More drivers cleared after rider's death.

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
Postboxer
Posts: 1857
Joined: 24 Jul 2013, 5:19pm

Re: More drivers cleared after rider's death.

Post by Postboxer »

Jdsk wrote:
Postboxer wrote:Does anyone know what happens insurance claim wise in cases such as this?

Usual process... but what do you mean by "such as this"?

Postboxer wrote:I assume there's no way the driver can dispute they were at fault for causing the accident, though I have no idea what amount, if any, the family can claim.

There are two drivers. But if a claim is made against either I wouldn't make that assumption. The fact of conviction can be offered in evidence in a civil action but it doesn't make the outcome automatic.

Jonathan


I forgot about the complication of there being two drivers in this case. I meant in a case where a driver claims they didn't see a cyclist they crashed into from behind, sadly killing them, then the criminal court process fails and the driver is found not guilty, can the victim's family claim against the driver's insurance and what damages can they claim for?
thirdcrank
Posts: 32911
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: More drivers cleared after rider's death.

Post by thirdcrank »

Postboxer wrote:[ ... I meant in a case where a driver claims they didn't see a cyclist they crashed into from behind, sadly killing them, then the criminal court process fails and the driver is found not guilty, can the victim's family claim against the driver's insurance and what damages can they claim for?


The claim would be for negligence. That would be decided on the balance of probabilities, which amongst other things means that it must go one way or the other. Speaking as a layman, I would assume that the defence to the prosecution - Sun in eyes - would not be a defence to negligence eg the HC advises drivers what to do and, without looking it up, it doesn't say "just carry on regardless." When negligence is proved or admitted, then contributory negligence may reduce the payout. In this case the deceased was apparently wearing hi-viz togs so that's not an issue. Also, if you claim you didn't see somebody, it's not easy to allege they were eg swerving all over the road. With that settled and AFAIK, there are well-established formulae for calculating the amount of the payout. Incidentally, killing somebody tends to be cheaper than paralyzing them, when they will have lifelong care needs.
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 18878
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: More drivers cleared after rider's death.

Post by [XAP]Bob »

thirdcrank wrote:Incidentally, killing somebody tends to be cheaper than paralyzing them, when they will have lifelong care needs.


That's why for many years infantry weaponry wasn't designed to kill, but to injure - that way you get two or three of the enemy infantry off the front lines to escort their wounded friend to a field hospital.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
Jdsk
Posts: 11206
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: More drivers cleared after rider's death.

Post by Jdsk »

Postboxer wrote: I meant in a case where a driver claims they didn't see a cyclist they crashed into from behind, sadly killing them, then the criminal court process fails and the driver is found not guilty, can the victim's family claim against the driver's insurance and what damages can they claim for?

Yes, the acquittal on the criminal charge doesn't get in the way of the civil claim.

As above for negligence.

But the criminal process didn't fail. The accused was acquitted. The prosecution failed to convince the jury.

Jonathan
User avatar
bigjim
Posts: 3238
Joined: 2 Feb 2008, 5:08pm
Location: Manchester

Re: More drivers cleared after rider's death.

Post by bigjim »

The problem with these cases is you cannot be judged by an unbiased jury. The UK is not cyclist friendly and I presume all or most members of the jury will be drivers. They will be influenced by the "there but for the grace of god, this could be me" syndrome. It used to be a "only drive at the speed which you can see to be clear" HC rule. But they have deleted that.
Phil Fouracre
Posts: 901
Joined: 12 Jan 2013, 12:16pm
Location: Deepest Somerset

Re: More drivers cleared after rider's death.

Post by Phil Fouracre »

Have they deleted it? Oops didn’t know that, ridiculous!
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity
Mike Sales
Posts: 6271
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: More drivers cleared after rider's death.

Post by Mike Sales »

Phil Fouracre wrote:Have they deleted it? Oops didn’t know that, ridiculous!


I didn't either, so I have checked. That caution is still there.

Rule 126.

Stopping Distances. Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear.


https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/general-rules-techniques-and-advice-for-all-drivers-and-riders-103-to-158
Last edited by Mike Sales on 8 Sep 2020, 8:55pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jdsk
Posts: 11206
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: More drivers cleared after rider's death.

Post by Jdsk »

Thanks

Jonathan
User avatar
bigjim
Posts: 3238
Joined: 2 Feb 2008, 5:08pm
Location: Manchester

Re: More drivers cleared after rider's death.

Post by bigjim »

Mike Sales wrote:
Phil Fouracre wrote:Have they deleted it? Oops didn’t know that, ridiculous!


I didn't either, so I have checked. That caution is still there.

Rule 126.

Stopping Distances. Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear.


https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/general-rules-techniques-and-advice-for-all-drivers-and-riders-103-to-158

Read that it had changed in 2018 also they 2 second spacing rule. Will check again tomorrow. Think it was a motorcycle site.
Jdsk
Posts: 11206
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: More drivers cleared after rider's death.

Post by Jdsk »

Changes, including those from 2018:
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/the-highway-code/updates

Jonathan
PDQ Mobile
Posts: 4343
Joined: 2 Aug 2015, 4:40pm

Re: More drivers cleared after rider's death.

Post by PDQ Mobile »

The headline of this topic is misleading.
Only one driver has been acquitted.
The other found guilty of 'causing death by careless driving'.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-54074610
qwerty360
Posts: 7
Joined: 2 Jun 2020, 4:34pm

Re: More drivers cleared after rider's death.

Post by qwerty360 »

Probably should be in its own thread but, if noone is at fault according to a court then the road should mandatorily be closed until it can be made safe. If the death was the result of carelessness (something that we can assume everyone does on occassion) then safety alterations should be mandatory with a reasonable time period.

Clearly if a driver can kill someone merely by being 'careless' then the infrastructure isn't safe so should be changed (both where the accident occured and where we have similar infrastructure);

I suspect the level of necessary road alterations required to ensure that roads are designed around what juries enforce as a careful and competant driver (so add lots of route closures, tight speed restrictions with chicanes, narrowings and speed bumps, zebra and traffic light crossings every 100m, speed cameras everywhere etc) would quickly result in juries deciding that maybe they need to enforce a higher standard on drivers before they can't actually drive anywhere...
Jdsk
Posts: 11206
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: More drivers cleared after rider's death.

Post by Jdsk »

I wouldn't support closing a road because of a death. But a Total Quality Management approach would use the information from an individual incident/ prosecution/ conviction to improve the individual's driving and to inform us about patterns of problematic driving and risk factors in the infrastructure.

Jonathan
mikeymo
Posts: 2299
Joined: 27 Sep 2016, 6:23pm

Re: More drivers cleared after rider's death.

Post by mikeymo »

Carlton green wrote:so an innocent verdict is conveniently given


Really?
pwa
Posts: 14323
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

One driver convicted, a second found "not guilty".

Post by pwa »

mikeymo wrote:
Carlton green wrote:so an innocent verdict is conveniently given


Really?


Title alteration to reflect the fact that one of the two drivers was found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving.
Post Reply