i'm sure the lorry driver is going through hell but ffs!! speeding on the hands free!! just say the cyclist didnt look and you get away scot free!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-south-west-wales-15686419
sorry this sort of thing just makes me mad. if your speeding in a lorry and hit a cyclist whislt on the phone how on earth can you not be driving dangerously??!!
his poor mum to see it all too.
55mph in a 40mph limit in an artic - how is that not dangerous driving regardless of anyone being killed?
55 mph in 40 zone. In a lorry all non dual carriageways are 40 mph. I find it very hard to believe a motorcyclist would not shoulder check.
Exactly the same thing happened on the A41 at backford near chester about 20 yers ago a cyclist had arranged to meet his parents at a now closed restraunt,and as he turned right across the traffic was hit by a car and sadly died,in front of his parents, only the speed limit on that stretch of road was to blame, now reduced to 50mph.
So sad for the lads parents and freinds and the driver of the lgv, who hopefully want drive for quite a while.
FFS.
That's disgusting. I don't care how much you cry in court, if you kill someone whilst doing 38% over the speed limit you should **** do time.
i know i dont have the full facts but seriously you get prison for stealing trainers in a riot but probably scot free for this!! ridiculous.
Similar case with a friends daughter. They 'proved' that the driver was travelling at at least 56 mph in a 40mph area when he hit her. IIRC he got off with driving without due care and attention and a fine.
The Police royally screwed up, as although he had be drinking, he was under the limit. They 'forgot' to drug check him and by all accounts he'd had at least one joint prior to the crash and his driving was so bad that 2 girls in the car got out a short time before he crashed.
More detail here Dr Nick
http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/Driver-8217-s-tears-crash-trial/story-13808246-detail/story.html
55 in an artic in a 40 FFS. I never fail to be amazed when drivers insist on overtaking when I'm turning right, even when I am taking the lane and even when the car behind me has slowed to wait. Grim stuff, my thoughts are with his family.
Whilst I agree it's not only horrific, but also pretty disgusting he got away with it, if I may play devils advocate (and reap the undoubted flaming) the fact that he only managed to shave 3mph off his speed suggests there really was very little time between the cyclist indicating and making the turn.
He should be done for the speeding, but I can see reason behind clearing him for death by careless driving. Had he been doing 40 and slowed to 30 (obviously a significantly bigger margin) the chap would probably still have died.
My thoughts to the family, particularly the mother, horrible thing to watch.
For fear of letting facts get in the way of a story...
"The court heard how Mr Poulson, a Cardiff University student, suddenly pulled out and hit the side of his lorry.
He said Mr Poulson put out his right hand as if to indicate a right turn but did not look behind him."
I tend to find the judiciary tend to get these things right, based on the facts and the testimony of those at Court.
"55 mph in 40 zone. In a lorry all non dual carriageways are 40 mph"
IIRC (could be wrong though) HGVs are supposed to do 30 in 40 zones (like 40 in 60 single carriageways)
EDIT: Reading around the links etc, was it a 60 zone (and 40 for lorries)
i know what you are saying njee but unless examples are made of people who kill other road uses whilst breaking the law, the standard of driving in this country will never improve.
i know the facts but also know the lorry driver was speeding and talking on the phone how is that not dangerous driving??. Maybe other witnesses not reported in the article did see the poor lad pull out in front of the lorry without looking.
Are 'hands free' illegal ??
doctornickriviera - Member
i know what you are saying njee but unless examples are made of people who kill other road uses whilst breaking the law, the standard of driving in this country will never improve.
The concern here is that he was on a phone and is bang to rights on speeding yet he still isnt convicted. You havent seen the judgement but if it was found that the drivers speed had no bearing on the outcome then what exactly is he guilty of (other than a minor speeding offence)
I dont get this why would you just pull out in to the path of a lorry whatever the speed it was doing? 50 is fast but in a 40 zone dual carriageway i would expect this tbh.No testimony from the poor mother who saw all this
tragic
IIRC (could be wrong though) HGVs are supposed to do 30 in 40 zones (like 40 in 60 single carriageways)
I think you're correct, I was more trying to say 40 mph is the upper limit of any single carriage way. Your point does make the speed significantly worse.
