Cyclist found not guilty after collision with pedestrian, who died eight days later

IanMSpencer wrote:

We haven't seen what advice is offered by a typical judge for such a charge to succeed.

I suspect that the charge is akin to dangerous vs careless driving, only with a few less precedents to muddy the water. So I would guess, but don't know, that it is not sufficient to argue that the cyclist was careless or inattentive but there must be an extra level of deliberateness or foolishness to meet the criteria

According to this:

1. There must be a degree of lack of care that would ordinarily amount to dangerous driving. This can involve driving recklessly. ‘Reckless’ was defined in the case of R v Okosi (1997) RTR 450 as follows:
“Driving a vehicle in such a manner as to create an obvious and serious risk of causing physical injury to some other person.”

2. It must be reasonably foreseeable that there is a risk of causing harm or injury to another. This can be where the defendant was aware there was a risk but went on and took that risk regardless. This is known as subjective recklessness. Or there can be objective recklessness which means the defendant gave no thought to the risk but the reasonable man would have seen the risk given how obvious it was.

I don't think the cycling in this case was reckless, possibly it might have amounted to careless cycling. Difficult to say if you weren't in court.

IanMSpencer wrote:

We haven't seen what advice is offered by a typical judge for such a charge to succeed.

We don't need to.  The CPS charging guidelines (which are based on the likelihood of achieving a successful prosecution) give exactly that perspective:

"Prosecutors should only prosecute this offence when it is not possible to prosecute for an offence under the RTA 1988

The offence can only be committed if the driver has a degree of subjective recklessness so far as the foreseeability of causing injury is concerned. In other words, he or she must appreciate that harm was possible or probable because of the manner of driving: see R v Okosi [1996] CLR 666."

Remember that those guidelines are written from the perspective of drivers, not cyclists.

However, I'm not talking about alternative charges, I am talking about the guidance the judge will have given to ensure the jury understand the law and the decisions they are allowed to make. We don't know what the judge said about things like the definitions of reckless and dangerous, and what reference they made to precedents. For example, the judge might have said "You must find that there was a deliberateness in their actions or it was obvious that he was riding in such a way that it was inevitable he would crash."

Without knowing what constraints the judge put on the jury with their deliberations, we cannot really understand the way the jury came to their conclusion.

The fact that another vehicle was able to safely respond to the pedestrian but the cyclist was not indicates that the cyclist was going too fast for the conditions IMO.

I'm happy to do 20 or even 30 (downhill obviously)on a road where you've got room to manoeuvre should a pedestrian step out but on a narrow track like the one in question it seems like a recipe for disaster.

I wasn't clear which way they were coming sounds more like right to left as I read it in which case the width of road can be added in.
Still not sure how long he was wandering in the middle of the road.

From Streetview it appears there is a little green strip on either side.

From the reports I took it that he was cycling in that green cycle lane (h/t CoaT) travelling faster than the cars in the rest of the road with parked cars to his left.

That seems reasonable but what I find unclear is the ped - was he travelling left to right or right to left. Then there is the bit about being in the middle. Did he walk along the road a bit then decide to head for the pavement? In which case it may be as Hoarseman suggests 'I'm not so sure of that, they swerved around the pedestrian, possibly obscuring them from following traffic in the process.'

As to speed, seems to be travelling too fast that you would be liable for a collision or too fast that you can't react to a hazard but it is the other parties fault. I'm thinking of those ones where a cyclist in the lane gets struck by a driver coming the other way and turning across them.

I'm guessing the jury went with the second one based on the actual charge. OR rejected the first based on the charge.

I was impressed with this driver from Sunday's dash cam

https://youtu.be/ARCjC8I1Puc?t=87

This one is a bit more 50/50

https://youtu.be/ARCjC8I1Puc?t=397

I took it that the pedestrian was crossing the road, through the traffic lanes and then walked into the cycle path.where the collision occurred. I suspect the cars were moving pretty slowly.

I think it's the charge itself which has helped him get acquitted.

If he'd been charged with 'causing death through careless cycling' he'd likely have been convicted in my opinion.

RLJ. Headphones. Excessive speed for the circumstances.

All point to carelessness in this case but not IMO recklessness.

Rich_cb wrote:

 RLJ. Headphones. Excessive speed for the circumstances.

RLJ 800 metres previously. Well below the posted speed limit. Headphones perfectly legal and would make no difference anyway unless you believe that a cyclist can hear a pedestrian's footsteps. Why are you so desperate to try and find the cyclist in the wrong when the evidence - and the verdict of the jury - clearly point to a tragic accident caused by pedestrian error?

I think the rlj, headphones are not relevant but I think it is reasonable to consider the speed. Proving the charge was not going to be met due to the high threshold but it does raise the question of what would have happened in a lower charge.

See also IanMSpencer's post

I would not have been taking that much speed into that road given the layout and voume of traffic - but really for self preservation.

Rich, I think it quite a leap from the facts in the public domain to reach the conclusion of a 'careless' conviction being a likely outcome.

I disagree.

As a general rule the CPS only proceed if they think a prosecution has a good chance of success.

60% is the rule of thumb according to a detective friend of mine so we can assume the CPS felt this prosecution had at least a 60% chance of success.

Given that carelessness should be far easier to prove than "wanton and furious driving" you'd have to assume the CPS would deem the likelihood of success to be higher.

Obviously the point at which we say a conviction is likely is quite subjective but once you get over 70% I'd say that's a very reasonable description.

I don't think there is enough clear evidence in the public domain that allows us to assess if the CPS's decision was a good one.

It is also why I have not joined in the speculation about the case.

Rich_cb wrote:

The fact that another vehicle was able to safely respond to the pedestrian

I'm not so sure of that, they swerved around the pedestrian, possibly obscuring them from following traffic in the process. Perhaps if they had stopped and used their horn, there might have been a different outcome.

Yes, I think panda above describes it well:

panda wrote:

 It reads as though a car had overtaken the cyclist, and the driver steered right to avoid the - apparently confused - pedestrian who was finishing crossing from the driver's right, leaving the cyclist nowhere to go when the pedestrian suddenly appeared in view?

The driver in question said, "They just saw each other at the last second."

If I saw a car swerving in front of me I'd be slowing down rapidly regardless of what I could see.

Rich_cb wrote:

If I saw a car swerving in front of me I'd be slowing down rapidly regardless of what I could see.

By all accounts that's what the cyclist did, witnesses said they heard the bike's brakes squealing.

Pedestrian was coming from the opposite side of the road as the parked cars /cycle lane apparently which meant she could swerve right to avoid him.  And cyclist also tried to do a similar  avoiding manouve around Mr Gunn but he stopped and stepped back apparently.

I suspect cyclist was monitoring left hand side for danger and not right as much if car just ahead was moving at a pace where she couldn't actually stop in time to avoid Mr Gunn but had to swerve. Coming from that side could also mean that her moving car hid Mr Gunn.

The cyclist was riding in a very narrow lane with obstacles on both sides limiting visibility.

In those circumstances his speed was, IMO, excessive.

Rich_cb wrote:

The cyclist was riding in a very narrow lane with obstacles on both sides limiting visibility. In those circumstances his speed was, IMO, excessive.

It's amazing that you have such clear knowledge of the cyclist's speed, where he was positioned in the road, and what obstacles were there at the time and how the tragedy could have been avoided when there is no video of it available. It's quite distasteful how the usual suspects (apart from Martin73, who has been conspicuous by his absence in the last 24 hours, having revelled in what he supposed was a guaranteed guilty verdict beforehand) are determined to make this the cyclist's fault despite the verdict of the court, exactly the same people who, if he had been found guilty, would have been ridiculing any mitigation put forward by anyone else and any suggestion that the court had made anything but the right decision.

I don't agree that the other vehicles ability to react automatically means the cyclist was travelling too fast.

I do agree however that a degree of culpability does naturally remain with the cyclist no matter the verdict.

IMO the most dangerous roads for vulnerable road users is heavy, flowing, but slow moving traffic on urban roads. its all too easy to follow the vehicle in front too closely, relying on their reactions to dictate your own driving. Large chains of vehicles form where no one is taking any notice of wider potential hazards.

All is good until the car infront misses something. The following vehicle is then suddlenly left with minimal time to react to a hazard.

My gut feeling is that the cyclist here was not paying full attention to the road, relying on the vehicle infront to react to potential hazards and was merely looking at the cycle lane infront. The car drivers last minute swerve left the cyclist with insufficent time to react.

Lots of other questions here too mind... was the car drivers swerve indicative of lack of care / consideration and contributed to the accident? do cycle lanes offer insuffiient visability for cyclists in heavy traffic? Do these cycles lanes faciliate situations where spacing between cycles and other vehicles are insufficient for urban areas? 

Yep, a few parties actions and infrastructure could be improved, but I don't think you could possible hold the cyclist to accunt in isolation on this one. 

I think you've got to lok at his speed in the context of the lane he was travelling in.

It was narrow giving limited opportunity for evasive manoeuvres so he was essentially relying on his brakes.

The faster you're going the longer it's going to take to stop.

I actually agree with the verdict in this case but had there been more options on the statute book I suspect he'd have been tried for 'Causing Death through Careless Cycling' and IMO probably convicted.

Rich_cb wrote:

The fact that another vehicle was able to safely respond to the pedestrian but the cyclist was not indicates that the cyclist was going too fast for the conditions IMO.

I would argue that the driver was also going too fast if the cyclist was.

The response to a pedestrian in the road should be stopping not swerving. This incident shows one of the reasons why - a vehicle behind you can't necessarily see past you. You can swerve much later than you would need to brake to avoid a collision which leaves the vehicle behind with far, far less warning (n.b. a pedestrian crossing the road from the far side will usually take long enough to cross a lane that you could be expected to get fairly close to stopping from 30mph - typical walking pace of 4mph = 1.8m/s, so 2s to cross a standard lane))

Unless we are arguing safe following distances should be full braking distance (so significantly longer than they are now...)

While I will argue we go too fast in urban areas and accept an argument that the riding was sub standard from what we know, under current law/interpretation, a driver in similar circumstances quite plausibly wouldn't have been charged, let alone convicted.

From the reports the driver had time to warn their passenger that they were about to slow down.

"Ms Orzsic told her daughter, who was in the passenger seat, that she would have to ‘slow down’ and the court heard how she steered her car to the right so she didn’t hit him"

It doesn't sound like an emergency manoeuvre and the driver clearly had plenty of time to react to an unexpected hazard. Given that, I'd say her speed was appropriate.

It's very hard to know what would have been the CPS decision for a driver driving through red lights whilst listening to loud music and then shortly after hitting a pedestrian. I'd hope that prosecution would be considered as it was in this case.

"shortly after" - half a mile later.  In an urban area.

At 23 miles an hour he would have covered that half a mile in under 90 seconds. I think that meets the criteria for 'shortly after'.

Whenever there is a collision investigation the police will often ask for dash cam footage of the vehicles involved prior to the collision even if the footage does not include the collision itself.

It's pertinent evidence. If you have footage of one car being driven aggressively and recklessly and the other car being driven sensibly and legally it's helpful when building a case one way or the other.

The cyclist chose to run a red light during that journey.

That is evidence as to the manner of their cycling prior to the collision. It's admissible in court as evidence against the cyclist.

Rich_cb wrote:

It's pertinent evidence. If you have footage of one car being driven aggressively and recklessly and the other car being driven sensibly and legally it's helpful when building a case one way or the other.

The cyclist chose to run a red light during that journey.

That is evidence as to the manner of their cycling prior to the collision. It's admissible in court as evidence against the cyclist.

Of course you are right, and evidence of reckless, aggressive cycling with a cavalier attitude towards the safety of others only minutes before the collision should count against the accused. I think the mistake is to then necessarily equate RLJ with those aggressive, cavalier attitudes.

Certainly jumping a red light can be the outcome of an aggressive, dangerous, selfish disregard for safety. It could also be that the junction was deserted, the lights were about to change, a tipper truck was approaching from behind and the cyclist prioritised pragmatism over punctiliousness. Or something in between, or altogether different (he failed to see the lights?).

None of that excuses the RLJ, and if he were on trial for that then he's guilty. But used as a proxy for the character of his riding, I think only the jury are in any position to judge

There are, of course, situations in which RLJing is not dangerous or in which RLJing is the safest option available. In the majority of cases though it is a dangerous manoeuvre carried out for expediency's sake.

I believe he was given the opportunity to explain the RLJ and did not offer any explanation or mitigation.

"During the cross examination with prosecuting barrister, Simon Blakerough, Mr De Bruin said he 'did not know why' he ran a red light"

That leads me to believe it wasn't a justifiable RLJ.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/cyc...

Rich_cb wrote:

There are, of course, situations in which RLJing is not dangerous or in which RLJing is the safest option available. In the majority of cases though it is a dangerous manoeuvre carried out for expediency's sake.

I believe he was given the opportunity to explain the RLJ and did not offer any explanation or mitigation.

"During the cross examination with prosecuting barrister, Simon Blakerough, Mr De Bruin said he 'did not know why' he ran a red light"

That leads me to believe it wasn't a justifiable RLJ.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/cyc...

I wouldn't read that into his silence on the matter. I suspect he may have taken advice, or have been canny enough himself, to know that no good would come of telling a jury that it was in any sense "ok" or even "not dangerous" or (heaven forbid) "justifiable on grounds of safety" for a cyclist to RLJ. A slightly deferential "I don't know why I did that" may have been his best option. Just my speculation.

I did consider that.

Explaining the thought process of a cyclist to a jury of non cyclists may be more trouble than it's worth.

It's a shame the video is not publicly available. Without it we can do no more than speculate.