Why Lock The Thread re Death of a Cyclist?

cee

Wallace1492 wrote:

The thread is/was not about assumed liability, but about the death of a cyclist and what we can learn, change, amend, improve, in order that this does not happen again.

no it wasn't... that was the other thread.

the op

spen666 wrote:

There was a serious debate going on there re presumption of liability or strict liability

This is an important issue yet it appears to have been locked without any reason being given?

I had previously been under the impression that the crashing into the back of someone (both cars) was legally assumed liability, but actually what greg i think said makes sense.

Problem for us is that it doesn't really translate to accidents between cars and bicycles. Death or serious injury are hardly compensatable by money, so while i would welcome a similar stance from the insurance companies for the many accidents which do not result in serious injury can be dealt with more quickly.....there has to something more for when the very worst happens.

my opinion is that there does have to be a legal imperative to 'encourage' road users to all use the road safely. I think that causing a death by whatever reason should instigate an immediate licence revokation and a re-test (at the very least). The excuses of SMIDSY etc are pathetic. if you didn't see...you probably were not paying enough attention.

spen666

cee wrote:

[...
my opinion is that there does have to be a legal imperative to 'encourage' road users to all use the road safely. I think that causing a death by whatever reason should instigate an immediate licence revokation and a re-test (at the very least). The excuses of SMIDSY etc are pathetic. if you didn't see...you probably were not paying enough attention.

Absolutely disagree about licence revocation. a) There needs to be due process
b) there are many incidents when someone dies but driver is not to blame at all.

Imagine you are sat in your car on motorway in traffic queue. Speeding motorist on phone fails to notice queue and drives into back of your car. He dies.

Your licence is revoked, you lose your job immediately, you lose your house etc.

Sound fair when you were not even moving and are 100% blameless?

That is the reality of your suggestion

Terra Nova

spen666 wrote:

Terra Nova wrote:

spen666 wrote:

[


i'm sorry, but nosensible person is going to sit there and take a longer than necessary prison sentence just because some person in the public gallery gets a bit aggrieved.

Will you go to prison for years to avoid upsetting me?

no? Funny that

In an adversarial system you must expect adversarial behaviour

You are living in a fantasy world igf you think people are going to avoid defending themselves just to avoid upsetting the victim or their family and in the process take a far longer prison sentence.

If you want the defence not to fight, then you have to stop the prosecution figthting as well

I suspect that you are too emotionally involved in your brother's case to take on board the reality of what you are proposing.

I have not proposed anything Spen.. I wish people would read the content of my posts properly.

I do not live in a fantasy world. It is so annoying to be labelled as too emotionally involved, its as if you are saying victims opinions cannot be counted because they are victims and victims don't think straight. Its outgrageous.

Nowhere, ever, in this thread or others, have I said that a defendant should only defend himself in such a manner as that would not upset the victim... nowhere!!!!!!

If the defendant didn't do it he didn't do it!!! What we wanted was the TRUTH. It is not a fantasy. And because someone wants that it doesn't mean they EXEPCT THAT. We NEVER EXPECTED IT AND believe me, we were not in a fantasy world.

You need to understand some of these things yourself, it may make you a better lawyer. There is humanity in everything we do. It is not separate from the law or legal process. It is very cheap and costs very little.

If you could see our TV interview with BBC after the sentencing you would realise that the thing we wanted most was ACCEPTANCE OF RESPONSIBILTY, SORROW, RESPECT, HUMANITY from a person who killed someone.

Terra Nova

shouldbeinbed wrote:

Your brother, for all of his responsibility, made a choice to filter past this truck and place himself in front of it once it had stopped. Stubbs can take absolutely no responsibility for that and whatever negative comment can be made about his driving and subsequent actions, the fact Tony was there in the first place was not of Stubbs doing and unfortunately was the significant contributing factor to the awful events that followed.

I'm mainly a commuter - 20 miles a day every day and plenty of leisure & family riding, I ride in/out of rush hour Manchester regularly so I know busy traffic & lights.
I don't do 200mile+ rides nor have I crossed America, but similarly I've never been so impatient or keen to get anywhere that I'd choose to endanger myself by passing and placing myself in front of a vehicle if I wasn't absolutely sure the driver could see me clearly.

Not to disparage your brother or any other cyclist that filters (I do it myself to cars) but in front of a truck is not the smartest or safest place to put yourself . Had your brother waited behind the truck and taken his turn like any other traffic would have had to, then neither your family nor Stubbs' would have been through what you both have.


I'd also add as an accredited expert witness, invariably for the prosecution, and long time police employee, I agree with Spen666 on the legal practicalities and stance of the defence. The law is made by other prople, it is available to both sides, if the defence make use of it in a way that can't be or isn't successfully countered by the prosecution then that is not the fault of the defence lawyers or their clients.

If I employ a builder I want them to do their best work for me even if it is inconvenient to my neighbours, if I go to the Doctor, I want the correct diagnoisis even if it keeps someone else waiting, If I employ a lawyer, I want them to do the best they legally can do in my interests.

Should be in bed.....My brother is not on trial. This thread is not a trial hearing for my brother's cycling crimes, your comments are not necessary and unwelcome, so please do not quote back at me to try and make myself incriminate my brother for something that caused his own death. From the evidence presented in court there is a high probability that he passed on the inside of the lorry but there simply is no definitive proof which almost makes the high probability meaningless. Do you think for one second that every one connected with my brother has not sepnt nearly every waking moment since his death analysing what happened that day on the road? Thinking about what he did? Do you think we live in a bubble?

Passing on the left of a lorry is not a crime. It is not suicidal either. The use of the word suicidal is a mere attempt by a driver of a motorised vehicle to shift the responsibility for a collision entirely onto another party. It is meaningless. Passing on the inside of a lorry may be unsafe but that is all you can say about it. Labelling cyclists as suicidal, is condemning them to the mercy of unsafe drivers and does not make them safer in any way.

If a lorry puts a disclaimer sign on the back of his lorry saying "cyclist do not pass me on the left I will not see you and I may run you over and kill you", do you think it would be acceptable ifor him to ignoe cyclists on the road at junctions and not make sure that a cyclist he may have only just overtaken is safe? The unacceptable aspect of this is the country continues to accept that the fact that bad drivers, who drive badly designed lorries, because they are motorised vehicles and they have the greater right to the road.

Terra Nova

Greg66 wrote:

simple_salmon wrote:

I do understand the arguments of the legal people here but I hate them (the arguments); this country has become morally bankrupt if people use legal rules (loopholes?) to get out of taking responsibility.

If you do something wrong then stand up and be accountable for yourself - take your punishment like you deserve; whether you have to legally or not.

Translation: "if you did it, plead guilty and accept the consequences."

That's a noble sentiment, but it's one that simply doesn't exist in a very large chunk of the human race; it's not a question of this country having become (recently?) morally bankrupt: that human trait has existed for hundreds, and quite possibly thousands of years.

After all, if it didn't, we wouldn't need a criminal justice system.

Are sentences reduced for people who plead not guilty? If someone pleads not guilty when they are guilty, and are proved guilty in court, are their sentences given a higher tariff because of the original plea being proved as a lie? I thought barristers had these conversations with clients? From what Spen says it seems like its just a case of looking at the strength and weakness of a case..

Terra Nova

Greg66 wrote:

cjw wrote:

Say you were in a car, indicated and turned left. In the process you hit the cyclist who was filtering past your left and killed him.

The victim's family clearly want you strung up.

CPS decide to prosecute you as clearly you hadn't paid sufficient attention and caused the death of the cyclist. You are now facing a prison term becasue you didn't notice a cyclist on your left. I wonder how you would behave in that circumstance. Going to prison you will lose your job could lose your home, family.

Modify the example:

The cyclist was what might be characterised as a militant cyclist. He deliberately sat in the blind spot of the car because he likes to surprise drivers. He saw the driver indicate left, then decided to undertake, reckoning it was an opportunity to shout, bang on the car, and generally make a point.

He makes his move, the driver is committed to the turn and/or doesn't see the cyclist appear, apparently from thin air. The driver clips the cyclist before he gets a chance to do his shouting/hitting thing. He goes down. He doesn't have a helmet on, cracks his head, has an internal bleed and dies.

The driver checked their mirror, saw nothing, indicated and started their move.

Witnesses see a car turn left, clip a cyclist who is killed.

Driver faces a prison sentence.

Show me the driver who puts his/hands up in those circumstances.

This is getting ridiculous now.... stop it, all of you.

Terra Nova

Wallace1492 wrote:

Another version is that Stubbs is telling the truth as he saw it, well up to the point of impact. Perhaps he genuinely does not see it as his fault, perhaps he sees he has nothing to be sorry about. Perhaps he stood up there and told the truth as he saw it, as has been said, there are always different versions of the truth, depending on your point of view.

Stubbs did not give the version you wanted, perhaps because for Stubbs, that did not exist.

There is always the possibility that your Brother has put himself in danger. That will be very difficult to accept, as it is far easier blaming someone else.

For me, if a HGV had just overtaken me and had stopped at lights, what is the point of going past it. 1. It could be turning left and 2. It will just overtake me again, so best let it get out of the way.

Only thing I can think of, is that as he had taken wrong turning, he had hesitated when light changed, and waited for several seconds, making up his mind before turning left, and maybe in this time, your Brother decided to filter past.

Did the HGV indicate left at all? From earlier posts I am not sure whether he did or not.

My brother was in a dangerous position... he got killed. And so is every cyclist when they cycle on the roads. This is not the reason why I came on this website... please refer back to my original thread posts. I seem to have been drawn in to the trial of Anthony Spink.

Terra Nova

spen666 wrote:

simple_salmon wrote:

I'm sorry but I disagree with most of you; if I did wrong and I knew I was guilty I'd admit it.

Unless it was a crime you didn't want to admit to like say speeding

So actually you not only are hypocritical, you also tell untruths

Spen, stop this. This is descending into a similar pattern as the other threads I have been on.