I tend to find the judiciary tend to get these things right, based on the facts and the testimony of those at Court.
I think the problem is that on some subjects (such as many RTAs) there is a bias within society meaning juries do do not tend to do the right thing. This may be the case here its tough to say. Another problem is being as the other side of court case is dead case like this will always be bias. No will will ever know all the facts. The talk of a phone use make me very suspicious too.
i have seen lorry v cyclist outcomes in a+e and its not pretty. i know some people on singletrack like to make a fight out of most threads they enter, but i feel the law needs to be stronger top protect the most vulnerable road users, whether that be cyclists, pedestrians horseiders etc.
Presumably the court felt that version of events stood up to scrutiny.
Not sure the speed is that relevant... If they collided at 50, then they probably would still have collided at 40, and being run over by a truck isn't good news at any speed. Understand why people are picking up on it but did it cause the crash?
Very sad case but it doesn't look that simple.
Not making a fight, just wish people would deal with the facts.
think the problem is that on some subjects (such as many RTAs) there is a bias within society meaning juries do do not tend to do the right thing. This may be the case here its tough to say. Another problem is being as the other side of court case is dead case like this will always be bias. No will will ever know all the facts. The talk of a phone use make me very suspicious too
Bias, jury's , you sure ? The idea of a jury is to elimate such things as bias. What about serious murder cases or cases involving children, would the jury's bias towards such 'types' affect their ability to form an opinion based on the facts presented to them.
Tosh...I sleep safe in the knowledge that had this drivers negligent/criminal actions caused the death then he would have been convicted. I have also been at cases where HGV drivers are expected to drive at a higher level than your ordinary man in the street. Even given this approach he still has not been convicted.
Heaven forbid, but maybe it wasnt his fault.
One of the simplest ways to stop speeding in company owned vehicles, is for each one to be fitted with signs giving a freephone number to ring if driven discoutesly, secondly at a cost, but it usually reduces the insurance, is to fit cctv cameras to all commercial vehicles,and a dvd recorder as most buses and coaches have now, along with intoximeters, as fitted to Natioanl express coaches, if the driver wishes to start the vehicle at the start of his shift, he need sto provide a sample of breath that doesnt contain alchol.
It is a tragedy and I feel really sorry for his family but if it had been a car doing 55mpg (within the speed limit) it would have still hit him and he'd still have died. The problem seems to have been he pulled out without looking, terrible mistake to make and horribly high price to pay.
Can see why the driver got off with it.
Yes and maybe if he was driving within the speed limit he could have avoided the collision....maybe the cyclist was at fault......i aggree that if you go under the wheels of a lorry you are toast whatever the speed it is travelling at. Very sad.
Bias, jury's , you sure ? The idea of a jury is to elimate such things as bias
Yes, if there is a bias with in society, (such as there is with RTAs), then chances are the jury will hold that bias.
In the last week we have a multiple pile up ont m5,resuling in numerous deaths another pile up on the m6 at Tebay, a tanker crash on the M53 today that resulted in it going down an embankment, and the sad death of a stobart driver, at Preston Brook, on the m56.
Then on Wednesday night at about 18.20, we had a police man and speed camera, cocking cars speeding ona 30mph road, and other idiots flashing oncoming cars to warn them he was there.
We need a robust and strict regime to deal with speeding, a short ban of a week, and a long walk home should teach peeps a lesson, and bring in some cash to fund it all.
RTA's .....what if a third of the jury didnt drive, 2 were cyclists, 3 rode motorbikes and 2 drove cars with the last driving commercial vehicles.
how does the bias work there ?
Willing to bet the lorry driver didn't give the cyclist a full lane when overtaking. So the cyclist signals, moves towards the middle of the lane, and WHAM. Dead before they can even start the right turn.
Had a very similar incident (fortunately collision just avoided) in similar circumstances, where a car decided to squeeze past at 40-odd mph and I swerved towards the middle of the lane to avoid a broken bottle.
