Minibus driver cleared over Southampton cyclist death

Was anyone here in court to hear days of evidence and cross-examination? Was anyone here in the jury room as they deliberated for two days? Please don't be so quick to judge based on a summary of the case on the internet

Ah, low sun; that old chestnut.

I'm very sorry for the Irving family's loss.

Very sad but expected, best case scenario the driver got 3 month ban, 25 com hours and £18 victim charge as usual.

My sympathy to the family.

Shouldn't all professional drivers have a pair of good quality sunglasses (preferably polarised) as a tool of their trade?
Sick of hearing the sun was in my eyes.

Amazing. Goes totally against the Highway Code.
I do believe the driver was genuine in what he said and regretted his lack of concern but it's not an excuse.
Come on RoadCC you're in the position to invoke a campaign for 'cyclist for justice'.

Disgraceful.

Surely an appeal from the prosecutors?

If he didn't slow down to take more care in the conditions, it's still has fault, mitigating circumstances, surely, but guilty nonetheless.

He handed himself in, again, mitigating.....to sentence......not to verdict.

One thing here, 'hand off the throttle' was the chap disabled ?

“I was driving like I normally drive"

I suspect that this was the cause of the problem. Too many motorists just don't expect to see bikes on the road and therefore aren't looking for them. I think that the road in question is a dual-carridgeway which tends to bring out a certain 'motorway mentality' in a lot of drivers.

As for the trial I would like to know more about the composition of the jury. How many cyclists (who use the roads, not off-road only sports cyclists) were on the jury? How many of these were non-drivers? Without a good mix of people in the jury the concept of a fair trial is undermined and a bias towards drivers is likely to exist.

If the scooter rider was concentrating on the tail-lights ahead of him then probably Mr Petterson was doing the same, i.e. he was looking out for threats to himself rather than looking out for people he might be a threat to.

How can the Police expert say that Mr Irving should have been seen and then say that he was invisible. A adult male is NOT invisible.

My deepest sympathies go out to Mr Irving's family and to the car driver who hit him. Mr Petterson however should count himself very lucky indeed!

I would urge Mr Irving's family to consider a Civil Action.

I think the fact the chap called his Father to investigate the accident betrays the fact he knew he had not hit a "bus sign".

There should be a mandatory penalty enforced immediately someone leaves any collision site without being absolutely sure they have checked for any injured parties.

As for the glare issue - I'm sure we've all had momentary loss of vision due to winter sun - indeed last week I was driving up a brief section of hill and my sight was completely obliterated by the low sun - my only option was to continue to slow as I tried to stay safely on my side of the road following my memory of my last view of it - made trickier by the road bending.

If I had hit someone due to that momentary lack of vision would that have been a tragic accident or would I be culpable - I honestly do not know, I would certainly have felt responsible.

On a longer, straighter road I would hope that my attention would have already alerted me to anything ahead before my vision was reduced. If one could not see for the whole stretch of road they are basically driving blind and surely guilty of careless driving?

Yet more evidence of the deeply institutional anti-cyclist attitudes in the UK. Commiserations to the family who are, let's not forget, most affected by this.

How many time does it have to be said? Careful drivers, who know they'll go to jail for manslaughter should they 'accidentally' kill you, would actually make cyclists safe on roads. This kind of ruling simply reinforces the 'SMIDSY' danger all non-motorised road users face. Disgraceful.

If you can't see, stop driving. This verdict is a disgrace.

Murdering ****

I lived around Southampton a while back, and I will say that there is a different approach to driving there. I'm sure it is not unique, but I was certainly more aware of it when driving in the area.

This approach manifests itself in driving at the same speed no matter the condition... a case of put your head down and hope. Now this seems to work as everyone does the same, and it only goes wrong if someone chucks a cyclist in there.

The only parameter of safety being if you can see the car infront, you can react to what they are doing. So if the car in front fails to see the cyclist but happens to miss, the car behind won't look for the cyclist as the driver has not been prompted to look for a hazard. Probably why the car behind ran over the chap as well.

Unfortunately the judicial system condones this style of driving by not convicting those who get it wrong.

Why o why does no one ask these drivers, if they are so innocent of carelessness, is it that no one else has run over the cyclist/pedestrian in question? Why was it them? Why were they so 'unlucky'?

This is an absolute disgrace, the jury should be ashamed of themselves and I have to question the ability of the prosecuting barrister if a conviction couldn't be obtained.

If we are to believe that there was a sudden blinding by low sun and glare, then that does not explain how the driver hadn't seen the cyclist earlier. The cyclist was wearing hi-vis and flashing lights, he would have been visible from hundreds of yards away.

If he hadn't seen him at all, despite the efforts the cyclist had made to be seen, it implies that he couldn't see where he was driving, so why continue ? How the hell can "I couldn't see where I was going" be an acceptable defence to then hitting and killing someone ? Stop, just pull over and stop ! I've been driving for over 20 years, if I've ever been suddenly blinded by sun it hasn't erased the memory of what was ahead of me on the road.

The problem is that most people on the jury would probably have carried on driving as well, "could have been any one of us". It just feels like there are some battles we're never going to win, no matter how many people are killed going about their daily business.

I genuinely hope the members of the jury get run over through no fault of their own. Then they might have a fleeting chance to consider what careless driving means.

Did they really, really believe it's possible to drive entirely correctly and responsibly and still hit and kill someone?

Yes driving is dangerous, you kill a cyclist and then drive off and you get away with it. I am sure the victims family share your concerns.

What a sad day, another sad day for our justice system.

Lets be honest, the driver in question never meant to hit the cyclist, so I am sure all regret is genuine. Accordingly, I genuinely believe the driver will feel he had done nothing wrong, so understand why he will defend his corner.

I do question some of the details around not seeing what he'd hit, but as I was not in court, haven't seen all the evidence, I can't comment.

What I can comment on is how poorly these trials are managed. As mentioned previously, what jury is going to convict in this instance? We can all put ourselves in the drivers shoes, we've all had moments driving when we've thought, 'hell thank god there was nothing on the road then!'.

On that basis, would you you criminalise someone for doing what you know you've done?

The CPS need to change the parameters for judging these cases and make it far more balck and white for juries.

That said, would a custodial sentence be appropriate? I don't know. What I do know is that to not convict sends a clear message to all, that not being able to see is fine, crack on. Everytime one of these cases gets a not-guilty verdict, the chances of a guilty verdict diminish... the CPS need to address this now.

RIP

Not wanting to stir the hornets nest but you can be driving along fine then suddenly have glare from the sun (previously blocked by trees etc.). Hence why the article probably included this bit which most seem to be ignoring.

"Witness Clive Jones told the court that the low sun and glare had been “blinding”. He was riding a scooter at the time of the crash and told the court: “I was doing about 40mph, no more than 45mph.

“It was blinding. My first reaction, if I couldn’t see, was to take my hand off the throttle. I was concerned about traffic going into the back of me.

“It all happened in such a quick time. It was just a whiteout."

Drivers should slow down, but if you can't predict when are we suggesting everyone (that would have to include us?) travel at 10mph all the time?

He thought "it was a bus stop" my arse!!!

he's local and has driven that road 100's of times, there has never been a bus stop anywhere even near there.

If you can't see, you slow down.

Just sad! RIP

+1 the reverent. I see no point in including the Highway code in driving tests if our judicial system is just going to ignore it. The guidance is unequivocal, if you can't see, stop. The driver didn't do this and a man lies dead as a result. I am shocked and can only offer my condolences to his family. At the very least, I struggle to see how the driver can retain his licence.

“This case is very tragic. There are no winners or losers"

according to the driver's barrister.

That's a relief. For a minute I thought someone had died in the incident...

a disgrace.

A quick glance on Google suggests it's not just cyclists who are expendable: http://www.stokesentinel.co.uk/Low-sun-blinded-driver-fatal-Hanley-crash...

Not being able to see where you are going is fine. I guess we'll just have to get over it. I certainly will whenever I drive from now on

Another case of the Justice System failing.

If it was that bright with glare on the road then you drive slower (a lot slower) not at 40mph. If you can only see at 20mph, then drive at 20mph.
Highway Code Rule 237:
"If you are dazzled by bright sunlight, slow down and if necessary, stop."

Also if the driver thought he had hit a bus sign but didn't stop, why was he not charged with Failing to stop at the scence of an accident (as you have to stop if you have hit road furniture)?

Very sad indeed, my thoughts are with the family.

I've been to enough accidents where glare is involved to realise it does happen no matter how safe a driver you are.

Unfortunately this will happen again and no amount of change in legislation will alter it.