Mary Bowers and Sam Harding Court Verdicts

cookdn

BBC News - Harding
The Times - Bowers (& her famiy's perspective)
Martin Porter - Bowers & Harding

jeepie1999

I read these with dismay.
Looks to me that a bit of negligence on the part of the driver isn't considered a problem by the courts.

So, if I'm at an ASL for 10 secs it is reasonable for me not to be seen. Oh, and inflicting more damage by failing to make the vehicle safe before getting out isn't considered dangerous.

Irvinet

This sums up the madness of the situation pretty well.

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE BRITISH JUDICIAL SYSTEM
http://www.stewartpratt.com/?p=580

daviesee

Moral of the story?

If you want to kill someone, use a vehicle as the weapon.

suzyb

The judge, Mr Justice Saunders, told the jury: "This is a case where there are no winners. Everyone is a loser."

eh no, guy cleared of manslaugher = winner, guy killed = loser :roll:

mybreakfastconsisted

Irvinet wrote:

This sums up the madness of the situation pretty well.

AN OPEN LETTER TO THE BRITISH JUDICIAL SYSTEM
http://www.stewartpratt.com/?p=580

That's a very good piece.

The third example of the week is the case of Sam Harding, who was proceeding in a cycle lane when Kenan Aydogdu, having parked his car, opened his door directly into his path. Mr Harding was flung onto the road, then to be run over by the bus which was following him. He died.

You allowed Aydogdu to walk free. His actions were without legal consequence. This is, depressingly, nothing less than we would expect of you. Had someone accidentally dropped a piano from a bridge into the path of a car, my God, we would expect you to have acted decisively. But in this case, the driver is the party making the mistake, not the one suffering the consequences.

gabriel959

daviesee wrote:

Moral of the story?

If you want to kill someone, use a vehicle as the weapon.

+1

The Rookie

In the Harding case, the only sensible charge was manslaughter, this requires reckless behaviour and that was always going to be a 'difficult' hurdle, the issue was more the charge available.

In the Bowers case a jury decided it was careless not dangerous with all the facts and we have to respect that.

The real answer lays with improving driver awareness so we don't haves cases in the first place, backed up by legislation that puts the onus more on drivers.

Kieran_Burns

Didn't we have a discussion some time back which parallels this one?

I concluded (I don't know if anyone else did) that it's not the consequences of the actions that are weighed but the intention / action itself.

Personally I think valuing someone's life as less important than a piece of modern art is shameful to the point of inconceivable but I can understand (barely) how; if you judge the action the sentence can make (very limited) sense

cookeeemonster

I just hope the cycling organisations stop moaning about this and get off their arse and organise a protest in the new year.

LCC got 10,000 out in the pouring rain last april for the pre election go dutch thing, they should be able to do something similar?? Get CTC and British Cycling involved (and everybody down from tup norf on the train ) and it could be a hell of a turnout.

Feel the need to do something. This has made my blood boil since I first heard about it on friday. It's f*cking outrageous...

As to the cases themselves...the Mary Bowers accused had the 'she was wearing a short skirt thus deserved to be raped' defense (his solicitor mentioned she was wearing dark clothing ffs).

It's ok though because 'it'll live with him for the rest of his life' - but obviously it didn't affect him enough to plead guilty and save her family going through this - that winds me up so much in these cases.

And the other case where a bloke in an illegal car that should not have been on the road broke a very clear rule in the highway code, lied to the police and blamed the victim and got off scot free...the mind boggles. But don't worry, the judge said there were no winners...apart from the audi driver, who quite clearly won.

F*ckers. Utter f*ckers.

DonDaddyD

The Mary Bowers case is hard to take. Cyclists are taught that her position in front of the lorry was the safest possible position she could take - short of not being there and on a bike. The motorist as far as I can tell ran her down and then when he left his vehicle failed to secure it which caused her further injuries.

If we must respect the Jury's decision then I think the punnishment that come with these convictions are too lenient when weighed against the damage they cause.

I need to read up on the Harding case, but certainly the Bowers verdict is sickening and if there was a protest then this would be one I would turn up for.

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

The Mary Bowers case is hard to take. Cyclists are taught that her position in front of the lorry was the safest possible position she could take - short of not being there and on a bike. The motorist as far as I can tell ran her down and then when he left his vehicle failed to secure it which caused her further injuries.

If we must respect the Jury's decision then I think the punnishment that come with these convictions are too lenient when weighed against the damage they cause.

I need to read up on the Harding case, but certainly the Bowers verdict is sickening and if there was a protest then this would be one I would turn up for.

What do you think could be done to either prevent these kinds of incident, or ensure that justice is done if they do occur?

DonDaddyD

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

The Mary Bowers case is hard to take. Cyclists are taught that her position in front of the lorry was the safest possible position she could take - short of not being there and on a bike. The motorist as far as I can tell ran her down and then when he left his vehicle failed to secure it which caused her further injuries.

If we must respect the Jury's decision then I think the punnishment that come with these convictions are too lenient when weighed against the damage they cause.

I need to read up on the Harding case, but certainly the Bowers verdict is sickening and if there was a protest then this would be one I would turn up for.

What do you think could be done to either prevent these kinds of incident, or ensure that justice is done if they do occur?

I think that road users need to agree on a sensible and all encompassing approach to improve road safety for all, acknowledge that they are responsible for not only their safety but that of others and make a decision that doesn't overly limit or hinder one group over the other.

