Pharmaceutical consultant who killed cyclist while driving on wrong side of road cleared of careless driving

Yep. Clearly visible on linkedin.

The same, or worse, happens in Spain with law regarding weak users (cyclists) versus strong users (car drivers). I can't believe this is also happening in UK with no social reaction. Society should claim their right to use public roads as well as their right to live when using them.

My theory is that (maybe for both countries) car/truck and petroleum industries have huge influence into government so anything that may affect to their economy is avoided. For instance, if law is enforced, many people will not buy powerful/expensive cars because they will not need/use so much horsepower.

The legal system doesn't appear to work.

"If I had been concerned, I would have stopped suddenly.”

think that says it all myself - makes a not very rational change from the "guilt will always be with me" defence

seems to have echoes of case in Queensland Au where a cement truck driver was acquitted after running down a young man, Richard Pollett, - his defence was he believed the manoeuvre was safe

Genuinely terrifying.

.......

I guess the only solution is to slash every cars tyres in an act of self defence.

.....

She's actually managed a successful Lance Armstrong defence.

"I've done nothing wrong. Oh, and by the way, Cancer."

on a more constructive note, i have now emailed a complaint about the conviction!

" "

The concerning bit for me is the 'I thought it was safe' line (paraphrased).

Road fatalities (short definition is within 30 days of accident) have been falling no doubt (so the politicians can get up and tell how much safer we are), but its the car occupant fatalities which make up most of the reduction.

http://charts.dft.gov.uk/dft-business-plan/indicators/#05

I'd suggest that if you feel safer (as a driver) you're more likely to take more 'risks', and as always it's the more vulnerable road user that pays the price.

CSV data here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/annual-road-fatalities

It's only stats but you've got to go on something.

Quote:

Dear Mr O’Loughlin

Thank you for your email to the Attorney General's Office.

As the jury in the case of Dr Helen Measures found her not guilty and she was subsequently aquitted, no sentence was imposed and it will therefore not be possible for this office to review this case as unduly lenient.

Full details of the unduly lenient scheme can be found on our website, the address is: https://www.gov.uk/complain-about-low-crown-court-sentence

Yours sincerely

James Ross
Correspondence Unit

so where next!

Digusting.

written email to DoT now, suspect i won't get a worthwhile reply. But i think it is upto everyone to make it clear that killing by negligence and disregard of the law is not acceptable. Whether with a gun or a car it makes no difference.

My understanding of the Dutch situation was that the people had enough and forced the politicians to change. It has to start somewhere in the UK!

"If I had been concerned, I would have stopped suddenly."

Even allowing for ABS, at '40-50' around a corner - which presumably was too short to see all the way around - I find it difficult to believe that would have made any difference.

The jury, rather than the law, is an ass (and that's putting it politely)

dear god, why didn't this idiot just WAIT until after the bend? You do NOT overtake anything on a bend.

Disgusting irresponsible driving ....

Can anyone explain something to me, i know it is for the jury to make a decision, but i thought the judge tended to guide the jury?

Is this right or wrong?

We obviously have 12 people here who feel that overtaking on a bend is acceptable, i could argue that we have 12 people who should be immediately stripped of their driving licences!

I have not read all the replies here, so I may be missing something.

The failure to convict is likely to be the fault of a gullible jury influenced by a smart barrister.

It may be the fault of the investigating officers and the prosecutor failing to present the evidence well enough, though I doubt it.

What this is definitely is an absolute tragedy.

It seems to me that juries can be made up entirely of motorists, but there would be outcry if one were to consist only of cyclists. There must be some balance, somewhere. How that is to be achieved, whilst still retaining the principles of justice and the being innocent until proven guilty, is beyond me and probably most of us.

Two points come to mind on this:

1. If it had been another car instead of a bicycle and they swerved to avoid a collision and were killed would the defendant have got off? I doubt it.

2. I think the barrister has to take some blame here. It is their job to convince the jury that the accused is guilty and in this case it would seem that a competent barrister should be able to convince the jury that the driver was responsible for the death.

Can I be the one to point out that it was cyclists she was overtaking and not another vehicle, I would suggest that the majority of A roads are wide enough to accomodate bike - car - bike, also note it was a curve in the road and not a blind bend.

Tragically it would appear that the poor girl did not have the bike handling to cope with whatever unexpected circumstances being out on the road could throw at her.

*Advice*

Individuals who are involved in such heinous disregards for the sanctity of human life need only do the following:

Say you heard the driver say 'Allah-ho-Akbar'. The law will then regard it as a terrorist incident and the perpetrator will get at least 10 years.

What a f*****k ignorant and stupid c**t.

I hope that Dr Measures revisits what she said and realises how callous it sounds. She is responsible for another person's death after all, regardless of whether or not her driving was adjudged to be careless in the eyes of the law (and it sounds pretty careless to me).

A case so awful not even Daily Mail readers are defending the motorist (although of course the DM is keen on portraying the driver as an upstanding citizen)