Cyclist v's Pedestrian

[MalcQV]

Cyclists attitude stinks.
Hope he goes to prison.

 

[JBell]

Who is actually at fault:

The cyclist was riding an illegal bike

The Pedestrian was not paying attention and walked out in to the road

 

[A.J.]

Who is actually at fault:

The cyclist was riding an illegal bike

The Pedestrian was not paying attention and walked out in to the road

I think at the end of the day the Pedestrian should have been looking where she was going regardless of whether the bike was legal or not. The fact that it was illegal and there are many more illegal machinery on our roads should have intensified her awareness !!. The cyclist however is still culpable.

 

[Naraic]

There will be contributory negligence on the side of the pedestrian. But..she died...I know who the jury will sympathise with.

 

[M80]

The way I view a motor vehicle meets cyclist situation is that regardless of root cause the motorist will be defending his accountability.

With cyclist meets pedestrian a similar situation exists to my mind. The big difference is that the cyclist doesn't need insurance cover to compensate, and in this case he is defending his accountability - very poorly.

 

[LostKiwi]

I like the way things were explained to me by a legal friend as to how he thought it SHOULD work....

"If a vehicle is illegal it should not be on the road therefore any fault for any accident resides in the driver of the illegal vehicle, irrespective of whether they would have been in the wrong had the vehicle been legal."

Pity we don't have judges who think that way....

 

[C350Carl]

Seems he has been cleared of Manslaughter.

Cyclist cleared of manslaughter over woman's death
http://news.sky.com/story/cyclist-c...ed-of-manslaughter-over-womans-death-11001986

 

[Naraic]

But very likely to go to prison.

 

[AMGeed]

But very likely to go to prison.

What he has been charged with carries a maximum sentence of 2 years. Wanton and furious driving dating back to the 1800's.

Still showing absolutely no remorse I hope he gets at least a year for some attitude adjustment.

 

[Ken_R]

What he has been charged with carries a maximum sentence of 2 years. Wanton and furious driving dating back to the 1800's.

The Offences Against the Person Act 1861.

Drivers of carriages injuring persons by furious driving.

Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years, . . .

It's not the first time that the Legislation has been used in recent decades. There was an instance, IIRC, where 'youfs' were frantically driving a car around a field and and a person got struck by the vehicle and died. As it was not 'on a road' then none of the RTA offences could apply. From memory, a conviction under the same Legislation resulted.

I'm somewhat disappointed that he wasn't convicted of Manslaughter. Not only did he shout once for the poor lady to get out of the way, but he also had time, seemingly, to shout such a second demand, including expletives, before he struck her.

I've been following the tragedy here, and on other Forums (No. Not Cycling forums) and the Press reported the accused 'Defence' (and cross examination) last Thursday. At the closing of the 'Defence', I can't imagine that there would have been any more witnesses so, the Friday would have been taken up by Submissions of both the Prosecution and the Defence.

With the weekend looming, I can envisage the Judge delaying his 'summing up' until early on the Monday. The Jury would then be 'sent away' to deliberate their findings sometime +/- Lunchtime Monday.

And, seemingly, it has taken until late Wednesday, before they came back with their verdict(s). That is a long time for a Jury to come to their conclusions. I can envisage that there were a large number of Jurors who wanted the Manslaughter charge to stand, but not enough for the 10-2 majority.

I can appreciate both the grief and the objectives of the Husband of wanting the Legislation updated but, as this case, and others, have proved, whilst it is old, it is still sufficiently robust.

 

[Alex M Grieve]

The Offences Against the Person Act 1861.


It's not the first time that the Legislation has been used in recent decades. There was an instance, IIRC, where 'youfs' were frantically driving a car around a field and and a person got struck by the vehicle and died. As it was not 'on a road' then none of the RTA offences could apply. From memory, a conviction under the same Legislation resulted.

I'm somewhat disappointed that he wasn't convicted of Manslaughter. Not only did he shout once for the poor lady to get out of the way, but he also had time, seemingly, to shout such a second demand, including expletives, before he struck her.

I've been following the tragedy here, and on other Forums (No. Not Cycling forums) and the Press reported the accused 'Defence' (and cross examination) last Thursday. At the closing of the 'Defence', I can't imagine that there would have been any more witnesses so, the Friday would have been taken up by Submissions of both the Prosecution and the Defence.

With the weekend looming, I can envisage the Judge delaying his 'summing up' until early on the Monday. The Jury would then be 'sent away' to deliberate their findings sometime +/- Lunchtime Monday.

And, seemingly, it has taken until late Wednesday, before they came back with their verdict(s). That is a long time for a Jury to come to their conclusions. I can envisage that there were a large number of Jurors who wanted the Manslaughter charge to stand, but not enough for the 10-2 majority.

I can appreciate both the grief and the objectives of the Husband of wanting the Legislation updated but, as this case, and others, have proved, whilst it is old, it is still sufficiently robust.

Absolutely Ken. In any case, Common Law and Common Sense should never be strangers, though you do sometimes wonder. It seems that reason will prevail in this case. Speed limits are all very well, but we should all be driving at a speed to suit the prevailing conditions and from which we can stop urgently in the event of the unexpected.

Alex

 

[turbopete]

Common Law and Common Sense should never be strangers

very true Alex, but unfortunately, common sense isn't very 'common' nowadays!!

 

[Frontstep]

The need for Judges is never more easily exampled, prescriptive law is often an ass.
Guiding a Jury through this case by an able Judge and leaving personalities till sentencing allows society to exact a sentence that reflects the crime..... but only if the tools are their for the prosecution which in this case left an old act to be dusted off and used where others failed;

S35 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (as amended by the Criminal Justice Act 1948 (c. 58), s. 1(2)) is as follows:

“Drivers of carriages injuring persons by furious driving Whosoever, having the charge of any carriage or vehicle, shall by wanton or furious driving or racing, or other wilful misconduct, or by wilful neglect, do or cause to be done any bodily harm to any person whatsoever, shall be guilty of a misdemeanour, and being convicted thereof shall be liable, at the discretion of the court, to be imprisoned for any term not exceeding two years.”

For instance, in 2009 supermarket worker Darren Hall was convicted of ‘wanton and furious driving’ after he had ridden on the pavement and hit and killed an 84-year old pedestrian. Hall was jailed for seven months and banned from driving a car for a year. Courts only have this power where a cyclist has injured another party by “wanton and furious driving or racing.”

Last para C&P

 

[AMGeed]

Did anyone read what the outcome was to this case?

 

[turbopete]

guilty of 'wanton and furious driving' but not guilty of manslaughter

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...ted-wanton-furious-driving-pedestrians-death/

and another accident more recently

http://metro.co.uk/2017/09/14/woman-73-dies-after-being-hit-by-cyclist-on-oxford-street-6926928/

 

[Alex M Grieve]

I think sentencing may be due today, but the journalists are not specific on this:

http://www.timesandstar.co.uk/news/...enced-7745d2c1-ed89-4bc9-a142-9508ce3788a4-ds

Alex

 

[keefysher]

18 months custodial in a Young Offenders Institution, or criminal school.

Life has such a low value in compare to bucking the system

 

[Craiglxviii]

18 months custodial in a Young Offenders Institution, or criminal school.

Life has such a low value in compare to bucking the system

No, you're wrong. It's ok because he keeps his feelings hidden as a coping strategy, the poor delicate little snowflake. (In the article...)

Sentence: the Russian Solution. Bit like the Chinese one but cheaper.

 

[stwat]

The scum stood in the dock shaking his head as sentence was given.

 

[AMGeed]

The scum stood in the dock shaking his head as sentence was given.

Probably still thinks he did nothing wrong.His attitude stinks IMO, not showing the slightest sign of being sorry or guilty.

He'll get some attitude adjustment in a young offenders institute even though he'll be back on the streets by next summer.