Yes they really convicted the driver
Discussion
Yep Wail link but like most of the replies I am not sure what the Driver did that wrong. Another case of a cyclist not riding defensively and paying the price.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3098972/Th...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3098972/Th...
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.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.simon1987 said:
morons all round
That seems unnecessarily harsh given the few details reported about the case. How long were the lorries stationary and blocking the road for? A few seconds, or minutes? How long would you wait behind a lorry before deciding that it must be parked so you'll just walk around it?telecat said:
Yep Wail link but like most of the replies I am not sure what the Driver did that wrong. Another case of a cyclist not riding defensively and paying the price.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3098972/Th...
He evidently drove without due care and attention and presumably took legal advice from someone who knew the strength of the prosecution case. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3098972/Th...
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?
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff