Cycling UK Forum

I found the following alarming:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-46127496

because it seems rather than criticise/charge the driver with driving faster than they could see (by headlamps/streetlamps) they have instead attempted to charge the/a pedestrian.

What about injured persons lying in the road, will they be charged next?

EDIT Note the reason this alarmed me is because I remember this post https://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.com/2015/02/criminal-prosecutions-arising-from-road.html which contained the following

More (21) involved pedestrians but the Inspectors were critical of overcharging (yes, overcharging) in 4 of those cases that involved running down a pedestrian at night because prosecutors and police 'imposed an unrealistic standard of driving on the suspects in these cases'.

Most people seem to driver faster than dipped beams allow.

EDIT if the pedestrian jumped out at the last minute such that even in daylight braking could not avoid a collision, surely that would be mentioned).

If the (unidentified) pedestrian did jump out when the car was too close to stop (even if driving within headlamp range) as above sentence then I retract the post but still feel it would be balanced to point out the necessity of drivers to drive within range of dipped beam.

My reading of that case is that the defence was that there was insufficient evidence to identify the defendant as being the person who was standing in the carriageway and was alleged to have caused the crash. ie With stronger evidence of identification, a conviction was more likely.

But for the crash to happen the driver needs to be driving faster than the distance they can see to stop in..... that was their responsibility as a vehicle driver.

thirdcrank wrote:My reading of that case is that the defence was that there was insufficient evidence to identify the defendant as being the person who was standing in the carriageway and was alleged to have caused the crash. ie With stronger evidence of identification, a conviction was more likely.

But what is the chance of selecting a jury by random and happening to include 11 utter morons out of 12?

A prosecution lawyer had claimed there was a powerful and persuasive circumstantial case against the defendant.

It's only the briefest of reports so we don't know what the evidence was against the defendant but the prosecution seems to accept it was circumstantial. Nothing wrong with that, but it has to be strong enough to convince the jury beyond reasonable doubt. We don't know, for instance if there were other people in the area. As the driver didn't see the defendant till it was too late, it's possible someone else witnessed the defendant's conduct but couldn't identify him. The jury doesn't seem to have got to the point of deciding whether falling about drunk in the road might amount to manslaughter if it caused a fatal crash. OTOH, Perhaps they took the same view as the OP that it was all the driver's fault. We'll never know.

On several recent threads we've had a certain amount of criticism of careless pedestrians. Short of deliberately causing a crash, it's hard to see anything more careless than falling about drunk in the carriageway.

It took the jury *five hours* to decide...!

SA_SA_SA wrote:But for the crash to happen the driver needs to be driving faster than the distance they can see to stop in..... that was their responsibility as a vehicle driver.

Really? It depends how far away the car was when the guy staggered out into the road and started waving his arms about. Is a driver responsible when drunks start capering about on the highway?
From the linked story 'The trial heard that Mr Ferguson had been walking home after his stag do having consumed an "enormous" amount of alcohol' and 'his explanations in key aspects of the case were: "I don't know. I can't be sure. It's a bit of a blur."'

brooksby wrote:It took the jury *five hours* to decide...!

While it is extremely unlikely for a randomly selected jury to include 11 utter morons, there is always the possibility of one. And in this case they seem to have been utterly intransigent. I suspect 11 of the jury will have reached their conclusion within minutes, and then waited 5 hours until the judge was prepared to accept a majority verdict.

Pete Owens wrote:

thirdcrank wrote:My reading of that case is that the defence was that there was insufficient evidence to identify the defendant as being the person who was standing in the carriageway and was alleged to have caused the crash. ie With stronger evidence of identification, a conviction was more likely.

But what is the chance of selecting a jury by random and happening to include 11 utter morons out of 12?

What's your point?

When driving one must always reckon with stray animals, fallen branches, even people walking from A to B

Seems bizarre to bring charges in this case

pete75 wrote:

SA_SA_SA wrote:But for the crash to happen the driver needs to be driving faster than the distance they can see to stop in..... that was their responsibility as a vehicle driver.

Really? It depends how far away the car was when the guy staggered out into the road and started waving his arms about. Is a driver responsible when drunks start capering about on the highway?
From the linked story 'The trial heard that Mr Ferguson had been walking home after his stag do having consumed an "enormous" amount of alcohol' and 'his explanations in key aspects of the case were: "I don't know. I can't be sure. It's a bit of a blur."'

I would not have posted if that was true:
But the news didn't say staggered out from behind something it just claimed he was standing in the middle of Road (see under photo in linked article).

SA_SA_SA wrote:

pete75 wrote:

SA_SA_SA wrote:But for the crash to happen the driver needs to be driving faster than the distance they can see to stop in..... that was their responsibility as a vehicle driver.

Really? It depends how far away the car was when the guy staggered out into the road and started waving his arms about. Is a driver responsible when drunks start capering about on the highway?
From the linked story 'The trial heard that Mr Ferguson had been walking home after his stag do having consumed an "enormous" amount of alcohol' and 'his explanations in key aspects of the case were: "I don't know. I can't be sure. It's a bit of a blur."'

I would not have posted if that was true:
But the news didn't say staggered out from behind something it just claimed he was standing in the middle of Road (see under photo in linked article).

Yes but how long had he been standing there. From the description of the amount he'd had to drink etc I doubt he'd be able to actually stand still anywhere.

pete75 wrote:.....
Yes but how long had he been standing there. From the description of the amount he'd had to drink etc I doubt he'd be able to actually stand still anywhere.

Thats just conjecture. Also, why would the driver not mention him stepping out?

I have added a note to the OP, explaining why a prosecution of poorly identified pedestrian with no criticism of overdriving of headlamps made me uneasy. Most people seem to overdrive their dipped headlamps.....

SA is right
Most drivers should lose their licences

SA_SA_SA wrote:

pete75 wrote:.....
Yes but how long had he been standing there. From the description of the amount he'd had to drink etc I doubt he'd be able to actually stand still anywhere.

Thats just conjecture. Also, why would the driver not mention him stepping out?

I have added a note to the OP, explaining why a prosecution of poorly identified pedestrian with no criticism of overdriving of headlamps made me uneasy. Most people seem to overdrive their dipped headlamps.....

The decision was made by someone with far more knowledge of the events than either of us. Your suggestion of over driving of headlamps is merely conjecture.