Accepting that the drivers testimony was honest and the cyclist did not look then sadly he could be considered to in some degree have contributed to his own death...
However I do still think HGV and Bus Drivers need to be held to a higher standard with regards to their driving, yes they have deadlines to hit but they are also supposedly qualified to a higher level in order to be entrusted with a vehicle many times greater in mass and destructive potential than any car or bike....
15mph (~40%) over the speed prevailing limit is far too high, given the reduced reaction time he had (plus his attention being partially on a phone call), he only managed to knock 3mph off prior to impact, had he been obeying the letter of the law (and I assume that formed part of his contract of employment as a Driver) the odds of him avoiding the impact all together would have been significantly increased...
Car driver are often told in adverts and literature that adhering to the speed limit rather than exceeding it by say 15% significantly improves the chances of survival for any pedestrians they might hit.
Ultimately a life was lost in an horrific manner due in no small part to the fact that an individual whose profession was supposedly the safe and legal operation of an HGV decided to ignore some inconvenient laws regarding speed...
I have no doubt his tears were genuine, he has killed someone and ruined several lives. Doubtless he feels remorse and guilt, but also believes his avoiding actions were sufficient to remove any blame his speeding and inattention might place upon him, the courts it seems would agree...
i know the facts but also know the lorry driver was speeding and talking on the phone how is that not dangerous driving??. Maybe other witnesses not reported in the article did see the poor lad pull out in front of the lorry without looking.
Because he wasn't being prosecuted for "dangerous driving" he was being prosecuted for CAUSING DEATH by careless driving. The onus is therefore, on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that he did that. The prosecution failed to do that. Whilst I can see why people get jumpy about killing cyclists, surely the basic tenant of the judicial system is just as important. Just because you are breaking one law (speeding) does NOT mean he actually caused the accident. Whilst using a phone hands free can amount to careless driving - it is not a foregone conclusion.
Is that not why we use juries - so it is a "cross section" of society that assesses the facts and balances what is "reasonable" rather than the judgement of one person be the deciding factor?I think the problem is that on some subjects (such as many RTAs) there is a bias within society meaning juries do do not tend to do the right thing.
I doubt that will have any effect: nobody sets off expecting to kill someone on the road (whether your fault or not), therefore nobody would change their driving because of that perception.i know what you are saying njee but unless examples are made of people who kill other road uses whilst breaking the law, the standard of driving in this country will never improve.
Accepting that the drivers testimony was honest
That's a pretty big assumption IMHO.
RTA's .....what if a third of the jury didnt drive, 2 were cyclists, 3 rode motorbikes and 2 drove cars with the last driving commercial vehicles.
What point is it you're trying to make here? I'm sure that's not the typical composition of a jury you're describing there - looks an awful lot like a strawman...
Is that not why we use juries - so it is a "cross section" of society that assesses the facts and balances what is "reasonable" rather than the judgement of one person be the deciding factor?
But if the society you're taking a cross-section of is biased, what then?
aracer - MemberThat's a pretty big assumption IMHO.
Not when you also consider that the prosecution didn't manage to contradict it.
Not when you also consider that the prosecution didn't manage to contradict it.
You're basing that on the fact he was found not guilty? Or do you have more information than in those articles? Because I don't see anything in what's been reported to suggest what the prosecution did or didn't say, or whether there was any evidence from witnesses other than the lorry driver and the deceased cyclist with which to contradict his evidence.
He should be done for the speeding, but I can see reason behind clearing him for death by careless driving. Had he been doing 40 and slowed to 30 (obviously a significantly bigger margin) the chap would probably still have died.
