Ultimate callousness

Quoted message said:

Jim Ley said:

The prosecution presumably believed that the accident was either
no-ones fault, or it was the dead cyclists fault, so didn't consider
bring any charges related to the accident.

Or rather there wasn't the evidence to prove anything either way, which
is not the same thing as believing 'the accident was either no-ones
fault, or it was the dead cyclists fault'.

I'm sorry, the complete absense of any evidence to suggest wrongdoing
on the part of the driver is enough to support a belief that it wasn't
his fault. I know you feel you have to believe the driver is always
at fault, but it's not always the case.

Quoted message said:

As they say, dead men can't tell tales and drivers who kill often take
full advantage of this.

Sure people lie, but this obsessive "the cyclist is never at fault"
attitude isn't helpful either, the cyclist can be at fault too. As
no-one has provided any details of the accident.

I think it's very wrong* to claim the driver was at fault, especially
when the CPS specifically gave no evidence to any charge on the
driver.

Jim.

* and libelous

Ambrose Nankivell said:

Jim Ley said:

The prosecution presumably believed that the accident was either
no-ones fault, or it was the dead cyclists fault, so didn't consider
bring any charges related to the accident.

Or possibly they couldn't reach a suitable burden of proof to get any
charges related to the crash to be likely to stand.

Well certainly, but the CPS specifically gave _no evidence_ to a
charge of careless driving, are you suggesting that they did have
evidence of dangerous driving but declined to give it?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

In your scenario, where you committed driving offences that caused the
accident, then a manslaughter charge would still stand.

As long as there were witnesses or forensics that allowed the conviction.

Well of course, there'd still be the trial, I meant that it would
stand the judges technicality, sorry for not being clear.

Jim.

in message <[email hidden]>, Jim Ley

(') said:

Quoted message said:

Jim Ley said:

The prosecution presumably believed that the accident was either
no-ones fault, or it was the dead cyclists fault, so didn't consider
bring any charges related to the accident.

Or rather there wasn't the evidence to prove anything either way, which
is not the same thing as believing 'the accident was either no-ones
fault, or it was the dead cyclists fault'.

I'm sorry, the complete absense of any evidence to suggest wrongdoing
on the part of the driver is enough to support a belief that it wasn't
his fault. I know you feel you have to believe the driver is always
at fault, but it's not always the case.

Statistically, it's the case in 80% of cases. Furthermore, in this
particular case the driver went to considerable lengths to conceal the
fact that he'd been in an accident, which is evidence that he, at least,
was fairly certain he was guilty.

Quoted message said:

I think it's very wrong* to claim the driver was at fault, especially
when the CPS specifically gave no evidence to any charge on the
driver.

* and libelous

So sue me. As far as I am concerned, anyone who drives (or rides) away
from someone else lying injured in the road, whether they had anything
to do with causing the injury or not, is guilty as hell.

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

... a mild, inoffensive sadist...

Jim Ley said:

Quoted message said:

As they say, dead men can't tell tales and drivers who kill often take
full advantage of this.

Sure people lie, but this obsessive "the cyclist is never at fault"
attitude isn't helpful either, the cyclist can be at fault too. As
no-one has provided any details of the accident.

I think it's very wrong* to claim the driver was at fault, especially
when the CPS specifically gave no evidence to any charge on the
driver.

Firstly, I did not claim that the driver must have been at fault. What
I said was the it would be safest to say that no prosecution went ahead
for dangerous driving because there wasn't the evidence necessary to
prove what happened either way. That said the proof required is that
'beyond any reasonable doubt' which is a very high standard of proof.
The inability to prove a case to such a high standard does not show
that a driver can be exonerated of blame- just look how many civil (i.e
insurance) cases against drivers are successful even when no police
action is taken.

I do not believe that 'the cyclist is never at fault'. However when an
experienced cyclist with high visibility jacket, lights and so on is
mown down we must ask ourselves how such a thing can possibly happen if
the motorist was driving with due care and so on. Motorists are
supposed to drive at a speed which enables them to stop well within the
distance they can see to be clear. At night this means driving within
the limits of dipped headlights as it is impractical and quite possibly
dangerous to slow down from the speed allowed by full beams to that
allowed by a dipped headlight every time an on oncoming vehicle,
cyclist or pedestrian is encountered and it is certainly very dangerous
not to slow down and to continue at the same speed on dipped
headlights. Drivers are supposed to anticipate that there may be an
obstruction around every corner, to only overtake when it is safe to do
so, to slow down when sharing the road with cyclists, to move over to
the opposite side of the road when overtaking a cyclist and so on. If
all this is done I would say it is almost impossible for a cyclist to
be run down at high speed as the victim obviously was in this case.

Of course most drivers do not do any of the above. Instead they drive
on dipped headlights at far too high a speed to allow them to avoid
anything just beyond the limited range of their vision. (This is very
common on motorways and I have often seen drivers hit objects in the
carriageway because of this). It is also very common for drivers to
assume that they will see the headlights of an oncoming car and so can
drive at high speed 'safe' in the knowledge that 'if there are no car
headlights there is nothing on the road ahead'. Problem is cyclists,
pedestrians, stray animals, broken down vehicles, debris in the road
and so on do not alert their presence with a motor vehicle headlight.

Again, I would not argue that cyclists are never in the wrong. For
example in a situation where someone was riding down a mountain
bridleway at high speed, turned a corner and hit a group of walkers I
would always say that the blame must almost certainly be laid at the
cyclists door. Certainly no one would try to argue that such a crash
was the fault of the pedestrians for 'being all over the path' or that
walkers should take to wearing helmets to protect them from speeding
cyclists, even though this is exactly what is argued when a driver goes
around a blind bend too fast and hits a cyclist or come to that
pedestrians.

It has just occurred to me that the CPS have brought no driving charges
against this man. The only remaining charges against him are for
perverting the course of justice.

He has not even been charged with leaving the scene of an accident or
failing to report within 24 hours.

What this means is, whatever the eventual sentence, he will keep his
licence!

iakobski said:

It has just occurred to me that the CPS have brought no driving charges
against this man. The only remaining charges against him are for
perverting the course of justice.

He has not even been charged with leaving the scene of an accident or
failing to report within 24 hours.

What this means is, whatever the eventual sentence, he will keep his
licence!

He was charged with both offences, from one of the BBC reports:

"Peter Cottrell, of Romsey Road, Cadnam, Hampshire, also pleaded guilty
to failing to stop after an accident and failing to report the accident."

Colin

Good.

Missed that in the report.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Jim Ley said:

Quoted message said:

As they say, dead men can't tell tales and drivers who kill often take
full advantage of this.

Sure people lie, but this obsessive "the cyclist is never at fault"
attitude isn't helpful either, the cyclist can be at fault too. As
no-one has provided any details of the accident.

I think it's very wrong* to claim the driver was at fault, especially
when the CPS specifically gave no evidence to any charge on the
driver.

Firstly, I did not claim that the driver must have been at fault. What
I said was the it would be safest to say that no prosecution went ahead
for dangerous driving because there wasn't the evidence necessary to
prove what happened either way. That said the proof required is that
'beyond any reasonable doubt' which is a very high standard of proof.
The inability to prove a case to such a high standard does not show
that a driver can be exonerated of blame- just look how many civil (i.e
insurance) cases against drivers are successful even when no police
action is taken.

I do not believe that 'the cyclist is never at fault'. However when an
experienced cyclist with high visibility jacket, lights and so on is
mown down we must ask ourselves how such a thing can possibly happen if
the motorist was driving with due care and so on. Motorists are
supposed to drive at a speed which enables them to stop well within the
distance they can see to be clear. At night this means driving within
the limits of dipped headlights as it is impractical and quite possibly
dangerous to slow down from the speed allowed by full beams to that
allowed by a dipped headlight every time an on oncoming vehicle,
cyclist or pedestrian is encountered and it is certainly very dangerous
not to slow down and to continue at the same speed on dipped
headlights. Drivers are supposed to anticipate that there may be an
obstruction around every corner, to only overtake when it is safe to do
so, to slow down when sharing the road with cyclists, to move over to
the opposite side of the road when overtaking a cyclist and so on. If
all this is done I would say it is almost impossible for a cyclist to
be run down at high speed as the victim obviously was in this case.

Of course most drivers do not do any of the above. Instead they drive
on dipped headlights at far too high a speed to allow them to avoid
anything just beyond the limited range of their vision. (This is very
common on motorways and I have often seen drivers hit objects in the
carriageway because of this). It is also very common for drivers to
assume that they will see the headlights of an oncoming car and so can
drive at high speed 'safe' in the knowledge that 'if there are no car
headlights there is nothing on the road ahead'. Problem is cyclists,
pedestrians, stray animals, broken down vehicles, debris in the road
and so on do not alert their presence with a motor vehicle headlight.

