Two motorists who say they were blinded by sun acquitted of killing cyclist

It seems that the letter rather than the spirt is more important in the UK. Hate preachers can't be deported, criminals from whatever country can't be send back. Because the letter of the law.
I assume this person was not sitting in the middle of the road, so where was he sitting compared to the car driving?

Makes me want to see jury-vetting - where anyone who drives regularly is precluded from serving on a jury in such cases.

And what chance is there of getting more people to cycle when it's on such terms - that its regarded as normal that even if you do nothing at all wrong, you can still be randomly killed, just because there's a sun in the sky? Its like trying to promote Russian roulette.

Mr King misses the point, vulnerable road users don't have their backs to vehicles they have their backs to drivers who are all too often incompetent

Nothing changes does it? The slaughter continues.

I was riding my motorbike earlier this week and came to a bend on a stretch of road I know well. Suddenly the sun was in my face and I could barely see, so I shut back on the throttle and slowed right down until the trees blocked the light and I could see again. I noted how many other vehicles didn't slow down though. I'm curious whether the drivers were able to see any better than me.

Sickening.

If I am driving, and I find that the sun is shining so brightly and low that I cannot see properly ahead, then I slow down; I can honestly say that I have also, on occasion, pulled into a convenient bus stop (yes, I know! there wasn't a layby available) until I felt I could safely proceed. It's not rocket science. You DO NOT continue to merrily drive forward at even 40-50 mph instead of the 60 mph limit if you "...couldn’t see anybody in the road until the last second.". Or am I being an old fogey?

And Sir Edmund King, who is revered by people such as Carlton Reid, finally shows his true colours, with a comment that boils down to telling the victims its all their fault if some brainless thug drives into them because he can't understand not driving when unable to see.

Perhaps mr Reid will remove King's foreword from his book. But I doubt it.

A colleague at work was knocked off his bike by a coach driver who pleaded that the sun was in his eyes. His bike was comprehensively smashed and he didn't fare much better

The courts were not sympathetic and threw the book at the coach driver (they were not blinded by the sun and it hit him where it hurt).

I nearly got taken out a few days ago on Railton road Brixton. Not by a car but a cyclist coming out from a left turn and across me as i approached at about 25mph. She couldn't see me because she was squinting into the low lying sun. I had my Dynamo light and a flashing front light too. And i was wearing a yellow top and a white helmet. I was invisible to her.

Fair comment, I thought the same.

Two young lads in Vauxhall Corsas. Maybe I'm just cynical.

I don't understand how if the second car saw the car how he then managed to hit the people, still driving too fast for the conditions?

I hate this time of year on the bike and avoid commuting because of the low sun especially in the evening. I do understand that sometimes the sun catches you out, as you come round a corner or a break in the trees, we've all been caught out by it, anyone who hasn't is lying or doesn't drive at that time of the day, but you have to drive according to the conditions. You wouldn't drive with such negligence if it were say icy or a heavy storm, there is no difference just because the obstacle is bright sunshine.

'Rule 126: Stopping Distances. Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear'

A final judgement is of course impossible to make in a thread like this, but it appears that not obeying the above Highway Code item was the issue. Both drivers were at fault and the second one appears to be directly responsible for causing death. I am not a lawyer so I cannot qualify that. In any case, I am convinced that most poor driving is ultimately intentional, not accidental. The path of the sun relative to the road is entirely predictable!

I can understand part of the verdict. The first driver did not cause the death. I have no idea why the CPS proceeded with that charge, but have not, of course, listened to the evidence.

In effect his actions were not sufficiently causative of the death.

I simply cannot understand verdicts like this. When I am driving, if I can't see then I slow down until I can stop within the distance I can see.

I'm not one of the "stiffer sentences to protect cyclists band" but I don't get why carrying on at 40 mph completely blind doesn't count as at the very least careless driving, if not dangerous!?

Non-impartial jury of motorists acquit a fellow motorist?

Highway code says slow down AND if necessary stop... FFS... when will Juries get with the program?

FFS, you can't see.