A Porsche driver who sent a text to a friend to say he was ‘hungover’ from a party the evening before shortly before hitting and killing a cyclist has been found not guilty by a jury of causing death by dangerous driving.
James Bryan, aged 37, was driving back to Harrogate, North Yorkshire, from a barbecue in Wilmslow, Cheshire to drop off groceries for his parents when he struck and killed 36-yeasr-old cyclist Andrew Jackson on the A168 between Wetherby and Boroughbridge on the afternoon of 10 May 2020, reports The Stray Ferret.
At the time, England was in national lockdown (some restrictions would be lifted three days later), with people told to stay at home, other than for daily exercise, essential shopping, medical needs, caring for a vulnerable person, or undertaking key jobs that could not be carried out from home.
Prosecuting, Anne Richardson told York Crown Court that Bryan, who had already pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of causing death by careless driving, was suspected of having used his mobile phone to send and receive messages and review social media in the moments leading up to the fatal crash.
She said that analysis of his phone showed that it was unlocked when he struck Mr Jackson from behind in his Porsche Carrera 911, and that his Facebook and Instagram accounts were both open, and that Bryan – who denied using his phone while driving – must have been “distracted” given that the cyclist was clearly visible.
The previous evening, Bryan had been drinking and also took cocaine at a barbecue in Wilmslow – more than 50 miles from his home in Harrogate, and while traces of the latter were found in his system when he was tested after the crash, he did not return a positive result for excessive levels of either that drug or alcohol.
“The front of the Porsche collided with the rear of Mr Jackson’s bike and Andrew Jackson came off his bike, went up in the air and hit his head on the windscreen and roof of the car, and landed on the road behind the car,” said Ms Richardson, who insisted that Bryan’s standard of driving would have been impaired by the effects of the alcohol and drugs he had taken the night before.
She also said that he “wasn’t looking at the road ahead of him” when he hit Mr Jackson, who died at the scene from head injuries sustained in the crash and was pronounced dead by an off-duty intensive-care consultant who stopped at the scene.
The court heard that during the barbecue, Bryan had sent a message to a friend in which he said, “I’m so drunk I can’t see,” and in another message sent on his way back to North Yorkshire from Cheshire, he told another friend he was hungover from the night before.
When interviewed by police, Bryan insisted that Mr Jackson “came out of nowhere” and had veered into his path as he overtook him, a claim repeated in court by defence counsel Sophia Dower, who insisted that her client was in a “fit and proper state” to drive and that he “didn’t have time to react.”
However, a police collision investigator said that a reconstruction of the incident showed that Mr Jackson had been riding along the edge of the road, close to the grass verge, and that the driver had not attempted to move around the rider.
In a statement released on Friday afternoon after the jury cleared Bryan of causing death by dangerous driving, Mr Jackson’s family said: “The outcome from today doesn’t change anything for us; we are still learning to live with the gaping hole in our lives left by Andrew.
“However, it is important we were here to represent Andrew, to get justice for him and to show just how much he is still loved and missed.
“We all deserve to feel safe on our roads and to make it home to our loved ones,” the family added.
“We respectfully ask for time and space for our family to process the events of this week as we continue to grieve for our husband, father, son and friend.”
Bryan is due to be sentenced on the causing death by careless driving charge on Friday 21 October.

79 thoughts on “Jury clears ‘hungover’ Porsche driver of killing cyclist by dangerous driving”
Wow! If this catalogue isn’t
Wow! If this catalogue isn’t dangerous, what could possibly be? I feel so sorry for the person on a bicycle and their friends and family. Maybe the driver should have been charged with “wanton and furious” as it seems you can actually get convicted of that occasionally.
What we need is a review of all traffic offenses. I seem to remember a government suggesting that at some point in the past?
Seventyone wrote:
I was going to mention the comprehensive review of road laws promised by this government all those years ago, but I’m rather bored of repeating it.
So many apparently “different
So many apparently “different” governments since then though…
ktache wrote:
I almost look back on them with some fondness, compared to this latest round of asset-strippers
It’s in poor taste to be
It’s in poor taste to be pining for a Vintage Thatcher so soon. Or even for Thatcher Blair, David “Blue Blair” Cameron, Theresa “Go home” May (remember her?) …
Given the Autumn of Discontent we seem to be in a couple of weeks should see everyone outside of bankers and tech billionaires with you though.
But thank god we avoided the
But thank god we avoided the chaos of Ed Milliband…
“who had already pleaded
“who had already pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of causing death by careless driving”
What exactly is the mitigtion for dangerous driving during the major lockdown ?
