Community order and 18-month ban for driver who killed oncoming cyclist while overtaking

The problem is that a jury is totally unsuitable to come to a verdict on a driving offence. When it says "it would be obvious to a careful and competent driver" there is no reason to think that an ordinary person qualifies to make this judgement. Clearly, at the very least, a driving examiner should be required to assess the evidence and come to a qualified judgement in order that the court is directed appropriately. While driving offences continue to be left to the judgement of ordinary drivers, justice for the victims of dangerous drivers will continue to be subverted.

[/quote]

I've  long thought that dangerous/careless driving cases should have the input of  Driving instructors or examiners  (as expert witnesses at least). 

The DVLC websites says of the driving test:

'There are 3 types of faults you can make:

a dangerous fault - this involves actual danger to you, the examiner, the public or property
a serious fault - something potentially dangerous
a driving fault - this isn’t potentially dangerous, but if you keep making the same fault, it could become a serious fault'

So, in the view of a qualified assessor, would the accused's action fall into any of the above categories?

If so surely a jury must be instructed to find accordingly.

If it'll fail you your test, it should fail the 'competent driver' test too.

pockstone wrote:

 

The problem is that a jury is totally unsuitable to come to a verdict on a driving offence. When it says "it would be obvious to a careful and competent driver" there is no reason to think that an ordinary person qualifies to make this judgement. Clearly, at the very least, a driving examiner should be required to assess the evidence and come to a qualified judgement in order that the court is directed appropriately. While driving offences continue to be left to the judgement of ordinary drivers, justice for the victims of dangerous drivers will continue to be subverted.

I've  long thought that dangerous/careless driving cases should have the input of  Driving instructors or examiners  (as expert witnesses at least). 

The DVLC websites says of the driving test:

'There are 3 types of faults you can make:

a dangerous fault - this involves actual danger to you, the examiner, the public or property
a serious fault - something potentially dangerous
a driving fault - this isn’t potentially dangerous, but if you keep making the same fault, it could become a serious fault'

So, in the view of a qualified assessor, would the accused's action fall into any of the above categories?

If so surely a jury must be instructed to find accordingly.

If it'll fail you your test, it should fail the 'competent driver' test too.

[/quote]

To pass the legal test of Dangerous Driving, it has to have been occuring for a (unspecified) period of time, so a swerve due to your hand slipping on the wheel, or because one of your kids accidently nudges your arm while trying to hit their brother which then results in an accident is not "dangerous driving".  

pockstone wrote:

 

I've  long thought that dangerous/careless driving cases should have the input of  Driving instructors or examiners  (as expert witnesses at least). 

The DVLC websites says of the driving test:

'There are 3 types of faults you can make:

a dangerous fault - this involves actual danger to you, the examiner, the public or property
a serious fault - something potentially dangerous
a driving fault - this isn’t potentially dangerous, but if you keep making the same fault, it could become a serious fault'

So, in the view of a qualified assessor, would the accused's action fall into any of the above categories?

If so surely a jury must be instructed to find accordingly.

If it'll fail you your test, it should fail the 'competent driver' test too.

To pass the legal test of Dangerous Driving, it has to have been occuring for a (unspecified) period of time, so a swerve due to your hand slipping on the wheel, or because one of your kids accidently nudges your arm while trying to hit their brother which then results in an accident is not "dangerous driving".  

[/quote]

Fair enough, I imagine either of those might be construed as 'careless'. (Kids who are young enough to be scrapping in the car really ought to be strapped in the back, so the circumstances might go beyond lack of care, and into the region of failing to avoid a foreseeable hazard.)

45 seconds of sustained inattention while  overtaking  on a single carriageway,  requiring acceleration, observation and careful judgement of how much space and time you have to complete the manouevre... WITH AN ONCOMING CYCLIST CLEARLY VISIBLE...? Do you expect that a driving examiner would have let that one slide as a 'minor fault'?

I can't begin to imagine why a juror would not class it as dangerous either.

As for the duraton of the action,  If she had pulled out to pass a vehicle with only a second of visibility, it would have been no less dangerous.

pockstone wrote:

 

 (Kids who are young enough to be scrapping in the car really ought to be strapped in the back, so the circumstances might go beyond lack of care, and into the region of failing to avoid a foreseeable hazard.)

45 seconds of sustained inattention while  overtaking  on a single carriageway,  requiring acceleration, observation and careful judgement of how much space and time you have to complete the manouevre... WITH AN ONCOMING CYCLIST CLEARLY VISIBLE...? Do you expect that a driving examiner would have let that one slide as a 'minor fault'?

I can't begin to imagine why a juror would not class it as dangerous either.

As for the duraton of the action,  If she had pulled out to pass a vehicle with only a second of visibility, it would have been no less dangerous.

I don't know how big your car is, but my kids can certainly nudge my elbow while passing things between them while legally restrained (I say legally, because apparently, to my chagrin, cuffing them and putting them in the boot or the cupboard under the stairs for extended periods of time is not legal)

In no way am I condoning either the sentence, or the girl's actions, but the legal matters the jury have to consider are what is the actual dangerous / careless action, and how long did it go on?

45 seconds at 60 mph is nearly 1.3 km. When she commenced her manoeuvre it is fairly possible the cyclist wasn't completely visible, that it took longer than anticipated to overtake the vehicles, in which case it might be decided the dangerous part of the manoeuvre was only that time taken to move out from behind the truck. Due to the time to execute the manoeuvre it seems she was only travelling about 3 mph faster than the vehicles she was overtaking, presumably to stay below the speed limit, in which case her driving wasn't entirely careless. I don't know. The law moves in mysterious ways, and before we lambast those that uphold, and proffer our blanket ban solutions, I sincerely think it's worth pausing to think how might that affect any one of us in some of our unpredictable situations should those draconian metres be applied. 

In my opinion a driving ban and some type of custodial sentence (not necessarily jail) for a couple of years would be appropriate, because, quite simply,  one mistake made in our youth should not limit us for the rest of our lives. There but for the grace of god go any of us, We have all benefitted from that particular aphorism.

madcarew wrote:

pockstone wrote:

 

 (Kids who are young enough to be scrapping in the car really ought to be strapped in the back, so the circumstances might go beyond lack of care, and into the region of failing to avoid a foreseeable hazard.)

45 seconds of sustained inattention while  overtaking  on a single carriageway,  requiring acceleration, observation and careful judgement of how much space and time you have to complete the manouevre... WITH AN ONCOMING CYCLIST CLEARLY VISIBLE...? Do you expect that a driving examiner would have let that one slide as a 'minor fault'?

I can't begin to imagine why a juror would not class it as dangerous either.

As for the duraton of the action,  If she had pulled out to pass a vehicle with only a second of visibility, it would have been no less dangerous.

I don't know how big your car is, but my kids can certainly nudge my elbow while passing things between them while legally restrained (I say legally, because apparently, to my chagrin, cuffing them and putting them in the boot or the cupboard under the stairs for extended periods of time is not legal)

In no way am I condoning either the sentence, or the girl's actions, but the legal matters the jury have to consider are what is the actual dangerous / careless action, and how long did it go on?

45 seconds at 60 mph is nearly 1.3 km. When she commenced her manoeuvre it is fairly possible the cyclist wasn't completely visible, that it took longer than anticipated to overtake the vehicles, in which case it might be decided the dangerous part of the manoeuvre was only that time taken to move out from behind the truck. Due to the time to execute the manoeuvre it seems she was only travelling about 3 mph faster than the vehicles she was overtaking, presumably to stay below the speed limit, in which case her driving wasn't entirely careless. I don't know. The law moves in mysterious ways, and before we lambast those that uphold, and proffer our blanket ban solutions, I sincerely think it's worth pausing to think how might that affect any one of us in some of our unpredictable situations should those draconian metres be applied. 

In my opinion a driving ban and some type of custodial sentence (not necessarily jail) for a couple of years would be appropriate, because, quite simply,  one mistake made in our youth should not limit us for the rest of our lives. There but for the grace of god go any of us, We have all benefitted from that particular aphorism.

 

Taking 1.3km to overtake another vehicle while being on the opposite side of the road is not reasonable.

If she could only do 3mph more than the vehicle (s) being overtaken, what is the need to overtake at all?

madcarew wrote:

There but for the grace of god go any of us, We have all benefitted from that particular aphorism.

Have we?  Surely only if we are a member of a majority, or powerful, group who are most likely to benefit from it? 

It's an aphorism that gets applied very, very selectively.  Only to those who commit the sort of offense that members of juries (or magistrates) feel they might have committed.

Aliston didn't seem to get the benefit, to take the most salient example.  Nor did that kid who looted a bottle of water from a shop during the riots.  Motorists, of course, gain the benefit constantly, much to non-motorists' cost.

That aphorism, rather than being something to be thankful for, encapsulates a problem - because it's so subject to the demographic make-up and ideological biases of juries.

And implicit in your take on the event is the idea that driving (or, at least, overtaking) inherently, and unavoidably, creates a risk of death for others.  If one accepts that, it suggests it's imperative to restrict the practice of driving (or overtaking in a motorised vehicle), because it must be an intrinsically irresponsibly dangerous thing to do.  Either blame the individual or the general practice, but you have to pick one or the other.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

madcarew wrote:

There but for the grace of god go any of us, We have all benefitted from that particular aphorism.

Have we?  Surely only if we are a member of a majority, or powerful, group who are most likely to benefit from it? 

It's an aphorism that gets applied very, very selectively.  Only to those who commit the sort of offense that members of juries (or magistrates) feel they might have committed.

Aliston didn't seem to get the benefit, to take the most salient example.  Nor did that kid who looted a bottle of water from a shop during the riots.  Motorists, of course, gain the benefit constantly, much to non-motorists' cost.

That aphorism, rather than being something to be thankful for, encapsulates a problem - because it's so subject to the demographic make-up and ideological biases of juries.

And implicit in your take on the event is the idea that driving (or, at least, overtaking) inherently, and unavoidably, creates a risk of death for others.  If one accepts that, it suggests it's imperative to restrict the practice of driving (or overtaking in a motorised vehicle), because it must be an intrinsically irresponsibly dangerous thing to do.  Either blame the individual or the general practice, but you have to pick one or the other.

Firstly, I am not aware that  "There bit for the grace of God go I" is only, or is generally, applied to judicial activities. 

We have all made mistakes in our lives (Except for BTBS) that could have resulted in tragedy for either ourselves, or another, and it is that to which I was referring. Be it knocking a child over walking through a door (Aliston) or a moment's inattention at the wheel which meant we drifted into another lane, or wide on a corner , or an error in handling on our bike which has caused a car to brake hard or swerve. A mistake, which due to time and place has a disproportionate result. 

As it is, my take on the accident is that the young lady was guilty of dangerous driving. By my calculations, if the truck and tractor that she was overtaking accounted for 50 metres of road then she was attempting to overtake them at less than 4mph faster  than they were travelling. To be on the other side of the road for the better part of a minute for any reason is dangerous driving. That is my take on the accident. I have, without any inside knowledge of the jury or evidence attempted to show why they might not have found this to be the case, and pointed out in response to the lynch mob that blanket rules will inevitably result in gross miscarriages of justice, and they have inevitably, in their lives, benefited from that element of luck or doubt that has saved them from being hoist by their own petard. 

Any body who believes that their own driving is so cautious, so careful, and that their observation skills are so accurate that they have never caused another road user cause for concern or potential harm is delusional, and as such, more dangerous than those that admit, and thus can address, their frailties. Those that admit their frailties also admit "There but for the grace of God..."

So far as restricting the practice of driving goes, as I've pointed out, we, as a society accept elements of risk in all that we do. There is no technology (going back to the simple lever, wheel or fire) that comes without risk, and we either accept that risk and carry on regardless (cycling) or we attempt to mitigate that risk (ABS braking and air bags, scaffold and hard hats). We as a society have decided that it's acceptable risk to drive around in 1.5 ton metal boxes in spite of the fact that the activity has killed more people than all the wars combined since the inception of the motor car, and maimed and injured countless hundreds of millions of others. We're generally against war, but happy to accept the risk of motor vehicle travel. We rail against the risk of the motor vehicle but happily support and patronise the companies that purvey sweets, crisps, alcohol and junk foods, in spite of the fact that these things have been responsible for the death of more people than all the cars and wars combined.  And we happily consume our mobile phones and other technolgies despite the fact that overconsumption will (almost) inevitably destroy civilisation as we know it, bringing death to billions. We all take part in risky activities that potentially cause harm to others. Sometimes we see them, sometimes we don't. There, but for the grace of God, go I.

You can blame the individual (as I have) and also point out the faults in the general practice. There is no need to pick one or the other. 

Our justice system is far from perfect, but it is robust. It can, and does, need change, as society changes. Calling for instantly locking up, and removing one of our greatest liberties from those that make a mistake, which due to time and place has a disproprtionate result, will not make our roads safer, nor our society better or more just. And it probably won't save any cyclists' lives.

madcarew wrote:

Firstly, I am not aware that  "There bit for the grace of God go I" is only, or is generally, applied to judicial activities. 

I think the Kitten's point is that there seem to be an awful lot of jury cases where motorists are given a tremendous benefit of the doubt, that isn't granted to (in particular) cyclists (or burglars, for that matter) and it can be shorthanded as them being aware of their own driving skills and thinking "There, but for the grace of God, go I...".

(In all fairness, I suspect that if young Mr Alliston had had a jury at his trial composed entirely of regular and frequent cyclists then the same principle might have applied and he wouldn't have had jail time...).

brooksby wrote:

madcarew wrote:

Firstly, I am not aware that  "There bit for the grace of God go I" is only, or is generally, applied to judicial activities. 

I think the Kitten's point is that there seem to be an awful lot of jury cases where motorists are given a tremendous benefit of the doubt, that isn't granted to (in particular) cyclists (or burglars, for that matter) and it can be shorthanded as them being aware of their own driving skills and thinking "There, but for the grace of God, go I...".

(In all fairness, I suspect that if young Mr Alliston had had a jury at his trial composed entirely of regular and frequent cyclists then the same principle might have applied and he wouldn't have had jail time...).

That's fair enough, it just wasn't the context I intended it in.

madcarew wrote:

Any body who believes that their own driving is so cautious, so careful, and that their observation skills are so accurate that they have never caused another road user cause for concern or potential harm is delusional, and as such, more dangerous than those that admit, and thus can address, their frailties. Those that admit their frailties also admit "There but for the grace of God..."

I don’t have any such delusion.  Which is one major reason why I don’t drive.  In fact I actually feel it unavoidably causes harm, therefore I should avoid doing so as much as it's possible for me to do.

I don’t, therefore, feel hugely inclined to be massively forgiving of anyone who chooses to drive and doesn’t even manage to do so with sufficient care.  (I absolutely think the only real answer is infrastructure changes...it's just that, in the meantime, a bit of justice would be nice)

And I know people’s choices about driving are constrained by circumstances and not everyone can avoid doing so, but you can’t tell me that every car journey is essential.

  My general point is that frailties shared by majority or more powerful groups benefit from that sentiment more than do those that involve minority circumstances.  Circumstances that the majority that are doing the judging are unable to empathise with.   I think Aliston is a very clear example, but I think there are a whole lot of other examples in different ‘domains’.

The ‘there by the grace of god’ thing seems to lead to the conclusion that if you are going to do something wrong you would be well-advised to make sure it’s something much of the majority population can empathise with doing, not an esoteric minority-interest kind of offence or something that relates to circumstances that aren't shared by most.

  Hence at least once-upon-a-time beating up your wife or killing a gay man that propositioned you would get treated more leniently than beating up a policeman.

And the context of this whole discussion is ‘judicial activities’, but I’d say the problem still applies even beyond that. 

Also I'm just saying in a very long-winded way what Brooksby already said, but your post was extremly long anyway, so there!

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

madcarew wrote:

Any body who believes that their own driving is so cautious, so careful, and that their observation skills are so accurate that they have never caused another road user cause for concern or potential harm is delusional, and as such, more dangerous than those that admit, and thus can address, their frailties. Those that admit their frailties also admit "There but for the grace of God..."

I don’t have any such delusion.  Which is one major reason why I don’t drive.  In fact I actually feel it unavoidably causes harm, therefore I should avoid doing so as much as it's possible for me to do.

I don’t, therefore, feel hugely inclined to be massively forgiving of anyone who chooses to drive and doesn’t even manage to do so with sufficient care.  (I absolutely think the only real answer is infrastructure changes...it's just that, in the meantime, a bit of justice would be nice)

And I know people’s choices about driving are constrained by circumstances and not everyone can avoid doing so, but you can’t tell me that every car journey is essential.

  My general point is that frailties shared by majority or more powerful groups benefit from that sentiment more than do those that involve minority circumstances.  Circumstances that the majority that are doing the judging are unable to empathise with.   I think Aliston is a very clear example, but I think there are a whole lot of other examples in different ‘domains’.

 

The ‘there by the grace of god’ thing seems to lead to the conclusion that if you are going to do something wrong you would be well-advised to make sure it’s something much of the majority population can empathise with doing, not an esoteric minority-interest kind of offence or something that relates to circumstances that aren't shared by most.

 

  Hence at least once-upon-a-time beating up your wife or killing a gay man that propositioned you would get treated more leniently than beating up a policeman.

 

And the context of this whole discussion is ‘judicial activities’, but I’d say the problem still applies even beyond that. 

 

Also I'm just saying in a very long-winded way what Brooksby already said, but your post was extremly long anyway, so there!

I agree with all of that, particularly the part where the phrase is applicable outside of the judicial arena, which is why all those calling for summary judgements or a blanket rule should be aware they have been saved in multiple environments simply by being a member of the more powerful majority. Which was my basic point. So there! 

pockstone wrote:

I've  long thought that dangerous/careless driving cases should have the input of  Driving instructors or examiners  (as expert witnesses at least). 

The DVLC websites says of the driving test:

'There are 3 types of faults you can make:

a dangerous fault - this involves actual danger to you, the examiner, the public or property
a serious fault - something potentially dangerous
a driving fault - this isn’t potentially dangerous, but if you keep making the same fault, it could become a serious fault'

So, in the view of a qualified assessor, would the accused's action fall into any of the above categories?

If so surely a jury must be instructed to find accordingly.

If it'll fail you your test, it should fail the 'competent driver' test too.

Exactly my thoughts as well.

Prosecution should be a piece of cake, stripping out the jury's subjective thinking:

"I'm a careful & competent driver, however on occasion I've misjudged an overtake but nothing bad happened, so there but for the grace of God go I, #bloodycyclists, not guilty".

Giving them a more objective comparison for the matter at hand than their own driving: 

"if they'd done it while on their driving test, would they have failed?, Yes, so it is below the standard of a careful & competent driver, guilty".

kil0ran wrote:

Killing anyone whilst overtaking should immediately be classed as death by dangerous driving. Overtaking is always optional and by definition exposes both parties to danger. Utterly derisory sentence.

killing someone when in charge of a motorvehicle should be classed as manslaughter automatically. Unless in extreme circumstances of negligence by the other vulnerable/slower party it should never, ever happen.

Either you are taking by far the bigger responsibility for safety on the road and towards those around you or you're not.

This is no different to wielding a sledgehammer swinging it around for 45seconds and then caving someone's head in as they walked past.

The judge is unfit for service and the jurists deciding against death by dangerous are disgusting, and why didn't the CPS go for a retrial, can they not see how important it is to fight for this utterly disgraceful miscarriage of justice AGAIN!!

Makes me so fucking angry like everyone else on here no doubt.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

kil0ran wrote:

Killing anyone whilst overtaking should immediately be classed as death by dangerous driving. Overtaking is always optional and by definition exposes both parties to danger. Utterly derisory sentence.

killing someone when in charge of a motorvehicle should be classed as manslaughter automatically. Unless in extreme circumstances of negligence by the other vulnerable/slower party it should never, ever happen.

Manslaughter used to be the charge in cases like this but juries refused to convict their fellow motorists so the charge of causing death by dangerous driving replaced it...........and guess what.......juries still refuse to convict.

Changing the charge won't change anything. The jury system is a very poor system if you want justice.