Driving Without Due Care & Attention - Plea advice
Discussion
A (hopefully) quick question about what plea a good friend of mine should make.
A few months ago he was leaving a dual carriageway by turning right across the opposite 2 lane. The 2 oncoming lanes were queuing with solid traffic. It was evening rush hour after dark. He is given a gap by the 2 oncoming cars, so edges across the 2 lanes, and as he crosses the gap between the verge and lane 1 a cyclist strikes the front left of his car and is thrown over the bonnet.
Cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet and suffered a minor skull fracture but no other or lasting injuries. Cyclist was wearing a hi-vis vest but it was open and flapped back so not exposing any reflective. There was a strobing front light on the bike.
Police attend and take statements from 2 cars, one of the front row and one a few cars back. The nearer car says he was edging across carefully, the one further back says they couldn't really see but he crossed faster than walking pace but slower than the queuing traffic.
He maintains he was crossing slowly
He was reported for Driving Without Due Care and Attention, and sought some legal advise which advised him to plead guilty as the court rarely take any mitigation in these circumstances because the accident is all the proof needed of insufficient care/attention. He entered a guilty plea online.
He just recently heard that the case was adjourned, and has received the following letter:
If anyone has any direct experience of a similar situation their thoughts on how to plea would be appreciated.
Thanks
A few months ago he was leaving a dual carriageway by turning right across the opposite 2 lane. The 2 oncoming lanes were queuing with solid traffic. It was evening rush hour after dark. He is given a gap by the 2 oncoming cars, so edges across the 2 lanes, and as he crosses the gap between the verge and lane 1 a cyclist strikes the front left of his car and is thrown over the bonnet.
Cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet and suffered a minor skull fracture but no other or lasting injuries. Cyclist was wearing a hi-vis vest but it was open and flapped back so not exposing any reflective. There was a strobing front light on the bike.
Police attend and take statements from 2 cars, one of the front row and one a few cars back. The nearer car says he was edging across carefully, the one further back says they couldn't really see but he crossed faster than walking pace but slower than the queuing traffic.
He maintains he was crossing slowly
He was reported for Driving Without Due Care and Attention, and sought some legal advise which advised him to plead guilty as the court rarely take any mitigation in these circumstances because the accident is all the proof needed of insufficient care/attention. He entered a guilty plea online.
He just recently heard that the case was adjourned, and has received the following letter:
Magistrates Court letter from the Legal Adviser said:
You entered a guilty plea online to the offence of Driving without Due Care and Attention on (date). However in your mitigation you state that you were not driving in a reckless manner and that you do not believe that you could have exercised this manoeuvre any more carefully than you did. These comments suggest that the correct plea would be one of not guilty.
That magistrates therefore wished to give you the opportunity to enter a not guilty plea to the offence. It is a matter for you to decide whether you want to change your plea.
This has made him question the advice he was given previously. That magistrates therefore wished to give you the opportunity to enter a not guilty plea to the offence. It is a matter for you to decide whether you want to change your plea.
If anyone has any direct experience of a similar situation their thoughts on how to plea would be appreciated.
Thanks
Being blunt here 
sorry if it offends others but
Was there a cycle lane to the left of the cars in the queue ?
No , cyclist should obey highway code and not undertake cars
not drivers fault
Yes , driver of car should allow for cycle lane but how would they know there was a third lane ?
possibly their fault
sorry if it offends others but
Was there a cycle lane to the left of the cars in the queue ?
No , cyclist should obey highway code and not undertake cars
not drivers fault
Yes , driver of car should allow for cycle lane but how would they know there was a third lane ?
possibly their fault
This is yet another example of a terrible cycle "lane".
I can see how the accident could have easily happened with a combination of factors coming into play including the skills of both driver and cyclist, road layout and visibility (I wasn't there, of course).
As a cyclist, I would be looking out both for drivers turning left and turning across me and would be very cautious if remaining at the nearside. If the cyclist was travelling at such a speed that they were unable to anticipate or avoid a collision and sustained a skull fracture then I would suggest they were not considering the possibilities.
