Motorist is very sorry for killing cyclist.

[dutchbike]

Thanks Jdsk and apologies for the repeated link, I missed that.

I did a quick google but I can't find the summing up anywhere. I did read the summing up for the Cycling Mikey on the bonnet case and it explained to me why the driver was acquitted.

Having done jury service and after reading some court reports I am beginning to understand why so many cases fail. I do wonder if the fact that the cyclist was a police officer had any bearing on how the prosecution approached the case.

This case seemed to hinge on whether the driver was on his mobile. It seems the jury was convinced he was. In the Witney bypass case where a lorry driver did virually the same as this the prosecution didn't manage to convince the jury that the driver was viewing a film at the time and he was acquitted. There was also a complication that the prosecution couldn't prove that the rear light was working as it was destroyed in the collision. It was also fitted to the cyclists rucksack rather than the bike which is apparently whereit needs to be legally and both were exlploited by the defence.

[Jdsk]

The judge's summing up on the use of the 'phone including detailed timing is reported here:
https://uk.movies.yahoo.com/simon-drape ... 00576.html
https://www.tivysideadvertiser.co.uk/ne ... s-driving/

Jonathan

[thirdcrank]

From that yahoo link

Today, October 21, the jury unanimously found Draper guilty of causing death by dangerous driving.

Sentencing has been adjourned to a date to be fixed.

Draper remains on bail and a pre-sentence report was ordered.

It's a pity the date has not been fixed as it will be harder to look out for but that's when we'll hopefully hear what the judge thinks. Expect plenty of expressions of remorse from the defence.

[Tiggertoo]

One tragic consequence of all this is that the child will grow up with the knowledge that his father attempted to deflect blame from himself for killing the cyclist to his 14 month old son. The psychological damage this will cause the boy is unimaginable as the boy will learn as he grow up that his father said it was his son's fault.

[Nearholmer]

One can only hope to goodness that he is shielded from it, because you are spot on.

[thirdcrank]

One tragic consequence of all this is that the child will grow up with the knowledge that his father attempted to deflect blame from himself for killing the cyclist to his 14 month old son. The psychological damage this will cause the boy is unimaginable as the boy will learn as he grow up that his father said it was his son's fault.

It's probably immaterial in the light of the guilty verdict, but alleging that the infant was using the phone as a toy was merely an "innocent" explanation for the phone being used in a way which absolved the defendant from the allegation of being distracted. ie It's not blaming the child. That merely laid the ground for the defence expert to opine that street-legal cycle lighting was not adequate in the circumstances, an opinion which the jury seems to have dismissed.

[Tiggertoo]

It's probably immaterial in the light of the guilty verdict,

Surely not to the child and the extended psychological damage?

[Jdsk]

This is a real child. Speculation about his future is extremely distasteful. Please stop.

Thankyou

Jonathan

[thirdcrank]

Had the driver alleged something like the child had pulled on the steering wheel and so caused the crash, that would be different, imo. My point about the child using the phone as a toy is that it was an explanation for the phone being used immediately before the crash which might have exonerated the driver. A passenger - including a small child - using a phone in a motor vehicle isn't an offence.

My reason for the "immaterial" comment is the guilty verdict probably implies quite a prison sentence and the specious defence may detract from claims of remorse. Dad inside in a child's early years is probably a lot worse in every sense than knowing they were acquitted through fibbing, no matter who they blamed.
===============

PS Jdsk

You posted while I was typing. I'm comfortable with what I posted so if it falls below your standards, a report to the moderators may be appropriate. (Unless you have already gained that role when I wasn't paying attention.)

[Stevek76]

Well the idiot's statement was certainly 'bald' going on his twitter picture...

And the banner/top picture on his page is from the inside (as much as there is one) of what appears to be an ariel atom (or perhaps a caterham) travelling along a rural single carriageway presumably being driven by him. So probably a bit of a petrolhead which explains his victim blaming nonsense.

Anyway thought it might be useful to list some of the cps's examples of dangerous driving here:

the driver being avoidably and dangerously distracted, for example by:
using a hand-held phone or other equipment
reading, or looking at a map
talking to and looking at a passenger
lighting a cigarette, changing a CD or tape, tuning the radio.

As far as I'm concerned, if you're distracted long enough to hit something in front of you then that is dangerously so.

[Cugel]

Anyway thought it might be useful to list some of the cps's examples of dangerous driving here:

the driver being avoidably and dangerously distracted, for example by:
using a hand-held phone or other equipment
reading, or looking at a map
talking to and looking at a passenger
lighting a cigarette, changing a CD or tape, tuning the radio.

As far as I'm concerned, if you're distracted long enough to hit something in front of you then that is dangerously so.

Agreed - it alarms me enormously when in a car with another driving if they don't glue their eyes to where they should be glued rather than pharting about with gizmos, turning to look at you to see your reaction to their often banal remarks, et al.

Notice, too, that such behaviours are the norm in many a TV or filum drama. Madly racing "heroes" on the phone to their hero-pal back in the polis station; long eye-to-eye conversations between front seat car occupants as the car whizzes along at drama-hero speeds!

It's astonishing that a vast range of dangerous behaviours in cars have been not just normalised but portrayed as some sort of badge of being a superior person. "A good driver" is defined by many as one who can go as fast as possible whilst getting around the bends with squealing tyres. It's bluddy tiresome - and highly dangerous - to have these krazy kar antics boosted as desirable and clever.

Cugel

[Bonefishblues]

Well the idiot's statement was certainly 'bald' going on his twitter picture...

And the banner/top picture on his page is from the inside (as much as there is one) of what appears to be an ariel atom (or perhaps a caterham) travelling along a rural single carriageway presumably being driven by him. So probably a bit of a petrolhead which explains his victim blaming nonsense.

Anyway thought it might be useful to list some of the cps's examples of dangerous driving here:

the driver being avoidably and dangerously distracted, for example by:
using a hand-held phone or other equipment
reading, or looking at a map
talking to and looking at a passenger
lighting a cigarette, changing a CD or tape, tuning the radio.

As far as I'm concerned, if you're distracted long enough to hit something in front of you then that is dangerously so.

Para 2 contains rather a lot of supposition.

[Tiggertoo]

Which ever way you prefer to look at it, this is a very sad outcome. A cyclist out for pleasure is killed and a family is broken up, all for a momentary lapse of responsible concentration.

[mumbojumbo]

The fundamental problem is that in our "free" society restrictions on poor behaviour are weak ,even ineffective.

1.Cars are free to drive at excessive speed-restrictions could be placed on speed using smart technology.
2.Secondly there is no reason for a phone to function in a car.

Any limits places on these items will be opposed by powerful pressure groups advocating freedom..

[mumbojumbo]

The fundamental problem is that in our "free" society restrictions on poor behaviour are weak ,even ineffective.

1.Cars are free to drive at excessive speed-restrictions could be placed on speed using smart technology.
2.Secondly there is no reason for a phone to function in a car.

Any limits places on these items will be opposed by powerful pressure groups advocating freedom..