmountable difficulties in social interaction, such as autism
Should this be disregarded, and children taught that the way to deal with issues is to attack?

Thankfully, the accident is serious enough but with no-one hurt, that the FIVE CHILDREN IN THE CAR at the time, five future might actually learn that lashing out can bring scary and unpleasant results, and is NOT the best way to behave

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crim...cked-off-bike-in-road-rage-crash-9511055.html

 

[spen666]

Do you not work for the CPS?

Definitely not. Î have never worked for them and have no desire to.

I do have a tiny bit of self respect you know

 

[TwickenhamCyclist]

Amongst her worst case scenarios is the possibility that she is employed as a nanny and the car is her employer's.

You are probably closer to the truth. Most women under 30 around here with children in hand are nannies. I think Kingston hospital has one of, if not the highest multiple birth rates in the uk (a combination of older mothers and affluence/ability to pay for medical help if you have trouble concerning naturally). Forget Hello and Gratzia, The ante-natal waiting room at Kingston is littered with copies of Saga magazine. Most of the mums and dads at the infant school gates are well over 40.

 

[slowmotion]

^^^^^ Pure speculation TC. As far as I know, it's still legal to have kids in your late thirties. Certainly better than demolishing hair salons.

 

[mickle]

How many seats does a Q7 have?

 

[slowmotion]

How many seats does a Q7 have?

I used to take my daughter and three friends to primary school mainly in the cargo compartment of a battered two seat van. Nobody wanted the passenger seat. They squealed with delight when I said "Duck down, there's a Police Car".

I feel unqualified to offer an opinion about the number of seats in a Q7.

 

[Crankarm]

I think the problem goes far beyond the police.

The police do not treat crimes involving the use of motor cars seriously enough. This is probably in part because juries are reluctant to convict motorists or serious enough offences. I would suggest one of the reasons for this is the thought in the minds of jurors of "there but for the grace of god" when thinking of the defendant.

40 years ago, the position regarding racist crimes was similar, but by a sensible and concerted campaign, the anti racists won over public opinion. This is what cyclists need to look at as a template. Its not about calling all motorists murderers and making wild and stupid allegations whenever there is an incident.

In most accidents, they are just that ie accidental. That is not to say there is no blame, but the person responsible did not deliberately cause a crash. We need to appreciate that. In fact, most of us if we are honest do not drive perfectly when we do drive.

We need all cycling bodies to come together to have a joint and co-ordinated campaign to change public opinion regarding driving behaviour and attitudes

Your post started well with good measured points and I thought maybe just maybe Spen has seen the light and shed his cantankerous irascible attitude but alas not. No one Spen is calling all motorists murderers or making wild or stupid allegations whenever there is an incident. Yes I agree with you, I would like to think most accidents are just accidental but tbh there are some pretty bad drivers out there who just shouldn't be on the roads. And it is your lot who have turned "accidents" into a litigious money making battle ground. Yes, you are right, no one goes out to cause a crash, of course not, unless they are mentally unstable, but you must surely recognise not least from the numerous TV and radio programmes that driver aggression can be a real problem and when the red mist comes down, the consequences can be fatal, life changing serious injuries for the injured parties and their families which 99.9% of the time the injured are cyclists or pedestrians. Speak for yourself when you drive …… I would certainly never ever drive my car at some one. If I felt that threatened I would drive off. No way would I try and run some one over! In any case in the car I always put the central locking on as soon as I have got in and all the doors are closed. But we are not talking about minor driving indiscretions we are discussing some one who thinks it's acceptable to drive at speed at another road user and a very vulnerable road user at that who should be given a lot of space and care as they are passed.

We need all cycling bodies to come together to have a joint and co-ordinated campaign to change public opinion regarding driving behaviour and attitudes.

Hallelujah to this, but there needs to be political will. Government needs to make the CJS work properly at all levels for cyclists instead of it routinely failing us as it does now.