Driver who killed Oxford cyclist found not guilty of dangerous driving, guilty of careless

Greg Collins wrote: got any data to support these assumptions

Greg: have a look at the news. A survey has shown that the number of car accidents has not decreased since the ban on peaking on a mobile while driving. Are you saying that eating a sandwich is more dangerous than speaking on a mobile phone?

Thought so.

Oh.dear.

It will take a very serious cycle accident indeed, maybe of someone of higher attribute to the British society, than ourselves, for this government to change the way the law looks at how to deal with motorist's...

Maybe cyclists should have a thought process which says will I put lights on and be seen or assume drivers can see me because I can see them.

Eating a sandwich in a car is not as dangerous as cycling in the dark with no lights

This pretty much seems to be a good example of the distinction between careless driving and dangerous driving.

Dangerous would be driving far in excess of the speed limit, ignoring traffic lights or while racing someone on the wrong side of the road for example.

Careless is things like eating a sandwich, lighting a cigarette, getting something from the glovebox or looking around at children in the back seat.

Careless is something that I am sure 99% of all drivers - including the people commenting here - have done. It may not be one of the examples I've given and no doubt you wouldn't think it was careless... until someone gets hurt.

The guy has been found guilty and will quite possibly have a custodial sentence and a minimum 12 month ban.

What more do you think would be achieved by say a five year sentence rather than a 12 month sentence ?

Do you think drivers have a thought process which says "It's OK, eating this sandwich will only cause me to be arrested, held while seeking bail, put on trial, fined, banned and possibly put in gaol for three months, so nom nom..."

The fear of consequences (and getting caught) is a much more powerful deterrent than the actual consequences. That's where the focus needs to be, not on baying for blood.

I really am amazed by some of the comments on here.

Unless you were in court, you don't know the details of the evidence presented, the prosecuting and defence arguments, the judge's summary. Too many people are just saying "oh, car hit cyclist, must be guilty of the worst offence".

And - most importantly - the report states that the judge has not yet sentenced the driver.

It is quite possible that on the evidence available, the jury were simply legally unable to find the driver guilty of dangerous driving.

Wait until sentence is passed, and what the judge says - could be anywhere between Community Service, and 5 years:
sentencingcouncil.judiciary.gov.uk/docs/web_causing_death_by_driving_definitive_guideline.pdf

Even then, unless we've read the entire court transcript, we shouldn't bay for blood automatically.

Strict liability. Now!

Like most of you I am a car driver as well as a cyclist and although I am the first to admit there are some atrocious car drivers around there are also some very selfish and thoughtless cyclists.

Every Winter I see cyclists riding on busy roads with lights which emit nothing but a dying flicker. They are almost invisible to cars and pedestrians alike and given the huge range of cheap and powerful lights there is no excuse.

Yesterday I saw a cyclist pull out into the center of the road to make a right turn. He didn't look behind him and his hand signal was nothing more than a slight bend of the elbow.

Of course had Mr Invisible or Mr Weak elbow been hit by a car we would all be moaning at car drivers and how they should be hung drawn and quartered but please spare a thought to the circumstances which cause the accidents.

Also, last week I was cycling home by the A90 between Edinburgh and South Queensferry and had to go onto the grass verge because a fellow cyclist decided to check his wheel and block the whole path instead of pulling into the nearby layby. He ignored my bell and shouts of excuse me.

Nope /\....because cycling poorly kills maybe one person a year and driving poorly kills thousands.

Feel sorry for both the rider and the driver.

Also perhaps before we point a finger at a man eating a sandwich we should think twice before we peel a banana or tear the top off a gel while riding?

Until the current generation of silver haired folk; who regard car use and ownership as a freedom and a right, an empowering experience for the individual owner/user and those who suffer as a result can go hang, until they pass on then such verdicts and sentences are all we can expect.

The idea that the level of performance required of a driver is "not setting out to kill" is as insulting as it is laughable. When will we start to consider the consequences and not the intent?

I drive. There but for the grace of God go I? No chuffin' way. I take pride in my driving, just like I do my riding. I don't drive along juggling my lunch along with a tonne of metal.

Two statements from the defendant seem to be contradictory, at least to me

1) "Mr Brown sobbed while giving evidence and said: “I know I have ruined other people’s lives because of it and I’m truly sorry for that, but I just did not see him."

and

2)"The 30-year-old lock worker said he had his car lights on at the time of the crash (variously reported as 8:59pm to 9:15pm) but said that Mr Wilkins did not have lights on his bike."

If 1) is correct how can 2) be correct?

No jury wants to convict a driving offence such as this to the highest level. The mind of each juror is on what they could get away with, if and when they are in the same situation. A jury should only be comprised of those who have no vested interest in the articles of the accident. The jury should not have had any people on it who drive cars.

I think the officer's comments really don't reflect the seriousness of what has happened and stronger rhetoric was needed. The driver wasn't out to get anyone but I think a lot of the careless driving that goes on every day like this are still far too socially acceptable.

Take a look at a google map of Eaton road, which is a long straight line.
https://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=appleton,+uk&hl=en&ll=51.724104,-1.345975&spn=0.007031,0.01281&sll=44.261931,-88.415385&sspn=0.260132,0.409927&hnear=Appleton,+Oxfordshire,+United+Kingdom&t=m&z=16&layer=c&cbll=51.724185,-1.350003&panoid=E9T-YOoYAsizhVgkUK-FJA&cbp=12,208.55,,0,-7.95

By the defendants own account:

1) he wasnt distracted
2) had his eyes firmly on the road

I find it hard to understand how he didnt then see the cyclist on a straight road.

Another example of a driver having a bad day.

I'm making this point because I read too many comments by posters who seem to think drivers are deliberately out to get cyclists (and I think this is the definition of dangerous driving - using the vehicle as an offensive weapon). The distinction is there because as a cyclist if you are not aware of careless drivers you may get mangled by one. That's not to say it was the cyclist's fault, but that if you are personally aware of your surroundings you minimise your risk.

The awareness issue cuts both ways though, and I see many many cyclists who have never looked over their shoulder to see if there is space, or if they have been seen. A driver might never anticipate a manouvre.

The sentence he received is a separate issue. And perhaps there ought to be new guidelines drawn up for the severity of the injury, or the nature of the accident (motorised vehicle on cyclist etc.)

I read the officers quotes as an attempt NOT to minimise the seriousness of this offence

Quote:

“I have got absolutely no doubt that Mr Brown did not set out that evening to kill anyone, but his actions have devastated a family.

“I would urge all drivers to think seriously about their driving habits and actions behind the wheel.

“Fatal road collisions are often avoidable and this case was no exception to that.”

I know exactly why the jury returned the verdict they did.

How many cars have cup holders, how many people smoke behind the wheel etc etc.

"There by the grace of god go i."

There will be no justice for road victims with the current system. By system not just legal but social.

Unbelievable, if he had killed a child would this still be death by careless driving? Used to think we had the best justice system in the world but no longer. It would seem that nobody is responsible for their actions anymore, the jury should hang their heads in shame.

I'm in no doubt about "he level of danger presented by this man's driving"- he killed someone. Erm I guess that was pretty effing dangerous!

Because the judge drives a Jag and probably likes taking down a sarnie while driving and his only relation to the concept of a bicycle was the story his uncle told him about how he came across one once in the war?

The judges comments are amazing - so blasé. Why are we so casual about road deaths?