Dan Walker says helmet saved his life

[Bonefishblues]

Oh dear, not surprising though given what he's said to date. There seems to be a form of Stockholm syndrome with some and motor vehicles and Dan is clearly suffering from it.

Or perhaps it might be something to do with DW having a degree of human empathy and forgiveness, maybe linked to his deep Christian faith that informs his life, and about which he's quite open.

I don't know the individual personally, but from what I have read about him I simply raise it as a possibility.

[Jdsk]

The more I think about it both rather than one or the other apply. Whilst I think that the driver is clearly liable his (or her) defence team might well point out (contributory) acts on Walkers side too.
...

Are you discussing criminality or civil liability?

And if the former what do you mean by "contributory"... that the cyclist was committing a criminal act or that the cyclist was encouraging or assisting a criminal offence by the driver?

I’m not taking an either or perspective, neither am I wondering what specific charges might be brought. To my mind Walker suffered in an accident that was not his fault, but if you asked a jury whether he contributed to the accident by using the roundabout rather than using safer and available alternatives then the answer might not be what we’d like to hear. Let’s leave it to those with the legal understanding to suggest likely outcomes and discuss the finer details.

You're discussing a jury so presumably (in England) a criminal prosecution rather than a civil action. Juries in criminal cases in England are not asked that question about contribution by the victim.

Jonathan

[Bonefishblues]

Are you discussing criminality or civil liability?

And if the former what do you mean by "contributory"... that the cyclist was committing a criminal act or that the cyclist was encouraging or assisting a criminal offence by the driver?

I’m not taking an either or perspective, neither am I wondering what specific charges might be brought. To my mind Walker suffered in an accident that was not his fault, but if you asked a jury whether he contributed to the accident by using the roundabout rather than using safer and available alternatives then the answer might not be what we’d like to hear. Let’s leave it to those with the legal understanding to suggest likely outcomes and discuss the finer details.

You're discussing a jury so presumably (in England) a criminal prosecution rather than a civil action. Juries in criminal cases in England are not asked that question about contribution by the victim.

Jonathan

It is the case though that many drivers who face a serious charge do opt for a Jury Trial:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ns-justice

[thirdcrank]

AIUI, it's now extremely rare - (never?) - that a jury sits in a compo case.

Crimina trials, which generally do have a jury, are conducted in accordance with rules. In particular, the jury members directed to consider the evidence they have heard in the light of the relevant law, as explained by the judge. Precautions, such as impounding jurors' phones are taken with the intention of preventing private research

The jury's deliberations should not take the form of an internet forum discussion.
=====================================================
Slow typing again: :oops:

[Jdsk]

I’m not taking an either or perspective, neither am I wondering what specific charges might be brought. To my mind Walker suffered in an accident that was not his fault, but if you asked a jury whether he contributed to the accident by using the roundabout rather than using safer and available alternatives then the answer might not be what we’d like to hear. Let’s leave it to those with the legal understanding to suggest likely outcomes and discuss the finer details.

You're discussing a jury so presumably (in England) a criminal prosecution rather than a civil action. Juries in criminal cases in England are not asked that question about contribution by the victim.

It is the case though that many drivers who face a serious charge do opt for a Jury Trial:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ns-justice

Yes... it's this suggestion of "contribution" that I'm questioning.

Jonathan

PS: As in previous discussions I'm in favour of moving many offences concerning road use to a jurisdiction based on licensing rather than the need to prove criminality.

[Jdsk]

AIUI, it's now extremely rare - (never?) - that a jury sits in a compo case.
...

Current position in England:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juries_in ... vil_juries

Jonathan

[Bonefishblues]

You're discussing a jury so presumably (in England) a criminal prosecution rather than a civil action. Juries in criminal cases in England are not asked that question about contribution by the victim.

It is the case though that many drivers who face a serious charge do opt for a Jury Trial:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ns-justice

Yes... it's this suggestion of "contribution" that I'm questioning.

Jonathan

PS: As in previous discussions I'm in favour of moving many offences concerning road use to a jurisdiction based on licensing rather than the need to prove criminality.

I should perhaps have drawn out my line of thinking Jonathan.

Thing is we can never know what weighs Juries' minds, and whether, deep down, added to the 'there but for the grace of god' feeling there might be a subconscious 'well yes it was the driver's fault, but the cyclist sort of brought it on himself' feeling too.

Total speculation is total, of course.

[Jdsk]

It is the case though that many drivers who face a serious charge do opt for a Jury Trial:

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ns-justice

Yes... it's this suggestion of "contribution" that I'm questioning.

PS: As in previous discussions I'm in favour of moving many offences concerning road use to a jurisdiction based on licensing rather than the need to prove criminality.

I should perhaps have drawn out my line of thinking Jonathan.

Thing is we can never know what weighs Juries' minds, and whether, deep down, added to the 'there but for the grace of god' feeling there might be a subconscious 'well yes it was the driver's fault, but the cyclist sort of brought it on himself' feeling too.

Total speculation is total, of course.

Thanks.

Yes, and the particular way that we currently think about harm caused by other road users, as discussed upthread, relates directly to that possibility. And to my interest in moving away from criminality in some cases.

Jonathan

[Bonefishblues]

Agreed - particularly striking to me also that cyclists themselves might express similar thinking.

[Stevek76]

Or perhaps it might be something to do with DW having a degree of human empathy and forgiveness, maybe linked to his deep Christian faith that informs his life, and about which he's quite open.

I don't know the individual personally, but from what I have read about him I simply raise it as a possibility.

Quite possibly but I'm not thinking from a perspective of retribution but of the safety of other road users. The driver in question is clearly a danger and needs to be off the roads.

I've said before that i think licensing should be dealt with by a separate panel somewhat akin to transport commissioners for hgvs but as it is the only current method of via courts and to place satisfying your own need to forgive above the safety of others I'd suggest is rather unchristian in the larger picture.

You're discussing a jury so presumably (in England) a criminal prosecution rather than a civil action. Juries in criminal cases in England are not asked that question about contribution by the victim.

Jonathan

But defence barristers will not refuse any opportunity to attempt to use clothing and other choices to infer that the cyclists riding may have also been less than 100% and therefore cast doubt in the jurors minds. Perhaps less of an issue here given the footage available. Though would still not be surprised if the lack of high vis was used to attempt to excuse the driver's inattention.

[thirdcrank]

I presume there are those on here who have been members of a jury trying a case, particularly since the rules were changed to make most adults eligible. I went from being banned to compellable overnight. I've posted before, I've done it once, sitting on only one jury, and it opened my eyes. I was the foreman.

Apart from answering the questions posed in open court eg "Have you reached a verdict?" I have never said anything to anybody about our deliberations as a jury, other than to say I believe we reached "true verdicts." "Our" defendant was black, so I could understand a feeling it was inherently unfair for me to be on "his" jury, but I was not given the choice.

Jury service involves a lot of time, sitting about on stand-by. I really was amazed by the amount of time others similarly unoccupied spent speculating on cases beyond the evidence they had heard.

Anybody else who has done jury service, especially under those revised rules re liability for jury service may recognise what I'm saying

[Steady rider]

Research from London (Forbes 2017) provides details from 2011 to 2015 of 129 cyclist aged 16 years and older, admitted for 24 hours of more with serious head injuries, types of accident, if alcohol was involved and other information. Data on helmet use was available for 97 cyclists, 27 helmeted and 70 non-helmeted. It shows 2 helmeted and 13 non-helmeted cyclists testing positive for alcohol. The 2 helmeted had a mean GCS of 14.5 and 13 non- helmeted score 10.1. For cyclists testing negative for alcohol, with known helmet status, mean GCS was 14.5 for helmeted and 13.8 for non-helmeted. For sober cyclists there was a marginal average difference in GCS values.
There were 15 cases with a GCS of 8 or less, severe head injuries, 2 helmeted, both negative alcohol results – 8 non-helmeted included 5 positive alcohol results, with 5 helmet use unknowns. For sober cyclists, 25 helmet wearers - 8% had severe head injuries (2/25) and of 57 non-wearers – 5.3% had severe head injuries (3/57).
There were 4 deaths, 1 helmeted, 2 non-helmeted, one having a positive alcohol result and one helmet use unknown. The unknown helmet use case was from a car accident, others were '4 x4 or van', bus, and stationary object. It does not say if any of the 2 non-helmeted would have likely survived, if they had been wearing a helmet.

Glasgow Coma Scale (GCS) is used to objectively describe the extent of impaired consciousness in all types of acute medical and trauma patients.

ps
from 57 sober non-helmeted cyclists with head injuries, one die from a collision involving a bus. Dan's accident would probably not have resulted in a death, if he had not worn a helmet, based on the London data.

[Bonefishblues]

Or perhaps it might be something to do with DW having a degree of human empathy and forgiveness, maybe linked to his deep Christian faith that informs his life, and about which he's quite open.

I don't know the individual personally, but from what I have read about him I simply raise it as a possibility.

Quite possibly but I'm not thinking from a perspective of retribution but of the safety of other road users. The driver in question is clearly a danger and needs to be off the roads.

I've said before that i think licensing should be dealt with by a separate panel somewhat akin to transport commissioners for hgvs but as it is the only current method of via courts and to place satisfying your own need to forgive above the safety of others I'd suggest is rather unchristian in the larger picture.

I was, if you noted the part of your post I quoted, giving a counterpoint to your confident assertion that DW was suffering from Stockholm Syndrome which struck me as hyperbolic in the extreme.

[Bonefishblues]

Anybody else who has done jury service, especially under those revised rules re liability for jury service may recognise what I'm saying

I do. There were some on the Jury who had listened to the Judge's Instructions.

[thirdcrank]

I'd have to say I'm not at all clear what Dan Walker means in his latest comments. I fancy that as an experienced journalist he has or should have a better understanding than the typical punter / man on the Clapham Omnibus of rules about pre-trial publicity. Also, although this seems to have been private - in the sense of not part of a media assignment - perhaps he would have been better keeping his counsel until things were clearer.