[Closed] Drivers killing cyclists - the system really is broken

but how can a jury not think what she did was blatantly and recklessly wrong?

And R v Razanskas HTF can he get away with that?

What I want to know is where the jurors live. I'm avoiding the roads around them if they consider that careful and competent driving.

The Daily Mail emphasis the fact that she`s a former bell ringer ,does this imply that maybe being involved with the church means she couldnt drive like a **** ?

tempted to add her on linkd in and send her a copy of that open letter but i doubt it would make anything any better

Im tempted to message her to ask if she'll be adding murder to her CV!

Poor woman; first Northwick Park, then this

I imagine she's a tortured soul

Im tempted to message her to ask if she'll be adding murder to her CV!

If you did that you'd do jail time for internet 'trolling', guaranteed.

Screwed up case. This thread and many previous ones have made me angry. What a horrid messed up country we live in.

You're probably right! It amazes me that you can go to prison for words written on the internet or swimming in the Thames, but when you drive down the wrong side of the road and kill someone you get off scot free!

There's 1.25 million people killed in road incidents every year, many more than some issues that we are supposed to have sleepless nights over.

It's the biggest killer of 17 to 29 yr olds full stop.

It's not however as bigger avoidable problem as heart desease, cancer and diabetes caused by the food and tobacco companies or climate change caused by the oil co.s.

You're probably right! It amazes me that you can go to prison for words written on the internet or swimming in the Thames, but when you drive down the wrong side of the road and kill [s]someone[/s] a cyclist you get off scot free!

If you look up the Guittierez-Perez case (drunk driver killing infant in pushchair) - although he took the case on she did not win her appeal (unless she appealed again?)

If you look up the Guittierez-Perez case (drunk driver killing infant in pushchair) - although he took the case on she did not win her appeal (unless she appealed again?)

He says as much on his webpage - the issue I think is with him taking on such cases in the first place. You could argue that somebody has to, but the obvious alternative would be to advise the client not to appeal.

From the infant's mother:
"Then in April we found out that she had decided to appeal against her sentence.
"Since that time we have lived with the anguish that the woman who had taken our precious son away from us quite clearly feels no remorse."

Incidentally I wonder whether they have web tracking on their website and are noticing all the hits coming from here - I'd like to think it a good thing him seeing what others think of him, but in reality I doubt he has enough empathy to care.

moral compass already screwed - sited perminantly at C so i doubt a few cyclists thinking hes a c**t will make much difference.

I sometimes do deliveries to Kings Bench walk in Temple. If I see him I'll [Comment removed at the request of the barrister's chambers - Mod]

Well said mudmonster. 😛

Once you've done that we'll all buy you a bl**dy big drink and slap you on the back 8)

This has made me really sad and cross. 🙁 What exactly can we do here? Who can we write to to get this looked at again?

This has been niggling me all night, how can she get away with it? Surely there are times when the evidence is so bleeding obvious a jury isn't needed? I know I can't change the legal system, and that bastard lawyer is just earning money doing what he can, but, but, but... 🙁

Anyway, I got to thinking, would it possible, if you were the cyclist, or representative of the cyclist, in this situation can you hire a greedy, horrible, devious lawyer to act as the prosecution? Ensure that the driver/killer never drives again and receives a suitable penalty?

Beggars belief.

That brief will probably be laughing as he opens another bottle of champers while reading this.

Who can we write to to get this looked at again?

The jurors heard the case and decided that she was not guilty. Nothing can be done, unless there is significant new evidence. Not sure if even that would allow a retrial tbh.

Or you could join / fund one of the campaigns mentioned more than once on this thread and attempt to effect a sea change through lobbying and raising awareness. Seems like a tiny thing to do in the face of such indifference but it's one of the very few options available...

Or you could join / fund one of the campaigns mentioned more than once on this thread and attempt to effect a sea change through lobbying and raising awareness. Seems like a tiny thing to do in the face of such indifference but it's one of the very few options available...

Also don't forget, i know it may sound like a waste of time, write to your mp and you know those expensive pointless Police commissioners no one voted for? write to them!

Basically either do nothing and except that killing cyclists and pedestrians or join the CTC/BC/LCC etc etc pester mp's, am's, etc etc. If enough people show they are not happy things will change but it is going to take time.

google "Stop de Kindermoord"

Please tell me she lives in a small village where at least everybody will point and whisper. Mind you,she would probably then decide she was being unfairly picked on.

It's this kind of thing that makes me think about jacking it all in and becoming a full time vigilante, like batman to deal out some justice!

It's this kind of thing that makes me think about jacking it all in and becoming a full time vigilante, like batman to deal out some justice!

Just make sure you know before you start!

[url= http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/29/vigilante-murder-paedophile-bristol-bijan-ebrahimi ]http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/oct/29/vigilante-murder-paedophile-bristol-bijan-ebrahimi[/url]

How that lawyer sleeps at night I don't know. Mind you looking at his case history I guess his moral compass was removed many years ago.

How that lawyer sleeps at night I don't know. Mind you looking at his case history I guess his moral compass was removed many years ago.

[img] [/img]

This incident made our local news, and I've been mulling this over all night and half the morning since reading the OP's link, Piss boiling and teeth grinding etc...

I'm in Berkshire, not all that far from Henley really, and I am probably overtaken of approaching from the opposite direction at least once every couple of weeks under similar "Marginal" circumstances, where impatient drivers hedge their bets around me or other cyclists on a blind bend or crest, the potential consequences of their actions seemingly irrelevant to them as they rush to join the next queue at a set of traffic lights...

I find the whole thing pretty disgusting really, I'm not sure what penalty or punishment would really have been be appropriate had the correct verdict (IMO of course) actually been reached, but I do know that Doctor Measures driving licence should have been taken away from her, for the protection of the general public...

She failed the simplest measure of Driving competence, taking appropriate actions to avoid collisions with other road users.

I really can't fathom how being on the wrong side of the road (overtaking cyclists or otherwise) with insufficient visibility to see what is ahead, not being able to stop or accommodate any oncoming traffic (a couple of cyclists, let alone another car or van) to avoid a collision, can be seen as anything other than dangerous driving...

As a medical professional she should, arguably, be more aware than most of the vulnerability of a Human when struck by a heavy, mobile object such as a car, that "Greater understanding of consequences" should have moderated her actions behind the wheel, not be cited as evidence of her "Good Character"...

The man to write to with any concerns surrounding this case would be John Howell, MP for Henley (Con') it's his constituency, and of course he took the seat over from everyone's favourite Tory, Boris. Who as we all know 'champions' the cause of the cyclist, and I'm sure still holds some sway with the great and the good in that area of the world...

Bare in mind that the area is prime Conservative, London commuter belt, territory, and that a good chunk of the locals will spend time away from London in South Oxfordshire enjoying the countryside and quieter roads, Cycling, walking and riding Horses no doubt, The key point to make is that with Dr Measures still on the roads, his constituents, his voters, are less safe, hence this case demands his attention, it is not "Just" a cycling safety issue but a general road safety issue.

I don't know if an MP could request a review of a case, or examination of the evidence from which Jury's decision was reached, but it's certainly worth asking the question IMO.

Interesting comparison case spotted by the CTC Road Justice campaign today:

Driver overtakes on a blind corner, screws up and kills [i]another driver.[/i]

Sentence: six years in jail and a ten year driving ban.

Bit of a difference eh?

http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/boy-racer-gets-six-years-2655307

Didnt pull a successful lance armstrong defence then ?

Just goes to show how shitty the prosecution were on the dr measures case, thats the sentence she should have got!

Yeah I think the difference, aside from the vehicle of the victim, was that the bloke in the second case was, in the words of the judge, "something of the stereotype of the boy racer" due to his "ludicrously powerful motor car" (a 2 litre Clio).

I'm sure if he'd been a nice doctor type he'd have been let off 👿

The difference is the young lady was riding a bike which is an inherently dangerous pastime requiring safety equipment and hi viz. you are actually putting yourself in harms way by choosing to cycle.

The second was a bloke going about his business in a normal way.

That and the the defendant being an educated person with a good doctor means its carry on as you were.

ir_bandito - Member

This has been niggling me all night, how can she get away with it?

She overtook towards two cyclists.
If they were in single file and remained in single file she would not have hit either as one of the cyclists certainly managed to avoid a collision.

There is your reasonable doubt.

Please don't shoot the messenger.

Well thats bullshine anyway. Missed the part where we made up rules for the defence....

Hopefully the next time she overtakes on a blind bend there's a bus/lorry/tractor coming the other way!

A bit with you there sbob. going to read all this tonight.
Headlines using words like 'wrong side of the road' don't help. there is no wrong or right side as such. Yes we drive on the left, but we drive to the conditions of the road and if that means crossing broken white lines we can do so.
Off to work now.

"but we drive to the conditions of the road and if that means crossing broken white lines we can do so."

there is no condition of the road that warrents crossing a broken white line on a blind corner at 50mph

She overtook towards two cyclists.

No, by her own admission she overtook on a bend when she couldn't see oncoming traffic. She didn't see the oncoming cyclists till she was mid-overtake.

From [url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10348435/I-cant-help-it-if-a-cyclist-falls-over-says-scientist-accused-of-killing-rider.html ]The Telegraph[/url] story:

[i]" Asked if she had a chance to brake, she cried and slumped over the witness stand with a tissue clasped in her hand.

Through her tears, she whispered: "No."

She said she was "surprised" to see Mr Pontin and his girlfriend suddenly coming towards her as she rounded the curve in the road, but felt they still had enough room to get past.

"I don't know why I didn't see them," she said. "[/i]

If they were in single file and remained in single file she would not have hit either as one of the cyclists certainly managed to avoid a collision.

Not that is should be relevant but they [i]were[/i] single file. Again her own testimony quoted in The Telegraph:

[i]"I had to make a decision of what to do. I felt the safest decision was to continue straight ahead because [b]they were in single file[/b]."[/i]

There is your reasonable doubt.

The charge was "Death by Careless Driving".

You haven't said anything that casts reasonable doubt on whether overtaking at 50mph on a blind corner is "careless driving".

She overtook towards two cyclists.
If they were in single file and remained in single file she would not have hit either as one of the cyclists certainly managed to avoid a collision.

There is your reasonable doubt.

Please don't shoot the messenger.

I see where you're going, its victim blaming and you're fundamentally wrong...

She overtook a cyclist on a bend, placing her on the wrong side of the road, she could not see what was oncoming, that initial action was the dangerous part...

The consequences we already know, when presented with two oncoming cyclists, it is not the job of a cyclists to present a minimal cross section or magically disappear in order to allow impatient drivers to try and squeak past at 50Mph, her avoiding action should have been to slow down and wait until she had rounded the bend, and could see to safely pass, her actions created a situation she could not control and which was quite likely to lead to a collision...

Putting aside the consequences for a moment, her driving was inherently [U]Dangerous[/U] are you actually going to dispute that?

Unfortunately it did lead to a death, therefore she caused death by dangerous driving, how does this not compute exactly?

She may not have struck the first cyclist (who from my understanding had to take avoiding action) but she did hit the second, whether the second cyclist was tumbling off or unsteady as a result of the lead riders sudden forced braking (having to avoid Dr Measures oncoming car) or through simple inexperience is quite frankly immaterial, she had every right to expect that car drivers (whatever their direction of travel) would allow sufficient space, plus a margin to pass a cyclist safely or else simply not execute the maneuver...

She overtook towards two cyclists.
If they were in single file and remained in single file she would not have hit either as one of the cyclists certainly managed to avoid a collision.

There is your reasonable doubt.

Anyway as Graham and cookeaa said this was careless driving charge, not sure how overtaking at 50 round a blind bend can not be viewed as careless.

oh and can I call troll on IanW?

cookeaa - Member

I see where you're going, its victim blaming and you're fundamentally wrong

You obviously don't.
All I'm doing is pointing out how she might have gotten away with it, as it is clear there are a lot of people that don't really know what goes on inside the courtroom.

How many people here, without having been there or heard all the evidence of the court have used the phrase "blind bend"?

Mr Pontin said he saw Dr Measures make a “stupid manoeuvre” on a curve in the road

So it wasn't a blind bend. 💡

GrahamS - Member

She overtook towards two cyclists.

No, by her own admission she overtook on a bend when [b]she couldn't see oncoming traffic[/b]. She didn't see the oncoming cyclists till she was mid-overtake.

Why are you trying to argue with me?
She did overtake towards two cyclists, that is why there was a fatal collision.
Your bit in bold is made up. The cyclist saw her so she could and should have seen him. The fact that she didn't and openly admitted it makes the lack of conviction even more surprising.

So it wasn't a blind bend.

Are you really arguing that a "curve on the road", where you can't see oncoming traffic, is [i]not[/i] a blind bend.

From [url= http://www.henleystandard.co.uk/news/news.php?id=1363185 ]the parent's letter[/url]:

[i]"She said that she looked ahead and did not see anything approaching. She gave evidence to the judge that if she had seen any cyclist approaching she would not have commenced an overtaking manoeuvre. She further stated that [b]she could not see 100 per cent of the road ahead when she commenced overtaking[/b]."[/i]

Why are you trying to argue with me?

I mistook your soliloquy for a discussion.
Are we not allowed to question you?

She did overtake towards two cyclists, that is why there was a fatal collision.

Yes, but she didn't/couldn't see the oncoming cyclists at the start of her overtake.
So she didn't [i]make a decision[/i] to "overtake towards two cyclists" - she made a decision to overtake towards what she hoped would be clear road.

That's an important distinction.

Your bit in bold is made up.

Not by me it isn't. It is quoted directly from the bits of testimony reported.

The cyclist saw her so she could and should have seen him.

What evidence is there that the cyclists were plainly visible the entire time and she just didn't see them?

I've not seen anything to suggest that - even from the parents or the other cyclist.

Are you really arguing that a "curve on the road", where you can't see oncoming traffic, is not a blind bend.

No, what I was saying was that if the cyclist could see the driver then it wasn't a blind bend.
Why I was saying it was as another example of how doubt is introduced, [b]FFS.[/b]

Are we not allowed to question you?

Feel free, but there was nothing to question. I was just answering another poster's question by pointing out how doubt can be introduced.

Yes

So arguing for no reason then Graham?

So she didn't make a decision to "overtake towards two cyclists"

Never said she did, I just stated a fact that you then disputed, hence me asking why you were trying to argue with me.
So don't give it the "Oooh, are we not allowed to ask questions now?" bullshit when you are either trolling or so full of emotional rage you are having trouble comprehending what I have written.

What evidence is there that the cyclists were plainly visible the entire time and she just didn't see them?

I've not seen anything to suggest that - even from the parents or the other cyclist.

This: "Mr Pontin said he saw Dr Measures make a “stupid manoeuvre” on a curve in the road".

No go and eat a bacon sarnie and come back when you've calmed down a bit. 🙂

indeed - making a manouver lasts more than the nano second you innitiate the manouver though

your still making the manouver right up till the moment you finish making the manouver - that would be the point when your back on your own side of the road.

thus coming into my view (as a cyclist) on the wrong side of the road while your traveling round the corner - id say to someone who asked me " i saw you making a stupid manouver on a blind bend"

he did not say anywhere he watched her initiate a stupid manouver

This: "Mr Pontin said he saw Dr Measures make a “stupid manoeuvre” on a curve in the road".

No go and eat a bacon sarnie and come back when you've calmed down a bit.

All this says is that at some point Mr Pontin saw Dr Measures make a stupid manouvre. In fact the dead body does rather support the statement that someone made a stupid manouvre.

I know what you are trying to do, but the reality is that if you can't see the whole road, and know that the manouvre you are trying can be completed safely in the road you can see then you shouldn't try. Dr Measures made an assumption that the road was clear, that it was safe to go, clearly it wasn't.

There are very few accidents on the road, most of what are referred to as such are driver negligence.

eg

A few years ago cycling on the road from Seven Springs towards Andoversford (near Cheltenham) going up the hill, blind corner, very busy road, come face to face with two cars side by side coming down the hill towards me.

I can tell you someone made a stupid manouvre even though i did not see the whole manouvre.

It's down to tense and semantics, and isn't really worth discussing.

The simple facts are:

The driver cocked up.
This led to the death of a cyclist.
The driver got away with it.
STW's regular "heroes" carry on misconstruing posts for no purpose.

I apologize if this has ended the "discussion" early.

You pick some odd topics to troll sbob, but okay...

Why I was saying it was as another example of how doubt is introduced

Your argument is that she didn't overtake and hope there was no one there. But instead she overtook without looking properly (and then lied about it in court). Yes?

How does that introduce any doubt that her driving was "careless"?

Never said she did, I just stated a fact that you then disputed

I tried to clarify.

Obviously she was heading [i]towards[/i] the two cyclists.

But whether she knew that or not is an important distinction.
Your phrase [i]"She overtook towards two cyclists"[/i] implied (to me anyway) that she knew they were there and overtook anyway, which isn't what the testimony says.

This: "Mr Pontin said he saw Dr Measures make a “stupid manoeuvre” on a curve in the road".

I see.

So your opinion that that they were visible the entire time and no one, not even Mr Pontin, mentioned this fact when she openly lied about it in court and directly to the judge, is based upon someone at road.cc writing [i]"make"[/i] instead of [i]"making"[/i]?

[i]Edit: never mind - I see others have made the point and you've ignored them too.[/i]

janick ?

GrahamS - Member

You pick some odd topics to troll sbob

I'm not the one creating arguments, am I Graham?

All I was doing was explaining how she managed to get let off and how easy it is to introduce reasonable doubt.

You can spend as much energy as you like ignoring the facts, but arguing with me won't change them. 💡

I'm not the one creating arguments, am I Graham?

Erm... I think I'll let everyone else answer that 😆

You can spend as much energy as you like ignoring the facts, but arguing with me won't change them.

Which facts?

The one about them not riding in single file, even though the driver testified they were?

Or the one about it not being a blind bend, even though the driver testified she couldn't see around the bend and didn't see the cyclists?

All I was doing was explaining how she managed to get let off and how easy it is to introduce reasonable doubt.

Please do - I'd be interested to hear it, but nothing you have said so far raises any reasonable doubt at all.

sbob - Member

No, what I was saying was that if the cyclist could see the driver then it wasn't a blind bend.

You seem to be confusing "reasonable doubt" with "absolute nonsense".

there is no condition of the road that warrents crossing a broken white line on a blind corner at 50mph

Indeed, I've never understood why tight/blind bends don't have solid whites?

Please understand i am not seaking to troll this :-
1) blind bend -the boyfreind says he saw her start her stupid manuvere if he could see that it was not a blind bend.
2) her Barrister's chambers choses to advertise his ability to present difficult cases that is his job he is compelled to accept any case he is competent to do . Lawyers do not pick and chose the easy or nice cases, just as Doctors do not specialise in only saving those they deam moraly worthy of treatment . The alternative is that the unpleasant clients have their convictions overturned because they did not get a fair trial.
3) while i disagree with the verdict on the facts as reported, it is not hard to gleen the nature of the argument that the Jury accepted made them unsure as to the doctors guilt.

crankboy - Member

-the boyfreind says he saw her start her stupid manuvere

sauce?

It is in any case a red herring, the overtake was unsafe- the only question is, was it unsafe because she couldn't see what was ahead or was it unsafe despite the fact that she should have seen what was ahead. In either condition I'd expect to go to jail if I killed someone doing that.

Indeed, I've never understood why tight/blind bends don't have solid whites?

IME it makes no difference.

"Mr Pontin said he saw Dr Measures make a “stupid manoeuvre” on a curve in the road" {source bbc.} Make not "making a manoeuver" not "already in the middle of the road". Bet you a trillion pounds both counsel and the judge explored that element of the evidence in considerable detail

I agree that her failure to observe what would have appeared as at least one cyclist in the oncoming carrigeway was good evidence upon which the jury could have found her driving to be careless . Then the issue of causation is raised her evidence appears to have been notwithstanding her manouver there would have been no accident if the cyclist had carried straight on in single file and not fallen over in front of her car . So even finding her to be careless the jury would have been compelled to aquit her if they were unsure that the carelessnes caused the death.

Personally i know how i would have adressed that. Personally i find the reported statement by the defence brief distasteful and i would not have said that in that way inpart for fear of alienating the Jury.

One does wonder about the presentation of the prosecution case but with only news reports to go on the evidence is going to be padded both ways with supposition.

Ah so it's all just conjecture then on your part, fair dos

Northwind the whole thread is conjecture . The only evidence we have is the brief reports and the local knowledge that it was not a blind bend "It's not quite straight but the curves that are on it are enough to restrict your view to warrant caution as traffic can & does move along it at speed."
Who is to say that if we had sat in the Jurys place and listened to the actual evidence we too would not have aquited the Dr.

Yep, but when you said "the boyfreind says he saw her start her stupid manuver" that suggested, well, it suggested that you know the boyfriend said that.

What is a blind bend then? Defined as a bend where you can't see the exit until you've entered the corner?

Northwind i see your point. i am using my gramatical interpretation of "make" and the word manuver . so make a manuver means he saw the manuver from inception to conclusion , making a manuver would imply he saw it while it was in progress ie may have already started saw it having made a manuver would imply that it was compleated . i assume from the context that the only manouver involved was the change of lanes to overtake .

Given that the manuuver in question is essentially the sole issue for trial i am reasonably confident that if mr Potin had said or meant to say his first vision was a car coming round a corner/blind bend on the wrong side of the road that is what his evidence would have been and that is what would have benn reported.

I think that she did what hundreds of motorists do every single day. She was too impatient to slow down and wait till she was absolutely certain that there wasnt an oncoming vehicle . She overtook the cyclists on her carriageway, simply hoping nothing was coming . Maybe running late for her next meeting , or thinking about her last meeting or the next one.
Half way , or a third , or three quaters way round she sees oncoming cyclists . Maybe they didnt have bright clothes or lights /strobes on the bars . She simply carried on 'hoping' there was enough room, Standard operating procedure for alot of drivers unfortunatly . Simply grip the steering wheel tighter and hope.
There might have been room and maybe 99 times out of 100 there is room for 1 car and 2 bikes , and there is no oncoming van/bus/lorry.
This does not make it safe . It makes it dangerous and stupid. This time ,maybe due to the oncoming car, maybe not ... the cyclists had a collision and one ended up falling into the carriagway ( another contributary factor but 'victim blaming' ) She was travelling too fast and commited to the overtake to stop running over the second cyclist who fell in front of her .
The police cross white lines on curves with reduced vision as on a left hand corner crossing the white line increases your line of sight. I seriously doubt she was doing this as most drivers have not had any sort of training post driving test. This is not taught in the driving test.

Then the issue of causation is raised her evidence appears to have been notwithstanding her manouver there would have been no accident if the cyclist had carried straight on in single file and not fallen over in front of her car . So even finding her to be careless the jury would have been compelled to aquit her if they were unsure that the carelessnes caused the death.

There would have been no accident if the cyclist had teleported herself to a galaxy far away. If we've accepted the fact that her driving was careless, then it is well beyond reasonable doubt that her careless driving resulted in the death - it certainly wouldn't have happened had she been on the left side of the road as she should have been. How on earth could you be unsure that the death was as a result of the careless driving? Using your argument, pretty much nobody should be convicted of causing a death on the road, as the victim could have always stayed in bed.

Who is to say that if we had sat in the Jurys place and listened to the actual evidence we too would not have aquited the Dr.

Mainly that we (or at least some of us) understand the legal definition of careless driving, and that none of your playing with words or making silly assumptions changes the fact that her driving quite clearly was (at least) that. If you use the proper definition, which the jury clearly didn't.

So aracer your knowledge of the law is better than the 2 barristers and judge who presented the case .

I really don't want to troll on this thread but please tell me which of my assumptions is silly?

It clearly was not beyond reasonable doubt to the jury who actually knew what the evidence in the case was . Though to be fair beyond reasonable doubt is not the way the test is put , they will have been told only to convict if they were sure of guilt.

Please do - I'd be interested to hear it, but nothing you have said so far raises any reasonable doubt at all.

In your opinion, however it appears the court did find reasonable doubt.