Maybe, but a vehicle travelling at 52 MPH has 3 times the kinetic energy of a vehicle travelling at 30 MPH. Anyone who has an accident whilst speeding should lose their licence, at the very least. Killing someone whilst speeding should be an automatic jail term IMO. Anything less sends out the message that it is acceptable behaviour.
aracer - I'm not sure how you would define "bias" in Society. The whole point of the judicial system is it implements the laws and standards set by Society (via parliament etc) - so a "bias" in Society, might actually be fair! If you mean because a significant proportion of Society drive cars that they have empathy for the accused motorist more than if say he had accidentally killed someone with a crossbow... then yes, but bear in mind that the victims are usually other road users: cyclists, pedestrians, or drivers/passengers - and everyone on the jury has been one of those too, as are their kids and grandkids. For that matter the ratio of cyclists:LGV drivers on juries must be in the cyclists favour. Very few of us can honestly claim never to make a mistake on the road whether in a car or on a bike - and juries help to ensure that there is a balance for zealous prosecutors.
aracer, are you serious? His version of events was upheld, therefore, self evidently the prosecution didn't succesfully contradict it 😕
zilog6128 - MemberMaybe, but a vehicle travelling at 52 MPH has 3 times the kinetic energy of a vehicle travelling at 30 MPH.
Weighs the same though, which is more relevant when it drives completely over you.
Everyone is getting very excited, but essentially the lad pulled out under the trailer of an artic without looking. I don't see how speed was relevant. What was relevant was the lack of lifesaver.
bear in mind that the victims are usually other road users: cyclists, pedestrians, or drivers/passengers - and everyone on the jury has been one of those too
I dispute the idea that everybody has been a cyclist - certainly not if you exclude those who haven't ridden a bike since they gained a driving licence. In my case that's well over half my life ago, and I'm not all that old - not only are times before that a bit hazy in my memory, I'd done very little riding on busier roads at that point (I'd imagine a significant proportion of people, if not a majority, have never ridden a bicycle on a busy road). The majority of people who serve on juries certainly have more empathy with drivers than with cyclists - is that really fair?
Do you also consider it fair that society has a bias against black people?
His version of events was upheld, therefore, self evidently the prosecution didn't succesfully contradict it
The prosecution didn't successfully contradict it [b]beyond reasonable doubt[/b]. In any case, that's a long, long way from proving that the driver's testimony was honest. Do you really not get that a lack of other witnesses is perfectly sufficient for the prosecution to be unable to contradict his testimony?
Was the mother a witness?
Aracer, I didn't say everyone has been a cyclist. I know a few fully grown adults who have never mastered the skill. But we are all pedestrians to varying degrees, and most of us are also passengers or other drivers at some point - who also get killed by car drivers - I don't see that juries have a bias towards car drivers. I think from what I see on here that cyclists have a bias against car (and other) drivers. Every time a cyclist dies people are ready to lock up drivers - even before anyone knows what happened.
I'm not sure your I completely accept your assertion that "society has a bias against black people" although I recognise that some people in society do. Specifically regarding juries: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2010/feb/17/jury-trial-attack-study . The alternative to trial by Jury, is far more open to personal bias.
perhaps this is a simplistic point, but if the lorry driver hadn't been speeding then surely there would have been a much greater distance between the lorry and the cyclist? It could have been a few tens of metres or even miles (depending on the length of road/time driving too fast). So even if the cyclist pulled out without warning there would have been more space and time for the driver to react.
Or equally if he had been going faster....
I think from what I see on here that cyclists have a bias against car (and other) drivers. Every time a cyclist dies people are ready to lock up drivers - even before anyone knows what happened.
I get your point about the lynchmob mentality on here, but the complaints about drivers seem to be largely based on real world experience of how rubbish some are rather than any bias. If you think STW forum is really biased against drivers you should check how many motorheads there are on here, and how upset some of them get when anybody suggests drivers actions should be restricted in some way (or just posts from people upset at finding roadies in their way when they're driving to the trails!)
I'm not sure anybody is suggesting that the alternative to a jury would be better - I'd expect it to be considerably worse given the typical demographic of judges! It's more just a rant about society than an expectation that it's possible to change things (at least not directly - the rise of popularity of cycling in recent years has to help a bit).The alternative to trial by Jury, is far more open to personal bias
I'm not sure I'd need a lifesaver to tell that there was a an arctic doing 55mph just behind me...I'm pretty certain I would be aware of the noise over the sound of In Our Time on my ipod
Interestingly another truck driver in wales has just been jailed...but not for killing someone
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-east-wales-15681980
gwaelod - Member
I'm not sure I'd need a lifesaver to tell that there was a an arctic doing 55mph just behind me...I'm pretty certain I would be aware of the noise over the sound of In Our Time on my ipodInterestingly another truck driver in wales has just been jailed...but not for killing someone
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-north-east-wales-15681980
Its completely different (other than a HGV involved) - whats your point ?
if the lorry driver hadn't been speeding he'd have been in a completely different place on the road, but perhaps the guy would have been taken out by a car instead?
I don't really see the problem with HGVs doing 60 on NSL single carrigeways. It keeps traffic flowing and probably prevents many more accidents (due to a lack of badly thought out overtakes) than it causes.
Surprised to see that the 'speed kills' mentality has got some people here. I think in the last report it was <20% of accidents that had 'excess speed' as the primary cause. sure, speed makes things worse when you hit something, but its rarely the cause of the accident (as it wasn't here).
If the road had been a 40 limit for everyone the speeding would have had more to answer for, but if you're cycling on an NSL road you have to be prepared for vehicles to approach you from behind at 60mph.
also not sure what the comment about leaving a full lane is. The highway code suggests you should leave the same gap between you and a cyclist as if it were a car (ie 2 foot to the side) - it doesn't suggest you should imagine it is a car and leave a full lane. Even the example on the highway code site doesn't show that..
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/TravelAndTransport/Highwaycode/DG_070314
I don't really see the problem with HGVs doing 60 on NSL single carrigeways. It keeps traffic flowing and probably prevents many more accidents (due to a lack of badly thought out overtakes) than it causes.
I find traffic flow rather trivial compared to an injury or loss of life.
Anyway, whenever this type of thread comes up I like to bring your attention to this blog. Here speaks a cyclist with a sound knowledge of the law.
http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.com/2009/11/cycling-against-car-culture.html
I do believe "accidents" involving cars should be more severely punished. It does seem that because we nearly all drive and have become habituated to car and the problems they cause that we seem oblivious.
Surprised to see that the 'speed kills' mentality has got some people here. I think in the last report it was <20% of accidents that had 'excess speed' as the primary cause.
Surprised to see that you think reducing injuries & fatalities on the roads by 20% wouldn't be worthwhile.
Surprised to see that you think reducing injuries & fatalities on the roads by 20% wouldn't be worthwhile
my bad, its either 7.3% or 3% of accidents, depending on who you believe.
Note, that's 'excess speed' not necessarily speeding. stopping people breaking the speed limit every would, imo, reduce accidents by a very small amount
I find traffic flow rather trivial compared to an injury or loss of life.
my point was, holding traffic up increases drivers overtaking, which increases (very nasty) accidents. free up traffic flow, reduce accidents.
This is a tragic case, but the cyclist made a mistake and by not doing a life saver he lost his life in an horrific way, reading the reports, it seems the driver did try to avoid the guy, (mounting the kerb) but there are times when the speed is not the decisive factor for the cause of the crash, and jailing the driver would not have been right in my view.
I once had a woman step in to the road and clip my wing mirror as I was driving past which sent her flying, I disputed all the insurance claims and the police agreed I was not to blame for the accident.
So its not always the drivers fault, and you cant protect people from themselves, we make mistakes and in this case it ended in the tragic loss of life.
a very sad case
think the issue with the truck driver is was he driving in a responsible way - talking hands free - not illegal but no doubt it affects concentration
speed - well he braked to 52mph so my totally unfounded suspicion was that he was driving at his max limited speed of 56mph - on roads like the A40 sections with lowish speed limits are rare and it would suggest that some sort of caution was required and it would seem to me to me that not even slowing to near limit when passing two cyclists says the driver didn't give a f***ing toss
i'm not saying the cyclist didn't make a sadly bad mistake but that the truck wasn't being driven responsibly may have turned a near miss into a fatality
ps and as to anti-driving rants - many on here drive far more than average as well as ride a lot, myself included
Without the tacho evidence I suspect that no one would have been discussing the speed, just that a cyclist had died.
