[Closed] Death by dangerous driving - a drivers perspective

[i]what is the appropriate sentence[/i]

answer is [i]it depends[/i] which is why judges have discretion. In her case probably less than some joy rider who just didn't give a stuff and has shown no remorse.

🙄 surely she has to be tried and found guilty before sentancing

Wont be found guilty.

depends if she pleads guilty or not really andylaightscat.

given what's described of her mental state I do wonder if a guilty plea might be forthcoming (if only to spare herself the trial).

might be interesting to see an impact statement from the victims (which is what the cyclist was, regardless of how the driver has reacted) family for balance...

Death by careless driving would appear to have little defence? She hit a cyclist and they died. The cyclist did nothing wrong. Perhaps not reckless driving

Sounds like she's sentenced herself to be honest.

Cases like this TeeJ, are the exception though. If she'd had decent legal representation and support, she may well have got through this.

Recommended sentence there is community service then.

Turning across the path of an oncoming vehicle is considered to be careless driving by the CPS, rather than dangerous. Therefore death by careless driving would be the relevant offence. Depending on when it happened, they might not be able to use it. Death by careless driving only became law in 2008 (the death of Jason MacIntyre in January 2008 happened shortly before it became law), anything prior can only be prosecuted as careless driving, for which there is no prison sentence.

I know a guy who killed a bloke when driving. It was late at night, dark and this bloke had had a few (I believe) and just stepped into the road in front if my mate from between parked cars. He killed him instantly I believe. He was not breaking any laws and the police were very understanding at the scene. Even the dead guys family said my mate was not to blame. It really affected my mate. He hates driving at night and especially past parked cars at night. He's a good driver, IAM & ROSPA trained. These things happen. Just accidents. In the OPs case it was probably the drivers fault, but if it's as clear cut as it sounds IMO the sentence should be lenient or none at all. It won't do any good to sentence someone who's already suffered for her mistake so much, and will continue to do so. Every case is different though

If the facts are as described, I'd expect (and hope) that she'd be acquitted. Bad things happen, and there's a risk for all of us on the road.

Did she hit the guy? Yes.

Could she have avoided it? Not sure how.

Could anyone have reasonably forseen that even if she was fully responsible for the accident, this would turn into a fatality? No.

Dreadful, but it's one of those genuine accidents which unfortunately happen. Short of going at 2mph everywhere, what else could this woman have done?

tis a good question, and one which i sometimes consider too from time to time. is prison really appropriate for law abiding citizens who have a momentary lapse in concentration? shouldnt prison be for people who are a danger to society? or need to be punished?

in this case it looks like the womans mental state of mind is punishment enough, thats if she should even be punished. what was her crime? shes been charged with dangerous or reckless driving, but was she driving dangerously or recklessly? probably not.

someone died, so its natural for that persons family to want to see 'justice' done, but whats justice? :-/ are they going to put a price on that persons life? if the woman got 5 years in prison, im sure some people would be saying "5 years?? for my mothers/fathers/sons life??" etc etc

so......can it be put down to 'just an accident'? or is someone always to blame and needs punishing?

toughie :-/

I like Peter Poddy's example, insofar as it leads to the suggestion that no charge is in order. Morally, if not legally, there must be provision for a blameless accident.

IMO someone is always to blame. No such thing as an accident with motor vehicles In PPs case the pedestrian was to blame.

In my example the driver was to blame it would appear. .

For reasons decribed above, the offence of Death by Due Care was introduced.

Tragic, though it is, that someone has died is not in itself evidence of dangerous driving. However, it would suggest that at the very least there has been a momentary lapse in attention. That said, there would still need to be evidence for the CPS to agree the charge; this is a lot harder than you'd think, and one reason the Police refer to them as the Criminal Protection Service. I am told that the probability of a succesful prosecution needs to be >80% for the CPS to continue a case.

I was told this story recently by a close friend of the driver concerned. I think it illustrates how difficult achieving justice is.

TJ, to be fair, I would've thought you would have been slightly less naive than this. Its hardly unbiased opinion here, is it? Also, has the driver told the close friend everything that she has said in the Police interview, or for reasons of shame, embarrasment, the need not to be judged too harshly by friends, has she been economic with the whole story? if she's been charged there [i]HAS[/i] to be evidence of the offence.

