Driver pushes cyclist under bus, escapes punishment

apeksdiver · 17 Dec 2012 at 10:09

Mr Jack said:
It was reckless regardless. Anyone who drives a car should (a) understand that opening a door without looking is a threat to other road users and (b) understand that knocking a cyclist under a bus is likely to be fatal.

It not like he intended to knock the poor cyclist under a bus. Accidents happen, sometimes with awful outcomes but a manslaughter charge was probably pushing it.

Westyfield2 · 17 Dec 2012 at 10:14

Mr Jack said:
Tosh and piffle. The driver reckless and carelessly opened his door into the path of the cyclist, causing the collision and knocking the cyclist over into the path of the bus. His actions caused the death of the cyclist and he is the only one of the three that is to blame

LOL. Daily Mail headline writer?

Is it just me that, even when in the comfort and protection of my nice big metal car with airbags etc, does not pass parked cars with 0.001mm clearance but instead gives them a wide berth incase the door opens or they do some other stupid thing? It's nearly as if I'm perceiving that a hazard could develop...

jaybee · 17 Dec 2012 at 10:48

Westyfield2 said:
LOL. Daily Mail headline writer?

Is it just me that, even when in the comfort and protection of my nice big metal car with airbags etc, does not pass parked cars with 0.001mm clearance but instead gives them a wide berth incase the door opens or they do some other stupid thing? It's nearly as if I'm perceiving that a hazard could develop...

Of course, I understand where you are going with it but.... you can't drive past every single parked car expecting a door to open or you'd permanently be much further into the road, which as a cyclist is probably not on your list of priorities in a bus lane with big **** off buses squeezing past you.

When someone opens a car door without looking I think they should be punished bloomin hard. Unfortunately they can't. People can't be punished for being stupid. No law exists for that. You have to try to fit it into existing laws. It can't really be manslaughter. It's like those pranksters that caused the death of that nurse. It was them "at fault" but it was accidental and hence just "one of those things".

Mr Jack · 17 Dec 2012 at 10:53

apeksdiver said:
It not like he intended to knock the poor cyclist under a bus. Accidents happen, sometimes with awful outcomes but a manslaughter charge was probably pushing it.

Yeah, I said as much in my OP. I don't think no punishment at all was appropriate either.

King Damager · 17 Dec 2012 at 11:06

Hard to say really.

I wouldn't have gone with manslaughter, maybe driving with neglect would have been more acceptable.

kd

apeksdiver · 17 Dec 2012 at 11:10

Mr Jack said:
Yeah, I said as much in my OP. I don't think no punishment at all was appropriate either.

When I was learning to ride a motorbike I was taught to allow a car door width when passing, it is no different if I ride a pushbike. The CPS must have thought they could get a conviction of manslaughter, which would have been harsh.

ubersonic · 17 Dec 2012 at 11:32

jaybee said:
When someone opens a car door without looking I think they should be punished bloomin hard. Unfortunately they can't. People can't be punished for being stupid.

Sometimes you have to open the door to look though, we don't know if his Audi had power folding mirrors or not, and all the cars I have had with them have made it very hard to see approaching traffic without opening the door to listen then opening it further to look. In fact I nearly had my door clipped a few times by cyclists riding too close.

Dabbles · 17 Dec 2012 at 11:44

jaybee said:
you can't drive past every single parked car expecting a door to open or you'd permanently be much further into the road, which as a cyclist is probably not on your list of priorities in a bus lane with big **** off buses squeezing past you.

Yes you can. You'd be better riding right in the middle of the bus lane. That way you're out of the way of any car doors opening and buses aren't trying to squeeze you against the kerb.

MooMoo444 · 17 Dec 2012 at 11:48

It's a cyclist, therefore we should all support the driver.

Right guys??

Mr-White · 17 Dec 2012 at 12:50

MeatSack said:
Drivers need to be more aware. Cyclists are not second class road users

When did that change ? :eek:

MW

Fr0dders · 17 Dec 2012 at 13:49

Addicted said:
Sounds like negligence of the driver to actually check his mirrors before opening the door. The blame falls on him, and considering someone DIED from it, I think he should be punished accordingly.

Sure, it's something that can easily happen to anyone, but the cyclist died due to his carelessness.

As someobody has already said, the only offence he is guilty of, is the offence of openning a car door without looking. Its been posted above that in the eyes of the law this is a misdemeanor and carries a small fine. Just like ....

Meridian said:
Again I will use my favourite analogy: you throw a piece of litter on the ground. An old lady slips on it, falls, fractures her skull, and dies of it. Are you guilty of manslaughter? Because this is what you are suggesting. As I've already said, the tests for manslaughter go a lot further than merely: "Person A carried out act B, and as the result of a chain of events, person C died". Many people open car doors in front of cyclists, but it very rarely results in death - the fact that this is headline news should tell you that. There's a vast gulf between a act of carelessness which unfortunately results in a death, and an act of such criminal negligence that a death was clearly a realistic possibility - which it wasn't here. But for the bus, the cyclist would probably only have cuts and bruises.

Littering

Same circumstances, somebody commits a very small crime that warrants only a small fine, but a chain of events means somebody dies from it. Does this mean that person is then guilty of man slaughter because they dropped that piece of litter ?

No, absolutely not in my eyes. And the Jury Agreed.

Vonhelmet · 17 Dec 2012 at 13:54

Richie said:
no one has brought up the fact that it is actually an offence to open your car door without due care and attention yet? The offence is s.105 of the The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1986/1078/regulation/105/made

It does seem to be the wrong offence to charge with. I thought manslaughter required intent to cause harm - GBH, I think. Of course the jury couldn't convict on that charge if that's the requirement.

Fr0dders · 17 Dec 2012 at 14:05

Vonhelmet said:
It does seem to be the wrong offence to charge with. I thought manslaughter required intent to cause harm - GBH, I think. Of course the jury couldn't convict on that charge if that's the requirement.

Theres involuntary and voluntary manslaughter for when there is and isn't intention.

In theory he could be guilty of manslaughter. According to Wiki

Involuntary manslaughter arises where the accused did not intend to cause death or serious injury but caused the death of another through recklessness or criminal negligence.

For Criminal Negligence

The test of any mens rea element is always based on an assessment of whether the accused had foresight of the prohibited consequences and desired to cause those consequences to occur. The three types of test are

So by not being mindful of the consequences he in theory is guilty of Criminal Neglience which means he is guilty of Involuntary manslaughter

But due to human nature, he wasn't found guilty.

PistolPete · 17 Dec 2012 at 17:03

Many people are looking at this in black or white as to whether he broke the law or not when this could be a simply case of having a damn good barrister.

Vonhelmet · 18 Dec 2012 at 01:04

MrLOL said:
Theres involuntary and voluntary manslaughter for when there is and isn't intention.

In theory he could be guilty of manslaughter. According to Wiki

For Criminal Negligence

So by not being mindful of the consequences he in theory is guilty of Criminal Neglience which means he is guilty of Involuntary manslaughter

But due to human nature, he wasn't found guilty.

Ooh, thanks for the info.

Richie · 18 Dec 2012 at 07:14

ubersonic · 18 Dec 2012 at 08:19

MrLOL said:
So by not being mindful of the consequences he in theory is guilty of Criminal Neglience which means he is guilty of Involuntary manslaughter

But due to human nature, he wasn't found guilty.

The problem is that under English/Welsh law in order to be guilty of involuntary manslaughter by gross negligence the following must be met:

the defendant owed a duty to the deceased to take care;
the defendant breached this duty;
the breach caused the death of the deceased; and
the defendant's negligence was gross, that is, it showed such a disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime and deserve punishment.

1&2 can easily be argued however 3 fails as the deceased's negligence also played an important role and 4 is subjective and in the jury's view did not apply.

Dogbreath · 18 Dec 2012 at 08:37

PistolPete said:
Many people are looking at this in black or white as to whether he broke the law or not when this could be a simply case of having a damn good barrister.

Who are these "many people"? I very much doubt that anyone believes he is blameless - not checking before you open your door is irresponsible at best. The debate is whether he is solely responsible for the death of the cyclist or not, and I have to agree with the jury's verdict in this case.

The childish tabloid-esque title of this thread irritates me every time I read it. Nothing like making a thread prejudicial before you even read the first post.

Orionaut · 18 Dec 2012 at 09:25

Of course one also has to consider that just because the door opening resulted in the cyclist hitting it doesn't automatically mean that the door was opened "Carelessly".

If the claim that he only opened the door a crack in order to look back is to be taken at face value, I am perfectly happy to concede that he actually used appropriate care in opening his door, but despite this, and for reasons that were beyond his control. The cyclist still managed to collide with it!

The offence of "Carelessly opening a vehicle door" is more typically applied to those who (Quite clearly carelessly) fling their doors wide without warning, not those that just open them by a couple of inches.

Fr0dders · 18 Dec 2012 at 10:48

ubersonic said:
The problem is that under English/Welsh law in order to be guilty of involuntary manslaughter by gross negligence the following must be met:

the defendant owed a duty to the deceased to take care;

the defendant breached this duty;

the breach caused the death of the deceased; and

the defendant's negligence was gross, that is, it showed such a disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime and deserve punishment.

1&2 can easily be argued however 3 fails as the deceased's negligence also played an important role and 4 is subjective and in the jury's view did not apply.

Well this is it isn't it. The law is there for him to be prosecuted. We don't need a new offence that the driver should be guilty of. The Jury decided him opening the door without thinking didn't agree that it caused the death.

You could easily argue it did, had he not opened the door, then he wouldn't have been knocked under the bus. But the jury decided that him opening the door dint amount to gross negligence