Jailed for pushing a cyclist under a car
Discussion
CoolHands said:
“or make that person think they are about to be attacked”
Gesticulating at her is not even in the same room as the above. Claiming she assaulted her is mentalness
Well, something definitely happened, which resulted in a death, so how would you describe it?Gesticulating at her is not even in the same room as the above. Claiming she assaulted her is mentalness
I noticed Julia Hartly-Brewer said she also would have shouted at the 77 yr old cyclist. If, for whatever reason, the cyclist falls off her bike as a result and dies, what is wrong with the aggressor taking responsibility for their actions? The likes of Brewer are always demanding people be held to account.
Zeeky said:
It would. All road users have a duty of care to each other when using the road. 'Road' in this context means the highyway not just the carriageway. The standard of care varies depending on the type of road user.
The defendant's actions were clearly negligent I think. The risk of the victim falling off her bike was obvious.
Whether it was grossly negligent would be a matter for the court but in practice this means, simply, 'do you think it was bad enough to deserve a conviction for manslaughter'?
The tests are different for gross negligence. You might struggle with the behaviour crossing the threshold (considering it couldn't even muster the most basic assault) and there has to be a clear and obvious risk of death at the time of the actions (not in retrospect).The defendant's actions were clearly negligent I think. The risk of the victim falling off her bike was obvious.
Whether it was grossly negligent would be a matter for the court but in practice this means, simply, 'do you think it was bad enough to deserve a conviction for manslaughter'?
Hence CPS going for unlawful act.
jm doc said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshi...
Partially sighted and with cerebral palsy, pedestrian sent to jail for being on a pavement at the same time as an incompetent and dangerous cyclist.
Discuss
I'd discuss how you have totally misrepresented the articlePartially sighted and with cerebral palsy, pedestrian sent to jail for being on a pavement at the same time as an incompetent and dangerous cyclist.
Discuss
A quick look at the video shows a very unreasonable pedestrian pushing an elderly female, cyclist off the wide footpath which it seems was a "shared space" in front of a car - I completely agree with a custodial sentence
KTMsm said:
I'd discuss how you have totally misrepresented the article
A quick look at the video shows a very unreasonable pedestrian pushing an elderly female, cyclist off the wide footpath which it seems was a "shared space" in front of a car - I completely agree with a custodial sentence
Em have you read the thread, there have been a few developments.A quick look at the video shows a very unreasonable pedestrian pushing an elderly female, cyclist off the wide footpath which it seems was a "shared space" in front of a car - I completely agree with a custodial sentence
KTMsm said:
jm doc said:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cambridgeshi...
Partially sighted and with cerebral palsy, pedestrian sent to jail for being on a pavement at the same time as an incompetent and dangerous cyclist.
Discuss
I'd discuss how you have totally misrepresented the articlePartially sighted and with cerebral palsy, pedestrian sent to jail for being on a pavement at the same time as an incompetent and dangerous cyclist.
Discuss
A quick look at the video shows a very unreasonable pedestrian pushing an elderly female, cyclist off the wide footpath which it seems was a "shared space" in front of a car - I completely agree with a custodial sentence
Forester1965 said:
Zeeky said:
It would. All road users have a duty of care to each other when using the road. 'Road' in this context means the highyway not just the carriageway. The standard of care varies depending on the type of road user.
The defendant's actions were clearly negligent I think. The risk of the victim falling off her bike was obvious.
Whether it was grossly negligent would be a matter for the court but in practice this means, simply, 'do you think it was bad enough to deserve a conviction for manslaughter'?
The tests are different for gross negligence. You might struggle with the behaviour crossing the threshold (considering it couldn't even muster the most basic assault) and there has to be a clear and obvious risk of death at the time of the actions (not in retrospect).The defendant's actions were clearly negligent I think. The risk of the victim falling off her bike was obvious.
Whether it was grossly negligent would be a matter for the court but in practice this means, simply, 'do you think it was bad enough to deserve a conviction for manslaughter'?
Hence CPS going for unlawful act.
Obviously there is a risk of death if someone falls into the path of a vehicle. (The risk must be obvious, not the resultant death).
The critical question would be whether or not the jury thought the negligence was serious enough to convict the defendant. Essentially that is what the jury was asked to consider at trial and it convicted.
There would need to be a clear an obvious risk the person would ride off the pavement into traffic. That isn't as straightforward as saying if you approach someone on the pavement gesticulate and shout it creates an obvious risk of death.
They went for unlawful act because the facts don't support gross negligence.
They went for unlawful act because the facts don't support gross negligence.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff