raria

Ugh not motor cyclists, drivers! Can't you edit a title?

From the UK Jury fails to reach verdict on whether Ayasha Penfold killed cyclist John Durey through dangerous driving in Kingsnorth

For those of you who don't have the time to read it.

1) She overtakes two vehicles at once and hits a cyclist going in the opposite direction head on.
2) Road is open and flat and she should have seen him.
3) Initally said she braked but then changed her story to say the lorry/truck she overtook made her hit him!

Hung jury if she drove recklessly? WTH. Either the cyclist is a vehicle or they aren't. Since they are in most places they should have the same level of expectation to be seen and drivers shouldn't be able to use the old "I didn't see him that's why I killed him" line.

mcours2006

So, what now? Open season on cyclists?

cb400bill

mcours2006

Still incorrect title. Replace 'cyclist' with 'motorist'.

CliffordK

I have a couple of drivers a year that decide they have to pass a car while approaching me head-on. Usually in places where there are relatively wide shoulders.

With me on the shoulder, they whiz by OK. I started waving my left hand to try to draw attention to myself, but don't think I've ever had a car slow down and pull back into their own lane.

The worst, however, was at Crater Lake. Narrow shoulderless road with unprotected dropoffs, and moderately rough pavement. I'd be descending at about 40 MPH in the middle of the lane when cars going uphill would decide they had to pass cyclists by lane splitting... except I felt I needed the whole lane due to road conditions. Was I going too fast? Maybe, but I still had cars that needed to pass me while I was descending at 40 MPH.

Of course, it is quite regular that vehicles will pass me going in the same direction I'm travelling, with oncoming traffic from the opposite direction. I've gotten used to it. Usually there is a bit of a weave, with the oncoming vehicles moving onto the shoulder to give a little more space.

I think the problem with this case is inadequate driver training. Ayasha Penfold was apparently a young driver (20?). The cyclist hit, John Durey was travelling faster than average (22 MPH), which decreases tolerances somewhat, and perhaps also makes them harder for drivers to predict. If he had been riding at 10 MPH, she might have safely passed the vehicle and returned to her lane before passing him.

What really is needed is more emphasis on care of passing "vulnerable road users", and to instill that into the core of all driver training.

I've suggested "Veto Questions" for drivers exams. If they miss a question about vulnerable road users, then it is an automatic fail.

I'm not sure what to do about drivers like Ayasha Penfold. I'm not convinced that a long prison term or huge fine would solve anything. Take away the driver's license for life if one wishes. Heck, it would be cheaper to buy here a very nice bicycle to ride than conducting the trial.

Oneder

UK courts are softest in the world, it's a shock when they hold anyone culpable of anything.

Oneder

Give her a large fine and suspend her license for 10 years. At least then you know she personally will never do something dangerous again.

CliffordK

So, she starts driving again at 30, with no practice as a young adult.

I've ridden with a couple of drivers that started driving at 30 or 40. It can be quite unnerving.

The Living Car Free people have demonstrated that it is perfectly possible to live without driving. If she gets married, she can ride as a passenger with the spouse.

CB HI

Passing two vehicles at once, is by definition careless/reckless.

raria

What gets me was the sheer lack of admitting any guilt. She blamed the truck for pushing her too wide. What about just breaking when you knew you could not pass.

Daniel4

A jury of your peers is a jury of the defendant's peers. So if the defendant is a bad driver, the jury would be made up of bad drivers too.

Amazing that it's a hung jury and not one who would aquit the defendant.

CB HI

Jury likely had a frequent cyclist or spouse of a cyclist for that to happen.

B. Carfree

Well, there's two of us in the same county who want this. I wonder if we can start a movement. It won't be terribly meaningful unless we get some sort of retesting regimen in place. It's insane that someone takes the knowledge test at age 16 and is never again asked to demonstrate that they are aware of the laws governing the operation of a motor vehicle.

Daniel4

Count me in for those veto questions as well as restesting. And I've been advocating a long time for a minimum of 8 hours of in-traffic bicycle experience as a requirement for a driver's license.

jefnvk

I'm not nuanced enough in British law, what is the difference between "careless" driving she plead guilty for, and "dangerous" driving she denies.

By whose definition?

Having lived in some very rural areas with slow logging trucks on the road, sometimes passing two vehicles at once is the only way to keep traffic flowing, when you get someone behind them that absolutely refuse to pass the truck themselves.

I-Like-To-Bike

Has a single individual in any area of decision making/rule setting/law enforcement, anywhere, paid one iota of interest in acting on your advocacy of this requirement?

mr_bill

I don't know, but this is funny....



-mr. bill

Number400

The driver is lucky that it was not another truck coming the other way. I don't know about this case but on a straight piece of road it is often hard to see well enough around a semi to confidently make a safe pass. People need to be more patient and stop accelerating into unknown situations. IMHO, a double pass requires commitment and indicates aggressive/impatient dangerous driving to me. Watch some Russian dashcam footage and you will never pass another truck again.

JonnyHK 

Bit of Google and cut and paste on UK law:

• Careless driving is below the standard expected by a competent and careful driver.
• Dangerous driving is far below the standard expected by a competent and careful driver.

Chris0516

Why am I not surprised.

jefnvk

I guess by those definitions I would side that it was indeed careless, not dangerous, driving, at least from the facts given.

JonnyHK 

There is an interesting dynamic between all the different common law descriptions of the levels of an offence.

Accidental>Careless>Dangerous>Reckless and so on.

The police and prosecutors do have to be careful to pick the best charge depending on the evidence. Juries might just acquit on a 'higher' charge when they might have convicted on a 'lower' charge.

My favourite was always "depraved indifference".

KD5NRH

Not necessarily, depending on relative speed and sight lines.

However, hitting anyone in the oncoming lane while passing is, by definition, not passing with due care and attention.

Chris0516

Why am I not surprised.

ExPatTyke

Just getting the Police here to take any action is a lottery, depending on which force you have to deal with. A few are good, and take cycling incidents seriously, some are not good.

I've reported two frightening near misses to Avon & Somerset - no action taken.

This guy reported a close pass to South Yorkshire - the call recording over the video says it all: -