Van driver cleared of driving without due care and attention after collision with cyclists

[Drago]

Unfortunately dead cyclist and riders in wheelchairs aren't up to the onerous physical effort required in a good old fashioned lynching.

 

[Neilsmith]

There is no justice only the law which is patchy and inconsistent at best

 

[MontyVeda]

surely not pulling out and giving himself enough room to overtake the cyclists is driving without due care. ??

 

[Pale Rider]

surely not pulling out and giving himself enough room to overtake the cyclists is driving without due care. ??

It is, hence the defence suggestion of the cyclist swerving.

That couldn't be proved one way or the other, doubt was cast on the witness by the 'field of vision' quote in my earlier post.

The driver - like any defendant - walks into court a not guilty man, the prosecution has to actively prove his guilt, he does not have to prove anything.

I can see how the not guilty verdict was reached, although for what it's worth, I would have convicted him on the strength of what we know of the case.

The bench who heard all the evidence is in the best position to judge.

 

[Origamist]

Same here.

The bench heard the evidence, so were presumably not satisfied - to the high standard of proof required - the driver drove without due care.

Looks like his explanation of one of the cyclists swerving into his path was just enough to establish a seed of doubt, which is all the defence has to do.

Yes, it's pretty much all you need to say: the old cyclist suicide swerve. It doesn't matter that the cyclists stated they did not swerve and were riding single file (which begs the questions: why he hit both of them, why he left so little passing distance, or why could he not stop in time - i.e tailgating?

 

[Pale Rider]

Yes, it's pretty much all you need to say: the old cyclist suicide swerve.

It can be all you need to say - provided there is no independent witness who cannot be discredited.

That was done in this case by the contention the crash itself was outside the field of vision of the witness - believable because he was in an oncoming car.

A witness who was waiting to cross the road might be able to say: "I was looking at the traffic to my right in preparation to cross and the cyclists did not swerve."

Such a witness would be harder to discredit, although you can bet the defending lawyer might try to suggest his eyesight wasn't up to it, or he glanced to his left at the crucial moment.

 

[Profpointy]

It is, hence the defence suggestion of the cyclist swerving.

That couldn't be proved one way or the other, doubt was cast on the witness by the 'field of vision' quote in my earlier post.

The driver - like any defendant - walks into court a not guilty man, the prosecution has to actively prove his guilt, he does not have to prove anything.

I can see how the not guilty verdict was reached, although for what it's worth, I would have convicted him on the strength of what we know of the case.

The bench who heard all the evidence is in the best position to judge.

on the last point, if, as is likely, the magistrate isn't a cyclist he probably genuinely believes the "wobblin' about all over the place" view of cyclists and suggesting the cyclist did a "suicide death swerve" is a perfectly plausible defence. If the van had driven up the arse of another car I doubt if he'd have got off.

Shocking frankly

 

[Origamist]

It can be all you need to say - provided there is no independent witness who cannot be discredited.

That was done in this case by the contention the crash itself was outside the field of vision of the witness - believable because he was in an oncoming car.

A witness who was waiting to cross the road might be able to say: "I was looking at the traffic to my right in preparation to cross and the cyclists did not swerve."

Such a witness would be harder to discredit, although you can bet the defending lawyer might try to suggest his eyesight wasn't up to it, or he glanced to his left at the crucial moment.

Yes, you've understood my first point.

 

[Drago]

The Highway Code, the Governments own official advice to road users isn't law, but clearly advises road users give at least 5 feet of clearance when overtaking cyclists. It says in this illustrious tome that all drivers get given for free when they first apply for a licence that cyclists can swerve unexpectedly, so leave a sensible bleeding gap. I can't see how in Hell even the most clumsy cyclist could suddenly and unexpectedly swerve more than 5 feet in an instant.

Unless, shock horror, the driver thought he knew better than the Governments road safety advisers and didn't leave the recommended 5 feet. Perish the thought.

The problem with the CPS in general, and prosecutors in particular, is that unlike defence lawyers they generally don't specialise on one area of law, and often don't actually get allocated to the case until close to the trial, sometimes even the day of the trial itself. Therefore they're not only less experienced/qualified/specialised than their defense counterpart, but they will have had nowhere near as long as to prepare their case, their approach, and their strategy. Going by the press report above my guess is that this job failed because the defence lawyer trotted out a fairly standard defence, and the prosecutor was sandbagged with no reasonable retort.

 

[glasgowcyclist]

it's pretty much all you need to say: the old cyclist suicide swerve.

This is why I use a front and rear camera on my bike. I'm not having some bastard pull that crap and get away with it, whether I'm alive to dispute it or not.

GC

 

[glenn forger]

It's the Single Witness Suicide Swerve.

 

[Pale Rider]

The Highway Code, the Governments own official advice to road users isn't law, but clearly advises road users give at least 5 feet of clearance when overtaking cyclists. It says in this illustrious tome that all drivers get given for free when they first apply for a licence that cyclists can swerve unexpectedly, so leave a sensible bleeding gap. I can't see how in Hell even the most clumsy cyclist could suddenly and unexpectedly swerve more than 5 feet in an instant.

Unless, shock horror, the driver thought he knew better than the Governments road safety advisers and didn't leave the recommended 5 feet. Perish the thought.

The problem with the CPS in general, and prosecutors in particular, is that unlike defence lawyers they generally don't specialise on one area of law, and often don't actually get allocated to the case until close to the trial, sometimes even the day of the trial itself. Therefore they're not only less experienced/qualified/specialised than their defense counterpart, but they will have had nowhere near as long as to prepare their case, their approach, and their strategy. Going by the press report above my guess is that this job failed because the defence lawyer trotted out a fairly standard defence, and the prosecutor was sandbagged with no reasonable retort.

The general point about unequal prosecution/defence firepower is a good one.

A criminal court is adversarial, it's a battle.

Too many CPS prosecutors have a frightened of their own shadow/civil service/always keep your head down mentality - they lack the stomach for the fight.

They also lack the streetfighting nous which some of the better defending lawyers have.

Thus we have results like the one we see here.

 

[Brandane]

Shame on the jurors...

There was no jury; the trial was heard at a magistrates court, which I believe is the equivalent of our "District court", normally reserved for litter droppers, minor public disorder offences, and other trivial matters like mowing down and seriously injuring cyclists with a van .
The lower the court, the easier it is to convince the presiding Magistrate/Justice of the Peace (in Scotland) of your clients innocence.
Had this case been heard by a streetwise Sheriff within the walls of Glasgow Sheriff court, the outcome may well have been different.

 

[Poacher]

"the court heard they had not been wearing helmets."

So the driver couldn't possibly be found guilty of any offence whatsoever.

 

[glenn forger]

basically driving straight into the back of cyclists in broad daylight is the standard expected of a competent driver, gawd help us.