Safe Speed Forums

Even if the cyclist had not been showing lights - and he was - that should not completely exonerate the motorist. The coroner recorded accidental death because " He was killed as a result of the driver not seeing him. The lack of street lighting, a lack of reflective clothing on the cyclist and the adverse weather conditions all combined to reduce visibility of him"

Killing another road user who is obeying all the rules which apply to him should always be punished. If visibility is reduced then speed should be reduced.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Is there enough evidence to charge the passenger and the driver with assault? Offences Against the Person Act 1861 s42.
The passenger is instrumental in the action against the children and the elements of assualt are present I believe.

I absolutely agree: if one cannot stop in the distance where even the lighting from the hazard isn't visible...

However, this does not tie up with your original statement regarding the CPS judgement, more so even with your claim of the cycling lights.

I was talking about why the blame heaped onto the cyclist by the judge; you instead responded with the culpability of the driver.

A quick Google, based on your quote, yielded just 1 result (below). More Googles based on facts from that 1 result yielded no other results.
The article.

Why you didn't give the link when prompted I don't know. Looking at it gives some interesting clues - and does not at all tie up with your original statement that I questioned: "The CPS have concluded that it was the cyclist's own fault for being out at night" I put it to you that only you concluded this.

Also, I cannot see a mention of lighting from the cyclist. I estimate that it is likely he would have been using working lights, but there is nothing for me to accept this (either way) without reasonable doubt. Could you give reference to your claim that "he was"?

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

Sorry. Remiss of me not to look up the article on the internet after reading it in the paper.



No the article does not mention lights. The deceased was known to me as a serious and responsible cyclist who would be unlikely to cycle a busy road without lights. And it is extremely unlikely that the summing up reported in the paper would not mention the fact that he had no lights - it does mention that he had no helmet.

It is interesting that the cyclist was observed by the witness quoted so that he could not have been very difficult to see.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

You were asked for "links from the press" (something you never gave), not necessarily from the net


So you aren't going to answer my request for justification of your claim that "he was"? Remeber, you didn't say 'extremely unlikely'...
And I did say "working lights", as opposed to just 'lights'. Then there is the question of adequate lighting.


Yes, the witness had to take evading action because the cyclist was somehow difficult to see: "suddenly saw a bicycle and had to pull out again to miss it."



Anyway, we have digressed.

What part of any of that lead you to say: "The CPS have concluded that it was the cyclist's own fault for being out at night"?

Whatever the defence given (and subsequently accepted), it appears to me you are making judgments without knowledge of all the facts (twice in one case - don't forget the 'lighting'), something you are very quick to accuse others of, then using that to accuse them of bias. At least those others haven't 'mis-spoke' what was concluded

Now I grant you may have personal attachments in this case, but it does not give you any right to misrepresent what has transpired.

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

It WOULD be possible to use that defence with either a knife OR gun. People have been killed by guns and the user of that weapon has been acquitted because there was no malice or crime involved.

We may well see alteration to the law so that any person killing a cyclist or pedestrian will be considered guilty of murder notwithstanding that no malice or crime was involved.
At the moment we have no such law.
There have been prosecutions for murder with a motor vehicle, so it would seem that intent is not that difficult to prove IF there WAS intent.

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

sounds so delicious!