Cyclist killed (but not dangerously)

Ryath

mloc123 wrote: »

My point is, who is to say the car was badly driven? We don't know both sides of the story.

Of course it was driven badly if he overtook without being able to see far enough down the road to safely complete the manoverve. The guy should have pleaded guilty and taken responsibilty for his actions. The judges directions to the jury are a joke.

Gulliver

langdang wrote: »

"But Judge Moran also advised the jury the defence case had showed three key elements to prove a charge of dangerous driving were absent — drink, defective vehicle and speed."

I'm a motorist, not a cyclist and I think this is a disgrace. This is the whole problem with driving laws. I've seen so many moronic acts committed by people at legal speeds (and 99% certain no drink and car working ok) that the charge of dangerous driving should be just that - you are unfit to control a vehicle. Speeding should be a separate offence with stackable punishment.

As far as I can see the driver did not check was the way clear, so therefore he is in the wrong.

Lumen

Gulliver wrote: »

This is the whole problem with driving laws...the charge of dangerous driving should be just that - you are unfit to control a vehicle. Speeding should be a separate offence with stackable punishment.

The law is nice and simple. Dangerous driving is driving which is dangerous to the public. Speeding is a separate offence, more like a contravention of licence conditions (hence strict liability).

The problem (at face value) is not the law, it's the judge. It's also nothing to do with cyclists per se, other than that a cyclist happens to have been on the receiving end this time.

droidus

Lumen wrote: »

The law is nice and simple. Dangerous driving is driving which is dangerous to the public. Speeding is a separate offence, more like a contravention of licence conditions (hence strict liability).

The problem (at face value) is not the law, it's the judge. It's also nothing to do with cyclists per se, other than that a cyclist happens to have been on the receiving end this time.

I would hope thats true. But as has been seen in recent threads here, there seems to be some some kind of unconscious public assumption (amongst morons) that if a cyclist is involved in an accident they must bear some responsibility or complicity for, or in what happened, even if its the fact that they were simply there.

Lumen

droidus wrote: »

I would hope thats true. But as has been seen in recent threads here, there seems to be some some kind of unconscious public assumption (amongst morons) that if a cyclist is involved in an accident they must bear some responsibility or complicity for or in what happened, even if its the fact that they were simply there.

Fortunately we have the judiciary to steer juries away from such ill-considered notions, equipped as they are with finely honed legal minds, flawless knowledge of the law and a dispassionate jurisprudential perspective.

Oh, wait...

Cabaal

So he had no driving license and obviously couldn't see ahead of him during the overtaking and thats not dangerous, this country is fecked up sometimes.

redmaxi

I can never understand why these threads on death are allowed. A woman is dead, have a bit of respect for the family besides debating the whole thing in a public forum.

Deisetrek

redmaxi wrote: »

I can never understand why these threads on death are allowed. A woman is dead, have a bit of respect for the family besides debating the whole thing in a public forum.

Everyone sympathises here with the family , the issue here is the disgraceful treatment of that family by the warped opinion of a so called judge , and the wider repucussions for the cyclists on this public forum . Nobody here has shown a lack of respect , just shock ........

BostonB

I don't get this verdict at all. Someone dead, because someone was driving who shouldn't have been. Yet no ones responsible. The legal system is broken.

English Bob

Leaving the legality aside I feel that this tragedy needs to be highlighted in a sensitive way to show how vulnerable cyclists are when drivers are careless.
I'm sure everyone with any humanity will feel compassion & will be very aware of being respectful to the families involved. Both the drivers family & cyclists family.

BostonB

Bob, Even if you are lit like a Christmas tree, doing everything right. You can still be knocked down. Theres a culture of irresponsible driving habits, and little enforcement/judgments.

Captain Havoc

BostonB wrote: »

Bob, Even if you are lit like a Christmas tree, doing everything right. You can still be knocked down. Theres a culture of irresponsible driving habits, and little enforcement/judgments.

I don't think I'm the only person on this forum who was knocked down looking like a Christmas tree.

BostonB

I think many cyclists and drivers have an unrealistic idea of how well cyclists can be seen, even in day light. A wide B pillar, or bad angle, or blind spot is all it takes. So drivers need to be the habit of looking more carefully. But they won't unless they are heavily penalized for not looking, not dismissing it as an accident. Though obviously sometimes its a genuine accident. But this one was avoidable if the driver had been obeying the law. They wouldn't have been driving. Its as simple as that. If there were more cyclists then drivers would be more aware of them. Thus it would be safer for cyclists. But judgments like this simply give out all the wrong messages does not encourage people to cycle. Even though accidents/deaths are very rare. But its lack of enforcement/judgement once again.

superrdave

Lumen wrote: »

No, the judge steered the jury towards the verdict. That's normal.

What I don't understand is why. His comments as reported defy all sense, and seem to directly contradict the current law I quoted above.

The judge summarised what the defence case was, not his opinion on the matter. He probably also advised them not to take into account statements of opinion from counsel or from him in relation to matters of fact, as they are the judges of fact, but every judge says this to every jury, so it doesn't get reported. The judge probably spoke to the jury for a good thirty minutes, if not more, yet this one line gets quoted out of context and it looks like he told them to find him not guilty.

Personally, from the little I know, it looks like a disgraceful verdict. But we have not sat through two days of argument and counter argument and aren't in the same position to judge as the men and women of the jury, who are probably all motorists and may not contain a single cyclist. Such is life.

superrdave

Captain Havoc wrote: »

Because not sending him to prison has sent a message to all learner drivers that nothing will happen you if you have an accident. It has also set a precedent in law so no one else will get done for this either.

That doesn't work. Deterrence sentencing is ineffective because think either it won't happen to them or they won't get caught. It's like the death penalty; it has no appreciable effect on the number of murders or other capital offences..

BostonB

superrdave wrote: »

...But we have not sat through two days of argument and counter argument and aren't in the same position to judge as the men and women of the jury, who are probably all motorists and may not contain a single cyclist. Such is life.

I think thats irrelevant. The Driver shouldn't have been on the road.

superrdave

Captain Havoc wrote: »

I think the point is, it shouldn't have been driven at all.

That makes him guilty of driving, but not of dangerous driving.

CramCycle

mloc123 wrote: »

6.50am? I was out at 6.50 this morning, pitch dark. Even in the summer its 'muggy' at that time.
Edit: http://www.galway.net/about/daylight.html, August at 6.50 would be dawn and visability would be poor IMO

During the summer, visibility is normally very high at this time having been out myself in it. It might be muggy if cloudy or it's before 6 but generally visibility is great at this time.

Lumen wrote: »

No, we don't. However, the judges comments as reported suggest that the if you're not speeding or drinking and your vehicle is well-maintained, any deaths you cause by inept driving are not your fault.

This is just my opinion but it has been reiterated to me several times. Judges live outside the world of common sense most of the time and seem to often suffer a massive disconnect from reality. I have heard many cases over the years of this as I'm sure so have others (my local judge John Neilan being a great example), just google his name.

superrdave

BostonB wrote: »

I think thats irrelevant. The Driver shouldn't have been on the road.

Of course not. But that does not mean what he did was dangerous driving, within the meaning of the statute. The fact he should not have been on the road is actually irrelevant, much as that statement might grate. If the driver had been a fifty year old taxi driver with thirty years experience and a clean licence doing exactly the same thing, it would not change the nature of the act; either the driving was dangerous or it wasn't. It could be argued because of his inexperience, him doing a certain act was more dangerous than if someone much more experienced was doing it but trying to convince a jury of motorists of that would be very very difficult.
Unfortunately, in this case, because of the high standard of proof, he wasn't convicted of dangerous driving causing death. The new offence of careless driving causing death (not quite in force yet), with a possible two year penalty, may well have caught him if it had been in force then.

BostonB

superrdave wrote: »

Of course not. But that does not mean what he did was dangerous driving, within the meaning of the statute. The fact he should not have been on the road is actually irrelevant, much as that statement might grate. If the driver had been a fifty year old taxi driver with thirty years experience and a clean licence doing exactly the same thing, it would not change the nature of the act; either the driving was dangerous or it wasn't. It could be argued because of his inexperience, him doing a certain act was more dangerous than if someone much more experienced was doing it but trying to convince a jury of motorists of that would be very very difficult.
Unfortunately, in this case, because of the high standard of proof, he wasn't convicted of dangerous driving causing death. The new offence of careless driving causing death (not quite in force yet), with a possible two year penalty, may well have caught him if it had been in force then.