Unless I've made a mistake somewhere and the woman was actually found guilty... ❓

crankboy - Member

"Mr Pontin said he saw Dr Measures make a “stupid manoeuvre” on a curve in the road" {source bbc.} Make not "making a manoeuver" not "already in the middle of the road". Bet you a trillion pounds both counsel and the judge explored that element of the evidence in considerable detail

At least someone else gets it.

there would have been no accident if the cyclist had carried straight on in single file and not fallen over in front of her car

This does seem to be the argument that swung it. And explains why the defence were so keen to portray her as a novice cyclist out on a ill-advised first ride on a new bike with an over-confident boyfriend, who just fell randomly at a really bad time.

Of course her parents letter points out that is nonsense and she was "[i]an experienced and competent cyclist, having cycled since a very early age "[/i], but they weren't called as witnesses.

Her "fall" seems to be the direct result of her and her boyfriend trying to take evasive action to avoid the oncoming car, so it seems a bit odd to blame her for it.

I do wonder, had the cyclists been oncoming cars instead, if the defence would have been [i]"They skidded suddenly (as they tried to emergency stop before smashing headlong into my client)"[/i]. I suspect not, because a jury of drivers would see straight through that.

Most bizarre of the whole thing is the coverage by The Daily Heil which said:

It was unclear whether the young Czech woman had actually been struck by the defendant’s Mini but the other pair of cyclists claim they heard an impact.

!?!?!?

So aracer your knowledge of the law is better than the 2 barristers and judge who presented the case .

No, but it's almost certainly better than every single member of the jury who decided it. I also doubt that one of the barristers was presenting an unbiased view of the law - not when he appears to be into victim blaming (when the law suggests that as a vulnerable road user she should have been accorded more care rather than less - I'm sure he knows that, but was trying to avoid it).

It clearly was not beyond reasonable doubt to the jury who actually knew what the evidence in the case was

...and who were probably all drivers, and probably none cyclists, and when applying the standard of a "careful and competent" driver based it on an average driver (despite the fact that an average driver isn't careful or competent). Because that's the way it seems to work.

Although he goes about it in an argumentative and patronising fashion sBob does actually have a point, the defence's arguments clearly did stick, and raised enough doubt in the juries minds over the exact cause or contributing factors to this death.

Perhaps the prosecution would have had more success with an even lesser charge of careless driving (without the "causing death by" element). That point doesn't seem to have been contested, Dr Measure's driving was at least "careless", it fell below the expected standard. She either had insufficient visibility or simply didn't look but she still pulled out, there are three living witnesses who's testimony would have supported that charge... And that would have been at least a two year driving ban, and a fine, probably no custodial sentence, and obviously no assignment of liability for the death that occurred...

I still think the jury were wrong, the key point for me still comes back to a car traveling at 50mph on the wrong side of the road, how any oncoming traffic reacts to that sort of unexpected, sudden threat shouldn't be seen as mitigation for a dangerous act where the worst imaginable consequences came to pass.

But that's what has happened, you can't change it now... I'm sure Dr Measure feels guilt even if the law did not find her so, Would placing her in prison have benefitted society? I doubt it. If she truly is the upstanding decent character certain elements of the press portray her as, maybe she would have the decency to turn in her driving licence of her own volition.

All IMO of course...

Cookeaa due care is a discretionary 6 month ban maximum normaly just points up to 9. Despite aracers willful refusal to consider the issue the case does seemed to have turned on the causation point . Legally this is a very narrow one as the link between the careless driving and the death need be no more than de minibus i.e. the jury simply have to say the careless crossed the line from being part of the factual background to having some causative role. I am surprised the jury came to the conclusion they did on the available facts but as said we don't have many of them to second guess their decision in particular width of road and degree of bend . I'm not even sure if it was a left or right bend from the drivers view.

Aracer the barrister is unlikely to have presented any view of the law to the jury and no doubt would have got a nose ender had he tried . The judges job is to tell the jury the law . The juries job is to decide the facts based on the evidence they have heard and apply the law as the judge has told them it is to those facts . If the barrister presented a biased view of the law in his closing speech A) he would blow his credibility with the jury as the judge would tell them to ignore what he said because he was wrong B) he would run the risk of the judge discharging the jury and starting the trial again for which he may have to personally pay the wasted costs C) he could get struck off.

Plenty of silly assumptions about the jury in your post .

If she truly is the upstanding decent character certain elements of the press portray her as, maybe she would have the decency to turn in her driving licence of her own volition.

You need to wake up and smell the coffee cookeaa, she hired the most loathsome defence lawyer she could find and she didn't even have the decency to apologise to the dead girls parents. I expect she celebrated the court outcome with a bottle of Bolly 👿

Thank you for your email of 3 October 2013 addressed to the Transport Secretary about the tragic death of a cyclist. The Secretary of State for Transport replies personally only to letters from his own constituents and those from fellow MPs. Other letters relating to road safety are passed to this office for reply by officials. I have been asked to reply.

I was sorry to hear of the incident where Denisa Perinova was knocked down and killed. . Such tragedies reinforce our determination to reduce the toll of people needlessly killed and injured on our roads and I can assure you that doing so remains a key priority in Government.

