Death by Careless Driving case.

[flecc]

*"The Durham case seem unlikely to set a precedent because the judge seems to have mis-interpreted the sentencing guidelines which say that mitigating circumstances should only be taken into account in cases of causing death by dangerous driving which relate to the commission of the offence not it's outcome." from the news report referred to above.

But those sentencing guidlines are for the offence of causing death by dangerous driving. In this case the new offence of causing death by careless driving was being tried and I'm unaware of any guidelines for that.

Parliament introduced the new offence since the high burden of proof for causing death by dangerous driving was resulting in many being found not guilty. The lower burden of proof for the new lesser offence addresses that problem and guilt is being found now. As a new offence it's probable no accumulation of precedence exists.

As I've said above, it's not the first time we've had this finding, and if these judgements are as wrong as is being claimed here, why aren't there any appeals against them by the prosecutor and other interested parties like the CTC?
.

 

[flecc]

I've no problem with the court discussing whether or not the cyclist was unwise to wear a helmet but the judge has ruled contributory negligence for a cyclist involved in an accident not wearing a helmet. I cannot see how that's possibly relevant - anymore than choosing to drive rather than cycle.

The relevance is that wearing one might have prevented death in that accident and resulted in the lesser charge of careless driving for the driver.

Cycling was the activity, and the accident and subsequent court case was associated with that. Driving a car instead has no relevance to those.
.

 

[JohnInStockie]

I just struggle to comprehend how the Judge can reconcile his thoughts.

It shouldnt matter even if the cyclist was dressed like a ballarina or a pantomime horse, the fact that the driver didnt hold a valid UK driving license and yet was driving a car should be enough for a far more severe conviction.

Why have a Driving Test at all if it doesnt say your safe to drive on the road?

John

 

[rooel]

"But those sentencing guidlines are for the offence of causing death by dangerous driving. In this case the new offence of causing death by careless driving was being tried and I'm unaware of any guidelines for that."

Actually the precedent lies not in guidelines but decisions of the Appeal Courts north and south of the border, and they apply to all driving offences: consequences are not to be taken into account in deciding sentence, something many victims and their relatives very properly resent, as it is difficult to think of any other assault case in which the consequences are not reflected in the sentence.

It can be assumed therefore that until the Appeal Courts decide otherwise (an unlikely event) the existing sentencing precedents will apply just as much to the new offence of causing death by careless driving as they do to all other driving offences.

 

[flecc]

I just struggle to comprehend how the Judge can reconcile his thoughts.

It shouldnt matter even if the cyclist was dressed like a ballarina or a pantomime horse, the fact that the driver didnt hold a valid UK driving license and yet was driving a car should be enough for a far more severe conviction.

It's not the judge though John, which is partly why I'm defending him. I agree that the sentence is light, but parliament sets the sentencing parameters for each offence. The new offence of causing death by careless driving was intended to have a much lower burden of proof that the only former one of causing death by dangerous driving as I've described above, and so it has a lower sentencing scale.

The lack of a cycle helmet will have played no part in the finding of guilt.
.

 

[flecc]

It can be assumed therefore that until the Appeal Courts decide otherwise (an unlikely event) the existing sentencing precedents will apply just as much to the new offence of causing death by careless driving as they do to all other driving offences.

The precedent is that the consequences for the victim (cyclist) must not be taken into account as you've rightly said.

The Durham judge hasn't done that.

The prosecution will certainly not have introduced the helmet argument, and the judge would not/could not introduce a new argument. The argument that helmet wearing could have prevented the death and resulted in the motorist facing the much lesser charge of careless driving came from the defence and concerned the consequences for the driver, not the cyclist.

Therefore it's perfectly proper for the judge to rule on that.
.

 

[Patrick]

Of course not, thats entirely different. Like many activities, cycling has recognised safety equipment. There is nothing wrong with a defence arguing that a cyclist would have been wise to use that.

There is equally nothing wrong with a judge giving a degree of credence to that, since the matter of whether a helmet would have made a difference to the outcome is a matter of judgment and cannot be exactly determined.
.

It depends on how you charaterise the "activity" in question, you could say that:
(1) he was engaged in the activity of traveling along the public highway

or you could be more specific and say that:
(2) he was engaged in the activity of cycling along the public highway

or you could be even more specific and say that:
(3) he was engaged in the activity of cycling along the public highway without a helmet

If you use (1) then he would have been safer using a 4X4 for the "activity"; if you use (2) then he would have been safer wearing a cycle helmet for the "activity" and driving a 4X4 would have been a different activity and so irrelevant; if you use (3) then wearing a cycle helmet would have constituted a different activity and therefore be irrelevant.

There is no logical difference between the defence arguing that a cyclist would have been wiser to wear a helmet if he wanted to cycle along the road and the defence arguing that a traveler would have been wiser to drive a 4X4 if he wanted to travel along the road. Both arguments amount to "he shouldn't have been doing that".

 

[Mussels]

It depends on how you charaterise the "activity" in question, you could say that:
(1) he was engaged in the activity of traveling along the public highway

or you could be more specific and say that:
(2) he was engaged in the activity of cycling along the public highway

or you could be even more specific and say that:
(3) he was engaged in the activity of cycling along the public highway without a helmet

If you use (1) then he would have been safer using a 4X4 for the "activity"; if you use (2) then he would have been safer wearing a cycle helmet for the "activity" and driving a 4X4 would have been a different activity and so irrelevant; if you use (3) then wearing a cycle helmet would have constituted a different activity and therefore be irrelevant.

There is no logical difference between the defence arguing that a cyclist would have been wiser to wear a helmet if he wanted to cycle along the road and the defence arguing that a traveler would have been wiser to drive a 4X4 if he wanted to travel along the road. Both arguments amount to "he shouldn't have been doing that".

The driving a 4x4 is safer has been used to adjust motorcycle damages, it won't be long before cyclists get the same. Because you chose not to travel in a safety cage you are to share the blame for your injuries, pedestrians next?

 

[flecc]

(2) he was engaged in the activity of cycling along the public highway

There is no logical difference between the defence arguing that a cyclist would have been wiser to wear a helmet if he wanted to cycle along the road and the defence arguing that a traveler would have been wiser to drive a 4X4 if he wanted to travel along the road. Both arguments amount to "he shouldn't have been doing that".

It's number 2 Patrick, it's the case in question that counts, not the logic.

The defence argument concerned the activity being undertaken, not any other. Also it wasn't a matter of what the cyclist shouldn't have been doing, but of the conditions under which he was doing what he was.

The cyclist wasn't on trial here, it's the driver who was and the defence was being mounted for him in a reasonable way.
.

 

[Barnowl]

That driving a 4x4 is safer has been used to adjust motorcycle damages, it won't be long before cyclists get the same. Because you chose not to travel in a safety cage you are to share the blame for your injuries, pedestrians next?

Crikey, I really didn't know that. Perhaps we really shouldn't be travelling at all since staying in bed is much safer than driving a 4X4.

 

[Phil the drill]

Don't know about anyone else but I find all this stuff gets me down. If you sit down and read all these reports, then start thinking about them, all it achieves is getting your blood pressure up, making feel pretty anti-social. Antidote? - to hell with it - don't think about it just get on your bike (dressed however you like) and ride it.
Forget the consequences and courts, all they'll do is shorten your life further .
SNAFU

Phil.

 

[Mike63]

When was it decided that cyclists have no right to safety ?

Cyclists rarely, if ever, kill anyone and it would make a lot more sense for cyclists to mix with pedestrians than it does for them to mix with huge juggernauts and tons of metal traveling at excessive speeds.

...Mike

 

[Barnowl]

Don't know about anyone else but I find all this stuff gets me down. If you sit down and read all these reports, then start thinking about them, all it achieves is getting your blood pressure up, making feel pretty anti-social. Antidote? - to hell with it - don't think about it just get on your bike (dressed however you like) and ride it.
Forget the consequences and courts, all they'll do is shorten your life further .
SNAFU

Phil.

I have the benefit of a poor memory, a short attention span and I'm easily distracted.

 

[Phil the drill]

I have the benefit of a poor memory, a short attention span and I'm easily distracted.

Glad to see I'm not alone then !
Phil

 

[flecc]

it would make a lot more sense for cyclists to mix with pedestrians than it does for them to mix with huge juggernauts and tons of metal traveling at excessive speeds.

...Mike

I agree with that Mike. In many cases where there's painted cyclepaths on roads, a far better solution would be to pinch a bit off the road and make the pavement much wider and lined in half for pedestrians and cyclists. Plus give the cyclists priority to cross at intersections, Dutch fashion.
.

 

[Mussels]

I agree with that Mike. In many cases where there's painted cyclepaths on roads, a far better solution would be to pinch a bit off the road and make the pavement much wider and lined in half for pedestrians and cyclists. Plus give the cyclists priority to cross at intersections, Dutch fashion.
.

There's a road near me where that has been done, the result is the pavement is still too narrow to share with pedestrians and the road is more dangerous for cyclists. There are other roads where it works well but they seem to be very large roads where there was plenty of space on the verge to sacrifice.

 

[flecc]

There's a road near me where that has been done, the result is the pavement is still too narrow to share with pedestrians and the road is more dangerous for cyclists. There are other roads where it works well but they seem to be very large roads where there was plenty of space on the verge to sacrifice.

Of course it has to be wide enough for that modification and many aren't. One route I use has a modified road where the lined provision for cyclists and pedestrians is so wide that cars could comfortably drive in two directions on it. Further on the route, another road with the modification has pavement pinch points where there really isn't enough room for bikes and pedestrians, and street furniture makes riding a bike at some points very difficult.

The local authorities have to show more sense than they do at present.

This one is quite nice though, not only wide enough but a grass and trees separator from the road traffic.

.

 

[Caph]

This one is quite nice though, not only wide enough but a grass and trees separator from the road traffic.
.

Can you imagine if there were cycle tracks like that everywhere. It would be bike heaven and I bet there would be a load more people using bikes instead of cars. I would love to have tracks like that near me. I can get into Nottingham almost entirely avoiding traffic but it's almost all off road, bumpy and muddy at all times apart from the middle of summer. It's slow going too.

 

[flecc]

That is an amazing stretch of road Caph. On the western side, it starts with a pavement in front of the houses, then a two lane service road, a grass verge, then a two lane northbound carriageway, a central reservation, a two lane southbound carriageway, then the wide grass and shrubs verge by the cycle lanes.

Then there's those cycle lanes, the pedestrian section and the railings.

Behind the railings theres a grass and shrub verge and then North and Southbound tramlines. Finally a verge and further railings complete the span, with a large grassy public park beyond.

Altogether that's two pavements with four over part of the distance, six lanes for motor vehicles with eight at the roundabout junction, two bike lanes and two tram lines.

Not only that, but the main route to the east from the roundabout beyond continues in the same way and has an instant action Toucan crossing for cyclists and pedestrians who want to get to the other side. There's even a mini bypass so cyclists don't have to cross the tram tracks at a dangerous angle. It shows just how well planners can perform when they put their mind to it.

Of course if the whole of Britain was covered like this, we'd probably all have to live on boats!
.

 

[JohnInStockie]

Well we are supposed to be a maritime nation