Lorry driver killed cyclist, threw bike into undergrowth.

Mr Sworld

spen666 wrote:

I'd love to, but my job means I can't.

I read the files part of my work, but am not allowed to divulge what is on the file.

You ARE James Bond and I claim my £5!

Mr Sworld

NGale wrote:

and how come your daft enough to be still up at this time of the day?!!

I don't have work tomorrow......

dilemna

Damien Green was arrested on suspicion of various offences that the Government had concocted and then had to wait several months IIRC as to whether he would be charged with said offences therefore he faced the prospect of being charged. As you correctly say he was not. Anyway spen666 I don't want to get into another contentious argument with you. I simply believe as has been suggested by some one else that an investigating magistrate(s)/judge(s) sitting in place of a jury would be preferable in serious, disturbing or complex cases. As I say it works quite well in Europe such as France so maybe there are aspects we could learn or adopt to improve our system which believe it or not is not perfect spen.

Diplock courts were convened inorder to deal with terrorist cases where witnesses and juries would not testify or turn up for fear of intimidation or being killed IIRC?


Anyway I would like to say to the Spink family I have spent about 4 hours reading all the posts and links on the MagicOutdoors site and on here and it was clear Anthony Spinks was a remarkable man and a much loved family member. I obviously had never met anthony but this brother's tribute tells of a still young man in his prime cycling off on a camping holiday which quickly turned into an horrific tale resulting in him losing his life and tearing apart a close family.

Whilst of course it is a one sided account of Anthony Spink's last moments from a loving brother, I found it entirely plausible and compelling. It is heart rendering to read. I could not hold back the tears on several occasions having to take several breaks and return some time later. Anthony appeared to be a remarkable young man, a great ambassador for promoting cycling and the outdoors the natural world. So at odds to the manner in which he died. There is the nub. For those who read these posts only genuine cyclists who have put in the miles, experienced the hazards and risks of cycling on UK roads will appreciate how dangerous they can be, how vulnerable as a cyclist you are, how it only takes one vehicle, one driver, to wipe you out whether unintentionally or ....................

You just hope that if you are struck the driver is honest and does the right thing, stops immediately and does everything to assist you with regard to any injuries and if serious does everything in their power to prevent you dying like calling the emergancy services.

This is where I think Andrew Stubb's failure to account for his actions and his comments are so telling of his true intentions.

All I can say is I am shocked, absolutely shocked, at the leniency of punishment for Andrew Stubbs. Absolutely shocked. Tomorrow another cyclist could be knocked down, it could be me or it could be you, in similar circumstances and who would speak for us? Who would speak for us? Would the driver stop or drive on as Stubbs did? The truck driver Stubbs has shown utter contempt for Anthony Spinks, his family and the
judicial system.

I don't believe for one second that he knew nothing of colliding with Anthony Spinks. I believe his actions were intentional and malicious and 'am shocked that the police and CPS were not more robust in dissecting his attempts of saying he had no knowledge of any collision with Mr Spinks and his bicycle and the comments he did offer accusing Anthony of being suicidal is telling. So he must have known something about the collision then? His story just doesn't add up IMHO. The CPS should have been much more rigorous and held out for the serious charges of manslaughter or s.18 with intent to cause grievous bodily harm although Mr Spinks did actually die in the collision.

I simply cannot understand that at what point in the manner Stubbs drove his HGV vehicle at what point it wasn't dangerous? I simply cannot. There are so many inconsistencies in his account and his subsequent actions that point to some one with every inidcation that he knew what he was doing. I feel the Spinks family and the memory of Anthony have suffered a serious injustice. Unfortunately they are not the first or neither will they be the last cyclists and families to be let down by the legal system in this country. It's an absolute disgrace.

As I say I believe Stubbs knew exactly what he was doing and what he had subsequently done when he continued to drive his lorry with Mr Spinks banging on the front trying frantically to get him to stop, Stubbs continuing to drive on discarding Anthony Spink's mangled bicycle next to a layby some 30 miles away. I am just staggered that the police, CPS and court were taken in with his pack of lies to frustrate the charge to a lame careless driving. It should have been manslaughter, s.18 OAPA with intent and dangeorus driving, failing to stop after an accident. For christ sake Stubbs tried to get away from cars blowing their horns, flashing their headlights, trying to alert him to stop having just collided with a cyclist. It's beypond belief. It's just like Steven Spielberg's Duel but for real.................terrifying.

My full sympathies and condolences to the Spinks family. I hope you can find some good from Anthony's death although you might not be able to see this is remotely possible at present. As difficult as it might seem now I am sure some good will come of Anthony's death and this will help you to come to terms with it. Although I should imagine that everyday is a living hell right now for you. Remember all the good things friends and family have said about him to help you through.

I would be more then happy to ride on Parliament to bring the issue of cycle safety and these dangerous drivers who escape heavy fines or serious punishment to the feet of the politicians.

Another dangerous driver Tim Rice killed a cyclist Mr Robinson head on as he overtook following a line of other cars on a rural road in Cambridgehsire. The other cars overtaking which Mr Rice was following saw the cyclist approaching ahead and swerved to avoid him. But as Mr Rice was driving so close to the car in front he didn't and hit Mr Robinson head on at 70mph on the wrong side of the road killing him instantly. Mr Robinson was a devoted family man much loved and now greatly missed. The Court of Appeal let Mr Rice off on a technicality. It is a disgrace absolute discgrace. Then there's Major Rhys Evans knocked off and killed on the A1 in Bedfordshire earlier this year on an early sunday morning as he was taking part in a TT. He had survived Afghanistan but was killed in his own country whilst out cycling. The list goes on and on. It's shocking, senseless loss of life. And the common factor? They were all cyclists.


Perhaps if there are enough cyclists riding on Parliament, a silent critical mass say, and huge pictures of the all the deceased cyclists killled on the roads in the last 10 years displayed this might bring it home to MPs. Maybe we could bring London to a standstill and fill Parliament Square, all peaceful and silent like a huge wake, everyone dressed in black. Worth a try. The carnage has to be stopped somehow. We have to mobilise ourselves as a group to force MPs to seriously consider our safety on the roads and afford us the protection we need both in law and physically. They have done if in Denmark and Holland and other European countries to a greater extent to why not in the UK????

The main change in the law we need IMHO is reversing the burden of proof such that it is the driver of any motorised vehicle who is in collision with another party who is not themselves in a motorised vehicle such as a pedestrian, cyclist or horse rider, for the driver of the motorised vehicle to establish that they were not at fault rather than the current system where the party claiming the driver was at fault has to show that he was at fault. This applies to civil actions. But then for criminal cases it should be that the driver has to prove that they were not driving carelessly, recklessly or dangerously. So in the instant case Andrew Stubbs would have had to shown that his drivng was negligent or that he did not have the intention to run down Anthony. I know this goes against the fundamental tenet that the prosecution has to prove the case and not the defence proving theirs and innocent until proven guilty, but the presumption would be rebuttable and give very vulnearble road users protection in law. There is currently such abuse of the system, drivers who will lie and concoct anything to avoid prosecution or incriminating themselves where they should reasonably give account for their actions. Clearly many dangerous and guilty drivers are escaping prosecution and conviction because of this. 2,500+ people are killed on the roads EVERY year. And there is the leniency of sentences. The sentences are so lenient or an inconvenience as opposed to a deterrent now becuse the prisons are full and courts under the guidance from the Government by the Home Secretary will do anything to avoid sending the guilty to prison. Answer = build more prisons. Where does the money come from? Bankers bonuses. Simples.

yoohoo999

dilemna wrote:

The main change in the law we need IMHO is reversing the burden of proof such that it is the driver of any motorised vehicle who is in collision with another party who is not themselves in a motorised vehicle such as a pedestrian, cyclist or horse rider, for the driver of the motorised vehicle to establish that they were not at fault rather than the current system where the party claiming the driver was at fault has to show that he was at fault. This applies to civil actions.

Could be done, but as the Governement have already made quite clear, they are not buying it.

But then for criminal cases it should be that the driver has to prove that they were not driving carelessly, recklessly or dangerously. I know this goes against the tenet that the prosecution has to prove the case and not the defence proving theirs and innocent until proven guilty, but there is currently such abuse of the system as clearly many dangerous and guilty drivers are escaping prosecution and conviction. And there is the leniency of sentences. Answer = build more prisons. Where does the money come from? Bankers bonuses. Simples.

don't suppose you read the Daily Mail :?

I've got more chance of Cheryl Cole turning up at my office right now declaring her love for me than that proposal does of even being looked at by a the receptionist at the Commons/Lords.

spen666

dilemna wrote:

Damien Green was arrested on suspicion of various offences that the Government had concocted and then had to wait several months IIRC as to whether he would be charged with said offences therefore he faced the prospect of being charged. As you correctly say he was not. Anyway spen666 I don't want to get into another contentious argument with you. I simply believe as has been suggested by some one else that an investigating magistrate(s)/judge(s) sitting in place of a jury would be preferable in serious, disturbing or complex cases. As I say it works quite well in Europe such as France so maybe there are aspects we could learn or adopt to improve our system which believe it or not is not perfect spen.

Actually it does not work well at all.

i think you have a case of the grass being greener on the other side of the fence.


An investigative magistrate system is alien to the whole English Legal System and would involve completely changing the Judicial system- not a small change. You cannot make small changes to our legal system by bringing in investigative magistrates.

As for our system not being perfect, I know it isn’t and regularly say so on here. However, to change it for an even more flawed system is not going to improve things


Now why would an investigative magistrate have made any difference? An allegation of a crime was made and it was investigated. The same would happen under an investigative magistrates system.

Then you say the investigative magistrates system is better, but appear not to give any reasons why

Diplock courts were convened in order to deal with terrorist cases where witnesses and juries would not testify or turn up for fear of intimidation or being killed IIRC?


[/quot]e Whatever their purpose in being created, they were courts where judges decided on guilt in the absence of a jury, which is what was being proposed earlier here.

Thus as I said it is effectively a proposal to create Diplock courts ie courts without Juries

......

I don't believe for one second that he knew nothing of colliding with Andrew Spinks. I believe his actions were intentional and malicious and 'am shocked that the police and CPS were not more robust in dissecting his attempts of saying he had no knowledge of any collision with Mr Spinks and his bicycle and the comments he did offer accusing Andrew of being suicidal is telling. So he must have known something about the collision then? His story just doesn't add up IMHO. The CPS should have been much more rigorous and held out for the serious charges of manslaughter or s.18 with intent to cause grievous bodily harm although Mr Spinks did actually die in the collision.

Erm hello wake up and read the facts, the CPS did bring the appropriate charge- ie death by dangerous driving. It was the jury who convicted him of a lesser charge.
A little bit of jurisprudence for you- the CPS prosecute, they don't decide on guilt or otherwise
You say it should have been manslaughter or S18 the CPS brought. Good job you are not a prosecutor then, because if such charges were brought, the case would not have reached the jury as a judge would have been obliged to stop the case at the end of the prosecution case.
For s18 or manslaughter, there needs to be evidence of intent on the part of the driver- ie evidence that he intended to cause the accident, not simply evidence that he did cause it, but that he intended to cause it.
There is absolutely no such evidence. There is evidence of an accident occurring, there is evidence of the driver behaving appallingly AFTER the accident, but no evidence of intent to cause the accident.
BTW the driver was convicted of perverting the course of justice for his actions after the accident

I simply cannot understand that at what point in the manner Stubbs drove his HGV vehicle at what point it wasn't dangerous? I simply cannot. There are so many inconsistencies in his account and his subsequent actions that point to some one with every inidcation that he knew what he was doing. I feel the Spinks family and the memory of Andrew have suffered a serious injustice.

Well clearly, the 12 members of the jury who heard all the evidence unlike you, did not think the driving was dangerous in the legal meaning of the word. There is a precise legal definition of the meaning of dangerous driving. It is not sufficient that there is an accident and someone is hurt or dies

As I say I believe Stubbs knew exactly what he was doing and what he had subsequently done when he continued to drive his lorry with Mr Spinks banging on the front trying frantically to get him to stop, Stubbs continuing to drive on discarding Andrew Spink's mangled bicycle next to a layby some 30 miles away. I am just staggered that the police, CPS and court were taken in with his pack of lies to frustrate the charge to a lame careless driving. It should have been manslaughter, s.18 OAPA with intent and dangeorus driving, failing to stop after an accident. For christ sake Stubbs tried to get away from cars blowing their horns, flashing their headlights, trying to alert him to stop having just collided with a cyclist. It's beypond belief. It's just like Steven Spielberg's Duel but for real.................terrifying.

Again, this is relative to what happened after the accident, not to his intent before the accident. As I said above, he was convicted of perverting the course of justice for what happened after the accident. You seem to have deleted this from the list of charges brought.

...
I would be more then happy to ride on Parliament to bring the issue of cycle safety and these dangerous drivers who escape heavy fines or serious punishment to the feet of the politicians.
Another dangerous driver Tim Rice killed a cyclist Mr Robinson head on as he overtook following a line of other cars on a rural road in Cambridgehsire. The other cars overtaking which Mr Rice was following saw the cyclist approaching ahead and swerved to avoid him. But as Mr Rice was driving so close to the car in front he didn't and hit Mr Robinson head on at 70mph on the wrong side of the road killing him instantly. Mr Robinson was a devoted family man much loved and now greatly missed. The Court of Appeal let Mr Rice off on a technicality.

Hmm. Have you actually read even the newspaper reports of the case let alone the facts? Mr Rice was not let off at all. He was convicted and the convictions stood. Was the punishment sufficient? Probably not IMHO, but to say he was let off on a technicality is wrong.
What was this technicality?
I think you will struggle to find one- because Mr Rice was not let off on a technicality. He was convicted and sentenced. The conviction was nnot challenged before the court of appeal.

Then there's Major Rhys Evans knocked off and killed on the A1 in Bedfordshire earlier this year on an early sunday morning as he was taking part in a TT. He had survived Afghanistan but was killed in his own country whilst out cycling. The list goes on and on. It's shocking, senseless loss of life. And the common factor? They were all cyclists.

Yes, they were all cyclists, so what?

Perhaps if there are enough cyclists riding on Parliament, a silent critical mass say, and huge pictures of the all the deceased cyclists killled on the roads in the last 10 years displayed this might bring it home to MPs. Maybe we could bring London to a standstill and fill Parliament Square, all peaceful and silent like a huge wake, everyone dressed in black. Worth a try. The carnage has to be stopped somehow and we have to mobilise ourselves as a group to force MPs to consider our safety on the roads and afford us the protection we need.

The main change in the law we need IMHO is reversing the burden of proof such that it is the driver of any motorised vehicle who is in collision with another party who is not themselves in a motorised vehicle such as a pedestrian, cyclist or horse rider, for the driver of the motorised vehicle to establish that they were not at fault rather than the current system where the party claiming the driver was at fault has to show that he was at fault. This applies to civil actions. But then for criminal cases it should be that the driver has to prove that they were not driving carelessly, recklessly or dangerously. I know this goes against the tenet that the prosecution has to prove the case and not the defence proving theirs and innocent until proven guilty, but there is currently such abuse of the system as clearly many dangerous and guilty drivers are escaping prosecution and conviction. And there is the leniency of sentences. Answer = build more prisons. Where does the money come from? Bankers bonuses. Simples.

Your last proposal clearly shows you have .lost the plot. You have not idea what you are proposing.

Guilty until proven innocent- for everyone or just motorists? If the latter how long before it is extended to everyone.

You are so short sighted it is unbelievable. You no longer have the freedom to do anything. You upset a police officer-or politician and find yourself in prison because you cannot prove you did not do something

The simple fact is your proposal is illegal under the European Convention on Human Rights and thankfully has no chance of even being considered in criminal cases.

zanes

*Waits for the "nothing to hide, nothing to fear" brigade to turn up*

:roll: :roll:

tomb353

I am with those above who would like to see a concerted campaign arise from these recent tragic deaths. I would get involved with something that sought to achieve:

1/ Rewriting of the law on dangerous and careless driving to provide clearer guidance to courts on what grounds they may convict and clear minimum sentence guidlines.

2/ Empowering the police to issue roadside fixed penalty notices for driving without due care, with revenue ring fenced to fund more traffic officers on the streets.

3/ Enforcement of speed limits

4/ Public education regarding what is and is not an acceptable way to conduct yourself when driving a motor vehicle.

My own view is that for something like this to succeed it needs to not just be about cyclists, but would need to be a joint campaign with road safety groups representing pedestrians and victims of motor vehicle collisions.

spen666

duplicate

spen666

spen666 wrote:

tomb353 wrote:

I am with those above who would like to see a concerted campaign arise from these recent tragic deaths. I would get involved with something that sought to achieve:

1/ Rewriting of the law on dangerous and careless driving to provide clearer guidance to courts on what grounds they may convict and clear minimum sentence guidlines.

2/ Empowering the police to issue roadside fixed penalty notices for driving without due care, with revenue ring fenced to fund more traffic officers on the streets.

Absolutely oppose this ie the FPN point- it is a very foolish idea.

It provides incentives for police to falsify claims to increase their funding- as has happened with privatised parking fines.

Also fixed penalties reduce the punishments imposed for offences- ie it down grades the matter.

That is not to say I oppose greater enforcement- I don't, but don't think this is the way

3/ Enforcement of speed limits

4/ Public education regarding what is and is not an acceptable way to conduct yourself when driving a motor vehicle.

My own view is that for something like this to succeed it needs to not just be about cyclists, but would need to be a joint campaign with road safety groups representing pedestrians and victims of motor vehicle collisions.

tomb353

like this maybe:

http://www.brake.org.uk/campaigns

dilemna

spen666 wrote:

dilemna wrote:

Damien Green was arrested on suspicion of various offences that the Government had concocted and then had to wait several months IIRC as to whether he would be charged with said offences therefore he faced the prospect of being charged. As you correctly say he was not. Anyway spen666 I don't want to get into another contentious argument with you. I simply believe as has been suggested by some one else that an investigating magistrate(s)/judge(s) sitting in place of a jury would be preferable in serious, disturbing or complex cases. As I say it works quite well in Europe such as France so maybe there are aspects we could learn or adopt to improve our system which believe it or not is not perfect spen.

Actually it does not work well at all.

i think you have a case of the grass being greener on the other side of the fence.


An investigative magistrate system is alien to the whole English Legal System and would involve completely changing the Judicial system- not a small change. You cannot make small changes to our legal system by bringing in investigative magistrates.

As for our system not being perfect, I know it isn’t and regularly say so on here. However, to change it for an even more flawed system is not going to improve things


Now why would an investigative magistrate have made any difference? An allegation of a crime was made and it was investigated. The same would happen under an investigative magistrates system.

Then you say the investigative magistrates system is better, but appear not to give any reasons why

Diplock courts were convened in order to deal with terrorist cases where witnesses and juries would not testify or turn up for fear of intimidation or being killed IIRC?


[/quot]e Whatever their purpose in being created, they were courts where judges decided on guilt in the absence of a jury, which is what was being proposed earlier here.

Thus as I said it is effectively a proposal to create Diplock courts ie courts without Juries

......

I don't believe for one second that he knew nothing of colliding with Andrew Spinks. I believe his actions were intentional and malicious and 'am shocked that the police and CPS were not more robust in dissecting his attempts of saying he had no knowledge of any collision with Mr Spinks and his bicycle and the comments he did offer accusing Andrew of being suicidal is telling. So he must have known something about the collision then? His story just doesn't add up IMHO. The CPS should have been much more rigorous and held out for the serious charges of manslaughter or s.18 with intent to cause grievous bodily harm although Mr Spinks did actually die in the collision.

Erm hello wake up and read the facts, the CPS did bring the appropriate charge- ie death by dangerous driving. It was the jury who convicted him of a lesser charge.
A little bit of jurisprudence for you- the CPS prosecute, they don't decide on guilt or otherwise
You say it should have been manslaughter or S18 the CPS brought. Good job you are not a prosecutor then, because if such charges were brought, the case would not have reached the jury as a judge would have been obliged to stop the case at the end of the prosecution case.
For s18 or manslaughter, there needs to be evidence of intent on the part of the driver- ie evidence that he intended to cause the accident, not simply evidence that he did cause it, but that he intended to cause it.
There is absolutely no such evidence. There is evidence of an accident occurring, there is evidence of the driver behaving appallingly AFTER the accident, but no evidence of intent to cause the accident.
BTW the driver was convicted of perverting the course of justice for his actions after the accident

I simply cannot understand that at what point in the manner Stubbs drove his HGV vehicle at what point it wasn't dangerous? I simply cannot. There are so many inconsistencies in his account and his subsequent actions that point to some one with every inidcation that he knew what he was doing. I feel the Spinks family and the memory of Andrew have suffered a serious injustice.

Well clearly, the 12 members of the jury who heard all the evidence unlike you, did not think the driving was dangerous in the legal meaning of the word. There is a precise legal definition of the meaning of dangerous driving. It is not sufficient that there is an accident and someone is hurt or dies

As I say I believe Stubbs knew exactly what he was doing and what he had subsequently done when he continued to drive his lorry with Mr Spinks banging on the front trying frantically to get him to stop, Stubbs continuing to drive on discarding Andrew Spink's mangled bicycle next to a layby some 30 miles away. I am just staggered that the police, CPS and court were taken in with his pack of lies to frustrate the charge to a lame careless driving. It should have been manslaughter, s.18 OAPA with intent and dangeorus driving, failing to stop after an accident. For christ sake Stubbs tried to get away from cars blowing their horns, flashing their headlights, trying to alert him to stop having just collided with a cyclist. It's beypond belief. It's just like Steven Spielberg's Duel but for real.................terrifying.

Again, this is relative to what happened after the accident, not to his intent before the accident. As I said above, he was convicted of perverting the course of justice for what happened after the accident. You seem to have deleted this from the list of charges brought.

...
I would be more then happy to ride on Parliament to bring the issue of cycle safety and these dangerous drivers who escape heavy fines or serious punishment to the feet of the politicians.
Another dangerous driver Tim Rice killed a cyclist Mr Robinson head on as he overtook following a line of other cars on a rural road in Cambridgehsire. The other cars overtaking which Mr Rice was following saw the cyclist approaching ahead and swerved to avoid him. But as Mr Rice was driving so close to the car in front he didn't and hit Mr Robinson head on at 70mph on the wrong side of the road killing him instantly. Mr Robinson was a devoted family man much loved and now greatly missed. The Court of Appeal let Mr Rice off on a technicality.

Hmm. Have you actually read even the newspaper reports of the case let alone the facts? Mr Rice was not let off at all. He was convicted and the convictions stood. Was the punishment sufficient? Probably not IMHO, but to say he was let off on a technicality is wrong.
What was this technicality?
I think you will struggle to find one- because Mr Rice was not let off on a technicality. He was convicted and sentenced. The conviction was nnot challenged before the court of appeal.

Then there's Major Rhys Evans knocked off and killed on the A1 in Bedfordshire earlier this year on an early sunday morning as he was taking part in a TT. He had survived Afghanistan but was killed in his own country whilst out cycling. The list goes on and on. It's shocking, senseless loss of life. And the common factor? They were all cyclists.

Yes, they were all cyclists, so what?

Perhaps if there are enough cyclists riding on Parliament, a silent critical mass say, and huge pictures of the all the deceased cyclists killled on the roads in the last 10 years displayed this might bring it home to MPs. Maybe we could bring London to a standstill and fill Parliament Square, all peaceful and silent like a huge wake, everyone dressed in black. Worth a try. The carnage has to be stopped somehow and we have to mobilise ourselves as a group to force MPs to consider our safety on the roads and afford us the protection we need.

The main change in the law we need IMHO is reversing the burden of proof such that it is the driver of any motorised vehicle who is in collision with another party who is not themselves in a motorised vehicle such as a pedestrian, cyclist or horse rider, for the driver of the motorised vehicle to establish that they were not at fault rather than the current system where the party claiming the driver was at fault has to show that he was at fault. This applies to civil actions. But then for criminal cases it should be that the driver has to prove that they were not driving carelessly, recklessly or dangerously. I know this goes against the tenet that the prosecution has to prove the case and not the defence proving theirs and innocent until proven guilty, but there is currently such abuse of the system as clearly many dangerous and guilty drivers are escaping prosecution and conviction. And there is the leniency of sentences. Answer = build more prisons. Where does the money come from? Bankers bonuses. Simples.

Your last proposal clearly shows you have .lost the plot. You have not idea what you are proposing.

Guilty until proven innocent- for everyone or just motorists? If the latter how long before it is extended to everyone.

You are so short sighted it is unbelievable. You no longer have the freedom to do anything. You upset a police officer-or politician and find yourself in prison because you cannot prove you did not do something

The simple fact is your proposal is illegal under the European Convention on Human Rights and thankfully has no chance of even being considered in criminal cases.

I see you haven't lost your charm spen666. Just as cantankerous and disagreeble as you usually are for which I take pleasure. Life would be so dull without you.

I think you missed my point totally. The current system is far too lenient to a defendant. He probably took the chance that witness accounts were not great or that much of the immediate lead up to the collision and the collision itself was unseen. Who knows he might have had some coaching from his defence solicitor as what to say or what not to say rather than the defendant giving their own account of events. It unfortunately happens. I cannot believe that in the this case the defendant's refusal to account for the collision was given so much weight such that it influenced the charges brought and likely severely weakened the prosecution's case against him. He was in a big truck and whislt he was driving it a cyclist who came into close proximity with it was killed. IMHO Stubbs' standard of driving fell well below that even of the slightly inattentive driver. His behaviour indicates this and must have been sickening for the Spinks family. It is perfectly correct that a defendant has the right not to incriminate himself but he has taken it to the other extreme and made a mockery of the court IMHO. 2 years for perverting the course of justice is not enough. He stuck a huge metaphorical middle finger up to Anthony Spinks and the court. Cyclists setting out on a camping holiday do not throw themselves under HGVs. I simply don't buy Andrew Stubb's account or lack of it and his comments about Anthony Spinks are reprehensible as are his father's of the Spinks family.

Spen666 how much cycling have you done? You give the impression of very little. Anthony Spinks was a 100% committed experienced cyclist as have been the other cyclists fatally injured by HGVs this year.

At what point of a person banging frantically for their life on the front of your vehicle and your failure to stop does this NOT become dangerous or indicate an intention to run some one down or kill them? I just cannot understand from the newspaper reports why more was not made of this as indicative of Stubb's state of mind, his intention to harm Anthony as the collision was actually taking place at this point! Presumably at this stage Anthony was still alive?Sorry I just don't buy he knew nothing of the collision. Stubbs then drove for 30 miles, ignoring other motorists attempts to get him to stop and then discarded Anthony's mangled bike. Sorry there are far to implausibles for me. Stubbs I'm sure would have been convicted of the more serious offences if the evidence was was presented more cogently and convicningly by the prosecution. In contrast he would hopefully have now been reflectiing on the 10-15 years he should have got for committing this horrendous crime.

I am conscious of the feelings of the Spinks family especially his brother Andrew. I am only trying to suggest from the perspective of another cyclist who cycles many thousands of miles a year, an improvement to the current legal process to improve the consideration afforded to vulnerable road users as currently the legal process sees the lives of cyclists as being very cheap. I appreciate that the Spinks family do not criticise their local CPS prosecutors in the charges brought but there was leglislation in place even pre the change in law to take into account drivers who kill in instances where there driving was merely careless. I believe the CPS should have vigorously pursued a manslaughter prosecution or a s.18 offence with intent as well as dangerous driving as Stubbs driving fell well below the standard of a reasonably competent and prudent driver. It was at the very least reckless. No way was it only careless driving. Have you heard of reps ipsa loquitur - the facts speak for themselves? Really a civil law principle it could be construed to criminal law. Here there was nne big HGV and one cyclist who fought to survive, ending up dead and the truck driver trying to drive away from the scene? Perhaps this principle should have been used by the prosecution?

Perhaps there was not one cyclist amongst the jury or given there is a real undercurrent of cycling hatred in this country is it any wonder that defendants such as Stubbs are rarely convicted of the more serious offences?

This case just re-inforces my view that not only is cycling mortally dangerous on certain occasions but the support in terms of the criminal justice system is very poor at dectecting, apprehending, investigating, prosecuting, convicting and sentencing road users who cause serious injury or kill other road users. In many instances it is a David and Goliath scenarion except that Goliath wins every time.

Spen - Mr Rice was let off on a technicality as the CoA said the judge at first instance should have taken into account the pre-sentence reprot of a probation officer who expressed the view that no benefit would be gained from sending Mr Rice to prison so a suspended prison sentence would be appropriate. The CoA therefore reversed the sentence of the judge at first instance and freed Mr Rice. His driving ban was reduced from 2 to 1 year. So the probation service now determine sentencing. These goons can't even keep dangeorus criminals in prison where they should be, eg Sonnex and Farmer psychotic murderers, and are now determining sentencing as well. Absolutely discgraceful. Another injustice to the memory of a cyclist and his family inthis case Mr Mark Robinson only 32 years old.

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news ... ?ID=451662


Although I know it is not in your nature but perhaps you could provide constructive ways to improve the current legal process to make sure careless, reckless and dangerous drivers who kill or seriously injure other vulnerable road users such as cyclists are prosecuted, convicted, that the conviction rate for those charged with the more serious offences is dramatically increased and sentences are much more severe.

But then again I won't hold my breath as maybe you are just content to maintain the status quo accepting that deaths such are these are wholly acceptable in a country where millions and millions of journeys are made by millions of motor vehicles each year. To challenge this freedom and the cult status of the car, truck, etc is akin to heresy or treason.

RIP Anthony Spinks.

spen666

dilemna wrote:

I see you haven't lost your charm spen666. Just as cantankerous and disagreeble as you usually are for which I take pleasure. Life would be so dull without you.

I think you missed my point totally. The current system is far too lenient to a defendant.

Lenient? Do you mean in presuming everyone is innocent until proven guilty? A little matter of basic human rights – the right not to be punished before being convicted has a lot to do with this. That applies inall the countires that have signed up to the Geneva convention on Human Rights. It has nothing to do with investigative magistrates or not
If you are going to try to change the system, at least understand what it is you are ranting against.
If you are complaining about the sentences imposed, then again this has nothing to do with investigative magistrates, juries or any such thing. This is a matter of sentencing
If it is the scope of the offence you don’t like, then again this is nothing to do with investigative magistrates or juries, it is a matter for parliament, for they set the laws

He probably took the chance that witness accounts were not great or that much of the immediate lead up to the collision and the collision itself was unseen. Who knows he might have had some coaching from his defence solicitor as what to say or what not to say rather than the defendant giving their own account of events.

Ahh, now you make up allegations against his legal representatives.
What is your basis for such libellous remarks? None?
Never let truth stand in the way though?

It unfortunately happens. I cannot believe that in the this case the defendant's refusal to account for the collision was given so much weight such that it influenced the charges brought and likely severely weakened the prosecution's case against him.

Innocent until proven guilty? Ever heard of it- it applies to defendants in all cases, not only to those in cases not involving cyclists

He was in a big truck

Is that a criminal offence these days?

and whislt he was driving it a cyclist who came into close proximity with it was killed. IMHO Stubbs' standard of driving fell well below that even of the slightly inattentive driver.

But thankfully, the English legal system is not based on your opinion, humble or otherwise. It is based on FACTS.
As I have said before and you ignored then as it is clearly not helpful to you, it was a JURY that decided it was not dangerous but was careless driving. The CPS brought a death by dangerous charge. What more could they do? There is no evidence of intent before the accident and therefore your suggestions of S18 or manslaughter are none starters

His behaviour indicates this and must have been sickening for the Spinks family. It is perfectly correct that a defendant has the right not to incriminate himself but he has taken it to the other extreme and made a mockery of the court IMHO.

You either have the right not to incriminate yourself or you don’t. How can you say he has such a right and then in the same sentence say that by exercising that right, he has taken it to extremes?[quopte]
2 years for perverting the course of justice is not enough. He stuck a huge metaphorical middle finger up to Anthony Spinks and the court.
[/quote] By exercising his legal rights he has put a finger up to the courts and the victims family? No, he has exercised the rights you say he should have. How can it be a right to silence if you are then berating him for exercising it?

Cyclists setting out on a camping holiday do not throw themselves under HGVs. I simply don't buy Andrew Stubb's account or lack of it and his comments about Anthony Spinks are reprehensible as are his father's of the Spinks family.

What has this got to do with anything? No one has suggested the victim did throw himself under the lorry.

Spen666 how much cycling have you done? You give the impression of very little. Anthony Spinks was a 100% committed experienced cyclist as have been the other cyclists fatally injured by HGVs this year.

I’ve done far more cycling than you have of understanding the law. It is irrelevant whether the deceased cycled 1,000,000 miles or cycled 1 mile they have the same right to protection

At what point of a person banging frantically for their life on the front of your vehicle and your failure to stop does this NOT become dangerous or indicate an intention to run some one down or kill them?

The accident had happened by then. Events after the accident do not suddenly become the intention before the accident. The driver behaved appalingly after the accident. He was charged with the relevant offence and jailed for it. This does not affect the question ofhis intent before the accident.

I just cannot understand from the newspaper reports why more was made of this as indicative of Stubb's state of mind intention to harm Anthony as the collision was actually taking place?

Why? Because as I have said it is AFTER the accident and proves nothing about his intent before the accident. He made appaling decisions to try to cover up his driving failure. This does not prove he intended to kil the cyclist

Presumably at this stage Anthony was still alive?Sorry I just don't buy he knew nothing of the collision. Stubbs then drove for 30 miles, ignoring other motorists attempts to get him to stop and then discarded Anthony's mangled bike. Sorry there are far to implausibles for me. Stubbs I'm sure would have been convicted of the more serious offences if the evidence was was presented more cogently and convicningly by the prosecution. In contrast he would hopefully have now been reflectiing on the 10-15 years he should have got for committing this horrendous crime.

As I have stated repeatedly this is actions after the accident and proves nothing of intent towards the cyclist before the accident.
To follow your logic everyone who leaves the scene of an accident is guilty of deliberately causing the accident intending to kill or harm the other party

I am conscious of the feelings of the Spinks family especially his brother Andrew. I am only trying to suggest from the perspective of another cyclist who cycles many thousands of miles a year, a an improvement to the current legal process to improve legal protection for vulnerable road users as currently the legal process sees the lives of cyclists as being very cheap. I appreciate that the Spinks family do not criticise their local CPS prosecutors in the charges brought but there was leglislation in place even pre the change in law for careless driving to include causing death by careless driving.

Funnily enough the CPS charged a more serious offence – ie causing death by dangerous driving. Now it appears you seem to be suggesting the CPS should have charged less serious offences than they did. Perhaps you are suggesting the CPS were to hard on the driver?

This case just re-inforces my view that not only is cycling mortally dangerous on certain occasions but the support in terms of the criminal justice system is very poor at dectecting, apprehending, investigating, prosecuting, convicting and sentencing road users who cause serious injury or kill other road users. In many instances it is a David and Goliath scenarion except that Goliath wins every time.

no, its members of the public sitting on the jury, your peers, who failed to convict of the moreserious offences repeatedly, not the system. Ask your fellow workers, etc about it- they are the ones who decide on guilt in such cases when sitting on juries. Blame them for not convicting of the more serious charges

Spen - Mr Rice was let off on a technicality as the CoA said the judge at first instance should have taken into account the pre-sentence reprot of a probation officer who expressed the view that no benefit would be gained from sending Mr Rice to prison so a suspended prison sentence would be appropriate. The CoA therefore reversed the sentence of the judge at first instance and freed Mr Rice. His driving ban was reduced from 2 to 1 year. So the probation service now determine sentencing. These goons can't even keep dangeorus criminals in prison where they should be, eg Sonnex and Farmer psychotic murderers, and are now determining sentencing as well. Absolutely discgraceful. Another injustice to the memory of a cyclist and his family inthis case Mr Mark Robinson only 32 years old.

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/cn_news ... ?ID=451662

I repeat what I said, Mr Rice was not let off. His conviction was upheld. You may not like the sentence, but he was not let off on a technicality. He was convicted and did not appeal the conviction.

Although I know it is not in your nature but perhaps you could provide constructive ways to improve the current legal process to make sure careless, reckless and dangerous drivers who kill or seriously injure other vulnerable road users such as cyclists are prosecuted, convicted, that the conviction rate for those charged with the more serious offences is dramatically increased and sentences are much more severe.

Yes, ask your fellow citizens why they don’t convict such drivers when they sit on juries.

But then again I won't hold my breath as maybe you are just content to maintain the status quo accepting that deaths such are these are wholly acceptable in a country where millions and millions of journeys are made by millions of motor vehicles each year. To challenge this freedom and the cult status of the car, truck, etc is akin to heresy or treason.

More false allegations.
Try sticking to the truth. I regularly on here and elsewhere call for changes in the legal system.
I will however oppose changes that make things worse. Change for changes sake is stupid and will cause more harm than good

White Horse

tomb353 wrote:

I am with those above who would like to see a concerted campaign arise from these recent tragic deaths. I would get involved with something that sought to achieve:

1/ Rewriting of the law on dangerous and careless driving to provide clearer guidance to courts on what grounds they may convict and clear minimum sentence guidlines.

2/ Empowering the police to issue roadside fixed penalty notices for driving without due care, with revenue ring fenced to fund more traffic officers on the streets.

3/ Enforcement of speed limits

4/ Public education regarding what is and is not an acceptable way to conduct yourself when driving a motor vehicle.

My own view is that for something like this to succeed it needs to not just be about cyclists, but would need to be a joint campaign with road safety groups representing pedestrians and victims of motor vehicle collisions.

It would be easier to just put more traffic police on the roads. How come in just about every other area of law it is widely accepted that a "visible police presence" is enough to deter acts of crime, but when it comes to policing the roads they stick a few cameras up and install speed humps? There are already enough laws in place (OK the punishment for most traffic offences is inadequate) but they are not enforced and the chances of getting caught driving badly is so remote that it is irrelevant what the punishment is anyway. You can make u-turning against the advice of a no u-turn sign punishable by death by electric chair but with no traffic police around to catch you, it doesn't matter.

There is even evidence that this approach works. Watch how everyone does 68mph when they see a police car on the motorway.

snailracer

number9 wrote:

...
Spen, at my work I have read papers that say you're a crabby, obnoxious know-it-all. I can't go into details but it appears you're a cantankerous, argumentative...

Now, this is unnecessary and over the top. Spen666 argues his points from a trained legal perspective, which is educational for most posters on this forum. Save your insults for crap drivers.

number9

Also, i do not see a vicious anti cycling campaign anywhere.

Shortly after using Nick Freeman ('Mr Loophole') to get
her off a serious driving charge Emma Parker-Bowles, writing in The
Sun in 2006, called for the "humane extermination" of cyclists.

Similarly rabid comments could be added from a wide range of people
such as Tony Parsons ("I have always thought that it should be
cyclists that are chained to lamp -posts, and not their bikes...
Bicycles are like masturbation - something you should grow out of");



David Thomas of The Daily Mail ("Why I really hate cyclists" being
typical of his oeuvre );

Jeremy Clarkson (who wrote in The Sun that cyclists should stop at red
lights otherwise "if I'm coming the other way, I will run you down,
for fun".


On the other hand stopping would also seem to be a bad policy as he
added that if any cyclists were to stop in front of him at lights he
would "set off at normal speed and you will be crushed under my
wheels" concluding "You are a guest on roads that are paid for by
motorists so if we cut you up, shut up");

Bryan Appleyard (whose "One day I'll kill a lycra lout" was yet
another anti-cycling piece printed in The Times );

M.P. Kate Hoey ("The real menace on our roads are selfish, aggressive,
law breaking and infuriatingly smug lycra louts" was the Mail On
Sunday headline which summarised her rant. Hoey also confessed to
using her vehicle as a weapon to bully cyclists off the roads.);

Jasper Gerard of The Daily Mail ("With the possible exception of Osama
Bin Laden, the greatest terrorist threat facing this country is from
cyclists.");

Damian Whitworth (motoring editor of The Times who described cyclists
as "a common pestilence" and argued that the lycra-wearing cyclist
should "pedal off to a shrink" in order to "explore the reasons for
his perversion at his own leisure and expense");



Jeremy Vine; Andrew Marr; Jon Gaunt; Nigel Havers; author Ruth
Brandon; Shelia Hancock; Nina Myskow; Bonnie Greer (who has said of
cyclists "they are PESTS, they are RODENTS".

Mmmm now who else was it who described human beings as being
'rodents'?) and so on ad-infinitum.

Anonymous

number9 - keep it sensible or you will be banned.

spen666

White Horse wrote:

...

It would be easier to just put more traffic police on the roads. How come in just about every other area of law it is widely accepted that a "visible police presence" is enough to deter acts of crime, but when it comes to policing the roads they stick a few cameras up and install speed humps? There are already enough laws in place (OK the punishment for most traffic offences is inadequate) but they are not enforced and the chances of getting caught driving badly is so remote that it is irrelevant what the punishment is anyway. You can make u-turning against the advice of a no u-turn sign punishable by death by electric chair but with no traffic police around to catch you, it doesn't matter.

There is even evidence that this approach works. Watch how everyone does 68mph when they see a police car on the motorway.

I have never understood why we can't have both- ie more cameras ( which raise revenue to pay for) more police

I'm not sure why we have asituation where its one or the other.

also whydo we need to warn motorisits where speed cameras are. I mean we don'twarn burglar where police patrols wil be do we?

spen666

number9 wrote:

Also, i do not see a vicious anti cycling campaign anywhere.

Shortly after using Nick Freeman ('Mr Loophole') to get
her off a serious driving charge Emma Parker-Bowles, writing in The
Sun in 2006, called for the "humane extermination" of cyclists.

...edited out to savespace




.......

Lots of allegations re alleged articles in the media, but I notice no links to any of them

Is the above evidence of a rabid anti cycling campaign or simply the expression of anti cycling views.

There is a big difference.

There are lots of anti motorist views expressed on this site, but that is not the same as an anti motorist campaign

gabriel959

spen666 wrote:

Actually it does not work well at all.

i think you have a case of the grass being greener on the other side of the fence.


An investigative magistrate system is alien to the whole English Legal System and would involve completely changing the Judicial system- not a small change. You cannot make small changes to our legal system by bringing in investigative magistrates.

As for our system not being perfect, I know it isn’t and regularly say so on here. However, to change it for an even more flawed system is not going to improve things


Now why would an investigative magistrate have made any difference? An allegation of a crime was made and it was investigated. The same would happen under an investigative magistrates system.

Then you say the investigative magistrates system is better, but appear not to give any reasons why

Neither do you about the magistrates / bench system it seems to me.

I am not so naive to think that system is perfect but to negate its pros is at least puzzling to me. It is the same about jury trials, just a waste of time and space for this kind of trial where people have got their own prejudices. Quite a number of people in this country seem to have an attitude against cyclists these days anyway.

How many deaths do you think are going to be necessary for this system to work as it should?

zanes

spen666 wrote:

also whydo we need to warn motorisits where speed cameras are. I mean we don'twarn burglar where police patrols wil be do we?

Assumably because the whole point of a speed camera is alledgedly to make people slow down at a known blackspot, not catch people?

Although I love the ones in bath- optimism FTW. Car above 30 in bath? LOL!

PBo

DonDaddyD wrote:

number9 wrote:

Good posts Dilemna.

Spen, at my work I have read papers that say you're a crabby, obnoxious know-it-all. I can't go into details but it appears you're a cantankerous, argumentative donkey-botherer. The exact details are secret but you're a mouth-breathing, sofa-crevice fondling slack-jawed goggle-eyed cocoa shunter. I can't say any more, naturally.

Are you twelve? Hiding behind a PC throwing insults, you must feel real big right now. Pathetic.

Seriously, step away from the computer go to the bathroom/toilet and look at yourself through a mirror.

Also, is that the best insults you can muster I actually thought you were rapping. Are you Dizzie Rascal?

+1

except more like vanilla ice.......

btw Number 9, i've reported your post. I hope you are too stupid to know what a cocoa shunter actually is - if you do, then hopefully you've got a one way ticket to bansville.

number9

spen666 wrote:

number9 wrote:

Also, i do not see a vicious anti cycling campaign anywhere.

Shortly after using Nick Freeman ('Mr Loophole') to get
her off a serious driving charge Emma Parker-Bowles, writing in The
Sun in 2006, called for the "humane extermination" of cyclists.

...edited out to savespace




.......

Lots of allegations re alleged articles in the media, but I notice no links to any of them

Is the above evidence of a rabid anti cycling campaign or simply the expression of anti cycling views.

There is a big difference.

There are lots of anti motorist views expressed on this site, but that is not the same as an anti motorist campaign

Spen, you claimed Anthony Maynard was killed in broad daylight by a van driver who failed to see him. You scoffed at the suggestion that the CPS decision not to prosecute was a miscarriage of justice and suggested I "Do some research". I did some research, I can't find any evidence that Mr Maynard did anything wrong or was responsible for his own death. I asked what the evidence was, and you said "it's a secret".


Now, are you claiming I made all those quotes up?

On what basis?

Do you want the URLs to all the newspaper articles?

Can you find quotes on this forum that call for motorists who have done nothing wrong to be killed? I've never seen any, nor anything that can remotely be called "anti-motorist" to the degree of the quotes.

Accusing people of being liars and inventing quotes is not blessing us with your legal knowledge, it's ad hominem and childish, obnoxious behaviour.

spen666

gabriel959 wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Actually it does not work well at all.

i think you have a case of the grass being greener on the other side of the fence.


An investigative magistrate system is alien to the whole English Legal System and would involve completely changing the Judicial system- not a small change. You cannot make small changes to our legal system by bringing in investigative magistrates.

As for our system not being perfect, I know it isn’t and regularly say so on here. However, to change it for an even more flawed system is not going to improve things


Now why would an investigative magistrate have made any difference? An allegation of a crime was made and it was investigated. The same would happen under an investigative magistrates system.

Then you say the investigative magistrates system is better, but appear not to give any reasons why

Neither do you about the magistrates / bench system it seems to me.

The difference is though, you are calling for the system to be changed. If you want to change the system, it is incumbent upon you to convince others why it should bechanged.

I am not so naive to think that system is perfect but to negate its pros is at least puzzling to me.

??????? Who is negating its pros?

It is the same about jury trials, just a waste of time and space for this kind of trial where people have got their own prejudices. Quite a number of people in this country seem to have an attitude against cyclists these days anyway.

Well then do we not need to be changing attitudes? In the same was as the gay/lesbian community and the black communities overcasme similar prejudices against their groups?

They didn't change the who legal system for them

How many deaths do you think are going to be necessary for this system to do its work as it should?

Stop the pathetic bleating in the last line. It isthe attitude like that that upsets so many none cyclists. You seem to weant cyclists to have rights over and above others. Other motorists, pedestrians, horse riders face similar problems to cyclists in relation to prosecutions after accidents.

number9

They didn't change the who legal system for them

Of course they did. Laws exist now that protect black and gay people that didn't exist in my lifetime. Replace the word "cyclist" with "blacks" or "Gays" in the media rants above and you see the scale of problem.

PBo

number9 wrote:

They didn't change the who legal system for them

Of course they did. Laws exist now that protect black and gay people that didn't exist in my lifetime. Replace the word "cyclist" with "blacks" or "Gays" in the media rants above and you see the scale of problem.

making a new law is not the same as changing the whole legal system :roll:

Bikerbaboon

sorry to stick my head in to the mud flinging love fest going on but i think spen has made a realy good point.

"Stop the pathetic bleating in the last line. It isthe attitude like that that upsets so many none cyclists. You seem to weant cyclists to have rights over and above others. Other motorists, pedestrians, horse riders face similar problems to cyclists in relation to prosecutions after accidents."

every one needs more protection from bad drivers. If that needs harder sentancing then we need to push for that to come though goverment so we need get writing letters to local MPs get local bike clubs/ motor bike clubs/ running clubs/ walking buss groups and more clubs than at a caveman night club writing letters and saying thats what they want and then things will change.
I have been hit 3 times and every single one of them i had witnesses saying that it was not my fault and the other driver was not paying attention, every time i could have died and every time nothing happend though the leagal system only my claims from hte insurance. ( these are not all on a bike)

well i will let you get on with the mud slinging and will be writing a letter to my local MP.

number9

Presuming liability for the operator of the vehicle most likely to inflict harm is not "changing the entire legal system" either. It works perfectly well in Europe, accident rates fell along with premiums since there were fewer claims. It protects vulnerable road users and would mean a cyclist would be presumed liable in a collision with a pedestrian. It's a sensible proposal, met with a storm of media dishonesty and lying claims that "Drivers will ALWAYS be found guilty".

spen666

number9 wrote:

They didn't change the who legal system for them

Of course they did. Laws exist now that protect black and gay people that didn't exist in my lifetime. Replace the word "cyclist" with "blacks" or "Gays" in the media rants above and you see the scale of problem.

That is not changing the whole legal system.

There is adifference between introducing a new offence and converting from adversarial legal system to an inquisitorial one

number9

Remember the Rhyl Cycling Club, four of whose members were mown down by Robert Harris on the A457 in January 2006?

Harris skidded on black ice while travelling at 50mph, causing what can only be described as carnage: three men, includ ing the club's chairman and a 14-year-old boy, were declared dead at the scene. Harris was fined £180 for having bald tyres, and given six penalty points on his licence. That's one and a half penalty points per person killed - not a sign of a legal system that takes innocent deaths on the road terribly seriously.

I have two proposals.


First, every motorist who kills should receive a lifetime driving ban, with no exceptions under any circumstances.

The right to life must take precedence over the right to drive. That Robert Harris was free to walk out of the magistrates' court and get straight back into his car after killing four people is an insult to the memory of his victims. Lifetime driving bans would force motorists to be more careful, as well as take the most dangerous drivers off the road.

Second.

British law - which currently favours motorists - should be altered in line with the Continental system, where a driver who hits a cyclist is presumed guilty unless proven innocent.


We must lift the culture of impunity, and force motorists to acknowledge that possession of a dangerous weapon requires extreme caution and diligence. Once the terror of the car recedes, people might again begin to venture on to our streets on foot and by bike. The reality of car culture promoted by the likes of Top Gear is not high-performance thrills in glamorous cars, but a wilting bunch of flowers by a busy roadside.


http://www.newstatesman.com/environment ... erous-road

spen666

number9 wrote:

Presuming liability for the operator of the vehicle most likely to inflict harm is not "changing the entire legal system" either. It works perfectly well in Europe, accident rates fell along with premiums since there were fewer claims. It protects vulnerable road users and would mean a cyclist would be presumed liable in a collision with a pedestrian. It's a sensible proposal, met with a storm of media dishonesty and lying claims that "Drivers will ALWAYS be found guilty".

The liability issue is in relation to civil claims.

Changing theinnocent untuil proven guilty in criminal proceedings is a retrograde step for us all, except the powers that be.

Can we please seperate out what we are talking about here.

Civil cases result usually in compensation claims and verdicts on liability.

Criminal cases result in convictions or acquittals ie guilty or not guilty and if guilty punishments follow.


You are confusing both in your post here