Driver found guilty of causing death by careless driving after killing cyclist was using Snapchat moments before fatal incident

Was she on the wrong side ? I know the opening para says that but the detail is less clear.
"The cyclist was pretty much approaching me in my lane. "
I still can't work out what that amounts to.
Either way an admission of careless driving as a minimum.

Reading about incidents like this is one of the reasons I never ride without a camera. Camera footage would have removed any doubt about the facts from the jury's deiberations.

hirsute wrote:

Was she on the wrong side ? I know the opening para says that but the detail is less clear. "The cyclist was pretty much approaching me in my lane. " I still can't work out what that amounts to. Either way an admission of careless driving as a minimum.

My reading of the situation is that she was on the wrong side (presumably that is what the accident investigation concluded) but her defence strategy was to lie about it and claim it was a kamikaze cyclist. 

Yep, the News article says that her BMW strayed onto the opposite carriageway striking the cyclist.

So it seems that she was relying on the defence of ..... they came into my lane and crashed into me..... but the evidence showed otherwise.

The phone use might have swung it - in a previous case a similar thing occurred and it wasn't even held to be careless.

Or lawyerly cleverness - strayed onto wrong side == established in lane => cyclist in her lane. Or driver distracted enough to think they were on a one way street. But yep, mainly I'd settle for lying like a Johnson.

IanMSpencer wrote:

, one has to wonder just how far below the standard of a reasonably careful and competent driver you have to fall before the courts will convict for dangerous driving.

drugs, drink, or an offence while driving an HGV 

Basically nothing that 3 driver members of the jury might routinely do and consider themselves as safe while doing so. We know the numbers checking phones while driving is pretty high as Cycling Mikey has no trouble catching them, and the general driving population considers him a grass to be reporting such trivial (in their view) offences.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/driving-offences

Dangerous driving

The offence of dangerous driving under section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is committed when the defendant’s driving falls far below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver and it would be obvious that driving in that way would be dangerous – section 2A of the RTA 1988.

Some typical examples from court cases of dangerous driving are:

racing, going too fast, or driving aggressively;
ignoring traffic lights, road signs or warnings from passengers;
overtaking dangerously;
driving under the influence of drink or drugs, including prescription drugs;
driving when unfit, including having an injury, being unable to see clearly, not taking prescribed drugs, or being sleepy;
knowing the vehicle has a dangerous fault or an unsafe load;
the driver being avoidably and dangerously distracted, for example by: 
using a hand-held phone or other equipment
reading, or looking at a map
talking to and looking at a passenger
lighting a cigarette, changing a CD or tape, tuning the radio. 
 

Careless or inconsiderate driving

The offence of driving without due care and attention (careless driving) under section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 is committed when the defendant's driving falls below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver - section 3ZA(2) of the RTA 1988.

Some examples of careless or inconsiderate driving are:

overtaking on the inside;
driving too close to another vehicle;
driving through a red light by mistake;
turning into the path of another vehicle;
the driver being avoidably distracted by tuning the radio, lighting a cigarette etc. 
flashing lights to force other drivers to give way;
misusing lanes to gain advantage over other drivers;
unnecessarily staying in an overtaking lane;
unnecessarily slow driving or braking;
dazzling other drivers with un-dipped headlights.

That list seems eminently sensible. Too bad that it doesn't seem to be applied.

It all turns on the word "far". Those three letters are being asked to do too much work, as barristers prove. It's well known over decades yet no fix has been sought.

IanMSpencer wrote:

It all turns on the word "far". Those three letters are being asked to do too much work, as barristers prove. It's well known over decades yet no fix has been sought.

It should be easy to define 'far below' as being an instant fail on a driving test. Passing a driving test is the minimum allowed standard for drivers to go on the road, so driving that would lose points during a test is below standard and an instant fail is far below the required standard. Then, all that's needed is a driving examiner called in to provide their professional opinion.

I suspect the problem is a legal one now, with years of precedent, I don't think a minister of state can override settled law with just a declaration, it probably needs some change in the wording of the statute.

In modern times a lot, too much , law is written to say "the law is defined by the schedule given by the secretary of state" so can be changed without parliamentary scrutiny. The laws here are not written in that way.

Is there any reason why you couldn't bring in a driving examiner as an expert witness - aside from cost?  No issues for "justice" that I can see, both sides get to "test" the evidence. I'm not aware of this happening - and obviously most of this is headed off by the CPS going for the safer option.  Or the police simply not bothering to pass it to them as in the Michael Mason case.

Maybe in a private prosecution like those brought by Cyclists' Defence Fund or the Cycling Silk?  Although one of his efforts set him against a driving instructor and even with the assistance of a collision investigator he lost.  I can't see anything about this in the Michael Mason case either (still pretty sobering even on re-reading).

Actually - maybe that's the reason.  After Gail Purcell, Helen Measures and similar cases maybe it's just a waste and UK juries simply will not convict drivers unless they have no licence, were smoking crack and had posted a scorecard of their road kills.

That's a very useful list but, having written up hundreds of these court cases over the years does reinforce a few things.

1 - The number of times a driver who should have been charged with dangerous driving is instead charged with careless.

2 - Which will be linked to the requirement to charge based on reasonable prospect of conviction.

3 - In turn influenced by propensity of juries to acquit on dangerous but convict on careless (you have to wonder how many of those cases would have resulted on a conviction on dangerous if the lesser charge were not an option).

4 - The actual wording of the offences, ie "far below" for dangerous is maybe too abstract for many jurors to grasp? Setting out the specific examples given by the CPS itself that apply in the case at hand may help the jury reach the correct decision.

5 - Any future reform of the law must include those specific examples within the legislation so there is no cop-out and it isn't just down to CPS guidance (plus with scope to add new examples as and when technology evolves).