Coach driver cleared of causing death of Cumbrian cycling brothers

If he had conducted his saftey checks, the time should have been recorded on his tachograph records.

As pointed out above, if he had carried out a proper check, it should have included the windscreen washers (see www.vosa.gov.uk).

Ih he hadn't recorded a check on his tachograph, there are further offences involved, but in my experience, they probably were not laid before the court.

“I would not like to say whether it was my fault, their fault or a combination of both.”'

I bet he wouldn't.

From what I remember about this bit of road it is very straight, so surely a competent driver will be looking well ahead, therefore he should have seen the cyclists from a long way off. I am aware of certain sections of road where the sun can be 'blinding'. If he traveled along this route regularly then he would be aware of this and be more prepared.

Unbelievable.

Originally I started with the comparator of a gun and a motor vehicle. Be 'in charge' of a gun and someone gets killed or injured and there is an immediate presumption of liability that you have failed to act correctly in supervising the use of the gun. But actually this can apply to more mundane items such as chainsaws, hammers etc.

It will be interesting to follow through on the Civil case here which although weakened by the criminal case result, has clear pointers from the deficient forward vision conditions relative to the speed and direction being determined by the driver.

Also unusual that there is no mention of the coach owner and operator, nor any passengers cited as witnesses, given that there could have been up to 50 of them. Was this a regular service route or a tour coach. If the former the statement that the driver spent 15 minutes on the statutory checks, would be corroborated by the evidence of signing on for work and the departure of the coach/tachograph records.

There may well be an effect on the driver, and I once got a lift with a taxi driver, who claimed that in pre Tachograph days he had killed a car full of people by driving over it with a truck loaded with steel plate. This was at the time when drivers were faced with doing the job offered or finding other work, and he had simply fallen asleep at the wheel. As a result he had a very clear outlook on the danger of fatigued drivers, and the chain of culpability that runs back to the companies that expect this as part of the employee's work schedule.

The conclusion I came to some time ago is that killing with a motor vehicle has effectively been de-criminalised in this country. I no longer ride on the roads for pleasure and have effectively retired from road-riding. Almost all my riding is now off-road.

I am not prepared to risk leaving my family bereaved, with no effective recourse to justice. MTB'ing has its risks obviously, but at least they are of my own making and can be managed appropriately.

Britain is (or should be) a pariah nation where the safety of vulnerable road users is concerned.

So he was by his own admission driving a defective vehicle and couldn't see properly. In what way does that not meet the legal test:

"falls far below the minimum acceptable standard expected of a competent and careful driver; and it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in that way would be dangerous."

I don't even have a license (never needed one) but it's pretty clear to me that being able to see objects directly in front of you is key to safe driving, to put it mildly.

TBH it's getting to the point that in any incident in which the driver of a motorised vehicle kills another road user then the perpetrator gets found guilty of a lesser offence

'When he was asked whether he considered himself to have been at fault for the fatal incident, he stated: “I would not like to say whether it was my fault, their fault or a combination of both.”'

After reading the details of the incident I fail to see how it could have been the fault of the cyclists.

Yep, the A595 at Moota is straight as a die where this happened. It is also straight into the low winter sun. Any competent driver familiar with the road (which Mr Wightman, being a professional driver living locally, presumably is) would be aware of this and drive to the conditions. It appears that Mr Wightman did not. How this does not constitute either dangerous or careless driving is beyond me.

The cult of the Sacred Driving Licence is alive and well.

The CPS despite recent failures to win cases must continue to prosecute drivers where there is believe of fault, even if it feels that the likelihood of a successful prosecution is diminishing.

Just wish the jury had been twelve cyclists.

The degree of fault by the coach driver depends on how long it was between him being blinded and the impact, as well as how fast he was driving. Apparently it was mere seconds between being dazzled and the impact and whether or not that would have given him time to decelerate is open to question. It is not clear whether the road was so twisty from the details reported that he could not have spotted the cyclists earlier. Under British law the guilty should only be convicted of offences when there is no doubt. It is not clear from this report how fast he was driving, given that he could only see 20-30 metres due to the impaired vision through the windscreen. Without more detailed information it is not possible to judge accurately whether the penalties against the driver are appropriate for the offence.

Perhaps more details were presented in court and were available to the jury, perhaps not. Should the family of the victims wish to appeal for a tougher sentence, they should focus on the speed of the coach given the limited visibility of 20-30metres.

it's fast becoming a farse - why bother going to court at
all if there's a cyclist involved - we all know the mighty
vehicle driver will get off .... gggrrrrrrr

As for the defendant's claim he had "spent a quarter of an hour conducting standard checks on his vehicle before taking to the road" - yes of course he had! I bet there was no one to corroborate this?

hmm - agree with the above. There has been a rashj of cases where 'blinding sun' is deemed to be the cause, not the human operating the vehicle. Sounds like a lawyerly wheeze to me. As above, you are meant to stop but how often do we see drivers going at 60 or more in these curcumstances. I like the bit where he said he was not sure whether it was their fault or his, just maybe..it was who ever was not paying attention and was in a vehicle he could not see out of , now who was that?

Why is this man not being charged with careless driving at least. He was not aware of these cyclists on the road at any time. I don't know about you but, when get blinded by the sun whilst diving. The first thing I do is slow down to almost a stop, unless I can block it with a visor allowing me to make sure I'm not going to collide with anything. A very poor outcome.

Good verdict. Everyone knows that you cease being a viable human being if you get on a bike.

So it basically sounds like Judge and Jury have not applied the law correctly. Typical.

"As he continued on his way, however, he said that the sun became “blinding.”

"He added: “I checked across to the right, to the white line, to make sure I wasn’t driving into any oncoming traffic and then I looked back to my left."

According to the Highway Code, if you can't see where you're going, then stop.

Irresponsible git.

Quote:

... With sub-zero temperatures having caused his vehicle’s windscreen washer to operate incorrectly ...

I thought this was an offence in itself?