Not Guilty
I know some people wanted to know
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Infrastructure
Careless driving outcome?
(54 posts)-
Posted 7 years ago #
-
There but for the grace of God go I
Posted 7 years ago # -
Ridiculous. Is that isn't "failing to take care," what is?
What was the justification for the verdict?
Posted 7 years ago # -
On what grounds? Actually found not guilty or a technicality?
Posted 7 years ago # -
burden of proof was not sufficient apparently. .... I was wearing a black reflective Night Vision jacket ...defence described it over and over as 'dark clothing" so i was apparently not wearing hi-viz clothing as the prosector hadn't submitted it as evidence
I was going too fast (18mph on gps/strava). Apparently this is really fast as there 'lots of cars around'
Car was in first gear going very slowly apparently ... when i challenged this was told i wasn't an expert. prosecution didn't question it even though we had a video and a map and a quick calculation would ascertain her speed...so it was alright for the defence without an expert witness to say the car was going slow and me too fast but i wasnt an expert so i couldn't know,
My lights weren't proven to be strong enough... i had 1700 four4th n full beam a lezyne flasher and 400 lumens at the back.... Not allowed to show them the light .... it was just useless.... . To be honest i dont think i will ever report anything to the police agian ..its pointless
Posted 7 years ago # -
She had good brief? She was in the masons?
Posted 7 years ago # -
Cases like these are why we need strict liability.
Posted 7 years ago # -
RB, sorry to hear the verdict. That's just ridiculous. You were moving right along alright; I suspect the driver failed to account for looming, and additionally failed to observe properly. I don't know if your headlights might have been drowned out by something larger behind you.
Your scream moments before impact should have been all the evidence the jury needed.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Section 3ZA of the Road Traffic Act 1988 defines careless, or inconsiderate driving as follows:
"A person is to be regarded as driving without due care and attention if (and only if) the way he drives falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver."
What can you say? This decision is simply ridiculous.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Prosecution sound typically disinterested and wanted your case out of the way, defence much better paid.
[rule 1] shocking
Posted 7 years ago # -
My light was a 1700 lumens four4th light and i also had a flashing lezyne on my jacket...but the driver didn't see m until i hit the windscreen...i told the court that one of her headlights on beam (they were dipped) would have been 1850 lumens so i was nearly as bright as the car was. There was nothing behind me ...nearest thing was a bus at the previous bus stop.
Posted 7 years ago # -
The driver offered, 'i didn't stop until after he hit my windscreen as thats when i first saw him'
Posted 7 years ago # -
Bleh. Sorry you had to go through all that, and not even get a result.
Is there a civil case as well?
Posted 7 years ago # -
"... why we need strict liability"
Strict liability is a civil law concept and not for criminal matters.
It's sole effect would be to speed up insurance claims. And create a new relationship between cyclists and pedestrians.
Posted 7 years ago # -
@Ragingbike. I'm so sorry you've had to go through all that, and I hope you didn't have a lasting injury from the crash.
I'm with the other posters that this is an utter disgrace. You were legal in every sense, lights, speed. I assume it was a jury trial that the defence advocate managed to influence. From your description I am inclined to blame the judge for not instructing the jury clearly enough. Your clothing should not have been an issue; you had lights, and the judge should have said that. Your speed was similar to that of a very careful car driver so why was it too fast for you? She crashed into you because she didn't look enough and was careless. Should have been open and shut.
Hope you're well.
Posted 7 years ago # -
baffled.
if that footage wasn't sufficient to result in a conviction I can't imagine what is required.
To be honest i dont think i will ever report anything to the police again ..its pointless
totally agree with the sentiment, pointless.Posted 7 years ago # -
I had possible minor fractured ribs, really extensive bruising and tendon damage now healed some permanent scarring and some lasting tendon damage on my hand but nothing serious ... but the defence lawyer said basically ‘you walked away with pain killers’ even tho I’d been taken by ambulance suffering from hypothermia in an ambulance ....it was a JP not a jury trial ...
Posted 7 years ago # -
Not a jury trial! That's even worse. That judge needs training, and imo, censure.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Do JPs not have to sit in panels of 3 as they're
odds-on reactionary idiots who know nothing about the lawnot qualified?Posted 7 years ago # -
:-)
Posted 7 years ago # -
This really is shocking. I expect/hope that you are made of sterner stuff than me Ragingbike - I'm angry and dismayed just sitting here reading about it.
Posted 7 years ago # -
"To be honest i dont think i will ever report anything to the police agian ..its pointless"
Except that the police did their job and it did go to court.
In cases this serious the police will automatically have been involved.
Posted 7 years ago # -
‘reactionary idiots who know nothing about the law’
Welcome to the JP court...moon in the sky?...reasonable doubt!
Posted 7 years ago # -
^ personal opinion! Not the official Police line btw.
Posted 7 years ago # -
Disgusting RB. I don't even have words.
Posted 7 years ago # -
.....it gets worse
Posted 7 years ago # -
shirley not?
Posted 7 years ago # -
@Ragingbike I'm raging on your behalf. Unreal.
Posted 7 years ago # -
.....it gets worse
No doubt because the driver's insurance company is pursuing you for the damage to the vehicle.
I sincerely hope to be wrong.
Robert
Posted 7 years ago # -
RB I feel your pain.
Were there any independent witnesses in court?
Posted 7 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
