Yes they really convicted the driver

[Hugo a Gogo]

'the cyclist' was on foot

we don't know how long the truck was sitting stationary, but clearly long enough for this bloke to try several different ways of getting past

[velocefica]

PurpleMoonlight said:

maurauth said:

velocefica said:

Why plead guilty to something you didn't do. Your setting yourself up for a conviction.

Guilt, not wanting a month long bitter trial, the promise of a non-custodial sentence for a guilty plea?

I have never been comfortable with this method of operation of the courts.

It encourages innocent people to accept a conviction simply because they know they will be locked up if found guilty via trial. It doesn't provide true justice, just makes for a quicker judicial system.

Couldn't agree more. If I was positive I was in no way at fault then I wouldn't plead guilty. If your not mentally strong or live in fear of the justice system then a lot of people would be encouraged to plead guilty.

[PurpleMoonlight]

velocefica said:

Couldn't agree more. If I was positive I was in no way at fault then I wouldn't plead guilty. If your not mentally strong or live in fear of the justice system then a lot of people would be encouraged to plead guilty.

And probably keeps his job as wasn't banned.

[The Surveyor]

velocefica said:

PurpleMoonlight said:

maurauth said:

velocefica said:

Why plead guilty to something you didn't do. Your setting yourself up for a conviction.

Guilt, not wanting a month long bitter trial, the promise of a non-custodial sentence for a guilty plea?

I have never been comfortable with this method of operation of the courts.

It encourages innocent people to accept a conviction simply because they know they will be locked up if found guilty via trial. It doesn't provide true justice, just makes for a quicker judicial system.

Couldn't agree more. If I was positive I was in no way at fault then I wouldn't plead guilty. If your not mentally strong or live in fear of the justice system then a lot of people would be encouraged to plead guilty.

Courts are intimidating, but that's why people have legal representation. If this guy, or his representative believed he hadn't contributed to the accident, I'm sure he would have been advised to plead 'not guilty'. Clearly though, he was partly at fault and admitted as much with his 'guilty' plea knowing that his carelessness in not checking his mirror before moving off lead to the death. Yes, he could have lied, claiming something or other but chose to be truthful letting the court decide his fate. Isn't that how it should work?

[agtlaw]

1. The prosecution must prove careless driving.

The Road Traffic Act 1988 contains a statutory definition; "A person is to be regarded as driving without due care and attention if (and only if) the way he drives falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver. In determining ... what would be expected of a careful and competent driver in a particular case, regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the accused."

2. The prosecution must prove that the defendant's careless driving was "a cause" of death.

Not the main cause, not a substantial cause, not the only cause. "A cause". Anything more than a minimal cause is sufficient; Hennigan (1971).

3. How to prove the offence?

The police interview the suspect - give him a chance to provide his version of events at an early stage. Things said to a police officer may be used later at court. There may be witnesses, CCTV, photographs, markings on the road or vehicles, an accident reconstruction report, an autopsy report, phone records, etc. At trial, the prosecution must make the jury sure that the defendant's driving was (a) careless and (b) the careless driving was "a cause" of death. If the jury is not sure of (a) or (b) then the verdict will be not guilty. The defence might assert that the deceased was the author of his own misfortune, that there was no careless driving. However, that may be a difficult defence if admissions have been made to the police. e.g. "I didn't check my mirror." The standard of driving expected is not that of a professional driver, but that of a careful and competent driver.

[The Surveyor]

agtlaw, are you saying that the defendant would not be asked how he pleads to the accusation of 'causing death by careless driving' as this is something that the prosecution has to prove ?

Edited by The Surveyor on Friday 29th May 16:35

[agtlaw]

No, I'm saying the thread title is misleading as the defendant pleaded guilty at court. I don't know what, if any, admissions were made to the police.

[The Surveyor]

With you on that.

[paranoid airbag]

PurpleMoonlight said:

randlemarcus said:

Didn't check his mirrors to spot the cyclist hooked up. Seems reasonably clear to me, based on the few facts in the article. Yes, mostly the cyclists fault, but the driver is a professional driver, so needs to be better than Mavis the Micra.

Professional or not, there has to be a limit to which you are responsible for other peoples stupidity though.

He's responsible for his own stupidity, muppet. Not checking mirrors is careless.

[Hugo a Gogo]

from the very start of the thread "the cyclist not riding defensively" it's "the cyclist" and "the cyclist" that

the guy was on foot, pushing a bike!

62 years old too, hardly a hipster on a fixie, running red lights

it says the 'oncoming' cyclist couldn't get through so dismounted

so the driver had every chance to see him cycle up and get off his bike to try and squeeze past the stationary truck (if the driver was even in his truck at the time)

[vonhosen]

PurpleMoonlight said:

randlemarcus said:

Didn't check his mirrors to spot the cyclist hooked up. Seems reasonably clear to me, based on the few facts in the article. Yes, mostly the cyclists fault, but the driver is a professional driver, so needs to be better than Mavis the Micra.

