cyclist deaths & the law

Johno100

I've followed the Hope Fennell case from the outset as it is in my vicinity and the lycra Taliban and local councillors have been shamelessly using the grief stricken mother for their own ends ever since.

Mark_Mark wrote: »

What about this comment?

Had his poor driving caused her death, Foster would be looking at ‘years and not months’, he added.

Obviously something's gone wrong with the prosecution case.

Nothing went wrong with the prosecution case, it was accepted by the prosecution that the driver was not responsible for the death.

Mr Gow (the prosecuting barrister) said: “The prosecution accept he was not responsible, criminally, for Hope’s death.

and

“I accept you would have not been able to see Hope as she moved into the carriageway, you were not to blame,’’ he said.

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/hope-fennells-killer-driver-jailed-5849881

Interestingly the inquest into Hope Fennell's death was held yesterday, where more details were reported.

Mr Foster told the inquest: “I checked each one of my mirrors before pulling away on green. I just didn’t see her. I heard a noise and then people were waving their arms at me. That is the first time I had realised I had run over her.”

The inquest was told CCTV footage showed Mr Foster pulled away on a green light before Hope cycled in front of his vehicle.

PC Mark Weaver, collision investigator, said the driver would not have seen the bike as there was a blind spot on the lorry not covered by mirrors.

Louise Hunt, senior coroner for Birmingham and Solihull, recorded a verdict of death caused due to a road traffic collision.

She told Hope’s mum: “The driver wasn’t able to see Hope due to the blind spot on the lorry. I am very sorry for your loss and offer my sincere condolences. I realise nothing can bring her back and ease the pain of your loss.”

The driver admitted the offences for which he was charged, namely perverting the course of justice for deleting text messages from his phone that he had been sending some minutes before the incident. The dangerous driving related to the vehicles speed as obtained from his tachograph again some time before the incident.

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/video-devastated-kings-heath-mum-6664809

No doubt our yellow sloppy friend:) will accuse me of 'victim blaming', but if you fail to dismount from your bike (as required by Rule 79 of the HWC) and proceed at 90 degrees across the front of an HGV moving off at lights then it is only going to end one way.

Mark_Mark

custardy wrote: »

Look at the Carlisle bus case then?
If you cant see where you are going and drive over 2 people
There is no legal outlet?
If you want a balanced argument then provide it. You go and find the cases

There was a legal outlet he was charged with criminal offences.



But look at the fact that.


A jury (12 people) decided his driving was not below the standard expected of a competent driver.


How can I be anymore balance than that 12 people having heard all the evidence, decided that his driving in the circumstances his driving was acceptable. Not me or you having only read media reports.


Why can't you understand that?

custardy

Johno100 wrote: »

I've followed the Hope Fennell case from the outset as it is in my vicinity and the lycra Taliban and local councillors have been shamelessly using the grief stricken mother for their own ends ever since.



Nothing went wrong with the prosecution case, it was accepted by the prosecution that the driver was not responsible for the death.



and



http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/hope-fennells-killer-driver-jailed-5849881

Interestingly the inquest into Hope Fennell's death was held yesterday, where more details were reported.



The driver admitted the offences for which he was charged, namely perverting the course of justice for deleting text messages from his phone that he had been sending some minutes before the incident. The dangerous driving related to the vehicles speed as obtained from his tachograph again some time before the incident.

http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/video-devastated-kings-heath-mum-6664809

No doubt our yellow sloppy friend:) will accuse me of 'victim blaming', but if you fail to dismount from your bike (as required by Rule 79 of the HWC) and proceed at 90 degrees across the front of an HGV moving off at lights then it is only going to end one way.

still with the personal slights John? Never fail to disappoint.
Nobody said he was speeding at the time. kind of hard to be speeding from stationary?
As i said in my previous post I didnt know when she set off. However Im glad you are fine that the child was in the wrong and the speeding and texting was before the incident. I note you didnt quote any highway codes for them.
I would still be interested to see his road positioning(before the incident) at the lights

custardy

Mark_Mark wrote: »

There was a legal outlet he was charged with criminal offences.



