Lorry driver cleared of killing cyclist Esther Hartsilver

psling wrote:

Perhaps jurors that drive should declare an interest when the defendant is a driver.

After all, most drivers appear to be predisposed to think ​it could happen to any of us, poor chap. And that sentiment is towards the driver, not the dead person.

I can sympathise with that view to some extent. If they find the defendant guilty he may serve a prison sentence. If he is a genuine honest person who undoubtedly did not wish to cause any harm this is probably the one way he can find himself locked up alongside criminals who for the most part have willingly broken the law.

I think there should be seperate criminal and licensing courts. The Jurors thought that he did not act criminally in a way that would justify a prison sentence. They might have been right.

As a result he escapes completely and is free to drive without any penalty.

I think there should be a way for a court to give bans from driving without a jury thinking that any form of guilt could lead to imprisonment.

Put another way if someone killed me due to a one-off "accident" then I would get no satisfaction seeing them serve a prison sentence but as a live cyclist I would feel much safer if such "accidents led to the drivers being taken off the road and the resulting disincentive that would give to the others.

You might say he should heave checked mirrors etc. but how many of have decades of driving experience without at least once have not fully checked before at least one manoeuvre.

ooldbaker wrote:

psling wrote:

Perhaps jurors that drive should declare an interest when the defendant is a driver.

After all, most drivers appear to be predisposed to think ​it could happen to any of us, poor chap. And that sentiment is towards the driver, not the dead person.

I can sympathise with that view to some extent. If they find the defendant guilty he may serve a prison sentence. If he is a genuine honest person who undoubtedly did not wish to cause any harm this is probably the one way he can find himself locked up alongside criminals who for the most part have willingly broken the law.

I think there should be seperate criminal and licensing courts. The Jurors thought that he did not act criminally in a way that would justify a prison sentence. They might have been right.

As a result he escapes completely and is free to drive without any penalty.

I think there should be a way for a court to give bans from driving without a jury thinking that any form of guilt could lead to imprisonment.

Put another way if someone killed me due to a one-off "accident" then I would get no satisfaction seeing them serve a prison sentence but as a live cyclist I would feel much safer if such "accidents led to the drivers being taken off the road and the resulting disincentive that would give to the others.

You might say he should heave checked mirrors etc. but how many of have decades of driving experience without at least once have not fully checked before at least one manoeuvre.

He did "willingly break the law". The fact that lots of people break the same laws every day is, or rather should be, completely irrelevant. That his lawbreaking is seen as somehow less blameworthy than, say, a housebreaker who has not killed anyone, is simply evidence of our crazed addiction to motor vehicles.

oldstrath wrote:

ooldbaker wrote:

psling wrote:

Perhaps jurors that drive should declare an interest when the defendant is a driver.

After all, most drivers appear to be predisposed to think ​it could happen to any of us, poor chap. And that sentiment is towards the driver, not the dead person.

I can sympathise with that view to some extent. If they find the defendant guilty he may serve a prison sentence. If he is a genuine honest person who undoubtedly did not wish to cause any harm this is probably the one way he can find himself locked up alongside criminals who for the most part have willingly broken the law.

I think there should be seperate criminal and licensing courts. The Jurors thought that he did not act criminally in a way that would justify a prison sentence. They might have been right.

As a result he escapes completely and is free to drive without any penalty.

I think there should be a way for a court to give bans from driving without a jury thinking that any form of guilt could lead to imprisonment.

Put another way if someone killed me due to a one-off "accident" then I would get no satisfaction seeing them serve a prison sentence but as a live cyclist I would feel much safer if such "accidents led to the drivers being taken off the road and the resulting disincentive that would give to the others.

You might say he should heave checked mirrors etc. but how many of have decades of driving experience without at least once have not fully checked before at least one manoeuvre.

 

He did "willingly break the law". The fact that lots of people break the same laws every day is, or rather should be, completely irrelevant. That his lawbreaking is seen as somehow less blameworthy than, say, a housebreaker who has not killed anyone, is simply evidence of our crazed addiction to motor vehicles.

Save that he didn't break the law. That's the verdict of a jury who listened to the evidence.  Now, he may have "broken" the civil law but that's a different matter. Now, there's certainly, once again, a big discussion to be had about how/whether we use juries in such cases. But, remember, there will have been expert testimony here as well. And, of course, what the prosecution say is not evidence, it's their version of events, one which was rejected by the jury.

bendertherobot wrote:

oldstrath wrote:

ooldbaker wrote:

psling wrote:

Perhaps jurors that drive should declare an interest when the defendant is a driver.

After all, most drivers appear to be predisposed to think ​it could happen to any of us, poor chap. And that sentiment is towards the driver, not the dead person.

I can sympathise with that view to some extent. If they find the defendant guilty he may serve a prison sentence. If he is a genuine honest person who undoubtedly did not wish to cause any harm this is probably the one way he can find himself locked up alongside criminals who for the most part have willingly broken the law.

I think there should be seperate criminal and licensing courts. The Jurors thought that he did not act criminally in a way that would justify a prison sentence. They might have been right.

As a result he escapes completely and is free to drive without any penalty.

I think there should be a way for a court to give bans from driving without a jury thinking that any form of guilt could lead to imprisonment.

Put another way if someone killed me due to a one-off "accident" then I would get no satisfaction seeing them serve a prison sentence but as a live cyclist I would feel much safer if such "accidents led to the drivers being taken off the road and the resulting disincentive that would give to the others.

You might say he should heave checked mirrors etc. but how many of have decades of driving experience without at least once have not fully checked before at least one manoeuvre.

 

He did "willingly break the law". The fact that lots of people break the same laws every day is, or rather should be, completely irrelevant. That his lawbreaking is seen as somehow less blameworthy than, say, a housebreaker who has not killed anyone, is simply evidence of our crazed addiction to motor vehicles.

 

Save that he didn't break the law. That's the verdict of a jury who listened to the evidence.  Now, he may have "broken" the civil law but that's a different matter. Now, there's certainly, once again, a big discussion to be had about how/whether we use juries in such cases. But, remember, there will have been expert testimony here as well. And, of course, what the prosecution say is not evidence, it's their version of events, one which was rejected by the jury.

Listened to the evidence, or to voices in their heads saying "this could be you"? There should indeed be a discussion about the role of juries, unfortunately it's not one politicians seem prepared to have.

bendertherobot wrote:

oldstrath wrote:

ooldbaker wrote:

psling wrote:

Perhaps jurors that drive should declare an interest when the defendant is a driver.

After all, most drivers appear to be predisposed to think ​it could happen to any of us, poor chap. And that sentiment is towards the driver, not the dead person.

I can sympathise with that view to some extent. If they find the defendant guilty he may serve a prison sentence. If he is a genuine honest person who undoubtedly did not wish to cause any harm this is probably the one way he can find himself locked up alongside criminals who for the most part have willingly broken the law.

I think there should be seperate criminal and licensing courts. The Jurors thought that he did not act criminally in a way that would justify a prison sentence. They might have been right.

As a result he escapes completely and is free to drive without any penalty.

I think there should be a way for a court to give bans from driving without a jury thinking that any form of guilt could lead to imprisonment.

Put another way if someone killed me due to a one-off "accident" then I would get no satisfaction seeing them serve a prison sentence but as a live cyclist I would feel much safer if such "accidents led to the drivers being taken off the road and the resulting disincentive that would give to the others.

You might say he should heave checked mirrors etc. but how many of have decades of driving experience without at least once have not fully checked before at least one manoeuvre.

 

He did "willingly break the law". The fact that lots of people break the same laws every day is, or rather should be, completely irrelevant. That his lawbreaking is seen as somehow less blameworthy than, say, a housebreaker who has not killed anyone, is simply evidence of our crazed addiction to motor vehicles.

 

Save that he didn't break the law. That's the verdict of a jury who listened to the evidence.  Now, he may have "broken" the civil law but that's a different matter. Now, there's certainly, once again, a big discussion to be had about how/whether we use juries in such cases. But, remember, there will have been expert testimony here as well. And, of course, what the prosecution say is not evidence, it's their version of events, one which was rejected by the jury.

Listened to the evidence, or to voices in their heads saying "this could be you"? There should indeed be a discussion about the role of juries, unfortunately it's not one politicians seem prepared to have.

ooldbaker wrote:

I think there should be a way for a court to give bans from driving without a jury thinking that any form of guilt could lead to imprisonment.

Put another way if someone killed me due to a one-off "accident" then I would get no satisfaction seeing them serve a prison sentence but as a live cyclist I would feel much safer if such "accidents led to the drivers being taken off the road and the resulting disincentive that would give to the others.

if driving license removal was actually completely and totally enforceable, so literally without a valid driving license you could never drive a car,van,bus or truck, and keep in mind there are around 70,000 drivers on the roads today ignoring these types of rules and they are only the ones who get caught and get given more points on their non existant license, then fair enough.

but until then yes I think you have to say the price for causing death by careless driving is a prison sentence, because if you know, and I bet most jurors when first presented with these types of cases, or the majority of drivers dont even know thats current setup and likely react with thats far too severe a punishment, then perhaps they will make the effort to indicate properly, they will check the mirrors, they wont drive around as so many people seem to thesedays thinking not doing any of those things and then crashing into something is some kind of non fault accident on their part.

maybe the DfT instead of making stupid cycling videos, should do a death by careless driving video in the same vein as those drink driving ones.

Awavey wrote:

if driving license removal was actually completely and totally enforceable, so literally without a valid driving license you could never drive a car,van,bus or truck,

Obviously we know many unlicenced drivers continue to drive their cars, but e,ployers can and do check, so it should impact them driving large killing machines with poor visibility.

psling wrote:

After all, most drivers appear to be predisposed to think ​it could happen to any of us, poor chap. And that sentiment is towards the driver, not the dead person.

Actually, this is something my wife and I argue about a lot. She is very, very quick to say "it's an accident and everyone makes mistakes " whenever I bring up cases like this one.  She drives a lot; I drive maybe once a fortnight, at most.

(Makes me wonder how she'd react if I got killed on my bike, which is a bit depressing.)

unconstituted wrote:

Another killer walks free.

Yes, but he did conduct himself well during the trial.