Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

“It’s not justice” – cyclist’s family reacts after driver who killed him walks free from court

John Crozier was given a community order after admitting causing the death of Robert Eaves

The family of a cyclist killed by a driver who walked free from court have said that the community order handed down to him is “not justice.”

John Crozier, 76, pleaded guilty to causing the death by careless driving of 42-year-old Robert Eaves in Trafford on 25 May last year, reports the Manchester Evening News.

On Wednesday, appearing at Manchester Magistrates’ Court on Wednesday e was ordered to carry out 100 hours of unpaid work and was banned from driving for a year. He will also have to pay a £95 victim surcharge and £85 costs.

In a statement read out to the court before sentencing, one of Mr Eaves’ daughters said: “My dad will never see me finish high school. He won’t even see my little sister finish primary school.”

Mr Eaves mother, Carol, described the sentence as a “joke.” Speaking after the hearing, she said: “He’s only got 100 hours of community service for killing my son.

“It’s not justice. We thought it would be something more. I think it’s an absolute joke. It’s an insult to the family and to justice.”

Crozier had worked as a lorry driver, but had to give up his HGV licence after losing an eye due to cancer.

His son-in-law, who was travelling in the vehicle, said that Crozier had been driving at a “slow and safe speed” but added that the sunshine was “dazzling.”

He said that he shouted a warning after spotting the cyclist, but Crozier struck the cyclist.

Emma Bracewell, defending, claimed that the driver would only have had four seconds to notice the cyclist and said he had suffered from “a momentary inattention.”

She also told the court that Crozier had decided he would not drive again following the fatal crash.

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.

Add new comment

33 comments

Avatar
squidgy replied to AlsoSomniloquism | 3 years ago
3 likes

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

The loss of the eye meant he had to stop being an HGV driver. I would argue that loss of depth perception / cone of vision when driving 1-2 tonnes of steel at speeds of 30mph onwards should be a loss of license or an extended test before being allowed out. 

When i temporarily loss sight in one eye , I was surprised that I didn't even need to inform the DVLA.    

I actually found it quite easy to adjust but it does require a higher level of concentration and continuous movement to cover the full view ahead. 

Avatar
ravenbait replied to AlsoSomniloquism | 3 years ago
4 likes

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

The loss of the eye meant he had to stop being an HGV driver. I would argue that loss of depth perception / cone of vision when driving 1-2 tonnes of steel at speeds of 30mph onwards should be a loss of license or an extended test before being allowed out. 

I only have one eye. Stereo vision is only useful within about 3-4m. Beyond that, everyone uses parallax anyway. You can even get an RAC racing licence if you are blind in one eye. It is entirely possible to compensate for the reduction in field of view. This is entirely because the driver failed to pay attention.

Avatar
brooksby replied to ravenbait | 3 years ago
2 likes

ravenbait wrote:

Loss of an eye by itself is not a valid reason to remove or refuse a driving licence. It's certainly not to blame for him hitting the cyclist. Failure to pay the attention required for operating heavy machinery in a shared public place is to blame.

That's right - it's just a flesh wound.

Pages

Latest Comments