Death of a Cyclist - What can be done??

Terra Nova

gtvlusso wrote:

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".....

With regards to my brother's death, it is a very complicated case. There is the possibility that my brother did not pass on the inside of this lorry to get to the front of the junction, and there is a possibility that he did, and there is a possibility that he arrived at the same time as the lorry too. Because there is not one witness who saw his manoeuvre, or Stubbs' manoeuvre, it was a major difficulty in proving this part of the case. From CCTV footage and tacograph evidence of the lorry's movements it could be failry accurately predicted at what time it arrived at the junction. From the same brief CCTV footage of my brother the police could only give a rough estimate of the speed he was cycling, and the speed they estimated put or Tony behind the lorry by at least 30 seconds..

What is clear and undisputed is that 150 metres from the traffic light junction where the collision occurred my brother was IN FRONT of Stubbs by a clear 3 seconds, and that when Stubbs passes the same CCTV camera, more than 3 seconds later, Stubbs is already in an overtaking manouevre, as if he is overtaking my brother who is cycling IN FRONT of him.

The 150m stretch of road is straight and clear and my brother is cycling in the correct position in the road wearing high-vis vest, helmet and riding a cycle with 4 panniers on.

Stubbs may not have completed his overtaking manouvre, and they may have arrived together. Our Tony may have been overtaken and decided to go to the front by passing on the inside. Either way, it could not be proved.

As a lot of these posts are about educating cyclists and preventing cyclists from riding on the inside of lorries I will carry on reading the posts and come back on my thoughts on that one.

Terra Nova

prj45 wrote:

gtvlusso wrote:

Some trucks used to have stickers on the back saying:

Right side "Passing Side" and an arrow

Ridiculous, sometimes it's suicidal to pass on the right when it would be better to pass on the left.

It is NOT suicidal. I will come back to this one and explain why.

DonDaddyD

Terra Nova wrote:

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!

Thank you, the collision I saw isn't at the stage of court yet. But even so, as a witness I don't think I'll think 'guilty' or 'not-guilty'. As a person yes. But for me, personally, I need to stay objective with no agenda because in the end yes the victim lost her life, but this is another persons life I could potentially affect. I am only prepared to affet as per the law of this society by stating the truth as I saw it. So I can live with myself.

At the stage of court its not personal the defence and the prosecution have their parts to play. And yes if it gets to that stage I'll be probably taken to pieces. Even more reason to stick to my principles and do my best to stick to the truth as I saw it.

Maybe that's naive.

Eau Rouge

Terra Nova wrote:

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, it's not. The only justice in a criminal trial is for the accused, to protect them from the State. That's intentional, the only point of the trial. All the Court is trying to do is make the State prove it's case against the accused, in the hope that innocent people do not get locked up.

Terra Nova wrote:

Either way, it could not be proved.

Which is all the Court is interested in.It's not that truth or justice for the victim don't matter too, they do, but they are not the concern of the Court, they never have been and shouldn't be.
Coroner's inquests and public inquires have different concerns, and often are more interested in what actually happened, but they don't intend to punish guilty parties either.
Even there, if someone really doesn't want to come out with the truth, they won't. Ultimately, you can't make them.

spen666

Terra Nova wrote:

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.

Sadly whilst court should be about truth it isn't.

People have vested interests in distorting the truth. Take a road accident and a subsequent criminal prosecution.

Thevictim will have an interest in seeing the defendant found guilty- possibly out of revenge, possibly to make it easier to succeed in a civil claim for compensation that is also being pursued

The defendant will want to distort the truth to avoid conviction and opunishment and also possibly to avoid a potential civil liability.

Witnesses rarely see the whole of an incident .

On top of this, there is also our inherent bias built up by years of experience. Many motorists see cyclists as a nuisance and danger and therefore perceive them to be to blame for the accident- the reverse can be said of cyclists as witnesses.

Truth is a different thing for different people

spen666

Terra Nova wrote:

prj45 wrote:

gtvlusso wrote:

Some trucks used to have stickers on the back saying:

Right side "Passing Side" and an arrow

Ridiculous, sometimes it's suicidal to pass on the right when it would be better to pass on the left.

It is NOT suicidal. I will come back to this one and explain why.

how can you deny that sometimes it is suicidal to do something.

You cannot be there at every overtaking/ undertaking manouvere.

Terra Nova

Eau Rouge wrote:

Terra Nova wrote:

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, it's not. The only justice in a criminal trial is for the accused, to protect them from the State. That's intentional, the only point of the trial. All the Court is trying to do is make the State prove it's case against the accused, in the hope that innocent people do not get locked up.

Terra Nova wrote:

Either way, it could not be proved.

Which is all the Court is interested in.It's not that truth or justice for the victim don't matter too, they do, but they are not the concern of the Court, they never have been and shouldn't be.
Coroner's inquests and public inquires have different concerns, and often are more interested in what actually happened, but they don't intend to punish guilty parties either.
Even there, if someone really doesn't want to come out with the truth, they won't. Ultimately, you can't make them.

I beg to differ. It is about the truth. For the accused it is about protecting them from being convicted of a charge they did not commit. The state brings the charges yes, and as such are subject to strict tests in law so as to protcet defendants from prejudicial prosecutors and fabricated charges that do not reflect the truth of what happened. The evidence is gathered, the sum of all evidence being about ascertaining the truth of what happened, in balance and infairness. Evidence gathering and its subjection to a court is about determining the truth of what happened, as best as can be established, and on this truth judgements can be made. It is obvious, and a privilege of the defence in the protection of justice for them, that dfendants do not have to tell their whole truth and that not all the truth can be ascertained. And, the test is of course that the jury has to be sure of the evidence. Any doubts that they are not sure and they don't convict.

Justice is not about the accused being found not guilty nor is it about the prosecutors securing guilty verdicts, nor is it about victims seeking vengeance or retribution. Being a victim and with first hand experience of a criminal court trial that concerned the death of a sibling, I can quite categrically state that it was about the truth. Justice, for us, was about the obtaining of the truth, and hearing all the evidence, including that of Stubbs himself. It was for the courts to judge on that truth, and whether we accept their judgements or not does not change the fact that what we wanted to know was how our beloved Tony was killed. It isn't naive, it isn't an avoidance of reality. It is the reality.

We didn't get the whole truth, and it was clear shortly after our Tony's death that we wouldn't get the whole truth because none was forthcoming from the man who killed him. IAfter that it was never expected. These are facts my family, particularly our mother, faced and live with quite courageously.

I know all about inquests too, and their purpose as we will be facing one of those concerning our Tony's death. An inquest is about ascertaining the truth of how our Tony died.

cjw

Peter Murphy in his Practical Guide to Evidence recounts an instructive example on truth. A frustrated judge in an English (adversarial) court finally asked a barrister after witnesses had produced conflicting accounts, 'Am I never to hear the truth?' 'No, my lord, merely the evidence', replied counsel.

In our adversarial system it is not truth that is sought simply evidence - often conflicting - to put before a jury and for the jury to decide who has made the best case to the standard of proof required.

spen666

Terra Nova wrote:

Eau Rouge wrote:

Terra Nova wrote:

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, it's not. The only justice in a criminal trial is for the accused, to protect them from the State. That's intentional, the only point of the trial. All the Court is trying to do is make the State prove it's case against the accused, in the hope that innocent people do not get locked up.

Terra Nova wrote:

Either way, it could not be proved.

Which is all the Court is interested in.It's not that truth or justice for the victim don't matter too, they do, but they are not the concern of the Court, they never have been and shouldn't be.
Coroner's inquests and public inquires have different concerns, and often are more interested in what actually happened, but they don't intend to punish guilty parties either.
Even there, if someone really doesn't want to come out with the truth, they won't. Ultimately, you can't make them.

I beg to differ. It is about the truth. For the accused it is about protecting them from being convicted of a charge they did not commit. The state brings the charges yes, and as such are subject to strict tests in law so as to protcet defendants from prejudicial prosecutors and fabricated charges that do not reflect the truth of what happened. The evidence is gathered, the sum of all evidence being about ascertaining the truth of what happened, in balance and infairness. Evidence gathering and its subjection to a court is about determining the truth of what happened, as best as can be established, and on this truth judgements can be made. It is obvious, and a privilege of the defence in the protection of justice for them, that dfendants do not have to tell their whole truth and that not all the truth can be ascertained. And, the test is of course that the jury has to be sure of the evidence. Any doubts that they are not sure and they don't convict.

Justice is not about the accused being found not guilty nor is it about the prosecutors securing guilty verdicts, nor is it about victims seeking vengeance or retribution. Being a victim and with first hand experience of a criminal court trial that concerned the death of a sibling, I can quite categrically state that it was about the truth. Justice, for us, was about the obtaining of the truth, and hearing all the evidence, including that of Stubbs himself. It was for the courts to judge on that truth, and whether we accept their judgements or not does not change the fact that what we wanted to know was how our beloved Tony was killed. It isn't naive, it isn't an avoidance of reality. It is the reality.

We didn't get the whole truth, and it was clear shortly after our Tony's death that we wouldn't get the whole truth because none was forthcoming from the man who killed him. IAfter that it was never expected. These are facts my family, particularly our mother, faced and live with quite courageously.

I know all about inquests too, and their purpose as we will be facing one of those concerning our Tony's death. An inquest is about ascertaining the truth of how our Tony died.

Sadly, you are not talking about what happens in reality.

greg66_tri_v2.0

Terra Nova wrote:

Justice, for us, was about the obtaining of the truth, and hearing all the evidence, including that of Stubbs himself. It was for the courts to judge on that truth, and whether we accept their judgements or not does not change the fact that what we wanted to know was how our beloved Tony was killed.

Can I try unravelling that comment a bit?

Are you saying that you think Stubbs
- wasn't asked the necessary questions to elicit everything he knew, or
- despite being asked the necessary questions he failed to answer them (completely or at all), or
- was asked the necessary questions but answered them untruthfully?

Terra Nova

"Sadly, you are not talking about what happens in reality."

Sadly not, on many occasions it isn't it can be argued, but you have to believe in justice and the demand for truth or how could anyone practise in law, how could the police do their jobs, and who would be a crown prosecutor?..

What do you believe? You never seem to say what it is you believe in, you just tell us how the justice system works and paint the grim picture of reality. We know what the reality is. But what do you think??

spen666

Terra Nova wrote:

"Sadly, you are not talking about what happens in reality."

Sadly not, on many occasions it isn't it can be argued, but you have to believe in justice and the demand for truth or how could anyone practise in law, how could the police do their jobs, and who would be a crown prosecutor?..

What do you believe? You never seem to say what it is you believe in, you just tell us how the justice system works and paint the grim picture of reality. We know what the reality is. But what do you think??

Sadly people don't know how the justice system works.

If they did I would not have to post so many corrections on here.


What do I believe? - about what?

zanes

Terra Nova wrote:

What do you believe? You never seem to say what it is you believe in, you just tell us how the justice system works and paint the grim picture of reality. We know what the reality is. But what do you think??

You know, I'm sure spen's mentioned he has some experience in the legal business. Once or twice

Or every fucking time this sort of stuff comes up. Search the forum ffs.

Wallace1492

zanes wrote:

Terra Nova wrote:

What do you believe? You never seem to say what it is you believe in, you just tell us how the justice system works and paint the grim picture of reality. We know what the reality is. But what do you think??

You know, I'm sure spen's mentioned he has some experience in the legal business. Once or twice

Or every ******* time this sort of stuff comes up. Search the forum ffs.

I think that we all know Spen is in the legal profession, but that is not What Terra Nova is asking. I would believe he is asking his personal opinion on what can be done to get the truth and proper justice in cases like this.

spen666

Wallace1492 wrote:

zanes wrote:

Terra Nova wrote:

....

I think that we all know Spen is in the legal profession, but that is not What Terra Nova is asking. I would believe he is asking his personal opinion on what can be done to get the truth and proper justice in cases like this.

Truth and proper justice are differing things

I don't think you are neccessarily able to achieve both in the real world

People always have factors that distort the truth, even when being honest. Remember the old Guardian adverts?

greg66_tri_v2.0

spen666 wrote:

Remember the old Guardian adverts?

The skinhead and the old lady in the street? Oh yes.

number9

The difference strict liability would make is that the cyclist or his relatives would not be forced to pursue a lengthy court action against the insurers to force them to pay up, putting up with delaying tactics, dubious counter-allegations and finally derisory offers before eventual resolution.

bigmat

Hang on, I thought it was presumed liability, not strict? Presumed is worthy of debate, strict is just complete nonsense...

greg66_tri_v2.0

number9 wrote:

The difference strict liability would make is that the cyclist or his relatives would not be forced to pursue a lengthy court action against the insurers to force them to pay up, putting up with delaying tactics, dubious counter-allegations and finally derisory offers before eventual resolution.

At the other end of the scale though, it would encourage try-ons, nurture a sense of injustice ("my insurance had to pay even though the cyclist admitted it was his fault") and generally not be, well, just.

And you'd still get the foot dragging tactics you've listed over how much the claim was worth. Liability and quantum are two distinct stages.

number9

There's also the question of those most vulnerable needing protection. We have one of the worst child casualty rates on the roads in Europe, despite our cycling rates being much lower than many European countries. Just as we know more cyclists make the roads safer, the converse is that drivers think "Why should the speed limit on this road be so low, there are no cyclists!".

It's a form of bullying, the weak acceeding to the powerful.

The treatment of RTA victims belies our "civilised nation" status. The argument "you can't prove that I was operating my car outside the parameters of the Highway Code therefore I'm not responsible for any damage that it's caused" is inherently irresponsible.

bigmat

number9 wrote:

There's also the question of those most vulnerable needing protection. We have one of the worst child casualty rates on the roads in Europe, despite our cycling rates being much lower than many European countries. Just as we know more cyclists make the roads safer, the converse is that drivers think "Why should the speed limit on this road be so low, there are no cyclists!".

It's a form of bullying, the weak acceeding to the powerful.

The treatment of RTA victims belies our "civilised nation" status. The argument "you can't prove that I was operating my car outside the parameters of the Highway Code therefore I'm not responsible for any damage that it's caused" is inherently irresponsible.

But isn't the argument that "we don't care if you were operating your car inside the parameters of the Highway Code, you will always be responsible for any damage you cause to a cyclist" even more unfair? I can't be bothered to regurgitate examples of how unjust this would be, but the simple point is that no parliament would ever pass that legislation, ever.

Bear in mind also that in the context of this thread, we're talking about liability for somebody's death. That could amount to a lot of money, potentially into the £millions. That'd be quite hard to take if you'd done nothing wrong, on top of the shock and guilt most reasonable people would feel at being involved in a fatal accident.

Paulie W

As a cyclist I do not ride in constant fear for my life as some who post on this forum seem to but I wonder sometimes whether I am the one who is out of touch with reality when I hear of the tragic events described at the beginning of and throughout this thread (and others).

I am aware that I am vulnerable and I do my best to offset that vulnerability by being clear and decisive in my manouevres and road positioning, but also by being defensive when necessary which includes things like not filtering if there are any potential dangers. I also tend not to cycle at high speed in built up areas with lots of side streets, in areas where there is lots of onroad parking. I have so far avoided any injury, serious or otehrwise, while cycling on the roads - off-road is another matter. I realise increasingly that although I have played a part in my accident record, fortune has a greater role to play.

For all my 'cyclecraft' - real or imagined - I am ultimately heavily reliant for my safety on other road users. Given this, that I dont ride in constant fear is a testament to how much faith I have in the majority of my fellow men and women not to endanger me if they can help it. Those who would intentionally endanger me are tiny in number - to encounter such individuals is great and tragic misfortune. There are of course far more who may unintentionally endanger cyclists or endanger them without really knowing they are doing so. 'Education' in the broad sense must be the key here, not just the education of HGV drivers but also the education of motorists about how cyclists should be expected to position themselves on the road, etc

This is a piffling example in the wider context of this thread but I think makes my point. I approached a red light this morning where a row of about 4 cars sat. I moved to centre lane and freewheeled towards the row of traffic intending to sit in behind the 4th car as I always do at this point since there is no real value in filtering to the front and I can keep with the flow of the traffic once the lights change. A white van which had sat behind me at two previous sets of lights decided to overtake me before I got to the queue despite my road position and ended up pulling in just in front of me forcing me to swerve slightly to the left and effectively to sit on his inside. I gave him a withering look but no more and he gesticulated something, I think to indicate that I should get over further to the left! And here's the thing: he was clearly irritated by me being in front of him and to his mind I was holding him up for no good reason by moving to the centre of the lane. I suspect that he didnt realise why it was appropriate or sensible to position myself there; if he understood the rationale for why I was there maybe he would still have been an arse but maybe he wouldnt.

number9

But isn't the argument that "we don't care if you were operating your car inside the parameters of the Highway Code, you will always be responsible for any damage you cause to a cyclist" even more unfair?

Absolutely.

Luckily, nobody's suggesting any such thing.

bigmat

number9 wrote:

But isn't the argument that "we don't care if you were operating your car inside the parameters of the Highway Code, you will always be responsible for any damage you cause to a cyclist" even more unfair?

Absolutely.

Luckily, nobody's suggesting any such thing.

Well you were suggesting strict liability for drivers involved in collisions with bicycles, perhaps I've misunderstood but I though that is what you meant? I don't want to get all pedantic on you, but maybe you could clarify a bit?

greg66_tri_v2.0

number9 wrote:

But isn't the argument that "we don't care if you were operating your car inside the parameters of the Highway Code, you will always be responsible for any damage you cause to a cyclist" even more unfair?

Absolutely.

Luckily, nobody's suggesting any such thing.

Err, either you're being disingenuous, or (if I'm charitable) mischievous, or you don't appear to understand what the strict liability principle you've argued for really means.

number9

I suspect that he didnt realise why it was appropriate or sensible to position myself there; if he understood the rationale for why I was there maybe he would still have been an ars* but maybe he wouldnt.

I had something similar the first time I used the BLT lights, visible from 3 kilometers away. Outside Thorpe Hamlet Primary School, going downhill at above 15mph, in primary. I heard the car accelerating behind me, it crossed to the wrong side of the road, got ahead, and IMMEDIATELY put the brakes on to slow for the junction and block me. A pointless, dangerous leap-frogging, thinking afterwards I wondered if the driver considered the lights a rebuke in some way.

number9

MatHammond wrote:

number9 wrote:

But isn't the argument that "we don't care if you were operating your car inside the parameters of the Highway Code, you will always be responsible for any damage you cause to a cyclist" even more unfair?

Absolutely.

Luckily, nobody's suggesting any such thing.

Well you were suggesting strict liability for drivers involved in collisions with bicycles, perhaps I've misunderstood but I though that is what you meant? I don't want to get all pedantic on you, but maybe you could clarify a bit?

The media misrepresentations of the proposals can only partly explain the general ignorance as to what it means. I've explained at length here what the proposals mean, untold links have been posted, yet still this myth persists.

bigmat

Its nothing to do with media misrepresentations (although I agree there has been a lot of that). I think you are confusing your terminology a bit, that's all. Strict liability is what I described above e.g. its strict, there's no getting out of it. What has been proposed (I believe) is a presumption of liability, which is rebuttable by evidence. Its a very important distinction, your argument is a non-starter if you get mixed up on that bit.

number9

The principle of Strict Liability whereby there is an assumption of liability without proof of fault, as applied in the Netherlands and elsewhere, and being discussed here - isn't that the motorist would always be responsible regardless of circumstances - rather that the burden of proof would be reversed such that the onus would fall upon the less vulnerable road user to prove that they weren't responsible for the damage or injuries suffered by the more vulnerable road user - rather than the reverse as it works currently.



You're attempting to influence people's opinion by playing on their emotions and citing ridiculous and false scenarios with no reference to the facts. That's cheap (although gregg is lapping it up like a hungry dacshund) and you're normally above that.

To claim that this would encourage reckless riding is equally ridiculous - cyclists who choose to flout the law and show no respect to other road users do so because the threat of being caught under criminal law is virtually non existent and the penalties derisory if they were - not because of any consideration of who picks up the tab for the costs of any subsequent injury or damage under civil law.

The claim that cyclists would behave any more irresponsibly because they knew that they would get their bike fixed for free after they get flattened by a car is contemptuous, they've got much more to lose - motorists, however, have little to lose apart from money in a collision with a cyclist - it would most certainly have an impact on their behaviour.

Wallace1492

number9 wrote:

MatHammond wrote:

number9 wrote:

But isn't the argument that "we don't care if you were operating your car inside the parameters of the Highway Code, you will always be responsible for any damage you cause to a cyclist" even more unfair?

Absolutely.

Luckily, nobody's suggesting any such thing.

Well you were suggesting strict liability for drivers involved in collisions with bicycles, perhaps I've misunderstood but I though that is what you meant? I don't want to get all pedantic on you, but maybe you could clarify a bit?

The media misrepresentations of the proposals can only partly explain the general ignorance as to what it means. I've explained at length here what the proposals mean, untold links have been posted, yet still this myth persists.

I am all for strict liability. Yes, may be percieved to be unfair, but it works on the continent. It also has not increased the cost of motor vehicle insurance, and in no way presumes the driver guilty.

No9 has posted some very good information. However, No9, when you say nobody has suggested such a thing, yes they have and I am all for it!! From what you have posted I believe you are all for it too. I would think any sensible cyclist would be for it too.