[Closed] He's not guilty - apparently??

No way to tell from the limited information on there. Is there more details on the case available? Supposedly there was CCTV footage and eye witness accounts so perhaps the evidence from those might have been a factor in why a jury found him not guilty?

It's possible she was so close he didn't see her, I doubt he would have felt the impact if he was moving slowly in a large truck. He was obviously responsible, but maybe not by careless driving, which is what he was on trial for.

I've not seen the CCTV footage though and don't want to. That's just an answer to how can he not be guilty and not my opinion on this particular incident.

I've found some stuff about the prosecutions case but nothing on the defence although it does sound like it could focus on the cycle lane finishing, with the cyclist then moving across to a position close to the front of the lorry.

This is the location of the accident. Looks a pretty dodgy cycle lane.

[img] [/img]

Well looking at the pictures I too can't see how that's not careless driving. What was she supposed to do?! Stop becuase the kerb wiggles out?

This country.

I drive a 44 ton artic & I'm sure I'd notice if the lorry went over a persons body.When I first started driving one of my mates had someone commit suicide by jumping under his lorry, he reckoned he felt every axle go over them.

Sadly this is going to keep happening. The only way to change it is by removing juries from cyclist incidents.

Well looking at the pictures I too can't see how that's not careless driving. What was she supposed to do?! Stop becuase the kerb wiggles out?

This country.

Or careless cycling for not looking/signalling when 'swapping lane' onto the main carriageway when the cycle lane ends?

It's one of those cycle lanes that personally i'd never be in as they present more hazard than being in the middle of the road.

It is certainly a dodgy cycle lane though - continues too far, potentially encouraging cyclists to go (or remain) up the inside at a time when drivers are focusing on the crest ahead rather than their blind spot, particularly drivers of larger vehicles.

Still doesn't fully explain the verdict, or his inability to feel that he's run someone over.

[i]Or careless cycling for not looking/signalling when 'swapping lane' onto the main carriageway when the cycle lane ends?[/i]

Exactly how drivers think and exactly why cycle lanes in this country and by-and-large totally useless, or ****ing dangerous.

Sadly this is going to keep happening. The only way to change it is by removing juries from cyclist incidents.

The [i]only[/i] way? Really?

Juries are the "least worst" way to try cases, in several hundred years of trying we have yet to come up with a fairer option...

The real problem is the charge and guidance around it; [i]"careless driving"[/i] and how that is defined (or not) is the nub of the issue...

Exactly how drivers think and exactly why cycle lanes in this country and by-and-large totally useless, or **** dangerous.

Basically yes.
One of the primary reasons for cycle lanes is to remove cyclists from the general flow of traffic.
Mostly, they allow drivers to continue on interrupted, and the 'expected' outcome for a driver is they continue following the road and everything is fine. What the cycle lane has effectively done is remove a rolling hazard from the road.
Unfortunately most of our cycle lanes are added as an afterthought, and aren't really fit for purpose (like the one above). There's one in StAndrews for example that's nearly always full of parked cars, and is so broken up at one end you need a MTB to ride it. The end result is it forces you to repeatedly move out into a flow of traffic that may have quite a large closing speed, and may not be expecting you.

Basically, I don't use cycle lanes that are going to force me into traffic like that as imo they actually increase my risk of being run over than just taking a normal position on the main carriageway.

I suspect in this case the evidence doesn't support whether the cyclist pulled out in front of the vehicle in a dangerous way, or if the driver was careless in not observing the cyclist (or perhaps both) - in which the jury might have had no choice but to go with a not guilty verdict. Certainly in London I do see a lot of cyclist riding with headphones on and moving across lanes or around parked cars without appearing to check it was safe to do so.

If, as the papers say, the cyclist was dragged for 14 metres and that blue tent is where she ended up, then it looks like the initial collision might well have occurred pretty close to where that cycle lane peters out.

If I knew the road was like that then I also wouldn't ride in that cycle lane as the way it ends is potentially dangerous. There don't even appear to be any signs warning cyclists or other traffic about the cycle lane and the main road merging either.

Or careless cycling for not looking/signalling when 'swapping lane' onto the main carriageway when the cycle lane ends?

Someone hold my beer…

👿

Forgetting all the other detail - it seems to me this guy killed her and didn't know he had killed her.

That seems pretty ****ing careless to me...

...so I think he's guilty of careless driving at the absolute minimum 👿

This sort of thing will be the reason in most cases like this: [url= http://www.theinvisiblegorilla.com/gorilla_experiment.html ]Invisible Gorilla[/url]

Don't be so quick to apportion blame. Our eyesight doesn't work like you think it does.

Forgetting all the other detail - it seems to me this guy killed her and didn't know he had killed her.

It's just amazing how difficult it is to prove these things to a jury when the victim is a cyclist and the defendant is driving a motor vehicle.

This sort of thing will be the reason in most cases like this: Invisible Gorilla

WTF was he looking at ?

Guessing he was looking for gorillas?

Btw the gorilla example is poor, the first bit of the test says "watch the ball carefully" then "ha you didn't see the gorilla despite us telling you to not look for other stuff"

Anyway, the definition of careless driving needs to go; for the benefit of all road users

Well looking at the pictures I too can't see how that's not careless driving. [b]What was she supposed to do?! Stop becuase the kerb wiggles out?[/b]

Literally that, if you are approaching the end of your lane it is your job to judge if you can merge safely or not.

Continuing straight/merging into the other lane without checking and expecting a lorry (a vehicle notorious for having large blind spots at the front corners) to get out of the way is irresponsible.

Could be that something else momentarily took his attention that his brain perceived as a threat. I'm not saying it did or didn't - thats why we have trial by jury.

something else momentarily took his attention that his brain perceived as a threat.

He was approaching a blind crest on a narrow bridge. That would draw some of his focus away from what's going on alongside him/in his blind spot. As mentioned above, the cycle lane creates a false sense of security for both rider and driver, and it ends at exactly the point where drivers will be focusing on what's coming towards them.

Nevertheless, I still can't understand how he could fail not to have noticed the cyclist at all in the previous couple of hundred yards, and have big warning bells going off in his mind to make sure of her position at the narrowing. That is the standard of driving you'd reasonably expect.

The problem is that the level 'reasonably expected' tends to fall to the lowest common denominator on the jury. Substandard anticipation and checks are excused as being just the average. The presence of poor road architecture is just another hurdle for the prosecution to overcome.

He killed her, he knows he killed her, and we as cyclist's know that he probably made an error, but it needs to be proved beyond reasonable doubt (to a jury that probably aren't cyclist's).

Let's hope that he never gets another decent night's sleep again.

It is irrelevant if the jury are cyclists or not. They make judgements on the basis of evidence and only the evidence. Not their own personal opinion or bias as a cyclist or anything else. If you are ever on a jury you leave your own bias' and opinions at the door.

Thread shows exactly why jurys are no good for trialling these incidents: Even cyclists come up with some absolutely moronic "reasons" why it's ok for someone to kill a cyclist on the road.
"Our eyesight doesn't work like you think it does." is one of the most stupid things I've read on here. Cheers for that. I guess you know how "our eyesight" works eh?

[quote=wobbliscott ]It is irrelevant if the jury are cyclists or not. They make judgements on the basis of evidence and only the evidence. Not their own personal opinion or bias as a cyclist or anything else. If you are ever on a jury you leave your own bias' and opinions at the door.

You're joking, right?

[quote=sprinter2139 ]Literally that, if you are approaching the end of your lane it is your job to judge if you can merge safely or not.
Continuing straight/merging into the other lane without checking and expecting a lorry (a vehicle notorious for having large blind spots at the front corners) to get out of the way is irresponsible.

You're actually blaming the victim here? Despite her lane not ending, and her having done absolutely nothing wrong.

the defendant had told officers he had been passing when a cyclist had been hit by a car, and that he left the scene as he felt there was "nothing he could do".
On his arrest, he said he had heard a "cry or scream" and looked in his mirror to see a woman lying in the road.

How did he know the cyclist had been hit by a car when he couldn't possibly have seen any such thing?

@DezB, the thing is, we don't know the answer, we weren't in court, and we haven't seen the evidence.

I know for sure i've made mistakes in traffic whilst on the bike before, and if my mistake got me squished by a truck, i'd hope the driver wouldn't get locked up for it.

Equally, i've come very close to being knocked off by idiot drivers a couple of times and i'm strongly considering getting a 360° camera as in some cases it'd be the only proof.

I'm all for protecting cyclists, and handing down harsher punsihments for poor driving, but as with anything else, innocent until proven guilty.

@cookeaa and anyone who thinks trial by jury is unimpeachable, read what a judge has to say about the difference between oral and written summing up [url= http://www.nicmadge.co.uk/summing_up_article.php ]Nic Madge - Summing Up - A judge's perspective[/url]

Handing out written directions seems to have almost eliminated requests from juries for reminders or further guidance on the law. Juries also seem to be reaching verdicts more quickly. There has also been an increase in the proportion of convictions. This is borne out by an analysis of verdicts in my court over the last two years.[26] In those cases where the jury were not given a typed version of the legal directions, 44% of defendants were found guilty, 47% were found not guilty and the jury was discharged because there was no prospect of them reaching a verdict in respect of 9% of defendants. In cases where juries were given a typed version of the legal directions, 60% of defendants were found guilty and 37% were acquitted. Perhaps most significantly, to date, only one jury which had typed directions has failed to reach a verdict.

A big increase in convictions with a written summing up, which I understand is atypical in the UK.

I tried to find the judge's summing up of this case but couldn't. Closest is [url= http://causelist.org/d/b7u6pt4kmh5o/ ][/url]

Perhaps some STW legal practitioners could advise?

You're actually blaming the victim here? Despite her lane not ending, and her having done absolutely nothing wrong.

I never blamed the deceased, and have you even read the article or this thread?

1. You can clearly see in the picture above that the cycle lane on both sides finishes approaching the bridge to allow the road to narrow.

2. The article specifically says "It happened at a narrow point [b]where the cycle lane ended[/b]"

This is what the jury is for, to actually study the evidence BEFORE deciding who's at fault.

@cookeaa and anyone who thinks trial by jury is unimpeachable

I never said "unimpeachable" I said "least worst"... You seem to be grinding a different axe there buddy.

[quote=sprinter2139 ]I never blamed the deceased, and have you even read the article or this thread?

Oh, so what was this then? "Continuing straight/merging into the other lane without checking and expecting a lorry (a vehicle notorious for having large blind spots at the front corners) to get out of the way is irresponsible."

1. You can clearly see in the picture above that the cycle lane on both sides finishes approaching the bridge to allow the road to narrow.
2. The article specifically says "It happened at a narrow point where the cycle lane ended"

Sure, the cycle lane ended, but that is somewhat different to the context in which you were using "lane". She didn't have to merge into another lane as you suggested - the cycle lane ends after the narrowing, and vehicles have to move over to the right to avoid driving through the end of the cycle lane, let alone cyclists in it, or who are carrying straight on from it. Of course she can "merge safely", because doing so is no different from riding along the road.

I got hit by a ****ing big lorry once. Luckily it was just a tap on the arm by a bar at the back, but could easily have been worse. I was riding past a junction. When I caught the **** at the next set of lights and told him he'd hit me, he didn't have a clue. His words, I remember so clearly - "I didn't. I saw you in the layby and went round you". That's what he would've said in court and got away scott free too. There wasn't even a bloody layby. He's seen me and still hit me. That's the sort of thing we have to stamp out by prosectuing these bastards. All this bloke got was me calling him a stupid ****, but maybe it stuck with him and he properly steered round cyclists in future.
I'm not saying this is the same as the case being discussed, but just think how easy it is for a lorry driver to deny carelessness and the courts just say "OK mate, carry on. Silly cyclists getting in your way.."

Oh, so what was this then? "Continuing straight/merging into the other lane without checking and expecting a lorry (a vehicle notorious for having large blind spots at the front corners) to get out of the way is irresponsible."

That's stating a fact, if the lane was left without checking or signaling that is irresponsible.

The highway code even has a specific section covering situations where cycle lanes end which states...

"When leaving a cycle lane check before pulling out that it is safe to do so and signal your intention clearly to other road users."

I imagine the lorry cams will show if these actions were taken prior to the accident.

Sure, the cycle lane ended, but that is somewhat different to the context in which you were using "lane". She didn't have to merge into another lane as you suggested - the cycle lane ends after the narrowing, and vehicles have to move over to the right to avoid driving through the end of the cycle lane, let alone cyclists in it, or who are carrying straight on from it. Of course she can "merge safely", because doing so is no different from riding along the road.

It's the section of the road with the cycle lane specifically which moves over and narrows, meaning all but the widest of vehicles won't need to change course, it would have been the bicycle which had to change course.

Also vehicles do not have to move over to avoid driving through any part of that cycle lane as it has dashed white lines, not solid white lines.

All facts which the jury would have had when they made their decision.

[quote=sprinter2139 ]That's stating a fact, if the lane was left without checking or signaling that is irresponsible.

Blimey, so now you're suggesting you also need to signal when the dashed lines on the road end, but you carry on in a straight line? Also victim blaming, however much you want to deny it, because you appear to be suggesting that if the victim didn't do that (despite not needing to) that they were to blame - I'm not sure why you're finding that so difficult to understand!

The highway code even has a specific section covering situations where cycle lanes end which states...
"When leaving a cycle lane check before pulling out that it is safe to do so and signal your intention clearly to other road users."

Congratulations on taking that completely out of context as well! You don't need to be a genius to realise that means when you're leaving a cycle lane which continues, rather than the cycle lane ending. I'll point out yet again that when that cycle lane ends you don't need to pull out, you carry on in a straight line, and neither would it make any sense at all to signal (I mean exactly what else is somebody riding in that cycle lane going to do when it ends?)

It's the section of the road with the cycle lane specifically which moves over and narrows, meaning all but the widest of vehicles won't need to change course, it would have been the bicycle which had to change course.

The bicycle would have changed course before the cycle lane ends, because the road doesn't narrow at all after the cycle lane ends. Are you now suggesting the cyclist was at fault for making a manoeuvre whilst still in the cycle lane? 🙄

Also vehicles do not have to move over to avoid driving through any part of that cycle lane as it has dashed white lines, not solid white lines.

They do if there's a bicycle in it!

All facts which the jury would have had when they made their decision.

and we've seen miscarriage of justice after miscarriage of justice in trials involving cyclists being killed by drivers. I don't know all the facts of this case, but from knowing what has happened in others it is clear that lots of drivers who have broken the law and killed have got away with it. Juries appear to be very bad at correctly applying the law regarding the standard of a careful and competent driver.

[quote=sprinter2139 ]Also vehicles do not have to move over to avoid driving through any part of that cycle lane as it has dashed white lines, not solid white lines.

[quote=HC rule 140 ]Do not drive or park in a cycle lane marked by a broken white line unless it is unavoidable.

careless driving unless it is unavoidable

@aracer, unless you know something specifically about that cycle lane that isn't shown in the photo i'm not sure how you can claim the road doesn't narrow after the cycle lane ends. It looks fairly clear to me that it ends at an angle as the bridge starts.
If the cyclist went straight on as you suggest they'd veer across both carriageways into the police cars.

But anyway, all we actually [i]know[/i] about the case is we've got:
A definitely terrible cycle lane
A probably careless driver
A possibly careless cyclist

Certainly not enough to point the blame directly at anyone except perhaps whoever created that cycle lane.

[quote=fifeandy ]@aracer, unless you know something specifically about that cycle lane that isn't shown in the photo i'm not sure how you can claim the road doesn't narrow after the cycle lane ends. It looks fairly clear to me that it ends at an angle as the bridge starts.
If the cyclist went straight on as you suggest they'd veer across both carriageways into the police cars.

Here's a slightly better shot https://goo.gl/maps/Fr54WoWELMv - clearly the end of the last bit of line is well to the right of the kerb line after the road narrows, and it is possible to ride in a straight line parallel to the kerb on the road after that - I'd expect cyclists using the lane not to pull out at all after the end of it. The last bit of line may be a foot or so before the end of the narrowing if that, but the narrowing after that is pretty insignificant. A cyclist riding in the cycle lane has already moved into a position where an overtaking vehicle would have to cross well onto the other side of the road before the lane ends.

In any case, there is no onus at all on a cyclist to do anything other than keep riding along when that lane comes to an end. It is always up to the overtaking driver to keep clear, irrespective of road markings.

n any case, there is no onus at all on a cyclist to do anything other than keep riding along when that lane comes to an end.

On the basis that I'd rather be alive than right I'd definitely be doing a lot more than "keep riding along" when I came to the end of a cycle lane like that (not that I'd be in it in the first place!).

Sure, I agree (I wouldn't be in the lane either), but we were discussing who is to blame for the collision, and no blame at all can be attributed to the cyclist for doing that, however much sprinter is trying to by misinterpreting the HC.