What exactly is required to get done for careless?
Discussion
I got linked to this article
http://road.cc/content/news/95681-pharmaceutical-c...
It is about a cyclist (bear with me
) who was killed in a head-on by a woman overtaking on a bend. The woman in the car had not seen the oncoming cyclists up ahead, and when she did see them, rather than slow down she continued on at 50mph. She claims the cyclist fell into her path (however I think this is irrelevant, it could have been a motorcyclist locking up and falling off, or a car skidding etc) but anyhow collided with the cyclist causing her death.
If you're overtaking on a blind bend, then hit an approaching vehicle you had not seen, how is that not careless or dangerous driving? It's clear in the Highway Code:
This case has made me really f
king angry to be honest, so I'm hoping somebody can say exactly why she has gotten away with it so that I don't have to go on thinking the legal system is a complete fking joke.
http://road.cc/content/news/95681-pharmaceutical-c...
It is about a cyclist (bear with me
) who was killed in a head-on by a woman overtaking on a bend. The woman in the car had not seen the oncoming cyclists up ahead, and when she did see them, rather than slow down she continued on at 50mph. She claims the cyclist fell into her path (however I think this is irrelevant, it could have been a motorcyclist locking up and falling off, or a car skidding etc) but anyhow collided with the cyclist causing her death.If you're overtaking on a blind bend, then hit an approaching vehicle you had not seen, how is that not careless or dangerous driving? It's clear in the Highway Code:
hwc said:
166
DO NOT overtake if there is any doubt, or where you cannot see far enough ahead to be sure it is safe. For example, when you are approaching
a corner or bend
a hump bridge
the brow of a hill.
Yet she did exactly that, hit somebody and killed them- yet gets off scot free. It certainly seems to be far below the standard expected of a reasonable driver - so what am I missing here? DO NOT overtake if there is any doubt, or where you cannot see far enough ahead to be sure it is safe. For example, when you are approaching
a corner or bend
a hump bridge
the brow of a hill.
This case has made me really f
king angry to be honest, so I'm hoping somebody can say exactly why she has gotten away with it so that I don't have to go on thinking the legal system is a complete fking joke.I can't open the article on my phone for some reason, but I did see it was a cycling website.
It is most likely going to be written from a pro cycling perspective, and perhaps be a little light in mitigating circumstances or specifics that make the cyclist look in any way responsible.
I'd certainly be interested in reading the court reports.
It is most likely going to be written from a pro cycling perspective, and perhaps be a little light in mitigating circumstances or specifics that make the cyclist look in any way responsible.
I'd certainly be interested in reading the court reports.
I think the womens age and job title (scientist) swung the jury. Just because she is educated does not me she isnt a looney behind the wheel of her bini.
If it been a young lad the book would of been thrown.
In my mind she overtook when she could not see it to be clear on a bend and collided with a cyclist on the wrong side of the road, were does reasonable doubt figure. The cyclist who died had a reason to doubt some impatient cow was not going to overtake on a bend without view and be on her side of the bloody road to hit her but clearly she was unreasonable in that assumption.
If it been a young lad the book would of been thrown.
In my mind she overtook when she could not see it to be clear on a bend and collided with a cyclist on the wrong side of the road, were does reasonable doubt figure. The cyclist who died had a reason to doubt some impatient cow was not going to overtake on a bend without view and be on her side of the bloody road to hit her but clearly she was unreasonable in that assumption.
Well there are further details here:
http://www.henleystandard.co.uk/news/news.php?id=1...
It's a long article but I won't quote the whole thing, but here's the cyclist's boyfriend's view:
ish thing to say anyhow.
http://www.henleystandard.co.uk/news/news.php?id=1...
It's a long article but I won't quote the whole thing, but here's the cyclist's boyfriend's view:
henleystandard said:
Mr Pontin, 36, who lived with Miss Perinova in Highands Lane, told the court: “I had been pedalling quite hard. I stopped pedalling before the bend and in front of me I could see two bikes, with a car, maybe 60 to 80 metres away.
“Then the car started to overtake. It pulled right on to our side of the road and kept coming straight towards us. All four wheels were on our side of the road.
“I thought, ‘What a stupid manoeuvre’. I just couldn’t believe the person driving had overtaken at that point.”
Mr Pontin says he “feathered” his brakes before hearing Miss Perinova try to talk to him, asking something like “Benny, what are you doing?” He then aimed for a “tiny gap” of around 2ft between the car and the kerb.
Mr Pontin said: “All I remember was a massive ‘whoosh’ just next to me. Then I felt Denisa’s bike touch the back of my bike. I turned round, expecting Denisa to be in the seat behind me but she was maybe 15 metres back down the road.”
Alison Bell, one of the other cyclists, said she saw Miss Perinova lean forward in her saddle and talk to Mr Pontin when her foot slipped on the pedal, leading her to become unbalanced and fall.
She said Dr Measures’ car was already over the central line as Miss Perinova fell into its path but she did not see any impact.
Further piss boiling comes from the prosecution brief, a Mr Fielding : “Then the car started to overtake. It pulled right on to our side of the road and kept coming straight towards us. All four wheels were on our side of the road.
“I thought, ‘What a stupid manoeuvre’. I just couldn’t believe the person driving had overtaken at that point.”
Mr Pontin says he “feathered” his brakes before hearing Miss Perinova try to talk to him, asking something like “Benny, what are you doing?” He then aimed for a “tiny gap” of around 2ft between the car and the kerb.
Mr Pontin said: “All I remember was a massive ‘whoosh’ just next to me. Then I felt Denisa’s bike touch the back of my bike. I turned round, expecting Denisa to be in the seat behind me but she was maybe 15 metres back down the road.”
Alison Bell, one of the other cyclists, said she saw Miss Perinova lean forward in her saddle and talk to Mr Pontin when her foot slipped on the pedal, leading her to become unbalanced and fall.
She said Dr Measures’ car was already over the central line as Miss Perinova fell into its path but she did not see any impact.
Fielding said:
Summing up, Mr Fielding said: “Ben Pontin said it was a stupid decision to overtake. It was nowhere near as stupid as Mr Pontin’s decision to put Denisa Perinova on that bike in the first place.
“He ought not to have been so reckless with the life of his young girlfriend and he failed with terrible consequences.”
From what the girls parents have said, this was entirely untrue, and what a “He ought not to have been so reckless with the life of his young girlfriend and he failed with terrible consequences.”
ish thing to say anyhow.The title of the thread is misleading. The driver was not charged with Careless Driving but Causing death by careless Driving.
The jury heard the evidence and deliberated for three hours before returning a ‘not guilty’ verdict. Obviously the prosecutions argument was not enough to convince them that the offence had taken place.
Why do you think that what you have read of the accident should outweigh the decision that the jury came to?
The jury heard the evidence and deliberated for three hours before returning a ‘not guilty’ verdict. Obviously the prosecutions argument was not enough to convince them that the offence had taken place.
Why do you think that what you have read of the accident should outweigh the decision that the jury came to?
Snowboy said:
I can't open the article on my phone for some reason, but I did see it was a cycling website.
It is most likely going to be written from a pro cycling perspective, and perhaps be a little light in mitigating circumstances or specifics that make the cyclist look in any way responsible.
I'd certainly be interested in reading the court reports.
But that's part of what I'm getting at, regardless of the cyclist aspect, she hit oncoming traffic during an overtake on a blind bend and killed somebody.It is most likely going to be written from a pro cycling perspective, and perhaps be a little light in mitigating circumstances or specifics that make the cyclist look in any way responsible.
I'd certainly be interested in reading the court reports.
rewc said:
The title of the thread is misleading. The driver was not charged with Careless Driving but Causing death by careless Driving.
The jury heard the evidence and deliberated for three hours before returning a ‘not guilty’ verdict. Obviously the prosecutions argument was not enough to convince them that the offence had taken place.
Why do you think that what you have read of the accident should outweigh the decision that the jury came to?
I don't, I am hoping somebody can offer me some insight so that I may understand what has gone on, because from the outside it seems to be ludicrous. The jury heard the evidence and deliberated for three hours before returning a ‘not guilty’ verdict. Obviously the prosecutions argument was not enough to convince them that the offence had taken place.
Why do you think that what you have read of the accident should outweigh the decision that the jury came to?
Edited by budgie smuggler on Tuesday 29th October 10:26
All the cyclist agree the driver was at fault the arrogant cow driving even said "she could not help a cyclist falling off their bike into her path" which if she was on the right side of the road givinf at least a 6ft gap I could agree if she wasn't on the wrong side of the road affording them less than that according to this report. It was blamed on a bf for letting a grown women ride a bike when she was not very experienced, which doesn't sit well with me, I will state again the driver was full offside, if I go full offside I am mindful if I hit anything the its most likley I have failed!
I have always worked on the basis to get a car license you have a demonstrate a level of competency however any idiot can ride a bike so I have to factor in that I am involved with a collision with a cyclist I need to prove a did everything I can to mitigate a collision with someone with no competency. I was also told by my rospa tutor gives s cyclist minimum 6ft of room as a judge once ruled a cyclist was entitled to their wobble should they fall off while you are passing them.
I have always worked on the basis to get a car license you have a demonstrate a level of competency however any idiot can ride a bike so I have to factor in that I am involved with a collision with a cyclist I need to prove a did everything I can to mitigate a collision with someone with no competency. I was also told by my rospa tutor gives s cyclist minimum 6ft of room as a judge once ruled a cyclist was entitled to their wobble should they fall off while you are passing them.
The NG verdict means one of two things:
- the jury weren't sure that the driving was careless;
or;
- the jury were sure that the driving was careless but not sure that the careless driving was a cause of death.
Interesting that the cyclist fell into the path of the oncoming car. Very unlikely that there would have been a custodial sentence if convicted.
- the jury weren't sure that the driving was careless;
or;
- the jury were sure that the driving was careless but not sure that the careless driving was a cause of death.
Interesting that the cyclist fell into the path of the oncoming car. Very unlikely that there would have been a custodial sentence if convicted.
agtlaw said:
The NG verdict means one of two things:
- the jury weren't sure that the driving was careless;
or;
- the jury were sure that the driving was careless but not sure that the careless driving was a cause of death.
Interesting that the cyclist fell into the path of the oncoming car. Very unlikely that there would have been a custodial sentence if convicted.
No custodial thats why people drive around that nutters and having a accident doesnt bother them cause even if they kill someone there will just be a court case suspended sentence and a ban.- the jury weren't sure that the driving was careless;
or;
- the jury were sure that the driving was careless but not sure that the careless driving was a cause of death.
Interesting that the cyclist fell into the path of the oncoming car. Very unlikely that there would have been a custodial sentence if convicted.
You go prison if you do 160mph but dont crash?!? how can you justify it.
I don't think people here are open-minded enough to the fact the offence wasn't made out, no matter how tragic. The CPS can appeal if they feel the Jury were clearly wrong to deliver the NG verdict.
jbsportstech said:
I think the womens age and job title (scientist) swung the jury.
Why do you think that? Is it just purely speculation? Sounds to me like looking for a cause and effect that sidesteps the possibility that the verdict is the correct one. budgie smuggler said:
Further piss boiling comes from the prosecution brief, a Mr Fielding :
That is concerning to read. Perhaps it neatly sums up the prosecution's preparation for the case, and therefore why the prosecution wasn't successful... What was he trying to do? It sounds like something a defence brief would say, not a prosecution brief... Fielding said:
Summing up, Mr Fielding said: “Ben Pontin said it was a stupid decision to overtake. It was nowhere near as stupid as Mr Pontin’s decision to put Denisa Perinova on that bike in the first place.
“He ought not to have been so reckless with the life of his young girlfriend and he failed with terrible consequences.”
“He ought not to have been so reckless with the life of his young girlfriend and he failed with terrible consequences.”
I'd strongly suggest that his manager (or even The Boss) needs to have speaks with him at the earliest opportunity for making unclear/confused/insensitive statements like this.
A few things.
If the boyfriend could see the car start to overtake it wasn't a blind bend.
There was good visibility.
The car managed to pass several cyclists, but only hit one.
It sounds to me like the driver was overtaking a cyclist rather than a car, and decided they had space to pass between cyclists on both sides of the road.
Was it a cycle event to have that many cyclists around? Or just a coincidence?
I don't think the driver is blameless.
It sounds like a fairly silly overtake; but it also sounds like the cyclist made a mistake too - otherwise the driver would have hit the boyfriend too.
If the boyfriend could see the car start to overtake it wasn't a blind bend.
There was good visibility.
The car managed to pass several cyclists, but only hit one.
It sounds to me like the driver was overtaking a cyclist rather than a car, and decided they had space to pass between cyclists on both sides of the road.
Was it a cycle event to have that many cyclists around? Or just a coincidence?
I don't think the driver is blameless.
It sounds like a fairly silly overtake; but it also sounds like the cyclist made a mistake too - otherwise the driver would have hit the boyfriend too.
agtlaw said:
La Liga said:
I don't think people here are open-minded enough to the fact the offence wasn't made out, no matter how tragic. The CPS can appeal if they feel the Jury were clearly wrong to deliver the NG verdict.
Actually, no they can't. 
New evidence or the wrong application of the law only? aw51 121565 said:
budgie smuggler said:
Further piss boiling comes from the prosecution brief, a Mr Fielding :
That is concerning to read. Perhaps it neatly sums up the prosecution's preparation for the case, and therefore why the prosecution wasn't successful... What was he trying to do? It sounds like something a defence brief would say, not a prosecution brief... Fielding said:
Summing up, Mr Fielding said: “Ben Pontin said it was a stupid decision to overtake. It was nowhere near as stupid as Mr Pontin’s decision to put Denisa Perinova on that bike in the first place.
“He ought not to have been so reckless with the life of his young girlfriend and he failed with terrible consequences.”
“He ought not to have been so reckless with the life of his young girlfriend and he failed with terrible consequences.”
I'd strongly suggest that his manager (or even The Boss) needs to have speaks with him at the earliest opportunity for making unclear/confused/insensitive statements like this.
herewego said:
aw51 121565 said:
budgie smuggler said:
Further piss boiling comes from the prosecution brief, a Mr Fielding :
That is concerning to read. Perhaps it neatly sums up the prosecution's preparation for the case, and therefore why the prosecution wasn't successful... What was he trying to do? It sounds like something a defence brief would say, not a prosecution brief... Fielding said:
Summing up, Mr Fielding said: “Ben Pontin said it was a stupid decision to overtake. It was nowhere near as stupid as Mr Pontin’s decision to put Denisa Perinova on that bike in the first place.
“He ought not to have been so reckless with the life of his young girlfriend and he failed with terrible consequences.”
“He ought not to have been so reckless with the life of his young girlfriend and he failed with terrible consequences.”
I'd strongly suggest that his manager (or even The Boss) needs to have speaks with him at the earliest opportunity for making unclear/confused/insensitive statements like this.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff