- 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
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Justice (Lonpicman, Wikimedia Commons)Lorry driver killed cyclist three months after his licence was revoked because of his eyesight
The lorry driver who hit and killed cyclist Josephine Gilbert in Derby was driving unlicenced and uninsured, having had his licence revoked 12 weeks earlier due to concerns over his eyesight and diabetes. Herbert Wyatt has been jailed for 45 months and banned from driving for five years and three months.
Josephine Gilbert, aged 25, was riding on the A52 Ashbourne Road close to the Markeaton Island roundabout when she was hit from behind by Wyatt on January 21.
The Derby Telegraph reports that she suffered catastrophic head injuries and died instantly.
In interview Wyatt claimed he had moved out to overtake and that Gilbert had “rode out into him”.
However, dashcam footage showed Gilbert riding consistently in a straight line and near the kerb.
“She was wearing bright orange cycling clothing, a pink and black cycling helmet and was riding straight,” said Lisa Hardy, prosecuting.
“There was no traffic coming towards her, visibility was good and he had 17 seconds of her in his vision to move out and overtake her if he wished. But the defendant effectively mowed down the deceased, driving over her in a straight line.”
Wyatt’s licence to drive lorries had been revoked in October – information he kept from his employer and which also meant he was uninsured.
He was said to have tried to deceive both the DVLA and his doctor over his eyesight.
Hardy said: “He reiterated repeatedly he’d had no issues with the DVLA, but when all of the checks were made it was clear that was not the case.
“Just the day before he had spoken to a clerk at the DVLA and admitted he knew he was unlicensed to drive large vehicles.”
Wyatt pleaded guilty to causing death by dangerous driving; causing death by driving a vehicle while uninsured; and causing death by dangerous driving while unlicensed.
Sentencing him, Judge Jonathan Bennett said: “The tragedy about this case was that it would have been avoided but for two features.
“One, you should not have been driving that vehicle and you knew that. Secondly, you should have seen her.
“I have had the misfortune of viewing the footage and you can see the deceased for 17 second after coming off the roundabout.
“She was wearing bright orange clothing, a pink and orange helmet, there was no traffic, nothing was coming the other way. You should have seen her but you failed to do so.
“You demonstrated a callous disregard for others culminating in this tragic incident, cutting short the life of Josephine and devastating her family.”
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- HLaB 26 min 5 sec ago
Some folk have them, some folk dont, it's the same as MTBs and nothing new. Some terrains will see them clog up or break. Having your front wheel...
- Hirsute 26 min 49 sec ago
The light in the phot ponits downward - surely it has a wedge that corrects this so that it is parallel with the road ?
- hawkinspeter 37 min 28 sec ago
Personally, I like reading about the new and/or expensive stuff even if I've got no intention of buying it. When I get the Cycling UK mag, I tend...
- hawkinspeter 3 hours 8 min ago
Dont forget Linford Christie
- Secret_squirrel 4 hours 21 min ago
I'm confused. What base layer isn't damp after a warm effort - it's the purpose of their entire existence. Wringing wet I might agree with. ...
- pockstone 7 hours 19 min ago
To add to the comedic potential, I really hope said chef was dressed in whites, including a toque blanche, and armed with a whisk and cleaver.
- mark1a 17 hours 21 min ago
Don't open at Edinburgh Fringe with that one.
- Oldfatgit 1 day 2 hours ago
I got something that'll beat you all .....
- chrisonabike 1 day 3 hours ago
Aggrieved motorists?...
- wtjs 1 day 5 hours ago
The fact that such self driving cars don't BMW/Audi drivers do exist is proof - as if it were needed - that Gods don't exist
Add new comment
40 comments
This reminds me of that case with the bin lorry driver in Glasgow, who it later transpired had "forgotten" to mention persistent blackouts when he applied for the job...
IMO what needs to happen here is that liability shouldn't end with the driver. (who should be banned from driving for life). The employer (even if its a contractual employer) should be held responsible for the drivers conduct as well and very large fines used to make them take their responsibilities seriously.
This stuff is truly frightening. You could be riding along quite safely and then you're gone. Somewhat sad to say I'm only really zwifting at the moment. This covid lark and has exponentially increased the amount of van/lorry driving arseholes on the road.
25, what an age. RIP.
Cases like this make me angry.
Eleven years ago I had a TIA (mini stroke) which left me with a blind spot in my vision. The doctors told me I shouldn't drive. I thought, and still think, that I'd be safe to drive. I also think that I'm biased and not the best person to make that decision. So I haven't driven since.
It's not a difficult decision to make to follow medical advice. If I can do it, why can't everybody else.
Some people understand ethics, responbility, the golden rule etc. Some people are selfish, ego-centric w#nkers...
So he took control of a lethal killing machine knowing full that he was already breaking the law by doing so and that's not manslaughter?
Jose was a dear friend of mine, she saved my life once by just talking to me into the early hours. Nothing will ever bring her back, but I hope that Karma gets this guy, if not something else and he doesn't live long enough to get behind a wheel again. (this was heavily edited to try and keep it civil)
See my posting - get in touch
As a diabetic myself, and not very good at it, if it is affecting his vision you'll be glad to know it will affect his sleep, cause him pain, make him struggle to fight infections, heal slowly etc. So karma is already at play.
BTW, this isn't me having any empathy, it's a cruel illness but he's ended someone's life at 25 years young, disgusting!
Professional drivers should be required by law to show a valid license to their employer once a month if the current system can be sidestepped so easily.
Yep - I hope the Health and Safety Executive is all over this case like a rash.
Or the region's Transport Commissioner.
The employer is already expected by law to record & check licenCes
I look forwards to the Manslaughter by Corporate Neglect case.....
At some airlines, the pilots' licences and medicals are checked before every single flight. It surely wouldn't be such a hardship to do this for anybody getting paid to drive?
It's a horrendous case. The penalty could certainly be a lot tougher, though that wouldn't bring back the victim. In a case like this in which his eyesight is unlikely to improve, a lifetime driving ban would surely be appropriate.
My sympathies are with the victim's family. She was only 25.
If a lorry driver has has licence revoked surely the relevant authority at least inform the current ( or last known) employer. It surely can't be left to the driver to tell the employer ?
I suppose no one will employ him now as a driver even if he feels he can get back on the road.
The DVLA would need to keep details of current employer, I don't think they do this.
It shouldn't be necessary...
The LGV is driven with a vocational licence, (Class C or E) issued by the Traffic Commissioner and regulated by DVSA, it is unclear from the reports whether the DVLA has revoked the Class B licence, or DVSA revoked the Class C/E, with a question of communication in this respect.
Every 5 years (every year after age 70) a vocational licence holder MUST have a medical, which they usually obtain from their own GP, and paying for this directly. However with the sedentary nature of this work drivers are prone to suffer from heart conditions, and diabetes, the specialist tests for these conditions normally require a GP referral as most GP surgeries are not equipped for this. The medical form is then sent by the driver to DVLA to rebew their licence - there is no formal requirement to report this to the 'employer' (who may be a single operator or an agency supplying drivers). By contrast my neighbour is a commercial airline pilot, every 6 months he MUST have a medical, but it can only be carried out by a CAA registered medical centre ... there are 2 in Scotland .. and the results are sent directly to CAA and his employer.
Finally there is the question of the operator - with this death a direct reprise of the killing of #EilidhCairns and #NoraGuttmann by #JoaoLopes, in 2 separate crashes, and a trail of minor crashes (and sackings?) between them, because he refused to wear prescribed glasses. In too many cases the operator seems to fall short of deliveing due diligence, checking the the licence validity and medical status of these who driver their vehicles, both directly through asking the driver, and using services that can check with DVSA, plus company-organised medicals. One operator, following a minor crash after a driver fainted, put all their drivers through a gold-standard medical, and 30% had to stop driving, most only until remedial action on their fitness was delivered, but still a shocking indictment of the current system, reliant on a GP's surgery, which has to refer patients for specialist checks.
With the criminal prosecution now resolved, the inquest can proceed, and I'd hope that questions like these are asked and either answered at the inquest, or through a Section 28 report request by the coroner.
There remain two other details that should be addressed in the quest to learn lessons and remove or mitigate the factors that delivered this death
As in over 80% of fatal HGV cycle crashed, the victim's bike was hit from behind, a detail that in many cases they were not prepared for, and in comparing experiences with others who never seem to experience close passes at the rate of some regular reporters, we conclude that as motorcyclists, as well as cyclists, we've the embedded habit of using the 'lifesaver' look, over the right shoulder, always aware of who's coming up behind, and acting accordingly. For self preservation, this has to be a key message to all road users, even a car driver hit from behind by a truck can be in serious trouble...
Once hit by a truck a pedestrian ir cyclist goes down, and with the gap between the cab and road on many 'macho'-trucker vehicles over 40 cm without the lifeguard(s) (a clue in that) fitted to trams and trains, the victims are helpless and in line to be crushed under one or more 8-10 ton axles. This does not need to happen, as flexible and retractable 'under-run' protection can be fitted to almost every truck to push a victim clear of the wheels, and the construction trucks, used for 99% of the time on flat paved roads do not need to be N3G off-road specification, N3 is easily sufficient, and the gap under the cab can be 18-20 cm which - I can assure you is very hard to slide under
Questions like this need to be asked at every inquest so that a growing file of reports cite the lack of the same action, process, or a common detail of road design, was an avoidable factor in causing these deaths.
Work I've done on Vernon Place (2 identical fatal RTC in 5 years - now a left turn ban) and North Greenwich (2 totally identical RTC, 8 weeks apart, the first serious, second fatal) with a damning litany of incompetent and expunged signage & speed limits, and an unfinished pedestrian crossing recorded here https://visionzerolondon.wordpress.com/2016/01/10/north-greenwich-fatal-... are but the tip of the iceberg. I'd love to do more, and have been frustrated to let several inquest reports get through which might have been better concluded (including Venera Minakhmetova, Peter van de Bulk, Roger de Klerk, Lucia Ciccioli), and having a long haul - 2 years - to close down the operator whose lax standards saw 2 cyclists killed on the A30 in Cornwall, with no challenge to their client for failing to pick this up.
Whew, that's a massive amount to digest, thanks for the detailed response!
Just to be clear I wasn't saying that there wasn't a need, only that the DVLA /DVSA don't currently do so (to my knowledge), and in an ideal world (yes, I know....) the driver should have come clean, and it was part of his criminal culpability that he didn't
I know that my company do active licence checks every 12 months with our van drivers - not sure how the process works for the LGV heads.
Thanks for that detailed, informative post.
I've heard this before on the headphones argument - not sure what we are meant to do with vehicles travelling from behind. Obviously before moving to turn right etc. you look and prepare but riding in a straight line?
On a motorbike you don't have the differential between speed so can scan your mirror every so often and be likely to see the same car/lorry that has seen you and adapted. On a bike you'd spend more time looking backwards than forwards.
I hate the 'self preservation' stance - the key message shouldn't be that a victim could have predicted that the driver of tonnes of metal deliberately deceived their employer and then drove straight at them and they could have somehow folated in the air above said vehicle!
Your employer can ask you for permission to be notified of infringements or restrictions but can't get them without, GDPR and all that. But a reputable firm will do this anyway as a condition of employment if driving is part of your duties. Ours (sort of local authority) does, but LGV drivers are held to higher eyesight standards too, so it's possible a driver could arrive at work in a car perfectly legally but shouldn't drive a lorry. A less responsible firm could have this oversight, it will affect their operators licence (and with it their ability to run a transport firm) though, so it's in their interest to keep tabs on drivers. None of this excuses Wyatt in any way whatsoever though.
Care to post a link to that GDPR statement? That sounds like an excuse. GDPR has plenty of provisions for lawful use of PII without employees consent and the need for an employer of a driver to know is almost certainly one of them.
None of this excuses Wyatt in any way whatsoever though.
Yes, this b****** Wyatt deserves to be put away for more than the 20 months or so he'll serve before they decide to let him sit about at home instead.
To kill someone and lie,claiming you pulled out to overtake but she did it to herself by pulling out into your path...Lower than a snakes belly.Ride on Josephine
Evidently he could barely see and he was not allowed to drive. Surely he can be charged with a more serious offense? Possibly a non traffic related one, such as manslaughter?
The sentence is way lenient!
Around 60 years ago the law was changed to create 'soft' charges for drivers, which were considered to be easier to convict against rather than the previous use of manslaughter, used for killing when any other machinery is involved, and there is no mens rea to deliver the case for a murder charge
A campaign to restore the charge of manslaughter might be appropriate?
I would question whether someone operating a motorised vehicle on the public road without a relevant license should be considered a 'driver'.
A campaign to restore the charge of manslaughter might be appropriate?
Not 'might'! Of course this should have been a manslaughter charge, as should have been the case with the recent case of 'cutting corner, killing cyclist, illegal darkened windows, no MOT' (hope I got all that correct). The problem we have is that the police and CPS don't consider dead cyclists as equivalent to other people who have been unlawfully killed.
Pages