Yes they really convicted the driver
Discussion
budgie smuggler said:
PurpleMoonlight said:
I find that hard to accept.
The lights changed. He drove ahead as the way was clear. As I would bet 99% of us would too.
To expect him to look out for an idiot that had somehow become caught up on the side of his truck when it was stationary is stretching 'careless' for my book.
Still, if that's the case when leaving lights I will henceforth make a specific check to see if anyone is trying to crawl under my car for some reason. Maybe they dropped 2p or something.
No traffic lights.The lights changed. He drove ahead as the way was clear. As I would bet 99% of us would too.
To expect him to look out for an idiot that had somehow become caught up on the side of his truck when it was stationary is stretching 'careless' for my book.
Still, if that's the case when leaving lights I will henceforth make a specific check to see if anyone is trying to crawl under my car for some reason. Maybe they dropped 2p or something.
Would you pass a driving test if you didn't check your mirrors/blindspots before moving off? I doubt it.
If the driver had checked the mirrors and seen nothing as the person was in his blindspot, how is the driver supposed to check as you can't exactly look over your shoulder in a cab, I also suspect that truck drivers are not going to get out of their cabs at every traffic light, just in case some cyclist/pedestrian is not doing something stupid.
I also suspect the driver went for this plea instead of trying to argue he was in the blindspot, no he wasn't case, that could have gone on for several weeks.
Around trucks Im very wary and still don't get all these people trying to squeeze past large vehicles... why do they not understand they are flesh and bones, going up against a double decker bus or a large truck can lead to certain death?
I think it's clear that that truck was stopped for a least a little while, the fella had time to get off the bike, try to walk past and turn back towards the rear of the truck again before it set off
there were no traffic lights, and apparently no other traffic holding any one up
the driver admitted he saw the bloke near the truck, and assumed he was out of the way when he set off
there were no traffic lights, and apparently no other traffic holding any one up
the driver admitted he saw the bloke near the truck, and assumed he was out of the way when he set off
Hugo a Gogo said:
I think it's clear that that truck was stopped for a least a little while, the fella had time to get off the bike, try to walk past and turn back towards the rear of the truck again before it set off
there were no traffic lights, and apparently no other traffic holding any one up
the driver admitted he saw the bloke near the truck, and assumed he was out of the way when he set off
Thats the bit that suggests blindspot, saw him and then assumed was out of way (couldn't see him anymore).there were no traffic lights, and apparently no other traffic holding any one up
the driver admitted he saw the bloke near the truck, and assumed he was out of the way when he set off
From what i can gather it looks like two truck drivers stopped side by side to chat to each other.
The pedestrian / cyclist was unable to pass on the pavement due to scaffolding and with the trucks blocking the road tried to squeeze between them. Realized it was too tight and when the truck moved off without checking the mirrors, that's whene his jacket got caught.
The pedestrian / cyclist was unable to pass on the pavement due to scaffolding and with the trucks blocking the road tried to squeeze between them. Realized it was too tight and when the truck moved off without checking the mirrors, that's whene his jacket got caught.
Du1point8 said:
budgie smuggler said:
Would you pass a driving test if you didn't check your mirrors/blindspots before moving off? I doubt it.
I thought trucks had quite large blindspots, so playing devils advocate... irocfan said:
one bit of idiocy by the pedestrian compounded by a moment of thoughtlessness by the driver = tragedy. No-one wins in this case and I would venture to say that locking someone up for this wouldn't have been right either... sad sad sad
It sounds like the sentence in this case was very light, probably reflecting the contributory negligence of the cyclist. Convictions for causing death by careless driving (CDCD) usually result in a custodial sentence. There is also a mandatory driving ban of 12 months on convictionThe issue here is that the level of negligence needed for a conviction of CDCD is minimal - the offence is specifically intended to cover those incidents where someone dies on the road, due to an act of minimal or momentary lapse of concentration (e.g. misjudging the speed of an oncoming vehicle, or turning and colliding with another vehicle if visibility of that vehicle is restricted).
At the same time, however, the prosecution do have to prove negligence. So, if the cyclist was in the trucker's blind spot, and the trucker had appropriate anti-blindspot mirrors fitted (but even these do not provide complete coverage of cyclists) and had stated to the police that he had checked his mirrors, he may have had a defence.
If however, when the police turned up, he had in a panic blurted out that he forgot to check his mirrors - then he's just admitted negligence on record to the police. No real chance of defending that in court, and a significant risk of aggravating the sentence to jail time.
telecat said:
TooMany2cvs said:
He pleaded guilty of Causing Death by Careless Driving.
Was he driving carelessly? There's a very strong case to say yes.
Did a death result? Undeniably.
What's the problem?
Was the cyclist also guilty of contributory wuckfittery? Yes. But there's not really a lot of point in putting a puddle of jam on trial, is there?
I would say no. And Personally I would feel that the Cyclist greatly contributed to his own death and that should be taken into account. Was he driving carelessly? There's a very strong case to say yes.
Did a death result? Undeniably.
What's the problem?
Was the cyclist also guilty of contributory wuckfittery? Yes. But there's not really a lot of point in putting a puddle of jam on trial, is there?
Devil2575 said:
telecat said:
TooMany2cvs said:
He pleaded guilty of Causing Death by Careless Driving.
Was he driving carelessly? There's a very strong case to say yes.
Did a death result? Undeniably.
What's the problem?
Was the cyclist also guilty of contributory wuckfittery? Yes. But there's not really a lot of point in putting a puddle of jam on trial, is there?
I would say no. And Personally I would feel that the Cyclist greatly contributed to his own death and that should be taken into account. Was he driving carelessly? There's a very strong case to say yes.
Did a death result? Undeniably.
What's the problem?
Was the cyclist also guilty of contributory wuckfittery? Yes. But there's not really a lot of point in putting a puddle of jam on trial, is there?
''He attempted to walk his bike between the lorries, but while the gap he entered was 81cm, he found he couldn't exit a 36cm gap at the other end.''
That is just insane, squeezing between two lorries at 81cm...let alone continuing to walk to the point where that distance is halved...WITH a bike. That's gotta be less then the width of a standard door, with all those wheels only a few cm away from you.....
That's just crazy
PurpleMoonlight said:
randlemarcus said:
Didn't check his mirrors to spot the cyclist hooked up. Seems reasonably clear to me, based on the few facts in the article. Yes, mostly the cyclists fault, but the driver is a professional driver, so needs to be better than Mavis the Micra.
Professional or not, there has to be a limit to which you are responsible for other peoples stupidity though.telecat said:
TooMany2cvs said:
He pleaded guilty of Causing Death by Careless Driving.
Was he driving carelessly? There's a very strong case to say yes.
Did a death result? Undeniably.
What's the problem?
Was the cyclist also guilty of contributory wuckfittery? Yes. But there's not really a lot of point in putting a puddle of jam on trial, is there?
I would say no. And Personally I would feel that the Cyclist greatly contributed to his own death and that should be taken into account. Was he driving carelessly? There's a very strong case to say yes.
Did a death result? Undeniably.
What's the problem?
Was the cyclist also guilty of contributory wuckfittery? Yes. But there's not really a lot of point in putting a puddle of jam on trial, is there?
PurpleMoonlight said:
TooMany2cvs said:
He pleaded guilty of Causing Death by Careless Driving.
Was he driving carelessly? There's a very strong case to say yes.
I find that hard to accept.Was he driving carelessly? There's a very strong case to say yes.
The lights changed. He drove ahead as the way was clear. As I would bet 99% of us would too.
To expect him to look out for an idiot that had somehow become caught up on the side of his truck when it was stationary is stretching 'careless' for my book.
Still, if that's the case when leaving lights I will henceforth make a specific check to see if anyone is trying to crawl under my car for some reason. Maybe they dropped 2p or something.
vonhosen said:
telecat said:
TooMany2cvs said:
He pleaded guilty of Causing Death by Careless Driving.
Was he driving carelessly? There's a very strong case to say yes.
Did a death result? Undeniably.
What's the problem?
Was the cyclist also guilty of contributory wuckfittery? Yes. But there's not really a lot of point in putting a puddle of jam on trial, is there?
I would say no. And Personally I would feel that the Cyclist greatly contributed to his own death and that should be taken into account. Was he driving carelessly? There's a very strong case to say yes.
Did a death result? Undeniably.
What's the problem?
Was the cyclist also guilty of contributory wuckfittery? Yes. But there's not really a lot of point in putting a puddle of jam on trial, is there?
If not, then he hasn't been judged on what he did/didn't do but on the consequences.
REALIST123 said:
If not, then he hasn't been judged on what he did/didn't do but on the consequences.
Correct. The same act can be prosecuted as a different offence is someone died because of it, even where there is only trivial culpability. This is not the same as manslaughter, because a conviction requires that gross negligence be proven. This is extremely unfair, and is one of the reasons why this is a controversial law - but it's a typical political gesture to please the ignorant crowd.
All the research from safety initiatives in high risk industries (aviation, nuclear, healthcare, etc.) has proven beyond doubt that punishment of people for acts of mild negligence is counter-productive, as it detracts from proper investigation of the root causes, while doing nothing to prevent future events, and at the same time creates another victim by throwing an otherwise good person to the wolves. No human can maintain full concentration without lapses at all times, and it is only through recognition of that that safety can be improved.
REALIST123 said:
vonhosen said:
telecat said:
TooMany2cvs said:
He pleaded guilty of Causing Death by Careless Driving.
Was he driving carelessly? There's a very strong case to say yes.
Did a death result? Undeniably.
What's the problem?
Was the cyclist also guilty of contributory wuckfittery? Yes. But there's not really a lot of point in putting a puddle of jam on trial, is there?
I would say no. And Personally I would feel that the Cyclist greatly contributed to his own death and that should be taken into account. Was he driving carelessly? There's a very strong case to say yes.
Did a death result? Undeniably.
What's the problem?
Was the cyclist also guilty of contributory wuckfittery? Yes. But there's not really a lot of point in putting a puddle of jam on trial, is there?
If not, then he hasn't been judged on what he did/didn't do but on the consequences.
The case disposal decision is based on more than just if there is sufficient to prove an offence as is sentencing.
KFC said:
I bet he was told plead guilty and no jail time. Or roll the dice but you're going to get locked up if you lose.
If that was the case I'd plead guilty even if I didn't think I done anything wrong.
But the fact you don't feel you've done anything wrong doesn't mean that you haven't in fact in law.If that was the case I'd plead guilty even if I didn't think I done anything wrong.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff