Lorry driver who killed cyclist after rolling through give way said he was taught to "progress where possible"

Callous negligent drivers very often use 'blind spot' as an excuse after having injured or killed vulnerable groups through dangerous driving and, goes without saying, aided and abetted by corrupt anti-cylist cops, CPS and alike👎
Even if cops, compelled to take action, juries often take the killer driver's side and pronouce them not guilty, despite convincing evidence of negligent or dangerous driving.
And then, even if found guilty, judges often meter our outrageously weak punishments👎
Inversely, cyclists,.who on a very rare occasion become involved in a collision with a pedestrian, NEVER receive the same leniency👎

This is a multi purpose excuse to allow the killing of cyclists- just say you didn't see them. Almost as good as the Lancashire Constabulary All Purpose Excuse, to allow their Bone Idle TacOps (traffic) to avoid doing anything ever, which is that hitting the stationary cyclist (me) waiting to leave Sainsbury's, by cutting the corner and driving down the wrong side of the road was "only a momentary loss of concentration" and therefore no further action was required. Our big problem is Cyclist-Hostile Police! As for the CPS Dodge- they just come to an agreement over the phone that they can avoid effort together and do nothing.

Every vehicle has blind spots such as A and B pillars (but worst of all, mobile phones stuck to the windscreen obstructing the drivers view of the road ahead) so a responsible driver moves their body / head in order to check the places obscured when in their usual driving position. Didn't they teach the driver that aswell ? There should be an endorsement on licences for "Killed someone but got away with it" scenarios.

This really makes my piss boil.  Two moving objects on converging courses that remain on the same bearing to each other will collide.  Put another way - you will hit an object that remains 'hidden' behind an A pillar or sodding great mirror.  He rolled along, he didn't move his head to change any of the viewing points and he killed someone.  As a 'professional' (nothing professional about it) driver he should be jailed for gross ignorance.  He's supposed to be held to a higher standard, which is why he has a licence that needs medicals.

The CPS are drawing their pay under fals pretences again.  As a commercial operation, why no proescution for health and safety?  Whoever set that crane uo to fall over and kill someone is going to get several books thrown at them. Where's the differnence?

First who used the nomenclature A frame - you mean A pillar

Second who was the operator?  This must be reported for such crashes, as the operator here has to answer charges for allowing a driver with an expired Class C/E licence to drive the truck. It took me 21 MONTHS, working with CUK to nail the Drummonds for allowing a driver with no Class C licence to drive the truck that killed Alan Neve on High Holborn in 2013, in which time Hayley Drummond (previously a hairdresser?) had an operators licence, using the same depot (& same number of trucks) and a driver who went on to kill another cyclist at Chelsea Bridge.

Depending on the operator & their base, will determine which Traffic Area Office will take the case - please DM me or tweet via @BCCletts, as I've done a few of these (including Frys - whose sleep deprived driver working the Lidl contract night trunk Bristol-Penzance AND a day-shift as a mechanic ran down 2 cyclists on the A30 - that took 24 months, to ban Mark Fry, and AFAIK the inquest remains unconcluded) 

An 80 year old MUST take an annual medical, although this is only done with their GP, who generally takes a payment for this, but has no facility for specialist testing (after a crash, one operator sent all their drivers to a fully equipped commercial clinic - and 30% had to stop driving, until medical issues were addressed)

There remains an outstanding civil case, plus an inquest - I'm keen to track this, and if possible provide technical input

Mitsky is absolutely right. 'I didn't see' is as pathetic an excuse as 'I didn't look'.

I'd like to know if the scrupulous Mr.Dunn carried out an experiment to see at what point a driver travelling at 7.5mph would have had clear sight of approaching traffic, and how much time he would have had to react (i.e stop!).(Such an experiment would probably have been done as scientifically as the Alliston braking distance 'test' I suppose.)

Looking at the google maps picture it doesn't seem that a driver could possibly observe correctly both ways without stopping.

What was the Coroner's verdict? How can it not have been 'unlawfully killed'.

Very sad, RIP.

This is ridiculous. In principle, the driver went through the give way when it wasn't safe to do so.

