Speeding lorry driver acquitted of causing cyclist's death by careless driving

maybe we should arm ourselves?

not a serious suggestion, but the Americans put much stock behind the idea that they be allowed to defend themselves against attackers.

If anyone has seen the film 'Thunderbolt and Lightfoot' they will recall the scene where Jeff Bridges is paying unwanted attention to a female biker in his delivery truck. Biker takes out ten pound lump hammer and repays attention on the van. That would be noticed.

I think that says a lot. The media generally don't give a c**p about this. Smash up a few cars and it will be all over the front page. Property is more important than mortal flesh.

Obviously, they understand that to get away with these attacks, they have to finish us off, thus leaving no witness.

Yet another life lost. Deepest condolences to the family.

I had a similar issue just two weeks ago. Looked over my shoulder, signalled to pull out around parked cars and the car behind still insisted on accelerating through a reducing gap to overtake. Not only that but he went on squeeze back in front of me before he hit the oncoming traffic.

Somehow the vulnerability of cyclists, pedestrians, motor cyclists, etc has got to be hammered home to all motorists.

Let's have a presumption of guilt and a minimum of ten years in prison if a motorist kills another road user.

Further thought - This is just the reason that tachographs are a legal requirement, because these bloody people can't be trusted to drive within the law. What a waste of money that is.

I know this is a cycling webiste, but surely you can't be that biased/naive. The jury have made their decision based on ALL the evidence, not just the pieces reported on this and other websites and decided the accident was not Mr Shapland's fault. It was an horrific tragedy, but the cyclist did not look behind him and only briefly stuck his hand out whilst simultaneously pulling across the opposite carriageway into the side of the lorry (which was as far over on the other side as it could possibly be, confirmed by the fact it mounted the kerb to try to avoid Mr Poulson). Mr Shapland admitted being over the speed limit, but the jury agreed this made no differnce.
The case has been decided on its facts and the right decision was made. No one can have anything but sympathy for the family's loss but cyclists are not always blameless angels who do no wrong.
And to the idiot who claims he hopes Mr Shapland suffers some horrible fate in the future, you should be ashamed of yourself. Regardless of the fact it was not his fault, the circumstances must have been horrendous and he will live with that for the rest of his life. An eye for an eye does not apply when the person is NOT GUILTY

I shuddered when I read this, I feel so sorry for the family.

I do feel that some posters need to take their 'bike hat' off

The story does not report how far the lorry was behind when Olin pulled out, the lorry could have been right behind him, giving the driver little time to brake whether he was driving at 50 or 40mph, and not making the speed the cause.

It is just a truly horrible accident, nothing more

Okay, let's look at why this makes people angry.

The driver was speeding – doing 55mph in a 40mph zone, 44mph would have got him nicked for speeding. 55mph in a 40mph zone at the wheel of an HGV is patently not an appropriate speed. It's even more inappropriate when you are also making a phone call - hands free or not.

The driver was in charge of a potentially lethal piece of machinery and had a responsibility to other road users to operate it with that fact uppermost in his mind - he didn't do that. I'm guessing he'd driven his lorry faster than the speed limit on a regular basis 'and nothing had happened, 'so it must be fine' - I'm guessing too that like a lot of professional drivers he put the fact that he hadn't been involved in any incidents before down to his skill rather than what it was - luck.

What annoys cyclists is that the roads are full of drivers who are simply 'lucky' that they haven't killed someone.

What further annoys them is that too often when drivers come before the courts the fact that the lethal object they were in charge of when they killed someone was a car or a lorry is somehow an extenuating circumstance in itself maybe because, lawyers, judges and juries are all crap drivers themselves so have at some level empathise with the driver in the dock - let's face it everyone has driven badly at some point and gotten away with it.

What should happen though when someone drives badly and injures or kills someone is that the legal system and the people charged with operating it should judge the case on the basis of whether the operator of a potentially lethal piece of machinery was operating it with the necessary level of care and skill to ensure that it wasn't a danger to other road users. On that basis tell me how someone driving a lorry at 55mph in a 40mph zone, while on the phone was doing that without seemingly allowing for the fact that on the crowded roads of Britain the unexpected regularly happens.

Maybe Olin did make a mistake in the moments before his death, one of which might have been to believe that the driver of the lorry behind him was keeping to the speed limit. If he did make a mistake he paid for it with his life. I don't believe in an eye for an eye, but I do believe in justice being done and being seen to be done.

As to your point jellybike about the distance between lorry and cyclist when the cyclist signaled and pulled out to turn right, clearly the police and the CPS felt that the distance was sufficient to justify a charge of causing death by dangerous driving. If the distance had been so close that it was clearly an accident believe me this would never have gotten to court – these days if there'd even been some doubt it wouldn't have gone before a judge. With the current pressure on the public purse prosecutors more than ever tend to prosecute cases where they think they have a strong chance of winning.

I don't know how much of that road is a 40mph zone before the point where the accident occurred, but if it was any distance and the driver had kept to the speed limit probably wouldn't have been there at the point when Olin made his fateful manouevre.

Quote:

The case has been decided on its facts

that doesn't necessarily mean it's the right decision. does it? A cyclist acting legally was killed by a lorry driver who was acting illegally. The requirement to check behind you is a very sensible one but it's advisory, not law. The speed limit is not advisory.

Quote:

the cyclist did not look behind him and only briefly stuck his hand out whilst simultaneously pulling across the opposite carriageway into the side of the lorry

i haven't been at the trial so i don't know whose testimony that is. is it that of an independent witness, or that of the lorry driver? that's not a leading question, i would genuinely like to know.

My thoughts about the advantage of strict liability is that it removes the right to remain silent. Once certain facts have been established it is for the defendant to demonstrate how they could have happened without the fault of the defendant? This already happens with drink driving and 'jumping' red lights. The police prove that you have alchohol in your blood you have to explain how it got there without you deliberately consuming alchohol. Your vehicle (registered to you) has been photographed going through a red light, how can that happen if you were not driving. First scenario, police do not have to prove that your consumption of alchohol was deliberate (impossible?). Second scenario, police do not have to prove you were driving (impossible?). In each case you can escape liability if you can show (balance of probabilities NOT beyond reasonable doubt) that your drink was spiked for example (alchohol) or someone else was driving (lights). Strict liability is good but needs to be used with care. Most importantly a person cannot stay silent and say 'prove it' they MUST explain themselves, this concept is beyond some peoples comprehension and would need to be given some serious PR to sell it to the electorate who underwrite the actions of the law-makers. Good work, keep it up!

I'm sure many of us have signalled right in plenty of time before a junction and still had vehicles overtake. This story is depressingly familiar. On another thread only last week, I was commenting on how so many drivers can't delay their journey by just a few seconds to protect the life of another road user.

That driver is as guilty as sin. I feel for the young cyclist's mother and the rest of his family.

I got half way down reading this article and could not read any more.

Jury made of drivers. (Majority of) Drivers feel speed limits are unfair/pointless. Not guilty verdict returned.

Causing death by dangerous driving is a simple law to uphold. Speed limits are for safety. Exceeding speed limits is therefore unsafe ergo dangerous. WTF else needs to happen to give cyclists the ability to use roads safely.

Yet another case of "what good will it do if he goes to prison to either family?" I understand the BBC are to do a programe on why the charge of Dangerous driving is going up to 5 years - anyone on here confident a Judge will ever give any one 5 years?
In the case of my employee who was killed last year by a hit and run driver who did stop further on, looked round ,saw nothing and drove off and lied to everyone about how the van was damaged, 1 year suspended Prison sentence, loss of licence for one year and 200 hours comunity service. The guy was under great family stress and had probably fallen asleep.

From the comments on your threads, we are not alone in feeling outraged by the way the courts treat cyclist deaths.

These comments made by concerned people do help the families whos lives are changed forever, and may in the future, change the way tragic deaths are treat by the courts.

Time to move to Holland. RIP.

I agree with the observations made about responsibility and it seems a strange result but dont blame the judge this case has been tried by a jury! The judge may have been as appalled by the decision as the rest of us.

ps the Prosecution cannot appeal an acquittal.

Disgusting verdict. How on earth can speed not be a major contributing factor here, that and the use of a mobile phone, it beggers belief.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-leeds-15438299
it will be interesting to see the outcome of the above case.
Both these incidents demand a custodial sentence AND a lengthy ban.

I can't believe this - the lorry driver is the guy that needs the license, the insurance, the excise tax and the responsibility here. He is the guy that is speeding and has chosen to do this. The cyclist did not speed - indicated correctly and as such obeyed the rules of the road and was the vehicle ahead.
If a car driver drives into the back of someone who is at blame? The car driver not allowing space for braking. If the car driver also killed the driver ahead there would be no question - WHY is it different for cyclists???

The lorry driver is clearly at blame "He should be getting 5 years minimum" - Direct quote from a serving Police Officer.

The law - or in this case the judge is an ass! My sympathy and condolence goes out to Olin's family. I don't know how they can live with that judgement.

This is an absolute pisstake. Hardly surprising really.

It's been said before and its no less true: if you want to kill someone in this country and get away with it then do it in a vehicle.

As I understand the account from above, the lorry pulled out to over take the cyclist, the cyclist pulled out to turn right and they collided.

Surely overtaking another moving vehicle on the approach to a junction is the dangerous manouvere here, and the speed factor then exagerated the consequences.

These kind of judgements never make sense – are we getting the whole story? Oh yeah – the judge speeds, hates cyclists and talks on the phone all the time while he's driving....

lorry brakes are powerful enough to haul 40ish tonnes to a stop in a short distance so for a speed of 55 to be reduced to 52 at pointof impact he clearly was not paying attention. he was speeding, more speed less reaction time. Condolences to the family of the man killed.

We need "Strict Liability" in this country. Nothing else will have such a big influence as that simple change to the law.

Yes he was speeding, yes he was on the phone............ but surely it was just his word that the cyclist pulled out suddenly in front of him.
And if he was intending to pass with a big gap I feel it wouldnt have occurred.
We need to take the view that any more vulnerable road user has greater protection in the eyes of the law than the less vulnerable user in any given situation on the road.
Meves points up the salient information, when you are behind the wheel of several tons of metal you should be responsible for any injury or death.
Kevin.

Terrible decision. I agree with all the comments on speed and reaction time. Unfortunately the unspoken assumption - with motorists and the law - is that motorists have priority - whether you're cycling, walking or riding a horse on a public road. Until those users all group together and demand new speed limits and enforcement this sort of incident and court decision will continue.

A roads, B roads, urban roads - all of them currently have limits right at the edge of safety versus travel efficiency. It's a mind set that the government will not change unless we force them to. The UK Speed Spring could be upon us! By all means consider 80mph on motorways (with new public information films to remind people what indicators are for and why tailgating at 80mph isn't acceptable ) but all 60mph zones could be reduced to 50mph and all 30mph reduced to 20mph. Even a year's trial in certain cities would be a start.

Makes sense to me. Here in Liverpool 20 mph is on the cards. I'm fascinated to see the arguments against.

Its depressing that not only does this driver not take responsibility for his actions, but that the court lets him away with it.

I hope Mr Shapland suffers as he has blood on his hands, and he deserves to