If the cyclist didn't look and turned straight into the side, then it wouldn't have mattered whether the truck/car/van or anything was doing 56, 40 or even 60..., he still be probably dead.
Lets also put ourselves in the position of the trucker; how often has another road user done something stupid. For me, its a pedestrian stepping out into the road looking left, onto the Finchley Road bus-lane, into my path. Luckily for me a queueing driver witnessed it, unluckily for them I was ride a Yamaha 1000...
We can't ever fully know what happened, yes the trucker could be as guilty as f***, but all we do know is that a guy was killed.
it seems the driver did try to avoid the guy, (mounting the kerb)
I suspect that was actually after he hit the cyclist - hence fuelling my suspicions about how economical with the truth the truck driver was being. The story just doesn't add up. We also only have the truckers word for the fact he'd stopped his phone conversation (presumably he's using that line as the evidence proves the line was still open).
According to the evidence presented, the trucker was 86m away when the cyclist first started moving across the road, giving him 3.5s at 55mph, or almost 5s at 40. The official HC stopping distance at 40mph is 36m, at 55mph it's ~63m. As I say, something just doesn't add up, but the jury believed the trucker, so that's justice apparently.
aracer made the important point there
at 40 his stopping distance and ability to react would be that much better
he was doing 55 he should never have been let off
it is possible that the cyclist pulled out right into him, wind noise and traffic on the other lane may have prevented him hearing the truck, though i find that surprising
either way wrong decision imho
i suspect the trucker didn't think to apply the brakes straight away? if I'm overtaking a cyclist who starts to move out to the middle of the road, I'd probably continue but with a much wider berth. it appears this is what the trucker did. Once the cyclist is signalling, it becomes a different story, but given the trucker didn't use his horn (no mention of it) - he seemed to assess (incorrectly, as this sad case shows) the cyclist wasn't going to enter his path.
[i]According to the evidence presented, the trucker was 86m away when the cyclist first started moving across the road, giving him 3.5s at 55mph, or almost 5s at 40. The official HC stopping distance at 40mph is 36m, at 55mph it's ~63m. As I say, something just doesn't add up, but the jury believed the trucker, so that's justice apparently. [/i]
Yes, you've missed out 'thinking' distance, and as 5lab posted the trucker may have seen him, but just moved out which fits with the speed barely changing at impact.
And interestingly a quick Google seems to come up with the results that 'advised' car and lorry stopping distances are the same..., which feels a bit scary.
Aracer, I think you are justifiably angry, but I do think you are filling in a lot of blanks in the evidence with your own views.
Clearly the death is tragic, but we have to assume the driver has given evidence properly, if he hadnt then there would be a case of perverting the course of justice or contempt of court, and neither as I know it are happening.
the court has reached a verdict and I dont think we will change that on a forum.
But we may want to think about how we may avoid this type of thing happening again.
Yes, you've missed out 'thinking' distance
Nope - those distances include thinking time (with the assumption that the person in control of the vehicle is paying attention).
And interestingly a quick Google seems to come up with the results that 'advised' car and lorry stopping distances are the same
Clearly a lorry will take longer to stop, but those distances are very conservative for a modern car, so they don't seem too unreasonable for a heavy.
He may well have decided to keep on overtaking rather than brake behind the cyclist, however given the evidence from the stopping distances that he'd have easily been able to come to a stop from 40 after seeing the cyclist indicate and move, either his speed was a contributory factor, or he was breaking rule 167 clause 8.
we have to assume the driver has given evidence properly, if he hadnt then there would be a case of perverting the course of justice or contempt of court, and neither as I know it are happening.
Why do we have to assume that? Obviously if there is nobody and no evidence to contradict his story (beyond reasonable doubt) he can say what he likes safe in the knowledge that he won't be prosecuted for contempt.
Shouldn't have been overtaking approaching that forecourt.
Lorry drivers on the whole are fairly retarded imo. Commuting through trafford park is like a lottery, they show a complete disregard for human life.
£9 an hour retards!!
Sancho - MemberThis is a tragic case, but the cyclist made a mistake and by not doing a life saver he lost his life in an horrific way, reading the reports, it seems the driver did try to avoid the guy, (mounting the kerb) but there are times when the speed is not the decisive factor for the cause of the crash, and jailing the driver would not have been right in my view.
I once had a woman step in to the road and clip my wing mirror as I was driving past which sent her flying, I disputed all the insurance claims and the police agreed I was not to blame for the accident.
So its not always the drivers fault, and you cant protect people from themselves, we make mistakes and in this case it ended in the tragic loss of life.
+1 on that.
According to the evidence presented, the trucker was 86m away when the cyclist first started moving across the road, giving him 3.5s at 55mph, or almost 5s at 40. The official HC stopping distance at 40mph is 36m, at 55mph it's ~63m. As I say, something just doesn't add up, but the jury believed the trucker, so that's justice apparently.
Where does the 86m figure come from? Ta.
So when are we going to get some real Dutch style bike paths? It's the only thing that'll stop these deaths.
there was someone there to contredict his story though, the lads mum, who judging from reports was behind her son when he got killed. I'd have thought her testiment was fairly key to the case.
Yes. I asked about this earlier. Out of interest, is there any mention of the family view on the verdict?
Nope - those distances include thinking time (with the assumption that the person in control of the vehicle is paying attention).
Aracer, it doesn't include the decision time to conclude that the cyclist was going to enter his path.
Cyclist starts to move out (one and two, count the seconds out). Realisation the cyclist isn't moving back in (three and).
[i]Lorry drivers on the whole are fairly retarded imo. Commuting through trafford park is like a lottery, they show a complete disregard for human life.
£9 an hour retards!! [/i]
What planet are you on, whether you think so or not these guys are about the best trained on the road - ever tried to drive a HGV through heavy traffic and do you realise how hard it is to actually see out of one?
it doesn't include the decision time to conclude that the cyclist was going to enter his path.
The cyclist was indicating right (trucker appears to have admitted that much), and clearly positioning himself to turn right. HC rule 167, clause 8.
http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/Driver-fatal-crash-cleared-careless-driving-trial/story-13818475-detail/story.html for the 86m figure.
I was assuming from the lack of evidence from the mum in the news reports that for some reason she didn't witness it - otherwise surely they'd have reported her take on it?
Lorry drivers on the whole are fairly retarded imo. Commuting through trafford park is like a lottery, they show a complete disregard for human life.£9 an hour retards!!
I'd disagree with that. SOME lorry drivers are morons in the same way that SOME car drivers, pedestrians and (yes) cyclists are morons. My personal experience with lorries is generally very positive mostly because I give them utmost respect and it's (generally) returned. If I saw a lorry 86m behind me approaching at speed I wouldn't attempt to turn right across it's path for example...
Having said that, the driver should have paid the penalty for speeding even though found not guilty of causing death by careless driving. Either way though, no-one wins. 🙁
there was someone there to contredict his story though, the lads mum, who judging from reports was behind her son when he got killed. I'd have thought her testiment was fairly key to the case.
The news reports midway through the case reported two other independent witness accounts. They don't entirely stack up, (which will have played to the defence's favour - by reinforcing the "doubt"). They do [i]seem[/i] to support the claim that the cylcist indicated and moved into the path of the lorry without proper observation though.
b r - Member
Lorry drivers on the whole are fairly retarded imo. Commuting through trafford park is like a lottery, they show a complete disregard for human life.£9 an hour retards!!
What planet are you on, whether you think so or not these guys are about the best trained on the road - ever tried to drive a HGV through heavy traffic and do you realise how hard it is to actually see out of one?
Posted 2 hours ago # Report-Post
Well said br,until youve actually sat in one you have no idea of the blindspots they have,
RESPECT THE VEHICLE AND THE DRIVER,
a lot of drivers now use bikes for fitness,