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

I know the two remaining brothers. the whole ordeal has been difficult. Its taken 18 months to get it to court and then this. speachless

Washers not working. Unable to stop within the visible distance. Speculative road conditions.

I feel for the family and friends. Alex222 included.

Sounds like a new version of those laws where it's legal to kill a welshman after dark in Chester. It's Ok to kill cyclists as long as the suns out.

That's the second case I've heard of where the sun's been blamed, there was one in South Wales last year IIRC?

Wasn't facing low sun and not being able to see cited as the main defence by the van driver that killed that RAF chappie a while back?

Wasn't it also the excuse used for the killing of that RAF officer in a TT?

Washers not working. Unable to stop within the visible distance. Speculative road conditions.

+1

Simply appaulling

Although there have been days when I have gone out on my road bike, cycled a mile or so, turned into the sun and found my vision so restricted that I decided its too risky and turned back.

Washers not working, MoT fail and an unroadworthy vehicle and no insurance too?

One of those cases of the jurors thinking 'it could have been me' and returning an innocent verdict because they would not wish to be in that position.

Asked if he thought he had been at fault, he said: “I would not like to say whether it was my fault, their fault or a combination of both.”

If he doesn't understand the basic principal that it is not acceptable to kill people simply because you claim not to have seen them, or that continuing to drive with severely impaired vison has fatal consequences, then his driving license should be revoked immediately, as well as his freedom for an act of gross stupidity.

Absolutely tragic.......and as for

Reacting to the verdict, the Crown Prosecution Service said their decision to take the case to trial was reached after taking guidance on cases involving bad driving and following consultation with Cumbria police.

Judge Batty had said there could be no criticism of the CPS for bringing the charges.

Although there have been days when I have gone out on my road bike, cycled a mile or so, turned into the sun and found my vision so restricted that I decided its too risky and turned back.

Terrible accident that could have been avoided if bus driver had stopped (sorry for stating the obvious)

There's a road on my commute, where the sun shines into driver's eyes as they turn into it and come towards me. Most of them just squint and carry on, I have to dodge them. No-one driving considers slowing down or stopping until they bloody [i]have to[/i]. It's crazy.
Luckily it's a slow road and there are kids walking to school, otherwise I'd have probably been hit by now.

Another recent case...
http://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/Lorry-driver-killed-cyclist-A1035-spared-prison/story-16410467-detail/story.html

Lorry driver speeding and couldn't see properly out of the windscreen. Judge said "You were driving a large HGV in a way that fell significantly below what is expected of a competent and careful driver." yet spared prison because the cyclists rear light wasn't bright enough !?

I did mean that it has been difficult for the family not me personally. They hold a sportive/audax type event annually where donations go to road peace.

[url= http://www.teamtownend.org/ ]team townend[/url]

[url= http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/coach-driver-acquitted-of-charges.html ]Martin Porter (aka The Cycling Silk) has his thoughts on this here[/url]

It wouldn't really have mattered if he had been found guilty anyway - Martin keeps [url= https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oXV2F5Ts8Ok0ky6928v3OUygeJ4TqG7Drc5axA1lKlE/edit ]a table of recent sentences for drivers that kill cyclists[/url] - suffice to say the courts don't exactly come down hard on them even when they are found guilty.

So nobody here has ever been glared unexpectedly by the sun while driving, for a second or two?

The point on stopping within the distance available isn't straightforward either going by the report- could be his visibility changed suddenly, rather than driving consistently faster than his visility

Sandwich - Member
Washers not working, MoT fail and an unroadworthy vehicle and no insurance too?

Washers failed because of the cold- MOT hardly relevant and certainly doesn't affect insurance. Also nothing in the article to suggest it was contributory to the crash.

So nobody here has ever been glared unexpectedly by the sun while driving, for a second or two?

Does seem to be a [url= https://docs.google.com/document/d/1oXV2F5Ts8Ok0ky6928v3OUygeJ4TqG7Drc5axA1lKlE/edit?pli=1 ]trend forming[/url] though doesn't there?

The highway code is pretty specific - "Highway Code 93
Slow down, and if necessary stop, if you are dazzled by bright sunlight."

unexplained failure to see

Haveing had a crash in similar circumstances (only involving my vehicle), i can sympathise with the driver, however its also not right that two inocent people have been killed. Its a difficult one for the Judge.....

EDIT... my crash happened trying in the works van when i was blinded by the sun, I was coming around a bend on the crest of a hill and tried to bring the van to a stop on the verge, but drove it into a dry stone wall -if a cyclist or pedestrian had been there i would have gone through them.

there's a short road section that heads due west on the way home from my regular xc loop, at certain times of the year I avoid it completely in the evenings..

I'm not laying any blame with the riders involved, but I've certainly changed my riding habits as a result of cases like these..

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

Sadly it was a tragic accident something that could happen to any of us, wether a driver or cyclist,all parties have to live with what happened.

one simple thing if driving if you cant see stop or slow down, so easy to do, and yet so ignored by a large majority of motorists.

there's a short road section that heads due west on the way home from my regular xc loop, at certain times of the year I avoid it completely in the evenings..

I'm not laying any blame with the riders involved, but I've certainly changed my riding habits as a result of cases like these..

see also: ringinglow road, sheffield.

#deathtrap.

(long straight road, high speeds, multiple blind summits, low evening sun)

So nobody here has ever been glared unexpectedly by the sun while driving, for a second or two?

yes, but unless you are travelling around a very sharp corner/over a very sharp hill-crest, at speed, and haven't clocked that you'll be turning into the sun then you have ample opportunity to slow down before hand and look at what's ahead.

I don't get the 'I was suddenly blinded' argument, you may have been suddenly blinded, but were you not looking where you were going and observing other road users around you (the cyclists ahead) before hand? Perhaps even enough to think "hey I'm about to turn into the sun and be blinded, maybe I should slow down..."

It's the same as blind spot checks, although it is a vital check it is a **secondary** measure to also being aware of what's going on around you. Objects rarely magically transport themselves into blind spots, they normally get there by travelling through observable areas first.

Although there have been days when I have gone out on my road bike, cycled a mile or so, turned into the sun and found my vision so restricted that I decided its too risky and turned back.

+1 . Exactly the same . pulled over looked back to see drivers with hands over most of their eyes , effectively blinded.

we have less rights than a stray dog when riding on UK roads.

Now then, I've been meaning to signup to STW for a while but never got round to it - until I read this post:

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

Well here's the thing - this was in an [url= http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/cumbria-death-crash-driver-never-saw-cyclists-1.967455?referrerPath=home/2.1962 ]article from yesterday's News and Star[/url] - and funnily enough, left out of today's paper:

Earlier in his police interview, the defendant had told police that he was not tired but that he had left his prescription sunglasses at home on the day of the accident.

Great.

No prescription sunglasses, road "narrowed by banks of snow", below 0c, low sun, "he could see 20 to 30 metres ahead, and conceded he could not have stopped in that distance" - and apparently this isn't enough to count as dangerous - or even careless - driving. 🙁

we have less rights than a stray dog when riding on UK roads.

It amazes me when I see a car speed past me cut me up flip me off etc then slam on the breaks and give a sheep a wide birth! Its totally baffling

I bet if I was driving and I crashed into another car because I couldn't see properly I'd get at least half the blame! Disgusting.

F-king travesty.

So a Jury of 12 people sat through all the evidence, and then decided (at least 10 of them must have agreed) he wasn't guilty but STW has reviewed the limited information in a newspaper article and concludes the man is guilty. Given the choice of loosing the benefits of trial by Jury or accepting that sometimes a Jury will not come to the same conclusion as you, most people accept that the benefits of the system outweigh the alternative. It is surely preferable that trials are conducted in court by listening to all the evidence rather than by the media?

yes, but unless you are travelling around a very sharp corner/over a very sharp hill-crest, at speed, and haven't clocked that you'll be turning into the sun then you have ample opportunity to slow down before hand and look at what's ahead.

[b]Even if[/b] you are travelling around a very sharp corner/over a very sharp hill-crest and haven't clocked that you'll be turning into the sun, then you should still be driving at a speed that allows you to stop in the distance that you can see to be clear.

If you are completely blinded instantly then you use that distance to stop.

Reading the Bus drivers explenation of the accident I can see how it could of happened. A terrible tragedy, but it doesn't mean the driver "has to be at fault ". Sometimes terrible things happen, in this case the twelve people who heard all the evidence agree. It's a bit sad all you haters on here can't accept it as well.

exactly my point

EDIT - in response the PDW, not the post above

Exactly, you turn into blinding sun (although in most cases I would have thought you could anticipate it, especially by looking at vehicles in front), you slow right down to a crawl until you can pull the visor down and get a better view of the road, his excuses are laughable.

A terrible thing to happen to anyone, but it can happen to anyone, and has to me;

2004, driving a Hi-top transit van. Just been overtaken by 2 Motor bikes racing it up on quiet dead straight back lane. They came past me so fast i didnt hear them coming and they rather took me by surprise. the road was dead straight, it was 1830hours in a far sunnier mid June than this one, the sun was low, with blinding light coming off a large stream parrellel to my side of the road. I had to turn right, the road was clear ahead tho very bright. I actually remember thinking, 'stick your head out the window and check for more racing motorbikes before you turn', which i did. i heard and saw nothing. I was indicating, and had come to a dead stop before turning right, i looked ahead, nothing, turned in and then saw a vauxhall coming at me very fast out of the sun. The head on collision(i had the split foresight to nail the cluth and lift off the brake) pushed the van back 20 metres into the stream and it sunk end first up to the drivers door. The cavalier had dissappeared underneath me. Driver, passenger, 4 year old girl (unsecured) in back seat all ok. no injuries.
The car was doing over 80mph by police estimates but it was still deemed to be my fault as i turned in front of them.
Skid mark braking distances were measured but never used. The police said the road was notorious for accidents at the junction in those conditions.
Van and car were a write offs.
I was walking around with an undiagnosed severe spinal injury as i had gone through the windscreen of the van on impact. This wasnt discovered for 6 months.
There is no way in this world i would have taken that turn if it wasn't safe to do so.
If the car was travelling at the correct speed the accident would have been avoided.

Dont condem the guy out of hand. You dont know. You weren't there.

was still deemed to be my fault as i turned in front of them.

so not an accident then.

I think most people are just worried that justice isn't often served in bicycle vs car cases since its far more likely people in the jury are "motorists" than "cyclists", and many people drive with the same level of concentration as they'd devote to walking i.e. not enough. They thus assume this is a normal state of affairs and don't find people guilty when maybe they should, in a sort of "he can't be guilty because i drive like that all the time" kind of a way.

“I checked across to the right, to the white line, to make sure I wasn’t driving into any oncoming traffic and then I looked back to my left. I caught a shadow coming into the bottom left of the corner of the windscreen.

“I just heard a bang.”

Who turns there head to right to check the white line 😯

Just sucks all of it...:-(

redthunder - Member

Who turns there head to right to check the white line

Someone who's suddenly lost their forward visibility perhaps.

it's not tripping over a paving slab you fricking mong.

Did I mention the haters ?
At least another twelve "fricking mongs out there tracknicko". Is that how you speak to people in general ? would you call me that if we were having this conversation in the pub, or are just another tiny minded key board warrior 🙁

I don't accept that accidents just happen. Everything is avoidable, if you take sufficient measures to prevent it. The trouble is that most of us (at times I'm sure me included, I'll admit it) aren't prepared to take those measures; we might take some to bring the risk down to what we perceive to be 'acceptable' levels but as is all too often seen, it doesn't remove the risk entirely.

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.

in the case of captaincarbon, you can argue that by travelling as fast as the other car was, they contributed at least in part if not significantly to the crash. I have far more sympathy in that case even though he still has to take (a portion of) the blame, but two cyclists riding on a road being hit by a bus from behind them - other than taking the mitigating decision to not even be there on a day like that I can't see what else they could have done.

I think most people are just worried that justice isn't often served in bicycle vs car cases since its far more likely people in the jury are "motorists" than "cyclists",

I think there may be a bit of this, although it's certainly not just motorists vs cyclists. I read recently of a case where a driver had driven straight into the back of a vehicle that was stationary waiting to turn right, seriously injuring the occupants. The driver was either texting or on the phone (I forget which), yet was somehow acquitted of dangerous driving.

and many people drive with the same level of concentration as they'd devote to walking i.e. not enough. They thus assume this is a normal state of affairs and don't find people guilty when maybe they should, in a sort of "he can't be guilty because i drive like that all the time" kind of a way.

I think this is the real issue. In return for the convenience of having the majority of our population allowed to drive with relatively little training, we expect and tolerate a very low standard of driving.

LOL.

"Someone who's suddenly lost their forward visibility perhaps."

[img] [/img]

I can see how the driver's version of events would easily happen. It's incredibly unfortunate for the cyclists, but sometimes accidents do happen. I hope everyone involved / families / the bus driver etc can go on with their lives now that a jury has agreed on this.

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