A pharmaceutical industry consultant has been cleared of causing death by careless driving after she hit a cyclist while overtaking on a bend.
Dr Helen Measures, 51, was overtaking two other cyclists and on the wrong side of the road when she hit Denisa Perinova, 21 on the A415 near Henley-on-Thames on July 15 last year.
The court heard that Ms Perinova was riding with her boyfriend, Ben Pontin, and lost control of her bike when she saw Dr Measures’ Mini heading toward them.
Dr Measures’ car hit Ms Perinova at up to 50mph, flinging her 15 yards into the entrance of a nearby field.
Mr Pontin said he saw Dr Measures make a “stupid manoeuvre” on a curve in the road, leaving him just a “tiny gap”. He felt his girlfriend’s wheels touch his bike and when he looked round she had been hurled into the entrance of a field.
“I just couldn’t believe the person driving had overtaken at that point,” he said.
Ms Perinova’s helmet was smashed. She was taken to Royal Berkshire Hospital in Reading and later transferred to a specialist neurological unit at the John Radcliffe Hospital in Oxford. She died a week later from her injuries.
It was her first ride on a bike that Mr Pontin had recently bought her.
"I would expect cyclists to remain upright"
During the trial Dr Measures claimed that Ms Perinova had fallen into her path. Sandra Beck, prosecuting asked her, “You are relying on other road users avoiding you when you are on their side of the road?”
“I can’t help it if a cyclist, with all due respect, falls over as I’m approaching them and comes into my line of travel,” Dr Measures said. “I would expect cyclists to generally remain upright as the first cyclist did.
“You do not make a manoeuvre if you don’t think it is safe to do so. Had everyone stayed upright, there would not have been an issue,” she said.
Dr Measures admitted she had not seen the oncoming riders as she decided there was “sufficient room” to slow down and pass.
She said she was “surprised” to see Mr Pontin and Ms Perinova coming toward her as came round the bend at 40 to 50mph, but felt they had room to get past.
“I had to make a decision of what to do. I felt the safest decision was to continue straight ahead because they were in single file. If I had been concerned, I would have stopped suddenly.”
The jury deliberated for three hours before returning a ‘not guilty’ verdict.
103 thoughts on “Pharmaceutical consultant who killed cyclist while driving on wrong side of road cleared of careless driving”
I DESPAIR!!!!!!
I DESPAIR!!!!!!
Things must
Things must change.
http://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2013/10/03/the-law-and-the-road-things-must-change/
Disgraceful verdict.
Disgraceful verdict.
I wonder how many jury
I wonder how many jury members were cyclists
That is SHOCKING, the justice
That is SHOCKING, the justice system in this country is proving itself to be utterly ridiculous!
I can’t help it if someone
I can’t help it if someone stands in the way when I fire my gun!
ffs whats going on
X( ffs whats going on
The law really is a bloody
The law really is a bloody ass!
so now it’s ok to overtake on
so now it’s ok to overtake on a bend where you
can’t see on coming traffic or road conditions …
Highway code 162 and 163 would seem to disagree !!!!!
This maybe a bit off topic,
This maybe a bit off topic, but i’ve always wondered, whats the relationship between the highway code and the law.
kobacom wrote:This maybe a
The Highway Code is a series of guidelines for road usage, of which some are the layman description for various sections of laws such as the Road Traffic Act.
You can usually tell which HWC rules are backed by legislation as the various sections will be included after.
You can see here that Rule 163 “Overtake only when it is safe and legal to do so.”, only has guidelines on safely overtaking, whereas Rule 165:”You MUST NOT overtake…”, is followed by some codes (Laws RTA 1988 sect 36, TSRGD regs 10, 22, 23 & 24, ZPPPCRGD reg 24).
These will refer the relevant sections of the Road Traffic Act, The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 and The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations and General Directions 1997.
So, if it doesnt have bold abbreviated codes after, its a guideline, not legislation.
speechless
speechless
Honestly, I think you’d get
Honestly, I think you’d get more for having a couple of bald tyres than killing a cyclist these days. Unbelievable.
I’ve read bit more on this case and it seems to be yet another case of a driver making a poor driving decision which has resulted in a fatality. Dr Measures seems to be a perfectly good law abiding citizen, however this seems to highlight the urgent need for proper, relevant training for drivers (new and existing license holders). Like how to drive with other more vulnerable road users around, and the responsibility you have when you get behind the wheel. Car drivers need to see the plain stats on road deaths and injuries and be made very aware of the potential consequences of their actions.
As a nation are we really ok with the road fatalities/injuries – because the lack of meaningful action (from citizens and government) would suggest an implicit yes.
“I thought it would be ok” might be fine in many situations in life, but when you’re in car you have the potential to injure or kill other human beings if your judgement is out, therefore you need to err on the side of caution, not on the side of “I’m in my car, I have the right to continue my journey unimpeded by all other road users”.
Rant. Over.
Always the same problem. The
Always the same problem. The jurors put themselves in the drivers shoes instead of the cyclist’s, think ‘that could be me’ – and give the driver the benefit of the doubt.
Sim1 wrote:Always the same
Completely agree. And frankly that is a very, very depressing state of affairs.
… and show some patience.
… and show some patience. Do you really *need* to overtake on a bend. No. So why are you doing it?
Quote:“You do not make a
And the jury actually took that on board as a defence?
FFS
What the hell does a driver
What the hell does a driver have to do in order to be found guilty of manslaughter? If he had killed another car driver I am 100% certain he would have been found guilty. X( X( X( X( X( X( X(
Angelfishsolo wrote:What the
She.
At least read some of the article.
seriously!?!
seriously!?! X(
Does anyone know if there is
Does anyone know if there is a way to appeal this verdict?
Angelfishsolo wrote:Does
More information here: https://www.gov.uk/appeal-against-sentence-conviction/crown-court-verdict
The Telegraph article has
The Telegraph article has this;
Does the author really think a helmet designed to withstand a 12mph drop onto concrete is able to protect you in a 50mph impact with a vehicle?
Shocking. Couldn’t be
Shocking. Couldn’t be bothered to wait a few seconds until she was round the corner and had a clear view of what was ahead. Let’s just hope that next time she overtakes on a blind bend, it’s a ruddy great bulldozer that she gets “surprised” by.
factor41 wrote:Shocking.
Drivers generally tend to choose the softest thing to hit. So if a bulldozer looms round the corner the expected behaviour is to swerve left and hit the cyclist they were overtaking. Luckily in the few times this has happened to my (not with an actual bulldozer though) I’ve anticipated it and avoided being hit by braking hard.
Goes to show that public
Goes to show that public opinion needs to change. Just like attitudes to drink driving, the public has to realise that overtaking on blind bends and the brow of a hill is dangerous and wrong. They also need to understand that cyclists are traffic and need to be overtaken with care and a reduced speed.
How this change in attitude happens I’m not sure.
As cycling grows in popularity it will happen naturally to a certain extent, but perhaps there is a need for a public information campaign.
Actium wrote:Goes to show
We can start to affect it by sharing the items on Facebook & Twitter. When your friends & family like or comment then it goes out to a wider audience.
I’m sure that most of the car/lorry-cycle accidents are not intended and the driver isn’t malicious in any way. But, in the cases where the driver is at fault it’s usually a case of the driver being too fast or just not taking care. All they needed to have done was SLOW DOWN and be a little more considerate to other road users – whoever they are and whatever they’re doing.
Is there any way of finding
Is there any way of finding out who she consults for and making them aware that they are employing somebody who is completely moronic and does not give a shit about anyone but herself?
Or would that be construed as harassment and liable to attract a jail sentence?
–
–
Yup.
http://uk.linkedin.com/p
Yup.
http://uk.linkedin.com/pub/helen-measures/11/550/b66
Dr.Galactus
“Specialties:Therapeutic areas of experience include oncology and HIV.”
…and terrible driving decisions.
I don’t get it, if she
I don’t get it, if she couldn’t see the cyclists she sure as hell wouldn’t have seen an oncoming car. I would like to think the blame for the resulting collision would land on her shoulders, although I guess it would’ve been the other cars fault for being on the road.
Do the law-makers not see verdicts like this and despair at how ridiculous they are?
A Doctor with an expensive
A Doctor with an expensive lawyer, paid for by her employer.Was this case going go any other way??
joebee9870 wrote:A Doctor
Right. I would mind reading what Cycling Silk might have to say about this case.
I guess I’m clinging to the faint hope that the prosecution bungled somehow, rather than the alternative that a random sample of the public are evil cretins.
If she fell off the bike in
If she fell off the bike in front of her how was she hurled into the air so far?
Also as Dr Stupid ventured onto their side of the road surely that puts her at fault? You should not overtake unless clear & safe to do so. This was not a clear & safe time as she couldn’t see round the bend.