My comment was in response to their being no cyclists on the jury. Nothing to do with dangerous driving.

How is not dangerous. He killed someone. That suggests it was dangerous.

At the very least he drove knowing he wasn't allowed to, had no official training, had no experience. But drove anyway. I would have expected a charge of something like reckless endangerment if such exists.

CramCycle

First of all, I haven't said it yet, but my sympathies go out to her family as this is a tragedy regardless of the reasons.

superrdave wrote: »

But that does not mean what he did was dangerous driving, within the meaning of the statute.

Since we're only relying on the newspaper reports it is hard to not get out of line on a thread like this. That said, the driver of the truck indicated he clearly seen the cyclist and further down the road he heard the impact (implying she was visible for a reasonable distance).

Within meaning of the statute or just common sense, he was guilty of dangerous driving as he was driving without due care and attention, these actions caused the death of another person. Again whether it was a pedestrian, cyclist or another motorist is irrelevant. I cannot say whether his inexperience contributed to this, personally, I don't think it did as he could have gotten away with this driving style for years and it would have gone relatively unnoticed until he had an accident. Experience wasn't his problem, common sense was.

Lumen

superrdave wrote: »

that does not mean what he did was dangerous driving, within the meaning of the statute

What exactly do you mean by this? The statute doesn't define the meaning of "dangerous", since it's obvious. That which creates danger, i.e. risk of physical harm.

Under what circumstances can hitting a cyclist during an overtake not be dangerous?

I don't see the "high burden of proof" aspect. The outcome speaks for itself.

Deisetrek

CramCycle wrote: »

First of all, I haven't said it yet, but my sympathies go out to her family as this is a tragedy regardless of the reasons.



Since we're only relying on the newspaper reports it is hard to not get out of line on a thread like this. That said, the driver of the truck indicated he clearly seen the cyclist and further down the road he heard the impact (implying she was visible for a reasonable distance).

Within meaning of the statute or just common sense, he was guilty of dangerous driving as he was driving without due care and attention, these actions caused the death of another person. Again whether it was a pedestrian, cyclist or another motorist is irrelevant. I cannot say whether his inexperience contributed to this, personally, I don't think it did as he could have gotten away with this driving style for years and it would have gone relatively unnoticed until he had an accident. Experience wasn't his problem, common sense was.

Agree , inexperience is not the issue here . Having been knocked down myself by a very "experienced" 85 year old driver 4 months ago ( careless driver btw , that's my opinion not judge Moron's I'd say) , the issue is the judge' s conclusion that the driver was not driving without due care and attention , a farcical decision in any man's language . That's the debate here not experience or inexperience .

BostonB

I don't think you can't say experience isn't a factor. Theres a reason to be accompanied.

I don't think its useful to compare it with other accidents. If you choose to break the law and then have an accident. Thats entirely different to being within the law and having an accident. IMO.

Captain Havoc

What's the point in having a learning permit? Shouldn't we just go back to purchasing your driving license without having to do a test?

superrdave

Lumen wrote: »

What exactly do you mean by this? The statute doesn't define the meaning of "dangerous", since it's obvious. That which creates danger, i.e. risk of physical harm.

Under what circumstances can hitting a cyclist during an overtake not be dangerous?

I don't see the "high burden of proof" aspect. The outcome speaks for itself.

Errr... Sorry about this, but the statute does define dangerous driving:

s53(1) of RTA 1961 wrote:

A person shall not drive a vehicle in a public place at a speed or in a manner which, having regard to all the circumstances of the case (including the nature, condition and use of the place and the amount of traffic which then actually is or might reasonably be expected then to be therein) is dangerous to the public.

Also, the high burden of proof i mean is that the jury have to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the driving was dangerous to the public, in the meaning outlined above.

The key aspect of this case, as I see it, is that it was very early in the morning and the jury may have said he 'might reasonably' not have expected there to be a cyclist there when he overtook the truck. If this had happened at nine in the morning, he might well have been convicted.

Obviously my sympathies go to the family and there but for the grace of God go any of us, but I can see why he wasn't convicted. I'm not one to go setting up a lynch mob here and don't think the judge or jury did anything unexpected. I mean, if I was on the jury, I would probably have been pressing for a conviction, but when you have the cop out option of just finding him guilty of careless driving (or him possibly having pleaded guilty to it already), it is easy not to find him guilty of dangerous driving causing death. Motorists can see something like that happening to themselves (unlike most jury cases, like assaults or drug cases) and are loath to convict and potentially send someone to jail. All that said, there is no way he should have been out unaccompanied, but that alone is not a basis for convicting him.

Edit: The statute has been amended a number of times and I'm not quite sure what the version was in 2007 when this happened, but it would be largely similar to that above. By reference to today, the 2010 act, which hasn't been commenced yet, states "A person shall not drive a vehicle in a public place in a manner (including speed) which having regard to all the circumstances of the case (including the condition of the vehicle, the nature, condition and use of the place and the amount of traffic which then actually is or might reasonably be expected then to be in it) is or is likely to be dangerous to the public." which is quite similar.

BostonB

For me, he's not any other driver. Hes a driver whos not qualified to be on the road on their own. With almost no experience or qualified instruction. Thats the full circumstances.

A person shall not drive a vehicle in a public place ....having regard to all the circumstances of the case ....is dangerous to the public.

If its not dangerous, then they should scrap the requirement. Its meaningless.

superrdave

BostonB wrote: »

For me, he's not any other driver. Hes a driver whos not qualified to be on the road on their own. With almost no experience or qualified instruction. Thats the full circumstances.




If its not dangerous, then they should scrap the requirement. Its meaningless.

The problem is the principles of statutory interpretation and the esjudem generis rule.... not to bore you too much with legal latin ****, but where something general is mentioned and followed by specifics, the general must be interpreted consistent with the specifics.... in this instance, that would mean interpreting the 'full circumstances' as being the actually physics of the accident, rather than whether or not driver was a particular type of driver. I would think the statute would have needed to refer to something like the skill or experience of the driver before it could be taken into account. The law may very well be an ass on this, but I don't think the fact of an acquittal is particularly surprising.

CramCycle

superrdave wrote: »

The key aspect of this case, as I see it, is that it was very early in the morning and the jury may have said he 'might reasonably' not have expected there to be a cyclist there when he overtook the truck. If this had happened at nine in the morning, he might well have been convicted.

So by that logic, any overtaking done at anytime outside of rush hour and without looking is completely justifiable?

On a road with a two way system and only one lane of traffic each side, it is reasonable to expect that there is a possibility of approaching traffic (regardless of it being a cyclist or a motorist or pedestrian), if he couldn't make out an approaching cyclist, his eyesight is clearly not fit for the purpose of driving either. This can be accepted as a reasonable deduction as there were at least two vechicles going one way, it's not a stretch to imagine a vechicle going the other way.

Originally Posted by s53(1) of RTA 1961
A person shall not drive a vehicle in a public place at a speed or in a manner which, having regard to all the circumstances of the case (including the nature, condition and use of the place and the amount of traffic which then actually is or might reasonably be expected then to be therein) is dangerous to the public.

in a manner : he couldn't observe the opposing line of traffic when he attempted an overtake
regard to all the circumstances : same point as before
use of the place : it is a public road, it is reasonable to assume there is a possibility of traffic
amount of traffic : there were two vechicles going in his direction, it is reasonable to expect a similar level in the other directiondangerous to the public : he didn't observe basic principles in common sense while operating a vechicle on a public road which lead to the death of a member of the public

If I done this, regardless of whether it was accidental, I would be expecting time as I walked into the court house. No one is perfect, I often make mistakes on the road, but common sense (IMO) has so far prevented me from commiting a maneuvre that results in the death of another person that is my fault.

zagmund

Umm, so it defines dangerous driving as driving that is . . . "dangerous to the public."

And that's it then ?

Dangerous driving is driving that is dangerous. And we needed someone to write that into law ? And this helps define it in what way exactly ?

And as for that guff about not reasonably expecting a cyclist to be on the road - what's all that about ? Why wouldn't a cyclist be on the road ? Yes, it was early, but people cycle at all hours of the day and night.

z

superrdave wrote: »

Errr... Sorry about this, but the statute does define dangerous driving:

Originally Posted by s53(1) of RTA 1961
A person shall not drive a vehicle in a public place at a speed or in a manner which, having regard to all the circumstances of the case (including the nature, condition and use of the place and the amount of traffic which then actually is or might reasonably be expected then to be therein) is dangerous to the public.