Yes they really convicted the driver

[vonhosen]

heebeegeetee said:

Dammit said:

Luckily we have the drivers own testimony here, that if he'd checked his mirror before moving off he'd not have killed the guy.

What this comes down to is that the driver moved off without checking that it was safe to do so, and as a direct result killed someone - that the victim had put himself in a position where he was at risk is undeniable, but the driver of the vehicle was the one in control of the danger here, and as such the responsibility has to lie with him, as he saw and admitted himself.

In the article the driver says he felt he was responsible for some of it, but of course there is no option to plead partly guilty.

He is responsible for some of it & what he is responsible for is what makes him guilty of the offence. You don't have to be the sole cause to be guilty of the offence.
He isn't responsible for the guy walking in there, but he is responsible for not doing the minimum required (for competence & care) of him & that was a (not necessarily the) cause of the death.

[WatchfulEye]

heebeegeetee said:

In the article the driver says he felt he was responsible for some of it, but of course there is no option to plead partly guilty.

Except the specific offence is defines as such that if the driver has *any* responsibility to the death because of their carelessness, then the offence is proven and the driver is guilty of the offence in full.

Where the degree of responsibility is relevant is in sentencing. As it appears the judge did not impose the mandatory driving ban, in favour of points, the judge presumably was convinced that the driver's responsibility for the death was low.

Edited by WatchfulEye on Saturday 30th May 12:52

[Hugo a Gogo]

heebeegeetee said:

Hugo a Gogo said:

from the very start of the thread "the cyclist not riding defensively" it's "the cyclist" and "the cyclist" that

the guy was on foot, pushing a bike!

62 years old too, hardly a hipster on a fixie, running red lights

it says the 'oncoming' cyclist couldn't get through so dismounted

so the driver had every chance to see him cycle up and get off his bike to try and squeeze past the stationary truck (if the driver was even in his truck at the time)

And thuS the cyclist had every chance to see the driver, engage with him And ensure the driver knew the cyclist was about to attempt something insane.

which makes me think the driver wasn't in his cab, and that the PEDESTRIAN (former cyclist) tried to get past a stationary unoccupied vehicle, which isn't really insane

[heebeegeetee]

Hugo a Gogo said:

which makes me think the driver wasn't in his cab, and that the PEDESTRIAN (former cyclist) tried to get past a stationary unoccupied vehicle, which isn't really insane

When you can't get through and your clothing hooks up to it?

[Hugo a Gogo]

the story said he couldn't get through, tried to turn back, and his clothing hooked up as the truck drove off

squeezing past a parked vehicle is not outrageous, we've all done it in car parks

[Retroman]

So from what we can gather, the pavement had scaffolding all over it so unable to use, and the cyclist was unable to pass normally on the road due to 2 trucks blocking it (presumably with no drivers)
Cyclist then has no option but to try and squeeze through if he needed to get past, truck driver jumps into cabin and drives off without checking mirrors, and that's when the cyclist got hooked up

[agtlaw]

Retroman said:

So from what we can gather, the pavement had scaffolding all over it so unable to use, and the cyclist was unable to pass normally on the road due to 2 trucks blocking it (presumably with no drivers)
Cyclist then has no option but to try and squeeze through if he needed to get past, truck driver jumps into cabin and drives off without checking mirrors, and that's when the cyclist got hooked up

Wait for 30 seconds was another option.

[Retroman]

agtlaw said:

Wait for 30 seconds was another option.

In hindsight, yes.
There's no way of knowing how long the driver is going to be at the time though

[Dammit]

And it's totally meaningless, a straw man in every sense - whether the victim had waited 3,30 or 300 seconds doesn't matter, what killed him was the driver of the vehicle not paying sufficient attention to an inherently dangerous task.

I'm impressed at the lengths people are willing to go to in order to blame the victim, when the driver himself admitted that if he'd looked he'd not have killed him.

[heebeegeetee]

Dammit said:

And it's totally meaningless, a straw man in every sense - whether the victim had waited 3,30 or 300 seconds doesn't matter, what killed him was the driver of the vehicle not paying sufficient attention to an inherently dangerous task.

I'm impressed at the lengths people are willing to go to in order to blame the victim, when the driver himself admitted that if he'd looked he'd not have killed him.

I just don't think that being dead automatically absolves oneself of all blame. Pressing yourself up against a large vehicle will always be stupid.

[vonhosen]

heebeegeetee said:

Dammit said:

And it's totally meaningless, a straw man in every sense - whether the victim had waited 3,30 or 300 seconds doesn't matter, what killed him was the driver of the vehicle not paying sufficient attention to an inherently dangerous task.

I'm impressed at the lengths people are willing to go to in order to blame the victim, when the driver himself admitted that if he'd looked he'd not have killed him.

I just don't think that being dead automatically absolves oneself of all blame. Pressing yourself up against a large vehicle will always be stupid.

He isn't absolved (then he was never on trial), but that doesn't make the driver of the lorry any less guilty of what he was charged with.

[heebeegeetee]

vonhosen said:

He isn't absolved (then he was never on trial), but that doesn't make the driver of the lorry any less guilty of what he was charged with.

And I never said it did.

I do know I'm capable of making a mistake as a driver. Maybe that's why you'll never see me placing my life in the hands of a driver in the rather extreme way that this chap did.

[Vipers]

So we are in stationary traffic at or near traffic lights on an urban dual carriageway in L2.

Lights go to green, how many of us (be honest), check the left mirror before moving off for cyclists or motorcyclists who may have filtered through the traffic.

[bearman68]

WatchfulEye said:

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.

Wonderfully insightful observation.

[vonhosen]

Vipers said:

So we are in stationary traffic at or near traffic lights on an urban dual carriageway in L2.

Lights go to green, how many of us (be honest), check the left mirror before moving off for cyclists or motorcyclists who may have filtered through the traffic.

I monitor both sides whilst I'm waiting (to observe any problem approaching) & check both before moving off.

[vonhosen]

heebeegeetee said:

vonhosen said:

He isn't absolved (then he was never on trial), but that doesn't make the driver of the lorry any less guilty of what he was charged with.

And I never said it did.

I do know I'm capable of making a mistake as a driver. Maybe that's why you'll never see me placing my life in the hands of a driver in the rather extreme way that this chap did.

You not going in there still doesn't stop people falling short of their responsibilities. Invariably with multi party collisions there is a portion of blame on more than one party.
The lorry driver is responsible for his failings.

[Vipers]

vonhosen said:

Vipers said:

So we are in stationary traffic at or near traffic lights on an urban dual carriageway in L2.

Lights go to green, how many of us (be honest), check the left mirror before moving off for cyclists or motorcyclists who may have filtered through the traffic.

I monitor both sides whilst I'm waiting (to observe any problem approaching) & check both before moving off.

Thank god for that, I am not alone.

[heebeegeetee]

vonhosen said:

You not going in there still doesn't stop people falling short of their responsibilities. Invariably with multi party collisions there is a portion of blame on more than one party.
The lorry driver is responsible for his failings.

Of course, and I haven't said otherwise.

In this case though the deceased has definitely played a part in his demise imo. An unbelievable thing to do imo.

[Pete317]

Vipers said:

So we are in stationary traffic at or near traffic lights on an urban dual carriageway in L2.

Lights go to green, how many of us (be honest), check the left mirror before moving off for cyclists or motorcyclists who may have filtered through the traffic.

Or perhaps we do so automatically without thinking about it.
In which case we may not be quite 100% sure if questioned about it after the event whether we actually did check and saw nothing, or we didn't check at all.

Edited by Pete317 on Sunday 31st May 22:13

[Hugo a Gogo]

Vipers said:

So we are in stationary traffic at or near traffic lights on an urban dual carriageway in L2.

Lights go to green, how many of us (be honest), check the left mirror before moving off for cyclists or motorcyclists who may have filtered through the traffic.

Or I'm stopped in a narrow street (that I'm blocking) when I'm driving a large vehicle with scaffolding up one side and another truck on the other: then I check every time