2012-08-03 - Rider down, Shoreditch High St/A1202 9:10am

What was their reason for not guilty, given the evidence?

How does a bike crush itself? Even I'm not heavy enough to have done that?

There's a few Garry Meakin's on twitter, etc..

Oh my. Seems to me that the whole 'burden of proof' thing brings into focus cases such as this.

tomtastic can you tell us why you think the jury found in favour of the defendent? Sounds like the driver had some good defence.

Maybe he wasn't looking and the cyclist got in the way all of a sudden and wedged himself under the vehicle before Garry could reasonably react?

Tom, you need to inform road.cc, LCC, etc.

I was only just given notification by DC Hughes of the verdict.
I'm unaware of why the jury reached this decision but its a travesty, Meakin is a lucky guy, I feel so sorry for the victim to have waited almost a year to see his attacker eventually go unpunished. I'm also so worried for other cyclists out there who may not be so nimble as to leap from a bike being crushed by a white van lunatic, in this case the victim narrowly escaped horrendous injury.

There's a few Garry Meakin's on twitter, etc..

Yes, there are aren't there : https://twitter.com/glmeakin/status/266215015730794496/photo/1

This is a disappointment, but sadly not a surprise.

I wonder if the cyclist has been able to claim on Gary Meakins insurance, given that he struck the cyclist from behind?

If this was a criminal case can they proceed with a civil case for damages?

Yes. Different standard of proof. Balance of probability rather than beyond reasonable doubt.

In that case I hope they roll the prick and he has to start selling his arse on the street to pay the damages.

Any idea if the rider is going to try this?

He would be covered by insurance and it is unlikely that the insurer would dispute the claim. A criminal case requires an element of intent which is not necessary in a claim for damages for negligence. It may be that the jury found this intent unproved. A defence of a negligence claim would be much harder.

And the costs of defending would be nothing compared to the value of the bike. Insurers are likely to settle this quickly if they have not already.

This is another example of how hard it is to get a jury to convict in cases of anti-cyclist road rage. I had a similar experience of days wasted giving evidence about a driver who overtook a critical mass ride, stopped and reversed at speed into the crowd. This was so blatant that the driver was chased down and tracked by a black cab driver who also was a witness. The jury acquitted the driver.

Meanwhile TfL and the Met are upping their game and have an ASL enforcement plan in progress.
http://content.met.police.uk/Article/Advanced-Stop-Lines/1400018009433/1400018009433

Fucking waste of time, useless police and CPS cunts.

So, driving into or over someone or their bike is fine, but they'll focus on some people parked in an ASL. #fuckeduppriorities

I wonder what would happen to a cyclist, that suffering an attack like this, dragged the driver from their car and claimed their own justice?

They'd be in jail, obviously.

What a disgrace.

Not guilty? What was his defence?

As if my own experiences with the police weren't bad enough recently after getting my bike robbed and then my house broken into, this just takes the fucking biscuit.

I feel sick. It's good to know that if I piss some driver off (for whatever perceived mistake, be it real or not), he can just fucking run me over with no consequences.

Are we even fucking people to the police? Cyclist traffic accidents seem to be a bit like rape in terms of victim blaming. It's quite frightening that somehow the more vulnerable become the ones at fault?!

It's not fair to totally blame the police for this one. They took the evidence and made it into a case. They must have been reasonable confident that they driver would be convicted.
Part of the problem is that when these cases go to a jury trial a skilled barrister can try to make the jury believe that they, as drivers, might have done something similar if enraged by crazy cyclists etc etc. Very often the Crown Prosecutors lacking the skills to counter this type of defence.
I think everyone here is really pissed off by this verdict, I suspect the police are also pissed off.

...
Part of the problem is that when these cases go to a jury trial a skilled barrister can try to make the jury believe that they, as drivers, might have done something similar if enraged by crazy cyclists etc etc. Very often the Crown Prosecutors lacking the skills to counter this type of defence.
...

you're bang on the money here...

an element of intent
This is the part that makes conviction challenging.

Short of admitting that you used your car as a weapon, you will always get away with it.

If ever you want to murder someone, use your car.