Their have been a number of initiatives to improve pedestrian and cyclist safety such as 20 mph zones, countdown crossings and £107m investment in cycling infrastructure over the last year including £35 million to tackle dangerous junctions for cyclists across the country. The Department’s Think! campaign also addresses pedestrian and cyclist safety.

As you can appreciate, the Government does not comment on individual cases. As in all Court cases the jury come to a decision on the evidence that is heard.

Yours sincerely,

Jeff Gilmore

Seems a shocking waste of a life.

My thanks to those of you who've taken the time to write to those in office about it. Hopefully if we keep on keeping on then attitudes will change someday. Also to those who have clarified the law and machinations of court. Interesting to know.

[b]crankboy[/b] you seem fairly conversant in the law. I was idly wondering (as a layperson) about that whole spectrum of "Death by Dangerous Driving" > "Death By Careless Driving" > "Dangerous Driving" > "Careless Driving"

From what I gather the CPS have to decide the appropriate level of charge and if they fail to get a prosecution then that's that. Hence why they tend towards the lesser charges as they are easier to prove and secure a conviction on. Is that correct?

If that's the case then I wonder if it might be a better system if, instead of four separate charges, we had a single charge and let the jury decide the severity of it (i.e. whether it was [i]dangerous[/i] or just [i]careless[/i] and whether it led directly to the death or just contributed to it).

I'm sure there are good reasons that we have the current system, but it seems a bit odd that in cases like this one we might have a situation where the jury agree what the defendant did qualified as careless driving, but have reasonable doubt over whether it directly caused the death, and as a result they receive no punishment at all.

If she truly is the upstanding decent character certain elements of the press portray her as, maybe she would have the decency to turn in her driving licence of her own volition.

"I would expect cyclists to generally remain upright as the first cyclist did and went past. When I looked, it was sufficiently clear not to stop me doing that manoeuvre.[/i]
From [url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/10348435/I-cant-help-it-if-a-cyclist-falls-over-says-scientist-accused-of-killing-rider.html ]the Times[/url] Sounds like she is convinced she did nothing wrong so I think Natrix's summary is probably on the money.

I'd be very interested in knowing what swung it, what bit of evidence/testimony made a jury decide that a driver voluntarily crossing to the wrong side of the road hitting a cyclist who then died was not careless driving leading to death. Coz if it was down to "well she's a driver just like us" then I ****ing despair, I really do.

Only other thing I can think of is "the cyclist fell over her fault", but I have serious difficulty believing any human being could go with that in this scenario. and if that was the argument why the hell did the prosecution not call in the parents to state Denisa's experience/ability

Despite aracers willful refusal to consider the issue the case does seemed to have turned on the causation point .

I'm not refusing to consider it - I've considered it and determined that it shouldn't have turned on that. There is no doubt that if Dr Measures had stayed on her side of the road Miss Perinova wouldn't have been killed.

the barrister is unlikely to have presented any view of the law to the jury and no doubt would have got a nose ender had he tried

There's a difference between telling the jury the law and implying things and being economical with the truth. After all, the barrister was apparently allowed to get away with victim blaming in his closing.

Plenty of silly assumptions about the jury in your post .

That they were all drivers?
That none were cyclists?
That they used a lower standard of driving than they should for "careful and cautious"?

Which if those is a silly assumption?

@natrix - I started with [I]if[/I], I don't really think any of us can know her true feelings or motives. But I'm not sure how helpful it really is to demonise Dr Measures either, although it is my own instinct to think that way as well, I think I've calmed down a bit since yesterday...
The whole point is not that she's "Evil" or "Bad" but simply careless and thoughtless and relatively speaking a "normal" driver, prone to lapses in judgement and falling below the expected standard, she's not that exceptional. She probably carries the same character flaws as most other drivers, or indeed cyclists...

Can any of us honestly say that under similar circumstances we wouldn't instruct the "Best available"legal representation to try and avoid prison? or would your conscience always override your instinct for self preservation?

I'm not seeking to justify, merely understand...

She will of course have been advised not to contact the family and certainly not to apologize as that could be considered an admission of guilt...

Lets not confuse seeking to avoid the full force of the law with not feeling guilt for ones actions, I doubt anything in life is as black and white as some people seem to think...

From re-reading [url= http://brake.org.uk/component/content/article/15-facts-a-resources/facts/497-inadequate-criminal-charges-for-drivers-who-kill-and-maim-through-bad-driving-in-the-uk ]this[/url] I suppose they might have gotten her with "Dangerous Driving" rather than careless driving, what they went for was a watered down charge anyway, and it still didn't stick.

As a member of the public I simply want to know Dr Measures isn't behind the wheel any longer, I could understand the family of the victim wanting something more punative, and Those tasked with enforcing road traffic law would probably have their efforts helped by a stronger verdict and sentence that served as a cautionary tale to other motorists. Ultimately a lifetime driving Ban is actually a staggeringly hard thing to get. you might loose your licence for 14 years but ultimately it seems the law is quite keen on letting you have it back eventually...

