Delivery driver who hit cyclist and blamed low sun found not guilty of causing death by careless driving

As a (very) latecomer to this discussion, I would just like to add something that I read or was told about years ago; and I'm 69 now. 

Most car and van drivers are not looking for bicycles and cyclists; they are looking, or are at least on the look-out for, cars, vans and lorries. Subconsciously, they are aware of blocks of colour;  squares and rectangles of colour. The relatively thin, line-like appearence of a cyclist just doesn't register. I ride a bike, and have ridden motor-bikes. I have driven cars and vans and even small lorries a couple of times. 

I believe that all that one can do, as a cyclist on a road used mostly by motor vehicles, is to ride pretty darned defensively. Have some lights on; even flashing ones during the day, maybe clothing, thought the victim was wearing hi-vis, it seems. Almost assume that a car or van driver will not see one, unless one practically looks them in the eyes. One feels very protected inside a vehicle.

Having said all that, and appreciating that we ask juries to decide, it seems to me that the delivery-van driver and his defence was pretty callous: "a bang and the wing mirror was gone", "Impossible for the van to have hit the cyclist". Members of the jury; a human being died there; because of a collision with a van! Isn't that manslaughter?

Best wishes and may you ride safely.

"The jury also heard from Stuart Blackwood of Arc Investigations, an expert witness called by the defence, who produced a report into the incident and said that he did not believe Mr Morrison's van had struck Mr Cowie due to it being "physically impossible" for his bike to have remained upright, causing the black marks visible on the side of the van."

I wonder why he believes it was physically impossible for the bike to have remained upright? If you suddenly steer to the left (because your right shoulder and arm have been pushed forwards by a vehicle that has hit you from behind) without leaning into the turn, your hips are automatically going to shift to the right, and the bike will tip to the right. If there is a van right next to you, you will end up leaning on it. In such a situation it will be physically almost impossible not to remain upright. And it doesn't seem implausible that, as you and the bike bounce along the side of the vehicle, you might leave marks on the side of it.

Hmm, sun low in the sky at a certain time of day?

Who could possibly have predicted that?

And driven accordingly.

I remember a similar case from maybe 25 years ago when the same pathetic excuse was excused for the death of a cyclist (driver leaving a motoway slip road if my memory serves). No, sorry. The sun will be there, it does that on a regular basis and if you have to drive at a few miles per hour until it's safe to do so, then that's what you do.

Every single flippin' time.

I've become paranoid now when I'm riding into a very low sun, and try to avoid it.

Another terrible, terrible decision.

So it should really be 'Driver fails to see cyclist BECAUSE of hi-vis vest' . 
 

Does this mean we shouldn't wear hi viability clothing just in case it's too visable? 

This just makes no sense. Arsehole sentence, defence should never be acceptable 'I couldn't see'.. drive to the conditions, slow down or stop, it couldn't be more simple.

"being unable to see clearly" is one of the classes of 'Dangerous Driving' as per the law. 

IMHO one way to fix an awful lot of the issues would be to make court outcomes a mandatory part of the councils obligation to ensure infra is safe.

I.e. if the jury wants to claim that the driving was acceptable for a careful and competent road user then the council cannot also claim that the road is safe for a careful and competent road user. Therefore the road must be shut pending suitable alterations (allowing for emergency changes like drastically reduced limits with mobile camera van enforcement)

It shouldn't be possible to both argue the environment (road design) is safe AND that the driver is safe outside extreme conditions (i.e. something you see a few hours/year where we tell people not to drive unless critical) (which definately doesn't include low sun that lasts for hours/day for several weeks of the year)

"The sun glare was instantaneous – I heard a bang and saw the wing mirror was off," Mr Morrison told the court. "Just like that it changed – the sun hit my eyes, then there was the bang"

If the the impact came in the instant immediatly after the sun appeared then surely a careful and competent driver would have been aware of what was in the space they were driving in to as they should have been observing the road ahead 

"What's your defence for murder?"

"I killed him with a vehicle, and it was only a cyclist for fuck's sake. Not like it was a proper person or even an animal is it?"

"ah, of course. Off you go, now please don't use your car for a couple of weeks" 

perhaps its time for the "Death By" to be dropped from the court proceedings, the jury don't need to only assess the driving, if he is guilty of the caeless driving the "death by" is automatic and the sentencing then reflects that

Just had my language questioned at home until I read out the details.

The other drivers didn't kill him through luck then.

And it must be the first time ever that the driver had used this road.

Big question...was the sun behind the driver, and reflecting off the back of the jacket, or was the sun in front of the driver and obscuring the cyclist? Simple geography would determine which. If the former then absolutely no excuse. "I saw a big light in front of me and drove straight at it because I couldn't tell what it was". Why do courts fall for this utter bullshit time and time again?

Only this morning when i was out on my bike, I was very aware how low in the sky and bright the sun was, and it bothered me so much that drivers approaching me from behind may not be paying enough attention and may not see me, that I changed my route and got off the road onto the canal towpath.

I’ve driven this road many times . There is really no excuse . The trial summary is not yet available on line .

The flippant disdain in his answers, 'could have been the the sun bouncing off his hi-viz vest', and casting himself as the unlucky victim in the situation, 'the other drivers got lucky ... and it's me who is standing here today' are deeply troubling.