[Closed] HGV + trailer & cyclist dead- accident?criminal? acquitted anyway

Look. We all know what happened:

No we don't. Neither did the jury, that's why it's not proven.

'Not proven ' allows a jury who are reluctant to convict enough leeway to wriggle out of it

They would of been directed by the judge. If there is no evidence then how can you convict "beyond all reasonable doubt"?

FWIW I agree with you that the driver was probably at fault in this case but there is no way of being certain.

No we don't. Neither did the jury, that's why it's not proven.

do we have to find out who's "guilty" and apportion blame with a suitable punishment for every accident?

Their concentration is always 100% and never do anything if they are not 100%

They would of been directed by the judge. If there is no evidence then how can you convict "beyond all reasonable doubt"?

Because the judge should direct them that the law states that you can only overtake if it is safe to do so, the jury should then decide if the lorry was safe in overtaking at that point. Overtaking on a single lane carriageway where there are parked cars would quite clearly fail that legal test.

I would like to know if this question was actually put to the jury.

The jury can be prejudiced by the legal system and judge by what they are and are not asked to deliberate on. This is where the system currently seems to be failing cyclists and other vulnerable road users. The guidance of the system is supporting the "car is king" mentality at the cost of far too many lives.

I wasn't familiar with "not proven", quick google suggests it means "you maybe did it but we're not sure", if so, why no option of another trial?

MSP - Member
They would of been directed by the judge. If there is no evidence then how can you convict "beyond all reasonable doubt"?

Because the judge should direct them that the law states that you can only overtake if it is safe to do so, the jury should then decide if the lorry was safe in overtaking at that point. Overtaking on a single lane carriageway where there are parked cars would quite clearly fail that legal test.

I would like to know if this question was actually put to the jury.

The jury can be prejudiced by the legal system and judge by what they are and are not asked to deliberate on. This is where the system currently seems to be failing cyclists and other vulnerable road users. The guidance of the system is supporting the "car is king" mentality at the cost of far too many lives.

+100 and a bit more well put

why no option of another trial?

Not proven always leaves an option of another trial with new evidence.

Overtaking on a single lane carriageway where there are parked cars would quite clearly fail that legal test.

Really? So there is an obvious miscarriage of justice. This would allow the re-trial option. He must have a pretty shoddy lawyer if this doesn't happen.

[quote=gobuchul ]These threads always bring out the "holier than thou" who never make any mistakes when driving, riding, operating tools etc. Their concentration is always 100% and never do anything if they are not 100%.

I'm certainly never going to hit a cyclist in the way a lot of motorists do (and in the way which almost certainly happened in this case). Not because I'm perfect - I have after all caused my fair share of crashes and will happily concur with molgrips that I have sometimes failed to see other vehicles - but because I wouldn't CHOOSE to pass a cyclist close enough that there was any possibility of me hitting them. If it wasn't possible to pass with enough space then I would CHOOSE to wait behind until it was.

These incidents aren't tragic accidents resulting from a momentary mistake, they're the result of drivers deliberately positioning their vehicles in a way which is unsafe. I'm really not sure why an attempt shouldn't be made to stop people CHOOSING to drive in such a way, including severely penalising those who injure and kill people due to the deliberate choices they made.

You still haven't answered my question about whether you consider passing too close to be a "genuine mistake" BTW.

<applause> for MSP

This is the reason why we need similar laws to Germany, if a driver hits a cyclist or pedestrian, they are at fault. If a cyclist hits a pedestrian the cyclist is at fault (unless pedestrian wanders into a cycle lane, then they are at fault). Also at junctions the stop/give way is pushed back so that pedestrians and cycle lanes can cross the junction at which car drivers have to give way.
In resedential areas there are usually no road signs & markings as the law states you must give way to the right therefore as a vehicle driver you have to take care. It forces drivers to be more aware of those road users around them. Simple you are either in the right or wrong, no grey area's.
Unfortunately the luddites in the UK will not alter the law, the strupid thing is these idiot drivers are dangerous to all. I regularly see plenty of poor driving on my way to work, with very little done by the authorities to clamp down on it and send a clear message.

He must have a pretty shoddy lawyer if this doesn't happen.

It is quite likely to be a public prosecution by somebody who is overworked and not particularly specialised in these types of incidents and has no particular motivation to fight the system.

I have said many times, that if people cycle on roads with any regularity then take out legal insurance. Have someone who represents you directly and guide you (or in the worst case scenario) your family through the legal system. And get them fighting for you right from the beginning, even if reporting what appears to be relatively minor accidents to the police.