Salmon is not a hypocrite. If I ran someone over and killed them I woudl be instantly full of sorrow, remorse and regret. I would immediately and unreservedly offer my apology and condolence to the family and do as much as I could, and as much as they would let me or need me to, to explain my actions. It wouldn;t matter to me what the legal advice was. That would ne my priority.

These are real moral choices we all have. Some, like Salmon, make their choice on moral grounds. They are not hypocrites.

waddlie

Terra Nova, what I am about to say is intended with the greatest of respect.

In broad terms, we are discussing the safety of cycling on public roads and what measures can be taken to reduce the risk.

One of the possible measures is a change or changes to legislation, which could theoretically encourage or even force drivers to take more responsibility should they be involved in a collision with a cyclist.

In order for a layperson to understand what the real life implications of such changes could be, we tend to posit hypothetical scenarios like those put forward by cjw and Greg66 above.

You have chosen to share with us the details of your brother's tragic demise. I, for one, cannot even begin to understand what it is like to walk a mile in your shoes. But the trial of Anthony Spink is one example people will use to say "if law x had been passed, what would that actually have meant in this real world incident?"

One of the problems with internet message boards is that everything becomes de-personalised. People will say things to you which in the "real world" they would hopefully realise would be thoroughly inappropriate under the circumstances, regardless of whether they were technically correct or not.

I probably have no right to say this, but reading your posts I wonder whether this sort of interaction is good for you?

spen666

Terra Nova wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Terra Nova wrote:

spen666 wrote:

[


i'm sorry, but nosensible person is going to sit there and take a longer than necessary prison sentence just because some person in the public gallery gets a bit aggrieved.

Will you go to prison for years to avoid upsetting me?

no? Funny that

In an adversarial system you must expect adversarial behaviour

You are living in a fantasy world igf you think people are going to avoid defending themselves just to avoid upsetting the victim or their family and in the process take a far longer prison sentence.

If you want the defence not to fight, then you have to stop the prosecution figthting as well

I suspect that you are too emotionally involved in your brother's case to take on board the reality of what you are proposing.

I have not proposed anything Spen.. I wish people would read the content of my posts properly.

I do not live in a fantasy world. It is so annoying to be labelled as too emotionally involved, its as if you are saying victims opinions cannot be counted because they are victims and victims don't think straight. Its outgrageous.

Nowhere, ever, in this thread or others, have I said that a defendant should only defend himself in such a manner as that would not upset the victim... nowhere!!!!!!

If the defendant didn't do it he didn't do it!!! What we wanted was the TRUTH. It is not a fantasy. And because someone wants that it doesn't mean they EXEPCT THAT. We NEVER EXPECTED IT AND believe me, we were not in a fantasy world.

You need to understand some of these things yourself, it may make you a better lawyer. There is humanity in everything we do. It is not separate from the law or legal process. It is very cheap and costs very little.

If you could see our TV interview with BBC after the sentencing you would realise that the thing we wanted most was ACCEPTANCE OF RESPONSIBILTY, SORROW, RESPECT, HUMANITY from a person who killed someone.

No TN There is no humanity in the criminal process. The job of the defence is to defend, not to think about the victim or the victim's family.

It maatters not one jot whether the victim likes it or not. The defence are not there to think about the alleged victim.

This is an adversarial process. The defence are not representing the alleged victim

In an adversarial system where the prosecution are seeking to convict the accused. The accused must defend himself.

What you want will never be obtained in a contested criminal case

Terra Nova

Waddlie wrote:

Terra Nova, what I am about to say is intended with the greatest of respect.

In broad terms, we are discussing the safety of cycling on public roads and what measures can be taken to reduce the risk.

One of the possible measures is a change or changes to legislation, which could theoretically encourage or even force drivers to take more responsibility should they be involved in a collision with a cyclist.

In order for a layperson to understand what the real life implications of such changes could be, we tend to posit hypothetical scenarios like those put forward by cjw and Greg66 above.

You have chosen to share with us the details of your brother's tragic demise. I, for one, cannot even begin to understand what it is like to walk a mile in your shoes. But the trial of Anthony Spink is one example people will use to say "if law x had been passed, what would that actually have meant in this real world incident?"

One of the problems with internet message boards is that everything becomes de-personalised. People will say things to you which in the "real world" they would hopefully realise would be thoroughly inappropriate under the circumstances, regardless of whether they were technically correct or not.

I probably have no right to say this, but reading your posts I wonder whether this sort of interaction is good for you?

You not only have no right to say it, you have no qualification to say it... So don't say it..

Do not explain to me something that is plainly obvious to me.

I'm going to the shops now to spend my pocket money. I must be in bed early tonight I have my paper round in the morning. And there's santa's letter to write too, crikey, am I too late??

spen666

Terra Nova wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

simple_salmon wrote:

I do understand the arguments of the legal people here but I hate them (the arguments); this country has become morally bankrupt if people use legal rules (loopholes?) to get out of taking responsibility.

If you do something wrong then stand up and be accountable for yourself - take your punishment like you deserve; whether you have to legally or not.

Translation: "if you did it, plead guilty and accept the consequences."

That's a noble sentiment, but it's one that simply doesn't exist in a very large chunk of the human race; it's not a question of this country having become (recently?) morally bankrupt: that human trait has existed for hundreds, and quite possibly thousands of years.

After all, if it didn't, we wouldn't need a criminal justice system.

Are sentences reduced for people who plead not guilty? If someone pleads not guilty when they are guilty, and are proved guilty in court, are their sentences given a higher tariff because of the original plea being proved as a lie?

The fact someone is found guilty after pleading not guilty does not mean they have lied at all.

for an offence like dangerous driving, the defendant may dispute the driving was far below the standard of the reasonably prudent driver- that is a matter of opinion. It is not a lie.

Look at your brother's case. Driver was charged with causing death by dangerous driving because the police and CPS lawyers thought it was dangerous. The jury said it was only careless. Does that mean the police and CPS lied?

Of course it does not.

The fact of a conviction does not necessarily mean anyone has lied.



As for sentencing- you get credit for a guilty plea. The starting point in calculating sentences is on the basis of a contested case. so its not extra for pleading not guilty. However that may be semantics to you.

I thought barristers had these conversations with clients? From what Spen says it seems like its just a case of looking at the strength and weakness of a case..

Every case is about looking at strengths and weaknesses. Why would someone plead guilty if there is insufficient evidence to prove they did the alleged matter

dilemna

Waddlie wrote:

Terra Nova, what I am about to say is intended with the greatest of respect.

In broad terms, we are discussing the safety of cycling on public roads and what measures can be taken to reduce the risk.

One of the possible measures is a change or changes to legislation, which could theoretically encourage or even force drivers to take more responsibility should they be involved in a collision with a cyclist.

In order for a layperson to understand what the real life implications of such changes could be, we tend to posit hypothetical scenarios like those put forward by cjw and Greg66 above.

You have chosen to share with us the details of your brother's tragic demise. I, for one, cannot even begin to understand what it is like to walk a mile in your shoes. But the trial of Anthony Spink is one example people will use to say "if law x had been passed, what would that actually have meant in this real world incident?"

One of the problems with internet message boards is that everything becomes de-personalised. People will say things to you which in the "real world" they would hopefully realise would be thoroughly inappropriate under the circumstances, regardless of whether they were technically correct or not.

I probably have no right to say this, but reading your posts I wonder whether this sort of interaction is good for you?[/quote]

+1.

TN look back at one of my posts. Don't focus on those whose opinions you find upsetting or inappropriate or question the circumstances surrounding your brother's death. Waddlie has a serious point. None of us can imagine what you have been through, the immense trauma and loss you and your family must have been through, unless we have been through a similar loss. So don't beat yourself up on here. Internet forums can be barrack rooms cruel and boisterous. I have previously suggested that to move you forward it might be productive for you to contact other families and pressure groups who have made some recent headway in influencing the behaviour of and educating HGV drivers and drivers of other large vehicles as well as car drivers and cyclists about the dangers when they come into close proximity. You have not picked up any of my suggestions. Is this because you don't want to, won't or can't move on? This is where I feel your energies may be better channelled as I can see from your posts that your grief is still very raw and real. This is not a crticism of you. I imagine that if I lost my brother/sister in similar circumstances there is no way I could go onto a public internet forum and invite debate as you have. Maybe it is time to consider your own welfare in continuing to read and post on here whether it is in your best interests. Obviously you can't affect the content of the posts made here as you have found out, but you can shield yourself from them by not coming on here, seeking a more suitable arena where you can achieve postive and constructive outcomes such as I have suggested . The fact that this is now the 3rd thread on the issues you raise must tell you something that you are never going to get the debate you so wish on here. Please for your own wellbeing consider whether continuing to read and post here is beneficial for you. I don't want to see you get upset as people tear little strips off you and ever big ones off each other just to satisfy their egos.

I wish you the best of luck.

Terra Nova

Thanks for the opinion folks... for those who gave opinions. There were some good ideas buried in there somewhere, and some useful points of law discussed too. Shame about all the ridiculous specuation and degenerative abuse of honest contributors. Shame to see it descend into another drab and childish "who's the most right" debacle.

I have got what I want from it though. There was some good stuff here. I am not reaching for the prozac just yet. I even sent the psychiatrist away who just knocked on my door, he's been loitering a while now! Oh just a minute, another knock on the door, its an accident claims lawyer. Crikey, what do they want???

Merry christmas everyone. And a happy new year. Stay safe on the road and treat ALL road users with respect and consideration.

spen666

Terra Nova wrote:

spen666 wrote:

simple_salmon wrote:

I'm sorry but I disagree with most of you; if I did wrong and I knew I was guilty I'd admit it.

Unless it was a crime you didn't want to admit to like say speeding

So actually you not only are hypocritical, you also tell untruths

Spen, stop this. This is descending into a similar pattern as the other threads I have been on.

Salmon is not a hypocrite. If I ran someone over and killed them I woudl be instantly full of sorrow, remorse and regret. I would immediately and unreservedly offer my apology and condolence to the family and do as much as I could, and as much as they would let me or need me to, to explain my actions. It wouldn;t matter to me what the legal advice was. That would ne my priority.

