-
I can't even think of anything to say about this. Every time I read a new article on the subject my brain just goes completely blank at all the stupidity and complete lack of compassion and respect I see for the life of a young woman and those who now have to live without her.
I honestly don't understand how the cutting short of the life of a young woman is seen as less important than the inconvenience a dangerous driver might be caused by the legal system. Wow.
-
Cleared:
Quote: She said she was “surprised” to see Mr Pontin and Ms Perinova coming toward her as came round the bend at 40 to 50mph, but felt they had room to get past.
It's plastered all over the DVA driving theory books to NOT overtake unless you're sure. And it's says everywhere to leave cyclists as much room as a car too. My instructor hammered that into me too.
I despair why do we even bother with driving exams/instructor audits if then once it goes to court the jury goes "Ah well, honest mistake".
Fume. And maybe a reason to throw out the jury system for driving offenses.
-
If I'm reading it right, the driver didn't hit the first cyclist, she hit the second, so there clearly was room for a bike and car as she passed the first without colliding.
I don't suppose there is any doubt the overtake caused the cyclist to panic and fall, but is that the fault of the inexperienced cyclist or of the driver? After all, the first cyclist didn't fall.
A jury only has to have reasonable doubt and they cannot find guilty. The above bit of conjecture could well be reasonable doubt.
I wonder if bike being overtaken + wobble room + car + wobble room + oncoming bike was a greater width than that if the road.
-
I don't suppose there is any doubt the overtake caused the cyclist to panic and fall, but is that the fault of the inexperienced cyclist or of the driver? After all, the first cyclist didn't fall.
The fact there was little room for error when the second cyclists lost control indicated she was driving too close to them when overtaking.
A judge recently point this out;
If he [cyclist] could bang on the side of your van, you were too close.
-
Another depressing tale of non custody for using car as a weapon in york. Driver also had previous careless driving conviction.. FTW
http://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/10711045.Car_driver_hit_cyclist_and_drove_off/?ref=mr
-
Lightening the mood a little:
-
The fact there was little room for error when the second cyclists lost control indicated she was driving too close to them when overtaking.
A judge recently point this out;
I agree, there clearly wasn't enough room for the error the cyclist made in this case.
Close enough to bang on is prob within 2ft. A falling cyclist might be more like 6ft across from an upright one. So what's a safe passing distance? I'd say 2ft definitely isn't. 6ft? I'm not so sure. I bet I'm often within 6ft when I pass a cyclist in the car.
-
Does rather suggest that if you are going to hit a cyclist, make sure you kill them so they can't contradict your version of events
^ this
-
I suppose it is probably one of those situations where they can't prove she intended to do whatever she did.
But I don't understand how the "surprise" cyclists aren't an admission of guilt... if she couldn't see the road ahead, how could she overtake safely and legally?
madness
She wasn't being charged with careless driving though (as far as I can make out) - It's quite possible that, if she were, she would be found guilty on the basis of all the above.
She was charged with causing death by careless driving - It's not enough to show that her driving was careless, but that it was the careless driving that caused the death. There was, in the mind of the jurors, sufficient doubt, possibly due to the "wobbling", that the careles driving caused the death.
It's still fucked, whichever way you spin it though.
-
Lightening the mood a little:
They're in a pickle over there. I'll be off to the joke thread >>>>>>>>>>>>
-
I could only guess.
-
I could only guess.
You sound rather wobbly on that one.
-
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/feeding-homeless-to-be-banned-by-tory-run-westminster-113433
Eh? So if you feed a cat on the street it's OK, but it better not be a human?
-
But I don't understand how the "surprise" cyclists aren't an admission of guilt... if she couldn't see the road ahead, how could she overtake safely and legally?
And if I were in the jury it is her admission she hadn't seen them that I'd have used to try to convince the other jurors to convict.
She didn't see the gap and judge it wide enough to fit through, she wasn't paying sufficient attention to see the cyclists. That's careless in my book.
-
Jolly good article about 4chan and web culture in general
http://www.dailydot.com/business/4chan-10-years-christopher-moot-poole/fuck, I miss 4chan, the hijinks that we used to get up to. Nowadays it's all NSA and getting put in solitary for life.
bothwell
JWestland
hugo7
Hefty
edscoble
cyberyark
s785
NotThamesWater
hippy
starfish&coffee
hoefla
Oliver Schick
dst2
Sumo-
Post a reply
About
In the news
Posted by
@Platini
A private (criminal) prosecution is subject to the same double jeopardy rules.
Any appeal would need to be on a point of law (as opposed to just being for a second bite of the apple), or if there is substantive new evidence.
A civil case may well end with a judge deciding that the cyclist was in part to blame - you know, for being wobbly when some cunt in a car drives at them.
The Highway Code is not law, and only refers to laws.
You might argue that contravening the guides make you guilty of careless driving, but that is not the charge that the woman faced.
She was charge with causing death by careless driving - it's not enough to just prove that she was driving carelessly (which she no doubt was), but it was this that caused the death.
The jury, in this case peopled by 12 fucknuggets of the highest order, decided that it was not.