Another "interesting" court decision

[Shootist]

TC, yes and not just the propensity to violence but probably more importantly, the attitude to risk taking. People might learn to bluff their way through a questionairre but a simulator (i.e. video game) type test would be harder to fool.

You miss the essential issue. It's not how well you can drive, but how well you do drive. I have known of so many motorcyclists killed by elderly drivers. People suggest that once over a certain age, drivers should retake their test. Well, most relatively competent drivers could manage that. The stress of the test and it's importance will keep them on the ball. But, once they've passed they'll be back to old habits, poddling up the road to the garden centre and, look, there's a bird, isn't the sky nice, what was that bump? It's his fault. I've never seen a cyclist on this road for years, so it's perfectly understandable that I didn't see that one.

[sirmy]

A bit more info (http://www.sunderlandecho.com/news/crime/sunderland-lorry-driver-had-time-to-see-cyclist-death-crash-trial-told-1-6243710)

"Four drivers on the road at the time told the court that Mr Griffiths, 50, was cycling on a metre-wide strip of asphalt to the left of the road’s nearside rumble strip.

Each of the drivers said Mr Griffiths was difficult to see in the early morning darkness, but they had seen him."

"Pc Turner said: “From my investigation, I conclude the cyclist was still on the margin when the collision happened.

“Mr Dove could not explain to us why he did not see the cyclist, who was there to be seen.

“If Mr Dove had been driving in his lane, and paying proper attention, the collision would not have happened.”

Stuart Driver QC, defending, asked Pc Turner if there was any evidence the lorry had encroached into the margin of the road.

Pc Turner said: “There is no evidence of that, but there wouldn’t be.”!

http://www.thenorthernecho.co.uk/news/crime/10801526.Lorry_driver_in_court_over_A19_cycle_death/

"Mr Cleasby told the jury that the defendant told police officers how he saw a flash on the road about 20ft from him, thought to be Christopher Griffiths' high visibility jacket, but failed to see the cyclist or his bike

The court heard that Mr Dove was unable to give an explanation of how he hit Mr Griffiths, but told officers that the cyclist was off his bike at the time of the collision. " And yet he apparently didn't see him!

[reohn2]

^^^ My thoughts exactly after reading the linked report.

[Tonyf33]

No (surviving) witness so defending barrister says to killer, say you only just saw him last second and keep quiet...works every time

[reohn2]

No (surviving) witness so defending barrister says to killer, say you only just saw him last second and keep quiet...works every time

You're not seriously suggesting that a member of such a trusted profession would tell his client to compromise his integrity by telling fibs are you?

[Postboxer]

I would assume that if you were going to lie you would say you saw them clearly but that they suddenly swerved into your path, saying you didn't see them is more like an admission of guilt.

[MartinC]

......................You miss the essential issue. It's not how well you can drive, but how well you do drive..........

I'm sure you don't mean that because the logical conclusion would then be that there's no test before getting a licence just monitoring afterwards. You're right that enforicng driving standards would be a good thing but not giving those with a propensity for risk taking a licence in the first place is a good thing too.

[thirdcrank]

Although this is referred to as a court decision, there wan't really a decision at all: this was the the second trial of the case and the second time a jury had been unable to agree on a verdict.

This thread covered the first trial earlier this year:-

<threads merged>

In theory, the prosecution has the right to three goes, but AFAIK, it's unusual for the prosecution to seek a third retrial in these circumstances.

[Shootist]

I've perhaps missed some pertinent point in the report, but can we for certain, given that he was standing by his bike, rule out suicide by truck?

[MartinC]

I've perhaps missed some pertinent point in the report, but can we for certain, given that he was standing by his bike, rule out suicide by truck?

It's a possible but unlikely scenario amongst many. But this is the problem. We may all suspect (or even be convinced) that we know what happened but that doesn't provide the proof that's necessary to get a conviction. A quote from the Judge after the jury's verdict:

They were faced with, first, conflicting evidence to an extent from experts.

There was no eyewitness account to confirm precisely where this collision occurred.

There are many things we should be doing to address tragedies like this but I don't think changing the burden of proof in a criminal case is one of them.

[Shootist]

......................You miss the essential issue. It's not how well you can drive, but how well you do drive..........

I'm sure you don't mean that because the logical conclusion would then be that there's no test before getting a licence just monitoring afterwards. You're right that enforicng driving standards would be a good thing but not giving those with a propensity for risk taking a licence in the first place is a good thing too.

No, I mean it exactly. The initial driving test assures that (hopefully) the person that passes is capable of driving to an acceptable standard. Interesting that there is no equivalent and obligatory test for cyclists). For instance, I was T-Boned while riding my motorcycle by an 83 year old coming out of a garden centre without looking. I'm quite sure that this man could have mustered up enough effort to have passed a test had he been required to. But passing that test on one day will not guarantee that the next day he won't revert to looking at the birds, the flowers, the trees, anything but the hazards ahead. There is a facility for magistrates, in most endorsable offence cases, to ban someone from driving until they pass a test. Until they do they must comply with the conditions of a provisional licence. To the best of my knowledge this is only used on the rarest of occasions. IMO it should be the standard response to such a conviction.

[MartinC]

Shootist, we're agreeing violently. We need to only give driving licenses to those that will be able to drive safely and then make sure that they do. Taking the license away or retesting when the clearly haven't is a good thing too in my book.

[Vorpal]

Topics merged.

[Shootist]

Shootist, we're agreeing violently. We need to only give driving licenses to those that will be able to drive safely and then make sure that they do. Taking the license away or retesting when the clearly haven't is a good thing too in my book.

Indeed we are, although hopefully not violently. If you ask any driver which they would prefer, a six month ban if they fell foul of the totting up disqualification, or an immediate requirement to take an extended test under the supervision of an examiner who knows why they are there, together with the provisional licence conditions until they do, I'm sure there will be a unanimous vote for the six months.

Of course, it would also be necessary to have a police force that not only knows what they are doing, but who are willing to do it, and a CPS service with a will to do their job. Unfortunately, they are in the same time warp as the Tooth Fairy, Santa, and goblins.

[reohn2]

Shootist, we're agreeing violently. We need to only give driving licenses to those that will be able to drive safely and then make sure that they do. Taking the license away or retesting when the clearly haven't is a good thing too in my book.

Indeed we are, although hopefully not violently. If you ask any driver which they would prefer, a six month ban if they fell foul of the totting up disqualification, or an immediate requirement to take an extended test under the supervision of an examiner who knows why they are there, together with the provisional licence conditions until they do, I'm sure there will be a unanimous vote for the six months.

I'd also like to see a retest for anyone banned for 9 months or more.
I can dream,can't I?

Of course, it would also be necessary to have a police force that not only knows what they are doing, but who are willing to do it, and a CPS service with a will to do their job. Unfortunately, they are in the same time warp as the Tooth Fairy, Santa, and goblins.

Or dreamtime perhaps?