Ayasha Penfold, the Kent motorist who hit and killed time trialist John Durey while driving on the wrong side of the road after overtaking two vehicles, has avoided a jail sentence. She pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving, but Crown prosecutors decided against asking for a second trial when a jury was unable to reach a decision on the greater charge of causing death by dangerous driving.
Durey, aged 69, was hit head-on by Penfold, 20, while riding along the A2070 at Kingsnorth, near Ashford, on May 31 last year. He died in hospital on June 5.
Prosecutor Ahmed Hossain said Durey would have been visible to the driver for at least 45 seconds prior to the crash.
“The road was clear. There was good visibility and it was a straight passage of road.”
Penfold told the jury she had been to Ashford to visit friend and had not been in a rush to return home.
“I felt the lorry and car in front of me were moving slowly and I wanted to overtake them.”
Penfold admitted causing his death by careless driving but pleaded not guilty to the more serious charge of causing death by dangerous driving.
At the conclusion of a four-day trial last month, the jury was unable to reach a majority decision of whether she was guilty of the more serious offence.
The Crown Prosecution Service needed to apply for a retrial within a week following the lack of a decision, but opted not to.
Kent Online reports that Judge Lowe gave Penfold a 12-month community order and banned her from driving for 18 months.
He said her lack of experience – she had only passed her test three or four months before the crash – could have contributed to the collision.
“You had completely failed to see Mr Durey coming in the opposite direction until it was too late for you to take corrective actions,” he said.
“Roads are sometimes thought by drivers to be built for the exclusive convenience of motor vehicles but most roads are built for cars to share with a variety of other road-users, including cyclists.
77 thoughts on “Community order and 18-month ban for driver who killed oncoming cyclist while overtaking”
FFS!
FFS!
Killing anyone whilst
Killing anyone whilst overtaking should immediately be classed as death by dangerous driving. Overtaking is always optional and by definition exposes both parties to danger. Utterly derisory sentence.
kil0ran wrote:
killing someone when in charge of a motorvehicle should be classed as manslaughter automatically. Unless in extreme circumstances of negligence by the other vulnerable/slower party it should never, ever happen.
Either you are taking by far the bigger responsibility for safety on the road and towards those around you or you’re not.
This is no different to wielding a sledgehammer swinging it around for 45seconds and then caving someone’s head in as they walked past.
The judge is unfit for service and the jurists deciding against death by dangerous are disgusting, and why didn’t the CPS go for a retrial, can they not see how important it is to fight for this utterly disgraceful miscarriage of justice AGAIN!!
Makes me so fucking angry like everyone else on here no doubt.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Manslaughter used to be the charge in cases like this but juries refused to convict their fellow motorists so the charge of causing death by dangerous driving replaced it………..and guess what…….juries still refuse to convict.
Changing the charge won’t change anything. The jury system is a very poor system if you want justice.
Fuck Off.
Fuck Off.
No jail? 18 month ban???
What a complete fucking joke.
So not ………”the way he
So not ………”the way he/she drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver, and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous”
I’m glad that they’ve cleared that up for us, just in case anyone who rides a bike is still in any doubt as to what to expect. Call me naive, but I would have though that moving onto the opposite side of the road and killing someone was the very antithesis of ‘competent and careful’ and obviously so. In fact, I’m not sure what else you would have to do to make that manoeure more dangerous – what yardstick are they using?
That would be the twelve good men and true who get fed up when their way is impeded in any way by a cyclist, the same people who will drive for 5 minutes around a supermarket car park instead of walking for 30 seconds from a space a little further away.
nniff wrote:
The problem is that a jury is totally unsuitable to come to a verdict on a driving offence. When it says “it would be obvious to a careful and competent driver” there is no reason to think that an ordinary person qualifies to make this judgement. Clearly, at the very least, a driving examiner should be required to assess the evidence and come to a qualified judgement in order that the court is directed appropriately. While driving offences continue to be left to the judgement of ordinary drivers, justice for the victims of dangerous drivers will continue to be subverted.
The problem is that a jury is totally unsuitable to come to a verdict on a driving offence. When it says “it would be obvious to a careful and competent driver” there is no reason to think that an ordinary person qualifies to make this judgement. Clearly, at the very least, a driving examiner should be required to assess the evidence and come to a qualified judgement in order that the court is directed appropriately. While driving offences continue to be left to the judgement of ordinary drivers, justice for the victims of dangerous drivers will continue to be subverted.
[/quote]
I’ve long thought that dangerous/careless driving cases should have the input of Driving instructors or examiners (as expert witnesses at least).
The DVLC websites says of the driving test:
‘There are 3 types of faults you can make:
a dangerous fault – this involves actual danger to you, the examiner, the public or property
a serious fault – something potentially dangerous
a driving fault – this isn’t potentially dangerous, but if you keep making the same fault, it could become a serious fault’
So, in the view of a qualified assessor, would the accused’s action fall into any of the above categories?
If so surely a jury must be instructed to find accordingly.
If it’ll fail you your test, it should fail the ‘competent driver’ test too.
pockstone wrote:
I’ve long thought that dangerous/careless driving cases should have the input of Driving instructors or examiners (as expert witnesses at least).
The DVLC websites says of the driving test:
‘There are 3 types of faults you can make:
a dangerous fault – this involves actual danger to you, the examiner, the public or property
a serious fault – something potentially dangerous
a driving fault – this isn’t potentially dangerous, but if you keep making the same fault, it could become a serious fault’
So, in the view of a qualified assessor, would the accused’s action fall into any of the above categories?
If so surely a jury must be instructed to find accordingly.
If it’ll fail you your test, it should fail the ‘competent driver’ test too.
[/quote]
To pass the legal test of Dangerous Driving, it has to have been occuring for a (unspecified) period of time, so a swerve due to your hand slipping on the wheel, or because one of your kids accidently nudges your arm while trying to hit their brother which then results in an accident is not “dangerous driving”.
To pass the legal test of Dangerous Driving, it has to have been occuring for a (unspecified) period of time, so a swerve due to your hand slipping on the wheel, or because one of your kids accidently nudges your arm while trying to hit their brother which then results in an accident is not “dangerous driving”.
[/quote]
Fair enough, I imagine either of those might be construed as ‘careless’. (Kids who are young enough to be scrapping in the car really ought to be strapped in the back, so the circumstances might go beyond lack of care, and into the region of failing to avoid a foreseeable hazard.)
45 seconds of sustained inattention while overtaking on a single carriageway, requiring acceleration, observation and careful judgement of how much space and time you have to complete the manouevre… WITH AN ONCOMING CYCLIST CLEARLY VISIBLE…? Do you expect that a driving examiner would have let that one slide as a ‘minor fault’?
I can’t begin to imagine why a juror would not class it as dangerous either.
As for the duraton of the action, If she had pulled out to pass a vehicle with only a second of visibility, it would have been no less dangerous.
pockstone wrote:
I don’t know how big your car is, but my kids can certainly nudge my elbow while passing things between them while legally restrained (I say legally, because apparently, to my chagrin, cuffing them and putting them in the boot or the cupboard under the stairs for extended periods of time is not legal)
In no way am I condoning either the sentence, or the girl’s actions, but the legal matters the jury have to consider are what is the actual dangerous / careless action, and how long did it go on?
45 seconds at 60 mph is nearly 1.3 km. When she commenced her manoeuvre it is fairly possible the cyclist wasn’t completely visible, that it took longer than anticipated to overtake the vehicles, in which case it might be decided the dangerous part of the manoeuvre was only that time taken to move out from behind the truck. Due to the time to execute the manoeuvre it seems she was only travelling about 3 mph faster than the vehicles she was overtaking, presumably to stay below the speed limit, in which case her driving wasn’t entirely careless. I don’t know. The law moves in mysterious ways, and before we lambast those that uphold, and proffer our blanket ban solutions, I sincerely think it’s worth pausing to think how might that affect any one of us in some of our unpredictable situations should those draconian metres be applied.
In my opinion a driving ban and some type of custodial sentence (not necessarily jail) for a couple of years would be appropriate, because, quite simply, one mistake made in our youth should not limit us for the rest of our lives. There but for the grace of god go any of us, We have all benefitted from that particular aphorism.
madcarew wrote:
Taking 1.3km to overtake another vehicle while being on the opposite side of the road is not reasonable.
If she could only do 3mph more than the vehicle (s) being overtaken, what is the need to overtake at all?
madcarew wrote:
Have we? Surely only if we are a member of a majority, or powerful, group who are most likely to benefit from it?
It’s an aphorism that gets applied very, very selectively. Only to those who commit the sort of offense that members of juries (or magistrates) feel they might have committed.
Aliston didn’t seem to get the benefit, to take the most salient example. Nor did that kid who looted a bottle of water from a shop during the riots. Motorists, of course, gain the benefit constantly, much to non-motorists’ cost.
That aphorism, rather than being something to be thankful for, encapsulates a problem – because it’s so subject to the demographic make-up and ideological biases of juries.
And implicit in your take on the event is the idea that driving (or, at least, overtaking) inherently, and unavoidably, creates a risk of death for others. If one accepts that, it suggests it’s imperative to restrict the practice of driving (or overtaking in a motorised vehicle), because it must be an intrinsically irresponsibly dangerous thing to do. Either blame the individual or the general practice, but you have to pick one or the other.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
Firstly, I am not aware that “There bit for the grace of God go I” is only, or is generally, applied to judicial activities.
We have all made mistakes in our lives (Except for BTBS) that could have resulted in tragedy for either ourselves, or another, and it is that to which I was referring. Be it knocking a child over walking through a door (Aliston) or a moment’s inattention at the wheel which meant we drifted into another lane, or wide on a corner , or an error in handling on our bike which has caused a car to brake hard or swerve. A mistake, which due to time and place has a disproportionate result.
As it is, my take on the accident is that the young lady was guilty of dangerous driving. By my calculations, if the truck and tractor that she was overtaking accounted for 50 metres of road then she was attempting to overtake them at less than 4mph faster than they were travelling. To be on the other side of the road for the better part of a minute for any reason is dangerous driving. That is my take on the accident. I have, without any inside knowledge of the jury or evidence attempted to show why they might not have found this to be the case, and pointed out in response to the lynch mob that blanket rules will inevitably result in gross miscarriages of justice, and they have inevitably, in their lives, benefited from that element of luck or doubt that has saved them from being hoist by their own petard.
Any body who believes that their own driving is so cautious, so careful, and that their observation skills are so accurate that they have never caused another road user cause for concern or potential harm is delusional, and as such, more dangerous than those that admit, and thus can address, their frailties. Those that admit their frailties also admit “There but for the grace of God…”
So far as restricting the practice of driving goes, as I’ve pointed out, we, as a society accept elements of risk in all that we do. There is no technology (going back to the simple lever, wheel or fire) that comes without risk, and we either accept that risk and carry on regardless (cycling) or we attempt to mitigate that risk (ABS braking and air bags, scaffold and hard hats). We as a society have decided that it’s acceptable risk to drive around in 1.5 ton metal boxes in spite of the fact that the activity has killed more people than all the wars combined since the inception of the motor car, and maimed and injured countless hundreds of millions of others. We’re generally against war, but happy to accept the risk of motor vehicle travel. We rail against the risk of the motor vehicle but happily support and patronise the companies that purvey sweets, crisps, alcohol and junk foods, in spite of the fact that these things have been responsible for the death of more people than all the cars and wars combined. And we happily consume our mobile phones and other technolgies despite the fact that overconsumption will (almost) inevitably destroy civilisation as we know it, bringing death to billions. We all take part in risky activities that potentially cause harm to others. Sometimes we see them, sometimes we don’t. There, but for the grace of God, go I.
You can blame the individual (as I have) and also point out the faults in the general practice. There is no need to pick one or the other.
Our justice system is far from perfect, but it is robust. It can, and does, need change, as society changes. Calling for instantly locking up, and removing one of our greatest liberties from those that make a mistake, which due to time and place has a disproprtionate result, will not make our roads safer, nor our society better or more just. And it probably won’t save any cyclists’ lives.
madcarew wrote:
I think the Kitten’s point is that there seem to be an awful lot of jury cases where motorists are given a tremendous benefit of the doubt, that isn’t granted to (in particular) cyclists (or burglars, for that matter) and it can be shorthanded as them being aware of their own driving skills and thinking “There, but for the grace of God, go I…”.
(In all fairness, I suspect that if young Mr Alliston had had a jury at his trial composed entirely of regular and frequent cyclists then the same principle might have applied and he wouldn’t have had jail time…).
brooksby wrote:
That’s fair enough, it just wasn’t the context I intended it in.
madcarew wrote:
I don’t have any such delusion. Which is one major reason why I don’t drive. In fact I actually feel it unavoidably causes harm, therefore I should avoid doing so as much as it’s possible for me to do.
I don’t, therefore, feel hugely inclined to be massively forgiving of anyone who chooses to drive and doesn’t even manage to do so with sufficient care. (I absolutely think the only real answer is infrastructure changes…it’s just that, in the meantime, a bit of justice would be nice)
And I know people’s choices about driving are constrained by circumstances and not everyone can avoid doing so, but you can’t tell me that every car journey is essential.
