Pharmaceutical consultant who killed cyclist while driving on wrong side of road cleared of careless driving

That was quick! Good job mrmo. Government Petitions online maybe?

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk

But then would it be a case specific petition or take a wider view. In which case what would the wider view be? Improved driving test (easy for me to say without defining it), diving refreshers (annually, bi-annually, again east for me to say)? I don't know.

I'm on a deadline today and I've spent far too long reading up on this case and the more general stats. In other words I'm saying I'm too busy to do anything more about it. Aren't the majority? Therein lies a big part of the problem.

thebungle wrote:

Can I be the one to point out that it was cyclists she was overtaking and not another vehicle

Cyclists _are_ vehicles.

thebungle wrote:

, I would suggest that the majority of A roads are wide enough to accomodate bike - car - bike, also note it was a curve in the road and not a blind bend.

Are you perhaps unacquainted with Highway Code Rule 163? Here it is, with a handy picture and everything. Where does the other bike go?

https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/overtaking-162-to-169

As for "curve in the road" vs "blind bend", the driver apparently didn't see the oncoming cyclists on account of the bend. How is a corner you can't see oncoming traffic around not a blind bend?

pastaman wrote:

What worries me is the apparent lack of any remorse on driver's part. Any normal person would be destroyed by an incident like this regardless of who was to blame. Her remarks are all about shifting blame as if she were contesting a parking ticket. The worrying thing is she doesn't seem to see that she has done anything wrong. Hence she won't modify her behaviour and is likely to continue driving in the same reckless fashion. Another accident waiting to happen. Shocking.

She's a drug rep. Morals are not in the job description.

Quote:

“This road is not a cycle race track but a very busy and fast country road and it has a number of blind bends and the obstruction of cyclists travelling in this fashion is causing very considerable concern."

'The obstruction of cyclists'!

What an absolutely astounding statement. Cretin.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

Some people have converted a curve in the road into a bend, which transmute the situation into something that it wasn't. Again, not having the facts means that you cannot objectively take a strong view point on this.

I do understand where you are coming from, but having been the reciepient of similar behaviour on a very shallow bend and but able to aim for the hedge.

One question, if you can not see round the bend/corner/curve/whatever should you overtake?

That as the only question that matters.

Quote:

Legitimate accidents can occur with things in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Yes, occasionally engines blow up, tyres burst. Incidents where crap driving kills someone are totally avoidable. If she had waited until she could see would we be having this debate?

Quote:

For those of you who like to track Dr Measures down, this is a massive tragedy, but you make it worse if you unnecessarily ruin someone else's life. I'm sure she feels terrible about the whole thing and does not sleep easily.

and how many lives has she destroyed because she was too important to wait?

David Portland wrote:

thebungle wrote:

, I would suggest that the majority of A roads are wide enough to accomodate bike - car - bike, also note it was a curve in the road and not a blind bend.

As for "curve in the road" vs "blind bend", the driver apparently didn't see the oncoming cyclists on account of the bend. How is a corner you can't see oncoming traffic around not a blind bend?

Couldn't agree more

mrmo wrote:

Quote:

Dear Mr O’Loughlin

Thank you for your email to the Attorney General's Office.

As the jury in the case of Dr Helen Measures found her not guilty and she was subsequently aquitted, no sentence was imposed and it will therefore not be possible for this office to review this case as unduly lenient.

Full details of the unduly lenient scheme can be found on our website, the address is: https://www.gov.uk/complain-about-low-crown-court-sentence

Yours sincerely

James Ross
Correspondence Unit

so where next!

Probably nowhere, she has the "law" on her side and i imagine only a civil case will get anywhere. Absolutely disgusting result, there is no hope in this country whilst decisions like that are made.

thebungle wrote:

Can I be the one to point out that it was cyclists she was overtaking and not another vehicle, I would suggest that the majority of A roads are wide enough to accomodate bike - car - bike, also note it was a curve in the road and not a blind bend.

Tragically it would appear that the poor girl did not have the bike handling to cope with whatever unexpected circumstances being out on the road could throw at her.

Troll.

Next time a motorist maniac comes round a blind bend towards you and your riding partner, and in the panic you touch wheels with the rider in front, maybe you can demonstrate to me the bike handling skills that will make you not dead.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

Some people have converted a curve in the road into a bend, which transmute the situation into something that it wasn't. Again, not having the facts means that you cannot objectively take a strong view point on this.

The geometry is totally irrelevant.

She overtook at a point where she could not see oncoming vehicles which (even at cyclists' pace) she would have to pass on that far side of the road before completing her manoeuvre. She then made a conscious decision not to abort that manoeuvre once it was clear to her that she would need to pass them at speed on their side of the road.

Doesn't matter if it was a curve.

Doesn't matter if it was a bend. (What's the difference between a curve and a bend? - that's rhetorical, don't answer it.)

Doesn't matter if it was a straight bit of road with a truck obscuring her view.

Doesn't matter if it was fog.

Doesn't matter if she simply closed her eyes and tried to use The Force.

It was a patently unsafe manoeuvre. You don't need to argue the minutiae to be able to come to that conclusion: that simple statement above, which contains facts that appear not to be in dispute, is enough.

If you want to defend those actions - regardless of the geometry of the tarmac - as being safe, then do please have a go.

I should make one thing clear: given the current farcical state of the system (including the statute, the CPS and more), and even though I personally think she should have had her licence permanently revoked regardless of the minutiae of the case, I personally don't particularly care that Measures isn't serving a hefty sentence.

The horse has bolted. Perinova is dead. What I care about is that the law deems the above driving to be perfectly acceptable.

That is the problem. That is the thing that will cause more people to die.

PJ McNally wrote:

thebungle wrote:

Can I be the one to point out that it was cyclists she was overtaking and not another vehicle, I would suggest that the majority of A roads are wide enough to accomodate bike - car - bike, also note it was a curve in the road and not a blind bend.

Tragically it would appear that the poor girl did not have the bike handling to cope with whatever unexpected circumstances being out on the road could throw at her.

Troll.

Next time a motorist maniac comes round a blind bend towards you and your riding partner, and in the panic you touch wheels with the rider in front, maybe you can demonstrate to me the bike handling skills that will make you not dead.

I wouldn't say his reasoned view is trolling. You have to get a perspective. The Bungle has a right to his view point, just as much as you.

I have to say that it is far from clear that the Dr was negligent from the details of the case. We weren't there in the trial, we don't have the objective facts. I find it quite perverse that the general reactions to these sorts of incidents immediately draw the ire of the cycling community, where a jury has seen the objective facts. Whereas if it comes to a hint of drug doping from a cyclist (where the facts are not objective beyond a positive test - we know that we do not get the facts and that proving a positive are very difficult and so evasion can be rife) and everyone falls over themselves to proclaim the cyclists innocence in the face of probabilities and motives.

In this case I'd like to know whereabouts it occurred and the width of the road. But from the brief information provided she clipped her own boyfriends bike and went into the path of the oncoming car. So it is very hard for a jury to say that she would have/wouldn't have clipped the wheel if the Dr. hadn't of been there, and in a criminal case like this it is beyond all reasonable doubt. Not sticking up for the driving manoeuvre itself from the sound of it, but it is possible to overtake on a curve without causing danger, which brings us back to where it happened.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

I have to say that it is far from clear that the Dr was negligent from the details of the case. We weren't there in the trial, we don't have the objective facts.

There are two points to make here: Firstly, a number of the known facts - which to the best of my knowledge I don't believe to be in dispute - are that (a) she overtook on a bend, (b) she overtook without sufficient visibility ahead to see even slow-moving road users who she would need to pass during her manoeuvre, (c) upon seeing that she would need to pass oncoming traffic during her manoeuvre, made a conscious decision to continue rather than to brake and pull back in. To my mind, these three facts (without doubt the last two) are all clear evidence of negligence.

The second point is that, whilst my opinion of what constitute matters little, the law - whatever its position now - should protect against this occurrence and should hold the driver responsible for their decision to place other people in clear mortal risk.

What I am saying is that I have no opinion on whether Measures was rightly or wrongly acquitted in the context of current law, because I wasn't in court to hear all the facts.

What I am saying, and what I will scream from the rooftops if need be, is that regardless of whether the failing was the law against which she was tested or a failure within these specific court proceedings, if this is the result the the law as it stands is not fit for purpose.

The law does not protect people like Daniela or you or me from the entirely avoidable actions of others who see fit to mortally endanger people through simple impatience. It has stated, clearly, that endangering people in this way to save a few seconds from your journey is just fine.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

But from the brief information provided she clipped her own boyfriends bike and went into the path of the oncoming car. So it is very hard for a jury to say that she would have/wouldn't have clipped the wheel if the Dr. hadn't of been there, and in a criminal case like this it is beyond all reasonable doubt.

If Measures had not been there then it wouldn't have mattered. At worst she'd have fallen off her bike. She wouldn't have been hit by a car at 50mph.

Think about something next time you ride.

Stay to the left of the road. Find a massive pothole. Approach it at 20mph, and swerve at the last minute to avoid it.

Now do that with a car approaching you, on your side of the road, a foot to your right.

It doesn't matter what the cause of Daniela's error was. The same could happen to you. It could be a pothole, a puncture, a squirrel, a child's football, anything.

Set aside the details of whether this result is right or wrong in the context of existing law. You only have to read the statute to see that the law is not fit for purpose. Think instead of whether this result is right or wrong in the context of people making it home alive.

You can't change the laws of physics. You can change the law of the land.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

I have to say that it is far from clear that the Dr was negligent from the details of the case.

Point of law - whether the driver was negligent or not isn't an issue here.

For the charge of causing death by careless driving, the test is whether the standard of driving fell below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver.

Simon_MacMichael wrote:

For the charge of causing death by careless driving, the test is whether the standard of driving fell below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver.

This is what makes this all the more astonishing/depressing. "Competent and careful" isn't a particularly high bar to clear. Essentially what's being said here is that overtaking when you can't see the road ahead to be clear is an acceptable standard of driving.

Simon_MacMichael wrote:

For the charge of causing death by careless driving, the test is whether the standard of driving fell below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver.

And this is the scary thing, 12 jurors have declared that overtaking on a blind bend is what competent and careful drivers do!!!!!!

It does then lead to the question, how can you have driving offences tried by drivers who have all done something equally stupid but have gotten away with it?

You can't appeal a not-guilty verdict, it's impossible and a basic part of the legal system, you can appeal a sentence to have it considered whether it is unduly lenient, but the verdict of the jury is final. That is the matter settled I'm afraid.

It is worth considering that without actually being at the case, we have much less information to go on that the jurors, without knowing the real gritty details of the case then we can't really consider the nature of the verdict. Snapshots from articles can be very misleading at times.

A bloody tragedy though and if the articles are accurate, I'm shocked that a jury would find the driver not guilty of causing death by careless driving.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

Again, people trolling is not having a different point of view. Trolling is picking on someone and making them feel small or stupid, effectively bullying and trying to make people feel bad. If anything, accusing someone of trolling (in this instance) is closer to trolling than anything else.

Most people define trolling as posting inflammatory remarks in order to get a reaction. When posters come out with statements that most rational people find hard to comprehend, then the logical conclusion is to assume that they are trolling.

graphite wrote:

Road fatalities (short definition is within 30 days of accident) have been falling no doubt (so the politicians can get up and tell how much safer we are), but its the car occupant fatalities which make up most of the reduction.

I don't know this, but gut feeling, the roads aren't safer, they are actually more dangerous, but non drivers have given up the fight.

What the stats are not showing is that people who would cycle and would walk are too scared to do so. You can't kill what isn't there!