Nine points

[monkers]

Cardiff driver gets 9 points on licence and a fine for this. Well done Cardiff police who seem pro-active on prosecuting these drivers.


View: https://youtu.be/hvCqXIj_JM8

 

[DCBassman]

that was nasty...

 

[Brandane]

Outrageously bad bit of driving. What was with the wee "toot" shortly before? Is that supposed to mean "get out my way I'm coming through"?
Sad that the driver didn't get a lengthy ban, but good that they got the maximum amount of points allowed. It's the system that needs changed.

 

[fossyant]

9 blimey, they did well there.

 

[monkers]

Outrageously bad bit of driving. What was with the wee "toot" shortly before? Is that supposed to mean "get out my way I'm coming through"?
Sad that the driver didn't get a lengthy ban, but good that they got the maximum amount of points allowed. It's the system that needs changed.

I agree with you completely. Now that you mention that toot, it has caused me to think that the toot means that they were not just distracted for a moment or inattentive, but actually committed to the idea of putting lives at risk in order to make a point. Maybe a greater charge could/should have been brought such as dangerous driving? Maybe @Drago or other Dibble might care to take a look?

 

[Brandane]

Maybe @Drago or other Dibble might care to take a look?

I used to be one of them too, in my previous life!
As per usual though, the result has little to do with the Police. They follow guidelines from above as to what people get charged with, and are really just information and evidence gatherers.
A report outlining the circumstances of the incident, based on witness accounts and in this case camera footage, is then submitted to the CPS (England/Wales) or the Procurator Fiscal (Scotland). It is then up to the CPS/PF what charges are brought to court.
The fact that no contact was made between car and cyclists is probably what saved the driver from the more serious charge of dangerous driving. Good luck and evasive action by the cyclists then.

 

[monkers]

I used to be one of them too, in my previous life!
As per usual though, the result has little to do with the Police. They follow guidelines from above as to what people get charged with, and are really just information and evidence gatherers.
A report outlining the circumstances of the incident, based on witness accounts and in this case camera footage, is then submitted to the CPS (England/Wales) or the Procurator Fiscal (Scotland). It is then up to the CPS/PF what charges are brought to court.
The fact that no contact was made between car and cyclists is probably what saved the driver from the more serious charge of dangerous driving. Good luck and evasive action by the cyclists then.

Thank you for this. I did understand about the role of the CPS, I was interested in hearing a view from those with more experience such as yourself.

It would be no more than a thought experiment, but I do wonder if the forthcoming revisions and clarifications in the Highway Code would impact the charges brought, but I do understand what you've said.

 

[Pale Rider]

Dangerous driving would be a non-starter due to its legal definition.

'Driving that is far below the standard of a competent driver or a prolonged period of inattention.'

There's some subjectivity there, but the driving complained of certainly wasn't prolonged - the vid is only 10secs and the incident takes up less than that.

Is barging past a cyclist at a traffic island 'far below' the standard of a careful and competent driver?

I would say not, it is below that standard, and/or a momentary lapse of attention, which is the definition of careless driving, which in turn is presumably what was charged.

A report outlining the circumstances of the incident, based on witness accounts and in this case camera footage, is then submitted to the CPS (England/Wales) or the Procurator Fiscal (Scotland). It is then up to the CPS/PF what charges are brought to court.

Speaking for England, that is not correct for most less serious offences.

Police officers have charging discretion over those, at least in part due to constant complaints from the CPS of being overworked.

There was a high profile case a few years ago in which a cyclist was knocked over and killed in Regent Street, central London, by a hairdresser driving a Mini.

The Met inspector dealing with the case decided no criminal charges should be brought.

The injured party's family duly went crackers, and a QC engaged by them accused the inspector of acting outside his powers, saying he should have referred the case to the CPS.

The inspector responded with a copy of the relevant official guidelines which clearly stated he did have the authority to take the decision.

Mr Clever QC was thus left looking rather stupid.

In his defence, he was not a specialist in criminal law.

Members may recall there was crowdfunded private prosecution of the driver, which inevitably failed because the Met copper had interpreted the job entirely correctly.

 

[mjr]

Is barging past a cyclist at a traffic island 'far below' the standard of a careful and competent driver?

I would say not, it is below that standard, and/or a momentary lapse of attention, which is the definition of careless driving, which in turn is presumably what was charged.

And that's the heart of the problem. Not even cyclists yet agree that endangering people by incompetent motoring is "far below" the driving standards.

a cyclist was knocked over and killed [...]
The injured party's family

Killed, not injured. I think you're referring to the travesty that was the Michael Mason case, which is summarised at https://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/duncandollimore/mason-verdict

 

[postman]

Heck he has more points than Leeds United.

 

[Drago]

The driver deserved every little bit of that.

But passing a junction while staring straight ahead and not adjusting positioning, and doing the same at a bottleneck is woefully poor cyclecraft.

 

[icowden]

The driver deserved every little bit of that.
But passing a junction while staring straight ahead and not adjusting positioning, and doing the same at a bottleneck is woefully poor cyclecraft.

I don't get it. What was wrong with their position at the bottleneck? They could easily see that the junction was clear without turning their heads. No sane person would expect someone to try to overtake cyclists into a bottleneck like that.

Personally I think that it is very arguable that that driving fell far below the standard of a competent driver. The driver overtakes where there is no space, into a bottleneck and hits the island - they could easily have then veered into the cyclists.

There always seems to be an issue that CPS will go for a definite conviction on a lower charge rather than a risky conviction on a higher one. I do wonder whether there ought to be a system such that you aren't exonerated of all charges if the higher charge is not found to be proved.

 

[Pale Rider]

I do wonder whether there ought to be a system such that you aren't exonerated of all charges if the higher charge is not found to be proved.

There is, charges are often put in the alternative.

Court tactics come into yet again.

Some prosecutors don't like alternatives, because it rather suggests the prosecution don't know what the conduct is, thus a jury may think if the prosecution aren't sure of their ground, how can we be?

It also makes the case slightly harder to prosecute, and can be genuinely confusing as the case unfolds, particularly when cross-examining the defendant.

Experience shows when confronted with an alternative, juries will tend to go for the 'safer' option - the less serious charge - which makes the tactic of alternatives even more questionable.

Going back to this case, dangerous driving was always a complete non-starter given the way courts interpret the difference between careless and dangerous.