Kill, lie... and get suspended sentence and a fine...

[Pale Rider]

Eh? Of course he did, he killed the guy.

If he had passed too close - which he may have been attempting to do - it would have been just that, a close pass, but the cyclist would not have been killed or injured.

Of course, there is no legal definition of a close pass.

What you or I may regard as a close pass may not be so regarded by another cyclist, or vice-versa.

 

[doog]

Legally, it was careless of him not to take sufficient account of the possibility of a gust, but the legal definition of dangerous driving - a prolonged period of inattention or driving falling far below the standard of a careful and competent driver - is not met.

I

There was forensic and witness evidence to say that the driver didnt deviate from his path prior to the collision .So NO gust of wind and it appears that he simply didnt see him, which in turn would suggest that the criteria you refer to above was met 'a prolonged period of inattention ' . Looking at google images of the scene the limit point would have been extremely long for the driver to see a cyclist.

 

[Pale Rider]

There was forensic and witness evidence to say that the driver didnt deviate from his path prior to the collision .So NO gust of wind and it appears that he simply didnt see him, which in turn would suggest that the criteria you refer to above was met 'a prolonged period of inattention ' . Looking at google images of the scene the limit point would have been extremely long for the driver to see a cyclist.

This will all have been heard in evidence, which neither of us heard.

My speculation is the driver said something like: "I went to pass the cyclist and a gust of wind blew me into the cyclist as I did so."

The fact it was windy was independently verified, and as I said, may be seen as fortunate for the driver.

But we may also have to reach for the last resort when assessing any defendant's evidence - his account was true as he saw it.

I have seen hundreds of defendants give evidence and most tell lies, but even I have to accept some will be telling the truth.

 

[doog]

This will all have been heard in evidence, which neither of us heard.

Staffordshire Police released a statement to this effect. However we need to remember he was found guilty so his account wasn't believed by the jury.

The issue is twofold for me , was the initial charge the correct one and was the sentence correct ? I guess the fact a conviction was obtained would suggest it was the correct charge as far as the CPS were concerned however I bet the investigating officers were a little miffed at the decision to go for the lower charge. As for the judge, looking at the sentencing guidelines he was extremely lenient in my view.

Im seeing both sides and with reflection I can understand some of the views displayed on here and which I earlier commented on.

 

[Vantage]

I can believe that windy blustery conditions can be proven but I don't see how an isolated gust of wind in any one area can be proven. So we only have the drivers word for that. If his account is true, was the cyclist not also blown off course by an even bigger degree given that a cycle has fewer stabilising wheels and less weight to keep it planted on the road?
Theres also the issue with the above photo showing the amount of room a vehicle driver should give when passing a cyclist, most drivers I've been with and those I've seen rarely give that amount of space when passing another car. Its usually less than half that.
The Highway Code and its rules and advice are for the most part a distant memory to lots of drivers having passed their test.
This needs strict reinforcing on a regular basis and harsher penalties for failing to follow the rules of safe driving.

 

[Drago]

I can't understand why the law thinks being careless on the road is somehow less bad than being dangerous? If a driver kills someone through their own stupid behaviour the end result is still a corpse and a mourning family - the victims don't get any less pain and grief, so why should the offender receive any less punishment?

 

[briantrumpet]

I can't understand why the law thinks being careless on the road is somehow less bad than being dangerous? If a driver kills someone through their own stupid behaviour the end result is still a corpse and a mourning family - the victims don't get any less pain and grief, so why should the offender receive any less punishment?

The 'careless' bit wouldn't wash in a HSE investigation if you were an employer and your carelessness had led to the death of an employee. From the HSE: "Under the common law, gross negligence manslaughter is proved when individual officers of a company (directors or business owners) by their own grossly negligent behaviour cause death. This offence is punishable by an unlimited fine and a maximum of life imprisonment."

 

[DaveReading]

I have seen hundreds of defendants give evidence and most tell lies, but even I have to accept some will be telling the truth.

The statistics tell us that only about a quarter of Crown Court trials result in a guilty verdict. So unless the ones you have seen are completely unrepresentative, you appear to be saying that the majority of those acquitted have lied in court.

No pun intended, but what's your evidence for that assertion?

 

[HLaB]

It's obviously only slightly worse to kill a cyclist and lie about the cause to try to get off, than it is not to have a TV licence but watch the TV. That's the message that's being sent out by the courts, it seems.

http://road.cc/content/news/193037-van-driver-claimed-gust-wind-made-him-hit-cyclist

He got off with a suspended sentence, a £2000 fine, and a 12-month driving ban. 'Outrageous' doesn't even come close.

A comparatively heavy sentence

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I can't understand why the law thinks being careless on the road is somehow less bad than being dangerous? If a driver kills someone through their own stupid behaviour the end result is still a corpse and a mourning family - the victims don't get any less pain and grief, so why should the offender receive any less punishment?

spot on. Outcome is what counts imo not the motivations of the driver.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

In what way is the law about causing death by dangerous driving inadequate?

in that it requires a subjective judgement by a jury, most of whom will be drivers, about what constitutes dangerous driving in law.

A lot, the majority even, of what you and I might regard as dangerous driving in not dangerous driving in law.

 

[Pale Rider]

The law recognises different levels of culpability.

Thus the drunk, speeding, driver on his mobile phone who kills a cyclist is treated more harshly than the sober driver who pulls out of a side turning and hits a cyclist with the same result.

The result is, of course, the same, the cyclist is dead.

But it seems reasonable to me for the drunk speeding driver to face a more serious charge and to be given a harsher penalty if convicted.

 

[hatler]

^ ^ ^ That, with knobs on. ^ ^ ^

 

[Drago]

How is a minor piece of carelessness less bad than dangerous driving if they both result in an innocent death? In each instance they drive otherwise than in accordance with the standards required of a road user and someone dies as a consequence.

Once one crosses the line of unlawful behaviour on the road, it matters not how far beyond it they then go - they're breaking law, period, and should be held equally accountable for any adverse consequences of their behaviour.

We all have a duty to drive in a safe and diligent manner at all times - no excuses. If we can't do that then we shouldn't be risking the lives of innocents by driving.

 

[hatler]

There ought to be a distinction between driving which is dangerous, albeit unwittingly (due to the ridiculous levels of acceptability which the motoring lobby have engendered), and driving in a manner which is also dangerous, but wittingly, ie when you're pissed, on the phone, driving like a lunatic etc etc.

The problem for those on the receiving end of tragedies like this is the use of the language. Death by careless driving as a phrase is both a real ambiguity and a huge insult.

However, there is a multi-stage battle here; first the language needs to be changed, which should help the attitude shift, then the charging needs to be applied more robustly, and then ultimately sentencing needs to reflect what's felt to be fair (and sentencing is so far away from what those who have been impacted by poor driving feel to be fair), and most of all that sentencing should include more frequent use of much longer bans. And even much more frequent use of shorter bans for lower levels of driving misdemeanour.

That's a long road, and the only way it can get started is by a shift in public attitude to poor driving, and all the probably hopeless petitions to lengthen sentences help us along that road, even if individually they don't achieve their immediate and specific goals.