You still haven't answered my question about whether you consider passing too close to be a "genuine mistake" BTW.

In my post "genuine" was in inverted commas. Mistakes and errors are very complex and it's impossible to define a "genuine" mistake.

Somebody could pass a cyclist too close for numerous reasons, failure to anticipate another oncoming vehicle which causes them to move towards the cyclist, misjudging the position of their vehicle in the road, driving an unfamiliar vehicle which is wider than what they are used to, failure to notice the cyclist etc.

None of the reasons you suggest are "genuine" mistakes - the fact you appear to think they are is another symptom of the problem. If giving as much space as recommended in the HC, then the width of the vehicle and an error in judging where you are on the road wouldn't come into it (unless you're so incompetent that you can't judge where you are on the road to within 2m). The correct course of action when encountering an unexpected oncoming vehicle is not to move towards the cyclist.

This is the reason why we need similar laws to Germany, if a driver hits a cyclist or pedestrian, they are at fault. If a cyclist hits a pedestrian the cyclist is at fault (unless pedestrian wanders into a cycle lane, then they are at fault).

But that's not always the case is it?

None of the reasons you suggest are "genuine" mistakes - the fact you appear to think they are is another symptom of the problem.

I don't think there is such a thing as a genuine mistake.

All mistakes are caused by human error.

So what is the problem then?

As this involved an HGV & Trailer, there can be no excuse of 'genuine mistake' HGV is a seperate licence & test and usually only driven by 'professional' drivers. It is not like Joe Bloggs with grandfather rights on his licence, jumping into his Rover hooking up a caravan and popping off for the weekened and forgetting he has it on the back. It is time the law was changed to take into account people driving as part of their profession and harsher penalties as they should know better.

The problem is that the error is deliberate choice, not accidental, hence not a "mistake".

If giving as much space as recommended in the HC,

I can honestly say I have never experienced a vehicle pass me and give me the recommended distance, even on dual carrigeways when the other lane is empty.

I will always give a cyclist more room than most drivers do but I do pass them with less than the full vehicle width that is recommended in the HC. Flame me.

Personally I think the problem is lack of segregation, we need more cycle lanes and better infrastructure.

I don't think there is such a thing as a genuine mistake.
All mistakes are caused by human error.
So what is the problem then?

I can honestly say I have never experienced a vehicle pass me and give me the recommended distance, even on dual carrigeways when the other lane is empty.

It is time the law was changed to take into account people driving as part of their profession and harsher penalties as they should know better.

[quote=gobuchul ]I will always give a cyclist more room than most drivers do but I do pass them with less than the full vehicle width that is recommended in the HC. Flame me.

If you give them enough that you still wouldn't collide with them if they had to swerve, you were driving a vehicle that is wider than you expected or you misjudged your position on the road, then no flaming required. If not, then you are part of the problem.

[quote=gobuchul ]Personally I think the problem is lack of segregation, we need more cycle lanes and better infrastructure.

I'm not sure that's the problem, but it would definitely be a good solution (having used to be anti segregation I was converted by http://www.aviewfromthecyclepath.com/ )

I can honestly say I have never experienced a vehicle pass me and give me the recommended distance, even on dual carrigeways when the other lane is empty.

'never'? really? I can only assume you either don't spend much time on the road or live in a particularly bad area, it is certainly common to not be given enough room, but every now and again someone will surprise you buy doing it properly.

I will always give a cyclist more room than most drivers do but I do pass them with less than the full vehicle width that is recommended in the HC. Flame me.

Don't hide behind 'other people are worse than me' style excuses, if you have the self awareness to realise you're not doing it right and still CHOOSE to not give enough room then you are 100% part of the problem, you don't get brownie points for just being slightly less bad than the worst.

Every time you overtake a cyclist, horse, car, bus whatever you have the choice to do it safely or not, why not do it safely?

Personally I think the problem is lack of segregation, we need more cycle lanes and better infrastructure.

Where appropriate segregation can be beneficial but personally I think the problem is people choosing not to drive safely through many years of ingrained bad habits and a lack of respect for others. this doesn't just apply to actions towards cyclists, it's a general trend.

martib - Member

As this involved an HGV & Trailer, there can be no excuse of 'genuine mistake' HGV is a seperate licence & test and usually only driven by 'professional' drivers. It is not like Joe Bloggs with grandfather rights on his licence, jumping into his Rover hooking up a caravan and popping off for the weekened and forgetting he has it on the back. It is time the law was changed to take into account people driving as part of their profession and harsher penalties as they should know better.

My perception is people who are proffessional drivers - ie who can argue that they are reliant on driving in some way to earn a living, tend to be treated more leniently by the system. I would expect logically a system would expect those who were dependent on driving to earn a living to demonstrate better standards than average, and be held accountable to those standards.

you're original argument appeared to be "mistakes happen should they really all be punished?"

Sort of.

All accidents are caused by human error. There is a chain of events that leads to the incident. To prevent the incident you must break the chain.

If you have a problem with mosquitoes you can use a fly swatter or you can drain the swamp and get rid of the source of the problem.

What's causing the deaths of cyclists on our roads? IMO it is a lack of understanding and awareness of cycling and poor driving standards, throw that into the mix of human fallibility, over crowded roads, crap infrastructure and lack of segregation, then there is a problem.

Are we going to improve driving standards? Probably not. Even if people are thrown in jail, it will make no difference.
Any chance of improving awareness? A possibility.
Human fallibility? Always going to happen.

IMO The only realistic solution is segregation. We need more cycle lanes that are physically separated from the other vehicles.

[quote=gobuchul ]Are we going to improve driving standards? Probably not.

The question should be "can we improve driving standards?" which might have a different answer. Is about as likely as us getting proper segregated infrastructure IMHO.

Are we going to improve driving standards? Probably not. Even if people are thrown in jail, it will make no difference.
Any chance of improving awareness? A possibility.
Human fallibility? Always going to happen.

The only factor there that [b]cannot [/b]be influenced is human fallibility, the others are [b]difficult[/b], [b]hard work[/b], and may [b]take time[/b] and [b]money[/b], but increasing awareness and improving driving standards are achievable goals.

Don't hide behind 'other people are worse than me' style excuses, if you have the self awareness to realise you're not doing it right and still CHOOSE to not give enough room then you are 100% part of the problem, you don't get brownie points for just being slightly less bad than the worst.

How much room do you need? How much is enough room?

I would argue that I can safely pass a cyclist depending on speed and road conditions, with less than the recommended full car width in the HC. This may show me as part of the problem, however, on certain roads, depending on the cyclist's position in the road, this would mean any overtaking would not be possible at all.

Are you seriously suggesting it is unsafe to overtake a cyclist on a clear, straight section of B road because I cannot give him a full car width? Seriously?

[quote=gobuchul ]How much room do you need? How much is enough room?

Let me quote myself

[quote=aracer ]enough that you still wouldn't collide with them if they had to swerve, you were driving a vehicle that is wider than you expected or you misjudged your position on the road

...thereby removing some of your list of "genuine" mistakes.

[quote=gobuchul ]Are you seriously suggesting it is unsafe to overtake a cyclist on a clear, straight section of B road because I cannot give him a full car width? Seriously?

Not enough room to overtake a car? Nothing to do with me then, that's what the HC says.

list of "genuine" mistakes

As I said.

I don't think there is such a thing as a genuine mistake.

aracer » enough that you still wouldn't collide with them if they had to swerve, you were driving a vehicle that is wider than you expected or you misjudged your position on the road

Swerve how far?

How much wider?

How badly misjudged?

It's all pretty subjective isn't it?

I've just come back from lanzarote. The driving ain't perfect, but what is striking is the respect given to cyclists. It is a question of attitude, not ability

[quote=gobuchul ]It's all pretty subjective isn't it?

Well not really. Enough space when driving a car that you wouldn't come close if driving an HGV (with a trailer). Enough space that in order to hit a cyclist through misjudgment you'd be hitting parked cars and lampposts the rest of the time. Enough space for a cyclist to swerve as much as a cyclist feasibly can and it still be a swerve. If you want an absolute figure then in Germany and Spain it's 1.5m http://road.cc/content/news/10734-3ft-not-enough-says-ctc-debate-about-safe-passing-distances-catches-fire

That bit of road isn't far from where I live and I'm very familiar with it. I've always felt that was a very strange accident as there should be plenty of room for a cyclist to pass a parked car without going into the outside lane, where I'd have expected the lorry to be.

Without witnesses I can see why it didn't result in a conviction because while it's very possible the accident was the lorry driver's fault it is also possible that it could have been the cyclist - especially as that's a very fast section on a road bike. My daughter had a car driver run into her car close to that point a few months back - the driver on the inside having pulled partially into her lane to pass a parked car without realising she was in the lane outside of him at the time.

What I don't get (was thinking about this just now while out riding), is How can it NOT be dangerous driving? What more evidence that the driver has done something dangerous do you need? - there's a body in the morgue.

aracer - That is an interesting link.

The HC photo seems to indicate that you must leave at about a car width although it's vague. The text isn't clear.

Personally, I would be happy to the French rule of 1.0m in town and 1.5m on other roads.

Does anyone know what happened to the campaign and petition? Looks like it died.

What I don't get (was thinking about this just now while out riding), is How can it NOT be dangerous driving? What more evidence that the driver has done something dangerous do you need? - there's a body in the morgue.

What if the cyclist had his head down trying to go as fast as possible then pulled out to pass the parked car without really looking and hit the side of the lorry? Likely no, possible - definitely.

What I don't get (was thinking about this just now while out riding), is How can it NOT be dangerous driving? What more evidence that the driver has done something dangerous do you need? - there's a body in the morgue.

Are you serious?

there's a body in the morgue.

maybe?

could be any strange combination of factors but being an outgroup definitely sucks donkey balls.

I have read nearly all that shit

The problem as I see it is twofold:
1) The highway code is vague and bit shit in parts
2) Even if it was more definitive, the highway code is not established in law as a list of behaviours that would define "a competent and careful driver". It bloody well should be.

Are you seriously suggesting it is unsafe to overtake a cyclist on a clear, straight section of B road because I cannot give him a full car width? Seriously?

Yep, that's what I'm saying, as aracer so kindly obliged with his examples while I was away doing things.

Just because that is not the norm doesn't mean it shouldn't be.

The only bit that is a bit subjective and could be addresses better is with relation to speed and conditions, overtaking in traffic at < 20mph is a completely different ball game to overtaking at 50-60mph on an NSL road on a windy day, and size of vehicle comes into play too once you think about the air buffeting and suction generated by larger vehicles and so often forgotten by drivers, when you overtake/get overtaken by another car you don't feel the effect, but on a bike, a car at 40mph even 1m away can feel very close and have a noticeable effect.

for example:

In town, at low speeds, on good roads in a car, 1-1.5m might be quite safe.

On a potholed country lane, on a windy in a car doing 40-60mph you should give a lot more room, and scale that up to a lorry or bus and even more room required.

however, on certain roads, depending on the cyclist's position in the road, this would mean any overtaking would not be possible at all.

Maybe I'm reading too much into this comment but it almost sounds as though you think your journey is more important than theirs and that they shouldn't be there? 😉

In the rare cases where this would actually happen, and without a suitable passing place occurring in a sensible amount of time then the Cyclist should (and in my experience would) pull over and allow traffic to pass, just like Tractors/milk floats/horses etc.

Most of the time it is sheer impatience, people not willing to sit and wait a few seconds* for a gap, or passing place that causes dangerous overtaking.

*It really is only a few seconds, the amount of times I've had people revving or honking behind me and performing silly overtakes when then length of time they've actually been held up is in the order of 10 - 30 seconds is truly astounding, even more so in city centre when you get the typical revy, high speed overtake to save 3 seconds reaching the next queue of traffic less than a hundred yards ahead, it makes my mind boggle.

I can honestly say I have never experienced a vehicle pass me and give me the recommended distance, even on dual carrigeways when the other lane is empty.

My own experience on the bit of road where the accident occurred is different - I've never had an issue with other vehicles passing me too close. That's probably because while it's a dual carriageway there are several sections that usually have cars parked, so most motor vehicles stick to the outside lane rather than pulling in and out of the inside lane.

There were a few references earlier in the thread were folks seemed to think that section or road is a single carriageway but it's not - there are two full lanes in both directions, but without a central barrier. It's entirely possible for a vehicle (including an HGV) to pass a cyclist without getting anywhere near them. Lots of drivers don't anticipate what drivers (or cyclists) in the inside lane are going to do when overtaking parked cars though. Not anticipating that someone might have to pull into your lane to pass a parked car I'd personally class as dangerous (or at least careless) although I've no idea if the courts would agree. I suspect they'd place all the blame on the driver than pulled out, rather than on the driver they pulled out into.

Are there lane markings? From the picture it looks like it is a single lane road, although wide enough to allow parking, I couldn't see any lane markings.

Yes, there are lane markings (though quite worn in several places)

Yes there are lane markings and it's not difficult to know if you're on the right lane or not.

Epicsteve - it's not a dual carriageway - it's a single carriageway with two lanes in each direction.

It's entirely possible for a vehicle (including an HGV) to pass a cyclist without getting anywhere near them.

I don't agree - especially where there is a traffic island in the middle of the road as there was where the collision occurred.

Google streetview: [url] https://goo.gl/maps/ggPJa [/url]