These are real moral choices we all have. Some, like Salmon, make their choice on moral grounds. They are not hypocrites.

Salmon is a hypocrit because they slated my client for not going to police after he committed a crime. Then salmon says he would not go to police if he (Salmon) committed a crim.

That is hypocritical behaviour

dilemna

spen666 wrote:

Terra Nova wrote:

spen666 wrote:

simple_salmon wrote:

I'm sorry but I disagree with most of you; if I did wrong and I knew I was guilty I'd admit it.

Unless it was a crime you didn't want to admit to like say speeding

So actually you not only are hypocritical, you also tell untruths

Spen, stop this. This is descending into a similar pattern as the other threads I have been on.

Salmon is not a hypocrite. If I ran someone over and killed them I woudl be instantly full of sorrow, remorse and regret. I would immediately and unreservedly offer my apology and condolence to the family and do as much as I could, and as much as they would let me or need me to, to explain my actions. It wouldn;t matter to me what the legal advice was. That would ne my priority.

These are real moral choices we all have. Some, like Salmon, make their choice on moral grounds. They are not hypocrites.

Salmon is a hypocrit because they slated my client for not going to police after he committed a crime. Then salmon says he would not go to police if he (Salmon) committed a crim.

That is hypocritical behaviour

Oh shut it Spen I wish I could whack you with a large fish :roll: .

cjw

Terra Nova wrote:

shouldbeinbed wrote:

Passing on the left of a lorry is not a crime. It is not suicidal either. .

No it is not a crime. Suicidal inplies an intent to kill yourself however, it is bloody dangerous.

Of the 92 cyclist deaths in London between 2001 and 2006, 23 (the highest percentage) were from large vehicals turning left. http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/ ... 1-2006.pdf

I would never ever move to the side of an HGV. If one moved next to me I would move out of the way (including getting off my bike as I have done in the past). Sitting next to an HGV I consider a high probability of being seriously injured or killed.

spen666

dilemna wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Terra Nova wrote:

spen666 wrote:

simple_salmon wrote:

I'm sorry but I disagree with most of you; if I did wrong and I knew I was guilty I'd admit it.

Unless it was a crime you didn't want to admit to like say speeding

So actually you not only are hypocritical, you also tell untruths

Spen, stop this. This is descending into a similar pattern as the other threads I have been on.

Salmon is not a hypocrite. If I ran someone over and killed them I woudl be instantly full of sorrow, remorse and regret. I would immediately and unreservedly offer my apology and condolence to the family and do as much as I could, and as much as they would let me or need me to, to explain my actions. It wouldn;t matter to me what the legal advice was. That would ne my priority.

These are real moral choices we all have. Some, like Salmon, make their choice on moral grounds. They are not hypocrites.

Salmon is a hypocrit because they slated my client for not going to police after he committed a crime. Then salmon says he would not go to police if he (Salmon) committed a crim.

That is hypocritical behaviour

Oh shut it Spen I wish I could whack you with a large fish :roll: .

I'm not going to stop

If people want to raise the point again, then I will respond to it.

tailwindhome

Terra Nova wrote:

Stay safe on the road and treat ALL road users with respect and consideration.

Well said.

cee

spen666 wrote:

cee wrote:

[...
my opinion is that there does have to be a legal imperative to 'encourage' road users to all use the road safely. I think that causing a death by whatever reason should instigate an immediate licence revokation and a re-test (at the very least). The excuses of SMIDSY etc are pathetic. if you didn't see...you probably were not paying enough attention.

Absolutely disagree about licence revocation. a) There needs to be due process
b) there are many incidents when someone dies but driver is not to blame at all.

Imagine you are sat in your car on motorway in traffic queue. Speeding motorist on phone fails to notice queue and drives into back of your car. He dies.

Your licence is revoked, you lose your job immediately, you lose your house etc.

Sound fair when you were not even moving and are 100% blameless?

That is the reality of your suggestion

ok i had not considered that example, though pedantically, in that scenario, i would say that the innocent driver who was crashed into.....did not cause anything.

however i am sure that there are many examples where an otherwise innocent party could have their licence revoked..so i have to change my opinion to include the caveat.....where liability falls on the driver, and a death and or serous injury results, then as a very minimum, a re-test.

but i think i do have an issue in there as well...as it gets us back to the whole liability issue!

I will however disagree that losing a licence means losing your house, it can do, however it is not necessarily guaranteed. for the majority of people, it would not even realistically mean losing their job....only people for whom driving is an aspect of their job.

spen666

cee wrote:

.....
ok i had not considered that example, though pedantically, in that scenario, i would say that the innocent driver who was crashed into.....did not cause anything.

however i am sure that there are many examples where an otherwise innocent party could have their licence revoked..so i have to change my opinion to include the caveat.....where liability falls on the driver, and a death and or serous injury results, then as a very minimum, a re-test.

but i think i do have an issue in there as well...as it gets us back to the whole liability issue!

I will however disagree that losing a licence means losing your house, it can do, however it is not necessarily guaranteed. for the majority of people, it would not even realistically mean losing their job....only people for whom driving is an aspect of their job.

What you are suggesting is not a revocation of a licence but a driving ban and compulsory retest- which is the punishment for someone convicted of dangerous driving already!!!!!


Revocation of licence has a different meaning

shouldbeinbed

Terra Nova wrote:

shouldbeinbed wrote:

Your brother, for all of his responsibility, made a choice to filter past this truck and place himself in front of it once it had stopped. Stubbs can take absolutely no responsibility for that and whatever negative comment can be made about his driving and subsequent actions, the fact Tony was there in the first place was not of Stubbs doing and unfortunately was the significant contributing factor to the awful events that followed.

I'm mainly a commuter - 20 miles a day every day and plenty of leisure & family riding, I ride in/out of rush hour Manchester regularly so I know busy traffic & lights.
I don't do 200mile+ rides nor have I crossed America, but similarly I've never been so impatient or keen to get anywhere that I'd choose to endanger myself by passing and placing myself in front of a vehicle if I wasn't absolutely sure the driver could see me clearly.

Not to disparage your brother or any other cyclist that filters (I do it myself to cars) but in front of a truck is not the smartest or safest place to put yourself . Had your brother waited behind the truck and taken his turn like any other traffic would have had to, then neither your family nor Stubbs' would have been through what you both have.


I'd also add as an accredited expert witness, invariably for the prosecution, and long time police employee, I agree with Spen666 on the legal practicalities and stance of the defence. The law is made by other prople, it is available to both sides, if the defence make use of it in a way that can't be or isn't successfully countered by the prosecution then that is not the fault of the defence lawyers or their clients.

If I employ a builder I want them to do their best work for me even if it is inconvenient to my neighbours, if I go to the Doctor, I want the correct diagnoisis even if it keeps someone else waiting, If I employ a lawyer, I want them to do the best they legally can do in my interests.

Should be in bed.....My brother is not on trial. This thread is not a trial hearing for my brother's cycling crimes, your comments are not necessary and unwelcome, so please do not quote back at me to try and make myself incriminate my brother for something that caused his own death. From the evidence presented in court there is a high probability that he passed on the inside of the lorry but there simply is no definitive proof which almost makes the high probability meaningless. Do you think for one second that every one connected with my brother has not sepnt nearly every waking moment since his death analysing what happened that day on the road? Thinking about what he did? Do you think we live in a bubble?

Passing on the left of a lorry is not a crime. It is not suicidal either. The use of the word suicidal is a mere attempt by a driver of a motorised vehicle to shift the responsibility for a collision entirely onto another party. It is meaningless. Passing on the inside of a lorry may be unsafe but that is all you can say about it. Labelling cyclists as suicidal, is condemning them to the mercy of unsafe drivers and does not make them safer in any way.

If a lorry puts a disclaimer sign on the back of his lorry saying "cyclist do not pass me on the left I will not see you and I may run you over and kill you", do you think it would be acceptable ifor him to ignoe cyclists on the road at junctions and not make sure that a cyclist he may have only just overtaken is safe? The unacceptable aspect of this is the country continues to accept that the fact that bad drivers, who drive badly designed lorries, because they are motorised vehicles and they have the greater right to the road.

I have never once said your brother was on trial, nor that he committed cycling crimes.

I stand 100% by what I posted as it is my opinion and I believe it to be right. You talk of trials. Sorry to be blunt but had your brother ridden his bike in a different manner there wouldn't have been trials, as the situation where whatever Stubbs did or didn't do and see in his cab and whatever motivation he had for his actions would never have occurred.
You stated (assumedly from witness reports) that your brother was behind him 100-170 meters from the lights and by the time they changed he was in front of a stationary Stubbs. How he got there is not important, that he got there is the defining factor in the 'crimes' that followed.

You're putting thoughts and actions onto all lorry drivers with that last paragraph (and I would suggest vicariously having a dig at Stubbs directly) that are unfair and unjustified. There is no such sentiment from me in those last sentances, I don't think it would be acceptable and I don't think any lorry driver would either. What you are suggesting is condoning murder- sorry but thats overreaction and hyperbole, unrealistic and utterly unneccesary to this debate.
However in the real world it is true that lorries are imperfectly designed, occasionally their drivers do have bad days or distracted moments and yes some of them are just not up to scratch - that is no different to drivers of cars, trains, bicycles or employees in any other professional occupation in the world, it's a fact of life. Mistakes and distractions can lead to terrible situations. we can't legislate against them all, nor absolve ourselves from blame with signs, but we all have an obligation to self preservation, to try and not put ourself deliberately into harms way.

If Subbs had apprached Tony from far enough behind to have seen him but ploughed into the back of him anyway, my opinion would be completely different, but thats not what happened so to point the finger solely at Stubbs and block you ears and cover your eyes to the contribution Tony made to this situation and to try to suppress opinion on that aspect isn't really right or fair.

