CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » Cycling News

Review of sentencing for killing cyclists

(44 posts)
  • Started 12 years ago by 14Westfield
  • Latest reply from Cycle PC

No tags yet.


  1. Roibeard
    Member

    Meanwhile in Newcastle:

    Cyclist killed by motorist - neither at fault according to coroner

    Apparently the coroner thinks that overtaking where the road narrows, without giving plenty of room (as much as for a car), as a result causing the death of another road user, is blameless. (162, 163, 167 & 212 for those keeping score.) Of course, all allegedly, based on the newspaper report.

    I must be feeling militant today, as I've emailed the coroner in question, expressing regret that a coroner might think that causing death whilst driving contrary to the Code remains "without fault".

    <grrrr>

    Robert

    Posted 12 years ago #
  2. crowriver
    Member

    There's also the issue of intent, and the question of proof. Presumably he was apprehended at the scene, 'caught red handed'. There is little doubt he intended the damage, even if he was rendered 'fou' by the drink. He may be a 'well kent face' to the polis/sheriffs round those parts.

    In contrast, trying to prove that a driver was careless or dangerous without corroborating witness accounts must be tricky. Unless the vicitim survives, the driver's account, plus tyre skid marks, is about all you've got. Hence the excuses: SMIDSY, BBTL*, temporary loss of attention/concentration, 'blackout', etc.

    * - Blinded By The Light

    Posted 12 years ago #
  3. mgj
    Member

    @Min, Crowriver, cars parked outside a police station might well belong to police officers or civilian staff, or to a vulnerable witness giving evidence to court remotely. Not as bad as a young lad I once had in front of me who didnt know that one of the 10 cars he had broken into belonged to a CID officer...

    Posted 12 years ago #
  4. Min
    Member

    Yes, they could just have been abusing their power to get a guy jailed for something that he would not have been jailed for if he had vandalised normal peoples cars.

    Roibeard - Apparently the coroner thinks that overtaking where the road narrows, without giving plenty of room (as much as for a car), as a result causing the death of another road user, is blameless.

    Obviously the PC involved thought the driver was blameless too since the language used makes it looks as if the driver only ran him down very gently. I guess it was the cyclists fault for dying.

    Posted 12 years ago #
  5. Roibeard
    Member

    I've had a terse email from the coroner rejecting any implied criticism as ill-informed and putting it down to the reporting. I've asked for his report so that I might be properly informed...

    Robert

    Posted 12 years ago #
  6. "... they could just have been abusing their power to get a guy jailed for something that he would not have been jailed for if he had vandalised normal peoples cars"

    Although the police have no say or control over any sentencing. Indeed they have no say over whether the charge even gets taken forward, that's all down to the fiscal and then the judge...

    Posted 12 years ago #
  7. Dave
    Member

    Roibeard, care to make life easy for me with an email address?

    Posted 12 years ago #
  8. Roibeard
    Member

    @Dave, sorry I think we're on a hiding to nothing. Turns out that coroner's aren't covered by FoI, the only thing public is the meeting, the resulting media reports, and the death certificate (if you go to Newcastle).

    With no official record, we're left with an assertion that the coroner didn't say what the media said he said.

    Robert

    Posted 12 years ago #
  9. Dave
    Member

    Really? How bizarre!

    Posted 12 years ago #
  10. Roibeard
    Member

    Yep, I felt the need to confirm this with the ICO and they're indeed exempt from FoI. The equivalent in Scotland would be subject to FoI though.

    Instead the inquest itself is public, if you choose to attend.

    I think the coroner himself is under a bit of pressure due to the reporting!

    Oh, and it turns out that coroner's are a bit like grocer's with regard to apostrophe's - my apologies...

    Robert

    Posted 12 years ago #
  11. katsdekker
    Member

    I (on behalf of Newcastle Cycling Campaign) was attempting to obtain the police report for this incident. Minefield!! http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/police_report_for_cyclists_death_2

    I long since have heard that even for relatives of the deceased it is difficult to get hold of.

    Gee, help us.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  12. lionfish
    Member

    katsdekker - Their messages are very cryptic. There is a police officer who often looks in on the forum (in an official capacity) to provide advice and information. I wonder if they could help. (I'll pm them).

    Posted 11 years ago #
  13. Darkerside
    Member

    With no legal training, but with the benefit of a fair bit of time arguing over contracts, I reckon the original request was too broad. There's no chance of getting interview transcripts etc, so including those in the request provides an easy excuse to reject the application in its entirety. Maybe just go for the outcome of the collision investigation r something similar?

    It does highlight the lack of an investigation body which solely exists to find safety related "lessons learnt" for road incidents. The corresponding bodies for air, road and rail work well, partly because their reports are not admissible in court.

    Posted 11 years ago #
  14. Cycle PC
    Member

    Hello,

    As the reply states, Freedom of Information does not apply to information held by the police, which may result in court proceedings.

    Have a look at: -

    http://www.itspublicknowledge.info/home/ScottishInformationCommissioner.asp

    or

    http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/governmentcitizensandrights/yourrightsandresponsibilities/dg_4003239

    Posted 11 years ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.


Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin