Driver cleared by Jury...

downfader

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/5048625 ... __s_death/

Been following this, as I said the other week, since it happened.My feelings on this, regardless of the lights - all road users have a responsibility to avoid hazards, and he didnt just leap on her bonnet.

Very sad (have posted this on CC too,so apologies to the CC'ers who come here)

cjcp

That report doesn't fully explain how the incident occurred. Unless there were reporting restrictions of some kind, it's a half-@rsed report of the sort you often see in local papers.

Eau Rouge

cjcp wrote:

That report doesn't fully explain how the incident occurred. Unless there were reporting restrictions of some kind, it's a half-@rsed report of the sort you often see in local papers.

It's the last in a number of reports of the accident itself and the court case. The previous ones included witness statements that made her look very guilty indeed. The comments mention other witnesses that don't.

downfader

Eau Rouge wrote:

cjcp wrote:

That report doesn't fully explain how the incident occurred. Unless there were reporting restrictions of some kind, it's a half-@rsed report of the sort you often see in local papers.

It's the last in a number of reports of the accident itself and the court case. The previous ones included witness statements that made her look very guilty indeed. The comments mention other witnesses that don't.

I think iirc there were 5 witnesses, 3 said she ran red, but one said he'd ridden across, and 2 that said the light was green but traffic had stopped (WTF?). The only way we can prove things like this is if they put in decent cameras to catch the RLJs.

Eau Rouge

downfader wrote:

Eau Rouge wrote:

cjcp wrote:

That report doesn't fully explain how the incident occurred. Unless there were reporting restrictions of some kind, it's a half-@rsed report of the sort you often see in local papers.

It's the last in a number of reports of the accident itself and the court case. The previous ones included witness statements that made her look very guilty indeed. The comments mention other witnesses that don't.

I think iirc there were 5 witnesses, 3 said she ran red, but one said he'd ridden across, and 2 that said the light was green but traffic had stopped (WTF?). The only way we can prove things like this is if they put in decent cameras to catch the RLJs.

Other commentators mention those lights having RLJ cameras. I don't suppose they are all recording all the time.

cjcp

Eau Rouge wrote:

cjcp wrote:

That report doesn't fully explain how the incident occurred. Unless there were reporting restrictions of some kind, it's a half-@rsed report of the sort you often see in local papers.

It's the last in a number of reports of the accident itself and the court case. The previous ones included witness statements that made her look very guilty indeed. The comments mention other witnesses that don't.

Ok. It's still not a great report though - is that all the evidence she gave?

Very sad indeed.

Eau Rouge

cjcp wrote:

Ok. It's still not a great report though - is that all the evidence she gave?

Your very right. Court reporting is right down there with sport reporting for it's crapness it seems. It makes you wonder how good the rest of journalism is really.

Christophe3967

Eau Rouge wrote:

cjcp wrote:

That report doesn't fully explain how the incident occurred. Unless there were reporting restrictions of some kind, it's a half-@rsed report of the sort you often see in local papers.

It's the last in a number of reports of the accident itself and the court case. The previous ones included witness statements that made her look very guilty indeed. The comments mention other witnesses that don't.

“I was watching the traffic lights more or less over the top of him when I suddenly became aware he started to pedal forward. The lights were still on green. There was a bang. I saw the cyclist sailing through the air, he was catapulted and he landed in the carriageway of the fast lane.”

Asked if he had any doubts whether the lights were green, he replied: “No doubts at all.”


Although there are conflicting statements from witnesses, how one can conclude that the driver looks "very guilty indeed" after reading this particular one is beyond me...

downfader

If there are cameras there I wonnder if they are for something else, as nothing has been mentioned about it other than from a commentator. Perhaps it is just for traffic monitoring?

Oh as and for "looking guilty", agree, daft comment to make. Its just the way the photographer catches them.

spen666

It sounds as though you may be confusing liability with guilt in interpretating this story.

The driver was found not guilty of a criminal offence - which requires a very high degree of proof.

This does not mean that the driver is not responsible for causing the asccident and as a result liable to compensate the other party

cjcp

spen666 wrote:

It sounds as though you may be confusing liability with guilt in interpretating this story.

The driver was found not guilty of a criminal offence - which requires a very high degree of proof.

This does not mean that the driver is not responsible for causing the asccident and as a result liable to compensate the other party

Could the CPS have gone for a lesser charge as an alternative, just in case they fail to convict on the most severe charge?

spen666

cjcp wrote:

spen666 wrote:

It sounds as though you may be confusing liability with guilt in interpretating this story.

The driver was found not guilty of a criminal offence - which requires a very high degree of proof.

This does not mean that the driver is not responsible for causing the asccident and as a result liable to compensate the other party

Could the CPS have gone for a lesser charge as an alternative, just in case they fail to convict on the most severe charge?

Not sure what offence you were thinking of

She was acquitted of death by dangerous and death by careless.
The issue was not around cause of death - if it had been could have charged dangerous/ careless driving in its simple form.


Here driver would be acquitted of those as issue was standard of driving

cjcp

spen666 wrote:

cjcp wrote:

spen666 wrote:

It sounds as though you may be confusing liability with guilt in interpretating this story.

The driver was found not guilty of a criminal offence - which requires a very high degree of proof.

This does not mean that the driver is not responsible for causing the asccident and as a result liable to compensate the other party

Could the CPS have gone for a lesser charge as an alternative, just in case they fail to convict on the most severe charge?

Not sure what offence you were thinking of

She was acquitted of death by dangerous and death by careless.
The issue was not around cause of death - if it had been could have charged dangerous/ careless driving in its simple form.


Here driver would be acquitted of those as issue was standard of driving

Ok - I wondered what the charges available to the CPS would have been, so wasn't thinking of a particular charge as such.