Agree, the “lockdown” and
Agree, the “lockdown” and “drove to barbecue to get trashed on booze and coke” would seem incompatible. Alas we’ll never know since the jury rejected the charge. The only effect this had was to make the conservative CPS give it a go. Might have had an effect on sentencing? It wouldn’t surprise me if the legal system refused to join those dots while allowing mitigation of “but he had to get back because he had to drive to help parents with groceries”…
Leaving aside the fact our masters were setting precedents for driving at the time (including travelling after being diagnosed with Covid) and throwing parties.
My first thought was “hungover = still pissed”. Lots of people still really haven’t got that message e.g. “but it was the next day!”. Dunno when they did the drugs and alcohol testing. Sad waste of a life by selfish behaviour. Another strange case of how willing the legal system is to ignore many dangerous or illegal actions by drivers if you just say “the cyclist swerved in front of me”.
I presume the fact that he
I presume the fact that he should not have been driving does not bear legally on the question of how he was driving. However do think it paints a picture of his character, as one who believes the rules don’t apply to him. Drive during lockdown, drive whilst hungover from alcohol – and drugs, use phone whilst driving, and so on. I guess he sees all those things as petty restrictions to be observed by lesser people. I suspect even now he fails to join the dots, and just thinks it was bad luck on him that a cyclist got in his way. The problem was the cyclist.
Re “hungover = still pissed”,
Re “hungover = still pissed”, I do recall that many years ago (I don’t know if this is still the case) Lanc.s police would occasionally set up an early-morning breathalyser site on the A6 just outside Preston specifically to catch those still over the drink-drive limit from the previous night’s drinking.
I know that road well and
I know that road well and avoid it like the plague, as it is playground for people driving the usual suspects (Audi, BMW etc). The only and last time I rode on it I got a deliberate close pass from a Jag (presumably a punishment pass for spoiling his fun). I know other cyclists who have been hit on the stretch of road.
As for a not guilty verdit for dangerous driving words fail me (at least printable ones). I only hope that when he is sentenced for the lesser charge the judge takes into account the fact that he lied to the court about hi phone usage and trying to blame the cyclist, and throws everything at him that the law allows (probably wishful thinking on my part).
Hard to express how furious
Hard to express how furious this sort of ridiculous verdict makes me. Police.uk defines dangerous driving as:
How is driving when massively hungover from drink and drugs, with your phone open, and ploughing into a cyclist in broad daylight without deviating from your course at all not “far below the minimum standard”? I really think it might be time to consider, as in France, removing the right to jury trial (replacing them with a tribunal of legal experts) for all but the most serious offences; time and again juries deliver verdicts that seem too bear no relation whatsoever to the facts presented to them. This is especially obvious in motoring cases where the fact that normally 8 out of 12 of the jury will be motorists themselves quite clearly presents a bias problem.
RIP Andrew and sincere condolences to his loved ones.
My deepest sympathies to the
My deepest sympathies to the family an friends of Andrew Jackson, my thoughts are with you.
It would appear that the jury decided to believe the lies that both the cyclist “came out of nowhere” and “swerved in front of me” from someone who never used his phone in the car, yet was quite obviously using his phone while driving. Crash investigator didn’t see any indication of an effort to overtake. Let alone the cocaine use and lockdown rule breaking.
I cannot find anything that
I cannot find anything that allows a bbq with your parents. You could provide them with shopping but nothing beyond that.
hirsute wrote:
From the linked report the barbecue was a separate event not connected to his parents, he was on his way home from the barbecue (50 miles from home!) and going to get shopping for his parents on the way back, so even more inexcusable. Both would have been against the regulations, but you could understand someone saying I took my parents some shopping, they were barbecuing in the back garden so I stopped for a quick burger. This specimen thought he was entitled to drive 50 miles for a social event – at a time when people couldn’t say goodbye to their dying parents – and drive back still clearly under the influence of the drink and drugs he’d taken (I don’t care that he was under the limit at the time he was tested, he could’ve been over the limit at the time of the incident or a few minutes before, and in any case, he clearly shouldn’t have been driving. I’m fond of a pint or two and when I used to ride motorcycles I wouldn’t go out on one for a full 24 hours after a good party to be on the safe side).
I never understand why the
I never understand why the “came out of nowhere” defence is not automatically self-incriminating. Stage illusionists make a living out of this stuff by forcing us to suspend disbelief, and yet it is accepted at face value in court.
It’s the incompetence paradox
It’s the incompetence paradox, isn’t it? “My client – a careful, previously blameless driver – made a mistake / was momentarily overwhelmed by circumstances / just had an unlucky day. So therefore they didn’t mean it. So it must have been an accident. Which of us, hand on heart, is a perfect driver? Who hasn’t made a mistake? Who hasn’t seen worse from other drivers every day…”
Nobody is a perfect driver,
Nobody is a perfect driver, we have all made a mistake. But making a mistake, and killing a cyclist by ploughing into them at enough speed to kill them instantly, whilst recovering from heavy drinking and drug taking, throwing in to the mix proof that using a phone whilst driving is most definitely not in the same league as making a mistake.
I suppose the verdict is a
I suppose the verdict is a consequence of what “a reasonable person” would think;[i] a bit the worse for wear, but not actually over the limit, glancing at the phone – who doesn’t? I’m sure I have done as much, he just got unlucky.[/i]
Sriracha wrote:
Precisely, that’s why I would advocate (as I mentioned below) moving to the French system of having a tribunal of experts judge cases, not juries. In too many cases juries are clearly returning verdicts that have more to do with the way they think they would like to be treated (as you correctly say, “just a bit of bad luck, could’ve happened to anyone”) if they were caught doing the same rather than the law and the evidence as presented to them.
I’m not sure that would be
I’m not sure that would be any better. The 3 magistrates who decided my close passer was not guilty completely ignored the fact that the prosecution got her to admit she was too close.
As much as it pains me to say it, this case shows why prosecutors try to get death by careless driving instead of death by dangerous driving as they know from experience the car driving jury will be idiots.
NOtotheEU wrote:
Oh I have been there and then some, my worst close pass offender (https://road.cc/content/news/cyclist-almost-run-down-impatient-peugeot-driver-281267) was acquitted because the magistrates bought his story that I suddenly swerved in front of him from two metres away when he was doing 30mph (leaving him a physically impossible reaction/response/action time of around 0.2 of a second), despite the fact that the video clearly proved he didn’t arrive in my space until three seconds after I began manouevering.
However, in France the judges on the tribunal (usually three) are fully qualified legal experts, very unlike our system of amateur magistrates; applicants for places (which are hotly contested) are usually already in the legal profession, must be over thirty and:
The competitive examination is considered quite difficult and has two parts. The written part of the examination includes the drafting of a general education paper on a social, legal, political, economic, philosophical and/or cultural issue in French society; a civil or civil procedure law paper; a civil or civil procedure practical case; a criminal or criminal procedure law paper; a criminal or criminal law practical case; and several questions aimed at evaluating the candidate’s knowledge of the State and the justice system, public liberties, and public law. Candidates who pass the written examination then take a variety of oral examinations, including an interview with the examining board, with topics including European and private international law, social and commercial law, and a foreign language (English, German, Arabic, Spanish, Italian or Russian).
If they pass then the prospective judges have to undertake three years of intensive full-time education at the Ecole Nationale de la Magistrature in Bordeaux (and many testing examinations) before they can qualify to hear cases, rather different to our own system.
Rendel Harris wrote:
Ah yes, your famous closest pass. Didn’t most posters agree it was your fault? . . . . . . . . . . or possibly one poster just kept repeating it, I forget. ???
It would be interesting to know if the French system ends up with fairer outcomes.
It was primarily just one
It was primarily just one poster…… and I don’t think you want to associate yourself with him.
NOtotheEU wrote:
I have seen stats (though unfortunately can’t recall where) showing that inquisitorial systems have lower rates of miscarriages of justice than adversarial ones, but I don’t know any specific figures for France.
I’m with you for specific
I’m with you for specific categories of offenses. Is that a leap too far for our legal system though? Also I’m not sure it’ll solve the problem on its own – after all the judge is a driver (or is driven around) and the “standard” is hopelessly vague! Until recently I was optimistic about the idea of being more precise in these cases. So explicitly linking the offenses to what you’re licenced to do rather than “do you think they’re a good driver?” subjectivity. That means bring in the driving examiners and have direction along the lines of “if it’d fail a driving test it cannot be considered safe driving”.
I was hopeful as this could be more in line with the current system because their evidence could still be questioned. However there was a recent case here where IIRC there was a collision investigator called who spelled it out in evidence but that still didn’t go anywhere.
So weird… Doing something
So weird… Doing something that kills a person deemed not dangerous.
I think the focus on drink,
I think the focus on drink, drugs and texting is missing the most important point.
If you are unable to react to a cyclist just proceeding along the road and you drive straight into them then that is indeed ‘far below’ the standard of a careful and competent driver. Should be automatically found guilty just from that alone.
hawkinspeter wrote:
it seems that this jury disagrees with you
1) straight road cyclist visible
2) text “I am hungover and can’t see LOL” shortly before the crash
3) facebook and whatsapp open at time of crash
4) tried to claim single witness suicide swerve but disproved by forensics
5) claimed cyclist came out of nowhere, this alone is proof he wasn’t looking. People do not beam down onto the roads, if you think they came out of nowhere it’s because you weren’t looking properly
Short of actually being drunk at the time it’s had to see how this could be worse, and yet this is not considered to be far below the level of a safe and competent driver.
I think juries consider death by careless to be sufficient punishment for any “accident”
So true – it’s like: “Oops,
So true – it’s like: “Oops, just ran over a cyclist. That was careless”.
The jury should be ashamed of
The jury should be ashamed of themselves.
So much of this just doesn’t stack up. The A168 is the old A1, it runs parallel to the newer road and I cannot understand why you would take that route over the main road during lockdown when traffic would have been light.
It’s also NOT on the way back from Wilmslow to Harrogate. His testimony is full of holes.
HoarseMann wrote:
Because it’s a fun road to speed on with your fancy sports car.
The jury should be ashamed of
The jury should be ashamed of themselves. The family need to, and should, appeal this decision.
The driver should be jailed and banned from driving for life, not let off like this.
biker phil wrote:
Unfortunately you can’t appeal a not guilty verdict as it would amount to double jeapordy, once the jury have found someone not guilty that’s that. In a limited number of crimes (murder, rape, terrorism) a sentence (but not a verdict) may be appealed if the appellant feels it’s too lenient, but that doesn’t apply to road traffic cases. The only way this excrescence could face another trial would be if new evidence emerged showing he’d perjured himself, e.g. if he boasted on social media that actually yes he had been looking at his phone.
Key factors: Causing death by
Key factors: Causing death by careless or inconsiderate driving
The following guideline applies to a “first-time offender” aged 18 or over convicted after trial.
When assessing the seriousness of any offence, the court must always refer to the full list of aggravating and mitigating factors in the Council guideline on Seriousness [now replaced by the General guideline] as well as those set out in the guideline as being particularly relevant to this type of offending behaviour.
Disqualification of the offender from driving and endorsement of the offender’s driving licence are mandatory, and the offence carries between 3 and 11 penalty points when the court finds special reasons for not imposing disqualification. There is a discretionary power to order an extended driving test where a person is convicted of this offence.
Since the maximum sentence has been set at 5 years imprisonment, the sentence ranges are generally lower for this offence than for the offences of causing death by dangerous driving or causing death by careless driving under the influence, for which the maximum sentence is 14 years imprisonment. However, it is unavoidable that some cases will be on the borderline between dangerous and careless driving, or may involve a number of factors that significantly increase the seriousness of an offence. As a result, the guideline for this offence identifies three levels of seriousness, the range for the highest of which overlaps with ranges for the lowest level of seriousness for causing death by dangerous driving.
The three levels of seriousness are defined by the degree of carelessness involved in the standard of driving. The most serious level for this offence is where the offender’s driving fell not that far short of dangerous. The least serious group of offences relates to those cases where the level of culpability is low – for example in a case involving an offender who misjudges the speed of another vehicle, or turns without seeing an oncoming vehicle because of restricted visibility. Other cases will fall into the intermediate level.
The starting point for the most serious offence of causing death by careless driving is lower than that for the least serious offence of causing death by dangerous driving in recognition of the different standards of driving behaviour. However, the range still leaves scope, within the 5 year maximum, to impose longer sentences where the case is particularly serious.
Where the level of carelessness is low and there are no aggravating factors, even the fact that death was caused is not sufficient to justify a prison sentence.
A fine is unlikely to be an appropriate sentence for this offence; where a non-custodial sentence is considered appropriate, this should be a community order. The nature of the requirements will be determined by the purpose identified by the court as of primary importance. Requirements most likely to be relevant include unpaid work requirement, activity requirement, programme requirement and curfew requirement.
Personal mitigation
Sentencers should take into account relevant matters of personal mitigation; in particular:
Good driving record
This is not a factor that automatically should be treated as a mitigating factor, especially now that the presence of previous convictions is a statutory aggravating factor. However, any evidence to show that an offender has previously been an exemplary driver, for example having driven an ambulance, police vehicle, bus, taxi or similar vehicle conscientiously and without incident for many years, is a fact that the courts may well wish to take into account by way of personal mitigation. This is likely to have even greater effect where the driver is driving on public duty (for example, on ambulance, fire services or police duties) and was responding to an emergency.
