Lorry driver killed cyclist, threw bike into undergrowth.

number9

Il Principe wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

If you want to know what dangerous driving is, do some reasearch, opsi or Bailli are good places to start.

In Summary, dangerous involves a driver under taking an action which he knows to carry more danger than normal driving, careless driving is below that. What the lorry driver did was clearly careless, whether it constituted dangerous is debateable and clearly the jury decided that in the eyes of the law it was not.

I may not always like the law, but when the alternative is anarchy (when the cyclist will have no recourse) its all we have.

Simon

That's not really the point is it though? The point is that the law needs changing. The consequences of this man's 'carelessness' behind the wheel of several tonnes of metal, were fatal. The law should punish this. Would I get 2 years for being 'careless' with my shotgun? The law (in this instance) is an ass.

The driver was already breaking the law, he'd driven since 5am without a break.

But even an exhausted driver who fails to notice a cyclist beating the front of the vehicle with his bare hands?

This stinks.

bradford

It just shows you how vunerable us cyclists are out on the roads.Thankfully these events are rare,but which is no consolation to the dead man's familys anger and pain at the joke jail term though.His loss was needless.Take care out there guys!

benno68

turnerjohn wrote:

just proves our legal system sucks !

The man should be hung up !

...by the balls - if he's got any which is unlikely.

If the driver saw the cyclist infront and continued, surely it's murder!

I hope he has a seriously hard time in prison!

number9

http://www.singletrackworld.com/foru...death-oturaged

More details there, including an account from someone who received a delivery from Stubbs after he'd killed the cyclist.

Delivery driver Stubbs had previously been found guilty of careless driving and perverting the course of justice.
A court had previously heard how Stubbs drove an extra 30 miles on his route to dispose of Mr Spink's mangled bicycle in a lay-by on the Ossett bypass.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/8332527.stm

il_principe

number9 wrote:

http://www.singletrackworld.com/foru...death-oturaged

More details there, including an account from someone who received a delivery from Stubbs after he'd killed the cyclist.

Delivery driver Stubbs had previously been found guilty of careless driving and perverting the course of justice.
A court had previously heard how Stubbs drove an extra 30 miles on his route to dispose of Mr Spink's mangled bicycle in a lay-by on the Ossett bypass.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/bradford/8332527.stm

Top link doesn't work...

number9

http://www.singletrackworld.com/forum/t ... ged/page/3

cjcp

number9 wrote:

Il Principe wrote:

The Beginner wrote:

If you want to know what dangerous driving is, do some reasearch, opsi or Bailli are good places to start.

In Summary, dangerous involves a driver under taking an action which he knows to carry more danger than normal driving, careless driving is below that. What the lorry driver did was clearly careless, whether it constituted dangerous is debateable and clearly the jury decided that in the eyes of the law it was not.

I may not always like the law, but when the alternative is anarchy (when the cyclist will have no recourse) its all we have.

Simon

That's not really the point is it though? The point is that the law needs changing. The consequences of this man's 'carelessness' behind the wheel of several tonnes of metal, were fatal. The law should punish this. Would I get 2 years for being 'careless' with my shotgun? The law (in this instance) is an ass.

The driver was already breaking the law, he'd driven since 5am without a break.

But even an exhausted driver who fails to notice a cyclist beating the front of the vehicle with his bare hands?

This stinks.

I confess I haven't done any research on it, but number9 makes a good point here: there's obviously a reason why there's a limit on how long you can drive a truck, presumably because, after that, it becomes or there's a risk that it becomes "dangerous" rather than just "careless".

il_principe

Or fails to notice the movement of the truck as he runs over something the size of a bike+person? I just cannot believe that he failed to realise he had hit someone/something. Talk about callous. Reading about it this morning made me feel sick and I still feel sick now. Careless/Dangerous - whatever, but 2 years, how little we value life.

Christophe3967

Outrageous. One can only hope that some other means of justice will eventually befall this verminous cretin.

If any of my children ever did something like this I would have no hesitation in disowning them. Yet the father describes his son as a 'gentle giant'. Obviously a chip of the old block.

biondino

I think it's arbitrary and dangerous to value life in terms of how long the killer goes to prison for. What I don't understand is that even if he got the max sentence for careless driving, why couldn't he have been given an additional term for eithe rperverting the course of justice, or for the other offences that were dumped?

DonDaddyD

CJCP wrote:

I confess I haven't done any research on it, but number9 makes a good point here: there's obviously a reason why there's a limit on how long you can drive a truck, presumably because, after that, it becomes or there's a risk that it becomes "dangerous" rather than just "careless".

Bit like driving a car, you're advise to drive 'only for so long' before taking a break. HGV's, planes, trains and the like , I believe have that rule enforced due to safety. If it was a company truck and they forced him to drive knowing the hours he had already done or would do, they could be liable.

Though I don't think that is the case here. Even so he did exceed the limit.

Il Principe wrote:

Or fails to notice the movement of the truck as he runs over something the size of a bike+person? I just cannot believe that he failed to realise he had hit someone/something. Talk about callous. Reading about it this morning made me feel sick and I still feel sick now. Careless/Dangerous - whatever, but 2 years, how little we value life.

He drove 6 miles, cars beeping and chasing, people screaming. The metal of the bike scraping the tarmac. All of which he claims he didn't hear. He also didn't see any of the debris out of his mirrors or feel the truck, apparently with high revs, as it struggled to move with a bike underneath it.

In my mind he knew what he had did. He got out after 6miles, parked up in a lay-by, to remove the bike and not once asking "gee was there a cyclist on the bike". He was arrested later that day as he finished his work.

He knew what he did.

It seems that his refusal to admit that he knew, his faked ignorance, saved him. And that's the sickening thing.

Edit: Sorry to rant: I got an email regarding the bus collision fatality I saw on the Strand... My feelings on this ar raw...

DonDaddyD

biondino wrote:

I think it's arbitrary and dangerous to value life in terms of how long the killer goes to prison for. What I don't understand is that even if he got the max sentence for careless driving, why couldn't he have been given an additional term for eithe rperverting the course of justice, or for the other offences that were dumped?

I have to +1 this point.

Mr Sworld

The farther of Spinks posted on another site trying to defend his son's actions, it has now been removed.

However his excuse was that the bike fell off the bottom of the trunk when Spinks parked up in the lay-by and the bike was thrown into the undergrowth later by another person........ :x

Eau Rouge

I do hate these threads.
On one hand I completely agree with the general sentiment that drivers involved in accidents are given what appeaer to be very lenient sentences.
On the other hand, the sentences reflect what the person was actually convicted off, not what they may or may not have done, and the problem is what you can be convicted of.
The law is pretty rubbish here. At the time of this accident there were only 3 charges.

Driving anything at all is inherently dangerous. We all should know this, but we all know nobody actually sees driving as being actually dangerous or nobody would ever get in a car.That isn't the law's fault, but it has a huge influence on it. People don't see driving as being dangerous, then they won't accept a law that says mearly driving is dangerous, so the law can't take that assumption, and doesn't. Maybe it should, but it would be a very brave government that tried to get it passed.
The law is not unfairly biased against cyclists either. The law is equally bad for everyone, pedestrians, cyclists, motorbikers or other drivers. We see the effects on cyclists, but pay attention to the news and you'll see the same sentences being given for killing anyone on the road.

The crime of "dangerous driving" does not mean you were driving dangerously, since driving at all is dangerous. It means driving a lot worse than that. It doesn't mean causing an accident, that is covered by careless driving. Dangerous driving means doing a lot more than that. Speeding, being drunk, running red lights, driving on the wrong side of the road are the sort of things it means.

When you see it that way, this case is fairly straightforward. The lorry was stopped at a traffic light, it went green, he turned left. He wasn't speeding, he didn't go through a red light. He was just turning left. It is very hard to describe that as fitting the legal version of "dangerous". He was invloved in an accident, but legally, that is just "careless driving"
Careless driving doesn't result in any prison time, just points and a fine.

Without the charge of Perverting the Course of Justice in this case, the lorry driver would not be going to prison at all. His prison sentence is for that. That is everything that happened after the accident. Driving with the bike, throwing it away etc. That is what he got his prison time for. It also means the jury can not have believed him when he said he hadn't been aware the accident had happened,

Today he would have been found guilty of death by careless driving rather than just careless driving, but that is a 5 year maximum sentence, and I don't think this case would have resulted in the maximum sentence anyway. The state of the law in this area is clearly a joke. There is no offense of causing serious injury, so unless someone dies, points and a fine are the most a driver will usually face. It is just about possible to be charged with murder for hitting someone in a car, but very rare. As much as people say these sentences are too low, there isn't actually public support to change the law to make them much harsher. I suspect most people can too easily imagine themselves being the driver in accidents like these (though not the driving away bit, naturally).

The Rookie

Il Principe wrote:

That's not really the point is it though? The point is that the law needs changing. The consequences of this man's 'carelessness' behind the wheel of several tonnes of metal, were fatal. The law should punish this. Would I get 2 years for being 'careless' with my shotgun? The law (in this instance) is an ass.

And if you'd bothered to read my first post you would know that has already happened and death by careless would now be an option, but in the interests of 'natural justice' its prohibited to apply law's retrospectively (its in the ECHR).

Had the offences been commited after the new law was enacted then he would have faced a far harsher penalty.

His actions after the accident cannot be used as a reason for increasing his punishment for the accident, while he is clearly a despicable loathesome creature, the law has to be applied equally and equittably to all as the law stands.

As Eau Rouge (prefer Vin Rouge myself!) points out the actual offence was a fairly minor act, it had catastrophic consequences, death by careless is a dificult law as it goes against the normal principles of punishing people for their actions whereas this is a punishment for the result, had the cyclist been unhurt (just frightened) or injured would the offence be any more or less serious?
Can we jail avery 'left hooker' for 5 years? is it right to? Not every left hooker is guilty anyway, I've had cyclists come alongside my nearside while I'm sat at lights indicating, so if I hit them it would clearly be the cyclist who is at fault for undertaking in the first place.

Simon

MonkeyMonster

Nice post Eau Rouge.

Wallace1492

I think it is the nature of what happened after the initial accident that is truely shocking in this case. From what I have read there is still uncertaintly as to how lorry and bike came into contact.

However what really is horrendous is how the driver from after the moment of contact acted. Seems like he panicked and fled the scene, ignoring the fact that a bike was trapped below his lorry and there were people tooting their horn and trying to stop him. Then throwing bike away and how he has acted since is simply brutal. The comments I have read from his father just show what a self centred, blame everybody else, upbrining he has had, they should be of no surprise.

Accidents do happen, but there are causes for each and every one, in this case we will not know how it happened, as one party is not around and the other has been shown to be a compulsive liar.

This guy deserves a long time in jail, not because someone died in an accident, after all we do not know for certain the cause of it, but because of what he did afterwards. His actions may indicate that he was indeed more guilty of causeing the accident, but without proof, that cannot be determined.

It can be very emotive when a cyclist is killed and someone gets a light sentence, but each case must be judged on its on merits.

stueyc

the drivers fathers reply isn't on the thread..as it been removed?...interested to see what the man said.

BentMikey

stueyc wrote:

the drivers fathers reply isn't on the thread..as it been removed?...interested to see what the man said.

Too right, his post were really sickening.

It's my opinion that it wasn't an accident. I reckon that the truck driver did it intentionally.

jedster

Eau Rouge,

excellent post - points well made. I tend to agree with you that on the evidence dangerous driving was not proven. Perhaps if the jury had been confident that the driver had heard the bike scraping on the road, the cyclist shouting and/or felt the bump as he drove over the cyclist then his not stopping IMMEDIATELY could have been interpretted as dangerous driving - i.e., knowingly driving in a way that he knew to be dangerous.

I have another angle on this though. What did the truck driver's actions during and after the accident say about whether he is psychologically and tempramentally fit to hold a driving license?

The police seem to have regarded it as implausible that he didn't feel or hear the collision. And yet he did not stop.

If he genuinely did not hear or feel the collision, what does that say about his attentiveness when behind the wheel of a truck?

He then disposed of the bike without showing any concern for a potentially injured cyclist. He lied about his actions, clearly more concerned about his future than someone's life.

I think he clearly demonstrated that he does not take his responsibilities as a driver seriously enough - not enough to drive a car let alone a truck.

I agree with you that we shouldn't be looking to lock up everyone who makes an honest driving mistake. That said I think that the courts should have the option of imposing much longer, even life-time, driving bans. Some people simply are not fit to drive.

J

symo

To Andrew Stubbs

Everyone knows what you look like now. Good look when you leave prison I won't be forgetting.

DonDaddyD

symo wrote:

To Andrew Stubbs

Everyone knows what you look like now. Good look when you leave prison I won't be forgetting.

Nothing personal but threats aren't really necessary and frankly pathetic (especially online, behind a computer :roll: ). They don't do cyclist or anyone any favours.

symo

I am not threatening anyone. However if in the future my firm has cause to delvier goods and this numpty turns up to collect then it will be the last job that I contract to that firm ever again.

Sheesh I never would advocate violence.

DonDaddyD

symo wrote:

I am not threatening anyone. However if in the future my firm has cause to delvier goods and this numpty turns up to collect then it will be the last job that I contract to that firm ever again.

Sheesh I never would advocate violence.

Fair do's.

I mistook your previous post.

I'd be surprised if the guy was employable by another delivery firm. But then very little surprises me any more.

cyberknight

Gazzaputt wrote:

Sorry but when the bastard gets out if it were my brother I'd do time for taking real justice out on the scum.

2 years for what he did? Joke.

The father defending is a sicking as the act itself. If my son did the same I want him to stand up and be counted for his actions.

Says it all .

Was a time when i would do exactly the same, now i have wife and kid to provide for .That said if it was my son then the guy would never walk again :shock:

edit said in anger

The truth is we need to get the courts to work properly and treat these cases as murder in reality i wouldn't go round and beat some one up as it would be bringing myself down to their level and in the end would not solve anything.In fact the if he is capable of such an act what else would he do in response to such an encounter?

symo

Does anyone happen to know which firm he was working for?

PBo

eau rouge, the beginner, wallace, all good posts.

the incident is totally sickening - and i guess as cyclists frightening too.

we all think that this guy is an utter a-hole, and its pretty poor judgement by the dad to get involved on the forum, but you guys have been fair and reasoned and calmed this forum down a bit.....people talking about murder is a bit much.


but....oh dear, oh dear, bentmikey - "It's my opinion that it wasn't an accident. I reckon that the truck driver did it intentionally." ........ right, 'cos you were there? jesus, there's a massive difference between sh1t driving, followed by shocking behaviour in covering the crime and intention to hit a cyclist....

c0ck

BentMikey

PBo wrote:

but....oh dear, oh dear, bentmikey - "It's my opinion that it wasn't an accident. I reckon that the truck driver did it intentionally." ........ right, 'cos you were there? jesus, there's a massive difference between sh1t driving, followed by shocking behaviour in covering the crime and intention to hit a cyclist....

c0ck

It's my opinion, nothing more. I reckon he wanted to teach the cyclist "a lesson", and got it very wrong.

Would you use that sort of language to my face? And how does that kind of name calling make you look to others on here?

PBo

BentMikey wrote:

PBo wrote:

but....oh dear, oh dear, bentmikey - "It's my opinion that it wasn't an accident. I reckon that the truck driver did it intentionally." ........ right, 'cos you were there? jesus, there's a massive difference between sh1t driving, followed by shocking behaviour in covering the crime and intention to hit a cyclist....

c0ck

It's my opinion, nothing more. I reckon he wanted to teach the cyclist "a lesson", and got it very wrong.

Would you use that sort of language to my face? And how does that kind of name calling make you look to others on here?

You know what? You are right.........I wouldn't use that language to your face. and I in fact apologise for that.

To be honest, what happened here was that you bore the brunt of my frustration at some of the OTT responses on this post, which had been heading towards a lynch mob, before some calmer voices intervened - and then I guess your comment, for me, took it back the other way. I know it's your opinion, but it just seems so baseless to me, and i still find it a bizzare - and inflamatory - conclusion to reach.

but once again, you are right, name calling doesn't really achieve anything, so I repeat my apologies. I'll just use :roll: next time.......

Clever Pun

Read this morning that a woman crashed into another car killing the driver and unborn baby through going too fast/reckless driving

she got 6 months