[Closed] Keith Bontragers partner - court case outcome.

just read the article
It seems a ill qualified. ill prepared and ill tentative driver just got a minor wrist slap for living changing injuries caused by all the above

There has to be a point were we go - not competent to drive - this seems especially true of HGV professional drivers in the capital

the reality is if you want to kill someone buy them a bike then run them over it will be way cheaper and less risky than a hit man

sad as always

He should have his licence taken from him...I see far more than my fair share of very bad driving from foreign hgv drivers.
The level of driving skill is nowhere near high enough of that needed to pass the uk hgv test...but they can pass their equivalent test in a van with a flatbed trailer....how does that qualify them to be allowed to drive up to a 44t and 18.75m long vehicle?
Dont mean to beat down on foreign drivers only..as I know a fair few that drive perfectly good....BUT the vast majority of accidents involving hgvs on the uk roads (that ive seen) are foreign plated ie polish..latvian..ukranian...romanian...turkish..estonian and french

I want to know why trucks can now do 50mph on single carriageways . I cringe when yet again one thunders passed to close.Thinking of getting a beware of passing this vehicle on the outside sticker for my bike

Just awful for the Bontrager family.

Timely here too having been knocked off the bike recently here, as well as reading about this that happened locally...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-37097783

Death by careless driving.... 12 months disqualification and had to pay a total of £165 in costs and fines 😕

edric - they can't. 40 mph on most single carriageway roads. Parts of the A9 were upgraded to 50 mph but its unusual.

[img] [/img]

They can...the speed limits went up last year.
FWIW I disagree with it and I drive hgvs

Ah - speed limits went up in england but not scotland. Still 40 mph in Scotland ( apart from some sections of the A9

Hence my confusion - and no doubt many others.

https://www.gov.uk/speed-limits

That really takes the piss.
No doubt the poor lady's car insurance will go up as well if the other thread is correct.
Can you sue the driver for damages and the fact that the rest of your life is ****ed.
It really does seem that it is open season on cyclists. I remember a motorist who was on the wrong side of the road who killed a motorcyclist. The judge didn't send her to prison as "she had suffered enough" Poor love.

I rode the 24hr nat time trial .and most of the Irish registered trucks were flying through the Prees Heath roundabout I had to dive onto the verge to avoid one. It was horrible .I guess they were on a mission from the Holyhead ferry and night trunking to the midlands

That's so sad.

IANAL or legal professional, but that does seems like an incredibly lite sentence.

I've seen a number of those "99 whats your emergency.." type programs now to be exceedingly hesitant when over/undertaking any kind of big vehicle from transit size upwards.

The issue is that sentencing is decided on the seriousness of the mistake - not the seriousness of the outcome of the mistake.

So the driver gets the same penalty if they hit a piece off road furniture, a car or a person.

Hence the sentencing looks lenient wen its a cyclist killed or injured.

its a crazy state of affairs where as a race we've actually created a world that involves trying to co habit with millions of fast moving lumps of metal whizzing round us all the time often by people without proper control, attention or training , causing huge tolls of death, serious and debilitating injury, damage, noise and pollution. The woman is lucky to be alive and the driver has not been punished at all. 1 million people a year are killed worldwide by road traffic accidents and yet the carnage continues.... I love cycling on the roads but it does always stick in the back of your mind that it could happen to me one day when I read news stories like this.

Notwithstanding the story the OP is referencing, and without trivialising the specifics in any way, round here at least I feel safer round HGVs / artics than LGVs, vans, buses and 4x4s. The professionalism of HGV drivers generally, both in terms of understanding their vehicle's size, speed and acceleration and their patience waiting for a clean overtake, is superb.

Obviously that wasn't the case in this instance, and if the book needs to be thrown at the driver in question it should be.

It would of course be preferable for all if the incident had never happened and we didn't need to talk of punishment.

I feel sick reading this. I followed Julie up Whernside doing the Three Peaks one year and I can't believe what has happened to her.

I equally can't believe that the driver is allowed back behind the wheel having done this.

As somebody who rides a wide bared mountain bike on road, i rarely have problems with Profesional lgv drivers, its the idiots driving lease or company cars.

He shoiuld have had his lgv licence revoked though, and tesco should have been charged with something.

The issue is that sentencing is decided on the seriousness of the mistake - not the seriousness of the outcome of the mistake.

Is an interesting point that. Probably not one to explore further on this thread though.

I wonder if any criminal action was bought against Tesco's for identifying an issue with a driver that was a direct cause in an accident only days later?

The issue is that sentencing is decided on the seriousness of the mistake - not the seriousness of the outcome of the mistake.

So the driver gets the same penalty if they hit a piece off road furniture, a car or a person.

Hence the sentencing looks lenient wen its a cyclist killed or injured.

Not quite true I don't think, as there are different offences - 'causing death by..' and the more recently introduced 'causing serious injury by" but I think the latter is only applicable to dangerous driving (although death can be attributed to careless as well) - although in this case the charge was neither careless nor dangerous, but the lesser "due care and attention".

However, playing devil's advocate, there's an argument that what you describe is how it should be - otherwise you're sentencing based on luck. Real world example (apologies, I have used this one before on here):

A former colleague of mine got done for dangerous driving - he had fallen asleep at the wheel on the motorway, drifted off the carriageway and ended up "parked" halfway up an embankment. Can't remember the exact disposal but it was a reasonably big (for a motoring offence) fine and quite a few points on his licence.

A guy called Gary Hart did exactly the same thing but with a different outcome - his vehicle plunged down an embankment onto the East Coast mainline and caused a train crash in which ten people died. Charged with "causing death by.." he got five years prison.

Exactly the same circumstances, even the same motorway as it happens, effectively the different outcomes were down to luck. Given that the drivers' culpability is the same, should not the sentences also have been the same?

Can you sue the driver for damages and the fact that the rest of your life is ****.

Why don't you read the linked article and find out? To save you the bother of a whole click..

Dinsdale’s lawyer Sally Moore, head of personal injury at the firm Leigh Day, said they would now be taking civil legal action against Oprea and Tesco.

The professionalism of HGV drivers generally, both in terms of understanding their vehicle's size, speed and acceleration and their patience waiting for a clean overtake, is superb.

I'd agree with that although, around here, I'd say the same for bus drivers too.

I'd generally agree with the above, sticking to the speed limits on single carriageways though, not a chance.

Exactly the same circumstances, even the same motorway as it happens, effectively the different outcomes were down to luck. Given that the drivers' culpability is the same, should not the sentences also have been the same?

I think that they arnt supposed to be is a lot of the problem, because if an person does something wrong that lots of others do wrong every day (and none are penalised, just exchange insurance details) but on this occasion happens to cause an injury, then you can see why its hard for courts to penalise them as much as they should. I think they should start being harder on people who cause collisions, but if its not policed more and punished more, its going to be hard to get that change.

Im still not sure I agree with the 'death by' principle of charges especially, its the same action, they should all be punished the same.

If I driver falls asleep and nearly runs me down, only avoided by my ability to leap a fence to get out the way, why should the driver have a lesser charge and therefore penalty than one who hit a person who couldn't leap out the way to save themselver.

Time they changed the law a bit and started using manslaughter charges.

Hope the civil case goes better and damages are more proportionate.

If you sentence on outcomes then the drunk driver who hits a cyclist while speeding but the cyclists gets a lucky break and is only bruised gets a smaller punishment than the sober careful driver who sneezes at the wrong moment, twitches the steering and hits a cyclist a glancing blow and the cyclist is unlucky, hits a piece of road furniture and dies

Joe. It used to be manslaughter charges but juries wouldn't convict hence the newish law of death by dangerous / careless / reckless driving. this was an attempt to increase conviction rates

sentenced within the remit of the offence - not anything you can do about that.

[quote=tjagain ]the sober careful driver who sneezes at the wrong moment, twitches the steering and hits a cyclist a glancing blow and the cyclist is unlucky, hits a piece of road furniture and dies

This is the "momentary lapse" defence. The trouble with it is that in order for a momentary lapse to result in you hitting a cyclist then you were driving too close to them in the first place. I have little sympathy for such drivers.

they need to take the juries out of driving cases IMO - make it a pure test of law as "judged" by someone dispassionate and objective

and/or they need to enshrine in law that the highway code [u][b]is[/b][/u] the way a careful and competent driver would behave - may well need a rewrite first but all the better IMO (needs to incorporate stuff like mobile phones, alcohol timings, drugs etc so everyone knows at the point of passing their test

Feels particularly salient at the moment, a cyclist was killed by a lorry near here today.

A very sad incident indeed. On this occasion it was not the lorry driver who was at fault. Agree with your points about the state of the roads/traffic.

Ah - speed limits went up in england but not scotland. Still 40 mph in Scotland ( apart from some sections of the A9

The law is 40 but in reality is thats pretty much the speed tractors drive at, if lorries drove at that speed we'd all know about it because we'd all be in long, long tailbacks behind them. Trucks (with the only the real exception of the A9) drive at 60 on single carriageways - even on the A76 near me where they get a reminder every few miles that the limit for trucks is 40.

[url= http://www.scotsman.com/news/transport/lorry-drivers-set-to-launch-go-slow-protest-over-speed-hgv-speed-restrictions-1-2672281 ]Driving at 40 is something HGV driver threaten to do as a protest[/url] how surreal is that - threatening to obey the law as an act of civil disobedience

[quote=thegreatape ]On this occasion it was not the lorry driver who was at fault.

Don't want to debate whether the lorry driver was at fault, I'll take your word for it, but it still seems there's something wrong when the penalty for what was presumably a minor mistake is to get crushed under a lorry.

Lorry driver must have been at fault as they were prosecuted and pleaded guilty

That's referring to the second one waderider mentions TJ.

aracer - yes, it does seem wrong, but I guess that's just how it is sometimes.

Oops 😳

No dramas.

If I wasn't confident I could sneeze with losing control of my car, I wouldn't drive.

As for:

The trouble with it is that in order for a momentary lapse to result in you hitting a cyclist then you were driving too close to them in the first place. I have little sympathy for such drivers.

I couldn't agree more: Highway Code advice is to give as much room as you would if overtaking a car iirc.

How often do you experience people-in-cars giving that to people-on-bikes??

I couldn't agree more: Highway Code advice is to give as much room as you would if overtaking a car iirc.

I was simply trying to make an example where a minor misjudgement lead to fatal consequences compared to a major deliberate action not bringing any serious consequences and posing a question about how judging on outcomes not actions would also lead to very unfair penalties.

personally I would prefer far more stringent roads policing. Mandatory jail for drunk drivers. Life bans for 2 serious offences, mandatory jail for no insurance, retesting every 3 years etc etc. As well as assumed liability

[quote=thegreatape ]aracer - yes, it does seem wrong, but I guess that's just how it is sometimes.

I wonder how an HSE inspector would take such an observation following a fatality in the workplace.

[quote=scaredypants ]dangerously ambiguous IMO - I'd happily pass a car with only a foot to spare and you could easily interpret as that

You have seen the picture?

[img] [/img]

aracer, yes I have but I've also seen the text quoted in isolation and have been told exactly "my" interpretation when I've challenged drivers on it

(and of course, that is "at least a foot")

[quote=tjagain ]I was simply trying to make an example where a minor misjudgement lead to fatal consequences compared to a major deliberate action not bringing any serious consequences

Though you're going to struggle to come up with an example of a minor misjudgement which can't be shot down in the same way - there was some other deliberate fault with the driving which didn't leave sufficient room for error. Because a minor misjudgement shouldn't have fatal consequences (we're back to my HSE inspector here).

I wonder how an HSE inspector would take such an observation following a fatality in the workplace.

Probably depends on the circumstances, but, despite it seeming - as you say - wrong that a momentary bad decision can get you killed, that is sometimes all it is.

argumentative get! 😉 You see my point tho. Judge on actions gives rise to this sort of situation ie what appears to be a tiny penalty for a major injury. Judge on outcomes there is plenty of scope for it to be the other way ie huge penalty for a very minor transgression.

[quote=tjagain ]argumentative get!

What, me?

I do agree with your general point - though think that maybe the penalty should be proportional to the worst possible outcome, so rather than somebody causing life changing injuries getting off lightly, somebody doing the same thing but being lucky to avoid injuring anybody should get the book thrown at them.

Additional causing death offences have been [url= http://www.qebholliswhiteman.co.uk/practice-areas/articles-pdfs/causing-death-by-careless-driving.pdf ]added to the statute books[/url] (worth reading IMHO), should serious/life-changing injury be added too (or sentencing guidelines amended to reflect such outcomes)

She needs to take Tescos to the cleaners, hopefully she's gets a huge payout as compensation.

I want to know why trucks can now do 50mph on single carriageways .

Statistically it is safer. As I understand it, there was research to show that when trucks traveled at 40, cars following behind were likely to get impatient and try to pass, whereas at 50 they were happy to tuck in and follow. Less dodgy overtaking resulted in fewer accidents and fewer deaths.

If that really is the reason then that's poo, another example of not actually addressing the issue.

If people were driving dangerously trying to overtake when inappropriate etc. then that should be dealt with, a good old dose of calm-the-f-down would maintain the original safety level for drivers and improve it for other road users, and at what cost? A few seconds on a journey, well big deal...

Edit

cars following behind were likely to get impatient

Please don't fall into that trap, cars don't get impatient, people driving them do.

If that really is the reason then that's poo, another example of not actually addressing the issue.

If people were driving dangerously trying to overtake when inappropriate etc. then that should be dealt with, a good old dose of calm-the-f-down would maintain the original safety level for drivers and improve it for other road users, and at what cost? A few seconds on a journey, well big deal...

I think the bigger problem is having one catch-all limit for a very varied range of roads and infrastructure. Increasing the speed of trucks addresses one problem - dangerous overtaking - but creates other ones. An A road like the A9 is a fairly newly build road - pretty straight, long gentle curves, side road have a slip road on and off, its backed up by a parallel bike /pedestrian path and so on. The A76 near me is the same class of road but its narrow, has no space for pedestrian other than on the carriageway, it has crossroads in dips between blind summits, theres no run on/off slip roads so vehicles need to all but stop to join and leave and so on.

I think we need a two tier national speed limit (for cars as well) - one for roads of a given standard in terms of the safety of junction design, room for other road users and so on and another for roads that don't meet that standard to give more protection to non motorised traffic sharing that space.

You have seen the picture?

Ummm, if you tried passing a car like that, you'd hit the side of the car...

and what about riding primary?highway code is ambiguous in this case.

fourbanger - Member

You have seen the picture?

Ummm, if you tried passing a car like that, you'd hit the side of the car...