I think that some road users have to get past their 'them and us' stance to achieve this.

Why?

notsoblue

DonDaddyD wrote:

I think that road users need to agree on a sensible and all encompassing approach to improve road safety for all, acknowledge that they are responsible for not only their safety but that of others and make a decision that doesn't overly limit or hinder one group over the other.

I think that some road users have to get past their 'them and us' stance to achieve this.

What do you think is the best forum for road users to come together and agree on a sensible and all encompassing approach?

Do you think that legislation (e.g. presumed liability) is a good way to reinforce the Duty of Care on the roads? If not, how else can this be done?

DonDaddyD

notsoblue wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I think that road users need to agree on a sensible and all encompassing approach to improve road safety for all, acknowledge that they are responsible for not only their safety but that of others and make a decision that doesn't overly limit or hinder one group over the other.

I think that some road users have to get past their 'them and us' stance to achieve this.

What do you think is the best forum for road users to come together and agree on a sensible and all encompassing approach?

I am not representative of all road users, nor do I have access to information which would allow me to make an informed decision on what the best forum would be. What do you think the best forum would be?

Do you think that legislation (e.g. presumed liability) is a good way to reinforce the Duty of Care on the roads? If not, how else can this be done?

I think we have been down this road before and I think it is a shame that this thread is being used to take the conversation down that road again.

I do not agree with 'presumed liability' it works against the notion of innocent until proven guilty.

SteppenHerring

Some things in the Stewart Pratt piece are very interesting. I can't access it from work, but one point he makes about the Sam Harding case: the judge says "there was nothing the bus driver could've done" to avoid running him over. But in a car, if you rear-end someone it is always your fault. Always. So if the bus driver was following the cyclist so closely that he couldn't stop if the cyclist fell off then why no blame?

How much would it cost the government to put out a few ads or posters just to make the point that cyclists have equivalent rights (and responsibilities) on the roads. And maybe a bit of "Do you want to explain to that guy's widow and kids why you couldn't wait 5 seconds to get to the next red traffic light?"

DonDaddyD

SteppenHerring wrote:

Some things in the Stewart Pratt piece are very interesting. I can't access it from work, but one point he makes about the Sam Harding case: the judge says "there was nothing the bus driver could've done" to avoid running him over. But in a car, if you rear-end someone it is always your fault. Always. So if the bus driver was following the cyclist so closely that he couldn't stop if the cyclist fell off then why no blame?

I'm inclined to agree to a point. However, it isn't always the car behinds fault, though it is one of the rare cases where the onus is on the person behind to prove that they weren't following too closely.

The trouble I have with saying the bus was following too closely is that I just don't know how the cyclist fell, where they fell etc. Buses have cameras though so you would have thought there was footage.

bails87

SteppenHerring wrote:

How much would it cost the government to put out a few ads or posters just to make the point that cyclists have equivalent rights (and responsibilities) on the roads. And maybe a bit of "Do you want to explain to that guy's widow and kids why you couldn't wait 5 seconds to get to the next red traffic light?"

Due to a convoluted chain of events and a coincidence or two, I ended up mentioning cycle safety to my MP at the time. In a reply to her reply, I made a similar suggestion to the one above, basically "you do it for motorbikes, so why not cyclists? Drivers don't know the basics like why we take primary position and they get angry. This is mad when their own children are being taught to do this on Bikeability courses". She forwarded it to transport minister Mike Penning who replied to tell me that [paraphrased]:
"we spend a lot of money on 'think bike' campaigns for motorbikes and it has been very successful. Some councils run Bikeability courses for adults. Some adults who do bikeability will be drivers, therefore drivers are educated about how cyclists might behave. So we won't spend any money on cyclist oriented 'think bike' campaigns."

:?

sketchley

Sam's Dad on radio 2 at the moment worth a listen.He says bus was overtaking legally and was doing nothing wrong...

SteppenHerring

bails87 wrote:

Due to a convoluted chain of events and a coincidence or two, I ended up mentioning cycle safety to my MP at the time. In a reply to her reply, I made a similar suggestion to the one above, basically "you do it for motorbikes, so why not cyclists? Drivers don't know the basics like why we take primary position and they get angry. This is mad when their own children are being taught to do this on Bikeability courses". She forwarded it to transport minister Mike Penning who replied to tell me that [paraphrased]:
"we spend a lot of money on 'think bike' campaigns for motorbikes and it has been very successful. Some councils run Bikeability courses for adults. Some adults who do bikeability will be drivers, therefore drivers are educated about how cyclists might behave. So we won't spend any money on cyclist oriented 'think bike' campaigns."

:?

I remember you saying that before bails. Did you write back to the minister saying something like "You really are a useless c*nt, aren't you."?

sketchley

Also says there is a gap in law, driver had turned off engine so could not be charged with dangerous driving, offence only carried a fine.

bails87

SteppenHerring wrote:

bails87 wrote:

WAFFLE

:?

I remember you saying that before bails. Did you write back to the minister saying something like "You really are a useless c*nt, aren't you."?

Nah, no point. It takes about 3 weeks to get a reply, and when you do it's never an actual answer, it's just the policy wording and some PR/spin gumpf. Incredibly frustrating to deal with to be honest. Woo, democracy :roll: