Another cyclist on trial for manslaughter

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Another cyclist on trial for manslaughter

Post by thirdcrank »

Under English law, the offence - or rather the several offences - under s 170 Road Traffic Act 1988, are largely administrative, eg so that insurance claims are facilitated.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/19 ... ection/170

There's no legal requirement for eg a bank robber to remain at the scene, exchange details, or indeed offer first-aid to anybody they have shot.

Beyond that, s 170 is directed only at the driver of a mechanically propelled vehicle so it imposes no duties on a cyclist at all; perhaps partly because cyclists are not required to have third party cover.
kwackers
Posts: 15643
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: Another cyclist on trial for manslaughter

Post by kwackers »

[XAP]Bob wrote:
kwackers wrote:I'm not sure legally there's much of a difference. You're doing something wrong and as a result someone dies.

The only mitigation you have is that as a cyclist the magnitude of your wrong doing isn't the same as someone in a much bigger vehicle.



The thing is that speed isn't in and of itself illegal on a bike.

The Alliston case green light isn't relevant here, because that was a case of not having legal brakes.

The magnitude of wrongdoing (going through a red light) is the same, the likely consequences are much smaller, but take a look at any set of traffic lights and you'll see a handful of motorists go through red every cycle - it's a routinely flouted signal.

I should have phrased that better by "magnitude" I was referring to the likely consequences (although obviously in this case the consequences ended up being somewhat higher than the norm).
peetee
Posts: 4292
Joined: 4 May 2010, 10:20pm
Location: Upon a lumpy, scarred granite massif.

Re: Another cyclist on trial for manslaughter

Post by peetee »

Oldjohnw wrote:
peetee wrote:
fastpedaller wrote:it would appear it isn't a legal requirement for a cyclist to report an accident.


Is there a legal definition of the word ‘accident’?
I have always had trouble accepting this word in relation to road casualties as it is often the case that the circumstances are not ‘accidental’. It’s far more likely that any scenario is a result of a
act of carelessness or recklessness (sometimes deliberate) - but until that’s proven the term ‘incident’ should be used.


AFAIK:

The law defines a road traffic accident as a collision involving a vehicle on a road or in a public area that has caused damage or injury to a person, animal, another vehicle or property.
You can be the victim of a road accident whether you were driving, a passenger, on foot, riding a bicycle or horse when you sustained the injury


Fair enough. Odd then that someone can be committed of a crime that results in an accident. If someone fired a gun through gaps between people in a high street they could hardly claim the bullet hitting someone was an accident. If the perpetrators actions were deemed negligent then there is nothing accidental happening.
The older I get the more I’m inclined to act my shoe size, not my age.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Another cyclist on trial for manslaughter

Post by thirdcrank »

One of the features of the Alliston thread was the theme that because a cyclist has potentially less capability of killing others, it shouldn't matter if they do. (My words.) IMO the flaw in that is that there's only one level of deadness: it's an absolute measure.

Another feature was the view that prosecuting somebody under the "furious driving" legislation was wrong because it was archaic, but the proposal to create offences of causing death by dangerous / careless driving didn't go down well either.
kwackers
Posts: 15643
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: Another cyclist on trial for manslaughter

Post by kwackers »

thirdcrank wrote:One of the features of the Alliston thread was the theme that because a cyclist has potentially less capability of killing others, it shouldn't matter if they do. (My words.) IMO the flaw in that is that there's only one level of deadness: it's an absolute measure.

Another feature was the view that prosecuting somebody under the "furious driving" legislation was wrong because it was archaic, but the proposal to create offences of causing death by dangerous / careless driving didn't go down well either.

But there has to be some weighting of a penalty based on the "likely" consequences.
It's pretty rare for a cyclist to kill a pedestrian even by jumping a red light and somewhat more likely in a car - speed, weight, width and aversion to collision are all considerations.

There aren't that many human activities that don't at some level represent a threat - even if sometimes it's so unlikely as to be only theoretical.
We can't simply lump them all together under the label "there's only one level of deadness".
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Another cyclist on trial for manslaughter

Post by mjr »

thirdcrank wrote:One of the features of the Alliston thread was the theme that because a cyclist has potentially less capability of killing others, it shouldn't matter if they do. (My words.) IMO the flaw in that is that there's only one level of deadness: it's an absolute measure.

I think that's a gross misrepresentation of the thread under viewtopic.php?p=1155053#p1155053 and its theme that the same guidelines should be used whether the killer driver used a cycle or a car.

Another feature was the view that prosecuting somebody under the "furious driving" legislation was wrong because it was archaic, but the proposal to create offences of causing death by dangerous / careless driving didn't go down well either.

We already have those offences and "archaic" was posted only twice in that thread, once by you! (Quoting CUK).

You may like to reread the earlier thread before summarising it further. I feel you may be confusing it with things read elsewhere.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Another cyclist on trial for manslaughter

Post by thirdcrank »

I linked to the earlier thread above in the hope that anybody unfamiliar with it might read it themselves. I'm only going from memory but I'm pretty sure that one poster attached an image of a penny farthing or similar: it's possible to imply archaic without using the words.

I started this thread because so little seems to have changed since the first. I'd urge everybody not to be influenced by my summary but to read for themselves.
Jdsk
Posts: 24636
Joined: 5 Mar 2019, 5:42pm

Re: Another cyclist on trial for manslaughter

Post by Jdsk »

[XAP]Bob wrote:The Alliston case green light isn't relevant here, because that was a case of not having legal brakes.

There aren't guidelines for "wanton and furious" and there's very little case law.

Alliston is relevant and valuable. As the judge explicitly put it:

"Thus I make it clear that it was not merely the absence of a front brake but your whole manner of riding that caused this accident."

Jonathan
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Another cyclist on trial for manslaughter

Post by thirdcrank »

The significance of the green light in the Alliston case was the defence that the deceased stepped into the carriageway when he, Alliston, had a green light.

The meaning of a green light is GO - with caution.
MikeF
Posts: 4339
Joined: 11 Nov 2012, 9:24am
Location: On the borders of the four South East Counties

Re: Another cyclist on trial for manslaughter

Post by MikeF »

This is a tragic "accident" as many are, but because it's caused by a cyclist it makes headline news and in doing so it tends to stir up anti cycling feelings. It does appear as though the cyclist was cycling carelessly but there are only opinions as evidence.
However the terms used would not be used if a motorist had caused the death eg "The court heard Mr Loka, 23, was travelling at about 15mph (24km/h) when he collided with Mr McCombie," Notice Km/h used to raise the number.
If a motorist had been driving at 15mph would he/she be charged with "wanton or furious driving"?
"Prosecutor Deanna Heer said the defendant had been "cycling with a degree of purpose"" What precisely is "cycling with a degree of purpose"
Would that ever be applied to a motorist??

It seems to be a reflection on the views held by people who never cycle on roads and those who have a pre conceived idea of cycling and what cyclists should be doing.
"It takes a genius to spot the obvious" - my old physics master.
I don't peddle bikes.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Another cyclist on trial for manslaughter

Post by thirdcrank »

A driver in these circumstances might be charged under s1 RTA 1988 Causing death by dangerous driving which has a max of 14 years imprisonment, or under s 1(A) ditto careless driving which has a max of five years.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/53/schedule/2

The furious driving offence as charged here has a max of two years.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vi ... section/35

The elephant in the room is manslaughter. My personal theory is that a lot of the associated problems might be reduced by changing the title of the offence to unlawful killing. "Manslaughter" sounds so gruesome I suspect that it frightens juries off.

Incidentally, there have been moves to increase the max for the S1 offence to life, and proposals to introduce parallel offences for cyclists.
fastpedaller
Posts: 3435
Joined: 10 Jul 2014, 1:12pm
Location: Norfolk

Re: Another cyclist on trial for manslaughter

Post by fastpedaller »

MikeF wrote:This is a tragic "accident" as many are, but because it's caused by a cyclist it makes headline news and in doing so it tends to stir up anti cycling feelings. It does appear as though the cyclist was cycling carelessly but there are only opinions as evidence.
However the terms used would not be used if a motorist had caused the death eg "The court heard Mr Loka, 23, was travelling at about 15mph (24km/h) when he collided with Mr McCombie," Notice Km/h used to raise the number.
If a motorist had been driving at 15mph would he/she be charged with "wanton or furious driving"?
"Prosecutor Deanna Heer said the defendant had been "cycling with a degree of purpose"" What precisely is "cycling with a degree of purpose"
Would that ever be applied to a motorist??

It seems to be a reflection on the views held by people who never cycle on roads and those who have a pre conceived idea of cycling and what cyclists should be doing.

Good points Mife F. In the scenario I related above, I have (along that particular piece of road) had to emergency brake on 2 occasions to avoid a 'lemming' pedestrian, and as stated my speed would be 10-15MPH at most. In both of those instances, if they had stepped out in front of a car (driven at the same speed, or more and only a few yards away, they would probably have suffered serious injury, which would have been classed as an 'accident', because the car was below the speed limit.
In all probability, the driver wouldn't have even seen the pedestrian, due to A-pillar blocking driver's view, but of course that's also ok with our modern cars which are designed to protect the occupants above all others.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Another cyclist on trial for manslaughter

Post by thirdcrank »

I've been unable to find much on line about this, but this is from Road CC

Despite the lights having been “on red for over five seconds,” she said that Loka, whom she insisted would have had “ample time” to react to lights changing, continued riding and crashed into Mr McCombie at a speed estimated at 15mph.


https://road.cc/content/news/cyclist-ra ... old-281619

If that's verbatim it suggests to me that conversion to kph eg in brackets in the BBC report is simply an editorial convention rather than an attempt to exaggerate the rider's speed.

The "on red for over five seconds" is one of my many hobby horses, my point being that the lights will have been signalling "STOP" for longer.

In the twilight of my career, in one of the various reorganisations intended to improve administration between the police and CPS, a Criminal Justice Support Unit (CJSU) was established - I dubbed it the Centralised Job Stopping Unit. In reality, it was a "streamlined" version of the Prosecutions Department, which had always been a shambles.

Anyway, one of the sergeants in the CJSU told me on the qt that the CPS had indicated to him, again on the qt, that they would only prosecute RLJ offences - I'm talking about drivers of motor vehicles - if there was clear evidence that the signal had been at red for over four seconds. As this was all on the qt, there was no avenue to challenge it, but amongst other things it implies to me that the CPS - or at least a local part of it - had decided to follow the trend among road users to ignore the amber phase.
pwa
Posts: 17368
Joined: 2 Oct 2011, 8:55pm

Re: Another cyclist on trial for manslaughter

Post by pwa »

[XAP]Bob wrote:The problem isn't that this prosecution is going ahead - it's that there are nearly two thousand road deaths a year which *don't* get similarly prosecuted or get the same media coverage...

Agreed (mostly). If the cyclist did what is alleged, manslaughter seems like an appropriate charge. But we need the same charge to be levelled at motorists who do similar things with their vehicles. I'm not sure the media doesn't cover motoring incidents adequately. I have seen local incidents with cars covered fairly, with no sign of tolerance for rubbish driving that causes death or injury.
Mike Sales
Posts: 7882
Joined: 7 Mar 2009, 3:31pm

Re: Another cyclist on trial for manslaughter

Post by Mike Sales »

pwa wrote:
[XAP]Bob wrote:The problem isn't that this prosecution is going ahead - it's that there are nearly two thousand road deaths a year which *don't* get similarly prosecuted or get the same media coverage...

Agreed (mostly). If the cyclist did what is alleged, manslaughter seems like an appropriate charge. But we need the same charge to be levelled at motorists who do similar things with their vehicles. I'm not sure the media doesn't cover motoring incidents adequately. I have seen local incidents with cars covered fairly, with no sign of tolerance for rubbish driving that causes death or injury.


Weren't the dangerous and careless driving charges introduced because juries were reluctant to convict drivers of manslaughter? Perhaps it is thought there is less reluctance to convict cyclists?
It's the same the whole world over
It's the poor what gets the blame
It's the rich what gets the pleasure
Isn't it a blooming shame?
Post Reply