boredwivdrivin:
Carryfast . read that link i posted above . it looks at every single death of a cyclist .
A small minority are killed by left turning vehicles .
I also think you have a basic misunderstanding of how justice system works
The police investigate . they MAY bring charges
The CPS reviews . It may bring charges OR drop the police charges
The magistrate / jury decide guilt .
The magistrate / judge sentences .
Its the police bit i have a problem with . people seem to think the police decide guilt . they dont .
Police are not getting justice for dead people .
As I read it you posted 3 examples of fatal truck v cyclist collisions in London with no actual link.However I don’t see any information which would suggest that any/all of those collisions didn’t involve the cyclist colliding with nearside of truck scenario within a junction.
As for the police investigate and may bring charges.They also act as main witness/es for the potential prosecution as part of those ‘investigations’.So how will you make a successful prosecution when ‘that’ essential component of the prosecution case supports the case for the defence. 
I dont understand how the police can support the defence ?
They are collecting evidence .
It is up to prosecution/defence to call whatever witnesses they think appropriate
It should not be upto police to decide guilt
They are not good at it
boredwivdrivin:
I dont understand how the police can support the defence ?
They are collecting evidence .
It is up to prosecution/defence to call whatever witnesses they think appropriate
It should not be upto police to decide guilt
They are not good at it
The police investigations can support the case for the defence in just the same way as they can support the case for the prosecution depending on the conclusions of their investigations.Assuming the former there is no realistic way that any prosecution case can contradict the evidence of its main police witness/es.In this case the police traffic investigators.IE the police are the investigative agency for the prosecution side.
While it’s only the defence that has independent evidence gathering ( expert witness/es ).Assuming the police investigations agree with the defence investigations the prosecution side is ( rightly ) zb’d and it logically can’t proceed to trial in the public interest.The ‘public interest’ angle being that the only way that such a prosecution could then go ahead is if the police investigators with hold evidence that supports the defence at the prosecution evidence disclosure stage. 
Its up to CPS to deçide these legal implications .
Not police …
Quite honestly how do your complications get resolved in the case of domestic violence then ■■?
These cases are always referred to CPS as the police were gound incapable of acting properly and getting justice for beaten women .
Carryfast:
Bluey Circles:
Carryfast:
The ‘point’ was how do you expect the CPS to prosecute when the prosecutions main expert witness/es,in the form of the police investigator/s,support the case for the defence.Unless you’re aware of any prosecution case in which the police were acting as hostile witnesses against the prosecution side. 
May be the whole point here is to compel the police to do their job correctly and thoroughly. It is all too easy for the police to arrive at the scene take a quick look around and declare a 50/50 accident, no one to blame! lets all get back down to the station and have another cup of tea … now if the police know that they will have to hand the report over to the CPS no matter what, then just may be they will do their job properly and investigate every aspect of the incident.
More like the cyclist lobby are saying if the police investigations don’t support prosecution then they have to re consider until they get the right answer that suits the agenda.So I’ll answer the question again.What if the police report supports the case for the defence and how will then being forced 'to hand it over to the CPS make any difference.Other than putting the police in the impossible position of being a hostile witness against the prosecution.
Providing the police have been thorough in their investigation then I am sure the CPS will be led by them. As I said above, I wonder if the CPS are demanding seeing all the investigation work in all cases involving a fatality so as to be sure the police are being thorough - In these days of budget cuts I wonder if the police are just too happy to come to a quick conclusion and move on, as per the case roaduser66 pointed out earlier where they decided it was an accidental death after just 15minutes (clearly that is not being thorough)
And when i get home to my new laptop i will post the link to cycle death investigation website again . cant do it on phone
boredwivdrivin:
Its up to CPS to deçide these legal implications .
Not police …
Quite honestly how do your complications get resolved in the case of domestic violence then ■■?
These cases are always referred to CPS as the police were gound incapable of acting properly and getting justice for beaten women .
It isn’t ‘up to the CPS’ to put pressure on the police investigators if/when their investigations don’t support a case for prosecution.In this case we aren’t dealing with all the specialised issues involved in domestic violence cases.We’re dealing with road traffic collisions.In which the investigative process should be consistent regardless of which mode of transport is involved with no special treatment for cyclists.On that note assuming you’re saying that police road traffic investigative procedures institutionally lack credibility then that would obviously apply in all cases not just cyclists and in the case of grounds for appeal against previous successful prosecutions.
What boredwivdrivin is really saying is “change the system, the outcomes are not what I want to happen.”
Bluey Circles:
That is a tax on the pollution you are causing, plenty cars available where that tax is zero rated, buy one of those instead. In any case the vast majority of cyclists also own cars, and some even own trucks.
I see where youre coming from Bluey, but its more a case of "whats in a name?" Anything over 25 years old is tax exempt, but can chug around, kicking out as much crud into the atmosphere as a chinese power station. You can SORN whatever you like and tear arse around on private land with complete impunity. Both these examples are wanton polluters, but TAX EXEMPT, so not really an environmental tax, despite what its labelled as.
Wardaddy:
What boredwivdrivin is really saying is “change the system, the outcomes are not what I want to happen.”
+1
Anything other than a 100% conviction rate in the case of cyclist deaths wont stop him flapping him gums.
He doesnt seem to understand that maybe some cyclist deaths are nothing more than tragic accidents
The-Snowman:
Wardaddy:
What boredwivdrivin is really saying is “change the system, the outcomes are not what I want to happen.”
+1
Anything other than a 100% conviction rate in the case of cyclist deaths wont stop him flapping him gums.
He doesnt seem to understand that maybe some cyclist deaths are nothing more than tragic accidents
No such thing as accidents now, they’re “road traffic collisions” (RTCs) and they need someone to blame. The sad truth that some people can’t accept is that sometimes the cyclist is responsible.
Wardaddy:
What boredwivdrivin is really saying is “change the system, the outcomes are not what I want to happen.”
What the cycling lobby want seems to go along the lines of a crime has been committed in the event of a fatal cyclist v motor vehicle collision.When the actual charge is ‘causing’ death/injury ‘by careless or dangerous driving’.The inconvenient bit from their point of view being that the test is showing beyond reasonable doubt that the injury or fatality was the result of careless or dangerous driving.Not just the fact that an injury or fatality has taken place together with all the victim bs which is stating the bleedin obvious.
In which case issues like the difference between a collision caused by a cyclist undertaking a left turning truck,as opposed to a truck overtaking a cyclist and turning left,will obviously be the difference between innocence or guilt.Which in many cases can obviously be established at the investigation stage bearing in mind that guilt in this case has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
On that note it seems obvious that the cycling lobby’s real agenda is a change in that definition of guilt.Along the lines of guilt being determined just on the basis of cyclist vulnerability and the fact that a collision has taken place.
Captain Caveman 76:
The-Snowman:
Wardaddy:
What boredwivdrivin is really saying is “change the system, the outcomes are not what I want to happen.”
+1
Anything other than a 100% conviction rate in the case of cyclist deaths wont stop him flapping him gums.
He doesnt seem to understand that maybe some cyclist deaths are nothing more than tragic accidents
No such thing as accidents now, they’re “road traffic collisions” (RTCs) and they need someone to blame. The sad truth that some people can’t accept is that sometimes the cyclist is responsible.
I don’t think anyone is claiming the cyclist is always blameless, of course they’re not, as many idiots on bikes as in cars, vans, buses and trucks. The thing is though, when someone does something idiotic on a bike they are likely to die, when someone does something idiotic in a lorry close to a cyclist, the cyclist is likely to die. And then we come to experience and road sense, cyclist often score low on these two issues, is dying a justifiable consequence ? No of course it isn’t. It is a bit like the sad news of the crane driver being killed in the other thread, this is not a statistic, it is someone who is not going home, may be he has a wife and kids that will never see him again. People dying on the roads is just not acceptable, we all need a totally different mindset. Cyclists are vulnerable and often inexperienced, take more care when you are near them.
Bluey Circles:
I don’t think anyone is claiming the cyclist is always blameless, of course they’re not, as many idiots on bikes as in cars, vans, buses and trucks. The thing is though, when someone does something idiotic on a bike they are likely to die, when someone does something idiotic in a lorry close to a cyclist, the cyclist is likely to die. And then we come to experience and road sense, cyclist often score low on these two issues, is dying a justifiable consequence ? No of course it isn’t. It is a bit like the sad news of the crane driver being killed in the other thread, this is not a statistic, it is someone who is not going home, may be he has a wife and kids that will never see him again. People dying on the roads is just not acceptable, we all need a totally different mindset. Cyclists are vulnerable and often inexperienced, take more care when you are near them.
