Cyclist fined £2000

spen666

It wasn't a jury trial because:

1) The offence is a summary only offence ie can only be tried in magistrates court

2) Magistrates courts do not have juries

dondare

I believe that this case was tried before a district judge.

spen666

dondare wrote:

I believe that this case was tried before a district judge.

1. Why ask if it was a jury trial if you know it was before a DJ? A DJ doesn't sit with a jury.

2. A DJ is a "magistrate" albeit not a lay magistrate

dondare

An earlier post in this thread mentioned a jury, in a different thread someone said that it was a district judge, I wondered if anyone knew for sure.
We know that district judges can be a bit anti-bike, too.

spen666

dondare wrote:

An earlier post in this thread mentioned a jury, in a different thread someone said that it was a district judge, I wondered if anyone knew for sure.
We know that district judges can be a bit anti-bike, too.

Just wondered why you asked re Jury ifyou knew re DJ- was not aware of earlier post

passout

Top_Bhoy wrote:

passout wrote:

I break the rules all the time on my commute - hopping onto the pavement, the lot. I do this when necessary to ensure my safety and no other reason. I am not going to ride according to the law, just to impress a few motorists, when doing so increases my risk of been hit by said motorists.

Still... I've never hit a pedestrain. Yes they should get out the way but we should ride defensively and be prepared to slow down if there is a potential hazard. To try & justify this crash, when the cyclist apparently had the opportunity to stop is pointless. He should have slowed down in order to prevent an accident. Risking a crash to prove some sort of point is stupid and is exactly why I break the highway code (see above).

By the way, I'd only ride on the pavements if it's empty - not a problem on my commute - and necessary. I don't whizz past walkers, before someone points out the flaw in my argument.

We should put others safety and of course OUR OWN safety at the top of the list. The law, rights of way etc are very much secondary.

PS You surely can't blame Boris for the coverage of this story? Cyclists have been unpopular well before he was on the scene. Also it was an unsual case, which is why it made the BBC.

I've had to read this a few times and it's a classic which should be pinned. A cyclist with an arrogant attitude complaining about a cyclist with a similar outlook. You couldn't make it up! What gives you the right to decide which laws you can and can't abide by? Do you deserve to be strung up if someone unexpectedly steps out from a shop or building doorway, turns a corner, etc and you hit them? Whether you whizz past walkers or not is not is irrelevant. People can be knocked over at low speeds which increases the chances of injury.

If you're big enough to cycle and over 16, you're big enough to keep to the rules. The chance of being hit by a car is sadly always present for every cyclist but plenty of cyclists seem to manage keeping within the rules so why should you be the exception? If you can't accept the rules maybe you should try something else and keep your hypocrisy to yourself.

Top Bhoy,

Choosing to break a law (that I have problems with & is usually not enforced) does not make me arrogant although you are of course welcome to disagree with my decisions/actions. As for my criticism of this other cyclist - it's valid ('if' the reports are true) because it was such an extreme case and he clearly rode without enough care & attention. On my particular commute I'm convinced that riding on the pavement is safer (for everybody including myself) as there are rarely pedestrains and always traffic jams. I don't ride past walkers or even past doorways as you wrote. I have given it thought especially as I never used to ride on the pavement but the actions of a significant minority of motorists (at junctions especially) has forced my hand. Yes, I could still stick only to the road but sooner or later i would be involved in a near miss or accident similar to ones I have suffered in the last two years.

You say hypocrisy I say honesty. Sticking to the rules is all very well but when you've nearly been killed twice on the same roundabout (Broughton Interchange, Lancs, where the A6, M6 and M55 meet) then you do start to think again. Now use the underpass on my MTB. You unquestionably stick to the rules if you like, but I'm going to use my common sense. I'm certainly not going to quit cycling as you suggest because you (as an apprarent rule follower with the moral highground) think I should....now that really is arrogant.

To answer you question. 'what gives you the right to decide which laws you can / can't abide by'. Well.....I'm a human being with my own mind and this gives me the ability to make my own decisions and question the rules. I break laws all the time by choice. When driving on the motorway I often cruise at 75mph - so if i criticise somebody driving at over 120mph does that make me a hypocrit? Well...no, not really, because most people would apply common sense to the situation, it is after all a question of degree. And anyway I'm willing to be held responsible for my actions.

PS What's the weather like up there?

top_bhoy

I'm not going into any detailed response on this at it would only drag things out unneccesarily. Suffice to say I didn't put things quite like what you say I did and I disagree with your viewpoint.

As far as the weather is concerned - its bloody cold here and its even managing an occassional spot of rain every other day. Roll on the 30+ deg summer!!

tstegers

It seems to me that there is a general shortage of pedestrian/cyclist interaction experience in this forum. The key issue with pedestrians revolves round whether they are looking. If they are not/have not it becomes very difficult to avoid them. Braking compomises your control and you do not know which way they will jump when they become conscious of the danger posed by the oncoming cyclist. Thus a pedestrian, foot print about 50cms, can occupy 2m or more of road space. Think of the circumstances of two pedestrians walking toward each other with plenty of space on the footpath. They collide because neither knows what the other is going to do. I’ll bet it has even happened to overconfident spen666. Spen You brought up the issue of a jury , not DonDare. Quote : “Clearly so conflicting that a jury had no problem in convicting the dangerous cyclist.”

Howard was badly represented and he should be encouraged to appeal.

spen666

tstegers wrote:

...

Howard was badly represented and he should be encouraged to appeal.

I fail to see how he was badly represented. As I see it he was guilty as charged ( or summonsed).

What the case does highlight however is the differing perceptions as to what is dangerous driving and what is dangerous cycling.

It is very hard to get convictions for dangerous driving, even when it appears to be a prima facie clear cut case. The same is not true it appears re dangerous cycling.


[ for the avoidance of doubt, I have based my views of this case on the media reports, which may well not be a true or fair reflection of the evidence presented]

tstegers

I read she had drunk at least two pints of Stella and that she stepped off the curb. I did not read any analysis of how difficult it is to swerve in circumstances where which way you might swerve is an issue. It's the lawyers' job to defend their client properly. I didn't see any evidence of that in the reports I read. It is very unlikely a cyclist would deliberately ride into a pedestrian not least because the cyclist is more likely to be injured than the pedestrian. Especially so if you are doing about 20 mph. On the strength of the reports I read his lawyers were rubbish.

spen666

tstegers wrote:

I read she had drunk at least two pints of Stella and that she stepped off the curb. I did not read any analysis of how difficult it is to swerve in circumstances where which way you might swerve is an issue. It's the lawyers' job to defend their client properly. I didn't see any evidence of that in the reports I read. It is very unlikely a cyclist would deliberately ride into a pedestrian not least because the cyclist is more likely to be injured than the pedestrian. Especially so if you are doing about 20 mph. On the strength of the reports I read his lawyers were rubbish.

So rather than us both bandying about "glib" phrases- how about specifics about what the defence team did or did not do to enable you to reach this damning conclusion.

Bearing in mind this was a criminal case, and it is not about who was most to blame. The girl may well be to blame for the accident, but that doesn't stop him being GUILTY of dangerous driving. ( don't mix liability up with guilt- one is civil, one is criminal)

clanton

number9 wrote:

1/

the reporting of this case was a disgrace.


2/


Howard hit the girl after she stepped back into the road, according to
the cops


3/


The claim that Howard shouted"Get out of my way, I'm not stopping" was
a crock of shoot, the only person who made this claim was the
prosecutor, no witness confirmed this at all


4/


Youths drinking in the park and then mucking about in the road getting
the support of The Mail just shows The Mail hate cyclists more than
drunk youths


5/


e quote from the father about the cyclist is of interest:


"He is an arrogant, vile little man."


Given that Mick Bennet is on a Life Licence, having been released from
a life sentence imposed for a s18 Wounding With Intent some years ago,
he speaks from a position of some knowledge on the matter of
vileness.


6/


The problem (as I understand it) is that amongst the group of friends,
"conflicting statements" were given.


This included one person saying the girl walked into the path of the
cyclist.


Who's right? I have no idea, I was not there.


But: If these self same witnesses maintain their statements even in a
civil case, then there is every chance of the claim failing.

Amen

robmanic1

spen666 wrote:

Bearing in mind this was a criminal case, and it is not about who was most to blame. The girl may well be to blame for the accident, but that doesn't stop him being GUILTY of dangerous driving. ( don't mix liability up with guilt- one is civil, one is criminal)

Hmmmm, I'm no lawyer (I EARN my money HONESTLY) but, if in a criminal court, you are found to be at blame for a incident you could, by your expert reckoning, be the innocent party?

Surely if you are most to blame, you should be found to be the guilty party, after all isn't that the basis of our fine legal system? Guilt-blame, what's the difference?

I'm confused spen, perhaps you could explain in your own non-patronising, and not-at-all condescending way?

spen666

Robmanic1 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Bearing in mind this was a criminal case, and it is not about who was most to blame. The girl may well be to blame for the accident, but that doesn't stop him being GUILTY of dangerous driving. ( don't mix liability up with guilt- one is civil, one is criminal)

Hmmmm, I'm no lawyer (I EARN my money HONESTLY) but, if in a criminal court, you are found to be at blame for a incident you could, by your expert reckoning, be the innocent party?

Surely if you are most to blame, you should be found to be the guilty party, after all isn't that the basis of our fine legal system? Guilt-blame, what's the difference?

I'm confused spen, perhaps you could explain in your own non-patronising, and not-at-all condescending way?

blame/ liability & GUILT are not the same thing

Eg if you leave your wallet on the table in the pub and somebody takes it whilst you are at the toilet, you may be to blame for leaving it unattended, but the person who took it is guilty of theft- even if they needed the money to pay for a life saving operation.

The test in a civil case is not the SAME as in a criminal case- they may be similar, but are not the same if for no other reason than a different burden of proof ie in a criminal case it is "beyond all reasonable doubt" in a civil case it is on the balance of probabilities.

tstegers

Spen666,
You are doing 20mph on a bike and a drunk steps off the kerb apparently without looking.
You can't brake hard and maintain control. If you skid it is most likely that you will hit said drunk. You do not know where to steer because you cannot tell what the pedestrian will do next. Will they continue into the road or stop and try to get back to the footpath? Do you go left or right? While you are working this out you hit the pedestrian. Pedestrian dies and you feel guilty, but you are innocent. Your legal team does not get you off.

One of my conclusions is rubbish legal team who apparently buy into generalities about cyclists. The sort of people who, when dealing with UK PI cases, say things like this is not America... I’m sure you have probably met a few of this ilk.

robmanic1

So, if you jump in front of a bus because you're mental or something, you're to blame because it's a silly thing to do, but the bus driver's guilty because he ran you over?

As you can see, I'm a simple man, perhaps drawings would help.

spen666

Robmanic1 wrote:

...


Hmmmm, I'm no lawyer (I EARN my money HONESTLY) but, if in a criminal court, you are found to be at blame for a incident you could, by your expert reckoning, be the innocent party?

...

No one is found to be innocent in a criminal court- you are either GUILTY or NOT GUILTY or a witness to an alleged crime.....

Being found not guilty does not mean you are innocent. it simply means the Crown have not proved you were guilty. I have represented many people found not guilty who IMHO did actually commit the crime alleged, it was merely the Crown could not PROVE beyond all reasonable doubt that they were guilty

spen666

Robmanic1 wrote:

So, if you jump in front of a bus because you're mental or something, you're to blame because it's a silly thing to do, but the bus driver's guilty because he ran you over?

As you can see, I'm a simple man, perhaps drawings would help.

That could be the case- if for example bus driver was doing 60 in a 30 zone or was on mobile phone at time of incident

tstegers

Robmaniac1, Nah drawings won't help. Let's have it in Welsh...

robmanic1

The law sucks, huh?

spen666

tstegers wrote:

Spen666,
You are doing 20mph on a bike and a drunk steps off the kerb apparently without looking.

in this case there was [AFAIK] no evidence that deceased was drunk - there was no toxicology report before the court to suggest this. The idea deceased was drunk appears to come as an attemopt to besmirch the name of the deceased. It is certainly not something that can be proven

You can't brake hard and maintain control. If you skid it is most likely that you will hit said drunk. You do not know where to steer because you cannot tell what the pedestrian will do next. Will they continue into the road or stop and try to get back to the footpath? Do you go left or right? While you are working this out you hit the pedestrian. Pedestrian dies and you feel guilty, but you are innocent. Your legal team does not get you off.

You however arrogantly have time to think and shout words to the effect of "move, i'm not going to stop for you" That suggests aggressive riding which is sufficient to prove the offence.

One of my conclusions is rubbish legal team who apparently buy into generalities about cyclists.

I see nothing more the defence lawyers could have done in this case. The defendant convicted himself by his words and actions on the day of the accident. A lawyer cannot build a house out of straw or turn a sow's ear into a silk purse.

The sort of people who, when dealing with UK PI cases, say things like this is not America... I’m sure you have probably met a few of this ilk.

I'm not sure i fullly understand your last point and therefore cannot sensibly comment on it - sorry

spen666

tstegers wrote:

Robmaniac1, Nah drawings won't help. Let's have it in Welsh...

i'll try

lllllffffanellligo go gochfffffffffffffffllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllanellllli dai the steam, ivor the enginee go gogogogogoggoch



Clear now?

robmanic1

tstegers wrote:

Robmaniac1, Nah drawings won't help. Let's have it in Welsh...

I struggle enough with spen's fancy -Dan "law-speak", Welsh would finish me off! (Although I love the way the Welsh laydees speak! )

julietp

spen666 wrote:

tstegers wrote:

Spen666,
You are doing 20mph on a bike and a drunk steps off the kerb apparently without looking.

in this case there was [AFAIK] no evidence that deceased was drunk - there was no toxicology report before the court to suggest this. The idea deceased was drunk appears to come as an attemopt to besmirch the name of the deceased. It is certainly not something that can be proven

You can't brake hard and maintain control. If you skid it is most likely that you will hit said drunk. You do not know where to steer because you cannot tell what the pedestrian will do next. Will they continue into the road or stop and try to get back to the footpath? Do you go left or right? While you are working this out you hit the pedestrian. Pedestrian dies and you feel guilty, but you are innocent. Your legal team does not get you off.

You however arrogantly have time to think and shout words to the effect of "move, i'm not going to stop for you" That suggests aggressive riding which is sufficient to prove the offence.

One of my conclusions is rubbish legal team who apparently buy into generalities about cyclists.

I see nothing more the defence lawyers could have done in this case. The defendant convicted himself by his words and actions on the day of the accident. A lawyer cannot build a house out of straw or turn a sow's ear into a silk purse.

The sort of people who, when dealing with UK PI cases, say things like this is not America... I’m sure you have probably met a few of this ilk.

I'm not sure i fullly understand your last point and therefore cannot sensibly comment on it - sorry

Very well said Spen666

spen666

spen666 wrote:

.... A lawyer cannot build a house out of straw or turn a sow's ear into a silk purse.

I have to confess though that I have seen a few lawyers turn a silk purse into a sow's ear

robmanic1

spen666 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

.... A lawyer cannot build a house out of straw or turn a sow's ear into a silk purse.

I have to confess though that I have seen a few lawyers turn a silk purse into a sow's ear

Would that be the "Simpson vs the state" case? (OJ not Homer)

passout

Can someone please clarify.....was this cyclist doing 20mph on the road or pavement as suggested earlier? Cheers.

tstegers

Spen666

One of her friends declared she wasn't drunk, she'd had no more than two pints of Stella. Given the circumstances she was likely to have been drunk enough.

The aggressive declaration from the rider is suspect and not corroborated, didn't you comment on this earlier? In any case is it likely that anyone would say such a thing? If you were going to ride into someone with intent much more likely that you would just do it.

I do not think his lawyers had any experience of riding bikes in and around pedestrians and more critically do not seem to have sought evidence from those who have. Certainly a cyclist who is apparently prepared to ride into pedestrians at high speed does not have much experience so no good asking him. I have hit pedestrians on three occasions I can recall. I have always been very much more severely injured than the pedestrians I have hit - busted wrist and busted face, always busted skin. The pedestrians have all been unmarked. They were all in the road and none were looking around them. Pedestrians are clearly more physically stable than cyclists. This is something you understand from the moment you start to ride a bike. Why would this cyclist take the risk if he was able to avoid it? The articles I have read are brim full of assumptions and generalities. It is for lawyers to challenge generalities and assumptions.

This is why it seems to me they did a bad job. Can you see them being as useless if the person concerned had been in a car? No. Why? Because there would have been a potential insurance liability that would have seen the driver properly defended. He should appeal.

robmanic1

Ding-ding, round 2!

flattythehurdler

spen666 wrote:

number9 wrote:

1/

the reporting of this case was a disgrace.


2/


Howard hit the girl after she stepped back into the road, according to
the cops


3/


The claim that Howard shouted"Get out of my way, I'm not stopping" was
a crock of shoot, the only person who made this claim was the
prosecutor, no witness confirmed this at all


4/


Youths drinking in the park and then mucking about in the road getting
the support of The Mail just shows The Mail hate cyclists more than
drunk youths

This is irrelevant to the fact that the cyclist was riding dangerously - hence why he was convicted

5/


e quote from the father about the cyclist is of interest:


"He is an arrogant, vile little man."


Given that Mick Bennet is on a Life Licence, having been released from
a life sentence imposed for a s18 Wounding With Intent some years ago,
he speaks from a position of some knowledge on the matter of
vileness.

and this is somehow relevant to the issue of the cyclists guilt? The fact that someone's father may or may not have committed any offence is irrelevant to the question of whether the cyclist was riding dangerously.

Slinging mud at relatives of the deceased is hardly going to endear you to anyone

6/


The problem (as I understand it) is that amongst the group of friends,
"conflicting statements" were given.

Clearly so conflicting that a jury had no problem in convicting the dangerous cyclist

This included one person saying the girl walked into the path of the
cyclist.


Who's right? I have no idea, I was not there.


But: If these self same witnesses maintain their statements even in a
civil case, then there is every chance of the claim failing.

So you m,ake all these statements of "fact" - despite the fact you were not there?
As for a civil claim failing, you are I suspect wrong. The claimant will merely have to prove the conviction for dangerous cycling. The only issue then will be "possible" arguments re contributary negligence

A civil case is on the balance of probabilities -ie prove >50% likely you are right. The criminal case for dangerous cycling has to be proved BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT - a far higher stanfdard.

Are you seriously suggesting that despite it being proved to the far higher standard that he was cycling dangerously, that it can't be shown to the far lower standard that he caused the injury to the lady? Dream on

If I may use your previous example, spen, the jury found OJ innocent hence he DID NOT murder his wife. True or false?