Case law now being established against riders rights?

[downfader]

Have spoken to a number of people during and after the David Irving case. Irving, as you'll know, was killed in Southampton under well documented circumstances, and the CTC/Southampton Cycling Campaign documented the trial.

Given that the Judge has directed the jury to ignore the aspect of the Highway Code that deal with low sun/glare, and seems to have suggested the rider should have been on a cycle path he may never have known existed... is there now a chance case law has been established and that riders have now effectively lost most, if not all legal protection in the courts?

I ask this because for one thing a couple of long standing riders have told me they're giving up. They feel too threatened. Another thing is that there has been an increase aggressiveness in the letters/articles in my local paper. I was subjected to two lots of road rage this week, my mother was doored on her own bike (Police investigating, driver refused to give details as well as inconsiderately parked allowing a passenger to throw a door open).

What can we/CTC now do to rectify this? To prevent these problems and crashes occurring in the first place? Ignoring it isnt working.

[Tonyf33]

The whole judge thing is a disgrace of epic proportions, time & time again they have allowed insidious excuses or dismissed clear evidence so that cyclists (& pedestrians) & their families are dealt a very grim blow with regard true justice.
It seems that cases like this are destined to end one way until the CPS get their act together and actually ensure that the law is properly applied and that judges are challenged as to what they say and forced to not make errant unethical (maybe illegal) speeches that sway already subconsciously bias juries.

it's just a disgustingly sickening barrage of injustice that I see no end to..

[thirdcrank]

The document linked on the other thread, includes the briefest of summaries of the judge's summing up which will have taken possibly an hour or two to deliver. I'd be interested either to read a verbatim record of what the judge said in his summing up or else an objective summary, eg by the prosecuting barrister. (Once upon a time, local hacks were all expert in shorthand - has somebody from the local rag a detailed note?) When the judge sums up in a case, they have two duties. One is to explain the relevant law to the jury, including an explanation that the jury must accept the judge's interpretation of the law. The other is to remind the jury in some detail about all the evidence they have heard, highlighting anything the judge sees as significant. The jury's duty is to decide the case on the evidence.

I think the judge in this case has explained to the jury the the status of the HC ie it doesn't create offence but may be relied on in court etc. (See the forward of the HC.) Therefore, an alleged disregard of the HC is a matter of evidence for the jury to decide. In other words, had the judge said that in the circumstances the jury had little option other than a conviction, we'd have been looking at an appeal against conviction on a point of law.

I think it's worth mentioning that there's a huge body of approved wording for directions to a jury, built up when cases have gone to appeal. If a judge decides to improvise, a conviction is almost inevitable going to go to another appeal. I don't know if there's an accepted form of words for describig the status of the HC.

As to what the CTC might be able to do, I presume that there's some way of obtaining info about the summing up from the CPS. I've no experience of this but the judges comments in open court are hardly secret. FWIW, I fancy that if the prosecution lawyers had thought the judge's direction was wrong, they'd have been making the point at the time.

The case doesn't set a precedent, but everybody else has the same access to the internet that we do.

Finally, let's remember that the CTC ensured it was made clear in parts of the HC that its advice is no more than that. As cyclists often make clear, unless it says must accompanied by a note of the relevant legislation "they can't touch you for it."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edit to add: Forgot to mention this point raised by OP. An acquittal by a jury is the end of the case against that defendant. If there has been an important point of law involved in the trial eg in this case, the weight to be given to the advice of the HC, the Attorney General can refer the case to the Court of Appeal which would then set a precedent for similar cases. AFAIK, it doesn't happen often.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/crim ... stice_act/

[downfader]

Thanks for the replies...

..I think the thing that really worries me is that this is yet another case where a legally riding cyclist has been taken down by driving that many of us would accept as falling below the standard of the charge. A lot of legal people (although not in traffic law) seem to be suggesting that the Road Traffic Act 1988 is to blame, its "poorly worded" and allows road users too much discretion in how they behave. Whilst the Judge may not have acted illegally I feel that he's part of a system that is damaging cycling...

....Its difficult to see what the CPS can now do.

[thirdcrank]

The current wording is only quite recent - the RTA was amended by the insertion of several extra sub-sections. Something like that doesn't just happen. Something will have triggered it and then there will have been consultation, to which I presume the CTC will have been a party. The current wording seems OK in the abstract, until you realise that the people who interpret what it means tend to be drivers themselves.

As for what the CPS might do, they have already done the damage. From its establishment, the CPS took the line that the criminal law wasn't the way to deal with most crashes. They weren't too keen on prosecuting traffic offences either. "Not in the public interest" has been the refrain. For this and other reasons, only the most serious crashes, where somebody is killed or seriously injured (KSI) are now investigated, so it's hardly surprising that the standard of acceptable driving has fallen, to the detriment of vulnerable road users.

To the extent that a series of Directors of Public Prosecutions thought that the way this would inevitably go was somehow in the public interest, I'll suggest they are worthy of our contempt.

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,
Am I imagining that the media reported on a judge's summing up on a historical child abuse case recently , saying to the jury that " You either believe the aledged abused (children at the time) or the aledged abuser in the dock"

Should a judge who is only one mind be allowed such weight in influencing people (jury) who surely just laymen in law and I think sometimes like all of us easily led by previous puplic opinions (might be just few peoples opinions well advertised too by media)

"thirdcrank" we all respect your professional opinions which give us such balanced views of whats happening in law terms.

Its just I find it sometimes hard to follow your well versed lingo (comes from your job) in law speak.
No disrespect I just have to read several times to understand, not sure we / you can change that, we might just get it watered down, I know you do alot of explaining for us joe bloggs. Thanks.

[Geriatrix]

"thirdcrank" we all respect your professional opinions which give us such balanced views of whats happening in law terms.

Its just I find it sometimes hard to follow your well versed lingo (comes from your job) in law speak.
No disrespect I just have to read several times to understand, not sure we / you can change that, we might just get it watered down, I know you do alot of explaining for us joe bloggs. Thanks.

TC's posts indicate that there is an issue with the law itself rather than the process. The advice the judge has given is precisely what we would argue in the context of helmets (not law so disregard), so we can't complain about the process. It's the imprecise nature of the HW code which is the problem.

[axel_knutt]

The wing mirror issue reminds me that I've often wondered where pedestrians stand in such a case. I've nearly been whacked by overhanging mirrors on numerous occasions, but is it the pedestrians job to stay more than a mirror length from the kerb, or the drivers?

[Bicycler]

Can we at least afford the humble pedestrian the same rights as a parked car? If a vehicle hits one of them it's clear where the blame lies. I'm speechless that the responsibility of vehicle operators not to hit pedestrians travelling along pavements could even be questioned

[Vorpal]

Parked cars don't leap out in front of anyone.

[iviehoff]

Suppose the driver, suffering the sun glare, had not see some stationary physical impediment to his progress such as a vehicle making a delivery and had damaged that. There is no question that he is liable for the damage. But that is a different standard, no one is asking whether he drove without due care and attention, they merely look to the causality and seek civil damages. Had the cyclist survived, he may possibly have made a successful personal injury claim against a driver, even if the driver is not found guilty of the driving offence.

Another example of different standards of causality is Causing death while driving uninsured. You can be guilty of that even when you are found not guilty of CDbCD, because it is strict liability, without need to demonstrate negligence in driving. One driver discovered this to his surprise and lost in the court of appeal. I think this is a most unnecessary offence, which really ought to be dealt with by sentencing guidelines on driving uninsured. Whether a negligent pedestrian steps out in front of you should't be the difference between a £1000 fine and 12 months.

[irc]

The wing mirror issue reminds me that I've often wondered where pedestrians stand in such a case. I've nearly been whacked by overhanging mirrors on numerous occasions, but is it the pedestrians job to stay more than a mirror length from the kerb, or the drivers?

The driver''s of course. But I'd rather not place my life in someone else's hands so I would never stand so close to the kerb anyway. I can see approaching traffic just as well from 2 or 3 feet back from the kerb. Unless there are parked vehicles blocking my view. But in that case the mirror strike risk isn't there.

[Ayesha]

If I am killed while out cycling, it won’t make much difference to me whether the motorist is brought to justice or not.
If my son is out cycling and he is killed by a motorist, there will be a court inquiry AND an ‘out-of-court’ settlement.

And then there will be a murder trial.

[Bicycler]

Parked cars don't leap out in front of anyone.

Agreed but the comment referred to pedestrians hit by wing mirrors whilst on the pavement.

[thirdcrank]

..."thirdcrank" we all respect your professional opinions which give us such balanced views of whats happening in law terms.

Its just I find it sometimes hard to follow your well versed lingo (comes from your job) in law speak.
No disrespect I just have to read several times to understand, not sure we / you can change that, we might just get it watered down, I know you do alot of explaining for us joe bloggs. Thanks.

I'm happy to recognise that making a communication clear is the duty of the sender rather than the recipient, but it's not always easy to aim something at the right level,especially when you can't see the audience. My posts are already numerous and often lengthy, even though I try to be concise. I'm not a lawyer and I've some experience of explaininhg the law to (usually disgruntled) members of the public. If anything's unclear, point it out and I'll have another go.( Not all 19000+ posts though )

I'm even more rambling when speaking. The other day I had my granddaughter in my arms - she's not yet eighteen months - but I was explaining something to one of her brothers when she plonked her dummy in my mouth, quite obviously to shut me up.