CPS accepts ignorance of law as excuse for killer cyclist



M

Matt B

Guest
From Sunday's Mirror[1].

You'd have to read it to believe it! The Police and CPS decided not to
prosecute a cyclist after he killed a father of three on the pavement.

[1] http://tinyurl.com/cazyu
--
Matt B
 
Matt B wrote:
> From Sunday's Mirror[1].
>
> You'd have to read it to believe it! The Police and CPS decided not to
> prosecute a cyclist after he killed a father of three on the pavement.
>
> [1] http://tinyurl.com/cazyu


What would they do? Issue him with a 30 quid FPN for riding on the
pavement?

...d
 
On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 23:23:21 +0000, Matt B
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[1] http://tinyurl.com/cazyu


Compare

"Latvian Vladislavs Minejevs, 20, had been in Britain for less than a
month when he hit Garry Percival, 45, in Mansfield, Notts, last
September."

with

Gary Percival, 45, was killed after he collided with a bicycle last
September.

Which is the standard type of wording when a motorist hits and kills a
cyclist.
--
Let us have a moment of silence for all Americans who
are now stuck in traffic on their way to a health club
to ride a stationary bicycle. -
Congressman Earl Blumenauer (Oregon)
 
Tom Crispin wrote:

> Compare
>
> "Latvian Vladislavs Minejevs, 20, had been in Britain for less than a
> month when he hit Garry Percival, 45, in Mansfield, Notts, last
> September."
>
> with
>
> Gary Percival, 45, was killed after he collided with a bicycle last
> September.
>
> Which is the standard type of wording when a motorist hits and kills a
> cyclist.


"... was in collision with ..."

--
Dave...
 
Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 23:23:21 +0000, Matt B
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>[1] http://tinyurl.com/cazyu

>
> Compare
>
> "Latvian Vladislavs Minejevs, 20, had been in Britain for less than a
> month when he hit Garry Percival, 45, in Mansfield, Notts, last
> September."
>
> with
>
> Gary Percival, 45, was killed after he collided with a bicycle last
> September.
>
> Which is the standard type of wording when a motorist hits and kills a
> cyclist.


Here we go again - claims of unfavourable or biased reporting of
cyclist-fault accidents. I searched the Mirror (where that article was
found) for 'accidents' involving motorists and pedestrians and found:

- "...driver who killed five people when he ploughed into a crowd of
holidaymakers was jailed..."

- "... was mown down by a car on a pedestrian crossing in ..."

- "... driver who mowed down and killed a three-year-old girl on a
pedestrian crossing was jailed..."

Can you please cite an example, involving a pedestrian, where a motorist
is at fault, in the Mirror to support your assertion - or withdraw it.

--
Matt B
 
David Martin wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>> From Sunday's Mirror[1].
>>
>> You'd have to read it to believe it! The Police and CPS decided not to
>> prosecute a cyclist after he killed a father of three on the pavement.
>>
>> [1] http://tinyurl.com/cazyu

>
> What would they do? Issue him with a 30 quid FPN for riding on the
> pavement?
>



Can you please, please, please put Troll B in your killfile or at least
try to ignore him.


--
Tony

"The best way I know of to win an argument is to start by being in the
right."
- Lord Hailsham
 
Tony Raven wrote:
> David Martin wrote:
>
>> Matt B wrote:
>>
>>> From Sunday's Mirror[1].
>>>
>>> You'd have to read it to believe it! The Police and CPS decided not to
>>> prosecute a cyclist after he killed a father of three on the pavement.
>>>
>>> [1] http://tinyurl.com/cazyu

>>
>> What would they do? Issue him with a 30 quid FPN for riding on the
>> pavement?

>
> Can you please, please, please put Troll B in your killfile or at least
> try to ignore him.


Do as you're told if you wish - of course, but I'd love to know why he
so is against free and open discussion about (largely) cycling issues -
in a cycling group. What is he afraid of?

--
Matt B
 
David Martin wrote:
> Matt B wrote:
>
>>From Sunday's Mirror[1].
>>
>>You'd have to read it to believe it! The Police and CPS decided not to
>>prosecute a cyclist after he killed a father of three on the pavement.
>>
>>[1] http://tinyurl.com/cazyu

>
> What would they do? Issue him with a 30 quid FPN for riding on the
> pavement?


If that's all they could find evidence for - yes.

--
Matt B
 
"Tom Crispin" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 23:23:21 +0000, Matt B
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>[1] http://tinyurl.com/cazyu

>
> Compare
>
> "Latvian Vladislavs Minejevs, 20, had been in Britain for less than a
> month when he hit Garry Percival, 45, in Mansfield, Notts, last
> September."


Just to troll things up a bit - I used to live in Mansfield, and I still
visit occasionally. The district council's approach to providing cycle
facilities has been to put shared use signs on almost all pavements. I
think the "ignorance of the law" was that he thought he wasn't breaking it.

E
 
But such a verdict is entirely in line with the lenient way motoring
offences are often 'enforced'. First of all the law usually takes no
notice of the consequences of the offence, so 'careless' or
'inconsiderate' drivers who kill usually get no more of a penalty than
if they had reversed into another car. Secondly, the law courts
frequently choose not to impose a penalty, even when there is no doubt
that the offender knew that they were committing an offence. As an
example look at the following story from today's Manchester Evening
News (08/02/06)

31 points - and still he's on the road

A SALESMAN has been allowed to carry on driving despite notching up a
staggering THIRTY ONE penalty points on his licence. Jeffrey Englander,
60, accumulated the points after committing a series of motoring
offences, including speeding and failing to produce his insurance
documents. Drivers are usually disqualified when once they reach 12
points but Mr Englander is still on the road with nearly three times
the limit after pleading "exceptional hardship". He successfully
argued that a driving ban would put his new business at risk and was
given one last chance.

Mr Englander, of Prestwich, told the M.E.N: "I pleaded hardship and
had a fantastic magistrate who let me off, I couldn't believe it."

Last night, road safety campaigners said they were "alarmed" that
he had escaped a driving ban with so many points on his licence and
called on the courts to take a harder line on motoring convictions.

Mr Englander, who represented himself at when he appeared before
Salford Magistrates' Court, said: "The magistrate just said:
'I'll let you off this time'. "I think I had spent a night in
jail and maybe they felt sorry for me. "I said I needed my car for my
job and he said, on that occasion, they would let me off but if I got
one more point I would be banned. " He added: "I was very
apologetic. You have to be very, very humble. The more they can see you
are sorry, the more chance you have of getting off. " I was very
humble and also dressed respectfully."

Mr Englander returned to court on a charge of failing to produce
insurance papers - but he escaped any more points when Manchester
motoring law specialists firm Geoffrey Miller found a legal loophole.
Jeanette Miller, supervising solicitor at the company, said: "Mr
Englander came to us with 31 points on his driving licence. I have
never seen one a driving licence like it. "We put forward that this
offence should have been dealt with at the same time as the other
matters. That did not happen due to an administrative error. He would
have received a further eight points, taking him up to 39 points.
However, the court accepted our argument."

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/men/news/s/203/203678_31_points__and_still_hes_on_the_road.html
 
Tony Raven wrote:
> David Martin wrote:
>> Matt B wrote:
>>> From Sunday's Mirror[1].
>>>
>>> You'd have to read it to believe it! The Police and CPS decided
>>> not to prosecute a cyclist after he killed a father of three on the
>>> pavement. [1] http://tinyurl.com/cazyu

>>
>> What would they do? Issue him with a 30 quid FPN for riding on the
>> pavement?
>>

>
>
> Can you please, please, please put Troll B in your killfile or at
> least try to ignore him.


Alternatively, set up another account to reply to him which uses the same
email address as he does.

--
Ambrose
 
[email protected] wrote:
> But such a verdict is entirely in line with the lenient way motoring
> offences are often 'enforced'.


So? Do you agree with the way motoring offences are enforced? If you
do that's fine - there is no need for further comment. If however, as I
suspect from the tone below, you do not, then you should be condemning
the way cycling offences are not rigorously enforced (as this is a
cycling /not/ motoring group), not attempting to excuse it by
introducing red herrings.

> First of all the law usually takes no
> notice of the consequences of the offence,


Should it? In your opinion:
1. Is attempted murder more or less serious than murder?
2. Is attempted murder more or less serious than manslaughter?

Should /random chance/, in terms of the consequences of an action, play
a part in the offence chosen to prosecute with?

Surely the selected offence should be based on the intent, and on the
amount or care or negligence evident in the action. If I shoot someone,
fully intending to kill them, and leave them for dead, should I face a
lesser charge than murder because, given a miraculous set of
circumstances, they manage to survive? OTOH, if I set out on my bike,
or in my car, taking all due care, following all the rules, and paying
full attention to the job in hand, but, because of a momentary lapse of
some sort, outside of my conscience control, collide with a pedestrian
and kill them, should I be charged with murder?

--
Matt B
 
Ambrose Nankivell wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:
>
>> David Martin wrote:
>>
>>> Matt B wrote:
>>>
>>>> From Sunday's Mirror[1].
>>>>
>>>> You'd have to read it to believe it! The Police and CPS decided
>>>> not to prosecute a cyclist after he killed a father of three on the
>>>> pavement. [1] http://tinyurl.com/cazyu
>>>
>>> What would they do? Issue him with a 30 quid FPN for riding on the
>>> pavement?
>>>

>> Can you please, please, please put Troll B in your killfile or at
>> least try to ignore him.

>
> Alternatively, set up another account to reply to him which uses the
> same email address as he does.


Why? Rather dishonest don't you think?

--
Matt B
 
"Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote
OTOH, if I set out on my bike,
> or in my car, taking all due care, following all the rules, and paying
> full attention to the job in hand, but, because of a momentary lapse of
> some sort, outside of my conscience control, collide with a pedestrian and
> kill them, should I be charged with murder?


Didn't you start this thread with a story about someone who wasn't obeying
the rules, which had no information whatsoever about whether or not he was
cycling with due care or not, and didn't put his killing someone down to a
momentary lapse of attention?

I'm not sure whether your apparent desire to argue with the other members of
this ng makes you a troll or not, but going off at random tangents with no
attempt to keep on topic on a thread you started probably does..
 
Budstaff wrote:
> "Matt B" <[email protected]> wrote
> OTOH, if I set out on my bike,
>
>>or in my car, taking all due care, following all the rules, and paying
>>full attention to the job in hand, but, because of a momentary lapse of
>>some sort, outside of my conscience control, collide with a pedestrian and
>>kill them, should I be charged with murder?

>
> Didn't you start this thread with a story about someone who wasn't obeying
> the rules, which had no information whatsoever about whether or not he was
> cycling with due care or not, and didn't put his killing someone down to a
> momentary lapse of attention?


Yes.

> I'm not sure whether your apparent desire to argue with the other members of
> this ng makes you a troll or not,


Replying to a reply which goes OT is /not/ arguing, it is /discussing/.

> but going off at random tangents with no
> attempt to keep on topic on a thread you started probably does..


Explain. I was replying to an OT post that was suggesting that the
offence, WRT to motorists (not sure about cyclists) should be related to
the consequences, not, apparently, the action itself. Do you deny my
right to add my opinion?

--
Matt B
 
[email protected] came up with the following;:

> 31 points - and still he's on the road
>
> A SALESMAN has been allowed to carry on driving despite notching up a
> staggering THIRTY ONE penalty points on his licence.


I kept my licence with 21 points, twice going to court to get more than 12
points on my licence and twice keeping it. The details are on Usenet
somewhere ..

I guess the severity of judgement is based upon the severity of the
offence(s) and the intent behind it(them).

--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules ..... Doh !!!
 
Tom Crispin wrote:
> On Tue, 07 Feb 2006 23:23:21 +0000, Matt B
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> [1] http://tinyurl.com/cazyu

>
> Compare
>
> "Latvian Vladislavs Minejevs, 20, had been in Britain for less than a
> month when he hit Garry Percival, 45, in Mansfield, Notts, last
> September."
>
> with
>
> Gary Percival, 45, was killed after he collided with a bicycle last
> September.
>
> Which is the standard type of wording when a motorist hits and kills a
> cyclist.


No it isn't. Try doing some searches for the variuos froms of words on BBC,
national newappers site and local newspaper site (i have done that) and uou
will find that that form of word i is very very rare.

The standard fomulation is "Person x in/on vehicle A was killed when in
collision with vehicle B"

pk
 
On Wed, 08 Feb 2006, Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Should /random chance/, in terms of the consequences of an action, play
> a part in the offence chosen to prosecute with?


Yes. It does in significant other parts of UK law. It is
explicitly part of some areas of law that it must be considered
in determining sentencing. There's no good reason why it shouldn't in
motoring law - it would encourage people to consider teh possible
consequences of their actions, and that would be a good thing.

At long last, the government is starting to show some sign of
recognising this.

regards, Ian Smith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|
 
Ian Smith wrote:
> On Wed, 08 Feb 2006, Matt B <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Should /random chance/, in terms of the consequences of an action, play
>> a part in the offence chosen to prosecute with?

>
> Yes. It does in significant other parts of UK law. It is
> explicitly part of some areas of law that it must be considered
> in determining sentencing.


Can you provide some examples please.

> There's no good reason why it shouldn't in
> motoring law -


Other than, perhaps, /random chance/ should not affect the charge in
other circumstances either.

> it would encourage people to consider teh possible
> consequences of their actions,


Perhaps you misunderstood /random chance/. A likely, or reasonably
expected outcome should be considered, but not an extremely unlikely
outcome.

> and that would be a good thing.


To get punished for a consequence that no reasonable person could have
foreseen as an outcome of a well intentioned action /cannot/ be a good
thing.

> At long last, the government is starting to show some sign of
> recognising this.


What, that whether you commit an 'offence' or not should be a pure
lottery, and not based solely on intent and reasonably foreseen
consequences - I hope not.

--
Matt B
 
On Wed, 8 Feb 2006, p.k. <[email protected]> wrote:
> Tom Crispin wrote:


> > Gary Percival, 45, was killed after he collided with a bicycle last
> > September.
> >
> > Which is the standard type of wording when a motorist hits and kills a
> > cyclist.

>
> No it isn't. Try doing some searches for the variuos froms of words on BBC,
> national newappers site and local newspaper site (i have done that) and uou
> will find that that form of word i is very very rare.
>
> The standard fomulation is "Person x in/on vehicle A was killed when in
> collision with vehicle B"


You seem to be saying that the standard forulation isn't what Tom said
it was, it's what Tom said it was.

Person x Gary Percival, 45,
in/on vehicle A [not applicable]
was killed when in collision with was killed after he collided with
vehicle B a bicycle

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|