- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Statue of Justice, Old Bailey (licensed CC BY 2.0 on Flickr by Ronnie Macdonald).jpgJury clears ‘hungover’ Porsche driver of killing cyclist by dangerous driving
A Porsche driver who sent a text to a friend to say he was ‘hungover’ from a party the evening before shortly before hitting and killing a cyclist has been found not guilty by a jury of causing death by dangerous driving.
James Bryan, aged 37, was driving back to Harrogate, North Yorkshire, from a barbecue in Wilmslow, Cheshire to drop off groceries for his parents when he struck and killed 36-yeasr-old cyclist Andrew Jackson on the A168 between Wetherby and Boroughbridge on the afternoon of 10 May 2020, reports The Stray Ferret.
At the time, England was in national lockdown (some restrictions would be lifted three days later), with people told to stay at home, other than for daily exercise, essential shopping, medical needs, caring for a vulnerable person, or undertaking key jobs that could not be carried out from home.
Prosecuting, Anne Richardson told York Crown Court that Bryan, who had already pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of causing death by careless driving, was suspected of having used his mobile phone to send and receive messages and review social media in the moments leading up to the fatal crash.
She said that analysis of his phone showed that it was unlocked when he struck Mr Jackson from behind in his Porsche Carrera 911, and that his Facebook and Instagram accounts were both open, and that Bryan – who denied using his phone while driving – must have been “distracted” given that the cyclist was clearly visible.
The previous evening, Bryan had been drinking and also took cocaine at a barbecue in Wilmslow – more than 50 miles from his home in Harrogate, and while traces of the latter were found in his system when he was tested after the crash, he did not return a positive result for excessive levels of either that drug or alcohol.
“The front of the Porsche collided with the rear of Mr Jackson’s bike and Andrew Jackson came off his bike, went up in the air and hit his head on the windscreen and roof of the car, and landed on the road behind the car,” said Ms Richardson, who insisted that Bryan’s standard of driving would have been impaired by the effects of the alcohol and drugs he had taken the night before.
She also said that he “wasn’t looking at the road ahead of him” when he hit Mr Jackson, who died at the scene from head injuries sustained in the crash and was pronounced dead by an off-duty intensive-care consultant who stopped at the scene.
The court heard that during the barbecue, Bryan had sent a message to a friend in which he said, “I’m so drunk I can’t see,” and in another message sent on his way back to North Yorkshire from Cheshire, he told another friend he was hungover from the night before.
When interviewed by police, Bryan insisted that Mr Jackson “came out of nowhere” and had veered into his path as he overtook him, a claim repeated in court by defence counsel Sophia Dower, who insisted that her client was in a “fit and proper state” to drive and that he “didn’t have time to react.”
However, a police collision investigator said that a reconstruction of the incident showed that Mr Jackson had been riding along the edge of the road, close to the grass verge, and that the driver had not attempted to move around the rider.
In a statement released on Friday afternoon after the jury cleared Bryan of causing death by dangerous driving, Mr Jackson’s family said: “The outcome from today doesn’t change anything for us; we are still learning to live with the gaping hole in our lives left by Andrew.
“However, it is important we were here to represent Andrew, to get justice for him and to show just how much he is still loved and missed.
“We all deserve to feel safe on our roads and to make it home to our loved ones,” the family added.
“We respectfully ask for time and space for our family to process the events of this week as we continue to grieve for our husband, father, son and friend.”
Bryan is due to be sentenced on the causing death by careless driving charge on Friday 21 October.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- Veganpotter 3 hours 10 min ago
5000miles in on my trainer bike with Silca Synergetic and my bottle looks like I can return it without getting any questions😂 I have a very strong...
- stonojnr 3 hours 41 min ago
Id want my money back if Id paid to read it, the Daily Star used to print better quality storys than that, call that quality journalism ?...
- eburtthebike 4 hours 27 min ago
“it’s only right tiny minority who recklessly disregard others face full weight of the law” Of course. But not the reckless majority.
- stonojnr 4 hours 37 min ago
Ducati is the wrong comparison, Ducati sell because they have the Italian sports heritage, and their bikes just always look and sound right....
- mark1a 5 hours 20 min ago
A bit of an update on this. I'm indirectly involved in a plan as one of my work colleagues runs the local cycling club. I say indirectly as I'm not...
- chrisonabike 5 hours 40 min ago
Perhaps you're confusing them with "Just stop oil"?...
- don simon fbpe 6 hours 27 min ago
Aren't the levers backward compatible?
- A V Lowe 7 hours 27 min ago
Been working with rail & bus operators for around 40 years, with a lot of data from systesm world-wide...
- MikrG 7 hours 40 min ago
Some Highways Authorities insist on over engineered designs, and that might have happened here. They should be following Local Transport Note 1/20.
Add new comment
79 comments
Precisely, that's why I would advocate (as I mentioned below) moving to the French system of having a tribunal of experts judge cases, not juries. In too many cases juries are clearly returning verdicts that have more to do with the way they think they would like to be treated (as you correctly say, "just a bit of bad luck, could've happened to anyone") if they were caught doing the same rather than the law and the evidence as presented to them.
I'm not sure that would be any better. The 3 magistrates who decided my close passer was not guilty completely ignored the fact that the prosecution got her to admit she was too close.
As much as it pains me to say it, this case shows why prosecutors try to get death by careless driving instead of death by dangerous driving as they know from experience the car driving jury will be idiots.
Oh I have been there and then some, my worst close pass offender (https://road.cc/content/news/cyclist-almost-run-down-impatient-peugeot-driver-281267) was acquitted because the magistrates bought his story that I suddenly swerved in front of him from two metres away when he was doing 30mph (leaving him a physically impossible reaction/response/action time of around 0.2 of a second), despite the fact that the video clearly proved he didn't arrive in my space until three seconds after I began manouevering.
However, in France the judges on the tribunal (usually three) are fully qualified legal experts, very unlike our system of amateur magistrates; applicants for places (which are hotly contested) are usually already in the legal profession, must be over thirty and:
If they pass then the prospective judges have to undertake three years of intensive full-time education at the Ecole Nationale de la Magistrature in Bordeaux (and many testing examinations) before they can qualify to hear cases, rather different to our own system.
Ah yes, your famous closest pass. Didn't most posters agree it was your fault? . . . . . . . . . . or possibly one poster just kept repeating it, I forget. 🤣🤣🤣
It would be interesting to know if the French system ends up with fairer outcomes.
It was primarily just one poster...... and I don’t think you want to associate yourself with him.
I have seen stats (though unfortunately can't recall where) showing that inquisitorial systems have lower rates of miscarriages of justice than adversarial ones, but I don't know any specific figures for France.
I'm with you for specific categories of offenses. Is that a leap too far for our legal system though? Also I'm not sure it'll solve the problem on its own - after all the judge is a driver (or is driven around) and the "standard" is hopelessly vague! Until recently I was optimistic about the idea of being more precise in these cases. So explicitly linking the offenses to what you're licenced to do rather than "do you think they're a good driver?" subjectivity. That means bring in the driving examiners and have direction along the lines of "if it'd fail a driving test it cannot be considered safe driving".
I was hopeful as this could be more in line with the current system because their evidence could still be questioned. However there was a recent case here where IIRC there was a collision investigator called who spelled it out in evidence but that still didn't go anywhere.
Hard to express how furious this sort of ridiculous verdict makes me. Police.uk defines dangerous driving as:
How is driving when massively hungover from drink and drugs, with your phone open, and ploughing into a cyclist in broad daylight without deviating from your course at all not "far below the minimum standard"? I really think it might be time to consider, as in France, removing the right to jury trial (replacing them with a tribunal of legal experts) for all but the most serious offences; time and again juries deliver verdicts that seem too bear no relation whatsoever to the facts presented to them. This is especially obvious in motoring cases where the fact that normally 8 out of 12 of the jury will be motorists themselves quite clearly presents a bias problem.
RIP Andrew and sincere condolences to his loved ones.
I know that road well and avoid it like the plague, as it is playground for people driving the usual suspects (Audi, BMW etc). The only and last time I rode on it I got a deliberate close pass from a Jag (presumably a punishment pass for spoiling his fun). I know other cyclists who have been hit on the stretch of road.
As for a not guilty verdit for dangerous driving words fail me (at least printable ones). I only hope that when he is sentenced for the lesser charge the judge takes into account the fact that he lied to the court about hi phone usage and trying to blame the cyclist, and throws everything at him that the law allows (probably wishful thinking on my part).
"who had already pleaded guilty to the lesser charge of causing death by careless driving"
What exactly is the mitigtion for dangerous driving during the major lockdown ?
Agree, the "lockdown" and "drove to barbecue to get trashed on booze and coke" would seem incompatible. Alas we'll never know since the jury rejected the charge. The only effect this had was to make the conservative CPS give it a go. Might have had an effect on sentencing? It wouldn't surprise me if the legal system refused to join those dots while allowing mitigation of "but he had to get back because he had to drive to help parents with groceries"...
Leaving aside the fact our masters were setting precedents for driving at the time (including travelling after being diagnosed with Covid) and throwing parties.
My first thought was "hungover = still pissed". Lots of people still really haven't got that message e.g. "but it was the next day!". Dunno when they did the drugs and alcohol testing. Sad waste of a life by selfish behaviour. Another strange case of how willing the legal system is to ignore many dangerous or illegal actions by drivers if you just say "the cyclist swerved in front of me".
I presume the fact that he should not have been driving does not bear legally on the question of how he was driving. However do think it paints a picture of his character, as one who believes the rules don't apply to him. Drive during lockdown, drive whilst hungover from alcohol - and drugs, use phone whilst driving, and so on. I guess he sees all those things as petty restrictions to be observed by lesser people. I suspect even now he fails to join the dots, and just thinks it was bad luck on him that a cyclist got in his way. The problem was the cyclist.
Re "hungover = still pissed", I do recall that many years ago (I don't know if this is still the case) Lanc.s police would occasionally set up an early-morning breathalyser site on the A6 just outside Preston specifically to catch those still over the drink-drive limit from the previous night's drinking.
Wow! If this catalogue isn't dangerous, what could possibly be? I feel so sorry for the person on a bicycle and their friends and family. Maybe the driver should have been charged with "wanton and furious" as it seems you can actually get convicted of that occasionally.
What we need is a review of all traffic offenses. I seem to remember a government suggesting that at some point in the past?
I was going to mention the comprehensive review of road laws promised by this government all those years ago, but I'm rather bored of repeating it.
So many apparently "different" governments since then though...
I almost look back on them with some fondness, compared to this latest round of asset-strippers
It's in poor taste to be pining for a Vintage Thatcher so soon. Or even for Thatcher Blair, David "Blue Blair" Cameron, Theresa "Go home" May (remember her?) ...
Given the Autumn of Discontent we seem to be in a couple of weeks should see everyone outside of bankers and tech billionaires with you though.
But thank god we avoided the chaos of Ed Milliband...
Pages