Giving assistance at the scene
There may be many reasons why an offender does not offer help to the victims at the scene – the offender may be injured, traumatised by shock, afraid of causing further injury or simply have no idea what action to take – and it would be inappropriate to assess the offence as more serious on this ground (and so increase the level of sentence). However, where an offender gave direct, positive, assistance to victim(s) at the scene of a collision, this should be regarded as personal mitigation.
Remorse
Whilst it can be expected that anyone who has caused death by driving would be expected to feel remorseful, this cannot undermine its importance for sentencing purposes. Remorse is identified as personal mitigation in the Council guideline and the Council can see no reason for it to be treated differently for this group of offences. It is for the court to determine whether an expression of remorse is genuine; where it is, this should be taken into account as personal mitigation.
Well, we don’t know what his
Well, we don’t know what his sentence was yet, do we – sentencing 21st October.
” Howeve”r, any evidence to
” Howeve”r, any evidence to show that an offender has previously been an exemplary driver, for example having driven an ambulance, police vehicle, bus, taxi or similar vehicle”
Incredible, that this low low bar can be seen as a mitigating factor, In my experience many of the worst drivers out there are taxi drivers.
Apparently the evidence shows
Apparently the evidence shows the opposite:
From [b]dicklexic[/b] above:
[I]A Yorkshire Post article prior to the trial stated this…
The jury will also be shown CCTV footage of an incident in 2018 when Mr Bryan was filmed appearing distracted at the wheel and sent a Notice of Intended Prosecution.[/i]
If suggest that it would be a
I’d suggest that it would be a combination of culturally anti-cyclist (cyclist shouldn’t have been on a straight road, asking for it) combined with confusing directions on what constitutes far below. If this combination of contempt for road safety cannot achieve a conviction then it is about time the law was clarified. After all, if a cyclist hits a pedestrian the powers that be think they should be hung drawn and quartered yet car drivers do this all the time with little consequence. Next we will see whether the judge has the cojones to apply the maximum sentence for death by careless given the complete lack of candour, lack of acceptance of fault and disregard for common human decency in valuing others over their appalling behaviour.
This is an appalling outcome.
This is an appalling outcome. My sympathies are with the family of the victim.
OldRidgeback wrote:
Don’t forget he can still get five years (minus minimum 10% for guilty plea) for the admitted death by careless driving, so hopefully he’ll at least do some time, though clearly not enough.
Don’t forget he can still get
Don’t forget he can still get five years (minus minimum 10% for guilty plea) for the admitted death by careless driving
But he won’t. My guess is 6 months inside, but out in 3
1/3rd off if he pled guilty
1/3rd off if he pled guilty at earliest opportunity.
my guess is 8 months
What is it about juries that
What is it about juries that they believe the statements of a man who has confessed to breaking the law by driving during lockdown, and by taking illegal drugs; he isn’t what you’d call a good witness for himself, but they still believe him when he says that the cyclist “came out of nowhere.” A statement so facile that no rational person could give it the slightest credit, and it could only be viewed as a confession, but still they believed him.
I’m beginning to think that I can see why the human race is about to inflict extinction on itself.
If his parents were
If his parents were vulnerable then that was an exception to collect groceries for them.
hirsute wrote:
But not in the course of a fifty mile drive home from a barbeque.
Looks like the party was the
Looks like the party was the law breaking – I don’t suppose it matters too much where you start from for the shopping (assuming the shopping bit was true).
If only our lords and masters
If only our lords and masters (and others with an important public role in this) had set everyone a clear example of appropriate behaviour… [1] [2]
Rendel Harris wrote:
How about for an eye test?
My biggest issue is we accept
My biggest issue is we accept the combination of (to paraphrase) “they came out of nowhere”, “I didn’t see them” and ‘they swerved out in front of me so I couldn’t react”.
Except the first 2 are incompatible with the third. If you didn’t see them until the last moment how do you know they swerved;
qwerty360 wrote:
Exactly. I’m really surprised that the prosecution failed to seize on this obvious contradiction / lie.
A Yorkshire Post article
A Yorkshire Post article prior to the trial stated this…
The jury will also be shown CCTV footage of an incident in 2018 when Mr Bryan was filmed appearing distracted at the wheel and sent a Notice of Intended Prosecution.
So I wonder if this was actually shown. It suggests that Mr Bryan ‘has previous’ for innatentive driving and putting people’s lives at risk. Yet the jury was still happy to beleive his version of events. This is a REALLY dissapointing outcome, and I have the utmost sympathy for Andrew Jackson’s family and friends.