My general point is that frailties shared by majority or more powerful groups benefit from that sentiment more than do those that involve minority circumstances. Circumstances that the majority that are doing the judging are unable to empathise with. I think Aliston is a very clear example, but I think there are a whole lot of other examples in different ‘domains’.
The ‘there by the grace of god’ thing seems to lead to the conclusion that if you are going to do something wrong you would be well-advised to make sure it’s something much of the majority population can empathise with doing, not an esoteric minority-interest kind of offence or something that relates to circumstances that aren’t shared by most.
Hence at least once-upon-a-time beating up your wife or killing a gay man that propositioned you would get treated more leniently than beating up a policeman.
And the context of this whole discussion is ‘judicial activities’, but I’d say the problem still applies even beyond that.
Also I’m just saying in a very long-winded way what Brooksby already said, but your post was extremly long anyway, so there!
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
I agree with all of that, particularly the part where the phrase is applicable outside of the judicial arena, which is why all those calling for summary judgements or a blanket rule should be aware they have been saved in multiple environments simply by being a member of the more powerful majority. Which was my basic point. So there! 🙂
pockstone wrote:
Exactly my thoughts as well.
Prosecution should be a piece of cake, stripping out the jury’s subjective thinking:
“I’m a careful & competent driver, however on occasion I’ve misjudged an overtake but nothing bad happened, so there but for the grace of God go I, #bloodycyclists, not guilty”.
Giving them a more objective comparison for the matter at hand than their own driving:
“if they’d done it while on their driving test, would they have failed?, Yes, so it is below the standard of a careful & competent driver, guilty”.
Kill someone while driving,
Kill someone while driving, and it’s your fault, regardless of if they were a ped, driver, cyclist, or other road user, should = lifetime ban, with no possibilty of restoration, and that’s after time serverd
jimc101 wrote:
you might be wary of that yardstick being applied to you. Having watched an acquaintance go through, and get off a death by dangerous driving charge (Careless driving was what he answered to in the end) the process does have important safeguards in place. What if you are driving down the road and a child chases a ball into the road, you swerve to avoid the child but kill cyclist who came around a car just as you swerved?
That’s why we don’t have blanket rules.
madcarew wrote:
That would be death by dangerous driving because you took ZERO account of there being a child nearby, narrowed road (car parked on opposite carriageway) and did not slow for their very likely action, one that we know children do very frequently, even more so with a ball or bike.
Just because the police let off killer drivers who kill children/other vulnerable road users because they made a small error does not in my eyes let you off the hook for driving without any consideration as to the what if.
When driving would you keep your foot in when driving past a person on a horse or if there is a wild animal near/in the road, if not why would you do it when there are children or other vulnerable road users about? This is the problem, police/government indoctrinate to make it seem everyone elses fault except those behind the wheel.
A child stepping/running out into the road should be easily anticipated. Firstly there’s the time of day/day of week, then there’s a good chance if it’s a built up area/residential there will be children about particularly in the summer. We have speed limits for a reason, that means when you have parked cars or vulnerable people around you you slow down so that you don’t have to veer off so wildly to avoid a child running out in front of you because you observed the hazard early, you anticipated and took account of what might happen given the knowledge that we have about these things.
So in the example you gave it should be dangerous driving.
BehindTheBikesheds wrote:
Clearly you drive at 15kph on wide open boulevards, with no vehicles parked at the side; or you are gifted with prescience. If you cannot conceive of a situation where an unseen child can run out from between 2 parked cars without you having any possible warning (I’ll help you. Normal suburban street, time of day is immaterial, it might be a holiday, a no teacher day at school, a weekend, homeschooled kids etc etc; cars parked at the side almost continuously along the road, a luton van, behind the van, hidden from view by a low hedge 2 children are playing, one kicks the ball out the open gate, the 4 year old chases after it. You can’t see the children or the garden and with no warning at all a child appears at full run from between 2 vehicles – remember the luton? – and you are aware enough and swerve to miss them, but a cyclist who was momentarily hidden from view comes out from behind another vehicle directly into your path. )
When driving the unforseen does happen. If you cannot conceive of that as a driver, then you are simply the most dangerous creature on the road as you believe you are in control of everything that is going on. You aren’t.
I’m completely gobsmacked by
I’m completely gobsmacked by this – how can someone be killed on the road and yet the driver, who instigated the action of the death is let off effectively scot free.
