Another "interesting" court decision

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.

Geriatrix
Posts: 1852
Joined: 23 Oct 2007, 1:33pm
Location: Caterham

Re: Jury fals to reach verdict

Postby Geriatrix » 12 Apr 2013, 7:11pm

He was driving carefully. So the cyclist reversed into him then?
For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled - Richard Feynman

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: Jury fals to reach verdict

Postby TonyR » 12 Apr 2013, 7:48pm

Geriatrix wrote:He was driving carefully. So the cyclist reversed into him then?


No he was driving between the white lines so it was OK to hit him.

Dove, who denies the charge, said he was between the white lines at all times and did not drive over the rumble strip.

Geriatrix
Posts: 1852
Joined: 23 Oct 2007, 1:33pm
Location: Caterham

Re: Jury fails to reach verdict

Postby Geriatrix » 12 Apr 2013, 8:20pm

http://www.hartlepoolmail.co.uk/news/local/lorry-driver-charged-with-cyclist-s-death-1-5572730
The court heard it was dark when the accident happened at 7.10am, but visibility on the unlit stretch of the road was otherwise good.

Accident investigator Pc Robin Turner said the reconstruction showed Mr Griffiths, 50, would have been visible from the cab of the lorry’s tractor unit from between 120 and 205 metres
...
Dove gave evidence at his trial yesterday where he gave an account of what happened.

“I was coming around a long sweeping bend,” her said. “I caught a flash of colour in my eye, by then I was on top of what I now know to be the cyclist.

“At the time I thought he was beside his bike, and I still think that now.

“He seemed distracted and I hit him.

When the person you killed can't present his account of what happened you can make up what you like.
For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled - Richard Feynman

thirdcrank
Posts: 28685
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Jury fails to reach verdict

Postby thirdcrank » 12 Apr 2013, 8:27pm

http://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teess ... -33155411/

That's an earlier court report, with a bit more detail (but not much.)

During the prosecution’s case PC Robin Turner, who investigated the collision, told the court that all witnesses interviewed who had seen the bike said it was in the “margin” - outside of any of the lanes.

PC Turner said if that was the case, the only way Dove’s lorry could have collided with the bike was if it was on or over the rumble strip.
He added: “They should never have come into contact if both are in their respective areas.” (My emphasis)

I don't think there's been any suggestion of a formal cycling facility at the scene. I get the impression that this means that the prosecution is proceeding on the basis that the careless driving was in leaving the carriageway and hitting the rider behind the white line, something that the prosecution cannot prove by direct evidence - it's all circumstantial.

It seems to be accepted by the defence that the lorry hit the rider from behind which sounds like due care to me, whichever bit of the road he was using. The driver says that he didn't see the rider before the crash, he "saw a flash." On that basis, he can't comment on the riding because he didn't see it. I can't help feeling that by wrongly talking about the margin as though that was where the rider should be, the prosecution has created an issue for the defence to exploit.

(As I said, only a very brief report so there will have been plenty more evidence which has not been reported.)

Edit to add when I was posting this I edited it a few times before pressing the submit button. -I've now seen geriatrix's post just before mine and PaulCummbria;s immediately after it. It does look as though the driver is trying to have it both ways. Didn't see the cyclist but remembers how he was riding. :roll: )
Last edited by thirdcrank on 12 Apr 2013, 8:38pm, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
PaulCumbria
Posts: 461
Joined: 23 Mar 2012, 1:52pm
Location: Kendal

Re: Jury fails to reach verdict

Postby PaulCumbria » 12 Apr 2013, 8:34pm

It's all just so much nonsense. The driver only sees a flash of colour, yet also sees enough to be able to tell that the cyclist seemed 'distracted' - why isn't this sort of total rubbish, presented as evidence by the killer, turfed out of court, or even used against him?

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: Jury fails to reach verdict

Postby TonyR » 12 Apr 2013, 8:36pm

Geriatrix wrote:When the person you killed can't present his account of what happened you can make up what you like.


Its usually known as a SWiSS - Single Witness Suicide Swerve - in which the only surviving witness swears the cyclist suddenly swerved across the road in front of them.

eileithyia
Posts: 7818
Joined: 31 Jan 2007, 6:46pm
Location: Horwich Which is Lancs :-)

Re: Jury fails to reach verdict

Postby eileithyia » 12 Apr 2013, 9:17pm

Surprised they do not come up with contributary negligence, cyclist failed to see approach of lorry and make necessary avoiding maneouvres in order to avoid the collision (see Tea Shop)
I stand and rejoice everytime I see a woman ride by on a wheel the picture of free, untrammeled womanhood. HG Wells

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17044
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Jury fails to reach verdict

Postby [XAP]Bob » 12 Apr 2013, 9:40pm

several (presumably amateur) drivers managed to overtake him safely - therefore this surely falls below the standard of driving we expect of a professional driver...
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.

TonyR
Posts: 5390
Joined: 31 Aug 2008, 12:51pm

Re: Jury fails to reach verdict

Postby TonyR » 12 Apr 2013, 9:45pm

[XAP]Bob wrote:several (presumably amateur) drivers managed to overtake him safely - therefore this surely falls below the standard of driving we expect of a professional driver...


Au contraire, its exactly the standard of driving we expect of a lorry driver.

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17044
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Jury fails to reach verdict

Postby [XAP]Bob » 12 Apr 2013, 10:34pm

none of us really believe that...

The general standard of hgv driving around here is excellent, busses are mostly good - although not always.
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.

reohn2
Posts: 37056
Joined: 26 Jun 2009, 8:21pm

Re: Jury fails to reach verdict

Postby reohn2 » 12 Apr 2013, 11:06pm

PaulCumbria wrote:It's all just so much nonsense. The driver only sees a flash of colour, yet also sees enough to be able to tell that the cyclist seemed 'distracted' - why isn't this sort of total rubbish, presented as evidence by the killer, turfed out of court, or even used against him?

Because cyclists are expendable,and dead men can't talk or defend themselves.
-----------------------------------------------------------
I cycle therefore I am.

User avatar
horizon
Posts: 9894
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Cornwall

Re: Jury fails to reach verdict

Postby horizon » 12 Apr 2013, 11:39pm

I've deleted this post as it referred to how the accident may have been avoided rather than the conclusions of the jury (the original theme).
Last edited by horizon on 13 Apr 2013, 9:03pm, edited 1 time in total.
The experience of travel is something that you have to pay for but can never buy. Ho Ri Zon Chinese philosopher

User avatar
Mr. Viking
Posts: 371
Joined: 6 Jun 2012, 9:29pm
Location: Liverpool

Re: Jury fails to reach verdict

Postby Mr. Viking » 13 Apr 2013, 12:08am

it is horrible, but in criminal law the jury must be convinced beyond reasonable doubt that the particular law has been broken. If they have any doubts they are right not to pass a verdict. It is a horrendous outcome, but it could be the truth that the driver did not see the cyclist while still paying due care and attention.

User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 17044
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Jury fails to reach verdict

Postby [XAP]Bob » 13 Apr 2013, 12:14am

horizon wrote:As some may know, I generally post something along the following lines on threads of this nature. As far as I can remember I have never received support for my views but this time I am going to make a bolder claim:

I could have saved this man's life.

Had I been the driver of the vehicle preceding the lorry I would have slowed down, put on my hazard lights, ensured that the lorry had responded to my signals by slowing down and then passed the cyclist wide and slow. It would have cost me about 7 seconds of delay and may have been the only time I needed to do it on my journey.


Not if you were a couple of minutes up the road you couldn't, and I'm not sure we know how close the vehicles were?
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.