We are far more vulnerable road users, we all know this and frankly we are patently stupid to ignore the facts, we have to take a modcium of responsibility for our own safety in an imperfect system - With the deepest of respect and regret I simply don't think that your brother did this, moreso that it was entirely his choice to knowingly place himself in a position of great danger. Not an accusation, Not a trial statement, Not an indictment of your brother (we all take chances like this, he was unlucky it ended so badly - 99 time out of 100 we get away with it - what Stubbs did afterwards is another matter entirely), This is just an opinion from an experienced cyclist reading posts made by you here and elsewhere. I have no connection to Stubbs or lorry driving.

You're getting too deep into this now and are getting punch drunk or paranoid about perfectly legitimate and honest observations intended in exactly the manner for which you say you opened the original thread on here and which you invited.

I've nothing further to say and no wish to further antagonise you - I won't be revisiting this thread and I'll leave you to reply or not as you see fit. You have my sincere sympathies and condolences, there but for the grace of God is my family.

I do hope that whatever you are doing this for brings you the satisfaction and closure you need but I suggest most strongly that you retire frm this thread and let it quietly fade away.

shouldbeinbed

cjw wrote:

Terra Nova wrote:

shouldbeinbed wrote:

Passing on the left of a lorry is not a crime. It is not suicidal either. .

No it is not a crime. Suicidal inplies an intent to kill yourself however, it is bloody dangerous.

Of the 92 cyclist deaths in London between 2001 and 2006, 23 (the highest percentage) were from large vehicals turning left. http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/ ... 1-2006.pdf

I would never ever move to the side of an HGV. If one moved next to me I would move out of the way (including getting off my bike as I have done in the past). Sitting next to an HGV I consider a high probability of being seriously injured or killed.

Pedant alert - Please can you fix the quote code. What is attributed to me was actually said by Terra Nova and is not my opinion

I agree completely with your post cjw. It may not be illegal or the strict dictionary definition of Suicidal but its a bloody stupid and immensely dangerous place to choose to put yourself or choose to stay if you're there first.

Wallace1492

Terra Nova wrote:

Thanks for the opinion folks... for those who gave opinions. There were some good ideas buried in there somewhere, and some useful points of law discussed too. Shame about all the ridiculous specuation and degenerative abuse of honest contributors. Shame to see it descend into another drab and childish "who's the most right" debacle.

I have got what I want from it though. There was some good stuff here. I am not reaching for the prozac just yet. I even sent the psychiatrist away who just knocked on my door, he's been loitering a while now! Oh just a minute, another knock on the door, its an accident claims lawyer. Crikey, what do they want???

Merry christmas everyone. And a happy new year. Stay safe on the road and treat ALL road users with respect and consideration.

Have as good a Xmas as you can.

Terra Nova

Should be in bed: "I'd also add as an accredited expert witness, invariably for the prosecution, and long time police employee...."

Your colleagues at West Yorkshire Police did not agree with your opinions and neither did the CPS. I wasn't personally responsible for bringing charges aganst the driver. They were and thats because they thought the driver was guilty and responsible.

I have the overwhelming knowledge now that opinion amongst cyclists is that undertaking a lorry is suicidal and the cyclist is entirely responsible should he be killed by a left turning lorry regardless of the consequences.

I am surprised by this and I don't agree but that is the cycling communities' opinions. I did come here to find out what that opnion was and there it is. I won't ever fade away from it though.

deptfordmarmoset

Terra Nova wrote:

I have the overwhelming knowledge now that opinion amongst cyclists is that undertaking a lorry is suicidal and the cyclist is entirely responsible should he be killed by a left turning lorry regardless of the consequences.

I am surprised by this and I don't agree but that is the cycling communities' opinions. I did come here to find out what that opnion was and there it is. I won't ever fade away from it though.

I too have been very surprised by large parts of this discussion, though I think it would be wrong to consider this forum as representative of all cyclists.

Personally, I find the notion that LGVs should be allowed to drag their rear axles over an expanse of road that the driver cannot monitor by using mirrors is – for me at least – plainly invidious. Repeatedly, it kills less experienced and less assertive cyclists. It also gives LGV drivers a plea, ''I couldn't see'', that seems to get accepted in courts, as though the trailer were a part of the vehicle the driver is not fully responsible for.

I believe in promoting cycle uptake. This necessarily entails getting new bums on saddles – less experienced or completely inexperienced riders – and it is not realistic to expect all new cyclists to have taken a test, participated in adult bikeability courses, or studied Cyclecraft, before they take to the road. I'll add that the bulk of what I know about staying alive on the roads wasn't learned from a book; it was learned by doing it and constantly assessing and reassessing dangers. You learn it on the road. While new people come onto the road and LGVs have unmonitored sweep paths this carnage is going to continue. I am not prepared to accept this as though it were simply some kind of ''collateral damage.''

So, what's to be done? Much of the debate thus far seems to have centred around harsher sentencing – I would have liked to have seen more ideas that led to a position where fewer sentences were needed – because the accident had been prevented from happening.

That said, I have no great ideas, I'm afraid. I believe that the notion of criminal responsibility should extend – and be seen to extend – to road planners (we all know road layouts and cycle lanes that are just accidents waiting to happen).