Professional or not, there has to be a limit to which you are responsible for other peoples stupidity though.

Checking the mirrors is a basic requirement expected of everyone, not something to be only expected of professional drivers.
If a driver does what he is supposed to it doesn't matter how stupid the other persons actions are or not, it's collision averted.

[PurpleMoonlight]

In the context of the information available I do not consider that failing to check his mirrors in this instance constitutes careless driving.

I can understand why the driver pleaded guilty though. Given the same situation I probably would have too, not because I believed I was guilty but because it avoided possible jail and the loss of my job and licence. The system encourages people to accept guilt when in fact they may not be.

[Devil2575]

PurpleMoonlight said:

In the context of the information available I do not consider that failing to check his mirrors in this instance constitutes careless driving.

I can understand why the driver pleaded guilty though. Given the same situation I probably would have too, not because I believed I was guilty but because it avoided possible jail and the loss of my job and licence. The system encourages people to accept guilt when in fact they may not be.

You have no idea if the driver pleaded guilty for those reasons. You're just making up a version of events to suit your desire for the driver to be innocent.

[heebeegeetee]

Hugo a Gogo said:

from the very start of the thread "the cyclist not riding defensively" it's "the cyclist" and "the cyclist" that

the guy was on foot, pushing a bike!

62 years old too, hardly a hipster on a fixie, running red lights

it says the 'oncoming' cyclist couldn't get through so dismounted

so the driver had every chance to see him cycle up and get off his bike to try and squeeze past the stationary truck (if the driver was even in his truck at the time)

And thuS the cyclist had every chance to see the driver, engage with him And ensure the driver knew the cyclist was about to attempt something insane.

[R0G]

change the old guy with the bicycle for a silly kid aged 10 who had decided to play sillies - should a driver have made certain it was safe before proceeding especially as the situation was clearly in view ?

[Dammit]

heebeegeetee said:

And thuS the cyclist had every chance to see the driver, engage with him And ensure the driver knew the cyclist was about to attempt something insane.

You can try and blame the dead guy as much as you want, but if the lorry driver had paid attention he'd not have killed him.

Thats inescapable, and the lorry driver was man enough to put his hand up to it - I can't admire him for killing another through simple inattention, but I can admire his courage in admitting he did it rather than trying to wiggle out of the responsibility that was so clearly his.

[heebeegeetee]

Dammit said:

You can try and blame the dead guy as much as you want, but if the lorry driver had paid attention he'd not have killed him.

Thats inescapable, and the lorry driver was man enough to put his hand up to it - I can't admire him for killing another through simple inattention, but I can admire his courage in admitting he did it rather than trying to wiggle out of the responsibility that was so clearly his.

I think you're making statements that you can't know without being there. It Seems the deceased went Into a gap between lorry and wall that was so narrow that he couldn't physically pass through. Just how visible was he? We don't know. Was he able to turn round or did he have to walk backwards or push his bike backwards?

So yes I am blaming the victim cos on the information we have it just seems an absolutey crazy thing to do, something that is entirely foreseeable that is likely to result in harm.

I wonder if the drivers imagination didn't stretch as far as thinking somebody would do such a thing?

[R0G]

Adult victim made a daft choice and driver did not check correctly if at all

Both are blame worthy

victim has got his extreme punishment and driver now has their punishment

So whats the problem ?

[Dammit]

heebeegeetee said:

I think you're making statements that you can't know without being there. It Seems the deceased went Into a gap between lorry and wall that was so narrow that he couldn't physically pass through. Just how visible was he? We don't know. Was he able to turn round or did he have to walk backwards or push his bike backwards?

So yes I am blaming the victim cos on the information we have it just seems an absolutey crazy thing to do, something that is entirely foreseeable that is likely to result in harm.

I wonder if the drivers imagination didn't stretch as far as thinking somebody would do such a thing?

Luckily we have the drivers own testimony here, that if he'd checked his mirror before moving off he'd not have killed the guy.

What this comes down to is that the driver moved off without checking that it was safe to do so, and as a direct result killed someone - that the victim had put himself in a position where he was at risk is undeniable, but the driver of the vehicle was the one in control of the danger here, and as such the responsibility has to lie with him, as he saw and admitted himself.

[heebeegeetee]

Dammit said:

Luckily we have the drivers own testimony here, that if he'd checked his mirror before moving off he'd not have killed the guy.

What this comes down to is that the driver moved off without checking that it was safe to do so, and as a direct result killed someone - that the victim had put himself in a position where he was at risk is undeniable, but the driver of the vehicle was the one in control of the danger here, and as such the responsibility has to lie with him, as he saw and admitted himself.

In the article the driver says he felt he was responsible for some of it, but of course there is no option to plead partly guilty.