I guess all we can do now is hope that Mr Bryan gets the fullest possible sentence. I expect to be dissapointed yet again come the 21st October.
I don’t think it will be a
I don’t think it will be a case of believing his version of events. Jurors are given direction, and also they have defence lawyers muddying the water. Given the definition of dangerous driving created by case law being almost entirely unrelated to driving dangerously, the jury may have felt he was as guity as sin, but not guilty of dangerous driving as explained to them by the judge, especially knowing that the fallback of careless was available. It is not clear whether the jury found him guilty of careless driving or the defence submitted a plea of accepting careless driving but the prosecution went ahead with the case.
Don’t forget it’s beyond
Don’t forget it’s beyond reasonable doubt too, not on the balance of probabilities.
IanMSpencer wrote:
In the linked article it states the accused had already pleaded guilty to careless driving. The jury were directed to consider a single issue; could it be proved beyond reasonable doubt that he was using his phone at the moment of the collision. Apparently, that would be the crucial test as to whether his driving was dangerous.
This to me seems ridiculous. The fact he was using his phone to send messages whilst driving prior to the collision, which was not contested, clearly showed his driving was dangerous. The stretch of road where the collision occurred has such good visibility that it is impossible for a cyclist to ‘come out of nowhere’. Those two facts should have seen a guilty verdict in my view.
“However, he had already
“However, he had already admitted causing death by careless driving and will be sentenced for that offence in October.”
From the linked article, it
From the linked article, it would very much seem to be a case of believing the driver (Mr Bryan’s) version of events (or at least not excluding his version of events beyond reasonable doubt).
From the details given, it sounds like the jury were essentially instructed to decide between two versions of events:
One (the driver’s) in which the driver was watching the road ahead, went to overtake the cyclist, and as he did so the cyclist swerved out in front of him.
Or two, the driver ploughed straight into the back of the cyclist (who was cycling in a normal manner at the side of the road) having entirely failed to see the cyclist due to being distracted looking at his phone.
Forensic analysis of Mr Bryan’s phone showed that it was unlocked in the moments before the crash and the Instagram and Facebook apps were open.
An accident investigator who carried out a reconstruction of the accident said the bike was not in the middle of the road, but on the edge of the carriageway, near a grass verge, and that Mr Bryan had not tried to move around the bicycle.
The Jury believed version one (or at least had “reasonable doubt” over version two).
These kind of legal
These kind of legal injustices alsmot makes one wish for a Iain Banks Complicity style equaliser to balance the scales again…
Quote:
I don’t know what the answer is. When 90% of the population see no issue with these sort of driving “transgressions” (distraction, phone use, being a little hung over, speeding, ect), you’re not going to get a jury to agree to throw the book at someone for doing what they do every day.
Quote:
Maybe this is due to most of my assumptions about the legal process being based on what I see on TV, but I was under the impression that your’re under oath when giving evidence in court in the UK. Can someone explain to me why Mr Bryan and Ms Dower aren’t now facing a seperate trial for perjury?
BalladOfStruth wrote:
Lawyers are not under oath and cannot be charged with perjury for presenting the facts as reported to them by their client, even if the client is ultimately shown to be lying. The only way a lawyer can get in trouble in this situation is if it can be shown that they absolutely knew the client was lying (e.g., if the client said to them, what I’m going to say in court isn’t true, I did actually do it).
In terms of Bryan, the bar for perjury is pretty high, it has to be proved that the defendant absolutely knew that what he was saying was untrue; he can argue that in his recollection he pulled out to overtake and it would be the job of a prosecutor to prove that he was deliberately lying, rather than misremembering.
Additionally, it’s very rare for a defendant to be prosecuted for perjury following a guilty verdict (which there is here, albeit not for the dangerous driving charge); it’s generally accepted that the sentence is sufficient punishment. It simply wouldn’t be practical to charge every defendant who doesn’t tell the truth with perjury, by definition virtually anyone who pleads not guilty to an offence and is then found guilty must have lied in some way about what happened, if every guilty person had to face new charges of perjury the court system would grind to a halt almost immediately.
But if Bryan did see the
But if Bryan did see the cyclist then he would have moved to overtake him, giving as much clearance as if he were overtaking a car, precisely to allow for any unforseen deviation by the cyclist? So this has nothing to do with the cyclist “veering” (or not), and everything to do with Bryan driving dangerously.