Often, in very slow moving dual carriageway traffic, it is safer to cautiously travel through the middle where visibility is better, people tend not to open doors into the centre of the carriageway and as long as you can anticipate potential lane changes and ride at a sensible speed you are better off then in the useless gutter cycle "lane".
As above I think I'd seek some legal advice.
I can see how the accident could have easily happened with a combination of factors coming into play including the skills of both driver and cyclist, road layout and visibility (I wasn't there, of course).
As a cyclist, I would be looking out both for drivers turning left and turning across me and would be very cautious if remaining at the nearside. If the cyclist was travelling at such a speed that they were unable to anticipate or avoid a collision and sustained a skull fracture then I would suggest they were not considering the possibilities.
Often, in very slow moving dual carriageway traffic, it is safer to cautiously travel through the middle where visibility is better, people tend not to open doors into the centre of the carriageway and as long as you can anticipate potential lane changes and ride at a sensible speed you are better off then in the useless gutter cycle "lane".
As above I think I'd seek some legal advice.
They’ve asked him to reconsider his plea, as he’s effectively said “Guilty, but I’m not guilty and here’s a load of reasons why I believe so, even if they’re probably not viable defences”
They’ve not given him a get out of jail free card, he’s still got a 50/50 chance simplistically speaking. In reality, I don’t think much of his reasons to try to say he wasn’t doing anything wrong. Helmets aren’t compulsory, nor is hi vis. They’re only relevant for the insurance stuff, which he’s definitely going to be at fault for, even if found not guilty, that doesn’t make the cyclist “guilty” from a civil perspective.
They’ve not given him a get out of jail free card, he’s still got a 50/50 chance simplistically speaking. In reality, I don’t think much of his reasons to try to say he wasn’t doing anything wrong. Helmets aren’t compulsory, nor is hi vis. They’re only relevant for the insurance stuff, which he’s definitely going to be at fault for, even if found not guilty, that doesn’t make the cyclist “guilty” from a civil perspective.
Gavia said:
They’ve asked him to reconsider his plea, as he’s effectively said “Guilty, but I’m not guilty and here’s a load of reasons why I believe so, even if they’re probably not viable defences”
They’ve not given him a get out of jail free card, he’s still got a 50/50 chance simplistically speaking. In reality, I don’t think much of his reasons to try to say he wasn’t doing anything wrong. Helmets aren’t compulsory, nor is hi vis. They’re only relevant for the insurance stuff, which he’s definitely going to be at fault for, even if found not guilty, that doesn’t make the cyclist “guilty” from a civil perspective.
Helmets and hi-viz are not even relevant for the "insurance stuff" [or, at least, I understand that any cycling-friendly lawyer would challenge any deduction even if the insurance company tried it on] and I can't see the cyclist is guilty of anything (which might upset some of the SP&L regulars). Other than that, I agree - the OP is basically saying "I did it, but I didn't really do it." so the courts is asking him which of those two he actually means.They’ve not given him a get out of jail free card, he’s still got a 50/50 chance simplistically speaking. In reality, I don’t think much of his reasons to try to say he wasn’t doing anything wrong. Helmets aren’t compulsory, nor is hi vis. They’re only relevant for the insurance stuff, which he’s definitely going to be at fault for, even if found not guilty, that doesn’t make the cyclist “guilty” from a civil perspective.
Edited by Zigster on Wednesday 4th April 07:17
The Mags would likely look to the Highway Code for guidance. They are looking to see if your friend has fallen below the standard expected of a careful and competent driver. In reality it's not a very high bar to prosecution.
For example;
Rule 160: "be aware of other road users, especially cycles and motorcycles who may be filtering through the traffic. These are more difficult to see than larger vehicles and their riders are particularly vulnerable"
Rule 170: "Take extra care at junctions. You should:
- watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, powered wheelchairs/mobility scooters and pedestrians as they are not always easy to see...
