Lorry kills cyclist (from behind), driver hides bike and cyclists' body; convicted of careless (not dangerous) driving

Clearly this is shocking behaviour. However from a legalistic point of view, the aspect of this trial which most concerns me is that the jury clearly didn’t think it was “dangerous” for the driver to drive into the back of a cyclist, and even to continue when the cyclist was banging on the front of the lorry and grabbing onto the windscreen wipers to try and avoid being dragged under. Follow the Report URLs links below for previous news reports of this case.

According to the Road Traffic Act 1998 (as amended, see http://www.statutelaw.gov.uk/content.aspx?LegType=All+Legislation&title=…), a driver commits an offence of dangerous driving if (a) “the way he drives falls far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver” (section 2A(1)(a)) and and if (b) “it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous” (section 2A(1)(b), which is taken to mean “danger either of injury to any person or of serious damage to property” (section 2A(3)).

“Careless” driving by contrast is driving which falls “below” (but not “far below”) the standard of a competent and careful driver. Unlike the definition of dangerous driving, the careless driving definition omits any of the wording about causing obvious danger of injury or serious damage to property.

Neither of these two definitions includes anything about the driver’s state of mind or intentions. They both relate purely to the standard of the driving and, in the case of “dangerous driving”, whether the manner of driving would gave rise to danger that would be obvious to a competent and careful driver.

And yet this jury, like so many before them, seem to have acquitted the driver of the more serious “causing death by dangerous driving” charge simply because the word “careless” gives them the impression that dangerous driving isn’t actually “dangerous” if it is simply due to the driver not paying attention. This is wrong in law, but this is never explained to jurors. So driving which causes obvious danger continues to be treated in law as if it were mere “carelessness”. And thus we continue to think of driving which endangers or kills people as not that big a deal really.