Cycling UK Forum

Here's the CPS' take on public justice offences. If you scroll down, obstructing the coroner is at the bottom.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/p ... g-standard

That mentions that the offence is triable only on indictment, and is punishable with anything up to life imprisonment. That's because this all comes from judge-made law, some of it dating back centuries.

thirdcrank wrote:I didn't see the programme but I think the general point is that the law takes a dim view when public justice offences are proved. eg Swapping totting-up points = perverting the course of justice and C Huhne and his ex got 8 months apiece.

Did they share a cell?

thirdcrank wrote:

Le jugement n'est pas encore entré en force.

- The judgment hasn't yet come into force.

Still subject to some sort of confirmation?

In French & Swiss law, when a judgement is made, it has has to be declared whether it is entered into force. If it is entered into force, it cannot be appealed.
If anyone is interested, it appears to be explained, here (in French) though it is in legalese, so it's pretty hard to follow, I think, even for someone who understands a reasonable amount of French.

Some linguistic thickets there. As I was reading it - sort of - I got the impression that it was about the enforcement of civil judgments (debt recovery and the like) and when I finally got to the bottom I was rather pleased to see that it refers to Code de procédure civile as its source.

Technical lingo is always difficult to translate properly without a specialist dictionary. On a bit of a lighter note, somebody once told me that ushers were so called because they enforced silence in court by muttering "'ush, 'ush." in reality, and AFAIK, it's from the French huissier a doorkeeper, from huis. In that link it's obviously a court bailiff.

It's amazing what's to be found on the internet but lawyers everywhere rely on arcane language AKA Mumbo Jumbo to keep the money coming in, whether that's in £££ or €€€. I've all on trying to provide a layman's explanation of what happens in England and Wales, never mind foreign jurisdictions eg Scotland

thirdcrank wrote:Some linguistic thickets there. As I was reading it - sort of - I got the impression that it was about the enforcement of civil judgments (debt recovery and the like) and when I finally got to the bottom I was rather pleased to see that it refers to Code de procédure civile as its source.

Yes, you are correct, and I don't know how it applies in criminal law, or if it differs in Switzerland (the reference is to French law). Presumeably, the definition isn't much different, even if the application is. My French language skills and google-fu aren't up to the task of figuring out Swiss criminal applications of the enforcement of judgements.

So today killing 8 people because you were on the mobile is only worthy of death by careless driving and not dangerous driving as per a jury of peers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-43320649

how disgusting is this, if on the phone you are a dangerous driver surely and this is the time and effort a govt should be looking at and not the very very rare cyclist one which I think would never be used

https://www.bristolpost.co.uk/news/bristol-news/van-driver-knocked-down-dad-1306659

Another one in Bristol. This nutter not only hit a stationary bicycle from behind; he then fled the scene, driving over the bike and narrowly missing crushing a small child still secured in a child seat.

Sentence? 12-month community order and nine-month driving ban. You really couldn't make it up.

ianrobo wrote:So today killing 8 people because you were on the mobile is only worthy of death by careless driving and not dangerous driving as per a jury of peers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-43320649

Yes, I thought this was pretty shocking, especially having watched the dash cam video from a truck that passed the stationary one earlier (last night's 10pm news at 20m12s - only available until 10:30pm today). How that failing to see a well lit truck + minivan behind it with its hazards on doesn't indicate dangerous driving is beyond me And the ejit had been talking to ANO for an hour with the truck on cruise control

Society as a whole views inflicting harm through negligent/reckless behaviour while travelling less seriously. That's why death by careless/dangerous offenses exist in the first place as juries won't call a spade a spade (manslaughter in this case).

Part of the problem is presumably linked to that a significant proportion of the population simply don't have sufficient aptitude/competence to operate the heavy machinery we let them operate. Essentially we've set unrealistic expectations on sufficient people's ability that the arguments like 'just a moment's inattention leading to a tragic accident that could happen to anyone' actually have traction.

Can you imagine if that line was tried with a pilot or crane operator etc?

Stevek76 wrote:Society as a whole views inflicting harm through negligent/reckless behaviour while travelling less seriously. That's why death by careless/dangerous offenses exist in the first place as juries won't call a spade a spade (manslaughter in this case).

Part of the problem is presumably linked to that a significant proportion of the population simply don't have sufficient aptitude/competence to operate the heavy machinery we let them operate. Essentially we've set unrealistic expectations on sufficient people's ability that the arguments like 'just a moment's inattention leading to a tragic accident that could happen to anyone' actually have traction.

Can you imagine if that line was tried with a pilot or crane operator etc?

I find this an interesting problem. The plane / crane analogy is not really all that useful because both operate mostly away from the general public and in the case of a pilot momentary loss of concentration is only likely to have serious consequences at landing or takeoff.

But any driver, including you and me, will lose concentration once in a while. When you or I sit behind the wheel of a car we know that we are capable of lapses, but we still turn the key. Anyone who drives and says they never lose concentration is a liar. We all do. And we know it will happen again. But still we choose to drive. And from that I conclude that anyone who drives is in no position to point the finger at another driver who has lost concentration, because we all do it and we know we will do it again.

I agree that there is no logical distinction to be made between killing someone by allowing scaffolding to fall on them, and killing someone through reckless driving. Manslaughter seems like the appropriate charge for both.

The problem for me is how to distinguish between a momentary loss of concentration and gross negligence. There is a difference, though the consequences can be the same. Maybe we can't tell one from the other and we have to punish the offender on the basis of the outcome rather than the intent that led to it. Some would find that satisfactory but I feel uneasy with that. I think intent matters.

pwa wrote:

Stevek76 wrote:Society as a whole views inflicting harm through negligent/reckless behaviour while travelling less seriously. That's why death by careless/dangerous offenses exist in the first place as juries won't call a spade a spade (manslaughter in this case).

Part of the problem is presumably linked to that a significant proportion of the population simply don't have sufficient aptitude/competence to operate the heavy machinery we let them operate. Essentially we've set unrealistic expectations on sufficient people's ability that the arguments like 'just a moment's inattention leading to a tragic accident that could happen to anyone' actually have traction.

Can you imagine if that line was tried with a pilot or crane operator etc?

I find this an interesting problem. The plane / crane analogy is not really all that useful because both operate mostly away from the general public and in the case of a pilot momentary loss of concentration is only likely to have serious consequences at landing or takeoff.

But any driver, including you and me, will lose concentration once in a while. When you or I sit behind the wheel of a car we know that we are capable of lapses, but we still turn the key. Anyone who drives and says they never lose concentration is a liar. We all do. And we know it will happen again. But still we choose to drive. And from that I conclude that anyone who drives is in no position to point the finger at another driver who has lost concentration, because we all do it and we know we will do it again.

...
. .

Losing concentration is one thing
Constantly following too close, exceeding maximum speed limits and trying to bully others into doing the same is quite another

If the terrorists in audis and trucks were dealt with, 'accidental' deaths would fall by maybe 90%

Cyril Haearn wrote:

pwa wrote:

Stevek76 wrote:Society as a whole views inflicting harm through negligent/reckless behaviour while travelling less seriously. That's why death by careless/dangerous offenses exist in the first place as juries won't call a spade a spade (manslaughter in this case).

Part of the problem is presumably linked to that a significant proportion of the population simply don't have sufficient aptitude/competence to operate the heavy machinery we let them operate. Essentially we've set unrealistic expectations on sufficient people's ability that the arguments like 'just a moment's inattention leading to a tragic accident that could happen to anyone' actually have traction.

Can you imagine if that line was tried with a pilot or crane operator etc?

I find this an interesting problem. The plane / crane analogy is not really all that useful because both operate mostly away from the general public and in the case of a pilot momentary loss of concentration is only likely to have serious consequences at landing or takeoff.

But any driver, including you and me, will lose concentration once in a while. When you or I sit behind the wheel of a car we know that we are capable of lapses, but we still turn the key. Anyone who drives and says they never lose concentration is a liar. We all do. And we know it will happen again. But still we choose to drive. And from that I conclude that anyone who drives is in no position to point the finger at another driver who has lost concentration, because we all do it and we know we will do it again.

...
. .

Losing concentration is one thing
Constantly following too close, exceeding maximum speed limits and trying to bully others into doing the same is quite another

If the terrorists in audis and trucks were dealt with, 'accidental' deaths would fall by maybe 90%

I think my final comments, which you didn't quote, look at the difference between a momentary lapse and consistent negligent behaviour. How do we tell them apart? Can we?

pwa wrote:

Cyril Haearn wrote:

pwa wrote:
I find this an interesting problem. The plane / crane analogy is not really all that useful because both operate mostly away from the general public and in the case of a pilot momentary loss of concentration is only likely to have serious consequences at landing or takeoff.

But any driver, including you and me, will lose concentration once in a while. When you or I sit behind the wheel of a car we know that we are capable of lapses, but we still turn the key. Anyone who drives and says they never lose concentration is a liar. We all do. And we know it will happen again. But still we choose to drive. And from that I conclude that anyone who drives is in no position to point the finger at another driver who has lost concentration, because we all do it and we know we will do it again.

...
. .

Losing concentration is one thing
Constantly following too close, exceeding maximum speed limits and trying to bully others into doing the same is quite another

If the terrorists in audis and trucks were dealt with, 'accidental' deaths would fall by maybe 90%

I think my final comments, which you didn't quote, look at the difference between a momentary lapse and consistent negligent behaviour. How do we tell them apart? Can we?

I used quote marks to indicate text had been left out, some posts get a bit long
You mentioned gross negligence, not sure what that is. I keep concentration by not using the radio, I sing instead, Mae hen wlad..
Could speeding and tailgating/bullying be negligence? I think not, they are deliberate crimes, violence or threat of violence committed by people who need punishment and treatment

Alternative facts welcome as ever

Gross negligence is different from momentary inattentiveness. Gross negligence includes things like persistent, deliberate tailgating. Momentary inattentiveness might lead you to temporarily get too close to the vehicle in front, until you realise and correct. Everyone who drives will make small errors through loss of concentration, but will correct them when they realise.

Driving too fast and tailgating are negligence because they are a failure to take care of others. Deliberately driving at someone crosses another line, and deliberately driving over someone crosses another.

Driver found guilty of death by careless driving, only sentenced to 36 weeks (no reduction in sentence for pleading guilty).

http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/driver-jailed-over-death-of-colin-taylor-in-hitcham-1-5450604

Left the scene
Lied to all and sundry
Denied all responsibility throughout the investigation until just before the trial was due to start

Apparently a suspended sentence could not be passed because:

"Sentencing Tuffs at Ipswich Crown Court today (Monday) Judge Goodin said he did not feel able to pass a suspended sentence as the defendant had “cynically” failed to stop after the accident and had driven on."

So that's it get killed by a motorist, who will likely only be charged with careless driving and your life is worth 36 weeks in prison. However if they plead guilty from the start, did not leave the scene and said they were full of remorse, chances are the sentence would be suspended, at least that is what I read from the comment above.

The BBC report is a bit of a white wash IMHO, it includes excuses for the driver not seeing the cyclist, why would the BBC do this?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-suffolk-43541720