Run over a cyclist, get away scott free
Discussion
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/10971725.Minibus_d...
Whilst I appreciate the road in question is a stupid road to cycle on, apparently you can knock someone off their bike and walk away scott free. Grrr.
Whilst I appreciate the road in question is a stupid road to cycle on, apparently you can knock someone off their bike and walk away scott free. Grrr.
Surely there must be some facts that haven't been reported here?
If not, that's a truly appalling miscarriage of justice, especially seen as the facts that have been reported include the cyclist having lights and a high visibility jacket.
I can't understand how the 2 realities of "thinking you'd clipped a bus signpost" and the cyclist having "severe head and body injuries including punctured lungs and 38 rib fractures" can be reconciled?
If not, that's a truly appalling miscarriage of justice, especially seen as the facts that have been reported include the cyclist having lights and a high visibility jacket.
I can't understand how the 2 realities of "thinking you'd clipped a bus signpost" and the cyclist having "severe head and body injuries including punctured lungs and 38 rib fractures" can be reconciled?
A few more facts on the BBC site.
He was dazzled by the sun, as verified by the next person on the scene who almost didn't see the body because he was dazzled at that point.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-259...
Just a tragic accident by the sound of it, but let's not let that get in the way of the cycling mafiosi
He was dazzled by the sun, as verified by the next person on the scene who almost didn't see the body because he was dazzled at that point.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-259...
Just a tragic accident by the sound of it, but let's not let that get in the way of the cycling mafiosi
Heard of "driving so you can stop in the distance you can see to be clear"?
"Driving at a speed appropriate for the conditions."
Just because the second driver on the scene was also driving too fast for the conditions I don't see how that validates the excuse.
All those drivers who caused the 100+ car pile up in the fog have been deemed liable yet the entirely predictable low winter sun allows you to plough through someone?
Let's put it another way.
If this minibus driver had ploughed into the back of another car - exactly who would the insurance company deem liable????
The sun?
50:50 - half the fault of the guy in front for daring to BE ON THE ROAD!!!??
"Driving at a speed appropriate for the conditions."
Just because the second driver on the scene was also driving too fast for the conditions I don't see how that validates the excuse.
All those drivers who caused the 100+ car pile up in the fog have been deemed liable yet the entirely predictable low winter sun allows you to plough through someone?
Let's put it another way.
If this minibus driver had ploughed into the back of another car - exactly who would the insurance company deem liable????
The sun?
50:50 - half the fault of the guy in front for daring to BE ON THE ROAD!!!??
blindswelledrat said:
A few more facts on the BBC site.
He was dazzled by the sun, as verified by the next person on the scene who almost didn't see the body because he was dazzled at that point.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-259...
Just a tragic accident by the sound of it, but let's not let that get in the way of the cycling mafiosi
It was *not* an accident.He was dazzled by the sun, as verified by the next person on the scene who almost didn't see the body because he was dazzled at that point.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-259...
Just a tragic accident by the sound of it, but let's not let that get in the way of the cycling mafiosi
The road was dead straight and the cyclist had hi-vis and lights. The minibus driver had 17 seconds to see the cyclist, and should also have clearly seen the traffic before him which was driving around the cyclist.
Clearly the minibus driver never saw the cyclist at any time, and never bothered to wonder what the traffic ahead was driving around.
What you are saying is that when yoour forward vision is heavily compromised (even if it didn't compromise the vision of everyone else) then it is perfectly ok to continue driving and if you happen to plough into anyone and kill them it will just be an accident.
The bias on PH by the majority of car drivers here on PH that excuses bad driving when it kills someone other than a car driver is absolutely disgraceful.
Btw, I knew this driver would walk free, because such drivers always do, even when conditions are perfect, even when they're killing for a second time.
Every excuse under the sun (no pun intended) is given for failing to look properly, and juries seem to accept every excuse. I can recall one case on the A435 near Alcester where a driver just ran into and killed a mother out cycling, and he wasn't even fined.
Low sun or perfect visibility, previous for killing cyclists or whatever, the driver always walks free.
Here on PH we have threads about bad driving. Well, why do we bother, because when these bad drivers do collide with something, we just dismiss it as an accident - although is that only when a cyclist has been killed, but possibly not when paintwork has been damaged?
blindswelledrat said:
Do you lot have more facts than the newspaper article?
Are you living in some fantasy land where you believe someone should automatically get a jail sentence for hitting a cyclist, regardless of facts?
Mental
Come on BSR, admit it. You want to be one of us but can't pull off the Lycra look Are you living in some fantasy land where you believe someone should automatically get a jail sentence for hitting a cyclist, regardless of facts?
Mental
blindswelledrat said:
A few more facts on the BBC site.
He was dazzled by the sun, as verified by the next person on the scene who almost didn't see the body because he was dazzled at that point.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-259...
Just a tragic accident by the sound of it, but let's not let that get in the way of the cycling mafiosi
Let's put aside the fact that he hit a cyclist, if literally couldn't see enough that he didn't even realise what he'd hit at the time, he was driving too quickly for the conditions.He was dazzled by the sun, as verified by the next person on the scene who almost didn't see the body because he was dazzled at that point.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-259...
Just a tragic accident by the sound of it, but let's not let that get in the way of the cycling mafiosi
It could as easily have been a child, horse rider, motor cyclist, anything?
blindswelledrat said:
Predictable !
A jury with all the facts from an extensive trial lasting for days find him not guilty , yet the angry cyclists somehow know much better and have a whole list of assumed facts proving guilt.
Shame we have such a nuisance of a legal system to foil you sherlocks
Yes,we have the facts. He stated he couldn't see yet continued to drive and collided with someone he couldn't see and killed him. Nobody disputed any facts AFAIK and a jury has decided that driving while not being able to see is OK.A jury with all the facts from an extensive trial lasting for days find him not guilty , yet the angry cyclists somehow know much better and have a whole list of assumed facts proving guilt.
