- 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
Statue of Justice, Old Bailey (licensed CC BY 2.0 on Flickr by Ronnie Macdonald).jpgLorry driver killed motorbike rider moments after making illegal overtake of cyclist
A lorry driver who killed a motorcyclist moments after making an illegal overtake of a cyclist has been convicted of causing death by dangerous driving.
Winchester Crown Court heard that Lucian-Sorin Todor, aged 52 and from Waterlooville, drove away from the scene of the crash on the A32 at Warnford on 19 June 2019, reports the Hampshire Chronicle.
The drivers of two oncoming cars were forced to swerve onto grass verge as Todor overtook the cyclist despite the road being marked with double white lines.
Motorcyclist Jack Burgess, 22, fell from his motorbike and sustained fatal injuries when he was struck by the wheels of Todor’s lorry, passing away in hospital the following day.
The driver was using a mobile phone with a Bluetooth earpiece at the time of the crash, and continued his conversation for two minutes afterwards before departing the scene, carrying on the call for a further half hour.
Giving evidence at the trial Liam Creighton, who witnessed the crash, told the court: “I said to him ‘you’ve had an accident, you’ve got to pull over’.
“The bloke just walked up the side of the lorry, didn’t go no more than halfway up the trailer and just said ‘no, no’.”
In a statement made to police after his arrest, Todor insisted he was not to blame for the crash.
“I do not believe I caused the accident,” he said. “I am extremely sorry that someone has died but I do not believe it was caused by me. If I thought I was involved in an accident I would not have left.”
He also claimed that he had not seen the cyclist until the last moment, although a police collision investigator said that the rider would have been visible for nine seconds.
Dashcam footage also revealed that earlier that day Todor had made a similar illegal overtake on a cyclist at the same location, which is close to the depot of the company where he worked as an agency driver.
Todor had pleaded guilty earlier this month to causing death by careless driving, but denied the more serious charge of causing death by dangerous driving. The jury at his trial last week convicted him by a 10-2 majority.
Todor will be sentenced at a date yet to be set once pre-sentencing reports have been compiled, with Recorder Angela Morris telling him: “This is a very serious matter and there is only one inevitable sentence at the end of this.
“You must understand, Mr Todor, that there is only one sentence here, it is likely to be a substantial sentence,” she said.
“I have not made up my mind up as to the extent of that at this stage, that is for another day after these reports are prepared.
“As part of that it is obviously important that you provide to your legal team any information that you wish me to consider on your behalf when I consider the issue of sentence.”
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
- hand0j1n 6 hours 48 min ago
Hopefully the new device is a big success, but wahoo do have a lot work to do in terms of convincing that their quality control has improved. ...
- chrisonabike 5 hours 38 min ago
Agree that the moaning comes from a place of priveledge and ultimately "if only there weren't so many other people driving"....
- Simon E 7 hours 23 min ago
Have added some clarification....
- Simon E 7 hours 32 min ago
I was tempted to try Galibier gloves but opted for Endura Freezing Point from LBS last year. Not cheap (£60, I think). I'd prefer a shorter cuff...
- Simon E 8 hours 10 min ago
I can't wait that long! Here's a series that any good vlogger / 'grammer would surely recognise....
- Simon E 8 hours 19 min ago
At 2.30pm on Saturday a small hatchback car "came to rest on its side in a precarious position" near the hamlet of Ratlinghope on the west side of...
- IanMK 8 hours 56 min ago
I do wonder if Highway Planners and Councils understand all the implications of putting in traffic calming measures. They certainly take no...
- Oldfatgit 9 hours 15 min ago
How long before some waste of DNA complains about them on the footpath ... or for Grimsby [and the other shit-tips] to ban them ...
- mattw 10 hours 4 min ago
I've only just spotted this....
- Another_MAMIL 10 hours 28 min ago
I also liked Polartec NeoShell and was disappointed it was discontinued. Polartec RPM looks similar, but it's unclear how NeoShell and RPM compare....
Add new comment
51 comments
They said 30-40 though. You will still get overtaken if it is only a 30 or 40 and it could be a 50.
I get overtaken in a 30 when doing 28-32
I get overtaken in a 20 when doing 25-30...
I only get up to that as it is downhill !
Same!
bike in front, they can only see the bike which they must pass, cannot see the car in front of the bike, oncoming traffic, traffic lights ahead on red OR their own speedo. Only the bike which they must be in front of, as toad of toad hall is not to be delayed.
cyling at the speed limit should be banned as it "forces drivers to break the speed limit to overtake."
I had that in the hill I go quick on. Overtaken by a van driver when I was about 24-25. Van driver then tailgates driver1 and I now catch up the van and stop pedalling. meanwhile driver2 decides they must overtake me into a few car lengths gap between me and the van. Because 'bike'
Fortunately they woke up at the point they crossed the centre line and realised there were 2 vehicles in front of me doing the same speed as me.
If you were riding (somehow) at 60 mph you would still get motorists (trying to) overtake you. Because, "cyclist", innit?
I'd much rather motorists gave cyclists enough space when overtaking AND waited until it was safe to overtake. I regularly get overtaken by drivers risking a head-on collision with something approaching around a blind bend or a blind summit, because they MGIF and can only choose whether to endanger the cyclist or an oncoming road-user; waiting to overtake safely isn't an option. I have also nearly been hit by an oncoming driver overtaking another cyclist on a blind bend - whilst giving the other cyclist plenty of room, they didn't consider that there could be anything coming the other way.
I had someone do this while there was a speed camera van on the side of the road a couple of weeks back. I stopped and knocked the van door to say I had corroborating footage only to be informed by the officer running the van that it's not illegal at all under any circumstances as he'd looked it up before his shift, I quoted the relevent rule number, he told me I was awkward and argumentative and slammed the door
Not much hope really is there
I realise we've only got a summary of the details here but, on the face of it, it looks like a pretty clear cut case. The fact that there were two members of the jury that obviously didn't feel that this was dangerous driving says a lot about why it seems to be so hard to get a conviction for that offence in other cases.
2 members of the jury looked at the overwhelming evidence AND STILL thought he was innocent.
#roadjustice
They didn't think he was guilty of 'causing death by dangerous driving' that does not mean they thought he was innocent. It could easly mean they thought he was guilty of a lesser offence but the higher one was not beyond reasonable doubt.
But we all know that even taking someone to court on 'causing death by dangerous driving' is an achievement.
If the driver had been driving a car there would have been more than two. Daeth by dangerous charges only stick for HGVs, drug/drunk drivers and foreigners.
Because multiple drivers on the jury know that they pass cyclists despite the double white lines and they 'know' that they are safe drivers. Therefore the accused driver can't be dangerous.
This is the current problem in a nutshell. Juries are allowed to decide what they personally think is careless or dangerous, based on their subjective experience and opinion of reasonable driving. Some jurors clearly think some illegal driving can be reasonable.
It's long past time that it was moved to a more objective definition. Given that you are supposede to know the Highway Code rules to drive. It could be defined on the number of Highway Code rules broken, adjusted for the outcome. With deathnor serious injury automatically up for dangerous, unless mitigation can be found.
Maybe jurors in such cases should need to pass the Highway Code test.
It's been said before, and I think by police officers, that basing it on a Fail on a driving test wouldn't be unreasonable, careless on an minor fault, dangerous on an serious fault.
I'm guessing that killing another road user would result in a fail...?
@SimonM/road.cc staff.
I think there is a missing NOT in this sentence from the context.
"In a statement made to police after his arrest, Todor insisted he was to blame for the crash."
I do hope that the "one inevitable sentence" isn't a three month ban and a paltry fine!
He'll probably get a few years plus a driving ban, going by the sentencing here...
https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/liverpool-news/cowardly-driver-who-...
(40 months + a ban for death by dangerous driving and leaving the scene on top of 8 previous convictions for things)
Let me help there: "M'lud, being deprived of my licence would bring financial hardship, so I request that I be allowed to continue to drive albeit my licence be endorsed with 12 + n points, pretty please."
"M'lud" at a female judge? Bad move.
Pages