“Distracted” lorry driver cleared of killing cyclist through dangerous or careless driving

What are the actual facts of the case and where are you getting these from ?

I read the Oxford Mail report. Whilst it puts in doubt death by dangerous driving, how a jury can find not guilty death by careless driving is beyond me.

50kcommute wrote:

Poor reporting of the actual facts of this case and the expert witness' stance. 

Really?  Provide some proof then!

And they spent just 3 hrs deliberating. 3hrs of their time was all that poor guys life was worth. Which is why I said I'd love to see a full transcript of that trial. Either the prosecution screwed up, the jury was full of boy racers, or there was more to the trial than reported here or in the Oxford mail.

Secret_squirrel wrote:

And they spent just 3 hrs deliberating. 3hrs of their time was all that poor guys life was worth. Which is why I said I'd love to see a full transcript of that trial. Either the prosecution screwed up, the jury was full of boy racers, or there was more to the trial than reported here or in the Oxford mail.

Hopefully it was not rhe case the jury was full of drivers triggered by recent press reports of cyclists taking over the roads.

Ride On wrote:

Horrendous result. Don't forget this was a jury trial. I cant help thinking the result is based on a lack of understanding by the jurors of what it is to ride a bike on a busy road. Perhaps even the thought that the cyclist shouldn't have been there, so somehow it was their fault. All the more reason for the highway code changes to be publicised and emphasised repeatedly until the culture changes.

Perhaps, and rather chillingly, it reflects that most drivers consider it reasonable to travel 350m between glances at the road ahead.

The issue was the audio played through the on board radio so there was doubt whether the phone was a distraction. What is questionable though was that would bring the charge down careless rather than dangerous. But the jury found him not guilty on both counts.

So, being flippant, you're allowed to drive over vulnerable road users just so long as you are not distracted at the time. That, and the fact that no jury of motorists will accept that listening to the radio is allowable as a cause of distraction, since they would be incriminating themselves. It makes you wonder why so many car audio systems mute the radio when you engage reverse.

Sriracha wrote:

It makes you wonder why so many car audio systems mute the radio when you engage reverse.

I think this should be a mandatory regulation. Unfortunately it's not. The car I've got at the moment does the opposite, if you put it in reverse, the camera takes over the screen and you can't turn off the audio or even adjust the volume!

Even worse. If you turn off the audio, the next time you start the car it comes back on again. Arrrghhh!!!! I've spent a while digging through the settings and there's no option to change it.

The other thing that should be regulated, is when mirrors fold in. The default for this car is they fold in when you turn off the ignition. So, before you open the door to exit the vehicle, you can't check the mirror for passing cyclists! Thankfully this can be altered to fold when you lock the car. But why the hell that isn't the default (or only!) option, I do not know.

HoarseMann wrote:

The other thing that should be regulated, is when mirrors fold in. The default for this car is they fold in when you turn off the ignition. So, before you open the door to exit the vehicle, you can't check the mirror for passing cyclists! Thankfully this can be altered to fold when you lock the car. But why the hell that isn't the default (or only!) option, I do not know.

I'm not even sure why they need to fold in at all, as far as I can tell it reduce the width of the mirrors by less than 50mm, and the body colour exterior is the expensive part, not the glass which is now being protected.

wycombewheeler wrote:

I'm not even sure why they need to fold in at all, as far as I can tell it reduce the width of the mirrors by less than 50mm, and the body colour exterior is the expensive part, not the glass which is now being protected.

Because folding them in is not designed to protect your wallet, it is designed to protect the part of the mirror that acts as the mirror. 

Jetmans Dad wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

I'm not even sure why they need to fold in at all, as far as I can tell it reduce the width of the mirrors by less than 50mm, and the body colour exterior is the expensive part, not the glass which is now being protected.

Because folding them in is not designed to protect your wallet, it is designed to protect the part of the mirror that acts as the mirror. 

And yet in 30 years of driving cars, I've never had a car mirror damaged while parked up.

Is the perceievd risk other drivers accidentally hitting them (acknowledging that drivers skills are below what they think they are) or vandalism?

In fact if the percieved risk is drivers being stuck witout mirrors, it might well be cheaper to provide replacement mirror glass in the glovebox of new cars, than the additional motors and control gear to fold them in.

wycombewheeler wrote:

Jetmans Dad wrote:

wycombewheeler wrote:

I'm not even sure why they need to fold in at all, as far as I can tell it reduce the width of the mirrors by less than 50mm, and the body colour exterior is the expensive part, not the glass which is now being protected.

Because folding them in is not designed to protect your wallet, it is designed to protect the part of the mirror that acts as the mirror. 

And yet in 30 years of driving cars, I've never had a car mirror damaged while parked up.

Is the perceievd risk other drivers accidentally hitting them (acknowledging that drivers skills are below what they think they are) or vandalism?

In fact if the percieved risk is drivers being stuck witout mirrors, it might well be cheaper to provide replacement mirror glass in the glovebox of new cars, than the additional motors and control gear to fold them in.

You are lucky ... I have had to replace 6 in the same 30 years living in the same street with no off road parking (and none since I had mirrors that were easy to fold away). And no motors involved. 

There is also the "cars today are wider than they used to be and a considerate driver folds the mirrors to allow humans to fit between them in parking spaces" factor. 

Sriracha wrote:

So, being flippant, you're allowed to drive over vulnerable road users just so long as you are not distracted at the time. That, and the fact that no jury of motorists will accept that listening to the radio is allowable as a cause of distraction, since they would be incriminating themselves. It makes you wonder why so many car audio systems mute the radio when you engage reverse.

Yep, as long as you are not competant enough to see a road user with lights and reflectives, apparently you can escape a careless driving charge.

Prosecution - this driver is not competant to drive on the roads and it has led to a death

Defence - the accused is not competent enough for that to be the case.

Jury - well not guilty then

I think in this case a large part of it will be the location and time. It's unusual for a cyclist to be on a main A-road dual-carriageway in the early hours of the morning.

There seems to be a general acceptance of collisions on our roads if the circumstances are out of the ordinary.

This is wrong, because it's often unusual circumstances that are the reasons collisions occur. In other sectors, these unusual events are thought about and mitigated in advance.

HoarseMann wrote:

This is wrong, because it's often unusual circumstances that are the reasons collisions occur. .

No, it's still just shit driving. A driver looking where the are going should be able to avoid anything unexpected in the road ahead, be that 

• a broken down car
• a fallen tree
• a cyclist
• a badger crossign the road
• a UFO landed on the highway

I can't accept the driver was paralysed into indecisive inaction by the entirely unexpected sight of a cyclist in the road.

I agree. But if it wasn't for the fallen tree, then no collision would occur. People don't think they need to drive as if there's a fallen tree around the corner, but they should. I don't know why it's seen as an acceptable risk and unavoidable by a large part of society when it can be easily mitigated by the use of appropriate speed.

Recently in our town, a man who was lying in the road, was run over by a car. It was dark, but the road it occurred on is well lit. It's also a road where the 30mph limit is regularly exceeded. It will be interesting to hear if any charges are brought against the driver. There ought to be.

Some years ago a similar thing happened to me. There was a man lying in the road. But I was driving well within the speed limit and paying attention. I stopped, helped him up and gave him a lift home (he had a medical condition that caused frequent blackouts).