She made a right turn and hit a cyclist that she simply did not see. Experienced cyclist wearing reflective / dayglo kit and with lights. I know the road in question and it has groups of trees on it some overhanging the road. Presumably the cyclist was in a patch of shade and the driver simply did not see them in the glare

If you cannot be certain what is in your path, do you drive into that area anyway? This, perhaps, undermines her "professional" driver status (taxi drivers are professional drivers - are they good drivers?).

It has had serious effects on her as well that will last the rest of her life

And the family of the deceased?

On the other hand cyclist riding home wearing reflective gear was knocked down and killed after a car driver turned into them as they didn't check properly.

Family gutted as driver gets off as she claims she didn't see and gets a bit upset by it all

its all about where you look at it from

TJ, if anyone's to blame it must be her, agreed, but do you think the charge she faces is appropriate? I don't, and as such I expect her to be acquitted.

If you cannot be certain what is in your path, do you drive into that area anyway?

I'm guessing she was certain, mistaken but certain in her mind

mildred - Member

"I was told this story recently by a close friend of the driver concerned. I think it illustrates how difficult achieving justice is."

TJ, to be fair, I would've thought you would have been slightly less naive than this. Its hardly unbiased opinion here, is it?

I am not being naive - of course it is not an unbiased opinion which is why I put my source for the information right at the beginning of the post - so people could make their own mind up about the reliability of the info.

Is the hospital not responsible in allowing the blood clot to happen? Was there negligence on their part?

Firestarter - indeed.

I thought this interesting aspect for discussion given previous discussions on this on here that called for long jail time for car drivers who kill.

CharlieMungus - Member

Is the hospital not responsible in allowing the blood clot to happen? Was there negligence on their part?

Thats an interesting point that had occurred to me. I don't know enough to really have an opinion on that but the cyclist did not die from his injuries directly - he died from a[i] possibly preventable[/i] rare complication.

Its just another complexity in the case.

Could she have avoided it? Not sure how

I'm not condemning the driver, accidents do happen and retrospect is not a luxury we have in the heat on the moment, but if she couldn't see properly because of the glare, perhaps she should have waited a little longer and adjusted her visor or something until she was sure the road was clear? Was she in a position that forced her to make the manover quickly without checking properly it was safe? Complacency and lazziness probably had more to do with it, and she probably knows it, hence the breakdown.

Its natural to analyze accindents and ask what/who was to blame what could have been done to stop it. We can only learn from mistakes, and a guys life is an expensive mistake not to learn from.

My deepest sympathies with both partys.

I think it illustrates how difficult achieving justice is

But it doesn't really does it?

Judging by your post the case hasn't been heard yet, so how can this be judged (no pun intended)?

I'd be concerned that she drove somewhere that she couldn't see was clear. If here vision was impaired by circumstance then she should have been going slower. This is the kind of situation that would need a full investigation to come to a conclusion on though. Very complex.

As I understand it the main reasons for sentences are for punishment, rehabilitation and deterent. She probably is suffering (relatively, she's alive and not lost a family member so she came off better out of the incident than most others involved), rehabilitation - I'd like to see it so that anyone involved in this kind of test has to resit the driving test before they are allowed there licence back just as a precaution. Deterent - it would seem the fear of killing someone doesn't make drivers think about what they are doing...

Taking the elements of your description as the "facts" one would have to conclude that she was "at fault". Whether that fault constituted 'reckless', 'dangerous' or 'careless' is another matter. IMHO 'just not seeing someone' is not an excuse but as a driver I appreciate that these things can happen i.e. mistakes without malice.

I do not know enough about the legal system - is it possible that she could be found guilty of a lesser offence if acquitted of the more serious one? Or would the CPS have to charge for both?

Pretty sure admission of blame, previous good record, evidence of trying to better her driving skills (qualifications that you mentioned) and no conflicting accounts from witnesses would all help in mitigation.

The real scandal lays in the comparison between her and a drunk overtaking on a blind bend and killing a cyclist. Even if she avoids custody (which sounds likely), the drunk will probably only serve a few years (an ex tenant of mine killed an old boy on a motorcycle, did a runner and was on bail for drink driving/driving whist banned at the time - he got 8 years!). I guess that's your point in a roundabout way?

No such thing as an accident with motor vehicles

Rubbish - I was in an accident in my father-in-law's car, the brakes failed as we tried to stop at a junction and we hit the car in front that was waiting at the lights. His car had been serviced just over a month previously, but the car was an old one. Fortunately there were no serious consequences, a bit of bruising, the car was a write-off, but if someone had been crossing at that moment: who knows?

In this case to my mind TJ's friend is clearly at fault: if you can't see where you're going due to glare you should be driving at 10mph, and I find it hard to believe that driving at that speed would cause sufficient injury to lead (albeit indirectly) to death.

If there was sufficient glare to cause doubt as to what was in the road in front of her, then carrying on at normal speed was reckless/careless and the incident was foreseeable/avoidable. Driving when not able to see what is in your path is not clever whether it is glare, texting, finding a CD in the glovebox, whatever. If prison is what lawmakers have decided on for that, I'm happy with that.

I came very close to driving straight into a cyclist a couple of weeks ago. Dark drizzly night, cyclist pulled out from left he was hugging the kerb and then popped out round a parked car, dark bike, dark trousers, black hoodie pulled up, no lights, no reflectors. I had no clue he was there until I just missed him. I was giving the parked cars a door width of room, but he was coming out further. I'd have been in bits if I'd hit him, but I genuinely don't see how I could have avoided it.

As for these so called victim statements. Why should someone with an articulate family be treated differently to someone who was killed without leaving relatives or friends to speak about them in court? I thought we were all meant to be treated equally under the law.

mogrim

Fair enough - mechanical failure in a well serviced car is perhpas one of the very few accidents with no one at fault - although I would be interested to know if the brake failure could have been avoided.

Oops, repost.

Fair enough - mechanical failure in a well serviced car is perhpas one of the very few accidents with no one at fault - although I would be interested to know if the brake failure could have been avoided.

One for the record books: TJ admits he was wrong!!! 😀

Can't think of anyway it could have been avoided, a normal service won't check every single bolt and hose on a car, and a brake hose could quite possibly be internally defective without any kind of external evidence.

We are not punished for our sins, we are punished by them.

Fair enough - mechanical failure in a well serviced car is perhpas one of the very few accidents with no one at fault

There's plenty

One round here last Winter when a tree blew down onto the road hitting a car, which was then pushed into a pedestrian - who unfortunately died

Fair enough - mechanical failure in a well serviced car is perhpas one of the very few accidents with no one at fault - although I would be interested to know if the brake failure could have been avoided.

In the original post I would predict dangerous reduced to careless if the driver pleads guilty and a lenient sentence due to the trauma already caused.

I don't think glare played a part. It says she was driving west, then turned right, so heading and presumably, looking, north and not into the sun when she hit the cyclist

If the story is accurate I'd have to agree with [b]CharlieMungus[/b].

The driver made a mistake, knocked a cyclist off and caused minor injuries but they didn't kill the cyclist.

Charlie - its more detail than I have. I thought the glare probably was the reason why she did not see the cyclist but its more detail than I have exactly what the positions were, direction of the sun and so on.

When the incident was described to me my immediate reaction was "glare" when driving into the sun the glare covers a fair amount of arc does it not?

If you cannot be certain what is in your path, do you drive into that area anyway?

This, pretty much is my first reaction. To use a ridiculously overblown comparison, you wouldn't stand in the street with your eyes closed and fire a gun, thinking it'll probably be ok because you can't see anyone in the line of fire.

One of the most shocking things about this for all involved is that it happened two years ago and is still moving through the court system. Whatever the wrongs and rights of the original incident our incredibly labour judicial systems has made it much worse for all the victims including the driver.

For the record she sounds like she was at fault but there do appear to mitigating circumstances to some degree. The best outcome would have been a swift trial, lenient sentance (based on what's been said) and everyone moves on with their lives.

On a different note I came within inches of hitting a pedestrian a couple of weeks ago. It was dark, car coming towards me up hill, lights pretty much blinded me (they may or may not have been out of alignment). The road in question is up on the moors a good few miles from anywhere so there was no reasonable expectation of a pedestrian being there. The pedestrian was wearing black from head to toe. I only realised they were there as they came level with the passenger side window. If I'd been a few inches closer into the kerb I would have hit them, pure luck I didn't. I couldn't see the person, had no reason to expect to see the person, should I have been doing 10 miles an hour on a straight full width country lane just in case?

If the cyclist was in a "correct" position on the road and was stationary when hit, it must be the driver's fault whatever mitigating circumstances.

As for the crime, presumably if the cyclist had recovered normally from his relatively minor injuries it would have been a simple case of careless driving. I can't see how death from secondary medical complication, which may have been pure coincidence, the hospital's fault or a pre-existing condition, 3 weeks later after apparently normal recovery can turn careless driving into death by careless driving

What's the difference between 'driving without due care and attention' and 'causing death by careless driving'?
The answer is 'very little' just that in one there was someone unfortunate enough to get in the way. In motoring offences like these drivers are being judged on the consequences of their actions not the actions themselves. It's arguable that anyone who jumps a red light, goes round a corner too fast etc etc should receive a jail term measured in years but it wouldn't be at all popular or manageable.

Maybe part of the problem is that UK drivers are not in the habit of looking for cyclists? I hazard the guess that this sort of accident is very rare in a country like Holland where drivers look for cyclists ALL the time (except for the occasional knob, obviously). It just becomes a habit, which this lady maybe did not have?

Seems to me we would need more detail on how visible the cyclist was at the accident - the court would or at least should examine this in detail.

May not be more clear cut than the OP suggests.

If you hit something you didn't see, you were going too fast for your brain to process the visual information.

Dark spots under overhanging trees etc are the sort of place an experienced driver should expect there to be something not immediately visible.

For sure we do not have enough info to be certain. Thats what courts are for and I will be looking for the outcome of the case. All the info I have I have given but the basic facts are that the driver did not see a cyclist and drove into them while making a manoeuvre

I just thought on the basis of the info I had it was interesting to discuss

As for the injuries - seems to be some confusion - the guy had a moderate head injury - required ITU but he was expected to recover and was improving but still in hospital tho out of ITU when the blood clot killed him. Its a complication of this sort of thing that [i]might[/i] be preventable.

Teh death was from a secondary complication of the original injury.

I have unfortunately been knocked off by a driver who used the excuse " sorry I could not see you the sun was in my eyes" as if that made it allright and she was blameless. Cobblers she was to blame. Also a very near miss where the guy said " sorry i have been up all night with my son and im very tired. Neither are excuses as tj states there is always blame to apportion sometimes to both parties

I can't recall the exact current standards but it used to be that if someone died within a year and a day from the original event, and that the cause of death can be directly attributable to that even, whether by complications, secondary infection etc. then the original event was cited as the cause of death, and the criminal justice system would have a look at it.

Something is nagging at the back o fmy mind that that time may have been reduced to 28 days. I can't think why this is nagging me though.

Professional drivers .. well lorry drivers are professional drivers, the majority around where I live, drive like complete morons! Had a professional driver in mahoosive Waitrose lorry drive into the back of my tiny Skoda Fabia on a straight stretch of dual carriageway he jumps out and says we were driving dangerously .. hey doing 50mpg (speed limit) on a straight stretch of road? I think he as trying to cover up hat he had been fiddling with something in his glove box!? I know professional drivers who have 9 points on their licence.... clearly speeding too much. Often the words don't mean anything.

It certainly isn't dangerous driving in my eyes. Dangerous driving has to be "FAR BELOW THE STANDARD OF REASONABLE DRIVER". Now I know what she has done is wrong, she should've waited that extra second to have another check but her driving certainly doesn't drop far below that of reasonable driver. does she deserve to go to prison? heck no, what sentence is that to her? It won't change anything, she doesn't need "teaching" plus why wasted thousands of tax payers money on something like that. make her do community service with victims of traffic accidenst who have suffered injuries, wouldn't that make her think twice next time about driving?

There could be a huge number of reasons for it taking so long to get to court. not helped by the fact the cyclist died a period of time after the accident. Plus it's all in law that if that cyclist hadn't been in hospital (as a result of the car accident) the blood clot wouldn't have happend and hence they wouln't have died, so unfortunately the driver is responsible for his death.

She.

Perhaps the mechanic who did the service could be found to be at fault although "service" could mean anything and may not include checking the brake hoses. Still they are guilty of driving an unroadworthy vehicle and there is no defense.

I can't recall exactly what the servicing covered, although I know it was the typical yearly service that should (at least) cover all the major points of a car. And I find it hard to imagine that any judge would convict you of causing an accident if your brakes fail in a properly MOT'ed car that has been recently serviced.

mogrim your still leaving yourself open if you do not follow the manufacturers recommendations on servicing, read a MOT doc they are only a basic test of roadworthiness and should not replace the more comprehensive manufacturers service. Would you be negligent for failing to heed the manufacturers warnings?

Just to add to that - an MOT is valid for a year, though it is only test of the vehicle's roadworthyness on that particular day.

Also, it is the driver's responsibility to ensure that the vehicle they are driving is in a fit state, and no amount of mechanical ignorance negates that. Basically, it is very easy to be convicted for dangerous driving based upon the condition of the vehicle. That is, if the vehicle is un-roadworthy or has a fault such as worn brakes, suspension, lights etc. and you decide to drive it anyway, and you're then involved in an incident - you can be liable for prosecution. It needs to be ascertained whether the condition or fault was contributory to the incident.

Again, no amount of mechanical ignorance is a good enough reason. For example, just driving around with a headlamp bulb out is an offence, and even though you may not be aware of the bulb failure at this point, you've still committed the offence. Given the minor nature of this you'd expect a VDRS form, but if you persisted driving in this state you'll be prosecuted.

munge chick the sp[eed limit for an lgv on a single carrigeway road is 40 mph.

Was the cyclist wearing a helmet, was the driver wearing sunglases and using a visor.

There are 3 sides to this story, the drivers, the cyclists now dead and the truth.

project if you are referring to my tale it was 30 mph limit road, the driver was in a small van, no sunglasses were used, dunno about he visor.

apparently the drivers boss said she should have had sunglasses on - but none were provided.

Cyclist no helment - not that that is relevant

No munge chicks road in her story.

As for the helmet, some insurers are reducing payouts for not wearing a helmet, despit them not being compulsory.

Sunglases i got a comapny i worked for to buy me a decent pair, as i said it was Health and Safety problem and they paid straight away.

Small van, if its like mine there is a seriously large A pillar, which you can losse a cyclist in your field of view.

Cyclist no helment - not that that is relevant

Small van, if its like mine there is a seriously large A pillar, which you can losse a cyclist in your field of view.

project - Member

As for the helmet, some insurers are reducing payouts for not wearing a helmet, despit them not being compulsory.

Not true. Some insurers have argued this but as they cannot show that injuries / death would not have occurred with a helmet they fail.

What's the difference between 'driving without due care and attention' and 'causing death by careless driving'?
The answer is 'very little' just that in one there was someone unfortunate enough to get in the way. In motoring offences like these drivers are being judged on the consequences of their actions not the actions themselves. It's arguable that anyone who jumps a red light, goes round a corner too fast etc etc should receive a jail term measured in years but it wouldn't be at all popular or manageable.

Well put

Project I am well aware of speed limits on roads thanks I mentioned a dual carriages anyway.

If you cannot be certain what is in your path, do you drive into that area anyway?

This, pretty much is my first reaction. To use a ridiculously overblown comparison, you wouldn't stand in the street with your eyes closed and fire a gun, thinking it'll probably be ok because you can't see anyone in the line of fire.

Is this particularly a Scottish (northern latitude problem)? two or three times a year I find myself heading down a road completely blinded by the sun despite visor, clean windscreen and sunglasses. I probably wouldn't choose to turn right across the oncoming traffic for fear of someone hitting me (rather than mangling a bike) - however whilst slowing down is the obvious reaction, that then makes you vulnerable to the guy coming from behind who doesn't bother to slow down.

If she believes she did nothing wrong then I'd be presenting the defence that I did what most other reasonable drivers do (which does not need to be faultless). I'd also be arguing that I did not kill him - I only hurt him, and although I subscribe to most of TJ's helmet arguments my lawyers would be making a big deal about the lack of helmet which would likely have reduced the time in hospital and therefore potential for a blood clot.

On the otherhand since she seems guilt ridden, she presumably thinks there was some degree of fault and a guilty plee (possibly to a lower charge) would be appropriate.

professional driver? driving within the limits of visibility, didn't see a dayglo cyclist? who is she, Bodie or effing Doyle? Get her off the road before she hurts anyone else. I'll assume that this is a piss take TJ

lazlo - its not a pisstake. its what I know of a real situation that I thought would be interesting to discuss.

On the helmets one. Lawyers for insurance companies have argued this as I said above.

The principle is there that if the insurance companys lawyers can pursuade the court that a helmet would have reduced injury compensation would be reduced but in practice this has not happened and might well be impossible to do
Details on a couple of cases
http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/liverpool.html
http://www.lblaw.co.uk/Global/Press%20Events/News/Cycle%20helmet%20warning.aspx

stuff the helmets issue TJ, I very rarely wear one (although it's mandatory in events) , I'm not in the least bit interested in your crusade because it's very much a personal thing and in honesty I dislike them as much as you but I'll accept that others feel differently. As said, it is personal.
But the pt factor is that you drive according to the conditions, if you can't see, then you slow down. Nothing, absolutely nothing, that you or any other apologist can say, changes that obligation, What next? I ran the cyclist over because they weren't wearing dayglo and they didn't have 1500 lumens of illumination fore and aft? Anybody who hits a 'responsible cyclist' is guilty. .............I so wish I lived in a less car centric state.

Now I know what she has done is wrong, she should've waited that extra second to have another check but her driving certainly doesn't drop far below that of reasonable driver

lazlo = calm down. Basically I agree with you.

I am no apologist for her. She madew a mistake adn killed a cyclist.

I mentioned the helmets in direct response to another persons post above yours.

I thought this situation would make interesting discussion which is why I posted it. Not to excuse the driver - who basically admits their fault from what I understand.

Often when death of a cyclist by a car driver is discussed on here the reaction is to want to punish the car driver to an extreme and disgust when the car driver only gets a couple of years in jail or less.

I merely wanted to show that the question of punishment was far more complex than the knee jerk reaction many on here have. This woman basically acknowledges her guilt, it has badly affected her, what punishment is then appropriate?

I ask the question - I have no answers

(taxi drivers are professional drivers - are they good drivers?).

well, yes actually, i think London Cabbies are good drivers. they use their skills / knowledge to bully other users that can be ititating but i am very confident of not being hit by one. Minicabs on the other hand are the very worst.

well it's not affected her as much as it has the dead man TJ and I don't give a toss if she's suffered from ptsd (btw, I had that after being left for dead on a dark country lane one night, it'd be nice to know that the f*****r who left me to die was also quite so upset, but somehow I doubt it, and I somehow doubt that your examples ptsd matches the dead mans family's ) Hey ho, but let's move on, let's not live in the past. Anyway, I've had enough of people who think that manslaughter is somehow excusable, I'm going to bed

lazlo - read what I wrote FFS. I gave you the respect of trying quite hard to explain my position

TandemJeremy - Membe

I am no apologist for her. She made a mistake and killed a cyclist.

I do not think manslaughter is "somehow excusable" and I thought I made that quite clear

I'd be concerned that she drove somewhere that she couldn't see was clear. If here vision was impaired by circumstance then she should have been going slower.

Jeremy, was she turning right into another road across the path of the cyclist? This is what it sounded like in the story.whether she was stationary for a moment before the crossing or moving very slowly,i cant see her being anything more than 10mph.

I have had a car creep up to a junction (cross roads, so not quite the same) and the driver didnt quite stop at the junction,then continued across my path when i was time trialling. I couldnt stop and he must have been going no more than 10mph. I hit the side of him and to cut a long story short, couldnt remember how to get home when one of the other time triallers fathers gave me a lift home. I felt bad for days with a compressed helmet/loss of memory.

anyways, he crossed the road, very slowly.I might have been 25-30mph at this point as it was slightly downhill and the driver blamed the sun in his eyes. The police came to my house a day or so later and said that he had been to the scene of the accident to see the position of the sun at that exact time and reported it to be nowhere near where the driver said it was. The driver was charged.

Mogrim wrote:(sorry i cant add quotes!)

"In this case to my mind TJ's friend is clearly at fault: if you can't see where you're going due to glare you should be driving at 10mph, and I find it hard to believe that driving at that speed would cause sufficient injury to lead (albeit indirectly) to death"

The arguement could be that the cyclist had no chance or made no attempt to slow down before impact. This is probably very likely.

Having been in this situation i managed to see that the driver wasnt stopping and i got to the brakes. All i managed was a skid that hardly slowed me down then i hit the side of the car.TJs story makes me feel very lucky.

yes - she was turning right. Heading west, cyclist heading east. so she turned from heading west to heading north

TJ, There's a lot of guidance on sentencing for the English courts on the web

e.g. This ( http://www.dgowens.com/?p=295) would appear to suggest that turning into the path of a vehicle that you did not see attract the lowest level of penalty - specifically community service + a ban.

You might also find this article speech interesting (given before the death by careless driving charges): http://www.victimsupportsco.org.uk/page/news/article.cfm?articleId=9

It would appear the case law is quite clear that the cause of death does not need to be solely the driver's fault to be guilty. So the argument that the hospital failed to treat the patient adequately appears weak.

I don't want this to dissolve into a helmet debate (as the core question is valid either way) but whilst CDL are not happy with it, there is case history of Death by Dangerous Driving sentences being reduces when the victim was not wearing a helmet, Jorgensen v's Moore ( http://www.cyclistsdefencefund.org.uk/smith-v-finch-jorgensen-v-moore-reviews-cases-involving-cycle-helmets-and-contributory-negligence)

Is she being prosecuted in a Crown Court or Magistrates Court?

For Careless Driving it would come under "insufficient attention in road conditions, or carelessly turning right across on-coming traffic"#. Sentence is a Band B fine and 5-6 points. She appears guilty of this offence. Injury to others would be an aggregating factor, so 6 points. Possible reduction for guilty plea.

Assuming causality for death can be attributed, something I find very unlikely, she may be prosecuted in either court. Current guidelines for maximum sentence are Level 5 fine and 6 months imprisonment for Magistrates court, Five years for Crown Court. The fact that she has suffered greatly will not excuse her guilt, but may mitigate her sentence.

I suspect that she will plead guilty to careless driving and CPS would drop death by careless driving unless they feel that they can show beyond reasonable doubt that there is a clear and causal link from the injuries suffered in the accident to the cause of death. If this is the case, expect another media frenzy along the lines of "Killer driver gets fined XXX and a slap on the wrist...".

#From current Magistrates sentencing guidelines

guys - I don't know enough detail to answer those questions. Sorry - its a friend of a friend sort of tale so detail is sketchy.

Poly - thats the same case I linked to - you missed the crucial bit

Nevertheless Mr Justice Griffith Williams awarded cyclist Robert Smith full compensation, ruling that his particular injuries would not have been prevented by a helmet

So its as I said above - damages could be reduced if you were able to persuade the court that a helmet would have reduced injury but this is difficult if not impossible to do and as far as I am aware has not been done.

A couple of months ago I was driving down to the north peaks to meet up for a STW ride.

Turning right at some lights I very nearly knocked a cyclist off. He was dressed completely in black and was completely invisible to me due to the low sun. I wound the window down and actualy said "sorry mate i didn't see you". Then I just thought ****, I'm in the CTC and they have a campaign with exactly that slogan, I ride on the road at least once a week and am always super cautious around cyclists when I drive, and even then I almost whiped this guy out.

Thankfully I didn't hit him but it has made me very uneasy about riding on the road in low sun conditions and actually made me think if it's just too risky.

Poly - thats the same case I linked to - you missed the crucial bit

Nevertheless Mr Justice Griffith Williams awarded cyclist Robert Smith full compensation, ruling that his particular injuries would not have been prevented by a helmet

So its as I said above - damages could be reduced if you were able to persuade the court that a helmet would have reduced injury but this is difficult if not impossible to do and as far as I am aware has not been done.

Nah, TJ -scroll down to the case I actually mentioned.

Here's the important bit: [i]At Durham Crown Court last Friday, Judge Richard Lowden gave Moore a 24-week suspended prison sentence. He said the fact that Jorgensen had not been wearing a helmet was a “mitigating factor” and Moore’s sentence was reduced accordingly. The judge reached this decision without hearing any evidence about the effectiveness of helmets, or whether a helmet would have made any difference to Jorgensen’s injuries.[/i]

It should really be R. v's Moore. Moore pled guilty.

djaustin - Member

Is she being prosecuted in a Crown Court or Magistrates Court?

What would we feel if it was not a car that was the cause of the death?

If someone had fired a gun, and accidentally hit the cyclist?

My family and I were nearly killed by someone who fell asleep and drove into us 4 months ago. 6 points and £175 fine. Should have been banned at least.

The fact is that for most of us, a car is the [i]most[/i] dangerous thing we will ever control. No one forces us to drive. We take the consequences. Sadly the speed the law moves means that both the driver and the family mentioned in the OP continue to suffer.

But is there really anything so special about driving a vehicle that exempts one from the consequences of fatal errors?

The OP totally misses the point in respect of the legalised murder of cyclists on the roads. In the vast majority of cases the driver who has killed is not charged with any crime at all much less causing death by dangerous driving. If what has happened in this case to the proverbial "friend of a friend" is in fact true and accurately reported, it would represent a major exception to that rule..... In fact I'd go as far as to say that if the reality is precisely as described I'd be completely amazed, and it would certainly be a first in my experience.

interesting post........

I just thought this could happen to anyone, scary in that regard.

A thought provoking post, well done that man.