The fact is trying to appease the issue of under taking cyclists colliding with left turning trucks,by telling them that the driver will/should see them before turning,will just create more casualties. As opposed to the driver might not see them so stay back and don’t enter junctions at the side of trucks.IE the only mindset change in that case is all on the part of cyclists no one else.
As for the case of the type of driver who’ll overtake a cyclist when turning left unfortunately that will take more than a call for a ‘change of mindset’.
Bluey Circles:
Captain Caveman 76:
The-Snowman:
Wardaddy:
What boredwivdrivin is really saying is “change the system, the outcomes are not what I want to happen.”
+1
Anything other than a 100% conviction rate in the case of cyclist deaths wont stop him flapping him gums.
He doesnt seem to understand that maybe some cyclist deaths are nothing more than tragic accidents
No such thing as accidents now, they’re “road traffic collisions” (RTCs) and they need someone to blame. The sad truth that some people can’t accept is that sometimes the cyclist is responsible.
I don’t think anyone is claiming the cyclist is always blameless, of course they’re not, as many idiots on bikes as in cars, vans, buses and trucks. The thing is though, when someone does something idiotic on a bike they are likely to die, when someone does something idiotic in a lorry close to a cyclist, the cyclist is likely to die. And then we come to experience and road sense, cyclist often score low on these two issues, is dying a justifiable consequence ? No of course it isn’t. It is a bit like the sad news of the crane driver being killed in the other thread, this is not a statistic, it is someone who is not going home, may be he has a wife and kids that will never see him again. People dying on the roads is just not acceptable, we all need a totally different mindset. Cyclists are vulnerable and often inexperienced, take more care when you are near them.
I agree with everything you said, which is why I find your conclusion (all uncidents must be referred to the CPS) so baffling. Yes there are lunatics in cars who deliberately cause problems for cyclists, I’ve dealt with plenty in my time. But it should be fairly evident, fairly quickly to establish cause of collision without the added layer of beaurocracy (and associated costs) and stress caused to a motorist, who may well be a victim themselves.
Carryfast:
On that note it seems obvious that the cycling lobby’s real agenda is a change in that definition of guilt.Along the lines of guilt being determined just on the basis of cyclist vulnerability and the fact that a collision has taken place.
Nobody in the cycling lobby is proposing changing the definition of guilt just because the victim is a cyclist.
roaduser66:
Carryfast:
On that note it seems obvious that the cycling lobby’s real agenda is a change in that definition of guilt.Along the lines of guilt being determined just on the basis of cyclist vulnerability and the fact that a collision has taken place.
Nobody in the cycling lobby is proposing changing the definition of guilt just because the victim is a cyclist.
Assuming that the cyclist lobby is supporting a cyclist specific change,in the way that road traffic collisions involving cyclists are prosecuted,that is effectively a change in the definition of guilt.Bearing in mind that the Crown doesn’t generally prosecute people who ‘it’ thinks are innocent.In this case the CPS are obviously being asked to over rule police investigations regarding that decision, specifically in the case of cyclist casualties.Which as I said presents an obvious public interest situation if/when the CPS are in disagreement with its own investigative agency that being the police.
Carryfast:
roaduser66:
Carryfast:
On that note it seems obvious that the cycling lobby’s real agenda is a change in that definition of guilt.Along the lines of guilt being determined just on the basis of cyclist vulnerability and the fact that a collision has taken place.
Nobody in the cycling lobby is proposing changing the definition of guilt just because the victim is a cyclist.
Assuming that the cyclist lobby is supporting a cyclist specific change,in the way that road traffic collisions involving cyclists are prosecuted,that is effectively a change in the definition of guilt.Bearing in mind that the Crown doesn’t generally prosecute people who ‘it’ thinks are innocent.In this case the CPS are obviously being asked to over rule police investigations regarding that decision, specifically in the case of cyclist casualties.Which as I said presents an obvious public interest situation if/when the CPS are in disagreement with its own investigative agency that being the police.
The cycling lobby are proposing no such thing. So your main reason for holding antipathy toward cyclists is because of an argument that nobody’s put forward. You made it up. The CPS aren’t being asked to over rule anything. Stop posting made-up garbage.
As opposed to the natural garbage that you spout?
roaduser66:
Stop posting made-up garbage.
You accused me of that yesterday. Dont think I didnt notice you conveniently ignoring when I replied that you did actually say what I accused you of.