Death of a Cyclist - What can be done??
Comments
-
Sorry to disagree, but if I skid on black ice, I am solely to blame. It is foreseeable, if it is foreseeable it is avoidable.
I know if the temperature is low this is a possibility, I also know that there may be variations of a few degrees on my journey. If I were to assume that because it was +3 degrees I can drive with impunity I would be a fool!
It happened to me last week, first bad frost of the winter, caught me out - no excuses, I should anticipated the issue. Ironically, it was on a road near here called "Freezing Hill" - I can hardly make any excuses!
This timely reminder will make me up my concentration levels during the winter.0 -
Firstly I'd look at fitting HGV's with a left-turn sounding alarm. Something like two short beeps to define it from reverse. It could act to warn cyclists & keep them aware of the vehicles intention.
Secondly explore the possibilty of side cameras/proximity detectors on large vehicles. Something along the lines that if there is movement along the inside of the vehicle triggers an alarm be it visual or audio to alert the driver. If it causes a driver to just take an extra few seconds or a second look before turning it could make all the difference.0 -
Some trucks used to have stickers on the back saying:
Right side "Passing Side" and an arrow
Left Side "Suicide" and a "no entry" sign
Not sure if it is of any relevance?
or a big sticker saying "If you cannot see my mirrors then I cannot see you!".
In terms of the actual tragedy here, as Terra Nova has pointed out - Need to know the truth of what actually happened, seems to be a little vague due to Mr Stubbs unwillingness to confirm the events (unless I have missed something in the previous report - which I may well have done!) to perhaps find a solution.
Perhaps education for both parties and tolerance/understanding of each parties environment/weaknesses.
Bigger signage on roads utilised heavily by HGV's saying "Beware Cyclists".....0 -
number9 wrote:Accidents in the true sense are incredibly rare. Almost invariably, driver error is involved, according to those notorious tree-hugging hippies, er, ROSPA. We have a media, legal system and public attitude that tries to convince us that external factors are to blame. Weather. Speed cameras. Road layout. Cyclists. Whatever. The reality is, RTAs are nearly always due to driver error.
Now, this may be true, but surely we still have a huge continuum of driver error. "There but for the grace of god go I" misjudgements at one end of the scale, that we all know deep down we could have made ourselves, however good a driver we are. Nobody is perfect, and despite the possible tragic consequences, concentration can be lost for a critical second, by even the most diligent of driver. No point in pretending otherwise, and quite frankly, no point in trying to do anything about it - shit happens, and education/punishment won't change such inadvertent unintended failures. I'm someone who believes driving is a privilege, not a right - so don't have a problem with license suspensions etc. - but this can't deter me one day from perhaps hitting a cyclist because, say, my infant son starts screaming and distracts me at the wrong moment. Being realistic about this does not mean we are condoning it, or making it socially acceptable. I would be devastated, and have to carry the incident to my grave, but no amount of driver bashing, or education would have changed the outcome of such a driver error. I have no problem with calling that an accident, because there is no intention or deliberate behaviour on the part of the driver.
Towards the other end of the scale we have the driver errors which are more down to negligent causes such as speeding, texting, bald tyres. here, despite a lack of intent, I agree that these are not accidents, because the driver's deliberate action highly increased the risks. this is where the punishments should really be racked up, because this where motorists are showing a blatant disregard for others.
I feel that the stance of "no such thing as an accident" isn't effective, because there will be a knee jerk reaction from the drivers at the "unfortunate" end of the scale. We need to focus on the worst behaviour and address that.0 -
Nice post PBo. There has to be a scale of negligence. However, the consequencies can be massively different. A momentary lapse of concentration results in a death, whereas texting while driving results in a minor scrape. Who should get punished more?
I do not have the answer as it is very subjective.
It is very difficult. In the case did the lorry driver mean to harm Mr Spinks? Was it a deliberate act, I cannot believe it initially was. Who was to blame for the incident? Well, not sure, cyclist on inside of left turning lorry, was lorry indicating, had he looked out for cyclist, should cyclist have filtered up inside, all are questions that may never be answered. Therefore attributing blame in this case is extremely difficult. The actions of driver afterwards are sickening.
Was this avoidable - undoubtably. Were both parties at fault? Who knows."Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"0 -
I learn something new every day. I was sure I had heard of such a thing. So drivers who get a ban, then win an appeal against it because it stops them going to work, actually have the ban quashed? Do you know why the courts do this? If you need your car so badly to work, you shouldn't have been driving it in a manner that makes the court want to ban you.spen666 wrote:There is no power in English law to impose a suspended driving ban.
The suggestion was more short-term driving bans. Thats a change in sentencing policy. Judges decide sentences, so would it require a change in the law to get them to change how they sentence or is there another way to achieve that?spen666 wrote:Why change the law? A ban can be imposed now for careless driving. You appear to be calling for the law to be changed to what it currently is now
Of course CPS not CPP. That explains why the CPS don't proceed, but doesn't change my underlying problem. I'm confused by the thinking that it's more in the public interest to prosecute a motorist breaking the speed limit but otherwise not actually being involved in an accident than it is to prosecute one who has actually had an accident. Road deaths and injuries are caused by people having accidents, after all.spen666 wrote:The guidelines CPS lawyers have to abide by make it clear that in careless driving cases where there is relatively minor property damage or iminor injury, then it will not normally be in PI to proceed
Suggs can be the public face of my "prosecute more careless drivers" campaign. He can write a theme song.spen666 wrote:No, I must challenge you here- they are a pop group,they are not involved in road traffic legislation0 -
Eau Rouge wrote:. I'm confused by the thinking that it's more in the public interest to prosecute a motorist breaking the speed limit but otherwise not actually being involved in an accident than it is to prosecute one who has actually had an accident. Road deaths and injuries are caused by people having accidents, after all.
Because (all other things being equal) the person doing 90mph in a residential area is more dangerous than the person doing 30mph or 35mph, who is "unlucky" because they hit someone. Just like the person using the mobile is more dangerous than the person with both hands on the wheel.
You should punish them for the offence that's been committed. Otherwise it's a bit like 'do whatever you want as long as you don't hit anyone', and dangerous drivers won't get taken off the road until it's too late and they've killed someone/themselves.0 -
bails87 wrote:Because (all other things being equal) the person doing 90mph in a residential area is more dangerous than the person doing 30mph or 35mph, who is "unlucky" because they hit someone. Just like the person using the mobile is more dangerous than the person with both hands on the wheel.
Doing 90mph in a 30mph would, I'm pretty sure, be a dangerous driving charge, not careless driving. The guy doing 35mph in a 30mph though, is he really more dangerous than someone who has actually casued a crash? I struggle to meet you at "as dangerous", there is no way I'd get to "more dangerous". Actually hitting someting, that's pretty bad. There's no unlucky about it, they were at fault for an accident. They were lucky it didn't cause enough injury or cost to be deemed in the public interest to prosecute for the offence they have commited. Going slowly and hitting things is worse than going fast and not.
It is "Don't Hit Anyone". Is that not seared on the mind of everyone behind the wheel of a car? Maybe it should be. Maybe prosecuting those (allegedly, for the courts to decide) guilty of careless driving would put it there, rather than not bothering becuase it's not enough in the public interest.0 -
I'm not quite sure what you are asking hereEau Rouge wrote:
I learn something new every day. I was sure I had heard of such a thing. So drivers who get a ban, then win an appeal against it because it stops them going to work, actually have the ban quashed? Do you know why the courts do this? If you need your car so badly to work, you shouldn't have been driving it in a manner that makes the court want to ban you.spen666 wrote:There is no power in English law to impose a suspended driving ban.
Why do the courts quash a ban? The courts quash a ban if they feel it was not the appropriate sentence in the same way they do with any other sentence. If you get 6 years imprisonment and the appelate court think you should have got 4 years, they reduce sentence accordingly. Same if they thought you should have not got custosdy.
No different with a driving ban
The fact you need a car to get to work is only mitigation, it does not mean you automatically avoid a ban. A court must consider all the facts before imposing its punishment. For example the loss of a job if someone is given a shortprison sentence may be a factor that persuades acourt to impose a non custodial sentence as losing their job or career may be too much for the facts of the offence
The courts do now impose short bans- for example if you were doing 100 mph on a motorway you could expect a ban circa 28 days
The suggestion was more short-term driving bans. Thats a change in sentencing policy. Judges decide sentences, so would it require a change in the law to get them to change how they sentence or is there another way to achieve that?spen666 wrote:Why change the law? A ban can be imposed now for careless driving. You appear to be calling for the law to be changed to what it currently is now
For totting up offence the minimum ban is 6 months. The courts have no power to reduce that
Takethat up with the DPP. I can't help you on that. I don't make policy
Of course CPS not CPP. That explains why the CPS don't proceed, but doesn't change my underlying problem. I'm confused by the thinking that it's more in the public interest to prosecute a motorist breaking the speed limit but otherwise not actually being involved in an accident than it is to prosecute one who has actually had an accident. Road deaths and injuries are caused by people having accidents, after all.spen666 wrote:The guidelines CPS lawyers have to abide by make it clear that in careless driving cases where there is relatively minor property damage or iminor injury, then it will not normally be in PI to proceed
Suggs can be the public face of my "prosecute more careless drivers" campaign. He can write a theme song.spen666 wrote:No, I must challenge you here- they are a pop group,they are not involved in road traffic legislation
He of course would be a bad choice as he isnot themost careful driver. May I refer my friend to Suggs statement in 1982 where he said in "Driving in my Car"Last week it went round the clock, I also had a little knock
I dented somebody's fender, he learnt not to park on a bender, ha ha ha
That seems to be an admission of careless driving to me- possibly also failing to stop and failingto report an accident.
He continued to confessThis copper stopped me the other day, you're mistaken what could I say
The tyres were a little worn, they were o.k., I could have sworn
So he is also driving with defective tyres aswell.
Is he really appropriate to front your campaign?Want to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com
Twittering @spen_6660 -
I think it's this bit, combined with hazy recollection of bad journalism. I believe I've read stories of people not been given bans(or having them revoked) and the reason is reported as related to them needing to drive for their employment, which always struck me as a bit silly. Like I said, if you need your car for work, then don't drive in such a way as you might otherwise get a driving ban!spen666 wrote:I'm not quite sure what you are asking here
The fact you need a car to get to work is only mitigation,The courts do now impose short bans- for example if you were doing 100 mph on a motorway you could expect a ban circa 28 days
For totting up offence the minimum ban is 6 months. The courts have no power to reduce that
Isn't 100mph dangerous rather than careless driving? That's a side issue. So the idea of having the courts impose more short-term bans for careless driving charges could be made to work. Do you think it would actually happen, or would mitigation make them reluctant?
Get a promotion to a post where you do then!Takethat up with the DPP. I can't help you on that. I don't make policy
Worrying news. He may still be ideal though, that was in his youth, he may well be a reformed character. Who better to warn of the dangers of carelss drivers than an ex-careless driver themselves?He of course would be a bad choice as he isnot themost careful driver. ...
Is he really appropriate to front your campaign?0 -
100mph on a motorway is probably neither careless or dangerous, but simply speeding.
Depends on the conditions etc
Re imposing short bans for careless driving - I think personally it may be a good idea, BUT it may be difficult to enforce.Want to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com
Twittering @spen_6660 -
A cyclist comes up to traffic lights in the same manner that any other cyclist would.The lights are at red.A lorry is the first vehicle at the lights Cyclist thinks "I can beat this lorry off the mark and cross safely" so he stops infront of the lorry perhaps not realising that he is in the drivers blind spot. He has one foot on the peddal one on the road.
The lights change,there is contact between lorry and cyclist.Cyclist is killed.
Is this an accident?
whose fault is it, cyclist, lorry driver ,both or nobody's0 -
spen666 wrote:
Why do the courts quash a ban? The courts quash a ban if they feel it was not the appropriate sentence in the same way they do with any other sentence. If you get 6 years imprisonment and the appelate court think you should have got 4 years, they reduce sentence accordingly. Same if they thought you should have not got custosdy.
No different with a driving ban
You sure about this? I thought only sentences for certain offences could be referred to the appeal court? I've never heard of a ban being reduced.Rules are for fools.0 -
truthman wrote:whose fault is it, cyclist, lorry driver ,both or nobody's
If I was asked to drive a vehicle that had such massive blind spots I'd refuse.
Surely people that reverse these things unsupervised are commiting some sort of crime?
And surely a pre-drive health and saftey check would preclude these things from ever going out on the road:
"Tyres OK"
"Brakes OK"
"What do you mean you can't see out of the cab properly?"0 -
The estimable Jenny Jones says there are no such things as blind spots.
In some cases, if the driver had leant forward in his seat, the driver would have seen the cyclist on the nearside. The driver turns left, the cyclists is killed, blind spot is the excuse.0 -
-
-
number9 wrote:The estimable Jenny Jones says there are no such things as blind spots.
In some cases, if the driver had leant forward in his seat, the driver would have seen the cyclist on the nearside. The driver turns left, the cyclists is killed, blind spot is the excuse.
number9, I've kept out of some of the pissing contests of the last few weeks, but it's posts like this that do you few favours. Do you have a serious point to make, or are you being ironic?Rules are for fools.0 -
truthman wrote:A cyclist comes up to traffic lights in the same manner that any other cyclist would.The lights are at red.A lorry is the first vehicle at the lights Cyclist thinks "I can beat this lorry off the mark and cross safely" so he stops infront of the lorry perhaps not realising that he is in the drivers blind spot. He has one foot on the peddal one on the road.
The lights change,there is contact between lorry and cyclist.Cyclist is killed.
Is this an accident?
whose fault is it, cyclist, lorry driver ,both or nobody's
I have to take huge issue with "in the same manner any other cyclist would" here. A cyclist approaches a red light, finds a lorry is at the front of the queue, then I would say most experienced cyclists would not even think of filtering past it, because it's a great big dangerous lorry. In that scenario the cyclist is at least partly responsible.
(by all means filter past one thats a few cars back front of the queue, where you will be in his line of sight
Now, if the lorry has passed the cyclists in the immediate past, he should be expecting the cyclist to catch up as he waits at the lights, so should know where he is, and so the lorry driver would be partly at fault then.
If the cyclist is at the lights first, then the lorry driver would be absolutely at fault in any resulting collision.
All that is still dependent on any mitigating factors, and of course, up to a jury to decide.
By the way, the blind spots on Transit or X5 or Clio might not be as big as those on a lorry but let's not pretend they don't exist at all, and lets really not pretend drivers check every inch of their surrounding space before every manoeuvre they make, no matter what they are driving. There is no reason a competent well trained driver can't operate a HGV safely at all times.0 -
This is the view from a Fresnel mirror:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... s-lives.do
The driver's set back from the front of the vehicle, but no more, and probably less than a car driver, lorries having no bonnets.
To obliterate the blind spot immediately to the side or in front of the lorry, the driver would need to lean forwards or sideways to check his twenty tons of metal isn't going to kill someone.
I don't think this is an unbearable burden to place on HGV drivers.0 -
number9 wrote:This is the view from a Fresnel mirror:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... s-lives.do
The driver's set back from the front of the vehicle, but no more, and probably less than a car driver, lorries having no bonnets.
To obliterate the blind spot immediately to the side or in front of the lorry, the driver would need to lean forwards or sideways to check his twenty tons of metal isn't going to kill someone.
I don't think this is an unbearable burden to place on HGV drivers.
But isn't educating a driver to check blind spots second on the list behind educating cyclists not to get into them in the first place?
Cyclists are vulnerable. I'd make smart defensive riding techniques the top priority. You want to avoid being in the position of having to rely on someone else to ensure you're safe.0 -
Waddlie wrote:spen666 wrote:
Why do the courts quash a ban? The courts quash a ban if they feel it was not the appropriate sentence in the same way they do with any other sentence. If you get 6 years imprisonment and the appelate court think you should have got 4 years, they reduce sentence accordingly. Same if they thought you should have not got custosdy.
No different with a driving ban
You sure about this? I thought only sentences for certain offences could be referred to the appeal court? I've never heard of a ban being reduced.
I'm 100% certain of it
Any sentence can be appealed.
Driving ban lengths can and are reduced on appeal if appropriate. I have represented many motorists who have had bans reduced in length on an appeal. Where there is a minimum ban eg 12 months for drink driving, the ban cannot be reduced below the minimum.Want to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com
Twittering @spen_6660 -
Wasn't there a woman a few years back, may even be ten years back who appealed here ban for killing a cyclist on the grounds that her kids lived four miles away from school and there wasn't an adequate bus service, she lived in a rural area, and claimed that the car was an essential, her appeal was granted. :evil:
A car isn't essential, it makes life a lot easier, but it isn't an essential like air, water and food.0 -
Greg66 wrote:number9 wrote:This is the view from a Fresnel mirror:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... s-lives.do
The driver's set back from the front of the vehicle, but no more, and probably less than a car driver, lorries having no bonnets.
To obliterate the blind spot immediately to the side or in front of the lorry, the driver would need to lean forwards or sideways to check his twenty tons of metal isn't going to kill someone.
I don't think this is an unbearable burden to place on HGV drivers.
But isn't educating a driver to check blind spots second on the list behind educating cyclists not to get into them in the first place?
Cyclists are vulnerable. I'd make smart defensive riding techniques the top priority. You want to avoid being in the position of having to rely on someone else to ensure you're safe.
Doesn't it depend on whether or not other people are also vulnerable e.g. pedestrians? Presumably we can't educate every single person who might come into contact with an HGV before educating the driver of the vehicle; isn't that why we have a driving test in the first place - so that the driver is the first source of ensuring safety.0 -
tebbit wrote:Wasn't there a woman a few years back, may even be ten years back who appealed here ban for killing a cyclist on the grounds that her kids lived four miles away from school and there wasn't an adequate bus service, she lived in a rural area, and claimed that the car was an essential, her appeal was granted. :evil:
A car isn't essential, it makes life a lot easier, but it isn't an essential like air, water and food.
Woman hits cyclist, cyclist falls off and is killed.
Woman goes to court, pleads that points will mean an automatic ban (she has already been convicted of several offences), and that means she would have to walk two miles to school.
Intolerable!
So she walks away with her license and a £250 fine.
That, my friend, is the reality of motorists' accountability, brought to you by registration plates, excise duty, compulsory testing and insurance.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Bloody_cyclists0 -
number9 wrote:tebbit wrote:Wasn't there a woman a few years back, may even be ten years back who appealed here ban for killing a cyclist on the grounds that her kids lived four miles away from school and there wasn't an adequate bus service, she lived in a rural area, and claimed that the car was an essential, her appeal was granted. :evil:
A car isn't essential, it makes life a lot easier, but it isn't an essential like air, water and food.
Woman hits cyclist, cyclist falls off and is killed.
Woman goes to court, pleads that points will mean an automatic ban (she has already been convicted of several offences), and that means she would have to walk two miles to school.
Intolerable!
So she walks away with her license and a £250 fine.
That, my friend, is the reality of motorists' accountability, brought to you by registration plates, excise duty, compulsory testing and insurance.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/wiki/Bloody_cyclists
Is this not one side of the story, yes it does seem extremely lienient, but none of the above goes into detail about the case. There must be reasons the driver was not jailed for causing death by dangerous driving. Was the crash the cyclists fault.
We are in danger here of becoming the cycling equivalent of the Daily Mail.
I prefer the truth, and the whole truth!!"Encyclopaedia is a fetish for very small bicycles"0 -
Greg66 wrote:number9 wrote:This is the view from a Fresnel mirror:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/ ... s-lives.do
The driver's set back from the front of the vehicle, but no more, and probably less than a car driver, lorries having no bonnets.
To obliterate the blind spot immediately to the side or in front of the lorry, the driver would need to lean forwards or sideways to check his twenty tons of metal isn't going to kill someone.
I don't think this is an unbearable burden to place on HGV drivers.
But isn't educating a driver to check blind spots second on the list behind educating cyclists not to get into them in the first place?
Cyclists are vulnerable. I'd make smart defensive riding techniques the top priority. You want to avoid being in the position of having to rely on someone else to ensure you're safe.
I agree from a practicality point of view - none of us want to die. But in terms of responsibility the onus should be on the HGV's them being the ones killing people and all that. In reality we need both to happen, but I would never say that educating drivers to check blind spots should be "second on the list".0 -
Spen you say "Criminal Court cases are not about the truth- no matter how much you are lead to think that."
"In criminal cases, the truth rarely comes out"
Criminal Court Cases should be about the truth, as should public inquiries and coroner's inquests be about the truth too. That is the whole point of justice isn't it? No-one lead me into believeing court was going to be a nice, bed of roses. The exact opposite was true. The police and the CPS prepared us quite explicitly about the difficulties they were about to face in determining the whole of truth of what happened. Criminal court trials are about proving guilt, if, after investigation and collection of evidence, guilt is reasonably suspected by the Crown Prosecution Service.
When I talk about wanting the truth I mean just that. Everyone wants to know the truth, whether or not it will be provided in court or not doesn't matter. When you are sat at home for years never having spoken to a witness yourself about the burning questions you want answering, then being in court is about hearing that truth.
Besides I am not on this debate to discuss my perceptions of our criminal law and justice system, I think I have a pretty sound understanding of it, even before my recent experience.0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:[
But yes, often personal feelings create vested interests and the way things are said inciminate far beyond what the truth could ever do.
"As a witness all I am going to do is say what I saw, what I didn't and couldn't see and be done with it. In that way I will feel I have served justice, the concept not the case.
The way things are said... interesting you should say that. If you saw the way the man who killed my brother say that my brother was stupid and suicidal when he was on the stand defending himself against such a serious charge you would have thought "guilty". Showing such contempt for a life you have just taken does not necessarily mean you are guilty though, and it did not sway the jury that way either.....We believe he was guilty, and because of the way the death by dangerous driving charge is worded the jury can just take it down to a matter of opinion, even when all the evidence is there. We never get to know why a jury comes to their verdict.
I hope the statement and evidence giving goes well for you. I am sure you will be prepared for a cross examination by a defence barrister. They will try to discredit you, humiliate you, confuse you, convince you even that you saw something completely different to what you did see, particularly if your evidence is condemning to the accused. But you won't know that, you will just tell it how it was.
Good luck!0
This discussion has been closed.