Again, I would not argue that cyclists are never in the wrong. For
example in a situation where someone was riding down a mountain
bridleway at high speed, turned a corner and hit a group of walkers I
would always say that the blame must almost certainly be laid at the
cyclists door. Certainly no one would try to argue that such a crash
was the fault of the pedestrians for 'being all over the path' or that
walkers should take to wearing helmets to protect them from speeding
cyclists, even though this is exactly what is argued when a driver goes
around a blind bend too fast and hits a cyclist or come to that
pedestrians.

One wonders what else this apology for a human being has hit; bearing in
mind the accident took place within the perambulation of the New Forest and
one is therefore likely to meet animals wandering freely across the road. If
he didn't see a highly visible cyclist how on eastern does he manage to
avoid half a ton of horseflesh?

Julia

On a similar theme,

'The Forest of Dean's famous wandering sheep could soon have their
fleeces painted luminous pink and yellow.

The idea, to make them much easier for motorists to see at night, has
come from the Commoners' Association, which looks after the animals.'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/gloucestershire/4269696.stm

On the other hand why not accept that the real problem is simply that
most motorists drive far too fast, especially given the limited
visibility at night. And to think some of these selfish idiots
seriously argue that speed limits should not apply at night when the
road is 'quieter'.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On a similar theme,

'The Forest of Dean's famous wandering sheep could soon have their
fleeces painted luminous pink and yellow.

The idea, to make them much easier for motorists to see at night, has
come from the Commoners' Association, which looks after the animals.'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/gloucestershire/4269696.stm

On the other hand why not accept that the real problem is simply that
most motorists drive far too fast, especially given the limited
visibility at night. And to think some of these selfish idiots
seriously argue that speed limits should not apply at night when the
road is 'quieter'.

Some, but not all New Forest ponies have fluorescent collars - this helps
some of the time. That still leaves pigs sheep cattle and donkeys to look
out for. I really do hate driving across the Forest at night in the rain.
Still if the person following me thinks they can do better I am only too
happy to give them the opportunity.

Julia

JBB said:

Some, but not all New Forest ponies have fluorescent collars - this helps
some of the time. That still leaves pigs sheep cattle and donkeys to look
out for.

And cyclists!

(Plus walkers, debris in the road etc. etc.)

Quoted message said:

On a similar theme,

'The Forest of Dean's famous wandering sheep could soon have their
fleeces painted luminous pink and yellow.

The idea, to make them much easier for motorists to see at night, has
come from the Commoners' Association, which looks after the animals.'

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/gloucestershire/4269696.stm

On the other hand why not accept that the real problem is simply that
most motorists drive far too fast, especially given the limited
visibility at night. And to think some of these selfish idiots
seriously argue that speed limits should not apply at night when the
road is 'quieter'.

Does the Forest of Dean have a 40mph speed limit like Cannock Chase
(frequented by deer) does? If not, why not?

Actually, come to think of it, I know it doesn't, as I was cycling there in
April, and I was not comfortable on the main roads. Also, I was overtaken a
several of times while driving along said roads. I suggest the installation
of some robotic steel deer to calm people down.

--
Ambrose

Jim Ley said:

Ambrose Nankivell said:

Jim Ley said:

The prosecution presumably believed that the accident was either
no-ones fault, or it was the dead cyclists fault, so didn't consider
bring any charges related to the accident.

Or possibly they couldn't reach a suitable burden of proof to get any
charges related to the crash to be likely to stand.

Well certainly, but the CPS specifically gave _no evidence_ to a
charge of careless driving, are you suggesting that they did have
evidence of dangerous driving but declined to give it?

I imagine they gave no evidence because only two people who saw the crash,
and one's dead, and one has a vested interest in not being found guilty (I
have to say, if I were to do such a thing, and I'm sadly far from infallible
behind the wheel of a car, my conscience would *demand* I pleaded guilty and
told the truth in as unpolished a way as I could), so there really wouldn't
have been a lot to go on.

My supposition is that it's reasonable to assume dangerous driving in such a
case, because *I can see very very few reasons why a car would hit a cyclist
from behind on a road with no junctions and it would be the cylist's fault*,
unless the cyclist swerved very hard to the right just before being passed.

That's my understanding of traffic. I'd have to say that from what I
understand of the crash, I can see very few ways the cyclist could be at
fault. Say, maybe 5% of the time.
--
Ambrose

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

JBB said:

Some, but not all New Forest ponies have fluorescent collars - this helps
some of the time. That still leaves pigs sheep cattle and donkeys to look
out for.

And cyclists!

(Plus walkers, debris in the road etc. etc.)

Sorry - just discussing what else is on the road besides people. I know the
spot where John was killed - it's on one of my regular routes - and |I
cannot see how anyone could knock him off without previously creating
carnage among the commoners animal - and probably driving away from them as
well. A glance at his garage bills might prove instructive.

Julia

Ambrose Nankivell said:

Jim Ley said:

Ambrose Nankivell said:

Jim Ley wrote:
> The prosecution presumably believed that the accident was either
> no-ones fault, or it was the dead cyclists fault, so didn't consider
> bring any charges related to the accident.

Or possibly they couldn't reach a suitable burden of proof to get any
charges related to the crash to be likely to stand.

Well certainly, but the CPS specifically gave _no evidence_ to a
charge of careless driving, are you suggesting that they did have
evidence of dangerous driving but declined to give it?

I imagine they gave no evidence because only two people who saw the
crash, and one's dead, and one has a vested interest in not being found
guilty (I have to say, if I were to do such a thing, and I'm sadly far
from infallible behind the wheel of a car, my conscience would *demand*
I pleaded guilty and told the truth in as unpolished a way as I could),
so there really wouldn't have been a lot to go on.

Have just read the Southern Daily Echo on it. It seems there was a
charge of driving without due care an attention but it was dropped.
From what the police said it seems clear they were trying manslaughter
as a test case to clarify its use in motoring deaths. Looking at the
picture of the car and windscreen it appears that the cyclist was hit by
the driver side front wing near the front of the car and then hit the
front pillar and windscreen on the drivers side. If that is the case
there is no way the driver could not have seen what happened.

--
Tony

"I did make a mistake once - I thought I'd made a mistake but I hadn't"
Anon

Jim Ley said:

On Thu, 13 Oct 2005 18:46:11 +0100, Simon Brooke
<[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you have any sort of collision while your car is in motion that must
be proof positive that it wasn't safe to drive at the speed you were
going at, because if it had been safe you could not have had the
collision (except possibly if you are hit from behind).

Quoted message said:

Or from the side - there are many places where 0 would be the only
speed that completely rules out the chance of a collision - you can't
see around corners, so no the "any sort of collision while your car is
in motion" is not proof that it wasn't safe to drive at the speed at
all.

This is often said by people as an argument against driving (or
cycling) at a speed always safely within your sight lines, but it
isn't true. In most such alleged cases the safe speed may be very
slow, e.g. 5mph, but it is still a forward speed. If it was zero that
would mean some corners are totally blind, and that is never the
case. If you're not hugging the wall as you go round a built up
corner, and you're never forced to hug the wall, then it is possible
to see round the corner a little bit, so some forward speed is
possible.

Most drivers don't bother to make use of the full width of the road to
position themselves to get a good sight line into an obscured
corner. but it is often possible to do so, and makes a great
difference to the speed with which you can safely negotiate the
hazard.

--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

Jim Ley said:

On 13 Oct 2005 12:31:18 -0700, [email hidden] wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Jim Ley said:

The prosecution presumably believed that the accident was either
no-ones fault, or it was the dead cyclists fault, so didn't consider
bring any charges related to the accident.

Or rather there wasn't the evidence to prove anything either way, which
is not the same thing as believing 'the accident was either no-ones
fault, or it was the dead cyclists fault'.

Quoted message said:

I'm sorry, the complete absense of any evidence to suggest wrongdoing
on the part of the driver is enough to support a belief that it wasn't
his fault. I know you feel you have to believe the driver is always
at fault, but it's not always the case.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

As they say, dead men can't tell tales and drivers who kill often take
full advantage of this.

Quoted message said:

Sure people lie, but this obsessive "the cyclist is never at fault"
attitude isn't helpful either, the cyclist can be at fault too. As
no-one has provided any details of the accident.

Quoted message said:

I think it's very wrong* to claim the driver was at fault, especially
when the CPS specifically gave no evidence to any charge on the
driver.

In the Netherlands the law assumes that in car-cyclist collisions it
is the car's fault unless there is positive evidence to the
contrary. When this law was proposed the wailing from the motoring
organisations against this illogical unfairness was truly
piteous. They foresaw cyclists becoming deranged by this freedom from
prosecution and throwing themselves gleefully under the wheels of
cars. Strangely enough, after it became law, the car-cyclist accident
rate pretty quickly approximately halved.

It's difficult to think of more than one plausible explanation for
that.

--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

I have a feeling that the fact the judge has now suspended the trial
'for reports' means that the judge does not want to jail this scum-bag
and is hoping that the 'reports' will give him justification for not
doing so.

As another thread points out, it will be interesting to see what
sentence this cyclist-killer* gets in comparison with that couple who
lied about who was driving when they were caught twice by speed
cameras...

* I think the term cyclist-killer is entirely apt as, quite apart from
leaving the cyclist to die sin the road, had the motorist being
driving at a speed which would enable him to stop in the distance he
could see to be clear etc he almost certainly wouldn't have run the
cyclist down. In addition assuming he did see the cyclist he should
have slowed right down before passing, so even if the cyclists has
inexplicably 'swerved' into his path he would have caused only minor
injuries.

When the 'Car-centric Code, sorry , 'Highway Code' was least revised I
wrote suggesting that the rule about passing horses 'slow and wide'
should be worded so that drivers were told to pass 'horses and
cyclists' slow and wide. Of course this perfectly sensible advice was
ignored. This needs to be resubmitted next time around along with a
rule noting that where drivers fail to overtake as advised (slowing
down when sharing the road with cyclists, only overtaking when it is
safe to do so, indicating and moving out over the centre line and so
on, and instead tries to overtake in the same lane as the cyclist, it
must be assumed that the whole of the burden of responsibility for
overtaking the cyclist safely lies with the motorist. It should also be
stated that if a driver does overtake a cyclist in the same lane they
should 'crawl' past the cyclist at the minimum speed possible in case
the cyclist deviates from their line due to a pothole or whatever.
After all, if a driver overtakes in the same lane there is no risk from
oncoming traffic and so no urgency to pass.

It seems that even if a driver does get convicted of the manslaughter
of a cyclist whilst driving, they get neither a ban nor go to jail...

This is Exeter
DEATH DRIVER IS SPARED JAIL
Date : 15.10.05

An angry motorist who was involved in the death of a 62-year-old city
cyclist after a road rage attack has been given a suspended jail
sentence. Andrew Hart pushed Alan Scott off his bike because he was
furious at being held up on a country lane. The city council employee,
who lived in Sweetbrier Lane, Exeter, fractured a shoulder and later
developed a fatal blood clot.

Hart, a builder from High Lathy's Cottages, Poltimore, yesterday
admitted manslaughter. Exeter Crown Court heard the 33-year-old
launched his attack on September 17 last year because Mr Scott had been
cycling in front of him in the middle of the road. Judge Graham Cottle
sentenced Hart to a nine-month jail sentence, suspended for two years.

....Prosecutor Martin Edmunds said Mr Scott, a keen cyclist, was
slightly built and the other motorist did not witness him doing
anything to provoke the attack.

The defendant, who was in a four-wheel-drive car, hooted his horn at
him as he cycled in front of him in the middle of the road. He was only
there for around 30 metres before moving to the side to let him
overtake.

But while he was waiting, with one foot on the pedal and the other on a
grass verge, Hart stopped his car and went over to him and pushed him
over.

Police found Mr Scott seriously ill at his Heavitree home on September
27. He died the following day in the RD &E.

http://tinyurl.com/clr4u

in message <[email hidden]>, Colin Blackburn

(') said:

iakobski said:

It has just occurred to me that the CPS have brought no driving
charges against this man. The only remaining charges against him are
for perverting the course of justice.

He has not even been charged with leaving the scene of an accident or
failing to report within 24 hours.

What this means is, whatever the eventual sentence, he will keep his
licence!

He was charged with both offences, from one of the BBC reports:

"Peter Cottrell, of Romsey Road, Cadnam, Hampshire, also pleaded guilty
to failing to stop after an accident and failing to report the
accident."

Good grief. This from someone _employed_ as a journalist? What happened
to 'pled'?

--
[email hidden] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/

I shall continue to be an impossible person so long as those
who are now possible remain possible -- Michael Bakunin