[Closed] So, it's ok to kill cyclists if the sun's in your eyes?

Sounds like an accident to me. I'm sure the driver feels absolutely awful, and the jury decided that it was just an accident, that's the end of it.

I knew both Christian and Niggy and I know the road very well. I'm not sure I can believe that the driver lost his vision only a few seconds before the accident and without opportunity to stop, but I don't think there's a lot to gain from going over it all here. I can't imagine how those that knew them better than me and their families are feeling right now.

As well as the sportive that's run the last couple of years, some friends are doing this at the weekend, also to raise money for Road Peace:

http://www.london2newcastle.com/

It's a proper challenge and well worthy of support. If you want to make a donation, click here:

http://www.justgiving.com/london2newcastle24

I've been knocked off my bike by a driver who was blinded by the sun. And even though I was the one who went over the car, part of me was still thinking that I could have done the same thing as a driver. I've driven that bit of road enough to see it from both sides. So I can understand how a jury might come to a not guilty verdict in that situation. That doesn't mean it's right (and in my case the insurers accepted liability very quickly so there is certainly "fault" on the driver's part). And I'll go another way next time there's low sun. It's not worth being right and dead.

Tracknicko, I don't believe I have ever tried to avoid blame for the accident, but an accident it was. There was no intent, no warning, no avoidance of consequenses on my part.

I am totally amazed by the apologists. The FIRST and MOST IMPORTANT thing to be considered when driving is safety. It isn't and its wrong that it isn't. Its not excusable to KILL someone with your vehicle just because you lost concentration, lost sight, scratched your nuts or anything at all. Whether the person you kill is riding a bike, walking, skating or is lying in a buggy pushed by its mother - that person should have the right to be alive and if you kill them with your vehicle you should be punished.
That is my view and you won't persuade me otherwise, but argue all you want.

"Its not excusable to KILL someone with your vehicle"

Which is why he was taken to court- but was found innocent. It is very sad but sometimes, people die. I don't see any "apologists"- just an alternative to the hanging judges.

I am totally amazed by the apologists. The FIRST and MOST IMPORTANT thing to be considered when driving is safety. It isn't and its wrong that it isn't. Its not excusable to KILL someone with your vehicle just because you lost concentration, lost sight, scratched your nuts or anything at all. Whether the person you kill is riding a bike, walking, skating or is lying in a buggy pushed by its mother - that person should have the right to be alive and if you kill them with your vehicle you should be punished.
That is my view and you won't persuade me otherwise, but argue all you want.

eh? I can think of n+1 situations where you could kill someone with a vehicle and it is in no way your fault. Why should someone be punished for something out of their control?

I've certainly changed my riding habits as a result of cases like these..

What a sad case, all round.

If only he was driving wearing sunglases, or the coach washers where working properley, or the cyclists where some place else.

+ 1 on the sunglasses.

But again, he says- and the court seems to accept- that it was a sudden change in driving conditions which caused the accident. Would he have been wearing sunglasses for the conditions preceeding it?

🙁

he'd be doing time right now if he'd use the same excuse and it was two kids on a zebra crossing. We are considered fair game I'm afraid.

When I was a kid my dad killed an old boy who cycled straight out in front of him, he had no brakes, no lights, he was deaf and drunk and had been warned by his family numerous times not to cycle. Police came and filled in a massive questionnaire about the condition of the car, which they found to be in perfect condition. They told my Dad that if they had found a single fault, which could have contributed to the accident he would have been charged with Manslaughter.

So what has changed in the law since then?

(This is the reason why I am almost anally obsessed with keeping my car in top working order)

he'd be doing time right now if he'd use the same excuse and it was two kids on a zebra crossing.

They told my Dad that if they had found a single fault, which could have contributed to the accident he would have been charged with Manslaughter.

Mentioned this before , still relevant though .
Colleagues Dad involved in a fatal motorcycle accident recently.
The road is notorious for excess speed. The crash was eventually blamed on the setting sun . It was 2.30pm in summer and the sun was high in the sky and probably 45' from direction of travel.

Drivers texting , or on Facebook on a smartphone ,who crash can now blame the sun if they are driving west in the afternoon.

Not acceptable.

pointless agument - zebra crossings are generally in built up areas where his driving would be different.

how he should have been driving in this case perhaps ?

Drivers texting , or on Facebook on a smartphone ,who crash can now blame the sun if they are driving west in the afternoon.

It does seem to be a [i]remarkably[/i] common cause of fatal accidents doesn't it? 😕

Cylist’s light dim

isn't the legal standard something like a 2w incandescent bulb (like those old eveready lights with the big batteries) how can having lights of a legal standard or possibly brighter than the legal standard be part of the blame?

singletrackmind - Member

Drivers texting , or on Facebook on a smartphone ,who crash can now blame the sun if they are driving west in the afternoon.

Is it not still routine to check phone use logs? Mate of mine lost his licence for exactly that- hit a car while using phone, claimed otherwise, one check of phone company records and he was done. The fanny.

seems to be a significant amount of confusion about accident and blame.

yes it was an accident. a tragic accident. im sure the driver never meant to do it.

that said, he [b]did [/b]do it. it was him driving when he couldn't see/wasn't looking.

in my opinion (and evidently not the court's) he drove into them, and thus was at fault. to say otherwise would be to excuse anyone from ever hitting anything when there vision is momentarily impared.

tragic accident, farcical court response.

In the OP case, the driver clearly didn't, if by his own admission he couldn't stop in the distance he could see. He should have been travelling more slowly; if that meant walking pace or even slower until he could see again, so be it.

What I don't understand about this judgment is that the driver is free to carry on driving without any penalty and can drive a bus with no re-test or re-training. He was driving too fast for the conditions/visibility and has escaped with less penalty than if he was caught doing a few miles an hour over the speed limit. He even tried (by his claim to not know who was at fault) to apportion some of the blame to the cyclists, simply for being on the road, a statement which I find utterly despicable.

He will have to live with what he has done for the rest of his life but that is nothing compared to what the family and friends of the victims will go through.

tracknicko - Member
in my opinion (and evidently not the court's) he drove into them, and thus was at fault.

TBF it was the jury that decided...

Presumably the bus driver normally took his prescription sun glasses to work with him because when the sun is low it get into your eyes (particularly when it has been snowing). Given it was a bus route, it is very likely he, or his colleagues, have also been blinded by a low sun at the same point at some point in the past.

It sounds like a failure of the bus company's risk assessment, at the very least.

What DezB said