Shame we have such a nuisance of a legal system to foil you sherlocks
Apparently if you drive while not being able to see it is unforeseeable that a collision is likely to occur, and thus such acts are accidents. Its going to be interesting to see how fog collisions are treated going forward.
You are completely wrong with your continued comments about cyclists. I'm not a cyclist at all, I am a driver who is exasperated at how leniently bad drivers are treated in courts. It seems that every consequence of bad driving is unforeseeable, and therefore an accident.
I'd have thought we'd all be against bad driving but obviously not.
Perhaps the legal/insurance bods can now let us know - what happens re insurance? This guys driving has been judged as being OK, so presumably his insurance doesnt pay for the vehicle or person he ran into?
blindswelledrat said:
A few more facts on the BBC site.
He was dazzled by the sun, as verified by the next person on the scene who almost didn't see the body because he was dazzled at that point.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-259...
Just a tragic accident by the sound of it, but let's not let that get in the way of the cycling mafiosi
Point well made. This was a tragic accident and the cyclist was killed because of misadventure in the opinion of the court. Therefore no crime was committed. I have a lot of sympathy with the dead man and hid bereaved relatives but I do not think the jury were wrong. A second car (Mercededs) ran right over the prone cyclist blinded by the same sunlight as the accused driver contributing substantially to the injuries to the victim. Tragic Misadventure.He was dazzled by the sun, as verified by the next person on the scene who almost didn't see the body because he was dazzled at that point.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-259...
Just a tragic accident by the sound of it, but let's not let that get in the way of the cycling mafiosi
heebeegeetee said:
Stuff about dazzling
I guess I just differ.Im sure if you go over the brow of a hill, or round a bend and are suddenly dazzled by the sun you would perform an emergency stop before safely pulling to the side of the road and waiting for a few hours until the sun has set but the rest of us when driving spend our lives assessing risks and trying to minimise them without going to extremes. Everyone can be judgemental after a tragedy but I would argue that everyone takes risks that 99.999% of the time lead to nothing and being holier-than-thou about the poor people for whom this remote chance becomes a tragedy is just a bit rich.
Just because we all do it (and I completely agree with you there) - doesn't make it right.
So for example, I might well pootle along at 35-36 leptons in an area with regular lamp-posts during my 6am commute.
Touch wood - hitting a kid running out from the pavement without looking - is EXTREMELY unlikely.
Nevertheless, if that happened and I killed him and I was speeding at the time then I would certainly expect to go to jail.
I don't know the answer but if you were doing an IAM observed drive wouldn't you get a b
king for not slowing down when you can't see a bloody thing??
So for example, I might well pootle along at 35-36 leptons in an area with regular lamp-posts during my 6am commute.
Touch wood - hitting a kid running out from the pavement without looking - is EXTREMELY unlikely.
Nevertheless, if that happened and I killed him and I was speeding at the time then I would certainly expect to go to jail.
I don't know the answer but if you were doing an IAM observed drive wouldn't you get a b
king for not slowing down when you can't see a bloody thing??Steffan said:
blindswelledrat said:
A few more facts on the BBC site.
He was dazzled by the sun, as verified by the next person on the scene who almost didn't see the body because he was dazzled at that point.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-259...
Just a tragic accident by the sound of it, but let's not let that get in the way of the cycling mafiosi
Point well made. This was a tragic accident and the cyclist was killed because of misadventure in the opinion of the court. Therefore no crime was committed. I have a lot of sympathy with the dead man and hid bereaved relatives but I do not think the jury were wrong. A second car (Mercededs) ran right over the prone cyclist blinded by the same sunlight as the accused driver contributing substantially to the injuries to the victim. Tragic Misadventure.He was dazzled by the sun, as verified by the next person on the scene who almost didn't see the body because he was dazzled at that point.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-259...
Just a tragic accident by the sound of it, but let's not let that get in the way of the cycling mafiosi
Some years ago a woman local to me walked out into the live traffic on the M3 motorway in the early hours of the morning, and was killed. Her body was then struck by a number of following vehicles, and parts of her body were strewn along the carriageway, something I never want to see again. The road was closed for almost the entire following day, while the Police investigated the circumstances and worked on hands and knees recovering as much of her as they possibly could. It turned out that she was suicidal and suffering from post-natal depression, and the drivers that were traced and had hit her were exonerated of any blame as a pedestrian in the live lane of a motorway is plainly not something to be expected and doesn't feature in most competent driver's driving plan.
"What's the relevance of the last paragraph?" I hear you ask. In that case, a pedestrian who wanted to die placed herself in a position of maximum danger. In the case of the cyclist in Southampton, a cyclist taking appropriate precautions to ensure his own safety, whilst legally using the road, was killed by a minibus driver who's risk management strategies fell well below the standards expected. Finding a cyclist legitimately using the carriageway ahead of you is in NO WAY an 'unexpected event'. The fact that every preceding vehicle managed to avoid the cyclist clearly demonstrates that competent drivers were aware of him. This, by definition, makes the minibus driver 'incompetent' and it follows that the only logical finding for the jury is 'guilty'.
The simplest explanation I can see for the jury acquitting him was that they examined the evidence and decided that they themselves would have acted no differently (ie: they too would have exceeded the safe speed for the prevailing conditions) and, feeling sorry for the poor motorist, who, after all, pays road tax, decided that if they'd been in a similar situation, they too would have negligently caused a collision. They wouldn't jail themselves for this act, so therefore acquitted someone who they regarded as 'one of their own'. It's yet another illustration of the 'Them and Us' mentality that causes so much conflict on our roads.
Gassing Station | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff