And another let off...

cabledonuts

http://www.movingtargetzine.com/article/cyclist-killing-lorry-driver-fined-300#c003650

Bronzie

Without knowing the exact circumstances, it appears the cyclist rode up the inside left of the lorry while it was stationary at lights. I personally think this is a very dangersous thing to do and wouldn't consider doing it myself - big lorries have plenty of blind spots, even if the driver is paying attention.

Presumably therefore the cyclist was held to be partly responsible and the lorry driver treated accordingly.

Anonymous

But she was wearing a helmet. :roll:

redvee

Till you've actually been on the road in a lorry, regardless of size, you don't realise the blind spots etc. I now will only pass a lorry if there is space ahead when at lights etc.

Buffalo Bill

More on Emma Foa

Ryedaleman

I drive trucks and also a keen cyclist. In towns often I see to my horror cyclist going up\ the nearside of vehicles. To encourage this cycle lanes are usually on the near side. Truck mirrors are good and drivers are trained to us them...even so there are massive blind spots, I can loose a tranny van turning left! So Why put yourself at risk?
I witnessed a coliission between a a taxi and a cyclsit only a month or so ago. For once unfortuneately I have to say the cyclist was at fault. She assumed everyone could see her..she was going quite fast on the near side cycle lane....crunch She was leaving the responsibility to some one else... the taxi driver was not speeding.. he was crossing a stupid junction at York Station, the road layut contributed to the problem but then girl\ should have been paying more atttention.....its your life look after it!!!!!!

mea00csf

one problem is that your never taught about how to overtake cars on a bike. bike lanes encourage cyclists to go up the nearside, so that's what lots of people do even when there isn't a cycle lane. In some circumstances some fault has to be given to the driver (due to not looking) sometimes cyclists will be in blind spots and therefore how can you blame the driver?

I think there has to be better education of cyclists on the dangers of overtaking on the nearside, i certainly wasn't aware of them until i started commuting regularly about a year ago

cee

Before saying anything else, I will front load this by saying how tragic this event is. Someone losing their life in any accident is very emotive for all concerned.

There...now.

As both a car driver and cyclist (commute to work everyday and drive to supermarket!), I agree that sometimes it is the cyclists responsibility to look after themselves.

I also agree that part of the problem is that cycling education (not just how to control the bike, but actually integrating with other road users).

As car drivers, we are encouraged to predict what other road users are doing and therefor be pro-active rather than reactive when somethign happens.

It seems that some bike users expect other road users to act a certain way and don't plan for when that does not happen.

I personally tend to take up the whole lane when in busy traffic, overtaking other vehicles on the right. This also stops me getting caught in between a line of traffic and parked cars on the left.

spen666

mea00csf wrote:

one problem is that your never taught about how to overtake cars on a bike. bike lanes encourage cyclists to go up the nearside, so that's what lots of people do even when there isn't a cycle lane. In some circumstances some fault has to be given to the driver (due to not looking) sometimes cyclists will be in blind spots and therefore how can you blame the driver?
I think there has to be better education of cyclists on the dangers of overtaking on the nearside, i certainly wasn't aware of them until i started commuting regularly about a year ago

how about if I go out with a shotgun with a defective trigger and it goes off killing someone- am I blameless?

To say someone is in a drivers blindspot is not an excuse that is acceptable to me

Parkey

Something I hate about society in general is the blame culture. Who's fault is it?! Who was in the wrong?! Often considering that is only of limited value, especially as circumstances are often very subject to an individuals point of view.

Unfortunately this accident has already happened and no witch hunt will change that. What's most important is what we all learn from it so we can do our best to make sure it doesn't happen again.

spen666

Parkey wrote:

Something I hate about society in general is the blame culture. Who's fault is it?! Who was in the wrong?! Often considering that is only of limited value, especially as circumstances are often very subject to an individuals point of view.

Unfortunately this accident has already happened and no witch hunt will change that. What's most important is what we all learn from it so we can do our best to make sure it doesn't happen again.

If you don't decide who is to blame, how can you decide the cause of the accident and learn from it properly

A witch hunt is not learning

Parkey

Assuming a single point of failure and therefore blame from the beginning isn't constructive. Accidents generally happen because several things have gone wrong at once. The so called "layered swiss cheese" effect.

It's better to establish what the catalog of errors was first, and then decide in the light of such evidence whether any of these errors were down to negligence, and how much so.

spen666

Parkey wrote:

Assuming a single point of failure and therefore blame from the beginning isn't constructive. Accidents generally happen because several things have gone wrong at once. The so called "layered swiss cheese" effect.

It's better to establish what the catalog of errors was first, and then decide in the light of such evidence whether any of these errors were down to negligence, and how much so.

but to do this you need to establish the blame- ie what the errors were

Sub3_99

Where should the blame fall, on the cyclist who attempted a stupid manouvre, or on the driver who turned left. There is nothing that says whether the driver was indicating or not, nor whether he looked in his mirror before turning left. Too often cyclists assume that they do not need to take responsibility for their own actions because the driver "should" be looking, but the reality is that there is no reason why anyone would need to look in their mirrors before executing a left or a right turn from a normal traffic lane. Does Spen do this every time he is in his car? Does anyone? Cyclists (and I am one too) need to be aware of what other road use are doing and adjust their behaviour accordingly. The only people truly responsible for our safety are ourselves.

Cunobelin

I would agree but......................... this is a two edged sword and relies on driving (and cycling) legally properly and in a predictable manner. The responsibility of care is twofold.

To explain what I mean.

You are on a road and approach a junction at which a road joins from your left. You assume that the vehicle (car or bike) approaching the clearly painted stop line is actually goingto stop. You may cover your brakes and slow slightly but you are actually placing your trust in this unknown stranger to behave in a rational way in accordance with the law, and commen sense- in other words to actually stop!

You are not going to know whether they are a senile 90 year old who can't see you, or a boy racer who simply doesn't feel that he should wait for other traffic until they breach their part of this covenant and place you at risk.

The same covenant happens all the time. When a car overtakes, you rely on their skills to do so safely, you assume that a vehicle will actually signal and then turn in that direction.

Yes - I agree that we have a responsibility for our own safety, but there is a responsibility within this covenant for others to act in a way that allows you to do so.

Buffalo Bill

Sub3_99 wrote:

There is nothing that says whether the driver was indicating or not, nor whether he looked in his mirror before turning left. ...that there is no reason why anyone would need to look in their mirrors before executing a left or a right turn from a normal traffic lane.
....The only people truly responsible for our safety are ourselves.

I totally agree that every road user has to take responsibility for their own safety, but drivers of large, heavy vehicles have a duty of care towards other road users, because they can, through negligence, kill.

If you read the report again, you will see that not only would the driver have seen the cyclist had he looked, but also that he admitted that he hadn't looked because he was busy doing something else (looking at papers in his cab).

Not only would I suggest that everyone, cyclist or motor vehicle driver, needs to look before turning, if you look in the Highway Code, you will find that it is A LEGAL REQUIREMENT.

spen666

Buffalo Bill wrote:

I totally agree that every road user has to take responsibility for their own safety, but drivers of large, heavy vehicles have a duty of care towards other road users, because they can, through negligence, kill.

All road users, including pedestrians have a duty of care to others.

If you read the report again, you will see that not only would the driver have seen the cyclist had he looked, but also that he admitted that he hadn't looked because he was busy doing something else (looking at papers in his cab).

I am not sure it can be said he would have seen her, if not distracted by his decision to look for papers. It is I think speculation

Not only would I suggest that everyone, cyclist or motor vehicle driver, needs to look before turning, if you look in the Highway Code, you will find that it is A LEGAL REQUIREMENT.

The Highway Code is not law. It is merely a code




All that said, the fact the driver was distracted by looking for his paers would be enough in my opinion to merit a conviction for dangerous driving.

I have a mate who is a tube driver. He used to driver on Victoria line where trains are pretty much automatic ie accelerate/brake etc without driver input needed. His tube train hit a woman ( Later found out to be suicide). Because he told police he had glanced at his timetable just before she jumped out into the track, he was arrested by British Transport Police for Manslaughter. contrast that with this case and other motoring cases

Buffalo Bill

spen666 wrote:

All road users, including pedestrians have a duty of care to others...

ure it can be said he would have seen her, if not distracted by his decision to look for papers. It is I think speculation


All that said, the fact the driver was distracted by looking for his paers would be enough in my opinion to merit a conviction for dangerous driving.

I have a mate who is a tube driver. He used to driver on Victoria line where trains are pretty much automatic ie accelerate/brake etc without driver input needed. His tube train hit a woman ( Later found out to be suicide). Because he told police he had glanced at his timetable just before she jumped out into the track, he was arrested by British Transport Police for Manslaughter. contrast that with this case and other motoring cases

Apologies, I meant to say 'a particular duty of care' - of course all road users have a duty of care to other road users.

Politely have to disagree with you regarding the claim that would have been made in court. The police did the exact same thing in Seb Lukomski's case. Using CCTV and measurements taken of the mirrors, the prosecution were able to show that he would have seen Seb in the mirrors.

I can't be 100% sure that this is what happened here, but given that it was reported that Ms Foa was stationary alongside for 37 secs, and that the junction was overlooked by CCTV and that the police now routinely the measuring thing (excuse the phrase) in all fatal or near fatals in London now, my guess is that the prosecution was based on exactly the same sort of evidence. Speculation, yes, but speculation based on informed suppositions.

I totally agree that whatever the specifics, the driver should have been charged CDDD.

Oh and by the way, there's now an ASL and a bike lane on that junction.

http://www.movingtargetzine.com/article ... was-killed

As for your mate, well...

... don't what to say except to note the contrast.

spen666

Buffalo Bill wrote:

...As for your mate, well...

... don't what to say except to note the contrast.

It was the contrast that I was drawing to attention.

Transport police started from the most serious charge.
It seems ordinary police want to minimise offences from the outset.


We have far too low a standard of driving and this is enforced by the fact the police will only prosecute in serious cases. If most accident cases, even non injury ones were prosecuted, then most people would take far more care than they do now

CarlosFerreiro

spen666 wrote:

Buffalo Bill wrote:

Not only would I suggest that everyone, cyclist or motor vehicle driver, needs to look before turning, if you look in the Highway Code, you will find that it is A LEGAL REQUIREMENT.

The Highway Code is not law. It is merely a code

I think it's legal status is more like a best practice guide though?

It is not a set of laws you have to follow, but if you are not following it and something goes wrong, you had better have some pretty convincing arguments about special circumstances....

jedster

On the face of it, this one looks too lax, too low a standard has been applied.

You can imagine the defence case summing up though -

"Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, clearly this was a terrible accident and Mr x made a terrible mistake the consequences of which will stay with him for the rest of his life. But you are asked to judge whether it was far below the standards of a reasonable driver. Have you never been distracted when behind the wheel of your car? Have other stresses and pressures of your life not caused you to pay less attention than you really should?" etc etc

Of course we can all make a mistake and I know it is difficult for HGV drivers when cyclists move quickly into their blind spot when they are manouvering. But in this case, to me the 37 seconds and the fact that he didnt even look because he was fumbling with papers mean that this incident is far over the line.

I'd also agree that the threat presented by HGV's mean that we are entitled to hold truck drivers to higher standards than most other road users.

Do you remember the bloke who was sent to jail because he killed people when fumbling in the footwell of his car for his packet of mints while doing 70 in the outside lane of the motorway? THis is not so crass as that but pretty damn close.

J

Buffalo Bill

spen666 wrote:

It was the contrast that I was drawing to attention.

Transport police started from the most serious charge.
It seems ordinary police want to minimise offences from the outset.


We have far too low a standard of driving and this is enforced by the fact the police will only prosecute in serious cases. If most accident cases, even non injury ones were prosecuted, then most people would take far more care than they do now

I think the problem here lies with the CPS.

I met the senior traffic cop for London a couple of years ago, and he said that the policy for investigating fatal and near fatals had changed. The traffic police now treat them as murder scenes would be treated ie shut the road so that all evidence can be collected, remove the vehicles for testing and examination at the police garage etc etc.

However, as you will know, it lies with the CPS to decide what action to take in court.

He expressed some frustration to me that more serious charges are not considered by the CPS in these cases.

Cunobelin

Let's clear up the Highway Code and it's legality...

Many of the rules in the Code are legal requirements, and if you disobey these rules you are committing a criminal offence. You may be fined, given penalty points on your licence or be disqualified from driving. In the most serious cases you may be sent to prison. Such rules are identified by the use of the words ‘MUST/MUST NOT’. In addition, the rule includes an abbreviated reference to the legislation which creates the offence. An explanation of the abbreviations can be found in 'The road user and the law'.

Although failure to comply with the other rules of the Code will not, in itself, cause a person to be prosecuted, The Highway Code may be used in evidence in any court proceedings under the Traffic Acts (see 'The road user and the law') to establish liability. This includes rules which use advisory wording such as ‘should/should not’ or ‘do/do not’.

Basically the must /must not denotes a legal requirement and should / should not is a statement which has no legal standing, but could be used to show that the general standard is not "that which could reasonable be expected of a competent driver" and establish liability.

eternal_headwind

A removal of license allows time for reflection and re-education