tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7651597981151570147.post5866350168505686000..comments2024-03-15T07:44:55.087+00:00Comments on The Cycling Lawyer: Update from Court: CPS v BhamraMartin Porterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07802050121734667593noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7651597981151570147.post-75324698082756874922013-03-10T16:03:51.022+00:002013-03-10T16:03:51.022+00:00The thought strikes me : having explicitly exclude...The thought strikes me : having explicitly excluded all consideration of events before (and including) the impact, that might facilitate a second prosecution just for that timespan.<br /><br />However, as the relatives say, it would achieve little in practice, and it could be offensive to try to capitalise on a tragedy.<br /><br />What can be done to improve the handling of cases in future ?<br />More pro-cyclist anti-motorist policing.<br />Self-recording video cameras, certainly.<br />Lobby abi.org.uk to reduce premiums for dash-cams, like Russia ? Given the widespread 'denial' even motorists' own evidence will help us. ("I was nowhere near you when you slapped the side of my car - I had gone clear past you with plenty of room")<br />If it is so perceived by the victim, it is aggravated as a 'hate crime' - Motorism.<br /><br />What can be done to reduce the likelihood of future incidents ?<br />Educating motorists to tolerate 'taking the lane', and how to overtake safely - both in training and at test.<br />A culture of responsibility for ones actions and their effects on others, rather than 'accidents happen'. <br />Widening the notion of safety to include others, not just self.<br />'What I should do', not 'What can I get away with' ! Better 'Hazard Pereption'.<br /><br />The cost of speed. Ability to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear. Slowing/stopping when blinded by low sun or headlamps. Polarised headlamps + glasses to remove glare.<br /><br />Clarifying the Highway Code - remove the 'kerb' reference. Primary + secondary positions. Acceptance of riding 2-abreast except where BOTH busy AND narrow (same rules as taking the lane). Use the other lane, not just a minimal 3 foot or car-space. Why not ?EricDhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02627499456104670273noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7651597981151570147.post-48490318240550944932013-02-02T12:07:30.760+00:002013-02-02T12:07:30.760+00:00Thanks Ian,
So does that mean that even a FOI requ...Thanks Ian,<br />So does that mean that even a FOI request would be unfruitful.cbrndcnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7651597981151570147.post-30828123131013233412013-02-01T10:02:19.608+00:002013-02-01T10:02:19.608+00:00Transcripts aren't produced for Magistrates...Transcripts aren't produced for Magistrates' Court trials.Ian Spencerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14174335555236627724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7651597981151570147.post-86826040198149737892013-01-25T09:27:42.307+00:002013-01-25T09:27:42.307+00:00Where and when is the transcript for this case ava...Where and when is the transcript for this case available?cbrndcnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7651597981151570147.post-82238542659544625492013-01-24T15:55:17.821+00:002013-01-24T15:55:17.821+00:00"I was proud to be British and I was pround o..."I was proud to be British and I was pround of our legal system. Not any longer."<br /><br />I agree entirely... and having moved the US about a decade ago, I can see the point of private litigation. How can the CPS treat citizens like this? How can it be so arbitrary?<br />xchopphttp://www.youtube.com/xchoppnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7651597981151570147.post-55098110100766037622013-01-23T19:05:08.733+00:002013-01-23T19:05:08.733+00:00Part of the problem here is that justice has not b...Part of the problem here is that justice has not been <i>seen</i> to be done. The facts of the case were not brought out in open court, leaving the public unable to understand the apparent leniency. Coming on top of the widespread feeling that the justice system is unduly lenient to drivers who cause injury and death, this was a huge own goal by CPS.<br /><br />If the greater charge had been brought as well and tested in court, the circumstances would be known. The question is whether it would have been right to subject a distressed driver to a trial on a charge on which there was no hope of conviction. There does not seem to be a way of holding CPS accountable for the decisions taken behind closed doors.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7651597981151570147.post-75008488442031012082013-01-23T14:02:45.707+00:002013-01-23T14:02:45.707+00:00I'd also like to pass on Best wishes and sympa...I'd also like to pass on Best wishes and sympathy to Tom's family and friends. I hope you are coping as best you can, it is very sad to read about Toms death.<br /><br />Thank You to Tom's Mother and Aunt for sharing your thoughts and providing some more background. Cylce Cummuternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7651597981151570147.post-57878512692249158032013-01-23T08:38:16.369+00:002013-01-23T08:38:16.369+00:00In your view, where does the system fail them? Is ...In your view, where does the system fail them? Is it the police failing to investigate (I'm under the impression they take accident investigation seriously); the CPS (target driven so only go for sure fire wins; level of competence); the legislation (application or the letter of the law?); or the courts (who in this case never were allowed near the important part of the incident).Ian Spencerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14174335555236627724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7651597981151570147.post-91372502567396704792013-01-23T00:01:25.087+00:002013-01-23T00:01:25.087+00:00Ian, I can't give any hard research evidence t...Ian, I can't give any hard research evidence to show this, but I would disagree with you over your suspicion that: "if a pedestrian was run over in the road, the feeling would be that the system would assume that the motorist was at fault unless it could be shown that the pedestrian could be shown to be acting foolishly".<br /><br />I'm afraid that pedestrians fare as badly as cyclists.<br /><br />Dr. Robert Davis, Chair, Road Danger Reduction ForumAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7651597981151570147.post-10607798364772560952013-01-22T13:29:59.969+00:002013-01-22T13:29:59.969+00:00Perhaps sometimes we are too pessimistic about UK ...Perhaps sometimes we are too pessimistic about UK law, sometimes all it needs is a judge with a deft touch to nudge things in the right direction.<br /><br />I think what is perturbing is that I suspect that if a pedestrian was run over in the road, the feeling would be that the system would assume that the motorist was at fault unless it could be shown that the pedestrian could be shown to be acting foolishly (running out from behind a bus across a dual carriageway with free running traffic being a simple example).<br /><br />In part, this is because the highway code has evolved over the years to highlight that pedestrians are vulnerable and when in the road have right of way in a number of circumstances, such as crossing at a junction where a driver is expected to give way. There is clear direction that drivers are expected to be wary of the possibility of pedestrians being in the road and it is the driver's responsibility to cope with this.<br /><br />I don't think it needs a massive change in legislation. We just need to support the judicial system by giving them a clear set of guidelines of what is and is not an acceptable standard of road usage by cyclists and drivers. Such guidance barely exists at the moment.Ian Spencerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14174335555236627724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7651597981151570147.post-90741168693480289552013-01-22T12:26:36.583+00:002013-01-22T12:26:36.583+00:00Ian, I very much agree with your final paragraph. ...Ian, I very much agree with your final paragraph. But it only applies when we can be say that the cyclist was in fact proceeding normally along the road. Positive evidence of that can often be lacking. It is probably lacking when the victim is transported 90m on a car bonnet away from the original impact site. Maybe the court should simply assume it in the absence of evidence, but such a "burden of proof" law in cyclist collisions does not exist in England, in contrast to Germany, etc. I would suggest that the English court's present apparent need for such clear evidence that the cyclist was proceeding normally is likely a key part of why drivers so get often get away so lightly with SMIDSY collisions, in addition to the concerns you mention.ivannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7651597981151570147.post-82645608641460306962013-01-21T19:10:08.425+00:002013-01-21T19:10:08.425+00:00Ivan, it would never be the case that the only evi...Ivan, it would never be the case that the only evidence is the testimony of the driver.<br /><br />There are lots of things that can be established - road layout and so on to come up with a general picture. Then it is likely that other elements can be established to understand the likely point of two road users colliding, whether that is a pedestrian or cyclist or car. A reliable picture of the circumstances can then be built and the testimony of the driver can be tested against that picture. <br /><br />For example (nothing related to this case, by the way), if a car collides with a bike where both are approaching a bollard which is 3 metres from the side of the road, then we can say fairly conclusively that a car should not have been attempting to pass, regardless of where the cyclist was in the road; if the cyclist was appropriately equipped we can say that a reasonable driver should have been able to see them where ever they were on a roundabout unless they can be shown to have been travelling the wrong way round the roundabout (or the driver could demonstrate some substandard aspect on the part of the road design); if the low sun was a factor, then we can say that the driver was not compensating properly for the reduction in visibility. Any number of facts can be gathered to come to a conclusion for which there is no other *reasonable* explanation. <br /><br />The underlying question often seems to be "Was it too much to expect a driver to cope with a cyclist on the road in these circumstances?" At the moment, it seems to be a suggestion that cyclists can be too difficult for the average motorist to be expected to cope with in circumstances where the cyclist is behaving responsibly and in accordance with the normal standards of cycling behaviour.Ian Spencerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14174335555236627724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7651597981151570147.post-54496931442419661562013-01-21T16:32:46.016+00:002013-01-21T16:32:46.016+00:00"In the absence of any striking explanation, ..."In the absence of any striking explanation, a passing car should not collide with a cyclist. This is on the face of it indicative of a lack of due care." I should like that statement to be true, but many would consider one rather ordinary possibility that it was the cyclist who was lacking in care that resulted in the accident.<br /><br />Let us suppose it is, in reality, a case of inattention by the car driver and consider what might happen when the driver is interviewed. He might say that all he knows is that a cyclist suddenly and unexpectedly arrived on his front windscreen, but he cannot say why, it was as if he came from nowhere. The driver further says he is not aware of being inattentive or distracted by anything immediately prior to the incident, and there is no useful evidence on this point. Thus the suggestion that the cyclist suddenly pulled across the road seems to the driver as plausible as any other explanation.<br /><br />Would it not be difficult for the CPS to build a case given such a bland explanation by the driver? In the case that is immediately prior to this in your blog, there were witnesses driving behind the accused, who affirmed the cyclist was proceeding normally and visibly, and thus demonstrating the inattention of the convicted driver.ivannoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7651597981151570147.post-51984645921247161282013-01-21T06:57:35.318+00:002013-01-21T06:57:35.318+00:00Your blogs are totally worth gift quantify and liv...Your blogs are totally worth gift quantify and liveliness. <br /><a href="http://www.levinson-axelrodlawyers.net" rel="nofollow">wrongful death lawyer</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7651597981151570147.post-21449214563749236182013-01-20T15:05:47.998+00:002013-01-20T15:05:47.998+00:00Thank you both for those really supportive words. ...Thank you both for those really supportive words. It is so nice to feel the human touch in this.<br />Liz (Tom's Mum)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7651597981151570147.post-62452500907091879752013-01-20T15:02:48.106+00:002013-01-20T15:02:48.106+00:00Please accept my sincerest condolences.
I've...Please accept my sincerest condolences. <br /><br />I've friends who've found themselves in the grip of media interest, I appreciate how difficult it can be.Sarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00466615622721694408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7651597981151570147.post-73685290993099971962013-01-20T12:25:58.950+00:002013-01-20T12:25:58.950+00:00Thank you very much for your comment. You have my...Thank you very much for your comment. You have my very deepest sympathy for your loss. I am also sorry that all the publicity surrounding the sentence is prolonging the hurt.Martin Porterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07802050121734667593noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7651597981151570147.post-67272529679472833562013-01-20T11:52:40.092+00:002013-01-20T11:52:40.092+00:00As Tom's mother I would like to explain for th...As Tom's mother I would like to explain for the record how we, his close family, feel that justice has been done for us and for Tom in the only meaningful way it could be. I have been misrepresented and misquoted in the national press who were sent the story by The Solihull TImes without my consent or knowledge. I only agreed to speak to the local paper because I was told they wanted to write a piece about Tom's life. I refused to comment on the sentence and said I didn't want the article to be about that. It was naive of me, but I thought a local paper would show sensitivity to it's readership, a lot of whom knew Tom personally. The article was not at all what I was told, and it put the most upsetting, shocking headlines on the front with our precious photo of Tom.. all so big that the story had to go inside. The Birmingham Mail phoned me to ask if I thought the £35 fine was insulting, and if I thought it was saying that that was what he was worth. I naturally broke down in tears (it was also the first time I'd been told the amount) and yet I still said 'the most important thing is that the taxi driver was affected by it and cares, and he handed back his taxi licence early on'. The Daily Mail further headlined me as 'hitting out at the insulting fine, saying 'it has ruined our lives''. Absolutely no fine or sentence could ruin our lives.. losing Tom has devastated our lives, full stop.<br />To answer the question of justice for Tom and his family. The facts are that the driver apparently reacted out of panic and put his foot on the accelerator instead of the brake. All we need to know is it was quick for Tom. It is far too painful for me to write any more about that. The fact that the driver has not been able to drive since and has issued a statement of remorse to the family is all the justice we need to try to put this horrible aspect behind us, and for friends and family to continue in our private grief for our precious Tom. If others wish to continue to push for a change in legal processes, that is for them to do and is fine. But our loss is not helped at all by persuing a higher fine or penalty. I am deeply sorry for any hurt caused by the media coverage to Tom's friends and family, all of whom have been the most wonderful support to us.