...look all around before emerging. Do not cross or join a road until there is a gap large enough for you to do so safely."
Rule 180: "Rule 180 [turning right]
Wait until there is a safe gap between you and any oncoming vehicle. Watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and other road users."
On the face of it your friend hasn't taken into account enough the liklihood of there being a cycle in the cycle lane. The accident is evidence of that. The counter might be that the behaviour of the cyclist meant a driver, even if driving carefully and competentl, would not have been able to avoid that accident.
For example;
Rule 160: "be aware of other road users, especially cycles and motorcycles who may be filtering through the traffic. These are more difficult to see than larger vehicles and their riders are particularly vulnerable"
Rule 170: "Take extra care at junctions. You should:
- watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, powered wheelchairs/mobility scooters and pedestrians as they are not always easy to see...
...look all around before emerging. Do not cross or join a road until there is a gap large enough for you to do so safely."
Rule 180: "Rule 180 [turning right]
Wait until there is a safe gap between you and any oncoming vehicle. Watch out for cyclists, motorcyclists, pedestrians and other road users."
On the face of it your friend hasn't taken into account enough the liklihood of there being a cycle in the cycle lane. The accident is evidence of that. The counter might be that the behaviour of the cyclist meant a driver, even if driving carefully and competentl, would not have been able to avoid that accident.
Please note that the court clerk isn’t advising that you have a reasonable defence - ‘guilty but I did nothing wrong’ is an inappropriate response. It’s known as an equivocal plea. Your plea should be made unequivocal sooner rather than later. Without reading the case papers, nobody here can properly advise you. janesmith has identified some potential issues.
HWC Rule 211 applies. The onus is on the driver to ensure there are no cycles or motorcycles filtering through traffic.
Cycles may legally filter left or right, although the HWC rightly suggests they use their judgement (rule 167).
If the cyclist was riding sensibly then the best case law I know of is Davis v Shroglin - it's a motorcycle case but IMHO applies. assuming the cyclist was riding appropriately and had no means of avoiding the collision.
janesmith1950 said:
The civil issue almost certain to follow shouldn't steer the criminal one here.
I doubt the OP's friend's insurer will put up much of a fight on liability but the helmet missing might mean there's some apportioning to the split of damages.
There's no legal requirement to wear a helmet, so can it be said to be missing?I doubt the OP's friend's insurer will put up much of a fight on liability but the helmet missing might mean there's some apportioning to the split of damages.
janesmith1950 said:
The civil issue almost certain to follow shouldn't steer the criminal one here.
I doubt the OP's friend's insurer will put up much of a fight on liability but the helmet missing might mean there's some apportioning to the split of damages.
Why would not wearing a helmet have an effect on outcome? I doubt the OP's friend's insurer will put up much of a fight on liability but the helmet missing might mean there's some apportioning to the split of damages.
Very curious as to why you would say this. Are pedestrians or car drivers required to wear a helmet and is there any previous case where it's had any outcome on case in law (civil or criminal)?
Piha said:
Why would not wearing a helmet have an effect on outcome?
Very curious as to why you would say this. Are pedestrians or car drivers required to wear a helmet and is there any previous case where it's had any outcome on case in law (civil or criminal)?
It won’t have any bearing on the outcome at all in the DWDC&A (criminal) matter. Very curious as to why you would say this. Are pedestrians or car drivers required to wear a helmet and is there any previous case where it's had any outcome on case in law (civil or criminal)?
It won’t have any bearing on the outcome in the insurance claim.
It is likely to have an impact on any damages awarded based on contributory negligence.
https://www.forbessolicitors.co.uk/blog/2012/08/cy...
The OP is confused and thinks that by proving they weren’t fully protected that this gets him off everything. It doesn’t.
In the blog the accident and court case - Reynolds v Strutt & Parker LLP - was between 2 cyclists and an event provided by their workplace.
"The decision
Although a risk assessment had been undertaken, it had been done by two people who lacked the necessary skill to make a suitable to sufficient assessment of risks associated with bicycle racing and, in particular, they had completely overlooked the most obvious of risks, namely that of collision. Equally, neither assessed properly the need to recommend, let alone require, the wearing of cycle helmets. The failures to carry out risk assessment involved breaches of Regulations 3(1) and 10 of the Management of Health and Safety At Work Regulations 1999 and Regulations 8 and 9 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, and Regulations 4, 9 and 10 of the Personal Protective Equipment At Work Regulations 1992, and Regulation 12 of the Workplace Health & Safety Welfare Regulations 1992. However, none of those Regulations had any application unless the Claimant was at work".
"The decision
Although a risk assessment had been undertaken, it had been done by two people who lacked the necessary skill to make a suitable to sufficient assessment of risks associated with bicycle racing and, in particular, they had completely overlooked the most obvious of risks, namely that of collision. Equally, neither assessed properly the need to recommend, let alone require, the wearing of cycle helmets. The failures to carry out risk assessment involved breaches of Regulations 3(1) and 10 of the Management of Health and Safety At Work Regulations 1999 and Regulations 8 and 9 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, and Regulations 4, 9 and 10 of the Personal Protective Equipment At Work Regulations 1992, and Regulation 12 of the Workplace Health & Safety Welfare Regulations 1992. However, none of those Regulations had any application unless the Claimant was at work".
Piha said:
In the blog the accident and court case - Reynolds v Strutt & Parker LLP - was between 2 cyclists and an event provided by their workplace.
"The decision
Although a risk assessment had been undertaken, it had been done by two people who lacked the necessary skill to make a suitable to sufficient assessment of risks associated with bicycle racing and, in particular, they had completely overlooked the most obvious of risks, namely that of collision. Equally, neither assessed properly the need to recommend, let alone require, the wearing of cycle helmets. The failures to carry out risk assessment involved breaches of Regulations 3(1) and 10 of the Management of Health and Safety At Work Regulations 1999 and Regulations 8 and 9 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, and Regulations 4, 9 and 10 of the Personal Protective Equipment At Work Regulations 1992, and Regulation 12 of the Workplace Health & Safety Welfare Regulations 1992. However, none of those Regulations had any application unless the Claimant was at work".
FFS. This is heading miles off topic. There is every chance that the at fault insurer will go for some contributory negligence on the cyclists part. "The decision
Although a risk assessment had been undertaken, it had been done by two people who lacked the necessary skill to make a suitable to sufficient assessment of risks associated with bicycle racing and, in particular, they had completely overlooked the most obvious of risks, namely that of collision. Equally, neither assessed properly the need to recommend, let alone require, the wearing of cycle helmets. The failures to carry out risk assessment involved breaches of Regulations 3(1) and 10 of the Management of Health and Safety At Work Regulations 1999 and Regulations 8 and 9 of the Provision and Use of Work Equipment Regulations 1998, and Regulations 4, 9 and 10 of the Personal Protective Equipment At Work Regulations 1992, and Regulation 12 of the Workplace Health & Safety Welfare Regulations 1992. However, none of those Regulations had any application unless the Claimant was at work".
None of this makes any difference at all to the OP being guilty.
Psimpson7 said:
How can that be anything other than the drivers fault? He pulled across a bike lane in which a cyclist was riding it appears legally without checking it was clear.
He should have taken more care especially if visibility / light was poor.
This.He should have taken more care especially if visibility / light was poor.
Whether there was a bike lane or not, he turned across oncoming traffic without looking properly. Somebody was seriously injured as a direct result of that. And, yes, a fractured skull is serious... Even if it was only fractured a little bit...
He's bang to rights. Plead guilty, and cross fingers for a less serious sentence.
FFS, he clearly doesn't actually accept that it's all his fault. So perhaps he should plead not guilty, and have it explained to him in simple words...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff