Driving Without Due Care & Attention - Plea advice
Discussion
Mojooo said:
gazza285 said:
Mojooo said:
I would expect a cyclist to slow down/stop where the road breaks for exactly this type of reason.
What, d
heads not looking before crossing lanes? I would expect people crossing lanes to check first, you know, like it says in the Highway Code and that, then maybe they wouldn't be up for DWDCA.But the cyclist now has a fractured skull.
gazza285 said:
Completely irrelevant. How many car accidents have there been in the last twenty four hours? Do any of those make you think that you'll not bother driving, just in case the same happens to you?
I think the point he's trying to make, which I disagree with, is that since people on bikes have squishy bodies unprotected by metal cages, the onus is on them to self preserve rather than trust that other road users would obey the rules of the road. I assume said poster also ensures that they allow HGVs and any vehicles larger than whatever vehicle they are in also do whatever they feel like on the road, and makes allowances for any breaking of the rules, since it's common sense that they can cause harm.
nurseholliday said:
gazza285 said:
Completely irrelevant. How many car accidents have there been in the last twenty four hours? Do any of those make you think that you'll not bother driving, just in case the same happens to you?
I think the point he's trying to make, which I disagree with, is that since people on bikes have squishy bodies unprotected by metal cages, the onus is on them to self preserve rather than trust that other road users would obey the rules of the road. I assume said poster also ensures that they allow HGVs and any vehicles larger than whatever vehicle they are in also do whatever they feel like on the road, and makes allowances for any breaking of the rules, since it's common sense that they can cause harm.
Whether it legally exonerates the driver I don't know but certainly yes, if I was a cyclist I would slow down at a junction like that.
Mojooo said:
nurseholliday said:
gazza285 said:
Completely irrelevant. How many car accidents have there been in the last twenty four hours? Do any of those make you think that you'll not bother driving, just in case the same happens to you?
I think the point he's trying to make, which I disagree with, is that since people on bikes have squishy bodies unprotected by metal cages, the onus is on them to self preserve rather than trust that other road users would obey the rules of the road. I assume said poster also ensures that they allow HGVs and any vehicles larger than whatever vehicle they are in also do whatever they feel like on the road, and makes allowances for any breaking of the rules, since it's common sense that they can cause harm.
Whether it legally exonerates the driver I don't know but certainly yes, if I was a cyclist I would slow down at a junction like that.
Car-Matt said:
Mojooo said:
nurseholliday said:
gazza285 said:
Completely irrelevant. How many car accidents have there been in the last twenty four hours? Do any of those make you think that you'll not bother driving, just in case the same happens to you?
I think the point he's trying to make, which I disagree with, is that since people on bikes have squishy bodies unprotected by metal cages, the onus is on them to self preserve rather than trust that other road users would obey the rules of the road. I assume said poster also ensures that they allow HGVs and any vehicles larger than whatever vehicle they are in also do whatever they feel like on the road, and makes allowances for any breaking of the rules, since it's common sense that they can cause harm.
Whether it legally exonerates the driver I don't know but certainly yes, if I was a cyclist I would slow down at a junction like that.
But you still have no legs...
Carrot said:
Car-Matt said:
Mojooo said:
nurseholliday said:
gazza285 said:
Completely irrelevant. How many car accidents have there been in the last twenty four hours? Do any of those make you think that you'll not bother driving, just in case the same happens to you?
I think the point he's trying to make, which I disagree with, is that since people on bikes have squishy bodies unprotected by metal cages, the onus is on them to self preserve rather than trust that other road users would obey the rules of the road. I assume said poster also ensures that they allow HGVs and any vehicles larger than whatever vehicle they are in also do whatever they feel like on the road, and makes allowances for any breaking of the rules, since it's common sense that they can cause harm.
Whether it legally exonerates the driver I don't know but certainly yes, if I was a cyclist I would slow down at a junction like that.
But you still have no legs...
HughG said:
He's taken some more advice and been told that the bar for prosecution is low so it's virtually impossible to defend unless he can prove the cyclist was riding recklessly, which he has no substantive evidence of. Thanks for all the comments.
Exactly as everyone said right at the start of the thread then Mojooo said:
Presumably though he can say in his defence that the cyclist was driving recklessly
So he had the time to clock the cyclist being reckless... then pulled across his path anyway?Mojooo said:
and then it would put the onus on the Police to prove that.
No, because the cyclist isn't the one being prosecuted here. The prosecution's case says that the collision itself is proof of driving below the standard expected etc.
He has to show that that there is reasonable doubt that that was the case, because he was driving carefully and attentively, and simply could not avoid the collision. Even if the cyclist was a raging bellend, that doesn't mean that there weren't two raging bellends.
Mojooo said:
Didn't he have an interview in order to put forward any such excuses?
Something about "which you later rely on in evidence", y'mean?TooMany2cvs said:
Mojooo said:
Presumably though he can say in his defence that the cyclist was driving recklessly
So he had the time to clock the cyclist being reckless... then pulled across his path anyway?Mojooo said:
and then it would put the onus on the Police to prove that.
No, because the cyclist isn't the one being prosecuted here. The prosecution's case says that the collision itself is proof of driving below the standard expected etc.
He has to show that that there is reasonable doubt that that was the case, because he was driving carefully and attentively, and simply could not avoid the collision. Even if the cyclist was a raging bellend, that doesn't mean that there weren't two raging bellends.
Mojooo said:
Didn't he have an interview in order to put forward any such excuses?
Something about "which you later rely on in evidence", y'mean?If he says that the cyclist was going too fast then that does create some doubt as to whether he was not DWDCA. I would expect the Police to bottom that out as part of their investigation.
Its not clear whether the OPs mate was interviewed and given a chance to put forward such a suggestion - if he did I am sure the Police would have refuted it.
Serious question: at the junction, was there really a cycle lane?
The presence of stopped traffic in the car lanes would indicate to the driver that those lanes existed. But - viewed through the gap left by the stopped traffic - there appear to be no road markings denoting a cycle lane.
So does the cycle lane exist? If it does not (or if the markings are such that a reasonable person could not see them to be there), how does that affect the outcome?
If the vehicle(s) adjacent to the cycle lane were tall (MPVs, 4x4s, trucks, etc.) such that the cycle lane could not be inferred from the visible presence of a cycle, then what?
I ask only because those road markings appear, well, ambiguous at best, and misleading / downright dangerous at worse.
The presence of stopped traffic in the car lanes would indicate to the driver that those lanes existed. But - viewed through the gap left by the stopped traffic - there appear to be no road markings denoting a cycle lane.
So does the cycle lane exist? If it does not (or if the markings are such that a reasonable person could not see them to be there), how does that affect the outcome?
If the vehicle(s) adjacent to the cycle lane were tall (MPVs, 4x4s, trucks, etc.) such that the cycle lane could not be inferred from the visible presence of a cycle, then what?
I ask only because those road markings appear, well, ambiguous at best, and misleading / downright dangerous at worse.
Mojooo said:
No - he only knew the cyclist was being reckless when he did his checks and the cyclist came out of nowhere
If he says that the cyclist was going too fast then that does create some doubt as to whether he was not DWDCA. I would expect the Police to bottom that out as part of their investigation.
Its not clear whether the OPs mate was interviewed and given a chance to put forward such a suggestion - if he did I am sure the Police would have refuted it.
So he didn’t see him, but he was going too fast. He can describe exactly what he was wearing and that it was flapping in the wind, but he just came out of nowhere. If he says that the cyclist was going too fast then that does create some doubt as to whether he was not DWDCA. I would expect the Police to bottom that out as part of their investigation.
Its not clear whether the OPs mate was interviewed and given a chance to put forward such a suggestion - if he did I am sure the Police would have refuted it.
Mojooo said:
No - he only knew the cyclist was being reckless when he did his checks and the cyclist came out of nowhere
"I didn't see him" is not the same as "fk me, he was shifting some". It's more often simply "I didn't look properly".Mojooo said:
If he says that the cyclist was going too fast then
...he must have seen him properly before getting in his way.When I was told the events he focused primarily on what he would do differently next time, he was being cautious, had looked and was edging across. The only bit which (to me) doesn't fully support that is that the bike hit the car's front wheel, so the car would have been at least 0.5m into the cycle lane, possibly more.
I don't know whether he was interviewed; he was critical of the police officer taking statements from witnesses without asking him to go elsewhere, which he did himself. I presume he was asked to give statement at the scene.
The helmet and hi-vis information came from the other witnesses, I included it for completeness though probably should have put it with the witness information.
I don't know whether he was interviewed; he was critical of the police officer taking statements from witnesses without asking him to go elsewhere, which he did himself. I presume he was asked to give statement at the scene.
The helmet and hi-vis information came from the other witnesses, I included it for completeness though probably should have put it with the witness information.
HughG said:
When I was told the events he focused primarily on what he would do differently next time, he was being cautious, had looked and was edging across. The only bit which (to me) doesn't fully support that is that the bike hit the car's front wheel, so the car would have been at least 0.5m into the cycle lane, possibly more.
I don't know whether he was interviewed; he was critical of the police officer taking statements from witnesses without asking him to go elsewhere, which he did himself. I presume he was asked to give statement at the scene.
The helmet and hi-vis information came from the other witnesses, I included it for completeness though probably should have put it with the witness information.
Could he actually see that there was a cycle lane?I don't know whether he was interviewed; he was critical of the police officer taking statements from witnesses without asking him to go elsewhere, which he did himself. I presume he was asked to give statement at the scene.
The helmet and hi-vis information came from the other witnesses, I included it for completeness though probably should have put it with the witness information.
silentbrown said:
HughG said:
skwdenyer said:
Could he actually see that there was a cycle lane?
No, markings obscured by queuing traffic.If one cannot see that there is a cycle lane, how should one be sure one has to look out for cyclists? If the traffic in lane "1" is tall, how do I know that that is a cycle lane and not just a shoulder?
Some years ago, I had a different experience where, when turning right through stopped traffic (entering from a side turning), my car was struck by a motorcyclists overtaking stationary traffic, over solid double white lines, over a blind crest on "my side" and at speed.
The question was whether I was under an obligation to have anticipated the presence of a motorcycle I could not see travelling in that place where no markings indicated that he could/should/might be. The Highway Code said then much as it does now.
In my case there was NFA, but I remain interested in where the line (figurative) is drawn.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff