cyclist death HGV driver sentenced
- Thread starter Herbsman.
- Start date
Crispy
The following psytrance is baṉned: All
Oh, and if the only way of getting to the front is squeezing up the left of a bus - DON'T! Wait until the traffic's flowing, then overtake the bus with clear signalling and lots of clear space etc.
It's just not worth the risk in return for shaving 10 seconds off your journey.
It's just not worth the risk in return for shaving 10 seconds off your journey.
Buffalo Bill
London 4th most famous exenger
twisted said:
Don't be obtuse. The HC is pretty clear.
You, as the driver, are expected to give way to more vulnerable road-users.
As a cyclist, the section quoted is clear. You are advised to be careful around vehicles at junctions.
Paulie Tandoori
shut it you egg!
Astounding. The bloke admits to not paying attention to the road as he's pulled away in a 2 tonne cement mixer and he's not even banned from driving. Fucking ridiculous and quite outrageous. So, we're supposed to let him off because he's got to live with this for the rest of his life? At least he has a 'rest of his life' unlike the cyclist that he has killed through gross negligence. Hard to put into words how angry this makes me.
roryer
道可道非常道，名可名非常名
This story is bad all the way through, the courts just do not seem to protect cyclists, I agree with the point made on the comments on the moving target website that the best way to kill someone is when driving because you'll always get away with it.
It also seems to be an illustration of why the Stop at Red Campaign for cyclists is so missguided. It seems several of the cyclists killed by left turning lorries were waiting at lights.
IMO Always take care not to hit or cut up pedestrians, but cyclists should treat lights only as advisory.
It also seems to be an illustration of why the Stop at Red Campaign for cyclists is so missguided. It seems several of the cyclists killed by left turning lorries were waiting at lights.
IMO Always take care not to hit or cut up pedestrians, but cyclists should treat lights only as advisory.
Termite Man
zombie flesh eater
Crispy said:
I completly agree . The HGV driver is to blame but so is the cyclist . You can moan all you want about drivers not paying attention but when it comes down to it ultimatly your responsible for your own safety and it's not safe to pull up on the left hand side of a large vehicle !
That is by far the best advice.catrina said:
NEVER, EVER, EVER put yourself alongside a large vehicle (van, let alone lorry) when stationary or moving slowly in parallel. This applies to motorcyclists as well. One of the first things a good motorcycle instructor tells you is to ride assertively. It is more difficult to do that on a pedal cycle, but it is not impossible to do a version of it. Either stay behind a large vehicle or, if there is definitely time to do so before it moves off move to the front and get in front - far enough so as to be seen if it is a high cab. (Male cyclists tend to do this whereas female's tend to be more diffident and stop alongside - this is the research about them putting themselves in danger more by "not going through red lights").
I think you'll find they do a huge amount of good for pedestrians - by keeping them from their usual lemming-like behaviour ...Bodmass said:
The overtaking rules (i.e. do it on the offside, not the nearside) apply to cycles as well as motor vehicles. It is not a specific offence for either - it would be an offence of driving / riding without due care and attention.Buffalo Bill said:
There is no law preventing filtering past stationary traffic, however it is VERY recognised that it is a dangerous manoeuvre and there tends to be a presumption that the filtering vehicle is at fault if the stationary traffic then moves off and a collision ensues (motorcyclists will be well aware of this).
Cyclists need to ride defensively, just like motorcyclists. Unfortunately motorcyclists have to pass a test and (the vast majority at least) receive training to do that, during which they are taught this. Cyclists can just get out there without any training at all. To do so puts them seriously at risk. There should be some requirement for basic training. It may be desirable that that not be the case ... but the fact is that it is.
Did the lorry pull up alongside the already stationary cyclist (in which case I would agree) ... or did the cyclist pull up alongside the already stationary lorry (in which case it is nowhere near so clear cut).lil-Pixie said:
The judge has little say in the matter - they can only sentence the charge in front of them and that is a pretty standard penalty for the offence charged.lil-Pixie said:
The collision was investigated thoroughly and the CPS considered the evidence. They concluded there was insufficient evidence of more serious offences (which is frequently the case in traffic collisions). The very serious outcome (death) may follow from a very minor level of carelessness or inattention ... and few areas of the law looks at the outcome as being the principle driver of the choice of charge.
There is currently no offence of causing death by careless driving. That is supposed to be being addressed in a law change soon (I think it will carry 5 years maximum) and will be applicable in cases like this where the carelessness falls well short of the dangerousness required for the existing causing death by dangerous driving charge (14 years I think).
weepiper
I fix the machines that fight climate change
roryer said:
Bullsh*t. She wasn't killed because she stopped at a red light, she was killed because she pulled up on the left of a big vehicle and the driver wasn't paying attention. If she'd stopped behind him or overtaken him completely and stopped in front of him she'd presumably still be alive. It's a very sad story but I (as a long-time cyclist) don't think the lorry driver is completely to blame here.
