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!)

The alternative to trial by Jury, is far more open to personal bias

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).

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

http://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 ipod

Interestingly 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).

http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=white+mill&hl=en&ll=51.870415,-4.231264&spn=0.000013,0.010568&sll=51.87092,-4.232773&sspn=0.003723,0.010568&vpsrc=6&t=h&radius=0.27&hq=white+mill&z=17&layer=c&cbll=51.870415,-4.231264&panoid=ATyTSfHYU8MJSU7yL7eUtw&cbp=12,58.77,,0,0

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.

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.

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 – Member

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.

+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).

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?

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 seem 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,