Kill a cyclist, get community punishment

One of the key points that is being overlooked in this discussion is the jury.

If one can obtain a trial by jury, one automatically has a better chance.

They perceive drivers not as "criminals" but as people like them. They drive. They could make a "mistake". Juries are more likely to convict of a lesser offence which carries a lesser punishment.

This is human nature and juries are an important aspect of our constitution.

The answer is therefore to educate those who would be on juries, ie the general populace about driver safety. In so doing, one would hope, drivers would drive more safely and not condone those that do not.

I'm all for juries and although I think educating the general populace on driver safety is necessary, what I don't understand is why the judge in this case, (who is I assume supposed to be in possession of the key knowledge in this area) did'nt direct the jury to concentrate on the points as noted by Spindrift, namely this:

According to CPS charging and prosecution guidance 'driving whilst avoidably and dangerously distracted such as whilst reading a newspaper/map, talking to and looking at a passenger, selecting and lighting a cigarette or by adjusting the controls of electronic equipment' is considered dangerous driving.

The Highway Code also states that 'there is a danger of driver distraction being caused by in-vehicle systems such as satellite navigation systems, congestion warning systems, PCs, multi-media, etc. You MUST exercise proper control of your vehicle at all times.'

I'm not a legal bod as I'm sure you can tell but the judge can guide the jury can't he/she? I think the judge has got to take some of the flack for this, the law is there but is not being used. Should'nt the judge be getting them to focus on what Spindrift said? As having read that I could not as a juror consider this case as anything other than dangerous driving, and thats not because I am a cyclist but just from reading the above.