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7651597981151570147.post-91965032453891208042013-01-20T09:25:13.263+00:002013-01-20T09:25:13.263+00:00I read this on Road cc today. In the same Solihul...I read this on Road cc today. In the same Solihul court,<br /><br />"In comparison, Donna Lloyd, 27, hit a parked car in a multi-storey car park and drove away. She was fined £110, asked to pay £80 costs and £15 victim surcharge, and give seven points on her licence - four more than Bhamra."<br /><br />The sentencing of Bhamra cannot be descibed as justice for Tom and his family.cbrndcnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7651597981151570147.post-8116533257356421332013-01-19T16:11:20.076+00:002013-01-19T16:11:20.076+00:00Thank you, Martin. I have emailed my MP this morni...Thank you, Martin. I have emailed my MP this morning including a link (among others) to your article.Sarahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00466615622721694408noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7651597981151570147.post-29212613159393174952013-01-18T18:14:26.643+00:002013-01-18T18:14:26.643+00:00Interesting to contrast this case - http://www.bbc...Interesting to contrast this case - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-west-wales-21087633 where someone had driven a 4x4 up Snowdon (twice)<br /><br />No-one was actually hurt so I'm all the more intrigued that the charge was 'dangerous driving' and he was convicted when it seems so hard to get that charge to stick when a cyclist has been killed.<br /><br />I suspect it's back to the 'could have been me' on the part of the jurors. Running down a cyclist whilst distracted by the radio/mobile phone/"low winter sun" the jury think "there but for the grace of god go I" and acquit but they can't imagine driving their car up Snowdon even though the danger to anyone else would be no worse than someone legally driving on a BOAT.<br /><br />I've come across enough 4x4s and lots of trailbikes off road over the years on steeper, more technical, trails that are legal for them to travel on (and lots on trails that they're not)<br /><br />Ignore for a moment the damage (which should have been criminal damage) or the trespass (? driving where not allowed to) and this seems a very strange charge to have brought. No more danger to the public here than on trails legal for 4x4's and far far more danger to the public from some idiot doing 50 in a residential area.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7651597981151570147.post-76280681019699273802013-01-18T16:53:39.828+00:002013-01-18T16:53:39.828+00:00"But given the charge before them and the fac..."But given the charge before them and the fact that Mr Bhamra was not proved to be drunk, drugged or speeding, the magistrates were directed to give the lightest level of fine." <br /><br />I hope I am not insensitive for querying this. The sentencing guidelines might deem this to start as the lowest level, but then aggravating factors of injury and damage to property are to be taken into account and ultimately the guidance is only that and as long as the sentence can be shown to be reasonable, then magistrates have discretion to chose an appropriate sentence within the available scale.<br /><br />It may be a misunderstanding in phrasing, but nobody should be directing the magistrates as to what sentence they must give - they have a legal advisor who offers them guidance, but the magistrates are the final arbiters of the decision and all they need to show is that they have acted reasonably taking account of the guidance.<br /><br />I understand that some legal advisors do tend to act more forcefully and seek to tell magistrates what they must do but as I understand it this is inappropriate. <br /><br />I am not a lawyer and I'd be interested in a lawyer's comments!Ian Spencerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14174335555236627724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7651597981151570147.post-75810444074511070782013-01-18T16:44:02.283+00:002013-01-18T16:44:02.283+00:00Sara,
I would try RoadPeace(details on lonk in Mar...Sara,<br />I would try RoadPeace(details on lonk in Martin's blog),<br /><br />Dr. Robert Davis, Chair RDRFAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7651597981151570147.post-52029015810408082782013-01-18T16:42:11.518+00:002013-01-18T16:42:11.518+00:00There is a Parliamentary Committee about to start....There is a Parliamentary Committee about to start. Do what I have done and write to your MP. There are two possible problems if you believe that this is the wrong conclusion to arrive at: 1) That the law is wrong and needs amending. 2) That the CPS have failed to support the judicial process and brought it into disrepute.<br /><br />I would add that the magistrates have sentencing *guidelines* and would have been advised to take account of the aggravating factors they could have taken into account, and also used their reasonable discretion. A significant number of points would not have been unduly onerous: if you end up with a headline sentence that is less than for driving at 34mph with no consequences, there is a problem. The magistrates also have a duty to uphold the reputation of the courts.Ian Spencerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14174335555236627724noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7651597981151570147.post-42981277899278482502013-01-18T16:40:30.947+00:002013-01-18T16:40:30.947+00:00Yes. The ones I support are CTC, British Cycling ...Yes. The ones I support are CTC, British Cycling and Roadpeace.Martin Porterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07802050121734667593noreply@blogger.com