I wonder what the result would have been if John Durey had been in a car and instead of cyclist is killed, the headline was ‘pensioner killed by inexperienced new driver’. Suspect the jury would have found a different verdict and the penalty would have been alot higher. It doesnt say but i’m also assuming that if she was overtaking she was also speeding…
Just goes to show the complete onesideness of our current justice system.
Thoughts and prayers with Durey Family
I despair.
I despair.
I thought that if you got
“Your licence will be cancelled (revoked) if you get 6 or more points within 2 years of passing your test”
Does that mean that she got less than 6 points for this as the licence was not cancelled? I got 6 points for doing 60mph on a 50mph Multi-lane (3 lane) carriageway!
Brake your ankle and try to
Brake your ankle and try to make a claim for 175k and get 3.5 years inside
Kill someone with a deliberate reckless act and get eff all.
hirsute wrote:
“Brake” for the bend; “break” your ankle….
I agree this outcome says a everything we need to know about the culture on the roads. How to change it though, that’s the question
danhopgood wrote:
“Brake” for the bend; “break” your ankle….
I agree this outcome says a everything we need to know about the culture on the roads. How to change it though, that’s the question — hirsute
Thanks hoopgod, I must practice my homophones.
…?
…?
I’ve posted this before but
I’ve posted this before but worth a repeat http://www.gazette-news.co.uk/news/16055928.Pensioner_driver_jailed_for_head-on_collision_which_killed_77-year-old_woman/
Of course this was car on car and a dead pensioner, so merits a jail sentence as opposed to some lycra lout for whom hanging isn’t good enough.
“The road was clear. There
“The road was clear. There was good visibility and it was a straight passage of road.”
I was assuming a standard country road, but “straight passage of road” is an understatement:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/
No wonder they said 45 seconds of visibility. That is an unbelievably long time when driving.
I’m speechless.. an 18month
I’m speechless.. an 18month driving ban for killing someone.
I get that she had only just passed her test, but surely the punishment does not reflect the crime here, in any order of magnitude!
I would have agree that it probably wouldn’t be in the public interest to jail a 20year old for this, however she should never be allowed to drive a car again.
On a clear straight road, she overtook a car and a lorry subsequently hit a time trialist head on whilst doing so, subsequestly killing him, they agreed she should have had 45seconds clear view to see the cyclist.. and did not.
.. and she changed her reasoning for hitting the cyclist twice..
peted76 wrote:
Agreed.
Previously I’ve argued on here against a knee-jerk call for a prison sentence for road deaths but since the ridiculous situation with Charlie Alliston’s case I am inclined to think “well, if it’s good enough for him…”
I explained the basics of the Alliston case to my wife, who was appalled that it warranted time in prison yet so many drivers who kill and maim get off with a light slap of the wrist.
An 18 month ban, after what we’ve read?
If we consider the way jurors can easily be swayed by their own prejudices and sympathies then I agree.
What on earth could the
What on earth could the jurors fail to agree on?
That road is positively roman.
Appalling.
says more about the attitude
says more about the attitude of jury towards cyclists!
A jury of drivers in the UK
A jury of drivers in the UK in 2018 passing judgement on another driver killing a cyclist is like getting an all-white jury in 1950s Alabama to pass judgement on another white person killing a black person. Prejudice and bias is so engrained as to make the notion of a fair trial meaningless.
(the driver here should have tried the Gail Purcell trick of just saying “I didn’t see him”, and then she wouldn’t even have been charged with any office)
the little onion wrote:
This.
the little onion wrote:
I as going to post something similar.
Cyclists simply cannot get a fair trial in this country.
I wonder why they decided
I wonder why they decided against the retrial..
peted76 wrote:
Because they don’t give a shit about cyclists?
peted76 wrote:
Becausse the CPS have secured a successful conviciton, which goes down as a brownie point in thier performance assessment?
Too much cost to then justify a retrial that may be marginal as it was only a cyclist, so quit while you’re winning?
Quote:
So, I trust m’lud has also insisted that she now retake her driving test??
We need jury vetting for such
We need jury vetting for such cases. At the very least there should be a cap on the number of motorists allowed to serve on juries in such cases. And no-one who’s ever committed a motoring offense. That would be a start.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
But juries are specifically chosen to reflect the population. What needs to change is the attitude of the population.
danhopgood wrote:
It seems that juries need a change of perspective on road crime. Instead of “that could be me, driving like that” it should be “that could be my child killed by someone whose selfish attitude means he/she cares only about their own safety”.
Instead of accepting such horrendous mistakes as “momentary lapse of concentration”, “blinded by the sun” or some such pathetic nonsense as acceptable they start seeing bad driving as a regular, even habitual practice that should be punished.
Edit – sorry, I missed your comment earlier. It encapsulates my thoughts better than my own ramblings.
danhopgood wrote:
In my opinions the only thing that could change that is an aggressive program of increasing high-quality cycle infrastructure. Then more would cycle and get a different perspective on things. Of course that would also greatly reduce the need for such court cases in the first place.
But that’s going to be a long hard slog to achieve. In the meantime, I don’t think it’s true that ‘juries are chosen to reflect the population’. I suspect the demographics of who serves on juries are very skewed, in reality.
And in any case, I’m inclined to wonder whether the jury should rather represent _that section of the population involved in the case_? Including the victim. It slightly reminds me of those cases in the US when cops are accused of mistreating a black person and they make sure the case is heard in some all-white suburb.
I am sure the fact that the
I am sure the fact that the accused was female and young will have definitely swayed the jury. A death by dangerous driving conviction would effectively end that woman’s prospects.
Now personally, I believe there are certain crimes that no matter how unintentional, warrant such punishment, and i can’t help but feel this is one.
I am aware however that I am highly biased in this situation.
The problem as I see it is that unless there are tales of that time that girl went to prison for 5 years for hitting that cyclist when overtaking, attitudes won’t change.
This tells me exactly what it is… chances are if you are generally good, young, sober and ideally female, you are unlikely to feel the full wrath of the law due to a driving offence.
Sad times
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
You have to add “white” to that list as well. And not just for a driving offence, but for any of the trials of life. If you are a young, good looking, white female, you are given an easier ride in all of life than any other demographic with 2 important exceptions. The price you pay for this ‘gold card’ ride is that of sexual harrassment; and there is one other group that gets a slightly comfier ride: If you are a good looking white male… of any age. And you get to do it without the sexual harassment penalty.
No, life isn’t fair.
The jury members are at least
The jury members are at least as cuntish here as the woman who refused to accept she was driving dangerously.
PS
PS
Why the hell wasn’t a driving examiner called as an expert witness for the prosecution anyway? If the CPS are remotely interested in successfully convicting dangerous drivers they should be doing it in EVERY case where a driver is accused of dangerous/careless driving. I can’t count, from memory, how many cases reported on this site that may have had a very different (and more just) outcome.
PS
Double post!
What a screwed up society we
What a screwed up society we are.
Suspended sentences for protesting about tress being cut down.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-south-yorkshire-44395665
Jail for killing a dog, and never allowed to own a pet again.
http://ukcriminallawblog.com/4-months-for-killing-a-dog-are-sentences-for-animal-cruelty-too-short/
Community service for killing a fellow human by negligent driving and temporary suspension of driving licence. FFS
How about a change in the law
How about a change in the law – instead of defining dangerous/careless driving in terms of whether it falls below the standard of a competent driver, why don’t we redefine it as “driving of a standard that would fail the driving test”? Surely that makes sense – the test is there to establish minimum competency, so if you demonstrably fall below that competency, you shouldn’t be on the road.
the little onion wrote:
Or… Just have a simple offence of “causing death by driving” (i.e get rid of the dangerous/careless distinction). Hopefully it would be easier to get a conviction because it would be a matter of fact rather than opinion; then sentencing policy would include aggravating and mitigating factors (speeding, alcohol/drug use, mounting the pavement, actions of others, etc etc).
ricardito wrote:
An excellent idea. After all, it is the driver’s choice to drive and imperil other people, so at a very basic level, they are to blame. They could have walked, cycled, taken a bus or taxi or even the train, but they decided to drive and as a result, someone is dead. Might concentrate a few minds.
burtthebike wrote:
Damd good idea.
As someone who enjoys shooting shit I proffer the following analogy;
You get into the driving seat = You put your hands on a gun (not knowing if it’s loaded)
You start moving = You pick that gun up & your waving it around.
you get any where near anyone (whether you know that their ther or not) = your pointing a gun at them.
Your potential closing speed rises above a few miles an hour = you’ve loaded the gun.
…. A few more miles an hour = and now you’ve cocked the gun
………get closer/faster… Your ‘cone of possibility’ doesn’t allow much room for manoeuvre..= your deliberately pointing a cocked & loaded gun at someone.
…………get closer/faster .. You have no chance of avoiding them if they do anything unexpected or you cock up = now your fingers on the trigger of a loaded gun that’s pointed directly at someone……
– – – – – – – – – What can possibly go wrong!
That’s wot I fink…….
ricardito wrote:
I have to say, I really like this. Then a jury only has to decide if driving itself was responsible for the death.
When the focus is, was the driving bad, was it dangerous… then it gets grey and subjective, but when it fundamentally comes down to was it driving that caused the death, then its fairly black and white.
I can think of two examples where drivers have simpyl shrugged their shoulders and offered no reason why they, ploughed straight into a cyclist, drove into oncomign traffic whilst driving on the wrong side of the road.
In both cases, without a fault in teh car, or any aggravating circumstances raised by the drivers, they would be guilty of death by driving… as it was their driving, good, bad, ugly, that created the crash.
For me its about taking away subjectivity from jurors and I believe a simplification of the law would be a great help.
Sentencing for a guilty verdict could have a significant range to account for, a moments lapse in concentration, through to, going nuts on a drug and alcohol fuelled bender.
The Less-Dead is a concept
The Less-Dead is a concept where the lives of certain groups of people are not given equal consideration to others. It is common if a serial killer murders only minorities, addicts, sex-workers, the poor/homeless, people will not care as much. Having viewed the justice systems of the US and UK as it pertains to cyclists, it appears cyclists can be classified as Less Dead.
I’ve just made a list of
I’ve just made a list of people to kill. I just need them on a bike now then say SMDSY – not sure I even need that really. I think I can manage a few hours community service.
If you get angry about this
If you get angry about this just read about the Helen Measures case if you’re not familiar with it – another needless death while overtaking in the opposite lane.
muhasib wrote:
The sick thing is there are too many of these cases were killers simply get off completely or are given a slapped wrist.
We’ve started compiling a few since 2011 on the CTC/CUK forum https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=50829
But no, it’s people on bikes that need ‘new’ laws because the old ones are too archaic and cyclists are getting away with murder, except it’s actually people in motors that do.
At what point in your life
At what point in your life are you to be held responsible for your actions?
I understand that at 20 you are relatively immature and I’m pretty sure I did things when 20 that I would never do now. But, if at 20 years old your defence against being held responsible for your quite frankly murderous actions is that you are too young to go to jail, you are too young and immature to be driving a car.
I see this pattern more and more often in cases for example where people in their early twenties are being convicted of violent crimes and given time in a young offenders unit. Why, they are aAt what point in your life are you to be held responsible for your actions?
I don’t know what you are all
I don’t know what you are all whingeing about. The government are in the middle of a consultation about cycling safety, you know, the one they put off for years until the Alliston case, and I’m sure it will be addressing all the points you’ve all made.
While it’s galling that a
While it’s galling that a jury half made up of shit drivers accepts shit driving resulting in death.
A much harsher penalty was available to the judge who elected not to use it. There is no justice. Driving is basically a license to kill in this country and the government ask what they can do to increase cycling uptake?
I am amazed with how
I am amazed with how differently the media chooses to report incidents like this . The Charlie Alleston case bought national media ( including the BBC) wide coverage for days on end. A quick search of national media outlets (including the BBC) of this particular case show little or no interest in reporting. No wonder cyclists feel victimised and one of the main perpetrators are the BBC.
Spike64 wrote:
The BBC hates cyclists. They have programmes about walking, driving, trains and buses, but nothing about cycling. They have been running a thirty year campaign about cycle helmets, and have never once mentioned in my hearing, the overwhelming benefits of cycling, in health, congesiton, pollution and obesity terms, despite the mass of evidence.
And in a situation as
And in a situation as described above, do you;
A. Continue to drive at 30mph, safe in the assurance that you have a cast iron explanation as to why the circumstances of you killing a child were outside of your control.
B. Drive at an appropriate speed that would enable you to take more time to observe, be aware of small pedestrians and maybe even stop should said small child suddenly appear ‘from nowhere’.
The unforseen is often quite forseable.
Mungecrundle wrote:
The question is, do you drive around town at 15 mph? Do you drive around every corner in such a way that you can always, always stop in less than the clear distance you can see? Do you, when riding your bike through town, always, always drop your speed to such that you could always stop in time should a child or small dog run out from a group of people walking along the road? Do you always, always drive along the road with at least 3 seconds of clear distance between you and the next car? If your answer to any of these questions is an honest no, then you are simply guilty of making the same assumption as every other driver: That things will continue much as they generally do, most of the time. There is an assumed level of risk, and an assumed level of response / behaviour relating to that risk in everything we do (cue helmet debate).
OFten the unforseeable is foreseeable, but that isn’t how we live our lives in any regard.
In answer to your question, I often reduce my speed well below the posted limit when I think I’m in a particularly high risk situation, but in common with almost every driver on the road I also drive with a high expectation that others will comply with the rules (in spite of our collective experience that many don’t) and that they will act in a largely predictable manner.
As an after thought, perhaps ‘unforseen’ should bereplaced with unpredictable.
madcarew wrote:
The question is, do you drive around town at 15 mph? Do you drive around every corner in such a way that you can always, always stop in less than the clear distance you can see? Do you, when riding your bike through town, always, always drop your speed to such that you could always stop in time should a child or small dog run out from a group of people walking along the road? Do you always, always drive along the road with at least 3 seconds of clear distance between you and the next car? If your answer to any of these questions is an honest no, then you are simply guilty of making the same assumption as every other driver: That things will continue much as they generally do, most of the time. There is an assumed level of risk, and an assumed level of response / behaviour relating to that risk in everything we do (cue helmet debate).
OFten the unforseeable is foreseeable, but that isn’t how we live our lives in any regard.
In answer to your question, I often reduce my speed well below the posted limit when I think I’m in a particularly high risk situation, but in common with almost every driver on the road I also drive with a high expectation that others will comply with the rules (in spite of our collective experience that many don’t) and that they will act in a largely predictable manner.
As an after thought, perhaps ‘unforseen’ should bereplaced with unpredictable. — Mungecrundle
Yes, that pretty much is how I do drive and indeed cycle around other human beings* at all times. The idea that anyone’s plan A to avoid an unexpected pedestrian is to swerve violently into oncoming traffic is, I find, rather alarming.
As an afterthought, small children, pets, and people staggering around at pub closing time are predictably unpredictable. Still no excuse to run them over though.
*Group riding aside, but then, as the courts persistently demonstrate, cyclists and especially club buddies barely count as human.
Mungecrundle wrote:
The question is, do you drive around town at 15 mph? Do you drive around every corner in such a way that you can always, always stop in less than the clear distance you can see? Do you, when riding your bike through town, always, always drop your speed to such that you could always stop in time should a child or small dog run out from a group of people walking along the road? Do you always, always drive along the road with at least 3 seconds of clear distance between you and the next car? If your answer to any of these questions is an honest no, then you are simply guilty of making the same assumption as every other driver: That things will continue much as they generally do, most of the time. There is an assumed level of risk, and an assumed level of response / behaviour relating to that risk in everything we do (cue helmet debate).
OFten the unforseeable is foreseeable, but that isn’t how we live our lives in any regard.
In answer to your question, I often reduce my speed well below the posted limit when I think I’m in a particularly high risk situation, but in common with almost every driver on the road I also drive with a high expectation that others will comply with the rules (in spite of our collective experience that many don’t) and that they will act in a largely predictable manner.
As an after thought, perhaps ‘unforseen’ should bereplaced with unpredictable.
— madcarew Yes, that pretty much is how I do drive and indeed cycle around other human beings* at all times. The idea that anyone’s plan A to avoid an unexpected pedestrian is to swerve violently into oncoming traffic is, I find, rather alarming. As an afterthought, small children, pets, and people staggering around at pub closing time are predictably unpredictable. Still no excuse to run them over though. *Group riding aside, but then, as the courts persistently demonstrate, cyclists and especially club buddies barely count as human.— Mungecrundle
Group riding, and I rather suspect the list of exceptions is considerably longer than that.
Typical females-soft
Typical females-soft sentencing on display there. She looks like the typical spoil brat type and this joke will only reinforce her mentality.
If the cyclist was another car then she’d be a bit more than sorry. All we can hope is that insurance companies won’t touch her for years. Daddy will probably pay for it though.
It is interesting how often
It is interesting how often this happens but not as often as the overtaking squeeze.
You have a car approaching you in the oncoming lane and when alongside you another vehicle overtakes you from behind, at best squeezing you into the gutter, worst up the bank.
All these manourvres are key indicators of poor driving behaviour and either need correction, or removal of the driver from the road.
Its only because the driver feels safe in their tonne of metal and they regard you on your bike as no threat.
spragger wrote:
Thats a great graphic: did you make it, or what is the source?
brooksby wrote:
Surrey Police RPU – https://twitter.com/SurreyRoadCops/status/965189275980566528
The courts don’t care and the
The courts don’t care and the law is an arse.
So its officially worse to
So its officially worse to finish the London Marathon wearing someone else’s number (13 weeks prison I kid you not) that you found than killing someone with a car.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-44564612