A driver who hit and killed a cyclist and “engaged with his phone” for 10 seconds prior to the collision has been cleared of causing the death by dangerous driving.
Local reporters were at Norwich Crown Court to hear the jury return a not guilty verdict over Shayne Hill’s involvement in the death of Cheryl Tye back in 2022, the 60mph collision happening as she rode on the A11 in Norfolk while competing in CC Breckland’s 50-mile East District championship time trial.
Hill has already admitted the lesser charge of causing the death by careless driving and will be sentenced in the autumn.
During his trial the court heard that the 32-year-old was “engaged with his phone” for 10 seconds before the collision at 9.35am on 26 June 2022. Hill was travelling in the same direction as Ms Tye and the court also heard he told a woman who stopped at the scene that he “was looking for my drink. I didn’t even see her. What will I get?”
He told police his phone was in a holder and being used for maps. Hill’s sister sent around 25 WhatsApp messages of photos from a family barbecue the previous day and the driver told police he touched the screen to swipe away the notifications as they came in “in ones and twos over a few minutes”.
Prosecutor Nick Bleaney argued Hill’s driving fell “far below the standards of a careful motorist”.
“He would tell the police that he had been distracted by his mobile phone and at the crucial moment had been looking down to pick up a drinks bottle on the passenger seat next to him. It is not in dispute that Mr Hill was driving and was responsible for her death. He accepts he is guilty of causing death by careless driving.
“The Crown’s case is that if you are not paying attention for 10 seconds covering 300 yards and hit someone in the back, it’s not careless driving, it’s dangerous because it falls far below the standards of a careful motorist.”
Ms Tye was wearing a white and yellow top and had flashing lights on the front and rear of her bike. The court heard the collision happened on a straight section of road with good visibility and it was fine weather conditions that morning.
Hill’s defence, Michael Clare, told the court his client’s driving was careless, but not dangerous, a conclusion the jury ultimately agreed with following four-and-a-half hours of deliberation.
The judge, Anthony Bate, has adjourned sentence until October 3 so a pre-sentence report can be prepared and called the case “sensitive and sad”.
Following Ms Tye’s death the East District branch of Cycling Time Trials, the national governing body for time trials in England and Wales, has suspended races on dual carriageways.
National Highways, the body responsible for England’s motorways and some A-roads, warned of the “significant dangers” of holding time trials on major roads. National Highways has not commented since Hill was charged and admitted it was his driving that caused the collision.
“For a number of years, we have warned the groups about the significant dangers in running time trials on major A-roads. But from a legal perspective there is nothing we can do to stop them,” the organisation’s spokesperson said back in 2022.
The East District branch of Cycling Time Trials suspended dual carriageway time trials for the rest of 2022, but secretary Mike Johnson pointed out the group complied with all of the legal requirements associated with running time trials, including providing the police with 28 days’ notice of an event, a description of the course, and the number of competitors and names of officials.
“Everything is very rigidly controlled,” Johnson said. “Police are informed so they know where and when events are taking place, they are only held during hours of light traffic and signs are put out, especially at junctions where traffic comes on to the A11.
“All cyclists also now have to use front and rear lights, which you see from half a mile away, so there is really no excuse for any accidents [collisions] at all.”
Ms Tye worked as a manager at Hadleigh Town Council, the local authority’s mayor Frank Minns paying tribute to a “dynamic and determined” former colleague.
“She was at the council for about 15 months and she was quite a dynamic and determined person and unmistakably from Yorkshire,” he commented. “She was a fine and honest person and I had quite a close working relationship with her and whatever I achieved I would not have managed without her support.”
Following her death, Cheryl’s husband Chris, who was also taking part in the time trial, paid tribute to his wife on social media, writing: “She loved doing triathlons and all sport, gardening and looking after four gerbils. She touched everyone she came across in a positive way and will be sorely missed. She was my soulmate, a beautiful spirit and I loved the time I had with her.”
59 thoughts on “Van driver who “engaged with phone” for 10 seconds before killing time trial cyclist cleared of causing death by dangerous driving”
Absolutely fucking ridiculous
Absolutely fucking ridiculous
This is a disgrace! Exactly
This is a disgrace! Exactly what else would have had to happen before the jury would have considered it Dangerous Driving.
time to get rid of the distinction, and have a single “Dangerous Driving” offence, defined as falling below the standards not of a “competent driver”, which is the current level, but of the standard that would cause someone to fail their driving test.
Exactly what else would have
Exactly what else would have had to happen before the jury would have considered it Dangerous Driving
A jury not packed with ‘Stop the War Against the Motorist’ drivers
The proposed law for death by
The proposed law for death by cycling does not have two standards, so the distinction of careless/dangerous should be removed from the driving offence, to provide parity and equality
Mr Anderson wrote:
The web site below gives details of the proposed legislation if I’ve got it right.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/crime-and-policing-bill-2025-factsheets/crime-and-policing-bill-dangerous-cycling-offences-factsheet
The offences and their maximum penalties that are being introduced to achieve this are:
Causing death by dangerous cycling. On conviction on indictment, up to life imprisonment.
Causing serious injury by dangerous cycling. On conviction on indictment, 5 years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both. On summary conviction, the general limit in a magistrates’ court (currently 12 months) (in England and Wales), or 12 months (in Scotland); or the statutory maximum fine, or both.
Causing death by careless or inconsiderate cycling. On conviction on indictment, 5 years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both. On summary conviction, the general limit in a magistrates’ court (currently 12 months) (in England and Wales), or the maximum term of imprisonment on summary conviction (currently 12 months) (in Scotland); or the statutory maximum fine, or both.
Causing serious injury by careless or inconsiderate cycling. On conviction on indictment, 2 years’ imprisonment, a fine, or both. On summary conviction, the general limit in a magistrates’ court (currently 12 months) (in England and Wales), or the maximum term of imprisonment on summary conviction (currently 12 months) (in Scotland); or the statutory maximum fine or both.
In order to ensure consistency in offences and penalties across Great Britain, the legislation will extend to Scotland as well as England and Wales.
So we will have careless and dangerous. How any cyclist will ever be convicted of dangerous, or even careless, is beyond me if the same standards as this case are used.
The original proposal I read
The original proposal I read had a single charge of causing death or serious injury by careless or dangerous cycling. Perhaps it was misreported?
the little onion wrote:
Absolutely, but:
a) this would never get into law because “cost, and we don’t have enough driving examiners as it is, and it would delay legal proceedings (already people are waiting years)…” (never mind that there are lots of vast financial interests against stirring the pot for motorists).
b) If nothing else changes I imagine the conviction rate would likely go down because magistrates / judges / juries already are apt to give drivers a pass, even for the lower offense. That might then result in the CPS bringing even fewer of these to court…
All those things ought to be different, but I just don’t see how it happens here.
The success of mass motoring combined with a lot of safety improvements we’ve already made (relative to the start of this – which certainly was “an epidemic of death”) explains our (now – habitual) dismissal of this as “tragic but rare and unfortunate side-effects of a great system”. And that this is hardly even getting reported, increasing the “but rare” / lack of salience. Or “that’s just (some) people” – not questioning why we have a goal of getting all those people driving that often.
So it’s not “worth” properly tackling road crime in the eyes of the legal system / politicians until it’s much more important to far more people *.
I think that only happens when we change the system in a completely different way e.g. fixing it for people not to “have to drive” by creating excellent alternatives to driving. Only that will mean that people – mostly walking, but with a lot more cycling also – are motivated to look more critically at all the motor vehicles and the nuisance and danger caused to those outside them…
* It’s extremely important to most people who have just lost a relative. But there are few of those compared with people being charged for their driving offenses (overall). And there are vastly more times when people feel they “have to drive” (or want others to e.g. for deliveries) – and drive while tired and distracted, or “in a rush” and put their foot down, or don’t look, or are irritated that there’s a cyclist “in their way, holding us up” …
the little onion wrote:
When they’re all regular cyclists.
Until we’re closer to that, one idea might be to mandate that a substantial fraction of the police (and ideally magistrates, judges, the CPS etc.) have to cycle as part of their work / to commute. I bet that would get a LOT more cases before the courts and being looked at more seriously…
However that would still be lacking while it’s the case that e.g. not only do the police see motor vehicles as an essential of their work, but indeed they operate as their workplace for many (those who aren’t looking for evidence on the internet / shuffling records).
We now have a fundamental
We now have a fundamental problem that today’s juries are comprised mainly of motorists who possess the same low standards of safe driving, as the person on trial.
Hence the need to redefine it
Hence the need to redefine it not in terms of the standard of a “competent” driver, but in terms of the driving test. It is probably unique in terms of all other health and safety related professional standards, that only day in which the standards of the test apply is on the day of the test. For all my professional qualifications, I am expected to meet test standard at all times, and I will be judged on exactly those standards every day, not just the day of the test.
You’d think “must not use or
You’d think “must not use or interact with a phone whilst driving” was a pretty clear standard to meet.
It’s not like it says oh but its OK if your phone is annoying you with popups (btw does anyone’s phone do that ? As mine sure doesnt)
I dread to think what it means these jurors think “acceptable” phone use is.
Though I’m convinced I saw a driver with the phone mounted centrally on the windscreen watching videos the other day, they’d moved off by the time id done a wtf double take, and it couldnt be seen on my forward facing cam.
My thoughts are with Cheryl’s family and friends.RIP
Again agree, but we give
Again agree, but we give driving a pass because it’s not seen as “professional” * – it’s a “normal everyday activity”, albeit limited to adults. So no more thought / care needs apply than “having a pint” it seems.
So much of how we frame driving feeds into this, eg. the driving test as a once-a-lifetime “rite of passage” / “entry to a club” (with the licence as proof of “your rights“).
* Yes – there are in fact “professional” drivers, and somehow the same mental forgivingness seem to carry over!
chrisonabike wrote:
I can assure you it doesn’t. As a one time professional driver I was told by a magistrate that I had to be more careful than the norm. Racking up points and reaching an auto-ban was very easy, so I took his warning to heart. Anyway, as a professional motorcyclist I was always careful to keep an eye out for cycling brethern. Never ran a cyclist over, not even the once.
Daclu Trelub wrote:
🎹🎵Fine, fine, fine, auf der Auto-ban.
Daclu Trelub wrote:
I can assure you it doesn’t. As a one time professional driver I was told by a magistrate that I had to be more careful than the norm. Racking up points and reaching an auto-ban was very easy, so I took his warning to heart. Anyway, as a professional motorcyclist I was always careful to keep an eye out for cycling brethern. Never ran a cyclist over, not even the once.— chrisonabike
Well, good for that magistrate… and good on you. But “magistrate” and a single data point.
I’ve not been keeping the stats on this, but these few that went the other way come to mind:
No charges for this chap (Glasgow bin lorry crash), despite him apparently lying about his condition on multiple occasions, and driving while barred.
No prison time for this taxi driver despite speeding (including previous).
Disqualified lorry driver who sped through red light and left cyclist in coma avoids further jail time – as judge rules initial nine-month term was not “unduly lenient” – at least they did get a prison sentence / conviction
Cocaine-fuelled lorry driver disqualified over crash – suspended prison sentence but they did get a driving ban
To be fair, sometimes sentences do see to reflect the gravity of things: longer jail time here.
I can assure you it doesn’t.
I can assure you it doesn’t. As a one time professional driver I was told by a magistrate that I had to be more careful than the norm
And I can assure you that it does as far as Lancashire Constabulary is concerned- no response to these
https://upride.cc/incident/ej65pff_greenpass_closepass/
https://upride.cc/incident/yx74soj_greenpass_closepass/
https://upride.cc/incident/g16dht_hgvtrainer_redlightcross/
https://upride.cc/incident/yf70xwu_aadrivingschool_uwlcross/
Or to this, unsurprisingly
https://upride.cc/incident/kn21axh_lancspolice_closepass/
” Or to this, unsurprisingly
” Or to this, unsurprisingly
https://upride.cc/incident/kn21axh_lancspolice_closepass/ (link is external) “
The sun was in his eyes ! Do as I say, not as I do !
Its madness isn’t it. “Here,
Its madness isn’t it. “Here, pass this test to show that you are safe to drive on our roads”. Also “don’t worry about being safe on our roads or driving safely because we don’t actually consider it dangerous”.
What would have been the
What would have been the verdict if the driver had crashed into a broken down car under the same conditions, killing a two year old passenger?
As usual, the law has failed
As usual, the law has failed the victim (and future victims, as this is not a deterrent).
It would be good to know what this does to the individual’s insurance going forward.
Given the other comments here, could it be a case of extending the “presumed liability” law (that we don’t have in place here)?
With presumed liability, as I understand it, the driver needs to prove in court that they were not at fault.
My proposed extension to this is that untill the driver’s innocence is proven, they aren’t allowed to drive.
They aren’t in jail/prison, they are simply banned.
This loss of the right to drive might make drivers think twice when engaging in dangerous behaviours…
mitsky wrote:
With presumed liability, as I understand it, the driver needs to prove in court that they were not at fault.— mitsky
As far as I know where places have something like this it operates at the civil / insurance and financial compensation level rather than the criminal, so wouldn’t apply. Much has been written on it – here are a few “what actually means in (e.g.) NL” and “it probably doesn’t do what you think”: [1] [2] [3] [4].
Of course, the UK already has the “hierarchy of responsibility” which we don’t apply to motorists…
A petition for a similar
A petition for a similar proposal (“Tom’s Law”) was held a few years ago – you may be interested in the DfT response and parliament debate. https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/548682
As far as I can tell, the brief sumary is that there is already legislation in place that would permit either the police or courts to impose such a ban (through bail conditions or an interim driving disqualification, respectively), although these powers are rarely used, and (despite some reasonably well intentioned words) there are no plans to improve this.
(The cynic in me wonders how different the public discourse would have been had Tom been astride a bicycle when he was killed by a drunk driver.)
Anything related to a driving
Anything related to a driving offence should not be tried by jury.
It should be judge only now, although that in itself carries risks.
https://www.theguardian.com
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/apr/08/drivers-who-kill-remove-right-to-trial-by-jury-death-cyclists-pedestrians-justice
I’d say Martin Porter is
I’d say Martin Porter is totally correct.
Or as has been suggested
Or as has been suggested before, an expert witness who is a driving examiner who comments on whether it is dangerous or not. Then the judge can direct the jury.
But someone has already
But someone has already commented that a judge can’t direct a jury. I don’t know how accurate that is but it would seem correct.
Won’t be popular with the
Won’t be popular with the general public, but you’re right. Nearly everyone drives and nearly everyone drives badly. Putting dangerous drivers on trial in front of a jury of people who do the same shit day-in, day-out is a big part of the reason the more serious charges aren’t often brought even in cases where they should be.
We don’t try murderers in front of a jury of murderers, or fraudsters in front of a jury of fraudsters, so why do we try bad drivers in front of a jury of bad drivers?
That last sentence was
That last sentence was exactly my thought. The victim can’t get a fair trial, while the defendant gets more than a fair trial and therefore little punishment.
Quote:
Let’s say it plainly: It is impossible to drive a 4,000 pound killing machine at 60mph in a manner that is merely “careless” and not “dangerous”. If any law/process allows for that distinction then it is grotesquely misshapen and undeserving of respect.
And then the motherfuckers complain when we drop a profanity or two in a close pass video.
The legal system in England
The legal system in England (and Wales) is institutionally anti-cyclist.
I think it’s just pro
I think it’s just pro motorist. Over 10000 people with 12 or more points, one with 229 (supposedly 26 years old in 2024).
It’s not the legal system, it
It’s not the legal system, it’s the jury of our peers that is institutionally anti-cyclist. Whether that is because
A)they just hate cyclists
B) they were convinced that time trials run on dual carriageways contributed to the accident and reduced the driver’s culpability.
C) They say their but for a big dose of luck go I because they took have had near misses with cyclists coming out of the sun, jumping red lights, swerving in front of them, appearing from nowhere or
D) they also take risks by using a mobile at the wheel, speeding, failing to give cyclists the required room, drink /.drug driving etc
Or any combinations of the above, who knows , but somehow they seemed to think that using a phone for 10 seconds at 60mph whilst bending over to pick up a drinks bottle is merely below the standard expected of a careful driver and not far below that standard. It beggars belief that I have to share the roads with people who hold that low and opinion of what it takes to be a careful and competent driver.
I’m with Msiv above –
I’m with Msiv above – actually, if we accept that to some extent juries do actually do their job and consider based on evidence and direction then yes – the biases (or just plain ignorance / misunderstanding) of the barristers and judge do come into it. And IIRC there have been several instances of cases on road.cc where even the prosecution don’t seem to have challenged manifest nonsense from the defence. (Of course, perhaps in their professional judgement they felt that e.g. criticising the driving of an alledged killer driver was a sure way to promote sympathy for them and guarantee a not guilty verdict…)
In short – I think it’s “both”. If you feel the juries are ignorant (about cyclists / realities of cycling on roads) and prejudiced (because motornormativity) in this case there’s no guarantee that the officials of the court won’t be either.
Take a walk along the
Take a walk along the pavement beside any congested road and you will see umpteen motorists using their mobile phone. So I think it is true to say that most jurors will relate to the experience of using a mobile phone behind the wheel and have already discounted its importance in the case.
Careless driving is fucking
Careless driving is fucking dangerous driving. Sweet baby jesus. You’re controlling a lump of metal going 60mph. Thats dangerous in of itself. Doing it carelessly cannot be anything but dangerous.
How this wasn’t considered
How this wasn’t considered dangerous driving by the jury, we’ll never know. I feel so sorry for the family having to deal with this miscarriage of justice.
This incident mirrors exactly the case of a driver on the A31 in Hampshire ten years ago who killed time triallist Lee Martin while texting instead of looking where he was going. The driver was jailed.
Because the legal definitions
Because the legal definitions of careless and dangerous are fucking meaningless. The law surrounding them needs changing so that there’s a actual tangible threshold that we can point to and say that (for example) any intentional act (phone use, speeding, driving impared) is automatic dangerous driving.
The current definitions of “below the required standard” and “well below the required standard” are the reason we see all kinds of insane and intentional dangerous behaviour falling under “careless”. Shit like doing double the speed limit on the wrong side of the road in the fog (one I remember reading here) isn’t “carelesness” is it?
Never mind the legal system,
Never mind the legal system, the spokeperson from Highways England a couple of years back makes it sound like their position is “we really wish we could ban cyclists after we suggested they didn’t ride on our infra but they kept doing so and getting killed. (And the public regularly shows they think it’s a minor matter if not excusable). We don’t think them dying is anything to do with us – and it causes us headaches when it’s on our patch.”
At this rate I feel natural justice calls for changing the driving test: hitting someone during the test or “not deliberately” speeding for less than say a minute shouldn’t be a fail.
If I understand correctly the
If I understand correctly the jury are just laymen so they rely on direction by the professionals in the court. To meet the threshold for conviction enough of them must decide that with the direction they have received “dangerous” or “careless” was the case. Whilst it sounds like common sense I think that precident etc. apply. Only the judge and the lawyers know these critical elements (if they do know them). The direction of the jury is critical and probably it relies upon the prosecution lawyers to point out the relevant precidents and applicability of the specific laws. If the jury are misadvised it should go to appeal. If they are biased it might be best go to appeal.
It’s a sticky wicket and I think most people run out of enthusiasm or funds before justice can be done. CTT or a cycling club had a successful result recently against their liability I read, so there is hope. Should it really be upto the bereaved victims family to pursue this. It’s a tragedy.
I’m not sure it’s precedent
I’m not sure it’s precedent you mean. The precedent is that more or less everybody gets let off with little more than a slap on the wrist, so that’s not going to help much.
Having served on a jury four
Having served on a jury four times now, the judge gives no directions as to what verdict you reach. They merely set out the requirements that define each offence on the charge sheet and therefore what the prosecution must prove. If they didn’t think there was any possibility that the prosecution had made a case then they would simply dismiss the charges without putting it to the jury. Then it comes down to who you believe and how much weight you place on each witness etc. If the judge directs you towards one side or the other too strongly the. They risk the defence asking for a mistrial. I can’t see what more the judge could have done here that didn’t risk a mistrial.
Legal precedent does come in to dangerous driving but not in terms of precedents where a certain type of bad driving is automatically dangerous. The relevant precedent are more around clarifying the definition of the offence – so the need for causation, the fact that the test is objective and the need for the dangerousness of the act to be obvious to a careful and competent driver before it is undertaken.
Pedantry – I believe a judge
Very much agree on the hopeless definition of careless / dangerous.