But look at the fact that.


A jury (12 people) decided his driving was not below the standard expected of a competent driver.


How can I be anymore balance than that 12 people having heard all the evidence, decided that his driving in the circumstances his driving was acceptable. Not me or you having only read media reports.


Why can't you understand that?

Well what do you think?
looking at what we know. How can the driver not be at fault?
something has to be wrong with how a case is presented if its down to nobody's fault.
Do you feel the driver was responsible?

Cornucopia

custardy wrote: »

arent many car drivers partly responsible for car incidents too?

Yes - but that doesn't necessarily equate to legal liability.

however that could be as simple as not allowing for the other party's poor choice of manoeuvre

Personally, I try to anticipate the actions of all other road users. Even then, I have had the experience of irate cyclists flying around my vehicle at speed and out of nowhere.

However as usual its always good to ensure some blame floats around. like the mention of a helmet in fatality ensuring some element of blame is transferred to the deceased,regardless of evidence or legal requirement.

You are missing the point. If a cyclist is somewhat to blame, then the driver cannot be fully to blame. And if they are not fully to blame, then it is unlikely that they will receive a significant punishment under the Law.

If segregated cycle space and legislation to 'force' cyclists to use it (you realise nearly all cyclist would use practical and safe infrastructure?) then how do other more cycle centric countries manage it?

I've lived and worked in Central London, and I know that cyclists do not use some cycling infrastructure.

The fact remains that cyclists can do everything in their powers to be safe...

I remain unconvinced by that.

Have a butchers at this one (its already in the thread with many more)

http://www.newsandstar.co.uk/news/carlisle-death-crash-bus-driver-cleared-of-charges-1.967743

Wasnt dangerous,wasnt careless,so just one of those things?

There isn't enough information on the accident to draw any conclusions.

Bollotom

Before retirement I was a London Underground train driver. One trip I was on a fast straight stretch around Ruislip when 2 blokes popped up over a fence and carrying their bikes dashed across the twin tracks about 200 yards in front of me. You wouldn't get a car driver being so stupid :rotfl::rotfl:

Mark_Mark

custardy wrote: »

Well what do you think?
looking at what we know. How can the driver not be at fault?
something has to be wrong with how a case is presented if its down to nobody's fault.
Do you feel the driver was responsible?

What do you want, article 6 of the human rights act removed?

Johno100

Mark_Mark wrote: »

There was a legal outlet he was charged with criminal offences.

But look at the fact that.

A jury (12 people) decided his driving was not below the standard expected of a competent driver.

How can I be anymore balance than that 12 people having heard all the evidence, decided that his driving in the circumstances his driving was acceptable. Not me or you having only read media reports.

Why can't you understand that?

He can't or doesn't want to understand it, because in his eyes the judicial system and the general population (who will most likely form a jury) is so wedded to it's 2 ton killing machines that they have an in-built bias and will invariably find in favour of the driver.

Mark_Mark

Johno100 wrote: »

He can't or doesn't want to understand it, because in his eyes the judicial system and the general population (who will most likely form a jury) is so wedded to it's 2 ton killing machines that they have an in-built bias and will invariably find in favour of the driver.

I was beginning to think it was me who wasn't getting it.

Cornucopia

Johno100 wrote: »

He can't or doesn't want to understand it, because in his eyes the judicial system and the general population (who will most likely form a jury) is so wedded to it's 2 ton killing machines that they have an in-built bias and will invariably find in favour of the driver.

I think it's worse than that.

I think he genuinely believes that cyclists are being killed and injured on the roads because drivers are willfully negligent - to the extent that "proper" punishment might change their behaviour, and the behaviour of other drivers and prevent cyclist injuries.

It seems to me that there is no evidence to support that argument whatsoever.

There are three largely unrelated questions here:-

1. Is the safety system on the roads failing cyclists?

2. Does cycling and/or driving culture (ie. behaviour and attitudes) contribute to failures of the safety system?

3. Is the law dealing effectively with drivers who collide with cyclists?