Car driver charged with manslaughter over London cyclist death

[Jeremy]

Considering the many sophisticated technical fixes that are in cars these days, and with more impending, there could be one for this problem.

A proximity sensor in the car side/rear or door mirror sensing close in line approach movement could easily be devised to latch the door against further opening the moment a driver delatched the door to swing it open. That could protect against many of these door collisions, both with cycles and other vehicles.

I agree. The last few cars I've owned have all suffered from having a blind spot in the rear quarter, my present car is worse than most. One of the consequences of making cars with lower drag coefficients (for good fuel economy at speed) seems to be that the sloping rear often creates a fairly wide blind spot, wider than some other cars, right where a cyclist or motorcyclist may be trying to pass.

 

[Geebee]

One of our local Cycling bodies recommend steering into the car so that you hit the softer part of the door or the driver, as it is safer than turning out into the traffic or hitting the edge of the door.

 

[jackhandy]

I found the cyclist's dad's interview very restrained & responsible: I don't think I could be that reasonable, in the circumstances.

His assertion that there needs to be something between Using a vehicle unfit for purpose (window tints) & Manslaughter makes a great deal of sense. We've all opened the door without being certain nothing's going to hit it, but there would seem to be compounded matters of negligence in this case.
Just my two-penn'orth.

 

[Jeremy]

I found the cyclist's dad's interview very restrained & responsible: I don't think I could be that reasonable, in the circumstances.

His assertion that there needs to be something between Using a vehicle unfit for purpose (window tints) & Manslaughter makes a great deal of sense. We've all opened the door without being certain nothing's going to hit it, but there would seem to be compounded matters of negligence in this case.
Just my two-penn'orth.

Because we haven't read all the evidence we have no way of knowing whether the side window tint played any part in this, though. What if there was evidence presented that the position of the cyclist at the point where he started to swerve was behind that which could have been seen through the side window? If that's the case (and this is only speculation) then the window tint, although pretty daft, couldn't have been part of the chain of causality.

I've worked with a professor from the University of Bielefeld (Causalis Limited - Making Systems Safer) who has developed a very good causal analysis methodology (Why-Because analysis) for accidents. It collates all of the possible factors, analyses each one and weights and links all of the possible factors one by one to narrow down the most probable in terms of connected links of causality. It's remarkably effective and more often than not it shows up true causal chains that are far from obvious at first glance.

 

[jackhandy]

Would the same "proportion of blame" be applied in the case of a cyclist having a bike capable of assistance above 15.5mph? The assumption seems to be that, if you have a bike with illegal capabilities, you'in the deep & smelly no matter you weren't using those capabilities to the full.

I assume the same process applied to windows of illegal transparency, so riding an illegal bike is not necessarily going to lead to liablity in the event of an accident?

 

[Jeremy]

Would the same "proportion of blame" be applied in the case of a cyclist having a bike capable of assistance above 15.5mph? The assumption seems to be that, if you have a bike with illegal capabilities, you'in the deep & smelly no matter you weren't using those capabilities to the full.

I assume the same process applied to windows of illegal transparency, so riding an illegal bike is not necessarily going to lead to liablity in the event of an accident?

First of all, in manslaughter there is no "proportion of blame". The only time that becomes a legal issue is in the civil courts when damages are being considered. In criminal law there is (at least in England, Wales and Northern Ireland) only guilt or innocence (Scotland has the rather interesting "Not Proven" verdict, too).

In this case the charge was manslaughter. The jury felt that, given the evidence they'd heard, the man wasn't guilty.

Should the evidence that was presented have just been slightly less than that required to prove guilt, beyond reasonable doubt, then I would have expected the jury to consider it for more than just an hour. I think I'd also expect to see a civil claim being made against the driver, as the burden of proof for a civil case is lower, just "on the balance of probability", rather than "beyond reasonable doubt". If there is no civil case, then I think it would be safe to conclude that the evidence against the driver might be very slim indeed, and strongly outweighed by other evidence.

With regard to the tinted windows, then these may contravene the Road Traffic Acts if they are darker than whatever is allowed, I'm not sure. Not a serious offence though, I'd have thought.

The case for an illegal ebike would be a breach of statute law but is potentially much more serious. In essence the charge could be riding an unregistered, uninsured motor vehicle, that has no form of valid Type Approval, failure to display a registration number, failure to display a valid VED disc, perhaps failure to wear an approved crash helmet and maybe even riding a motor vehicle without the appropriate licence.

As always, it depends which laws you break as to how serious the consequences might be. Having windows a bit darker than allowed doesn't change the category of the car in question, doesn't nullify its insurance etc, etc.

 

[103Alex1]

The case for an illegal ebike would be a breach of statute law but is potentially much more serious. In essence the charge could be riding an unregistered, uninsured motor vehicle, that has no form of valid Type Approval, failure to display a registration number, failure to display a valid VED disc, perhaps failure to wear an approved crash helmet and maybe even riding a motor vehicle without the appropriate licence.

At the very least, if you have a driving licence you will likely lose it for a significant period of time. For those who depend on a car or motorbike or have others who depend on them having one (I am 3 months in to trying out a life without and I can assure you it is not at all easy in Britain and extremely poorly catered for outside major cities) the consideration should be whether you are willing to risk losing your permission to drive.. and possibly also getting a criminal record just on account of getting on that bike and turning those pedals or pushing that throttle.

Think it through carefully as part of the risk analysis when you make a decision. It is all too easy to pass things off as unlikely and dealing with consequences if they arise. In my view, if you want to take those risks that is fine - but at least do so having thought through and fully understood the implications of being challenged and be content to take the consequences without feeling aggrieved. And think even more carefully if you do it on the way back from a few pints at the pub

 

[amigafan2003]

At the very least, if you have a driving licence you will likely lose it for a significant period of time. For those who depend on a car or motorbike or have others who depend on them having one (I am 3 months in to trying out a life without and I can assure you it is not at all easy in Britain and extremely poorly catered for outside major cities) the consideration should be whether you are willing to risk losing your permission to drive.. and possibly also getting a criminal record just on account of getting on that bike and turning those pedals or pushing that throttle.

Think it through carefully as part of the risk analysis when you make a decision. It is all too easy to pass things off as unlikely and dealing with consequences if they arise. In my view, if you want to take those risks that is fine - but at least do so having thought through and fully understood the implications of being challenged and be content to take the consequences without feeling aggrieved. And think even more carefully if you do it on the way back from a few pints at the pub

Meh, my brain hurts when I try to find the sum of 2 + 2 so I prefer not to think about more complicated things

 

[103Alex1]

Meh, my brain hurts when I try to find the sum of 2 + 2 so I prefer not to think about more complicated things

Innit melud ...

 

[Scimitar]

If you've done jury service then you will have seen first hand that the evidence as presented in court by witnesses and the reports in the media rarely bear much similarity. The jury were ordinary people like those on this forum, they had the benefit (which we don't) of having heard all the evidence that was presented. They very quickly reached a unanimous verdict of not guilty. In my view that is a clear indication that there was nowhere near enough evidence to prove guilt. I can't see how the members of this forum could be better informed than the jury and decide that the verdict was incorrect, when all we've seen is selected parts of witness stories in the media.

Hah. I've done jury service and seen plenty of juries in action. An experience that doesn't fill me with hope, at all.
The problem with picking a jury from the ranks of the public, is that you get a lot of ill-informed, ill-educated, tabloid-reading, mouth-breathers amongst them. Usually enough to sway the verdict away from what the judge is hinting at in his summing up, in cases I've seen.

 

[103Alex1]

Hah. I've done jury service and seen plenty of juries in action. An experience that doesn't fill me with hope, at all.
The problem with picking a jury from the ranks of the public, is that you get a lot of ill-informed, ill-educated, tabloid-reading, mouth-breathers amongst them. Usually enough to sway the verdict away from what the judge is hinting at in his summing up, in cases I've seen.

... and you should see a bunch of Magistrates let loose on sentencing decisions. It's quite terrifying what they can come up with, how little time they spend in most cases considering mitigation and how much outcomes depend on the mood they woke up in. You can be very lucky or extremely unjustly treated in a few short minutes.