I believe that the trialling of ''trixi'' mirrors should be brought forward. (These convex mirrors, affixed to light signals and other street furniture, are apparently to be tested on, or for, the London supercycleways.) They would provide a view along the full length of a LGV external to the driver's compartment and vastly diminish the blind spot. It's an external prompt to drivers to look, and in the event of accidents, the ''I couldn't see'' plea will have less power as a defence. ''I put it to you, Mr Trucker, that you didn't look?'' will become the response.

I gather from something I read on copenhagenise that vehicles going straight on have priority and right-turning vehicles don't in Denmark. This of course would be left-turning vehicles in the UK. There is an apparently unconscious assumption amonst UK drivers that you can simply turn left without properly checking – which UK cyclist has not come close to being left-hooked? I know from being a passenger in Danish cars that this is not the default assumption – mostly this is because in many parts of Denmark the car is not in the nearest lane to the turning – there is another lane for cyclists between the car lane and the chosen exit. Turning, be it to the left or to the right, is crossing a line of traffic. Perhaps the same could apply in the UK. (Note: there doesn't have to be an actual lane for this to apply – in moving traffic the default position of a bike is to the left – as such, bikes constitute a line of traffic.)


ASLs should function like box junctions. If there's no clear exit, don't enter. (c.f. Maria Fernandez.)

See, I said I didn't have many ideas, much though I wish that wasn't the case.

However, while the status quo remains as it is...

NEVER UNDERTAKE A LGV

Porgy

deptfordmarmoset wrote:

Terra Nova wrote:

I have the overwhelming knowledge now that opinion amongst cyclists is that undertaking a lorry is suicidal and the cyclist is entirely responsible should he be killed by a left turning lorry regardless of the consequences.

I am surprised by this and I don't agree but that is the cycling communities' opinions. I did come here to find out what that opnion was and there it is. I won't ever fade away from it though.

I too have been very surprised by large parts of this discussion, though I think it would be wrong to consider this forum as representative of all cyclists.

Personally, I find the notion that LGVs should be allowed to drag their rear axles over an expanse of road that the driver cannot monitor by using mirrors is – for me at least – plainly invidious. Repeatedly, it kills less experienced and less assertive cyclists. It also gives LGV drivers a plea, ''I couldn't see'', that seems to get accepted in courts, as though the trailer were a part of the vehicle the driver is not fully responsible for.

I believe in promoting cycle uptake. This necessarily entails getting new bums on saddles – less experienced or completely inexperienced riders – and it is not realistic to expect all new cyclists to have taken a test, participated in adult bikeability courses, or studied Cyclecraft, before they take to the road. I'll add that the bulk of what I know about staying alive on the roads wasn't learned from a book; it was learned by doing it and constantly assessing and reassessing dangers. You learn it on the road. While new people come onto the road and LGVs have unmonitored sweep paths this carnage is going to continue. I am not prepared to accept this as though it were simply some kind of ''collateral damage.''

So, what's to be done? Much of the debate thus far seems to have centred around harsher sentencing – I would have liked to have seen more ideas that led to a position where fewer sentences were needed – because the accident had been prevented from happening.

That said, I have no great ideas, I'm afraid. I believe that the notion of criminal responsibility should extend – and be seen to extend – to road planners (we all know road layouts and cycle lanes that are just accidents waiting to happen).

I believe that the trialling of ''trixi'' mirrors should be brought forward. (These convex mirrors, affixed to light signals and other street furniture, are apparently to be tested on, or for, the London supercycleways.) They would provide a view along the full length of a LGV external to the driver's compartment and vastly diminish the blind spot. It's an external prompt to drivers to look, and in the event of accidents, the ''I couldn't see'' plea will have less power as a defence. ''I put it to you, Mr Trucker, that you didn't look?'' will become the response.

I gather from something I read on copenhagenise that vehicles going straight on have priority and right-turning vehicles don't in Denmark. This of course would be left-turning vehicles in the UK. There is an apparently unconscious assumption amonst UK drivers that you can simply turn left without properly checking – which UK cyclist has not come close to being left-hooked? I know from being a passenger in Danish cars that this is not the default assumption – mostly this is because in many parts of Denmark the car is not in the nearest lane to the turning – there is another lane for cyclists between the car lane and the chosen exit. Turning, be it to the left or to the right, is crossing a line of traffic. Perhaps the same could apply in the UK. (Note: there doesn't have to be an actual lane for this to apply – in moving traffic the default position of a bike is to the left – as such, bikes constitute a line of traffic.)


ASLs should function like box junctions. If there's no clear exit, don't enter. (c.f. Maria Fernandez.)

See, I said I didn't have many ideas, much though I wish that wasn't the case.

However, while the status quo remains as it is...

NEVER UNDERTAKE A LGV

+1
I think I may quote this in any further discussions of this kind.

Stone Glider

@Spen666: further to my post of the 15th December, the person from the Netherlands i was thinking of was "Ademort".

Sorry for the delay in replying but "life" got in the way