This made me sad on several levels

[Tonyf33]

It seems to me that the prosecutors in most of these cases are lacking in kknowledge and aren't making the right sort of noises with regard to what the law is and what SHOULD be expected as a bare minimum as a driver on UK roads. To then NOT impress this enough on a jury to sway them into understanding/thinking that what has happened is completely and utterly wrong and failing to do so is such a massive let on their parts and for the families involved..why is this repeated so often, who is in charge of these muppets

Let's for one second put an elderly gentleman pushing his frail wife in a wheelchair across the road because from his side it looks clear and there's only two cyclists pootling along on the other side. In this scenario, this selfish piece of (self removednasty word ) mows them down & they both die...I think the outcome would be vastly different...
Dangerous driving, not even remotely careless...After blaming the victim I hope she wakes up with nightmares every day of her life the heartless female dog

[reohn2]

Chilling. In the UK it appears that cyclists have no right to life. I despair.

Join the club,I've been in a state of despair for years,they'll be making a sport of it next!

[horizon]

The appalling result of this case is that the message has gone out that cyclists must watch out - the consequence of their error is death and drivers have no responsibility to make allowances. I sincerely hope the jurors have no friends or relatives who cycle.

And that is without even asking about speed, the blind corner, not seeing, allowing sufficient room, waiting to overtake. She may not have killed this cyclist but she made damn well sure that if that cyclist made a mistake she might do so. Callous or not? I don't wish draconian punishment on anyone but the jurors have put lives in danger by their decision.

[Mick F]

If we were the twelve on the jury, she'd be guilty.
No doubt about it.

Trouble is, we weren't.

[johncarnie]

"I can't help it if a cyclist, with all due respect, falls over as I'm approaching them and comes into my line of travel."

With due respect - if by your actions you cause a cyclist to lose control (in order to avoid your dangerous manoeuvre) and fall off a bike - then you can "help it" and are responsible!

But then - I reckon the jury was swayed by the fact she was a scientist and oncologist - a "professional" - or am I too much of a cynic?

[Mark1978]

But then - I reckon the jury was swayed by the fact she was a scientist and oncologist - a "professional" - or am I too much of a cynic?

No; I think that had a lot to do with it.

[pliptrot]

If we were the twelve on the jury, she'd be guilty.
No doubt about it.

Trouble is, we weren't.

That's the point - the odds are that the jury was made up of motorists, not cyclists. In their minds - hopefully subconsciously - is the recurring thought that cyclists are another impediment and often are unskilled and using poorly maintained equipment. Typically motorists see cyclists as people who cannot afford other means of transport. In this way, in a society where significance is evidently measured by status, this case was always likely to have the outcome it had. We can argue over the facts of the case, or at least those we are led to believe, but it seems clear that even if the driver did not hit the cyclist she caused the accident which led to someone's death. The argument of cancer specialist vs waitress (IIRC waitressing was the dead cyclist's job) is valid - the law was originally developed to protect the rich and their property from the mob, and it seems little has changed. Very, very sad. And not surprising at all.

[stewartpratt]

Write to your MP, write to someone. It's far from an isolated case:

http://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2013 ... st-change/

[iviehoff]

The general point that the motorist makes is a fair one - you can't really expect to provide for a cyclist suddenly falling across the road in front of you.

This is simply not true. For a start please read the Highway Code, with particular reference to rules 163 (and the picture there) and 213. Secondly when I learned to drive, I was taught that to estimate the amount of room a cyclists requires, you simply draw an arc from the top of their head to the ground - i.e. allow sufficient room for them to fall over: This gives an excellent measure (for an adult - you give children more room still) of how much they may wobble and also means that if they hit a pothole - spoke breaks, wheel jambs - you are already avoiding them. This is simply normal safe driving (of course the different ADI who came with me to the test had other ideas, which is part of the problem here in UK).

That's all very well in theory, but we know that in reality more often than not people pass cyclists without giving them as much room as is shown in that picture. It is unrealistic to expect them to be found to be driving carelessly (in the legal sense) or dangerously merely for not giving a cyclist as much room as in that picture. A judge did recently say that if the cyclist was close enough to bang on the side of the vehicle with his hand, that was too close. Even that much weaker criterion is a step forward.

But that is the general case, this case is different from that because there were clear aggravating factors. As I said first time around, it should have been a critical factor for the jury to decide to what extent the driver was responsible for the cyclist falling off. It has been asserted here almost without question that she was. But actually this is quite a difficult legal point. However outraged we may be, as legal reality, that is a difficult case to make, and an easy point where a clever lawyer can put doubts in a jury's mind.

In comparison to the kind of case where a car drives into the back of a cyclist, and the collision took place nowhere near as far from the kerb as in the picture in the highway code, and uses as an excuse that the cyclist suddenly changed direction ; or cites as an excuse mist or glare; or simply didn't see them because they had only just come into view because of trees, other traffic, etc; this case is genuinely trickier than those, yet drivers have got off in those other quite outrageous cases. Given the much more outrageous cases that drivers have got off on, this case strikes me as not so surprising, and containing details that are genuinely legally difficult. In the case that Martin Porter has been campaigning to hvae taken seriously, the lorry passed him much closer than shown in the photo in the highway code, and then returned to the kerb before completing the pass because a vehicle was coming the other way; Martin succeeded in taking evasive action, and wasn't hurt. He believes that the law makes quite clear that this is dangerous driving, and as such shoul dbe prosecuted. But the police just wont' take it seriously. If such much clearer legal cases of dangerous aren't taken seriously, what hope these more difficult cases? We also have the case currently on this forum of the bus pulling in to a busstop without completing the overtake (and saying, quite unbelievably "didn't see you" - what did he think he was overtaking then), though it is not clear whether that has actually been brought to the attention of the police.

[AlaninWales]

The general point that the motorist makes is a fair one - you can't really expect to provide for a cyclist suddenly falling across the road in front of you.

This is simply not true. For a start please read the Highway Code, with particular reference to rules 163 (and the picture there) and 213. Secondly when I learned to drive, I was taught that to estimate the amount of room a cyclists requires, you simply draw an arc from the top of their head to the ground - i.e. allow sufficient room for them to fall over: This gives an excellent measure (for an adult - you give children more room still) of how much they may wobble and also means that if they hit a pothole - spoke breaks, wheel jambs - you are already avoiding them. This is simply normal safe driving (of course the different ADI who came with me to the test had other ideas, which is part of the problem here in UK).

That's all very well in theory, but we know that in reality more often than not people pass cyclists without giving them as much room as is shown in that picture. It is unrealistic to expect them to be found to be driving carelessly (in the legal sense) or dangerously merely for not giving a cyclist as much room as in that picture. A judge did recently say that if the cyclist was close enough to bang on the side of the vehicle with his hand, that was too close. Even that much weaker criterion is a step forward.

But that is the general case, this case is different from that because there were clear aggravating factors. As I said first time around, it should have been a critical factor for the jury to decide to what extent the driver was responsible for the cyclist falling off. It has been asserted here almost without question that she was. But actually this is quite a difficult legal point. However outraged we may be, as legal reality, that is a difficult case to make, and an easy point where a clever lawyer can put doubts in a jury's mind.

In comparison to the kind of case where a car drives into the back of a cyclist, and the collision took place nowhere near as far from the kerb as in the picture in the highway code, and uses as an excuse that the cyclist suddenly changed direction ; or cites as an excuse mist or glare; or simply didn't see them because they had only just come into view because of trees, other traffic, etc; this case is genuinely trickier than those, yet drivers have got off in those other quite outrageous cases. Given the much more outrageous cases that drivers have got off on, this case strikes me as not so surprising, and containing details that are genuinely legally difficult. In the case that Martin Porter has been campaigning to hvae taken seriously, the lorry passed him much closer than shown in the photo in the highway code, and then returned to the kerb before completing the pass because a vehicle was coming the other way; Martin succeeded in taking evasive action, and wasn't hurt. He believes that the law makes quite clear that this is dangerous driving, and as such shoul dbe prosecuted. But the police just wont' take it seriously. If such much clearer legal cases of dangerous aren't taken seriously, what hope these more difficult cases? We also have the case currently on this forum of the bus pulling in to a busstop without completing the overtake (and saying, quite unbelievably "didn't see you" - what did he think he was overtaking then), though it is not clear whether that has actually been brought to the attention of the police.

Iviehoff, the fact that (as you say) "in reality more often than not people pass cyclists without giving them as much room as is shown in that picture" has no relevance to what should happen. Certainly I've been overtaken so close that the wheel-arches caught on my pedals and dragged me along at 30+mph; certainly I've been overtaken so close that by gently leaning my handlebars right, I've scraped paint and metal from the car's wing and doors: None of that and none of the excuses drivers use when they drive into cyclists or overtake too closely has any relevance to what should happen. Poor (i.e. dangerous, inattentive and selfish) driving and the acceptance of such in the wider community does not mean that "you can't really expect to provide for a cyclist suddenly falling across the road in front of you"; as a driver I can and do make such provision. The point the motorist killer made here is not "a fair one", it is self-justifying, victim-blaming ignorance.

[horizon]

As I said first time around, it should have been a critical factor for the jury to decide to what extent the driver was responsible for the cyclist falling off. It has been asserted here almost without question that she was. But actually this is quite a difficult legal point. However outraged we may be, as legal reality, that is a difficult case to make, and an easy point where a clever lawyer can put doubts in a jury's mind.

It has actually been very difficult to work out what actually happened. In my mind she drove atrociously and took huge risks (though we really don't know for sure what as we don't know her speed etc) and yet it may be that what she did did not cause the death of the cyclist. So I am with you on this point. What I took such strong exception to was the defendant's view that she was not responsible if a cyclist fell off into her path - yes she is. This also implies that she hit the cyclist: I take it that she didn't and that she only caused the cyclist to swerve. Or did she? Or was the cyclist unable to control her bicycle fully? Of course, this brings us to the next point - to what extent is a motorist guilty of frightening people by driving too close? My impression is that this person (like so many others) hasn't a clue as to how to overtake a cyclist safely and that puts a lot of other people (driving instructors for a start) in the dock beside her.

[AndyBSG]

Whether she was responsible for the cyclist falling off the bike or not is completely irrelevant though.

The fact remains she overtook by travelling into an oncoming traffic lane on a blind bend which meant she could not determine if it was safe to overtake and she had time to complete an overtaking maneuver safely.

Whether it was a cyclist, a motorbike, a car or an HGV coming the opposite way the result is that same, they had to take evasive action which led to an accident and that is firmly the fault of Helen Measures.

[Mark1978]

Whether she was responsible for the cyclist falling off the bike or not is completely irrelevant though.

The fact remains she overtook by travelling into an oncoming traffic lane on a blind bend which meant she could not determine if it was safe to overtake and she had time to complete an overtaking maneuver safely.

Whether it was a cyclist, a motorbike, a car or an HGV coming the opposite way the result is that same, they had to take evasive action which led to an accident and that is firmly the fault of Helen Measures.

Quite. So if I'm driving my and and I see a driver coming at me on the wrong side of the road, and I swerve into a ditch, that's my fault?

[horizon]

if you were driving along and a cyclist had a wobble and fell off* (unrelated to your driving) then you are not at fault. Where I side with iviehoff a little is that he is saying that it is difficult to establish precise cause and effect. My own guess is that she was lucky not to have killed at least two cyclists. But that's not 100% clear from the facts that we know.

Fifty yards away.

[stewartpratt]

And what if you hit a pothole, or a squirrel runs out, or your front tyre punctures, or a strong sidewind gusts through a gap in a stone wall, or...

All of these things now seem to be legitimate deaths when someone is driving a car towards you at around 60mph on your side of the road.

It's like putting a clearly visible landmine on the pavement and then not being found guilty of an offence if someone, whilst trying to walk past it, trips over a paving slab and falls onto it.

Why worry too much about the details of the case? The issue of whether acquittal was appropriate in this exact case, given the current framework of law, is something I'm not personally able to criticise as I wasn't in court. But what it clearly does is legitimise driving that is patently dangerous. The law is extremely badly defined, is far from absolute, has no tethering to real scenarios, and it manifestly unfit for purpose. And it should be changed.