Sriracha wrote:
I don’t disagree with any of that, it’s pretty self evident that Bryan didn’t make any adjustment for the cyclist and that he is very likely lying about it, I’m just pointing out how difficult it is to actually establish such facts in a court of law. My personal view is that if the courts had any sense he wouldn’t even be charged with death by dangerous driving but with involuntary manslaughter (“an individual who has committed an unlawful killing without an intention to cause grievous bodily harm or kill the victim, causing the death by recklessness or gross negligence instead. In this case, recklessness is defined as committing an unlawful or dangerous act whilst showing disregard to the potential consequences”) but sadly we have this ridiculous system whereby acts committed whilst behind the wheel of a car are somehow exempt from the laws governing every other area of life.
I think the facts were
I think the facts were established by the expert witness, who would have been cross-examined to prove the veracity of his explanation. The jury would have probably given very little weight to the excuses of a cocaine user breaking lock-down and making up implausible explanations. From the few times I’ve been to court, the barristers are quite good at teasing out facts in a way that it is obvious where the truth lies. Unfortunately, in court reporting, the excuses get publicised with very little of the nuances, and give the impression that the case for or against reported part way through are accepted facts of a case.
Trying to look at this
Trying to look at this objectively, I can’t help feel the prosecution made an error focusing on the whole ‘fit to drive’ angle. The driver passed a breathaliser test and the levels of cocaine in his system were within permitted levels. Objectively, legally speaking, he was fit to drive, therefore, including this as part of the prosecutions case is likely to dilute the impact of other elements put forward, namely;
– the use of mobile phone at the time of the impact. That seems to have been demonstrated fairly conclusively
– the demonstrable lie made in defence that the cyclist had deviated.
Additionally, it doesn’t matter that any of this took place under lock down, and that he’d been breaking lockdown laws the day before and probably whilst in the car at the time of the incident. I’m sure the jury will have been told to dismiss any reference to this and focus only on the standard of driving at the time of the impact.
Again, any use by the prosecution of his disregard of lockdown rules will dilute the impact of the fact that he was on the phone and basically admitted he didn’t see the cyclist that was there to be seen.
Too much mud thrown at the wall, hoping something would stick, however the truly sticky stuff slid off with the weak, watery crap added into the mix.
The more I read about these cases, the more I believe its less about a blatantly anti-cyclist juries, and more about poorly constructed prosecutions… probably because those prosecuting are anti-cyclist, lol.
Quote:
This phrase is used a lot in connection with cyclists. I know it’s a complete cop-out, but it’s too common for there not to be some cognitive reason that people perceive cyclists to appear from nowhere. Is it simple lack of attention? They see nothing until they hear the impact, therefore the brain reasons that the object simply materialised from nothing?
srchar wrote:
This phrase is used a lot in connection with cyclists. I know it’s a complete cop-out, but it’s too common for there not to be some cognitive reason that people perceive cyclists to appear from nowhere. Is it simple lack of attention? They see nothing until they hear the impact, therefore the brain reasons that the object simply materialised from nothing?
It’s simply that the drivers aren’t paying sufficient attention to the road in front of them and/or just looking for large car shaped objects. It absolutely should not be allowed as anything other than an admission of carelessness as you would surely fail a driving test if you failed to see a potential hazard.
Just this.
Just this.
I don’t see this fact changing while there’s mass motoring. Attention / “arousal” is a limited resource in humans. How most people drive daily and “how to pass your test” are quite different; practice makes habit. Also there are relatively few encounters with cyclists. That means that people are not continually primed to be looking out for them and (even if trained) that habit lapses fast. (Hence the reason for those “think bike” motorbike signs etc.)
Fixing – better training might help but I bet we’d soon hit a point of diminishing returns. “Remove the bad drivers” doesn’t stop this happening as everyone is careless at some point. If there were more cyclists that might cue drivers to look out for them. However we need to activate the virtuous circle – to get those extra cyclists AND to control interactions to make them safer we need help from engineering e.g. best practice infrastructure. (That has very little in common with most current UK “cycle infra”).
chrisonatrike wrote:
I was close passed last week, by some twunt with a “Think bike” sticker in his back window
hawkinspeter wrote:
Driver did plead guilty to death by careless driving, but the fact they were hungover and on the phone shoudl have escalated it to dangerous.
Although here we have another cyclist, who by all eyewitness acounts, was there to be seen, yet still “came out of nowhere” and the police refused to prosecute, and a private prosecution failed as a jury of drivers accepted not seeing a cyclist directly in front of the drivers position was reasonable for a careful and competant driver.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-39516607
srchar wrote:
This phrase is used a lot in connection with cyclists. I know it’s a complete cop-out, but it’s too common for there not to be some cognitive reason that people perceive cyclists to appear from nowhere. Is it simple lack of attention? They see nothing until they hear the impact, therefore the brain reasons that the object simply materialised from nothing?
I can understand the phrase in situations where the person has only a partial view of the way ahead and proceeds on the assumption that if another vehicle were present then they would see at least part of it, ignoring the possibility of pedestrians or cyclists being completely concealed. Their brain pastes in the gaps in their view with empty space, so when a cyclist then appears it is as if from nowhere. Similarly with constant angle junctions.
However in this case it was a straight road, possibly with no other cars (lockdown, eh?) Was he only glancing ahead intermittently whilst absorbed in his phone screen, satisfying himself that the way ahead was clear as far as the eye can see (too far to notice a cyclist) before returning attention to his phone screen?
Good point. Phone / device
Good point. Phone / device use (of any kind) while driving increases risk. Being so common it might be that this is now one of the biggest contributors to extra risk overall – does anyone have numbers? Might even have surpassed drink / drug driving?
The numbers would be
The numbers would be difficult to ascertain, addicts will always deny use, requires forensic analysis.
And in both this case and the 30 second one a bit ago, there was apparently no phone use in relation to the crash. (Though of course there was)
To be honest, I’m seeing a little less blatent screening by motorists in traffic. Still some, how can they not! But not the multiples in a row.
Brains are part of the
Brains are part of the problem, they have not evolved to do the job that is being asked of them, they don’t multi-task, they don’t process data accurately, they don’t alert you to error situations, they hide those. Which means that when doing tasks, you have to learn how to manage the limitations of the hardware.
Instead, we have people who would rather believe that they can achieve the impossible, partly because their own brain hides from them the amount of times it fails.
I’ve become increasingly conscious of how small distractions decrease the quality of my driving, yet normally I am amazed at the sheer quantity of data you can gather when you are paying attention, useless stuff like the cars around you where you recognise a boring silver car passing you that you overtook without incident 50 miles before.
Fundamentally, these crimes are judged against the low expectations of a typical driver rather than those of a reasonable, competent driver.
Another thing I’ve said before, the driving test is not really the minimum standard we need for driving. The advanced driving standard should be the criteria that everyone is judged by. It is not advanced, it is careful driving, observation, techniques for judging appropriate speed, how to overtake safely, setting safety above progress, etc. I’m struggling to think of anything in the Roadcraft manual that would be inappropriate or undesirable for any driver.
So careless driving could include driving that would not see a test failure, effectively the minor on a test, a dangerous criteria would be a major, for starters. So for example, why should going through a red light in a car be a minor offence, why shouldn’t it be an instant charge of dangerous driving?
IanMSpencer wrote:
With you here. I fail to understand many of these court decisions (or even the police simply not bothering the courts).
However in some senses the juries are simply relecting the reality of driving – they’re just siding with the “winners” and the status quo. We’d need to stop a *lot* of drivers driving immediately if we enforced careful competent driving at the level of the advanced driver. We have lots of “average” (poor) drivers – or driving – with people habituated to cut corners and bend rules, frequently driving while tired or in states of “low arousal” or distracted. There’s no routine monitoring of their standard – or even their basic health. Phone use seems pretty normal. Vehicles are sold with built in distractions and “blind spots”. All happening on our current infra which is not effective at managing drivers’ speeds and lacks some basic safety considerations. Oh, and is in no way is suitable for most people to cycle on with those drivers.
I doubt any one change (e.g. to law) could do much in isolation. Although some journeys could “evaporate” requiring a better standard would mean we need to provide alternatives for the large proportion of people who wouldn’t meet this. On the plus side – reducing motor vehicle journeys by them helps everyone else!
Always careless when a
Always careless when a cyclist is hit. Because they literally couldn’t care less.
jailed for 9months, banned
jailed for 9months, banned from driving for 28.5 months, must take an extended driving test.
https://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/23068082.porsche-driver-james-bryan-jailed-killing-father-of-two-andrew-jackson-cycle-ride/
Notably had previously avoided a prosecution for not being in proper control of his car (its often used for mobile phone use) by taking a course, and had speeding convictions prior to and post this incident.
Awavey wrote:
I wonder if they will punish him properly next time he kills a cyclist?
The previous story in the
The previous story in the same publication. Man jailed for 5 years for punching someone who died later.
https://www.yorkpress.co.uk/news/23069291.benjamin-calvert-jailed-killing-alan-barefoot-outside-royal-thirsk/