It would be interesting to hear what the other cyclists witnessed & have to say about what happened? This doesn’t seem quite right… something is missing. From the quotes she doesn’t seem to show any remorse at all. Its horrific to read.
Yep. Clearly visible on
Yep. Clearly visible on linkedin.
The same, or worse, happens
The same, or worse, happens in Spain with law regarding weak users (cyclists) versus strong users (car drivers). I can’t believe this is also happening in UK with no social reaction. Society should claim their right to use public roads as well as their right to live when using them.
My theory is that (maybe for both countries) car/truck and petroleum industries have huge influence into government so anything that may affect to their economy is avoided. For instance, if law is enforced, many people will not buy powerful/expensive cars because they will not need/use so much horsepower.
The legal system doesn’t
The legal system doesn’t appear to work.
“If I had been concerned, I
“If I had been concerned, I would have stopped suddenly.”
think that says it all myself – makes a not very rational change from the “guilt will always be with me” defence
seems to have echoes of case in Queensland Au where a cement truck driver was acquitted after running down a young man, Richard Pollett, – his defence was he believed the manoeuvre was safe
Genuinely terrifying.
Genuinely terrifying.
…….
I guess the only
…….
I guess the only solution is to slash every cars tyres in an act of self defence.
…..
She’s actually managed a
She’s actually managed a successful Lance Armstrong defence.
“I’ve done nothing wrong. Oh, and by the way, Cancer.”
on a more constructive note,
on a more constructive note, i have now emailed a complaint about the conviction!
” “
” “
The concerning bit for me is
The concerning bit for me is the ‘I thought it was safe’ line (paraphrased).
Road fatalities (short definition is within 30 days of accident) have been falling no doubt (so the politicians can get up and tell how much safer we are), but its the car occupant fatalities which make up most of the reduction.
http://charts.dft.gov.uk/dft-business-plan/indicators/#05
I’d suggest that if you feel safer (as a driver) you’re more likely to take more ‘risks’, and as always it’s the more vulnerable road user that pays the price.
CSV data here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/annual-road-fatalities
It’s only stats but you’ve got to go on something.
graphite wrote:
Road
I don’t know this, but gut feeling, the roads aren’t safer, they are actually more dangerous, but non drivers have given up the fight.
What the stats are not showing is that people who would cycle and would walk are too scared to do so. You can’t kill what isn’t there!
Quote:
Dear Mr
so where next!
mrmo wrote:Quote:
Dear Mr
so where next!
Probably nowhere, she has the “law” on her side and i imagine only a civil case will get anywhere. Absolutely disgusting result, there is no hope in this country whilst decisions like that are made.
That was quick! Good job
That was quick! Good job mrmo. Government Petitions online maybe?
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk
But then would it be a case specific petition or take a wider view. In which case what would the wider view be? Improved driving test (easy for me to say without defining it), diving refreshers (annually, bi-annually, again east for me to say)? I don’t know.
I’m on a deadline today and I’ve spent far too long reading up on this case and the more general stats. In other words I’m saying I’m too busy to do anything more about it. Aren’t the majority? Therein lies a big part of the problem.
You can’t appeal a not-guilty
You can’t appeal a not-guilty verdict, it’s impossible and a basic part of the legal system, you can appeal a sentence to have it considered whether it is unduly lenient, but the verdict of the jury is final. That is the matter settled I’m afraid.
It is worth considering that without actually being at the case, we have much less information to go on that the jurors, without knowing the real gritty details of the case then we can’t really consider the nature of the verdict. Snapshots from articles can be very misleading at times.
A bloody tragedy though and if the articles are accurate, I’m shocked that a jury would find the driver not guilty of causing death by careless driving.
Digusting.
:& Digusting.
written email to DoT now,
written email to DoT now, suspect i won’t get a worthwhile reply. But i think it is upto everyone to make it clear that killing by negligence and disregard of the law is not acceptable. Whether with a gun or a car it makes no difference.
My understanding of the Dutch situation was that the people had enough and forced the politicians to change. It has to start somewhere in the UK!
“If I had been concerned, I
“If I had been concerned, I would have stopped suddenly.”
Even allowing for ABS, at ’40-50′ around a corner – which presumably was too short to see all the way around – I find it difficult to believe that would have made any difference.
The jury, rather than the law, is an ass (and that’s putting it politely)
dear god, why didn’t this
dear god, why didn’t this idiot just WAIT until after the bend? You do NOT overtake anything on a bend.
Disgusting irresponsible driving ….
Can anyone explain something
Can anyone explain something to me, i know it is for the jury to make a decision, but i thought the judge tended to guide the jury?
Is this right or wrong?
We obviously have 12 people here who feel that overtaking on a bend is acceptable, i could argue that we have 12 people who should be immediately stripped of their driving licences!
I have not read all the
I have not read all the replies here, so I may be missing something.
The failure to convict is likely to be the fault of a gullible jury influenced by a smart barrister.
It may be the fault of the investigating officers and the prosecutor failing to present the evidence well enough, though I doubt it.
What this is definitely is an absolute tragedy.
It seems to me that juries can be made up entirely of motorists, but there would be outcry if one were to consist only of cyclists. There must be some balance, somewhere. How that is to be achieved, whilst still retaining the principles of justice and the being innocent until proven guilty, is beyond me and probably most of us.
Two points come to mind on
Two points come to mind on this:
1. If it had been another car instead of a bicycle and they swerved to avoid a collision and were killed would the defendant have got off? I doubt it.
2. I think the barrister has to take some blame here. It is their job to convince the jury that the accused is guilty and in this case it would seem that a competent barrister should be able to convince the jury that the driver was responsible for the death.
Can I be the one to point out
Can I be the one to point out that it was cyclists she was overtaking and not another vehicle, I would suggest that the majority of A roads are wide enough to accomodate bike – car – bike, also note it was a curve in the road and not a blind bend.
Tragically it would appear that the poor girl did not have the bike handling to cope with whatever unexpected circumstances being out on the road could throw at her.
thebungle wrote:Can I be the
Cyclists _are_ vehicles.
Are you perhaps unacquainted with Highway Code Rule 163? Here it is, with a handy picture and everything. Where does the other bike go?
https://www.gov.uk/using-the-road-159-to-203/overtaking-162-to-169
As for “curve in the road” vs “blind bend”, the driver apparently didn’t see the oncoming cyclists on account of the bend. How is a corner you can’t see oncoming traffic around not a blind bend?
David Portland
Couldn’t agree more
thebungle wrote:Can I be the
Troll.
Next time a motorist maniac comes round a blind bend towards you and your riding partner, and in the panic you touch wheels with the rider in front, maybe you can demonstrate to me the bike handling skills that will make you not dead.
PJ McNally wrote:thebungle
Troll.
Next time a motorist maniac comes round a blind bend towards you and your riding partner, and in the panic you touch wheels with the rider in front, maybe you can demonstrate to me the bike handling skills that will make you not dead.— thebungle
I wouldn’t say his reasoned view is trolling. You have to get a perspective. The Bungle has a right to his view point, just as much as you.
I have to say that it is far from clear that the Dr was negligent from the details of the case. We weren’t there in the trial, we don’t have the objective facts. I find it quite perverse that the general reactions to these sorts of incidents immediately draw the ire of the cycling community, where a jury has seen the objective facts. Whereas if it comes to a hint of drug doping from a cyclist (where the facts are not objective beyond a positive test – we know that we do not get the facts and that proving a positive are very difficult and so evasion can be rife) and everyone falls over themselves to proclaim the cyclists innocence in the face of probabilities and motives.
In this case I’d like to know whereabouts it occurred and the width of the road. But from the brief information provided she clipped her own boyfriends bike and went into the path of the oncoming car. So it is very hard for a jury to say that she would have/wouldn’t have clipped the wheel if the Dr. hadn’t of been there, and in a criminal case like this it is beyond all reasonable doubt. Not sticking up for the driving manoeuvre itself from the sound of it, but it is possible to overtake on a curve without causing danger, which brings us back to where it happened.
Colin Peyresourde wrote:I
There are two points to make here: Firstly, a number of the known facts – which to the best of my knowledge I don’t believe to be in dispute – are that (a) she overtook on a bend, (b) she overtook without sufficient visibility ahead to see even slow-moving road users who she would need to pass during her manoeuvre, (c) upon seeing that she would need to pass oncoming traffic during her manoeuvre, made a conscious decision to continue rather than to brake and pull back in. To my mind, these three facts (without doubt the last two) are all clear evidence of negligence.
The second point is that, whilst my opinion of what constitute matters little, the law – whatever its position now – should protect against this occurrence and should hold the driver responsible for their decision to place other people in clear mortal risk.
What I am saying is that I have no opinion on whether Measures was rightly or wrongly acquitted in the context of current law, because I wasn’t in court to hear all the facts.
What I am saying, and what I will scream from the rooftops if need be, is that regardless of whether the failing was the law against which she was tested or a failure within these specific court proceedings, if this is the result the the law as it stands is not fit for purpose.
The law does not protect people like Daniela or you or me from the entirely avoidable actions of others who see fit to mortally endanger people through simple impatience. It has stated, clearly, that endangering people in this way to save a few seconds from your journey is just fine.
If Measures had not been there then it wouldn’t have mattered. At worst she’d have fallen off her bike. She wouldn’t have been hit by a car at 50mph.
Think about something next time you ride.
Stay to the left of the road. Find a massive pothole. Approach it at 20mph, and swerve at the last minute to avoid it.
Now do that with a car approaching you, on your side of the road, a foot to your right.
It doesn’t matter what the cause of Daniela’s error was. The same could happen to you. It could be a pothole, a puncture, a squirrel, a child’s football, anything.
Set aside the details of whether this result is right or wrong in the context of existing law. You only have to read the statute to see that the law is not fit for purpose. Think instead of whether this result is right or wrong in the context of people making it home alive.
You can’t change the laws of physics. You can change the law of the land.
Colin Peyresourde wrote:I
Point of law – whether the driver was negligent or not isn’t an issue here.
For the charge of causing death by careless driving, the test is whether the standard of driving fell below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver.
Simon_MacMichael wrote:For
This is what makes this all the more astonishing/depressing. “Competent and careful” isn’t a particularly high bar to clear. Essentially what’s being said here is that overtaking when you can’t see the road ahead to be clear is an acceptable standard of driving.
Simon_MacMichael wrote:
For
And this is the scary thing, 12 jurors have declared that overtaking on a blind bend is what competent and careful drivers do!!!!!!
It does then lead to the question, how can you have driving offences tried by drivers who have all done something equally stupid but have gotten away with it?
*Advice*
Individuals who are
*Advice*
Individuals who are involved in such heinous disregards for the sanctity of human life need only do the following:
Say you heard the driver say ‘Allah-ho-Akbar’. The law will then regard it as a terrorist incident and the perpetrator will get at least 10 years.
What a f*****k ignorant and
What a f*****k ignorant and stupid c**t.
I hope that Dr Measures
I hope that Dr Measures revisits what she said and realises how callous it sounds. She is responsible for another person’s death after all, regardless of whether or not her driving was adjudged to be careless in the eyes of the law (and it sounds pretty careless to me).
A case so awful not even
A case so awful not even Daily Mail readers are defending the motorist (although of course the DM is keen on portraying the driver as an upstanding citizen)
What worries me is the
What worries me is the apparent lack of any remorse on driver’s part. Any normal person would be destroyed by an incident like this regardless of who was to blame. Her remarks are all about shifting blame as if she were contesting a parking ticket. The worrying thing is she doesn’t seem to see that she has done anything wrong. Hence she won’t modify her behaviour and is likely to continue driving in the same reckless fashion. Another accident waiting to happen. Shocking.
pastaman wrote:What worries
She’s a drug rep. Morals are not in the job description.
How does this even compare to
How does this even compare to this story:
http://road.cc/content/news/75712-motorists-jailed-separate-dangerous-driving-incidents-involving-cyclists
A motorist is jailed after loosing control of his car with bald tyres and knocks off a cyclist …
This woman didn’t even loose control and KILLED a cyclist.
The Law in this country is a joke.
And if she’d been found
And if she’d been found guilty of careless driving, what kind of pathetic non-punishment would she have received?
Sickening.. The government
Sickening.. The government are happy to cash in on GB 2012 but when it comes to law they are gutless
That is all.
:”(
That is all.
“The jury deliberated for
“The jury deliberated for three hours before returning a ‘not guilty’ verdict.”
Answer – juries should not be used in these cases. Bias. More likely to all be drivers, unlikely to be many cyclists in there.
What it shows, to me, is that 12 random people in this country think this was acceptable driving, maybe cannot see past the possibility of this happening to them as they take a similar risk while driving? Worrying / shocking.
You hit someone head-on on their side of the road, you’re guilty. No clear view to ensure it’s safe, wrong side of the road, guilty. How can that not be ‘careless driving’?
(No subject)
~X( :”( 🙁
This story makes me so so
This story makes me so so sad.
@j_stromquist is the ceo of
@j_stromquist is the ceo of the company, I hope he cares!
feel genuinely numbed by this story, seems everything about it is just plain wrong!
This is an insane,
This is an insane, incomprehensible verdict. I just don’t understand it. My sympathies to Miss Perinova’s family and friends.
Dr Measures cannot be tried again. Sometimes juries do really stupid things, and sadly there was no Henry Fonda on this jury to stop it.
We can sit on our hands and froth at the keyboard, or get involved, and have a go at getting things changed. Bez’s call for change in his blog post The Law and The Road: Things Must Change seems a damn fine start. Luckily I have a cycling pressure/campaign group near me, so that’ll be the first port of call. Getting my hands dirty in CTC’s Road Justice Campaign may also be on the cards.
What Pedro’s said.
Personally
What Pedro’s said.
Personally I wouldn’t be at all suprised if victims decide to seek justice without involving the law.
Jeez, blaming a cyclist on
Jeez, blaming a cyclist on her first outing for panicking a bit when a car is speeding towards you round a bend at 40-50 mph. How do you practise the bike handling skills for that?
It is endemic. I was on a
It is endemic. I was on a Speed Awareness Course at the weekend (cheaper than points and increased insurance for doing 34 mph in a clear open 30 on a summer’s day. Wrong I know but hey ho) and there were at least two off the cuff references by the AA instructor to the idiocy of cyclists on the road. Meantime there were 5 out of 24 in the room who were so stupid that they didn’t even know the basic speed limits. Way, way too stupid to be driving a car. Should be an automatic retest every 5 years for all drivers. No pass, bye bye licence.
Less drivers = less traffic = less congestion and less worn out roads. What’s not to like?
What a tragedy. I was
What a tragedy. I was dumbstruck. How? How? And, how?
OK, so this is a narrow road. The Henley Herald says it was the B480 in Stonor (not the A415 – the A415 is way the other side of Oxford. A4155? Anyway…). Take a look on Streetview.
Yes, it is narrow, but that does not take the responsibility away from the driver. They still have to drive within the limits of what they can see. If there had been a stationary tractor around the corner, would they have been able to stop. I suspect the answer to that is “No”, since they could stop for someone on the other side of the road.
Furthermore, Ms Measures says both that she didn’t have a chance to brake, yet also that she would have stopped suddenly if she had been concerned.
Mr Peyresourde, you’re either trolling or have no idea. Yes, we’re all entitled to our opinion, but sometimes that opinion is wrong. Even if the cyclist did fall over, a) it was because of the shock of seeing someone come toward her at great speed and b) see my paragraph above, it could have been anything in the road. The fact that she couldn’t see it is immaterial. As I said above, you shouldn’t be driving faster than a speed at which you will be able to stop your vehicle (that goes for cars, motorbikes, trucks, horses and bicycles). Having said that we all know what happened. She was driving along at 50, saw a couple of cyclists, couldn’t be arsed to slow down or consider what might be around the corner, squeezed one cyclist, killed the next. Yes, Ms Perinova may well have veered, but like I have said, that does not matter, it could have been a tree, a tractor, a horse, a pedestrian, broken down car – shall I go on? Oh, just read the Highway Code.
The following from Simon Stacey, vice-chairman of the local parish council demonstrates how dangerous the stretch of road is. However, I’m still a little confused as to how a bicycle travelling at 25 mph is more dangerous than a car at 50 mph. But, hey!
He said: “The B480 suffers throughout its length with very fast-moving traffic, vehicles frequently reaching speeds of 50mph along some stretches.
“The residents of Lower and Middle Assendon, Stonor and Pishill all fought long and hard to have the speed limits within the hamlets reduced to 30mph but the fact remains that, on the unrestricted part of the road, the national speed limit is permissible.
“Cyclists are now arriving to practice along the triathlon route and reaching dangerously high speeds and they are frequently to be observed travelling more than two abreast and in lines of five to six, moving as a group.
“This road is not a cycle race track but a very busy and fast country road and it has a number of blind bends and the obstruction of cyclists travelling in this fashion is causing very considerable concern.
“The storm drains and the narrowness of the road are major factors governing the positioning of cyclists on the highway — they frequently are forced to travel in a central position, even when not overtaking one another.
“Motorised vehicles cannot see the cyclists until they are immediately ahead and local residents are becoming increasingly concerned at the narrow escapes that are now the norm.
“Bearing in mind the tragic accident last weekend it would seem imperative to re-evaluate the safety of the cyclists on this part of the route.
“I suggest that members of the organising committee, including yourself, visit the B480 section of the route during the weekend daytime to personally observe the frightening situation that we are now experiencing.”
Quote:
“This road is not a
‘The obstruction of cyclists’!
What an absolutely astounding statement. Cretin.
Simon Stacey, how about
Simon Stacey, how about re-evaluating the behaviour of motorists or considering ways in which to make the road safer for all users?
(No subject)
:&
Courts and Justice system in
X( Courts and Justice system in this country are all for drivers!!! If things dont start changing cyclist will have to take law into their own hands. Bloody ridiclous!!! If this was a cyclist who killed a pedestrian doing te other way, im sure they’ll be no bloddy hesistation and the cyclist would be charged for manslaughter. X(
Its difficult to truly tell
Its difficult to truly tell what I would do if this had been my partner. But I would be tempted to buy car and kill her with it.
I hope her children realise how vial she is showing no remorse.
This is just appalling,
This is just appalling, though not sadly that surprising. As some of the other posts have mentioned, many motorists when faced with a choice of aborting their stupid and dangerous manoeuvre or putting a cyclist at risk invariably go for the latter option, forgetting the fact that cyclists don’t have roll cages, airbags, seat belts or any protective features at all.
IMHO, this woman should be banned. She doesn’t deserve to be on the road if she makes callous judgements like this. One wonders if she had been sampling her own pharmecutical products beforehand as surely no rational person would make such a judgement call!
I think her standard of
I think her standard of driving was pretty bad. Overtaking on a corner? Man, I see it everyday. The best ones are when I’m overtaken on a corner, going over a hill or hump backed bridge.
I don’t see how she got out of this one… seriously, this makes me rather upset.
Attitudes need to change and
Attitudes need to change and until they do then the jury system will be biased towards the motorist. The ladies in our office were discussing cyclists on the road today. They were particularly mad about cyclists riding on a particular road that had a ‘perfectly good cycle path’ at the side of the road (not that any of the lazy gits had ever cycled themselves on said path). I explained why I don’t use the cycle path on that road, and one of them (respectable married mother with young child) said that if she ever saw me she would have to knock me off!! When I responded to such a crazy thing to say, I got the usual road tax crap thrown back.
mrmo wrote:And this is the
There’s the rub – sort of.
The statutory definition does not allow for any specifics as regards what constitutes any given standard of driving: it is all defined as relative to a completely undefined baseline. The CPS guidance does have some examples but (a) they are far from sufficient and (b) as far as road-related offences are concerned, the CPS guidance may as well have been written on the side of a firework and then detonated 200ft in the air: they quite patently ignore it as a matter of course.
The problem, then, is not that jurors are crap at driving (and you can’t randomly pick 12 people and then assess their level of driving – something for which you’d also need an absolutely-defined baseline for anyway), but that the law allows their crap driving to be the standard by which crap driving is judged.
As a tenuous analogy, imagine defining GBH as “something worse than you’d expect on a Saturday night out with your mates” and then filling the jury with football hooligans. The hooligans are not the problem. The problem is that the legal definition is not absolute, but relative to an undefined baseline.
Again, people trolling is not
Again, people trolling is not having a different point of view. Trolling is picking on someone and making them feel small or stupid, effectively bullying and trying to make people feel bad. If anything, accusing someone of trolling (in this instance) is closer to trolling than anything else.
Some people have converted a curve in the road into a bend, which transmute the situation into something that it wasn’t. Again, not having the facts means that you cannot objectively take a strong view point on this.
@ Simon_MacMichael – if this is true, then from the votes of 12 common people we should respect that they did not find Dr Measures to fall below these standards. I would ask that people don’t throw Dr Measures under the bus just because you choose to see a ones-sided report of the circumstances. Legitimate accidents can occur with things in the wrong place at the wrong time. I don’t and neither does anyone else here (unless they were there and that they sat through the court proceedings) that justice was ultimately done.
For those of you who like to track Dr Measures down, this is a massive tragedy, but you make it worse if you unnecessarily ruin someone else’s life. I’m sure she feels terrible about the whole thing and does not sleep easily.
People are making all sorts of assumptions about this case, about the law of our land, about motorist and cyclists in general. Not smart in my opinion, because then you start to view things in a very tribal black and white fashion.
Colin Peyresourde wrote:Some
I do understand where you are coming from, but having been the reciepient of similar behaviour on a very shallow bend and but able to aim for the hedge.
One question, if you can not see round the bend/corner/curve/whatever should you overtake?
That as the only question that matters.
Yes, occasionally engines blow up, tyres burst. Incidents where crap driving kills someone are totally avoidable. If she had waited until she could see would we be having this debate?
and how many lives has she destroyed because she was too important to wait?
Colin Peyresourde wrote:Some
The geometry is totally irrelevant.
She overtook at a point where she could not see oncoming vehicles which (even at cyclists’ pace) she would have to pass on that far side of the road before completing her manoeuvre. She then made a conscious decision not to abort that manoeuvre once it was clear to her that she would need to pass them at speed on their side of the road.
Doesn’t matter if it was a curve.
Doesn’t matter if it was a bend. (What’s the difference between a curve and a bend? – that’s rhetorical, don’t answer it.)
Doesn’t matter if it was a straight bit of road with a truck obscuring her view.
Doesn’t matter if it was fog.
Doesn’t matter if she simply closed her eyes and tried to use The Force.
It was a patently unsafe manoeuvre. You don’t need to argue the minutiae to be able to come to that conclusion: that simple statement above, which contains facts that appear not to be in dispute, is enough.
If you want to defend those actions – regardless of the geometry of the tarmac – as being safe, then do please have a go.
I should make one thing clear: given the current farcical state of the system (including the statute, the CPS and more), and even though I personally think she should have had her licence permanently revoked regardless of the minutiae of the case, I personally don’t particularly care that Measures isn’t serving a hefty sentence.
The horse has bolted. Perinova is dead. What I care about is that the law deems the above driving to be perfectly acceptable.
That is the problem. That is the thing that will cause more people to die.
Colin Peyresourde
Most people define trolling as posting inflammatory remarks in order to get a reaction. When posters come out with statements that most rational people find hard to comprehend, then the logical conclusion is to assume that they are trolling.
This is terrible and I
This is terrible and I absolutely agree that it is shocking that overtaking on a bend where the driver could not clearly see the oncoming traffic is considered “safe and careful driving”.
I’ve had a number of incidents where people overtake coming the other way when I’m cycling, and it is truly terrifying to see a 2ton hunk of metal travelling towards me at 60+mph, only a foot or so wide of my handlebar. I cannot believe that is acceptable.
Other reports of the story do at least mention the driver “sobbing in court as she recalled the events”, so I think the lack of remorse percieved is thanks to road.cc’s reporting rather than a stone cold killer. – either that or some good acting to get off.
As for that councillor who thinks the answer to people getting killed on bikes is removing them from the road – absolute cretin. It’s exactly like saying the way to stop rhino’s from being killed by poachers is to get rid of all the rhino’s. It’s the drivers, not the cyclists that are the problem.
I’m just hanging on til the day that the oil runs out and everyone has no choice but to get on their bike to get to work every day – it will be bliss.
Amazing. What I understand
Amazing. What I understand is she was surprised to see the cyclists heading towards her on their side of the road as she overtook another cyclist whilst going around a corner.
That is F*****g negligence. If you can’t see around a corner it is not safe. it might have been a lorry around the corner (I wish it was, she would be the victim rather than an innocent).
I’m sick of this protect the motorist gobs**ite.
Scum driver, scum judge.
Summing up, Mr Janick
Summing up, Mr Janick Fielding the defence barrister said: “Ben Pontin said it was a stupid decision to overtake. It was nowhere near as stupid as Mr Pontin’s decision to put Denisa Perinova on that bike in the first place.
“He ought not to have been so reckless with the life of his young girlfriend and he failed with terrible consequences.”
Judge Patrick Eccles QC told the jury they would have to consider whether Dr Measures’ driving was careless and set in motion a chain of events which led to Miss Perinova’s death.
The jury of 10 women and two men took three hours, 50 minutes to return a unanimous not guilty verdict.
A letter by Denisa Perinova’s
A letter by Denisa Perinova’s parents.
http://www.henleystandard.co.uk/news/news.php?id=1363185
I can’t shake the feeling that Helen Measures is a scumbag and a weasel.
My God, that is
My God, that is heart-breaking, Denisa was lied about in court and in the press, she wasn’t a novice cyclist at all, that was a pack of lies.