Poot
My wife thinks I work too hard
DB speaks a lot of sense.
As a motorist I'd say that the one time a cyclist is unsafe is when they creep up the nearside of a car that's turning left at a junction, because the driver will be watching the traffic to his/her right and may pull out without noticing you. I'm not saying it's correct, I'm saying it happens.
As a motorist I'd say that the one time a cyclist is unsafe is when they creep up the nearside of a car that's turning left at a junction, because the driver will be watching the traffic to his/her right and may pull out without noticing you. I'm not saying it's correct, I'm saying it happens.
And, whilst cycling towards the left of the traffic lane, do not feel the need to cycle in the gutter - somewhere between a third and a half lane out is yours.Crispy said:
Sadly he hasn't. He has killed through carelessness. It there was evidence that it was gross negligence the charge could have been causing death by dangerous driving or even manslaughter.Paulie Tandoori said:
Poot said:
But if you're in a normal car, you have no excuse, there is no blind spot. I've been cut off by so many drivers turning left across me, who haven't signalled, and start beeping and shouting at me, and this pisses me off, because it really doesn't take much extra effort to notice there is a person on a bike next to you. (And more often than not, this happens when the stupid car has blocked the cyclist advance box to begin with).
The issue with the lorry is that I suspect they cannot physically see you from their position if you are alongside them. Without junctions having extra traffic lights for cyclists to advance before drivers, I think the only way to control this problem is to not ride on the same street as a lorry at all, or to stay behind the lorry at all costs. Get in the lane and block up the traffic behind you.
Buffalo Bill
London 4th most famous exenger
detective-boy said:
No.
There is no specific offence of causing death by gross negligence in a motor vehicle.
There is driving without due care and attention.
Then causing death by dangerous driving.
It is very hard to prove (or the CPS is unwilling to bring cases on this) death by dangerous, so drivers almost always end up driving without due care.
Bicycle messenger 'Danny' Reidar Farr was killed by a lorry driver who turned left without signalling. The driver was charged careless and acquitted despite witness evidence that he had not signalled.
I would describe making a left turn in a lorry whilst fumbling for papers as dangerous. But there's no charge. If the driver had been on the phone, it's possible that because there is a specific offence that relates to that, the outcome would have been different.
It's possible that Emma Foa may have contributed to the collision by coming alongside the lorry - but there is no mention of this on the report that I posted. Even if she had, and I agree that this is unwise (even though TfL promotes bike lanes that encourage cyclists to do exactly that), the lorry driver was still negligent, and failed to comply with Highway Code.
You'd be surprised what people do ... and I understood the driver was said to have been looking at some papers (how many look at maps, directions ..?) whilst stationary at the lights, not whilst moving. The implication was he should have been sitting there constantly monitoring all his mirrors to see whether anyone else was moving around his vehicle. Whilst that may be best practice, how many people do it in reality?Poi E said:
Er ... yes, there is. Maybe not as big, but there is a definite blind spot. If you think otherwise you should train yourself about it immediately.catrina said:
(There is even one on a pedal cycle, unless you are an owl!)
Exactly. Assertive, defensive riding makes you safer.
Termite Man
zombie flesh eater
Dr_Herbz said:
HGV driver and cyclist are both to blame in this case I suspect .
stat said:
No-one is saying that cyclists don't have a right to use the roads.
But more dedicated cyclists WOULD be better all round.
With dedicated cycle lanes, the only thing cyclists have to worry about hitting is ignorant pedestrians not looking where they are walking, as opposed to tons of moving metal driven by people not looking where they are driving....
Giles..
maomao
普費斯
Giles said:
Actually, with cycle lanes cyclists have to wrry about....
Cycle lanes that end abruptly and dump you into fast moving traffic.
Broken glass and crap in cycle lanes, often not swept as well as the pavement.
Drivers who completely ignore signals that you make from the cycle lane or cycle lanes that are partially hidden from the main stream of traffic so the drivers can't see the signals you make.
Low signposts over the cycle lane (my most painful cycling accident ever).
Pedestrians wandering up cycle lanes with their backs turned to you.
Cars parked in cycle lanes.
Absolutely ridiculous cycle lanes like the one that used to be between the bus lane and the traffic on Blackfriars bridge and was only changed after several deaths.
Anyone got any others?
I agree, they're probably both to blame but I'm sure that by now, every cyclist must have read/heard of a cyclist who has been killed because they cycled down the inside of an HGV at a set of lights and the HGV driver turned left and ran over them.Termite Man said:
It's about time people started taking responsibility for their own actions. We all know that cyclists are the most vulnerable of road users and cyclists should be more aware of this than anyone but they still insist on performing the most stupid of life threatening manouvers.
As I've said on similar threads, training and testing should be compulsory for cyclists and until such time, we're going to see many more cases like this.
Similar threads
- Poll