Pedantry – I believe a judge can indeed direct a jury – not just on points of law / instruction but can direct them to return a verdict! BUT in England and Wales only a not guilty one (e.g. see here). And of course a jury can ignore the judge’s direction (even though politicians keep trying to put a stop to that)!
No doubt there are far greater pedants than me to put me right on the above…
So far the most “reasonable” option (which seems in keeping with the flexibility that those operating courts like to have to decide / consider as they see fit) would seem to be to try and establish a precedent for bringing in a driving test examiner as an expert witness. That would surely be pertinent to the question of “how does the driving relate to the standard of a ‘careful and competent’ driver”. And it shouldn’t prejudice anything – they could be questioned by both sides.
But… someone suggested a technical / procedural reason why it won’t work currently (was it maybe yourself?) which is apparently that we don’t (rule? Precedent?) have expert witnesses where a jury are expected to judge things on their own knowledge. Which apparently applies even when members of the jury don’t all drive (and I don’t think they check?)
Obviously the other reason this isn’t going to fly is that the Crown isn’t going to initiate this and pay / put up with yet another thing which will take time or cause delay for cases. (And as a side effect demand time from driving examiners who are already oversubscribed). Certainly not without more legislation. So we would be in private prosecution territory I guess and that would need someone – probably a series of people – with very deep pockets. And would that change anything in the criminal case world?
Unbelievable. This law is not
Unbelievable. This law is not fit for purpose.
Maybe the simple solution is
Maybe the simple solution is avoid the whole debate about dangerous versus careless driving and charge drivers like this with the crime they’ve obviously committed: manslaughter.
“Manslaughter is primarily committed in one of three ways:
“Killing with the intent for murder but where a partial defence applies, namely loss of control, diminished responsibility or killing pursuant to a suicide pact.
“Conduct that was grossly negligent given the risk of death, and did kill (“gross negligence manslaughter”); and
“Conduct taking the form of an unlawful act involving a danger of some harm that resulted in death (“unlawful and dangerous act manslaughter”).”
It would seem a lot easier for a jury to sort out than what is dangerous and what is careless. Driving without paying any attention to the road would clearly be “conduct that is grossly negligent given the risk of death.”
As someone else noted here, the driver could have just as easily run into a stalled car pulled over on the side of the road and killed an infant (or multiple people) and, in that case, would likley have been charged with manslaughter.
I fear that we would run into
I fear that we would run into the same issue. It seems obvious that looking at your phone and/or for a water bottle is inherently dangerous, and in much the same way we’d say it’s grossly negligent. But would a jury of motorists say the same, particularly when many of them might have done something similar but without someone in their path to kill?
cmedred wrote:
Causing death by dangerous driving was introduced in 1956 because juries were relectant to convict motorists of manslaughter. The current situation is bad, but it used to be much worse.
As many others have said, the
As many others have said, the difference between dangerous and careless driving is arbitrary and flexible, with some cases which are clearly dangerous being classified as careless. The question is, how should things be realigned to make sense?
One way might be to look at the result of the driving: if there is injury or death, it was dangerous, if there was only property damage, it was careless. But that would lead to some dangerous driving being classified as careless because no-one was injured.
Whatever the answer is, it is obvious that the current situation is not supportable by anyone with any sense. I’d love to interview the jury members on this case and try to understand their reasoning.
eburtthebike wrote:
I agree with what you’re saying but currently almost everything gets classified as careless even if there is injury or death so on the whole it could be seen as an improvement as the jury would only be determining if the defendent was driving the vehicle.
Also sounds good… But the
Also sounds good… But the notion of “intent” already seems to have crept in to these cases. Essentially it invites the use of the Incompetence Paradox – yes, the driving wasn’t good “but they didn’t mean to cause harm…” And everyone nods: yes, we know we’ve all driven badly at some point but the cyclist was just unlucky, wrong place wrong time, if only they’d driven rather than cycling they’d have survived…
Or perhaps it’s just “but can you prove the cyclist didn’t just fall off / swerve in front of them”? That can also be coupled to the above e.g. “yes my driving wasn’t perfect but when I rounded a corner on the wrong side of the road being unable to see ahead I clearly had no intent to harm – it was just that the cyclist fell” (rather than presumably suddenly bunny-hopping the car / leaping into a hedge?). See e.g. Helen Measures case / Scottish cases of “driver has no recollection of the incident” [one here].
Or just exploit the feeling of “but really – the cyclist was putting themselves in danger” (perhaps by cycling at night, but really by being there on a bike at all) e.g. the Michael Mason case.
Yes, none of the solutions
Yes, none of the solutions proposed here are perfect but the notion of “intent” is particularly annoying, if there was intent then it is murder with the vehicle as the weapon.
Backladder wrote:
I completely agree, and I believe it’s not in e.g. the instructions regarding the offense. And in fact the “causing death by dangerous / careless” offenses were created to try to get round the perception of “but no intent to harm”. (Well – the parliamentary debates note that people just wouldn’t convict for murder in cases of road death – and some of the parliamentarians agreed that would have been wrong).
…it’s just that this seems to be people’s perception/feeling – as demonstrated in what evidence is put before courts and how in reported cases, and how the jury then find the accused.
Can I have a turn on the jury
Can I have a turn on the jury, please, pretty please!
At least the CPS went to
At least the CPS went to trial for dangerous rather than just accept the plea for careless…
Many years back I caught a little bbc2 10 minuter where they interview a convict in prison, he’d killed four people in a car, one pregnant, by ignoring what was right in front of him while attempting to get a mint out of his jacket on the back seat. He could not understand why he’d been convicted of “dangerous” and steadfastly refused to believe that what he’d done could be dangerous.
And Gary Hart, who killed 10 people on a train when he fell asleep when towing a land/range rover on the motorway never accepted that his actions were dangerous.
There is a vast difference
There is a vast difference between Careless and Dangerous driving.
Its all down to the mitigating factors involved in the offence and the actions of the driver before the collision or incident.
Careless is the lower end of the offence spectrum. This is where you are driving a vehicle and then by the act of being careless, you have a collision. Careless is an act that anyone can make in a moment of misdirection, ie, you look away from the road for a second, you are distracted by anything in or outside the vehicle. And…. you have no intent to cause the incident with any pre meditated malice.
ie, you drop a saucer and it brakes whilst you are walking to the kitchen. You are careless.
Dangerous however is a much higher level of actions. The driver of the vehicle must be shown to be acting in a series of events prior to the collision that escalate the actions from careless to Dangerous. The actions of the driver being that they all constituted to the level of the offence being upgraded. Ie the driver was well above the speed limit for the road, was previously tailgating other vehicles and undertaking them, running a red light and then having the collision.
As you can see the dangerous driver was committing a series of events prior to the collision that can upgrade the offence to Dangerous and not therefore be Careless.
ie, you are mad after having an argument with your partner. You go into the kitchen shouting and swearing and open the cupboard door and take out all the saucers and smash them. Thats dangerous due to all the pre mitigating circumstances.
ITS NOT ABOUT WHAT THE OUTCOME WAS, ITS ABOUT THE PRECEEDING ACTIONS.
Vlad the Impailer wrote:
From the article.
Half a mile at 60mph is 30 seconds. Straight road with good visibility. Are you saying not paying attention for 30 seconds is careless and not dangerous?
Vlad the Impailer wrote:
Exactly. And in this case the preceeding actions were that the driver was voluntarily controlling a 4,000 pound killing machine at 60mph in a manner that was murderously indifferent to human life. I.e., dangerous driving.
A cone arguing the difference
A cone arguing the difference when someone loses their life when it was easily avoided is a jerk .This guy claiming hexwas clearing bbq pic notifications is a liar as well as a killer .If you admit you have taken another person’s life because the notifications were more important than a life you have taken yiu should get minimum 10 years ,the family have a life sentence forever
Kerist, what a shattering
Kerist, what a shattering blow that must have been for her husband, on the same event.
I drive, I have a phone, if it rings, I ignore it and pull in at a layby. If it’s somebody I want to talk to I’ll call them back. Phones don’t rule my life.
Wtf is it with morons and phones?
Regarding the jury, it’s all too often the mindset of “It could have been me fiddling with my phone, let’s show him some clemency”. Quite overlooking the fact that driving safety comes first, not their shiny-thing attraction.
Bastards, every one of them.