Attempt to charge NI pedest for causing night accident rather than mention driver for overdriving headlamps..

[[XAP]Bob]

If he drove into something he was driving such that he couldn't stop in the distance he could see to be clear.

No question there.

The *only* exception is mechanical failure.

[fastpedaller]

If he drove into something he was driving such that he couldn't stop in the distance he could see to be clear.

No question there.

The *only* exception is mechanical failure.

That isn't the case though? If there are pedestrians on the pavement (maybe enebriated(sp) ones), and they leap into the road is it always the drivers fault? The driver (to be absolutely sure of avoiding an accident) could slam the brakes on every time he sees a pedestrian, using that logic. This would be the opposite extreme, but to what degree (of slowing down) is reasonable? If a pedestrian leaps out in front of you when you are only 3ft from him, whether you are on a bike or driving the car, there WILL be a collision! This scenario isn't necessarily black or white, there is a grey area. To draw another analogy, it's always 'assumed' that if one vehicle drives into the back of another that the one at the rear is at fault - but what about if one car overtakes another and immediately slams his brakes on? forcing the one behind to collide with him..... the 'crash for cash' scenario?

[Cunobelin]

Anyone who has cycled in a Town or City knows how irrational SOBER pedestrians are, nd how many times you have to avoid them.

Do we assume therefore that ALL such cases are the cyclist fault?

There is insufficient clarity as to what happened for anyone to make a real and valid judgement.


All that can be said is that according to the evidence presented, the Jury decided........

[pete75]

Anyone who has cycled in a Town or City knows how irrational SOBER pedestrians are, nd how many times you have to avoid them.

Do we assume therefore that ALL such cases are the cyclist fault?

There is insufficient clarity as to what happened for anyone to make a real and valid judgement.


All that can be said is that according to the evidence presented, the Jury decided........

It would appear there was someone in the road but purely circumstantial evidence that it was the accused. I don't think I'd be convinced guilt was beyond reasonable doubt based on that alone and neither were almost all the jurors.

[Cunobelin]

Anyone who has cycled in a Town or City knows how irrational SOBER pedestrians are, nd how many times you have to avoid them.

Do we assume therefore that ALL such cases are the cyclist fault?

There is insufficient clarity as to what happened for anyone to make a real and valid judgement.


All that can be said is that according to the evidence presented, the Jury decided........

It would appear there was someone in the road but purely circumstantial evidence that it was the accused. I don't think I'd be convinced guilt was beyond reasonable doubt based on that alone and neither were almost all the jurors.

That is what I mean. The Jury decided on the evidence they were given. That is all that can be said for certain in this incident. Anything else is conjecture often fuelled by bias

[SA_SA_SA]

If he drove into something he was driving such that he couldn't stop in the distance he could see to be clear.

No question there.

The *only* exception is mechanical failure.

That isn't the case though? If there are pedestrians on the pavement (maybe enebriated(sp) ones), and they leap into the road is it always the drivers fault? The driver (to be absolutely sure of avoiding an accident) could slam the brakes on every time he sees a pedestrian, using that logic. This would be the opposite extreme, but to what degree (of slowing down) is reasonable? If a pedestrian leaps out in front of you when you are only 3ft from him, whether you are on a bike or driving the car, there WILL be a collision! This scenario isn't necessarily black or white, there is a grey area. To draw another analogy, it's always 'assumed' that if one vehicle drives into the back of another that the one at the rear is at fault - but what about if one car overtakes another and immediately slams his brakes on? forcing the one behind to collide with him..... the 'crash for cash' scenario?

I updated the OP to cover that,
Moderator: Can I close this thread now?

[fastpedaller]

I updated the OP to cover that,
Moderator: Can I close this thread now?

I hadn't seen that, and I agree with your concerns.