- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Justice (Lonpicman, Wikimedia Commons)Speeding lorry driver acquitted of causing cyclist's death by careless driving
A lorry driver has been cleared of causing the death of a cyclist by careless driving, despite admitting that he was travelling at a speed that was around a third above the 40mph speed limit on the road where the fatal incident took place.
Olin Poulson from Pencader, Carmarthenshire, aged 20 and a student at Cardiff University, had been cycling with his mother on the A40 close to Carmarthen when he was killed on 3 September 2010, reports the BBC.
A jury at Swansea Crown Court heard that the pair were preparing to stop at the High Noon Service Station at White Mill, where they were due to meet Olin’s brother, when he was struck by the overtaking lorry as he prepared to turn right.
Tacograph analysis revealed that lorry driver Christopher Shapland had been traveling at 55mph on the road, which carries a 40mph limit, and as he braked to try and avoid a collision, his speed dropped to 52mph at the moment of impact.
He admitted driving above the speed limit, but denied that it was a contributory factor in the cyclist’s death. He also acknowledged that he had been using a hands-free mobile phone shortly before the fatal incident, but maintained that he had ceased talking to focus on overtaking.
Shapland, from Brecon, reportedly in tears as he gave evidence, told the court that Olin had signalled to turn right but failed to look behind him as he began to execute the manouevre.
He described how he could hear Olin’s mother Mary screaming once he had managed to stop his lorry, which ended up on the kerb on the opposite side of the road as he sought to avoid hitting the cyclist, who ended up underneath the lorry.
Shapland insisted, however, that his driving had not contributed to Olin’s death.
Judge Keith Thomas expressed the court's sympathy to the Poulson family.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- mdavidford 4 sec ago
Well here's an unusual celebrity edition for the collection. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cvgxj1jy71zo
- mdavidford 6 min 45 sec ago
"It's not that we don't care. We just don't care enough..."
- David9694 18 min 45 sec ago
Live updates after car crashes into Well Street doctor's surgery...
- AidanR 33 min 43 sec ago
Jesus, are you riding through monsoons on a motorway?! How are cars flicking crud into your eyes?
- Joe Totale 37 min 15 sec ago
It's a shame that Road.cc don't provide their reviewers with spirit levels 😉
- Rendel Harris 3 hours 42 min ago
I think they're rather lovely, but if you prefer the real elegance of late '70s/early 80s shoes how about this classy and totally non-ugly pair...
- ChairRDRF 5 hours 13 min ago
On this subject see my Review of "Record, Retreat, Report" here https://rdrf.org.uk/2024/08/26/review-record-retreat-report-by-lukasz-ma...
- AidanR 7 hours 4 min ago
Chapeau. That is truly epic.
- chrisonabike 7 hours 44 min ago
Recognising and creating locations where people feel safe to cycle in traffic is a key part to transforming our transport systems - and indeed...
- mdavidford 9 hours 48 min ago
If they don't, then for ~£150-£200 you can buy a cheap registration and transfer it.
Add new comment
50 comments
Truly unbelievable.
Had the driver been keeping to the speed limit he won't have been as close to the cyclists and he would have had more time to react and brake.
How the court can agree that his speed was not a big factor I don't know.
I have no confidence in the criminal justice system to deal with dangerous drivers.
The judgement in this case is highly questionable, there's no question over that.
This judgement should be appealed!!
Hmm.
Although yes the driver was speeding if the cyclist has pulled in front of him what else was the driver to do?
Even at 40mph the guy would have been killed.
Needs points for speeding but I think I'd have found him not guilty also.
You don't know any of that for sure. At 40mph (instead of 55) the driver has more time to react, more time to reduce speed, and can thus reduce speed more. The cyclist has more time to hear him coming, too, and maybe not turn after all.
We can't prove that he was distracted by his conversation, but people ARE distracted by phone conversations while driving; it should just be banned, hands-free or not. If you want to chat on a phone while you travel, ride a bike, where to a first approximation you will only endanger yourself (and if you don't feel safe doing it on a bike, why should it be allowed while you drive?)
I'm really struggling to even begin to get my head around the judge's line of reasoning. I'm truly at a loss to figure this one out. F***ing unbelievable.
Another very disturbing story. Make’s me furious that people can get away with stuff like this. Thoughts are with the victim’s family
Why? He can't blame anything or anyone else.
He may or may not have been using a mobile phone but the combination of excessive speed and not paying attention to the road in front of his speeding vehicle are likely to be the causes.
If he had killed a copper he would go to prison, but a 20 year old's life is worth very little to those who sit on high. If this killer is genuinely sorry then he ought to be going round schools (and perhaps HGV driver training centres) with a big photo of the young man whose life he took and talking openly about the crime he committed.
How can the speed to be the factor here, you HAVE to go quicker to overtake, its simple maths, If he had not attempted the overtake and stuck to the 40 limit (which the vehicle he over took most likely was) then he would not have been in that situation, I'm getting fed up of hearing about these cases and think that the jury is picked solely on if they are lorry drivers and don't cycle
What exactly does a driver have to do to actually be convicted of killing a cyclist??? This is just insane. I hope that the lorry driver never sleeps again because of the nightmares he will face.
Anyone know who was council for the prosecution in this case? Clearly he / she was no feckin good. Can't make this case stick? I mean, come on!
Well, it's basically been said already, but:
You were breaking speed limits - not just a bit, but *way* above the limit.
You killed an innocent person who was using the road in an entirely legitimate way.
If that's not causing death by careless driving, then what the F&&& is?!
Outrageous, just literally outrageous.
I'm confused. The cyclist was ahead of the lorry and signaled his intended manoeuver. Surely he has right of way whether he looked behind him or not. He signaled his intended manoeuver but the driver chose to make a dangerous overtaking move. Had he looked and seen a vehicle behind him was he expected to stop and wait for it to pass? If that's the case then no one on a bike will ever get anywhere.
Until the son or daughter of a Cabinet Minister or other important bigwig is killed whilst riding their bike, the law will never reflect the reality of this crime.
3mph drop in speed, he can hardly have reacted at all by the time he hit him. Speed must've been a factor, especially as if he'd been at or slightly below the speed limit the chance of survival would've increased dramatically.
If a pedestrian is hit at:
• 20mph there is about a 1 in 40 (2.5 %) chance of being killed or 97% chance of survival
• 30mph there is about a 1 in 5 (20%) chance of being killed or 80% chance of survival
• at 35mph there is a 50/50 chance of being killed
• at 40mph there is about a 9 in 10 (90%) chance of being killed or 10% chance of survival
(Source Ashton and Mackay 1979)
Assuming he maintained 55mph for the mile prior to the collision, if he'd been within the speed limit instead, he'd have been at least a quarter of a mile behind the cyclists.
This is a tragic case, however even had the lorry been travelling at the speed limit I think the outcome would have been the same.
This is ridiculous
So the facts are that the driver was speeding (in a lorry of all vehicles?), he was performing an overtaking manouvere (which DEMANDS extra care and attention) and he was engaged in a mobile phone conversation !!
and despite this, and the death of someone (who appears from this article)completely innocent he is getting off completely free?
so what the hell does actually constitute dangerous driving in the eyes of those supposedly empowered to serve justice?
...greater stopping distance, less time to react.
How can his speed have possibly not been a factor? More speed, more energy, more damage.
Pages