The family shouted at the jury : “Were you not listening?”

[Wobblers]

Yes, the cyclist was over the drink drive limit, cycling on an unlit section of dual carriageway, dressed in dark clothing with no working lights or reflectors. The driver was arrested for failing to stop, but not charged after the accident investigators reviewed the scene.

I for one am quite glad she wasn't arrested, charged and then bailed or remanded for months on end as some here suggest should happen. She did nothing wrong and that wouldn't be justice at work, but something far more sinister and prejudicial.

What, leaving someone to die in the middle of the road isn't wrong?

Have you heard of this thing called "morality"?

And was there something wrong with her headlights, or was she simply not looking?

 

[spen666]

What, leaving someone to die in the middle of the road isn't wrong?

Have you heard of this thing called "morality"?

And was there something wrong with her headlights, or was she simply not looking?

I'm afraid to tell you that morality or a lack of it isn't usually a ground to arrest someone or charge them.

If you want a legal system based around a notion of morality as a crime, then I think you need a sharia law country

 

[spen666]

There are western countries with good Samaritan laws.

That makes it an offence not to help. It does not make it an offence to behave immorally. You are not arrested for imoral behaviour, you are arrested for breaking their criminal law.

 

[spen666]

Yes I am aware of that, we are talking about this in the context of driving off leaving a dead or dying man in the road.

Well thank you for that. I hadn't realised that.

 

[Lemond]

Yes I am aware of that, we are talking about this in the context of driving off leaving a dead or dying man in the road.

The police were in no doubt from the moment they interviewed her: she had no idea that she had hit a cyclist. Questioning her morality is therefore pointless.

 

[Lemond]

Of course she didn't know what she had hit, what with not having stopped to find out.

Why go back and check if you thought you had hit an animal? Besides, as was pointed out previously, this is an unlit dual carriageway with no places to stop safely.

 

[jarlrmai]

If you hit something and you don't know what it was then it COULD have been a person, you have a duty to go and check that it wasn't. That you later say you thought it was an animal is not good enough, you have to be sure.

 

[glenn forger]

Why go back and check if you thought you had hit an animal?

The classic drunk driver excuse:

http://www.itv.com/news/meridian/20...kills-man-saying-she-thought-he-was-a-badger/

http://road.cc/content/news/111650-...eding-van-driver-jailed-two-years-hit-and-run

 

[glenn forger]

"What made you think it was an animal?"

"Well, what else could cause that much damage to my car?"

 

[theclaud]

Why go back and check if you thought you had hit an animal? Besides, as was pointed out previously, this is an unlit dual carriageway with no places to stop safely.

Do people actually type this kind of stuff with a straight face? What happened to driving at a speed such that you can stop within the distance you can see to be clear? And, at the risk of getting slightly sidetracked by giving credence to this nonsense about animals, is it generally considered OK just to kill livestock because you are not looking where the fark you are going?

 

[Lemond]

If you don't know what you have hit, you could only think you had hit an animal out of wishful thinking.

Actually, if you know the stretch of road where this happened, that's precisely what you would think.

 

[Lemond]

What you would choose to think and, in this specific case, be wrong.

So if you know the area, you should have no problem understanding how a cyclist dressed in dark clothing, with no lights and no reflectors wouldn't stand out...and that you can drive along that stretch of road and see a dead badger, fox or deer almost every day of the week.

 

[Wobblers]

I'm afraid to tell you that morality or a lack of it isn't usually a ground to arrest someone or charge them.

If you want a legal system based around a notion of morality as a crime, then I think you need a sharia law country

The legal system is - at least supposedly - based on a system of ethics. That is why it has support from the general public. I suppose I ought not to be surprised that a lawyer doesn't comprehend that. Or that you should try to deflect the argument in this manner.

 

[Lemond]

I wouldn't dispute either but, that does not justify failing to stop to find out what, or in this case who, had been hit. Nor, as Claud says, does it justify failing to drive within the limits of what can be seen.

You ever hit an animal while driving? "Driving within the limits of what can be seen" just doesn't apply, especially so on an unlit dual carriageway. And in this instance, speed was not considered a factor.

 

[Lemond]

The legal system is - at least supposedly - based on a system of ethics. That is why it has support from the general public. I suppose I ought not to be surprised that a lawyer doesn't comprehend that. Or that you should try to deflect the argument in this manner.

Is it morally right to ride a bike with no lights and reflectors on a dual carriageway at night putting yourself and others at risk?