Fatality in Henley

cougie

http://www.henleystandard.co.uk/news/ne ... id=1354657

This is unbelievable.

Woman overtakes cyclists and fails to take notice of cyclists coming towards them - leaving them with no space.
One cyclist falls and the car hits her. And the defence lawyer sums up like this :

Summing up, Mr Fielding said: “Ben Pontin said it was a stupid decision to overtake. It was nowhere near as stupid as Mr Pontin’s decision to put Denisa Perinova on that bike in the first place.

“He ought not to have been so reckless with the life of his young girlfriend and he failed with terrible consequences.”


Amazing. In what way is it reckless to ride on the roads of Britain ? Poor guy.

andyk19

Seems ridiculous.

Reading the news report (and using that as the only source of information) it is questionable as to whether the driver can actually be blamed for the death, on one hand the boyfriends testimony would suggest that there was insufficient space for the oncoming car to overtake and not risk colliding with the victim or her boyfriend. On the other I can imagine a jury is unlikely to convict someone of causing someones death if their car did not impact the victim, or if there is uncertainty as to whether this is so. As it is hard to be certain 'beyond reasonable doubt' that the driving caused the death should there be no impact.

However I can see no need, or justification, for seeking to blame the victims boyfriend for putting her there in the first place. Such logic could let numerous people get away with all kinds of negligent or reckless homicide. It would seem quite possible to mount some form of defence without making unfounded and frankly stupid remarks as to someone else's culpability. I cannot see how, if it is possible to suggest the the driver cannot be shown to be the 'cause' of the death, that taking someone cycling on a road can be the cause of the death - this is far more causally removed from the accident than the car.

cougie

I thought that the car did impact the victim ? The boyfriend mentioned that suddenly his GF was 15 meters back down the road ?

The report isnt very clear though.

ToeKnee

There were 12 people on the jury who saw/heard all the facts presented by both the prosecution and the defence. They deliberated and made their collective decision. I can't make jedgement from a scant newpaper article or two.

Very sad for all the people involved/affected.

meursault

ToeKnee wrote:

There were 12 car drivers on the jury who saw/heard all the facts presented by both the prosecution and the defence. They deliberated and made their collective decision. I can't make jedgement from a scant newpaper article or two.

Very sad for all the people involved/affected.

FYPFY.

FJS

ToeKnee wrote:

There were 12 people on the jury who saw/heard all the facts presented by both the prosecution and the defence. They deliberated and made their collective decision.

You are assuming those 12 are all intelligent and unbiased. The average UK citizen is not. Could have been 12 Berkshire LandRover driving Daily Mail readers. I've never understood the British affection for trial by jury.

Doesnt the car driver in the report not admit herself that she started overtaking without having seen the people she later encountered in the other lane? Isnt that the bottom line?

fat_cat

This is an incredibly sad story. Based on the article it is difficult to know whether the driver is at fault but the lawyers comments blaming the boy friend for putting the poor lady on the bike are frankly disgusting.

Colinthecop

ToeKnee wrote:

There were 12 people on the jury who saw/heard all the facts presented by both the prosecution and the defence. They deliberated and made their collective decision. I can't make jedgement from a scant newpaper article or two.

Oh come on. That's not the reasoned approach you expect from the average guy in the street.

It's the selective newspaper reporting that allows 99% of the population to think Simon Harwood murdered Ian Tomlinson.

Why should 12 pesky people who hear ALL the evidence be allowed to ride roughshod over public opinion...?

meursault

Colinthecop wrote:

ToeKnee wrote:

There were 12 people on the jury who saw/heard all the facts presented by both the prosecution and the defence. They deliberated and made their collective decision. I can't make jedgement from a scant newpaper article or two.

Oh come on. That's not the reasoned approach you expect from the average guy in the street.

It's the selective newspaper reporting that allows 99% of the population to think Simon Harwood murdered Ian Tomlinson.

Why should 12 pesky people who hear ALL the evidence be allowed to ride roughshod over public opinion...?

Because it's not possible to kill someone by hitting them with a baton? I'm not sure what you are saying.

Colinthecop

Of course it's possible, but you're gonna get rsi from the number of times you'd have to hit them...

mybreakfastconsisted

http://www.henleystandard.co.uk/news/ne ... id=1363185

this is seriously fucked up.

apreading

I dont get this - sounds to me like it wasnt a sensible place to pass, she hadnt seen the cyclists but there was enough room for the manoevre to be completed without injury, except the lady panicked and ended up falling into the path of the car. From that it sounds like the driver was guilty of reckless driving maybe but not of causing the death - that was an unfortunate accident.

mybreakfastconsisted

I dunno what I'd do if a car came at me at 40mph on the wrong side of the road. I might try to turn the wheel quickly, I might panic, I might fall off. Dr Helen Measures admitted she couldn't see the road was clear, it was a blind bend, even after she saw Mr Pontin she decided to carry on, at speed, on the wrong side of the road. Then she and her lawyer stood up in court and said it was Denisa's fault, or Mr Pontin's for taking her for a bike ride on a sunny Sunday morning, and the press printed lies about the dead girl and called her a "novice cyclist". She wasn't anything of the kind. Dr Helen Measures killed the girl on the way back from a garden centre. I hope she was pleased with her purchases that day.

meursault

Colinthecop wrote:

Of course it's possible, but you're gonna get rsi from the number of times you'd have to hit them...

Let me rephrase the question. Is it possible to kill someone, by hitting them once with a police baton?

Colinthecop

Yes it is,

In the same way you could accidently bump into a chronic alcoholic with a whole world of medical problems, and that bump could subsequently kill them.

meursault

Colinthecop wrote:

Yes it is,

In the same way you could accidently bump into a chronic alcoholic with a whole world of medical problems, and that bump could subsequently kill them.

No further questions, the proscecution rests.