- 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
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Statue of Justice, Old Bailey (licensed CC BY 2.0 on Flickr by Ronnie Macdonald).jpgFirst private prosecution for dangerous driving ends with motorist being acquitted
What is thought to have been the UK’s first private prosecution for dangerous driving has ended with the motorist being acquitted of all charges. Former qualified driving instructor Aslan Kayardi had been accused of passing cyclist Martin Porter QC an arm’s length away while driving at 50mph in a 30mph zone.
Porter, who brought the case with the support of CTC’s Cyclists’ Defence Fund, said afterwards: “Whilst I, of course, respect the verdict of the jury, I believe it is only right that Mr Kayardi was required to justify his driving before a court of law.”
The incident, which took place during rush hour on the A315 Hounslow to Staines road in February 2015, was captured on a camera attached to Porter’s handlebars. Based on the footage and data from his Garmin bike computer, consultant accident investigator Paul Croft calculated Kayardi’s speed to have been 51-57mph in what was a 30mph zone. He also estimated that the Audi was just 60-80cm away as it passed.
Porter reported the incident to the Metropolitan Police Service, but they declined to refer it to the Crown Prosecution Service.
Writing on his blog, Porter said:
“I respect the rule of law and entirely accept that some of the material that I had hoped may go before a jury could not do so for legal reasons. I also have to accept the verdict of the jury that Mr Kayardi’s driving has not been proved to fall below the standard of a competent and careful driver. Every defendant is entitled to the benefit of any doubt and my assessment of his driving has to bow to that of the jury.”
He also said that he was reluctant to publish the video of the incident, explaining: “There is clearly a risk that it will be held up as driving that has been found to be perfectly acceptable.”
Roger Geffen, Policy Director at CTC and Trustee of the Cyclists’ Defence Fund said:
“CDF is very disappointed to learn the result of this case, in which the jury rejected even the camera and expert evidence of speeding.
“Despite the public being hugely supportive of more cycling, this verdict highlights the huge challenge we face in raising driver awareness of the need to respect the safety of cyclists and other vulnerable road users.
“Drivers need to appreciate that a cyclist isn’t simply an anonymous being, but somebody’s child, sibling, parent or grandparent.
“With the Government now committed to a review of driving offences and penalties, following pressure from CTC’s Road Justice campaign, CDF will continue to fight cases which can either highlight or better still correct failings of road traffic law and its enforcement.”
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- nick h. 12 min 1 sec ago
Read it again. You seem to have missed what this is all about.
- dubwise 12 min 31 sec ago
Christ, I didn't realise I had to be English to cycle. As I'm not, I'd better stop cycling immediately.
- Secret_squirrel 3 hours 13 min ago
Thanks Neil!
- slc 3 hours 19 min ago
All arguments I am hopeful to see validated, especially (a) and (b) combined....
- hawkinspeter 3 hours 53 min ago
Well, on Lundy the only predators are the humans, and they're far more likely to buy some farmed non-Soay lamb from the pub than try to chase a...
- mdavidford 3 hours 54 min ago
"Just a little bit off the sides"
- mdavidford 3 hours 55 min ago
Given that one of the Oxfordshire councillors took the time to drop into the comments section of the previous article on this story to deny, at...
- Secret_squirrel 5 hours 16 min ago
What you believe doesn't matter. Only physics and engineering does. An undamped steel spring is frikkin lousy for steering where precise tracking...
- wtjs 5 hours 40 min ago
We're approaching half way through December 24 now- any progress on the Met's hopefully will be live in December 2024, where you will be able to...
- hawkinspeter 5 hours 51 min ago
I reckon they stopped using this for the bonding:
Add new comment
34 comments
I generally don't have too many problems with the traffic, but occasionly:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHDf1wfFXjc
I did report this to the police via email and to my surprise they did knock on my door and ask to view the footage (apparently they are allowed to open links on their computers due to malware or similar). they did have a word with the company but left it at that.
I suffered a close pass this morning from a car carrying 2 road bikes on its roof.
I think you'll find (s)he wasn't "carrying" them, but just his/her two previous victims.
Trophies.
"Give a cyclist as much room as you would a car."
'But I pass cars within three inches, and they don't get all shirty about it.'
And therein lies the problem. No cyclist thinks that a pass closer than 1 metre at over 50mph is ever going to be acceptable, but every driver thinks that it is, because they do it all the time without incident.
Put the jurors on bikes and maybe it would be a different verdict.
Riding regularly has certainly improved my driving - close passes are at least partly down to ignorance
Ignorance sometimes, more often malice and impatience. This side of proper separation I doubt there is a solution. AK 47 maybe?
Bit heavy. Anything a bit more aero available?
This reinforces by belief that unless jury members have real experience of the road from outside the protective shell of a motor vehicle we will continue to get these judgements.
Make Bikeability level 3 a prerequisite for having a driving licence- no B3 and you can't apply for a provisional licence.
Unfortunately, there is no real will at all to do anything about 'close passes'. The Met's own Roadsafe guidelines - state that videos must not rely on a 'perception of distance'...
So, do we need Garmin to start installing laser measuring capabilities to their computers? Wouldn't be that hard.
I don't get what all the fuss is about. Of course the driving was acceptable. The guy driving didn't hit him did he!?
Segregation by mass/speed is the only real solution for our roads.
I'd really like to stop and speak to each motorist who does something dangerous individually. I've done it a few times but THESE PEOPLE ARE TOO STUPID. If a QC, with his resources and eloquence cannot get a jury to understand, what hope do I have?
I wonder whether the intent of the case, which CTC and Mr Porter must have suspected was highly likely to fail, is really to confirm beyond doubt that current passing and other laws pertaining to the safety of vulnerable users on mixed or supposedly shared spaces (ie roads) are so inadequate that they cannot and will not be observed, enforced or prosecuted, ever. And that the only viable alternative therefore is to do as the Dutch have done and introduce separation between modes everywhere and as much as possible.
Unbelievable. Expert analysis, Video, and still people think that the Cyclist is at fault. Proof indeed that jury's are worried that it could be them in the dock one day. Perhaps we need to bin jury's in favour of 3 Judges, then maybe they would look at the facts, and not tugging at heart strings.
Clearly we need a 1.5m rule, and yesterday, and when we do im putting a 1.49m pole on my bike, with a sharpen'd nail on the end.
no its not that at all, as Ive said before on close pass videos, a motorist will always view a pass that doesnt involve any contact, as a perfectly safe and legitimate one, and yes though thats because most of them have never been on the receiving end of one of those close passes in the cyclists position to realise exactly what its like, its not because they are anti cycling as such, its just they arent aware of the potential danger it poses.
so whilst a safe distance rule would be a nice idea, it practically could never be enforced, in the same way we have laws about speeding,driving without insurance or an MOT,using mobile phones, that by and large a fair percentage of people who drive completely ignore.
For a little light reading take a look at the evidence submitted to the Transport Select Committe for the upcoming report on road traffic law (due next Tuesday)
Wide-ranging views to say the least - some heartbreaking, some which make David Icke sound rational and of this planet
http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-sele...
For an example of how utterly broken the legal framework is North Yorks police tweeted today that they'd just stopped the same driver for the THIRD TIME IN A WEEK for drug-driving...
https://twitter.com/snayorkwest/status/707367364099239937
Am I the only one thinking it's time to reach for the pitch forks?
No.
Constantly think about safety when riding home and how a few drivers have absolutely no idea about how to drive around cyclists. Yesterday evening I'm coming up to a row of parked container lorries on a single carriageway, I pull in because there's oncoming traffic and the driver behind me just thinks "Oooh, I can get past this fucking cyclist whose held me up for 10 seconds already" only to get two lorries down the line before she realises there's no gap to pull into. Fortunately I'd stayed put as she slammed it in reverse without checking rear view mirror.
Of course I could filter past her and did so, as there was enough of a gap between parked lorries and oncoming traffic (doing max 10mph) for me. Result - punishment pass, abuse, and a brake test. Incandescent with rage all because she'd made a mistake driving and it was apparantly all my fault. Sped off to join back of long line of traffic at next set of lights by which time I was on what constitutes a shared use path.
Could understand it if it was a boy racer (used to be one and in my twenties picked up a fair few points) but this was a middle-aged woman in a bog standard Golf.
we've had really close passes on the way to school, by my boy's classmate's parents (with them in the car)
completely normal, all ages and genders etc equally capable ...
Fortunately the public are pretty stupid and not many will pay much attention to this. The crap drivers will still drive badly. The ones who read this might take it as a licence to do so.
I do wish he'd chosen a slightly more clear cut case though. I get several of these a day. They're equally upsetting, particularly when they are large vehicles.
But, as I've said before, Juries see these as civil crimes. It could be them tomorrow and they'd feel terrible about being charged with such things. So they acquit.
Double post...
I'd love to get each member of that jury and close pass them at 50mph to see if they think it's acceptable. Or better still, do it to their children while they watch*
*ok, I wouldn't go that far, but you know what I mean..
It will of helped a little. Firstly the driver will think twice before he comes close to another cyclist incase they have a video camera. Secondly, the publication of this case with filter to other drivers to be a little more careful around cyclists
Mmm, not really. Most drivers know they can get away with almost literally murder. Claim the sun was in your eyes, the cyclist swerved/came from nowhere/wasn't wearing hi-viz...
So long as (a) you're sober, (b) you stop at the scene, you can more or less claim it was all a terrible accident, there was nothing you could do, you're guilt stricken, full of remorse and a court will go "yeah, OK, crack on".
This has just made that worse. It's why the Australian Government thing about "oh it's not all anti-cyclist, we'll procescute motorists who pass closer than 1m" is all total bollocks too. Prove it. Prove that a driver was closer than 1m. You can't, therefore there's not goingt o be any prosecution and it frees up the police to concentrate on all the easy targts of cyclists not wearing helmets, not having a bell and running red lights.
This country needs a massive shake-up in road safety law with some actual enforcement. A few years of prosecutions, fines, real deterrents and the problem would be pretty much solved. And Britain could probably pay off the national debt in fines for mobile phone use alone.
Just been wandering around Reykjavik, where pretty well all the cars stop for pedestrians, even errant ones like me who aren't always clear on directions or rules. Because Icelanders are truly wonderful people or because of strict liability? Go on, you decide.
You, sir, are a gent and I trust that you are bouncing off the walls in the privacy of your own home.
Does anyone know whether CTC have changed their position, on not supporting a minimum passing distance law?
try, try & try again
The risks don't get less if we (or the police) ignore it
What this just did was tell every police force in the UK that there's SFA point even considering investigating any fast, close pass of a cyclist, because even with HD video, expert analysis and a QC involved as witness, juries do not give a flying fuck.
If I were a driver with a dislike of cyclists, I'd be taking this as a green light to buzz folks. All. The. Time.
Pages