The CPS probably felt there was a good chance of getting a Death by careless driving conviction, 20:20 hindsight is a wonderful thing, but I don't think the CPS should be chasing lesser charges where a stronger one is more appropriate, they have to hope that it won't be contested too strongly by the defence if its seen to be a bit on the "light" side, it seems that in this instance a sharp defence haven't worried too much about the Standard of driving point, but have focussed on the reasonable doubt element, did the cyclist fall of her own volition? was that a contributing factor? simply showing the question as credible, that's enough to undermine an already "less significant" charge.

This is of course all speculative conjecture and "Trial by media" and only serves to boil piss and bring out the trolls, write to your MP, pop something on your blog or FB page, chip into a campaign that matches your views on the topic, right now the best represented views on road safety seem to be those of the average dozy driver, the only way to change that is to shout louder and more convincingly than they do, that we can is one of the main advantages of having free speech.

From re-reading this I suppose they might have gotten her with "Dangerous Driving" rather than careless driving

I said as much up-thread - the staggering thing about this case is that she was actually guilty of DBDD (if applying the law properly).

IMHO apart from in really exceptional circumstances hitting a vulnerable road user with a car should be sufficient proof of at least careless driving all on its own - given that a careful and cautious driver is supposed to take extra care around them and give them space to do "silly" things (not that I'm suggesting the cyclist did in this case, but that seems to be the defence line).

The other thing i think of, it is established in law that cyclists are allowed to wobble and move around. That Dr Measures actions meant that the victims had no wobble room means another example of why her actions were dangerous.

cookeaa - Member

Can any of us honestly say that under similar circumstances we wouldn't instruct the "Best available"legal representation to try and avoid prison? or would your conscience always override your instinct for self preservation?

I avoid the situation by not killing cyclists by the medium of dangerous driving. I don't know how I'd react, I'd like to think I'd be honest about it but I can see that morality might go out the window once you've got blood on your hands. But then that cuts both ways.

GrahamS it is hard to be sure of the way the case was left with the jury and specifically I am making an assumption above about carelessness. What if this road is wide it is a gentle right hand bend and affords a clear view to the driver she starts an overtake of cyclists at moderate speed not noticing oncoming cyclists in single file she is straddling the centre line having now noticed the cyclists she realises that she has plenty of room and so elects to complete her manoeuvre, at that point the rearmost cyclist panics some how contacts the front one and suddenly falls off in her path with fatal consequences. I realise that the above scenario is open to challenge and attack (and may be me for suggesting it ) but if those were the sort of facts that the jury heard then may be they were not sure on the evidence that the driving was below "what would be expected of a careful and competent driver " .. "in the circumstances of which he could be expected to be aware".. and in circumstances he can be shown to have been aware of.

In answer to your specific question re the selection of charge and the spectrum of offences . The general rule is that the greater charge includes the lesser, so that on a serious charge a jury (but not a magistrate in the lower courts) can return a not guilty on the indicted charge but a guilty on an alternative lesser charge. In relation to driving death cases this is given statutory effect by section 24 of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988. so basically if death by dangerous is charged alternatives are
i) dangerous driving
ii) death by careless
iii) careless or inconsiderate driving.

So in effect as is often the case your simple and logical suggestion is what the law actually states. Why it in this case did not produce the result in this case, that I and others would have expected based on the media reports I can only speculate about. May be there was more to a full jury trial and the actual evidence than has been reported in a few short paragraphs?

Thanks crankboy, that's interesting because one of the justifications I hear banded about is that CPS prefer to charge for "careless driving" as there is more chance of a conviction.

But if a trial for Dangerous Driving charge can still find someone guilty Careless Driving then why is that an issue?

Certainly the Careless vs Dangerous thing is one of the key points on the CTC Road Justice campaign.

http://www.roadjustice.org.uk/category/official-response/careless-rather-dangerous-charge
http://www.roadjustice.org.uk/information/legal

"what would be expected of a careful and competent driver "

does the judge point out that the jury should be comparing the defendant driving to a good standard not their own?

GrahamS because the dangerous driving charge requires proof of driving falling far below the standard of mr competent and careful creating a risk of danger that would have been obvious to mr c and c . I assume that where CPS don't charge Dangerous they are of the view that they can't get home on it , it is tactically a bad move to spend ages trying to win an argument lose and then sulk and push for something different also people tend to side with the underdog if you appear to be wielding an over the top sledge hammer to deal with an obvious small nut then you may come across as lacking judgement and lose credibility .
Lawyers are not allowed to discuss outcomes with jurors so their is a lot of cod psychology about the impact of certain tactical decisions .

Personally where I work cps tend to over charge in these cases and see what comes out in the wash .

In this case I do wonder if the good Dr would have been keen to deny Death by careless if she had faced an arguable death by dangerous count on the indictment. she may have been willing to plead to the death by due care to avoid the risk of conviction on the more serious count.

I doubt many judges would seek to expand on the plain English of the definition quoted above, and would leave what that means to the jury. with perhaps some references to the high way code and pointing out what the crown said were the driving errors.