Why Lock The Thread re Death of a Cyclist?

Stone Glider

Dunce Dunce makes a valid point about enforcement of laws. At present there is concern about mobile phone use when driving. Penalties have been increased but seem to make little difference to behaviour. The drink/drive campaigns took many years to change public perception and perhaps we are being too eager to anticipate improvements.

The Guardian ran a small article this week about the first purpose-built cycle lane (built in 1930). They then mentioned that in that year 1300? cyclists had died on the roads, last year it was 114. I think that there is a gradual acceptance by most that cyclists deserve consideration on the roads. What was perceived as a largely passive constituency (cyclists) has become vocal and demanding of recognition. This, in part, is what these rants by f**kwits in the media is about. The refusal of cyclists to accept an inferior status on the road offers a challenge to bully-boys of the "my exhaust is bigger than yours is" persuasion which they find difficult to accept. That is why the SMIDSY campaign by CTC is so important in trying to shift public perceptions.

Another problem with sentencing is the demographic of the people engaged in the process. Magistrates/recorders/judges are often nearly as old as me! I am hopeful that time is on our side (not mine obviously), it is an argument we are winning.

Wallace1492

Terra Nova wrote:

Just caught up with the thread.... I am very pleased to be reading opinions and respectful exchanges of views.... Can I ask one thing? Please leave number9 alone, I don't know him personally but he saw my brother's case and felt strongly enough to start a thread on the internet about it, from which many people sent feelings of sympathy my family's way. My family and myself are amazed and touched that some small recognition of my brother has come of this. What I can gather from his posts he cares about cyclists being kept safe on our roads. If it his him that has been banned I don't think he deserves it....

I'm going to go back and respond to some of the questions and opinions raised but can I ask something else? What do these abbreviations mean?

IIRC
SMIDSY

Terra Nova, glad you are still with us, and I do hope to hear your opinions on some of the points that have been raised. Yes No9 did start thread, and all credit to him (or her) I think they may well have been banned, that is unfortunate, as I believe they did feel passionate about it, as I am sure many would agree. However I did think that they were not able to listen to constructive comment, take that on board and move on, as they were forever cutting and pasting stuff that had no relevence and did not take any correction to what they were saying. No9 is obviously involved inforwarding cyclists issues, and i do wish them all the best.

I do think though we do have a good serious debate here with people that have pretty valid points of view, and are probably open to different thoughts and courses of action.

I do hope it stays that way. Been very impressed with the latest points, and wholehearedly agree with Spen's idea of revamp of bad driving. Spen, run for office and you have my vote!!

This to me is what is good about this debate, not many people (if any) know each other but all have equal input.

Terra Nova

Wallace1492 wrote:

Back on point.

At what point did Stubbs change from law abiding to criminal. Not sure if anyone will get the answer. Did a misjudgement on his part lead to panic, denial, and cover up?

.

At what point indeed? We could ask the same of our own driving behaviour. Is it the point we get behind the wheels of our cars and treat the entire world outside as if it's in our way? This is defintely a psychological phenomenon of human behaviour and I believe it contributes to collisions, injuries and death on the roads... and I believe there was a strong possibility this was part of the reason why the collision with our Tony occurred, in fact I have no doubts it was part of it...

Stubbs saw our Tony just 150 metres from the lights, he started to pull past him. He should have been checking his progress the entire time of that short distance to the lights, especially if Stubbs knew he was going to turn left (which eh didn't). He should have been on extra, extra alert and Stubbs’ experience (for he was very experienced) should have told him to concentrate more and make sure that my brother was accounted for. He didn't, he failed. He never checked where he was because if he did he would have seen him – he was there on the road with him all the way to the lights. Before he made his turn he never made sure my brother was safe and accounted for. He never made sure he was not in his blind spots when he should have done. He failed.

Did my brother's actions when he began to turn his vehicle remind him of the cyclist’s presence? Did he think “shit, the cyclist, what shall I do?” Our Tony shouted, he didn’t stop. He banged on the cab, he didn’t stop. He tried to jump on the windscreen wiper, he didn't stop. He fell to the ground, he ran over him, he didn’t stop, the bike scraped along the floor, he didn’t stop, car horns blasted, he didn’t stop. At what point did his actions become criminal? Its easy to say they were criminal throughout the whole incident. Stubbs strategy of defence was denial of all knowledge and so we will never get the true answers. When I see how the man Stubbs behaved in court, and how his personality and his anger and ease at which he began to show his anger were factors that stood out (even for the judge) I can see how that personality and behaviour trait could quite easily have been a contributing factor to the decisions this lorry driver made that day.

The best I can think is that he momentarily forgot. It was established he had taken the wrong turn at the previous roundabout, and that he admitted he would have been looking for a way to get back to his correct route. The best I can think is that he was not concentrating at all and was completely focussed on making a decision about where to go at this opportune junction he had never seen before. And the best I can think is that he had completely forgotten about our Tony, and that when he heard our Tony’s shouts he either thought “shit, the cyclist”, or he thought “f***ing cyclist shouting at me, he’ll get out of my way”, and the best I can think is that because he was shouting then Stubbs thought he was okay. And the best I can think is that Stubbs didn’t care, the cyclist would jump off and get out of the way. So he decided to continue… and then the banging, and then the thuds and bumps, and then he struggled, revving his engine, stopping and starting hesitantly moving forward, and then he just thought “keep going, the I did not hear anything, see anything, feel anything denial is proven to work and I can get away with whatever it is I have left behind by pleading ignorance. The court’s decision affirms this principle to our great dismay, which is why the strict liability argument interests me.

Neither myself, the police, the CPS or my family believe that Stubbs meant to kill someone that day, but my family and I (I will leave the CPS and police out of that one) do believe that with the amount of evidence that exists about the circumstances and events around the collision with my brother that Stubbs knew he was in a position where his actions could quite easily cause of the death of someone if he continued with those chosen actions. We believe the evidence proved he chose his course of action with full knowledge of the potential consequences. To us that was manslaughter. The rest was legal argument and the jury could not be convinced on causing death by dangerous driving.

We can all cause the death of someone by bad driving. That in itself is plain criminal.

Wallace1492

It is extremely difficult to get inside his mind if he is not willing to tell the whole truth. From what I have read, and from your posts, I think that Stubbs has been less than truthful. Perhaps you are right, he may have realised that there was contact, assumed cyclist was perhaps knoced over, but did not realise what had exactly happened and paniced. I wonder when he realised that he had caused a death, maybe it was much later and he had already embarked on his course of perverting the cause of justice.

Yes, bad driving is criminal, but virtually everyone that has got behind the wheel of a car will be guilty of it at sometime, just very rare that it leads to severe consequences.

It is what happens in the moments after and how further damage can be avoided and the situation got under control that also counts. It is plain that it was not done in this case, why, we shall never know, and that is why you will be forever looking for answers. Only one person has the answers, and what would have led him to a different course of action on that day? Tougher sentences? Better driver education, continual assesment, strict adherence to the rules, who knows.

In the days of time = cost, then perhaps he was under pressure to get where he should be going, and this led to him taking less interest in what was going on around him than he should have.

Terra Nova

spen666 wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

....

From reading previously what Terra Nova had said, Stubbs is in no way has shown any remorse or regret or guilt for what happened, that is evidence enough for me. He has tried to blame the cyclist for it all, and not shown any regret for driving a vehicle that killed a cyclist.

To any sane person these two cases are very different.

You clearly try to distinguish the femal driver from Stubbs by saying she did not intend to harm and it was only a momentary inattention. The implication in saying that about her but not him is that he did intend those things, otherwise it is irrelevant to say it.

The big difference in the 2 cases is what Stubbs did after the accident. It was appaling and cannot be condoned. That however is not a motring offence and is an offence against public justice.


As for Stubbs allegedly trying to blame the cyclist. This is a by product of the adversarial nature of the legal system. Most people would try to lessen anyprison sentence they get. The nature of our legal system often means the way to do this is to blame your victim.

I think that is a far more damning criticism of the system rather than the individual. to reduce the culpability of yourself, you naturally try to move it to someone else.

Whilst these two were convicted of the same offence, I agree it could be deduced that they are the same, or similar examples of careless driving. However, they are very different in that Stubbs was driving a heavy goods vehicle with a much lower standard of visibility than the car the woman was driving in the other example. Not Stubbs' fault, I agree, but a design and manfacture problem we have allowed to exist for decades. But Stubbs was trained at a much higher standard set in law to be able to drive this vehicle. That implies a greater risk to safety and a greater standard of care and driving required, yet the law judges both drivers in both examples at exactly the same standard. I think this is wrong and that drivers who require extra training to drive special vehicles should be accountable for a higher standard. Stubbs' driving fell far below the standard required for a driver of a HGV. The law on driving offences makes no recognition of this.

Terra Nova

If Stubbs had stopped he wouldn't have gone to prison at all. He was found guilty of careless driving, which does not carry a custodial sentence. His prison time can only have been for the Perverting the Course of Justice charge he was also guilty of, which only relates to what happened after the accident.

[/quote]

You are right in that Stubbs jail sentence was for perverting the course of justice only. But I should correct you in that he would still have walked free for killing someone and not stopping and not reporting. He would have been fined.

He could still have got away with dumping the bike had it not been for his bad luck in it being found and reported by a very conscientious member of the public 2 days later. To us, a calamitous injustice.

chuckcork

cjw wrote:

Similar stance to SMIDSY would work very well IMHO. Publicity campaign focused on loosing your license and from this your job etc etc due to not paying attention supported with fines and loss of license for a period in minor bad driving situations (I like the 'bad driving' idea) - the minimum and prison in death cases EVERY TIME. That would 'drive' the message home.

Playing devils advocate, how possibly could this be enforced or expected to work? Suggesting the case of "attentional blindness", haven't we all had that happen to us?

Sometimes there is just too much to see and focus on to be able to pick up on everything that you might need to. Think of all the road signs you see while driving, some important and others part of the background. Do you register every single sign whether it needed your attention or not, simply because some driving instructor you once had was a git and thought that was a good test or whether you pay attention when on the road? But if you're too busy paying attention to all the signs are you then failing to pay attention to something else more important, like not crashing into the back of a cyclist on front of you who just came out of a side street?

Saying that I think of the conseqences of not being able to fully give my own driving 100% concentration all of the time (who can?) whether its through tiredness or something else like a child screaming in the back seat, and it scares the cr@p out of me.

(I tried using a mobile phone while driving on a dual carriageway with minimal traffic around....the inability to do that and keep proper control of the car scared me so much I haven't tried while driving ever since, I've no idea how anyone can think they can do so with any degree of safety.)

suzyb

Terra Nova wrote:

At what point indeed? We could ask the same of our own driving behaviour. Is it the point we get behind the wheels of our cars and treat the entire world outside as if it's in our way? This is defintely a psychological phenomenon of human behaviour and I believe it contributes to collisions, injuries and death on the roads... and I believe there was a strong possibility this was part of the reason why the collision with our Tony occurred, in fact I have no doubts it was part of it...

tbh it sounds kind of like you brother is just as guilty of this as the lorry driver. In that the lorry was in his way so he decided to overtake on the left.

That said I do think Stubbs should have received a greater punishment than he did for what happened after he hit your brother.

And +1 to what chuckcork said.

Terra Nova

Greg66 wrote:

According to this, and this the driver was charged with causing death by dangerous driving and perverting the course of justice. He faced trial in 2007, when the jury was unable to reach a verdict on either charge. I'm rusty on my criminal law, but I think that means the jury were unable to form a sufficient majority to convict or acquit. Spen666 will know the real answer.

He was retried in 2008, at which he was not convicted of death by dangerous driving, but was convicted of death by careless driving - on a 10-2 majority. He was also done on the perverting charge on a 10-2.

It's pretty difficult to say how the case could/should have been handled without having a very good handle on the evidence that was to be presented.

First trial June 2008. A conviction was agreed on perverting the course of justice at that trial (guilty) but no verdict could be reached on causing death by dangerous driving and they decided not to take the craeless driving option, some of the jury must have been holding out for death by dangerous, we will never know. Not sure if I should have told you that as I was as aparanoid as hell through it all and reporting restrictions were set in place at the dismissal of the jury.

Re-trial was for both charges again in August-September 2009.

Wallace1492

-null- wrote:

Terra Nova wrote:

At what point indeed? We could ask the same of our own driving behaviour. Is it the point we get behind the wheels of our cars and treat the entire world outside as if it's in our way? This is defintely a psychological phenomenon of human behaviour and I believe it contributes to collisions, injuries and death on the roads... and I believe there was a strong possibility this was part of the reason why the collision with our Tony occurred, in fact I have no doubts it was part of it...

tbh it sounds kind of like you brother is just as guilty of this as the lorry driver. In that the lorry was in his way so he decided to overtake on the left.

That said I do think Stubbs should have received a greater punishment than he did for what happened after he hit your brother.

-null-, it is something we will never know, where the fault lies, but as Stubbs was driving a lorry, he had the greater duty of care, there is no doubt. Both were very experienced at what they were doing, but one was driving a truck and the other a bicycle. You have to take it in context.

Terra Nova

Eau Rouge wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

He was retried in 2008, at which he was not convicted of death by dangerous driving, but was convicted of death by careless driving - on a 10-2 majority. He was also done on the perverting charge on a 10-2.

Not death by careless driving, just careless driving, the former didn't apply at the time of the incident so he couldn't be tried on it.


I don't wish to cause offence, and spen666 has shown time and again that I don't have much of a clue about the law, but if I was involved on the prosecution side I'd be very concerned about the moments between the crash itself and when Mr. Spink died. There appears to have been a period of time between them, a period during which had Stubbs stopped, Mr. Spink might well not have died. I can only presume there wasn't enough evidence from this time to charge him with manslaughter.

Yes, this period of time is deeply disturbing, psychologically traumatic and devastating, and of vital importance. We believe our Tony could have been saved. My answer in an above post may shed a bit more light on it.

spen666

Wallace1492 wrote:

..

This to me is what is good about this debate, not many people (if any) know each other but all have equal input.

no, you are mistaken, my input is far more important than all you peasants :twisted: :twisted: :twisted: :evil: :evil: :evil:

dilemna

Terra Nova wrote:

Wallace1492 wrote:

Back on point.

At what point did Stubbs change from law abiding to criminal. Not sure if anyone will get the answer. Did a misjudgement on his part lead to panic, denial, and cover up?

.

At what point indeed? We could ask the same of our own driving behaviour. Is it the point we get behind the wheels of our cars and treat the entire world outside as if it's in our way? This is defintely a psychological phenomenon of human behaviour and I believe it contributes to collisions, injuries and death on the roads... and I believe there was a strong possibility this was part of the reason why the collision with our Tony occurred, in fact I have no doubts it was part of it...

Stubbs saw our Tony just 150 metres from the lights, he started to pull past him. He should have been checking his progress the entire time of that short distance to the lights, especially if Stubbs knew he was going to turn left (which eh didn't). He should have been on extra, extra alert and Stubbs’ experience (for he was very experienced) should have told him to concentrate more and make sure that my brother was accounted for. He didn't, he failed. He never checked where he was because if he did he would have seen him – he was there on the road with him all the way to the lights. Before he made his turn he never made sure my brother was safe and accounted for. He never made sure he was not in his blind spots when he should have done. He failed.

Did my brother's actions when he began to turn his vehicle remind him of the cyclist’s presence? Did he think “shoot, the cyclist, what shall I do?” Our Tony shouted, he didn’t stop. He banged on the cab, he didn’t stop. He tried to jump on the windscreen wiper, he didn't stop. He fell to the ground, he ran over him, he didn’t stop, the bike scraped along the floor, he didn’t stop, car horns blasted, he didn’t stop. At what point did his actions become criminal? Its easy to say they were criminal throughout the whole incident. Stubbs strategy of defence was denial of all knowledge and so we will never get the true answers. When I see how the man Stubbs behaved in court, and how his personality and his anger and ease at which he began to show his anger were factors that stood out (even for the judge) I can see how that personality and behaviour trait could quite easily have been a contributing factor to the decisions this lorry driver made that day.

The best I can think is that he momentarily forgot. It was established he had taken the wrong turn at the previous roundabout, and that he admitted he would have been looking for a way to get back to his correct route. The best I can think is that he was not concentrating at all and was completely focussed on making a decision about where to go at this opportune junction he had never seen before. And the best I can think is that he had completely forgotten about our Tony, and that when he heard our Tony’s shouts he either thought “shoot, the cyclist”, or he thought “f***ing cyclist shouting at me, he’ll get out of my way”, and the best I can think is that because he was shouting then Stubbs thought he was okay. And the best I can think is that Stubbs didn’t care, the cyclist would jump off and get out of the way. So he decided to continue… and then the banging, and then the thuds and bumps, and then he struggled, revving his engine, stopping and starting hesitantly moving forward, and then he just thought “keep going, the I did not hear anything, see anything, feel anything denial is proven to work and I can get away with whatever it is I have left behind by pleading ignorance. The court’s decision affirms this principle to our great dismay, which is why the strict liability argument interests me.

Neither myself, the police, the CPS or my family believe that Stubbs meant to kill someone that day, but my family and I (I will leave the CPS and police out of that one) do believe that with the amount of evidence that exists about the circumstances and events around the collision with my brother that Stubbs knew he was in a position where his actions could quite easily cause of the death of someone if he continued with those chosen actions. We believe the evidence proved he chose his course of action with full knowledge of the potential consequences. To us that was manslaughter. The rest was legal argument and the jury could not be convinced on causing death by dangerous driving.

We can all cause the death of someone by bad driving. That in itself is plain criminal.

+1.

However I feel the death of your brother at the hands of Stubbs is in a totally different league compared to that of the other case mentioned here of the young lady driver who in a moment's "loss of concentration" with equally devastating results collided with and killed a cyclist.

I feel Stubbs has done everything to frustrate the establishing of what happened and how he came to collide with your brother. There are too many inconsistencies. The current system is far too lenient toward defendant's who fail to give any or reasonable account of their actions when at the wheel of a vehicle. At every attempt Stubbs seems to have not done what a reasonable road user would have done and certainly got off lightly. Not only must the loss of your brother be very difficult to bear but the conduct of Stubbs has been reprehensible which suggests as you have highlighted that he did infact have knowledge or even intent IMHO. He might not have set out to kill anyone that day but when he came into proximity of your brother this might well have changed as he is obviously a very disturbed person to go to the lengths he did to avoid being detected by getting rid of your brother's bike some 30 miles away and ignoring all attempts by your brother to get him to stop or warnings from other road users to get him to stop. It is sickening. I wish at least the legal result go be made better for you but alas I do not feel there is the will yet to tackle this sort of behaviour against cyclists. Sorry, but like you I don't buy his story or condone his actions one bit. What sort of monster tries to dispose of bike that he clearly must have run over not long before which had a person on it??? I think he knew exactly what he had done and he didn't want to get caught. No normal person even if they had inadvertently knocked a cyclist down whilst in their car/ truck would do this or go to these lengths or fail to show ANY remorse. Surely your conscience would kick in, wouldn't it?

Contrast Stubbs actions with the other case mentioned where the young lady did stop AFAIK, she did not drive off, she then admitted the offences put to her which suggests that despite her very poor driving resulting in the terrible death of the cyclist it was indeed careless. It may have even been dangerous which is another issue but she didn't AFAIK then go on to try dispose of evidence and escape detection.

It is too easy for drivers to get off when they injure or kill when the red mist momentarily comes down. Drivers should face murder, manslaughter or assault with a weapon charges s.18 with intent charges which carry life sentence tarifs or if they display an unstable personality or have serious anger management issues these should be taken into account as well. As the driver who ran down a couple of cyclists in America a Dr Thompson was rightly charged and convicted of using his car as a deadly weapon. He had a history of passing dangerously close and harrassing cyclists.

As a society we have to take these matters more seriously. Given that most people drive but in contrast retatively few cycle, juries are never going to be cycling aware as they are car aware. They will never appreciate how vulnerable a cyclist is and how much space should be given us. Thus here in lies the flaw in the system. Nearly everyone on the jury is thinking "Christ, I could have a moment's lapse of concentration when driving, sh1t, that could be me sitting in the dock! NOT GUILTY".

spen666

Terra Nova wrote:

You are right in that Stubbs jail sentence was for perverting the course of justice only. But I should correct you in that he would still have walked free for killing someone and not stopping and not reporting. He would have been fined.

He could still have got away with dumping the bike had it not been for his bad luck in it being found and reported by a very conscientious member of the public 2 days later. To us, a calamitous injustice.

Was it not death by careless driving he was convicted of?

That does carry a custodial sentence

If not the death by offence, what was he originally tried for and why was he not convicted of causing the death. Sounds like something else is invoilved

spen666

dilemna wrote:

+1.

However I feel the death of your brother at the hands of Stubbs is in a totally different league compared to that of the other case mentioned here of the young lady driver who in a moment's "loss of concentration" with equally devastating results collided with and killed a cyclist.

I feel Stubbs has done everything to frustrate the establishing of what happened and how he came to collide with your brother. There are too many inconsistencies. The current system is far too lenient toward defendant's who fail to give any or reasonable account of their actions when at the wheel of a vehicle. At every attempt Stubbs seems to have not done what a reasonable road user would have done and certainly got off lightly. Not only must the loss of your brother be very difficult to bear but the conduct of Stubbs has been reprehensible which suggests as you have highlighted that he did infact have knowledge or even intent IMHO. He might not have set out to kill anyone that day but when he came into proximity of your brother this might well have changed as he is obviously a very disturbed person to go to the lengths he did to avoid being detected by getting rid of your brother's bike some 30 miles away and ignoring all attempts by your brother to get him to stop or warnings from other road users to get him to stop. It is sickening. I wish at least the legal result go be made better for you but alas I do not feel there is the will yet to tackle this sort of behaviour against cyclists. Sorry, but like you I don't buy his story or condone his actions one bit. What sort of monster tries to dispose of bike that he clearly must have run over not long before which had a person on it??? I think he knew exactly what he had done and he didn't want to get caught. No normal person even if they had inadvertently knocked a cyclist down whilst in their car/ truck would do this or go to these lengths or fail to show ANY remorse. Surely your conscience would kick in, wouldn't it?

Contrast Stubbs actions with the other case mentioned where the young lady did stop AFAIK, she did not drive off, she then admitted the offences put to her which suggests that despite her very poor driving resulting in the terrible death of the cyclist it was indeed careless. It may have even been dangerous which is another issue but she didn't AFAIK then go on to try dispose of evidence and escape detection.

It is too easy for drivers to get off when they injure or kill when the red mist momentarily comes down. Drivers should face murder, manslaughter or assault with a weapon charges s.18 with intent charges which carry a life sentence of an unstable personality or have serious anger management issues. As the physician Dr. Thompson in Anerica was charged with using his car as a deadly weapon when he ran down a couple of cyclists who he had previously harassed a dangerously close passing.

As a society we have to take these matters more seriously. Given that most people drive but in contrast retatively few cycle, juries are never going to be cycling aware as they are car aware. They will never appreciate how vulnerable a cyclist is and how much space should be given us. Thus here in lies the flaw in the system. Nearly everyone on the jury is thinking christ I could have a moments lapse of concentration when driving, sh1t, that could have been me! NOT GUILTY.

What the driver did after the accident is irrelevant to the driving offence. The offence had occurred at the point of the impact.

You are not comparing like with like.

you are importing criticism of Stubbs driving as a result of his unforgiveable actions after the accident.

dilemna

spen666 wrote:

dilemna wrote:

+1.

However I feel the death of your brother at the hands of Stubbs is in a totally different league compared to that of the other case mentioned here of the young lady driver who in a moment's "loss of concentration" with equally devastating results collided with and killed a cyclist.

I feel Stubbs has done everything to frustrate the establishing of what happened and how he came to collide with your brother. There are too many inconsistencies. The current system is far too lenient toward defendant's who fail to give any or reasonable account of their actions when at the wheel of a vehicle. At every attempt Stubbs seems to have not done what a reasonable road user would have done and certainly got off lightly. Not only must the loss of your brother be very difficult to bear but the conduct of Stubbs has been reprehensible which suggests as you have highlighted that he did infact have knowledge or even intent IMHO. He might not have set out to kill anyone that day but when he came into proximity of your brother this might well have changed as he is obviously a very disturbed person to go to the lengths he did to avoid being detected by getting rid of your brother's bike some 30 miles away and ignoring all attempts by your brother to get him to stop or warnings from other road users to get him to stop. It is sickening. I wish at least the legal result go be made better for you but alas I do not feel there is the will yet to tackle this sort of behaviour against cyclists. Sorry, but like you I don't buy his story or condone his actions one bit. What sort of monster tries to dispose of bike that he clearly must have run over not long before which had a person on it??? I think he knew exactly what he had done and he didn't want to get caught. No normal person even if they had inadvertently knocked a cyclist down whilst in their car/ truck would do this or go to these lengths or fail to show ANY remorse. Surely your conscience would kick in, wouldn't it?

Contrast Stubbs actions with the other case mentioned where the young lady did stop AFAIK, she did not drive off, she then admitted the offences put to her which suggests that despite her very poor driving resulting in the terrible death of the cyclist it was indeed careless. It may have even been dangerous which is another issue but she didn't AFAIK then go on to try dispose of evidence and escape detection.

It is too easy for drivers to get off when they injure or kill when the red mist momentarily comes down. Drivers should face murder, manslaughter or assault with a weapon charges s.18 with intent charges which carry a life sentence of an unstable personality or have serious anger management issues. As the physician Dr. Thompson in Anerica was charged with using his car as a deadly weapon when he ran down a couple of cyclists who he had previously harassed a dangerously close passing.

As a society we have to take these matters more seriously. Given that most people drive but in contrast retatively few cycle, juries are never going to be cycling aware as they are car aware. They will never appreciate how vulnerable a cyclist is and how much space should be given us. Thus here in lies the flaw in the system. Nearly everyone on the jury is thinking christ I could have a moments lapse of concentration when driving, sh1t, that could have been me! NOT GUILTY.

What the driver did after the accident is irrelevant to the driving offence. The offence had occurred at the point of the impact.

You are not comparing like with like.

you are importing criticism of Stubbs driving as a result of his unforgiveable actions after the accident.

Indeed I am. I don't believe for one second that he has given adequate account of his actions during the collision. His subsequent actions give a very clear indication of his state of mind at the time of the collision. I wish I had been on the jury as we would have found him guilty of causing death by dangerous driving and it wouldn't have taken the cost of 2 trials. The collision actually appears to have occurred over quite a long time frame as his brother has indicated rather than one single knock resulting in Anthony Spink falling from his bicycle. The events post accident where Stubbs perverted the course of justice by trying to dispose of Tony Spink's bike, his subequent conduct and comments and lack of remorse indicate to me that Stubbs had a lot more knowledge than he let on. He is clearly not a very savoury person and has done everthing to frustrate the legal process against him as well as further upset the Spink family.

spen666

dilemna wrote:

....

Indeed I am. I don't believe for one second that he has given adequate account of his actions during the collision.

He is not required to. It is for the Crown to prove its case, not for the accused to prove his innocence

His subsequent actions give a very clear indication of his state of mind at the time of the collision.

No, they give an indication of his state of mind AFTER the collissionj You cannot say because he did x after the accident, his intention before the accident was y.

He panicked after the accident. That doesn't mean hewas guilty of anything more than momentary inattention before the accident


This is not to condone what Stubbs did afterwards. He was dealt with for peverting the course of justice.

You may care to reflect that two seperate juries did not think it was dangerous driving

I wish I had been on the jury as we would have found him guilty of causing death by dangerous driving and it wouldn't have taken the cost of 2 trials. The collision actually appears to have occurred over quite a long time frame as his brother has indicated rather than one single knock resulting in Anthony Spink falling from his bicycle. The events post accident where Stubbs perverted the course of justice by trying to dispose of Tony Spink's bike, his subequent conduct and comments and lack of remorse indicate to me that Stubbs had a lot more knowledge than he let on.

You are implying things into Stubbs that have no basis at all. What he did afterwards is not relevant to his state of mind before

He is clearly not a very savoury person and has done everthing to frustrate the legal process against him as well as further upset the Spink family.

Again your last comment has no basis in fact.

I will agree he appears unsavoury . however he acted quite correctly in respect of the legal system and there is no evidence he has attempted to further upset the deceased's family. He was acting in the way the adversarial nature of our system forces someone to act to defend themselves.

suzyb

Terra Nova wrote:

I know that some people are going to think this way but null, what are you saying? Maybe our Tony should have been charged with causing paint damage to a truck's bumper by dangerous cycling had he survived. I know Stubbs sees himself as a victim and possibly he feels a huge imbalance in this case. However, I think he feels compensated for by getting the point across in court that my brother was indeed stupid and suicidal.

Please forgive the sarcasm for I accept that there are people who do hold this viewpoint and you are entitled to hold this viewpoint its just that your comment sent shudders down my spine.

I think everyone has to take some responsibility to keep themselves safe. Be they cyclists, pedestrians, whoever or whatever. We can't rely on other people even if it's to do something they should do (or not do something they shouldn't). We all have to expect the worse.

If he had survived, if Stubbs had heard him banging on the truck and stopped then the incident would have been blameless imho as both parties made a mistake which they rectified.

Beyond these initial mistakes (undertaking and not checking mirrors) more and more blame is transferred to Stubbs. As he continues to make mistakes that further compound your brother's minor error. As he doesn't hear your brother banging on the truck, still doesn't see him in his mirrors, doesn't feel the impact (or assumes it is road furniture) and on and on.

Eau Rouge

spen666 wrote:

Was it not death by careless driving he was convicted of?

That does carry a custodial sentence

If not the death by offence, what was he originally tried for and why was he not convicted of causing the death. Sounds like something else is invoilved

The incident happened before the death by careless driving crime had come into effect, so he couldn't be tried for it. He was tried for death by dangerous driving but the jury convicted him of careless driving instead. They had no real choice.

spen666

Eau Rouge wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Was it not death by careless driving he was convicted of?

That does carry a custodial sentence

If not the death by offence, what was he originally tried for and why was he not convicted of causing the death. Sounds like something else is invoilved

The incident happened before the death by careless driving crime had come into effect, so he couldn't be tried for it. He was tried for death by dangerous driving but the jury convicted him of careless driving instead. They had no real choice.

Of course- I forgot the date of the accident

fenboy369

Really good thread, I have been watching (both threads) with interest. I am not a legal person. I have a very limited knowledge of the workings of the law, but I feel that I am a pretty switched on person with a reasonable grasp of common sense.
There are several things that I would like to add to the debate, so forgive my ramblings...
How much is the 'New Driver' of today made aware of the fact the car he is driving can kill people? My dad battered it in to me that I could kill with my car. Made me think a little about my actions for the first few years of driving. After which the complacency sets in. Thats the worst thing. At the start of this year I had been driving for 15 years, been involved in 2 RTC's, both where other people hit me. A couple of months ago I stuck the family car in a ditch. Lost the back end in the rain and that was that. But I am very aware now that my driving needed a 'kick up the @rse". I think that all drivers should have a 5 year re-test, and one after any RTC at a minimum. But society says that we all have a right to drive now (another thread for that argument please) so that will never be law.
Driving an HGV/LGV is a bloody hard task. Anyone on the thread drive one? I have driven them at work, on private roads, and I really think that anyone who drives an HGV/LGV in a built up areas with peds/cyclists/other vehicles is doing very well indeed not to hit things at every turn. I think the best thing for every cyclist to do would be get in a cab. Have a look at what the driver can see and, more importantly, where he cant see. As far as my riding goes, my thoughts are if I can touch a lorry I am in danger of losing my life.
Please dont think that I am trying do defend the lorry driver (Stubbs?) with above sentence. Just trying to think about the difficulties of each side of the argument.
Again, a good thread, and as far as I see it, its only by looking at and understanding both sides of the argument that we can come to a conclusion and, with more people using cycles to get around and get to work, possibly get something done to make the roads a safer place. I have no illusion that this will be an overnight change, but I'd like to think that my grandchildren might be able to bike to school.

iain_j

IMO there's nowhere near enough about a driver's responsibilities and consequences of ignoring them. I seem to remember my driving lessons and test were just basically operating the car. Yes there's doing the observations and all that, but it seemed it was just about looking at the mirrors, rather than looking for anything in particular (eg. cyclists). I'd been cycling for a few years when I learned to drive so I had a lot of road awareness which was a great help.

It sticks in my mind seeing the TV adverts for looking out for motorbikes (the one where the car pulls out at the junction and the motorbike smacks into the side of him). Need more like this.

prawny

iain_j wrote:

IMO there's nowhere near enough about a driver's responsibilities and consequences of ignoring them. I seem to remember my driving lessons and test were just basically operating the car. Yes there's doing the observations and all that, but it seemed it was just about looking at the mirrors, rather than looking for anything in particular (eg. cyclists). I'd been cycling for a few years when I learned to drive so I had a lot of road awareness which was a great help.

It sticks in my mind seeing the TV adverts for looking out for motorbikes (the one where the car pulls out at the junction and the motorbike smacks into the side of him). Need more like this.

Maybe it was just my instructor but when I was learning to drive he was always saying to look out for cyclists, he was good very old school though, I didn't think he was going to live long enough to get me through my test.

iain_j

Depends on instructors I suppose. Saw one only a few days ago, only one person in the car so I presume he was the instructor, stopping in the ASL then left-hooking a cyclist who'd come up alongside him :roll:

prawny

Yeah mine was old school self employed, these new fast track ' just give us £5000 and you can letch over 17 year old girls for a living' driving schools are probably not as good.

dilemna

spen666 wrote:

dilemna wrote:

....

Indeed I am. I don't believe for one second that he has given adequate account of his actions during the collision.

He is not required to. It is for the Crown to prove its case, not for the accused to prove his innocence

His subsequent actions give a very clear indication of his state of mind at the time of the collision.

No, they give an indication of his state of mind AFTER the collissionj You cannot say because he did x after the accident, his intention before the accident was y.

He panicked after the accident. That doesn't mean hewas guilty of anything more than momentary inattention before the accident


This is not to condone what Stubbs did afterwards. He was dealt with for peverting the course of justice.

You may care to reflect that two seperate juries did not think it was dangerous driving

I wish I had been on the jury as we would have found him guilty of causing death by dangerous driving and it wouldn't have taken the cost of 2 trials. The collision actually appears to have occurred over quite a long time frame as his brother has indicated rather than one single knock resulting in Anthony Spink falling from his bicycle. The events post accident where Stubbs perverted the course of justice by trying to dispose of Tony Spink's bike, his subequent conduct and comments and lack of remorse indicate to me that Stubbs had a lot more knowledge than he let on.

You are implying things into Stubbs that have no basis at all. What he did afterwards is not relevant to his state of mind before

He is clearly not a very savoury person and has done everthing to frustrate the legal process against him as well as further upset the Spink family.

Again your last comment has no basis in fact.

I will agree he appears unsavoury . however he acted quite correctly in respect of the legal system and there is no evidence he has attempted to further upset the deceased's family. He was acting in the way the adversarial nature of our system forces someone to act to defend themselves.

No I am not. You come from the perspective of the defence solicitor/barrister whose sole purpose is to get your client off. Your role has nothing to do with establishing what happened in an event. Yes the prosecution should have to prove their case, but if your client can currently legitimately frustrate the legal process against them then this is wrong, distasteful and immoral. In my view the process should change such that they should not be allowed to do this and greater weight should be placed on a defendant whose conduct and lack of reasonable explanation is wanting or lacking where it is obviously required to build a picture of what did or did not happen. From the facts available IMHO Stubbs failed to do this satisfactorily. His remarks during the trial and lack of any remorse clearly caused the Spink family additional upset. Plus his father's subsequent remarks were totally unnecessary.

The fact that you previously highlighted in another case that a client of yours was high on drink and drugs and to avoid more serious charges of driving while under he influence of drink or drugs, you advised that he was legitimately entitled to submit himself for arrest some hours later when levels of intoxicants would be lower is a case in point.

IMHO there is legitimately defending some one and there is blatantly exploiting rules contrary to law enforcement and the spirit of justice. I don't have a problem with defendant's being able to defend themselves by representation to achieve this, that is only proper, but when they are quite clearly taking the pee and achieving very lenient sentences or wallking free then I object, as this brings the judicial process into disrepute, producing the many crazy decisions we now see. No wonder the criminal legal process is now held in such low regard.

Even as a defence barrister/solicitor I thought your primary duty was to that of the court, so if you faced the situation you described you would have to decline to act as you would be "professionally embarrassed". Doesn't the Law Society's Code of Conduct for Solicitors and Advocates view integrity, honesty, impartiality and duty to the court as primary core duties which are inalienable qualities which cannot be derogated from even if your client places or implies pressure upon you to do so or the rules perversely allow?

We are never going to agree Spen so lets leave it at that eh? Truce?

suzyb

prawny wrote:

Maybe it was just my instructor but when I was learning to drive he was always saying to look out for cyclists, he was good very old school though, I didn't think he was going to live long enough to get me through my test.

My instructors (it took two :oops: ) always told me to look out for "hazards". That could be a cyclist, parked car doors opening suddenly, pedestrians close to the road just stepping out, I was even told to keep half an eye on people at pedestrian crossing so I would see them pressing the button instead of just watching the lights.

spen666

dilemna wrote:

....

No I am not.

no you are not what?

I'm not sure what you are referring to?

You come from the perspective of the defence solicitor/barrister whose sole purpose is to get your client off. Your role has nothing to do with establishing what happened in an event. Yes the prosecution should have to prove their case, but if your client can currently legitimately frustrate the legal process against them then this is wrong, distasteful and immoral. In my view the process should change such that they should not be allowed to do this and greater weight should be placed on a defendant whose conduct and lack of reasonable explanation is wanting or lacking where it is obviously required to build a picture of what did or did not happen. From the facts available IMHO Stubbs failed to do this satisfactorily. His remarks during the trial and lack of any remorse clearly caused the Spink family additional upset. Plus his father's subsequent remarks were totally unnecessary.

So it seems to be your case that anyone accused of an offence is not allowed to defend themselves in caser they upset the alleged victim or the alleged victim's family?

Rembmber it is innocent until proven guilty. It is enshrined in the Geneva Convention on Human Rights. It is for your protection.

Stubbs has every right to defend himself and to try to mitigate his punishment.

The fact that you previously highlighted in another case that a client of yours was high on drink and drugs and to avoid more serious charges of driving while under he influence of drink or drugs, you advised that he was legitimately entitled to submit himself for arrest some hours later when levels of intoxicants would be lower is a case in point.

IMHO there is legitimately defending some one and there is blatantly exploiting rules contrary to law enforcement and the spirit of justice. I don't have a problem with defendant's being able to defend themselves by representation to achieve this, that is only proper,

but you clearly do. Stubbs legitimately defended himself.

Remeber the Jury agreed with him and convicted him of the lesser offence

but when they are quite clearly taking the pee and achieving very lenient sentences or wallking free then I object, as this brings the judicial process into disrepute, producing the many crazy decisions we now see. No wonder the criminal legal process is now held in such low regard.

THe blame for this should be laid at the government and the courts, not at somebody defending themselves legitimately. You cannot sensibly say Stubbs can't defend himself because you don't like the alleged offence. Everyone has a right to defend themselves irrespective of the allegation.

If the court think it is a spurious defence then after conviction they can reflect this in thesentencing.

Even as a defence barrister/solicitor I thought your primary duty was to that of the court, so if you faced the situation you described you would have to decline to act as you would be "professionally embarrassed".

There is no professional embarrassment in advising my client on the law and his options. That is my job. I would be in breach of my legal duty if I did not advise him.

I at no time gotup in court and said my client had not committed the alleged offences. There is a world of difference between saying that ( which would be wrong where I knew he had done so) and saying the Prosecution have not proved their case.

You need to take a minute and think through what is a difficult concept for a non lawyer to grasp. ( No disrespect meant- it is a strange concept)

To say the prosecution have not proved their case is not to make any assertion as to what D did.

To0 say D did not do a crime is a positive assertion.

I can happily say the 1st but not the second if client has told me he has committed thecrime

Indeed, what my client tells me is confidential and I cannot reveal that in any circumstances. The most I could do is withdraw from acting without disclosing why if the client wanted to say he had not done the act alleged

Doesn't the Law Society's Code of Conduct for Solicitors and Advocates view integrity, honesty, impartiality and duty to the court as primary core duties which are inalienable qualities which cannot be derogated from even if your client places or implies pressure upon you to do so or the rules perversely allow?

We are never going to agree Spen so lets leave it at that eh? Truce?

Eau Rouge

On the topic of driver education...

Back home in Ireland about 10 years ago, the powers that be realsied that Ireland's road death rate was nearly double what it was in the UK. The UK was a good comparison as it ruled out so many unavoidable factors (weather, topology, culture etc)
One of the things that happened as a result was that since then, almost every single road death is reportred on the main news broadcasts all over the country. It's basic "a man was killed in a single car accident last night near Tralee in Co. Kerry when the car he was driving left the road and hit a tree" stuff but it's always there, and with on average a death every day, almost every news broadcast will include another death.

A similar thing in the UK would be harder to do, in absolute terms there are many more deaths, but it doesn't half make you think when you have this near-constant remider all the time of the dangers on the road.
It's never going to be the only solution (Ireland's figures might be better than they were but there is a lot of room for improvement) but it's an interesting idea.

Here is an example story from the BBC Northern Ireland pages.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8417591.stm

Specialized Needs

Eau Rouge wrote:

On the topic of driver education...

Back home in Ireland about 10 years ago, the powers that be realsied that Ireland's road death rate was nearly double what it was in the UK. The UK was a good comparison as it ruled out so many unavoidable factors (weather, topology, culture etc)
One of the things that happened as a result was that since then, almost every single road death is reportred on the main news broadcasts all over the country. It's basic "a man was killed in a single car accident last night near Tralee in Co. Kerry when the car he was driving left the road and hit a tree" stuff but it's always there, and with on average a death every day, almost every news broadcast will include another death.

A similar thing in the UK would be harder to do, in absolute terms there are many more deaths, but it doesn't half make you think when you have this near-constant remider all the time of the dangers on the road.
It's never going to be the only solution (Ireland's figures might be better than they were but there is a lot of room for improvement) but it's an interesting idea.

Here is an example story from the BBC Northern Ireland pages.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8417591.stm

Too many people that I know already don't listen/watch the news - there are hundreds of channels out there now - so this would have little or no effect on them. And the ones that do wach the news might suffer from 'reporting fatigue': the regularity of the reporting actually numbing them to it or making them think such incidents are 'normal'.

The idea you mention may work, but the above are possible confounding factors.