Driver who seriously injured cyclist when overtaking group ride fined

When someone else postred about should have been a jail sentence, the reply was "And what about the cyclist on the pavement". No one has replied "what about the cars on the pavements".

TBH, I'm not even sure why he even contested it as he didn't even get a suspended sentence. 

hirsute wrote:

No wonder it was only a majority verdict.

Does the Jury selection process not include documenting 'interests' in the matter under consideration, i.e. how many have experience as cyclists, or do not?

Surely a balance must be required for impartial outcomes...

lonpfrb wrote:

hirsute wrote:

No wonder it was only a majority verdict.

Does the Jury selection process not include documenting 'interests' in the matter under consideration, i.e. how many have experience as cyclists, or do not?

Surely a balance must be required for impartial outcomes...

The only way that there would have been an impartial outcome would be to have an entire jury of non-driving non-cyclists.  There are too many drivers who when faced with a dangerous driving case would see elements of their own driving in perpetrators actions and choose not to convict on that basis.

Then you have people, like he who needs his mums opinion, who would be predisposed to give a not guilty verdict because the victim was riding two abreast in a group regardless of how bad the driving was.  Because in his opinion any group of more than 4 cyclists should be stopped by the police and their bikes seized and sold at auction.

Or, perhaps, not attempted to overtake on a blind bend?

Flintshire Boy wrote:

.. overtake on a blind bend

Obviously a Dangerous manoeuvre, not supported by the required view of the oncoming traffic. If in doubt, Don't.