Design Template by Bikingtoronto

« Friday Morning Commute - unless you pedal like the mayor. Then it’s more like 15 minutes. | Main | Friday Afternoon Commute - situational awareness »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

sounds exactly right. This was the easy case. The only mysteries to me is why it took so long to bring a case, and why they didn't president evidence that Littleford was drunk/high. I suppose they didn't need to do the charges presented.

This is good news. It is unfortunate that she was found not guilty of failure to control her speed to avoid a collision. I wonder what the rational was? Seems to me that being able and responsible for controlling your speed to avoid a collision is fundamental in being granted the privilege to drive. Not to mention that speeding is a major problem. This sends a message that speed doesn't matter much.

@TWK my guess was because there was no evidence to say otherwise such as skid marks (which could be used to calculate speed) etc.

@charlie - was there any evidence? As much as one likes to assume (apparently she was coming home from a friends place) - you can't start convicting people with no proof.

Regardless I hope the sentencing isn't something ridiculous like 30~90 days.

As much as I believe this was a tragic accident on Littleford's part - one has to be held accountable for being a decent human being. Leaving someone to die on the road doesn't play well in my book regardless of the circumstances that led to it.

It is nice when the "I didn't see them" defense fails. That is an important outcome of this case. As Ben said, hopefully the sentencing does not unravel the sense of some justice that is taking form here.

@Ben
Since she was charged with failure to control her speed to avoid a collision, I would have assumed there was some evidence available. If not skid marks, I wonder if damage to the SUV would indicated excessive speed? I guess that would be a difficult determination.

@TWK fair point. I guess the jury wasn't convinced with the evidence the prosecution presented? I do agree though it is strange but neither you or I were at the trial.

@Ben; for the charges presented you don't need to show alcohol. Now, if you could prove alcohol/drug use you could probably up the charges to manslaughter. That would explain why it took so long - they were looking for evidence of alcohol use. Hard to prove, really, if it was a private residence and there are no financial receipts.

In terms of speed, isn't the point you didn't slow down and just ran over the bike? No skid marks. damage to SUV would NOT be evidence of speeding.

Given the implausibility of the story, it may have also taken some time for the prosecution to be sure that someone else was not behind the wheel.


Excellent Articles writing Dear Friend Nice Information Share all over the world. am really impress your work Stay Blessings On your Work...God Bless You.

http://www.camdencycles.co.uk/index.php
cycle shops north in london

http://www.camdencycles.co.uk/index.php
Bicycle shops in north London

Spam alert ^^^

Those are pretty basic charges. I'll hold my excitement until sentencing.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Banner design by creativecouchdesigns.com

City Paper's Best Local Bike Blog 2009

Categories

 Subscribe in a reader