No Charges for Drunk Driver who Killed Cyclist
Discussion
IroningMan said:
Maybe he wasn't in the wrong.It is a tragic accident but maybe they had evidence that the cyclist was not directly killed?
Can't believe he wasn't prosecuted for being drunk driving though.?
‘ Mr Hall had been forced to swerve into the cyclist’s path due to a van driver who was travelling in the opposite direction overtaking Mr Cheung on a blind bend’
‘ no charges were ever brought against him, nor against the driver of the van involved in the fatal collision’
I reckon the Police or the CPS post the initial collar made a total arse of this.
1) You dont overtake blind
2) You dont drive pissed
3) Faced with hitting another safety cage or an umprotected human, you aim for the cage.
4) Never mind all that, as you were.
Neither of these nuggets should be on the road, but at some point their stories must have aligned as when they do its hard to say which caused the death.
‘ no charges were ever brought against him, nor against the driver of the van involved in the fatal collision’
I reckon the Police or the CPS post the initial collar made a total arse of this.
1) You dont overtake blind
2) You dont drive pissed
3) Faced with hitting another safety cage or an umprotected human, you aim for the cage.
4) Never mind all that, as you were.
Neither of these nuggets should be on the road, but at some point their stories must have aligned as when they do its hard to say which caused the death.
TragicThe impression I got was that the van driver didn't stop, and is untraced.
Also, apparently, Norfolk Plod have missed the statutory 6 month time limit on drink driving - a case for careless while under the influence is probably difficult, since they swerved to avoid the oncoming van driver.
Overtaking blind should be an automatic driving ban.
Also, apparently, Norfolk Plod have missed the statutory 6 month time limit on drink driving - a case for careless while under the influence is probably difficult, since they swerved to avoid the oncoming van driver.
Overtaking blind should be an automatic driving ban.
Without seeing the specialist forensic crash investigation reports, its mere speculation.
It is possible, even while drunk that his actions of swerving to avoid the van would have been the SAME as would be seen by a sober driver.
Also to prosecute death by dangerous, his driving still has to be considered dangerous by reasonable standards.
If the van was on his side of the road, he has either the ditch or the oncoming lane as places to go. In a split second decision he swerved into the oncoming lane. He may have not even seen the cyclist due to the corner, speeds involved and an element of surprise. A sober person could easily make the same decision. Under those circumstances it is unlikely to be "dangerous"
From sentencing guidelines:
"For dangerous driving the standard of the offender’s driving will have been so bad as to have created an obvious
risk of danger."
His actions may not have met that standard.
Clearly regardless of anything else he should have been done for drink driving.
It is possible, even while drunk that his actions of swerving to avoid the van would have been the SAME as would be seen by a sober driver.
Also to prosecute death by dangerous, his driving still has to be considered dangerous by reasonable standards.
If the van was on his side of the road, he has either the ditch or the oncoming lane as places to go. In a split second decision he swerved into the oncoming lane. He may have not even seen the cyclist due to the corner, speeds involved and an element of surprise. A sober person could easily make the same decision. Under those circumstances it is unlikely to be "dangerous"
From sentencing guidelines:
"For dangerous driving the standard of the offender’s driving will have been so bad as to have created an obvious
risk of danger."
His actions may not have met that standard.
Clearly regardless of anything else he should have been done for drink driving.
fourstardan said:
Can't believe he wasn't prosecuted for being drunk driving though.?
How does our justice system work? I was of the thinking that if you had a string of offences you'd be charged on each one and not just have the 'largest' one put forward in court?So for example, if a drunk driver who is intent on trying to get away from police exceeds the speed limit by an amount that is dangerous driving, also performs dangerous driving that endangers other members of the public, crashes in to other vehicles, rams the police car, drives through a fence in to a field, jumps out of car and tries to evade arrest, assaults police during the arrest. I would have thought that there would be a list of dangerous driving, drunk driving, illegally using a vehicle not on public highway, using a vehicle as a weapon of assault, physical assault and resisting arrest, all being separate charges thrown at the criminal in court. Is that not how it works?
Rozzers said:
3) Faced with hitting another safety cage or an umprotected human, you aim for the cage.
Instant self-preservation instinct would drive how you reacted.In the split second you have to react you are not going to make a decision like you describe. You will just go "s
t!!" and try to miss the big metal thing, you will not have time to think "No, I'll hit the big metal thing to avoid that bike". As someone else posted, you probably wouldn't even register the cyclist on the other side of the roadMore (and worse, imo) info here https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-norfolk-5358...
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff