- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
forum
Murder by car?
I'm still trying to understand what if any logic applies around Death By Careless, Death By Dangerous Driving - now here's a possible murder charge. It will be interesting to see where this goes:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-manchester-59367657
Apparently "the man may have been involved in an altercation with the occupants of the Audi moments before the collision". Doesn't seem to work if you're on a bicycle though - although you might just get a longer "Death By Dangerous Driving" sentence for that kind of thing if you're sufficiently offensive to the court.
For comparison - other incidents:
Attempted murder and a very long sentence (the chap who drove into a nightclub): https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2019/jan/10/man-who-drove-car-on-to-packed-dancefloor-jailed-for-28-years-blakes-gravesend
Manslaughter: https://londonnewsonline.co.uk/man-convicted-of-manslaughter-after-driving-at-victim-in-erith/
Death By Dangerous Driving (similar in that there was an altercation first): https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/road-rage-thug-jailed-after-20469648
If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.
Latest Forum Topics
Latest Comments
- mark1a 11 sec ago
I tried something similar with some timber and a pair of Delta hitches, with limited success, and so for people like myself with minimal (zero)...
- Quiddle 8 hours 28 min ago
In defence of Aldi, my local store posted notices inviting cycle owners to bring their bikes with them whilst shopping after a spate of bike thefts...
- chrisonabike 9 hours 24 min ago
If you haven't been it's recommended! An epicentre of beer diversity - there's probably nothing they haven't tried in the beer from spices to...
- David9694 10 hours 4 min ago
You and a friend have won first prize, a day out at Diddly Squat Farm.
- matthewn5 10 hours 11 min ago
Does not compute! If you ride a lot you're going to be boiling your chain every week or every fortnight.
- AidanR 10 hours 12 min ago
Let's hope it's another 4 years until she tweets again
- Andrewbanshee 10 hours 40 min ago
Tbf where I live 2 way roads look exactly like the one pictured.
- Rendel Harris 10 hours 39 min ago
Unless your formative cycling years were in the '80s and you grew up copying the hand either side of the stem position of greats like Lemond and...
- john_smith 11 hours 37 min ago
You're right--that was the other one. The relevance is that people keep complaining about how damaging the platform is, yet they carry on using it.
Add new comment
19 comments
I've been wondering if there are any parallels with the death of Halyena Hutchins on the set of Rust. Both involve potentially deadly weapons and it will be interesting to see who is held to account.
Different country, different legal system.
Pretty sure it will be ruled self-defense.
(I expect the set Armorer might be done under industrial accident type legislation if anyone is done. Afterall it is her responsibility to ensure the guns onset are used correctly and not loaded when not in use.)
Unrelated to bikes now but a very recent legal case there suggests that:
a) The US is in as much of a mess with guns and their regulation as we are with cars and:
b) Most places bringing a gun to the party or having one with you is perfectly fine. Then anyone who you perceive as a threat can be killed with little consequence. Goes double for cops / "security" people and the colour of the victim can still count in your favour.
Yes, don't want to open a can of worms on the right and wrong of the actions and trial verdict, but was surprised it is totally legal for someone to buy a gun at 18 for a 17yo from another state, especially as it would have been illegal if it was beers or fireworks.
Yeah - the norms of other cultures are often surprising. Much of the US is still treats alcohol like we would weapons. Seems common for countries to have one or two particular issues which become a "freedom and rights" thing - likely for historic reasons. Don't try to restrict the rights of hunters (La chasse) in France, for example!
My understanding of how it is meant to work, based on https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/homicide-murder-and-manslaughter and https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/road-traffic-charging:
If there's no intent to hurt, then death by careless/dangerous driving, followed by manslaughter, depending on exactly how bad the driving was. My understanding is that death by careless/dangerous driving essentially exist because juries wouldn't convict drivers of manslaughter, and now manslaughter is reserved for the most egregious cases. I would argue manslaughter ought to be used more commonly, especially when drink/drugs are involved.
If there is intent, then murder/attempted murder/GBH with intent etc. The relevant charge depends on both the outcome and the extent to which intent can be demonstrated. There is a slight oddity that you can be convicted of murder if you only intended to hurt the victim (but they died as a result) where as attempted murder requires intent specifically to kill. Attempted GBH doesn't have quite the same ring to it but it is another available charge.
But the examples you give do seem to contradict that. The Erith case - it appears to be well established that the perpetrator deliberately drove into the victims, and therefore I don't see why that was charged as manslaughter and not murder.
The nightclub case - I'm suprised they got (two) attempted murder charges to stick given that the prosectuion would have had to convince the jury beyond reasonable doubt that the perpetrator intended to kill people, not just seriously injure.
Manchester case - seems like it ought to have been murder if you ask me (and indeed he was initially arrested on suspicion of murder).
This is exactly why I got interested. I appreciate that having enough flexibility to deal with the messiness of the world (and indeed the law...) is often a point in favour of our legal system. Here however the mishmash of overlapping potential charges seems to work to the detriment of "fairness" (e.g. that "similar" cases - as much as you can say that - should merit similar charges and comparable outcomes if found guilty).
Maybe I have overly high expectations of the legal system though? I mean, I read "The Secret Barrister" and not all of that came as a surprise given what I'd heard from a barrister friend, but...
The case of the car driven into the nightclub is an outlier - as you say others have deliberately driven into a particular individual and received a wide range of lesser charges / sentences. Presumably this was seen as "clearly had designs on mass murder"?
At the end of the day the relative positions of cycling / motoring in our culture are probably enough to make the difference. Killing in a motor vehicle - whatever the circumstances almost always mean any punishment will be substantially less relative to killing by any other means.
It seems to me (not as a lawyer) that even if you did not intend to injure, anybody driving a 2 ton metal object should reasonably understand and foresee that carelessness/stupidity/incompetence when in charge of said object has a realistic possibility of hurting someone. Thus, a manslaughter charge seems appropriate.
If it was announced that drivers who killed a cyclist could reasonably expect to be pursued for manslaughter unless they can show why that charge isn't applicable (i.e. the onus is on the driver to prove it was a genuine 'accident'), then driving in this country would improve exponentially.
Agree with the principle. I really must read up on it but I think one of the points of bringing in "Death by Dangerous Driving" / "Careless" was to try to tone down the "intent" aspect because no-one was getting convicted for manslaughter and certainly not murder. However it seems to have crept back in. In recent cases it seems that just "not noticing" / "not recalling what happened" is sufficient defence. Certainly there is a requirement to prove that it was the motorist's fault (e.g. "cyclist just fell over and I couldn't avoid them" or "they just appeared in front of me" sometimes get you off).
Cynically I don't think that manslaughter will ever stick. As for proving the charge is not applicable it's not important as I think that without major changes the law will always require the prosecution to prove this wasn't just "an accident".
I disagree that this would improve driving much:
Chance of detection, charging and actual conviction have a role in any "negative reinforcement" of a law. These are all currently very low.
Those of evil intent probably won't care about the law. Those who are "criminally negligent" will likely neglect the law too. The majority of drivers are just fallible humans. They didn't set out that day to kill, they weren't angry at you, they were just not paying enough attention / up to the standard that day. Knowing themselves that they aren't criminals they won't be much motivated by new laws.
I don't disagree with the psychology.
It is interesting, though, that away from driving, if my actions very clearly result in someone's death or serious injury, I need a very good justification for them. Also, the UK is very much in the minority (in Europe) in not having a presumed liability law: IIRC, only Cyprus and Ireland (as well as the UK) do not require the less vulnerable user to demonstrate that they were not at fault. I'm sure Boardman has campaigned for it, and it would be a simple enough legal move. But, of course, there isn't the popular call for it in a country where cycling is still slightly fringe (ironically, not least because of the widespread perception that the roads are dangerous for cyclists).
[ presumed liability ]
This one keeps coming up. My understanding - and I'm happy to be corrected - is that anywhere it's applied this only applies to civil claims e.g. insurance stuff. It's not a principle in criminal cases. Lots of folks [1], [2], [3] have written about this not doing what some campaigners think it does.
That's right, it's civil liability for insurance purposes.
I don't think it is what makes the difference. Let's face it, with an estimated 1m drivers every day without insurance, 4m admitting driving without MOT, and 634k cars unlicensed, there's quite a pool for whom liability is not a major consideration.
There seems to be a correlation between enlightened attitudes towards cycling and presumed liability, but I think that relationship is association, not causation.
I find it utterly bizarre that there's such an acceptance that drivers can easily not be in control of their vehicle or be unaware of what's around them and it's considered to be just one of those things.
So many RTCs are considered to be unintentional which raises the question of what the drivers are doing. Imagine a building site that doesn't bother separating builders from the public and then picture if you will, a brick-layer working high up and occasionally dropping bricks by "accident".
"Sorry mate, I didn't see you walking down there - I was busy smoothing out some mortar and didn't realise I'd dropped a brick"
"The sun was in my eyes so I couldn't possibly have seen that crowd of school-kids walking along when I decided to drop that bucket of cement"
"Listen, I need to get on with building work, so maybe any pedestrians coming along here should be wearing helmets as I obviously can't look below every time I drop something"
Agree - but like so many things in a culture most people don't see them, they're just "one of those things" and you get on with your day. Only those in some way standing "outside" and looking in will notice. And they (we here) tend to be in a minority.
Look at the way much road violence is reported - as if it's the weather or some other natural occurence rather than a consequence of somebody's (lack of) driving skills and decision making.
https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/the-incompetence-paradox/
Indeed, complete incompetance succesfully used as a defence against a charge of dangerous driving.
There is no logic and illustrates the flaw that politicians love creating ever more specific crimes when existing ones will do. So occasionally a child killer will get locked up for a little longer than an adult killer. Conversely hundreds of assaulting and killer drivers will get a slap on the wrist because the instrument of assault/death was a car, rather than say a 5kg sledgehammer or a knife.
Assault is assault and death is death - the circumstances and extent are important - the actual weapon that dealt out that should be irrelevant.
Yeah - I think we often overlook the fact that systems have to be self-sustaining and that a lot of their activity and energy has very little to do with what we conceive their "purpose" to be. So making law (politics) has lots to do with the struggles of politicians / political parties to stay on top. Those in the legal system itself all have their own ends, not least of which is hanging on to their jobs! If you set yourself against common cultural norms and prejudices you're probably not going to win many cases, get promotion at the CPS or progress far as a judge...