Hence the collision and death. The get out clause of "I didn't see him." should constitute dangerous driving by way of not stopping and looking properly.

I'm not saying it is similar to my own incident (https://youtu.be/i96CaQEwuVk) but it shows a combination of bad vehicle design and driver awareness.

It seems daft to me that you can fail the driving test for driving too slowly. All down to the attitude that cars are there to get you from A to B as quickly as possible. We all know this is not the case any more. On my old commute my quickest time was cycling and cycling produced much more consistent travel times. The fact that I arrived soaking wet sometimes and usually sweating like a pig was the drawback. I just arrived a little early and had a shower. I was lucky that I had access to one and somewhere safe to store my bike. After my shower and a coffee I really felt ready to face the day ahead with relish.

The other drawback was my luggage carrying ability. I decided to stay late and get marking done rather than take it home. (I was a teacher).

Driving need a to be seen as Comfort, Convenience and Carrying. NOT Faster.

The onus was on the driver to check for and give way to vehicles and pedestrians; the comments by PC Dunn that he should have given way, if he saw the cyclist, are extraordinarily stupid - he didn't see the cyclist because he failed to take proper care and attention whilst in charge of a machine with the potential to kill people.

This would have resulted in a charge of dangerous driving causing death at the least in Australia.

Compare this with the Twitter thread on reporting bad driving where people seemed to think it was wrong.
As we know, if you want to murder someone, just use a vehicle and say you didn't see them.
Either the driver or the vehicle (or both) should not be in the road if they are utterly incapable of meeting the minimum standards.

It doesn't sound like there is any dispute as to the licence - a simple guilty plea will do thanks

There doesn't appear to be any dispute over who was driving or what the road rules or markings are- and reading this again, his statment to the Coronors court sounds like a guilty plea to a charge of Dangerous driving. Similarly there is no dispute that the impact caused the rider to be killed. so surely a guilty plea to Death by Dangerous driving

at this junction there are buildings obscuring the main road right up to the junction. if the lorry driver looked both ways several times as he approached at 7.5mph, no wonder he didn't see anything, his head must have been moving so quickly everything was a blur!

a bit of maths to work out how much time he had a view of the main road when travelling at that speed would be interesting.

it's also a concern that a big lorry should be using a narrow residential road. it's another good reason for modal filters, as it would prevent large vehicles emerging onto main routes from small side roads. there's a lorry in the streetview photos that looks like it has to move onto the wrong side of the road in order to make the turn.

this junction should at least be made a 'stop' and ideally a modal filter installed to prevent through traffic.

I suspect a lot of the issues with people going there but for the grace of god go I could be solved by mandating that if no one is found at fault (to the criminal standard) then the road must be closed until suitable safety alterations are made (and everyone involved in said upgrades has liability for repeat incidents).

Ok, so we probably can't make it every road, but could easily require this in 80+% of cases (and mandate it in a minimum %age of cases regardless to avoid the dead being blamed when they don't want to persue a driver). Could also do the same for death/serious injury by careless driving; if careless driving is enough to cause death then the road is not safe.

Once a people realize that allowing substandard driving to continue means they can't drive anywhere because the roads are shut for safety upgrades the criminal justice system might decide that it wants to maintain a better minimum standard for driving as shutting half the roads is clearly not acceptable.

Separately; with regards to the drivers paperwork; This should be fines for the driver and bigger ones for the party with the operators licence + automatic reporting to traffic commissioner and recording; if the operator has it happen several times then  require removal of the operators licence. Yes, people will forget paperwork, but there should be multiple levels of checks on this to ensure it isn't left to one person.

Quote:

The driver – whose licence had expired – explained that he had been taught not to stop at a junction if he thought the road was clear.

I doubt that. I was taught that if I though the road was clear to check again, until I knew it was clear. It's the difference between not seeing anything and seeing that there is nothing.

Jesus this is depressing.

I am starting to come to the decision that mandatory insurance for cyclists is a good thing. Why you ask?

Because in situations like this, the victim's family would have an 'interested' party lobbying the relevant parties for some level of compensation. And in doing so, these things would quickly get very expensive for everyone. 

As soon as the cost of killing a cyclist reaches a certain financial value, changes will be made. 

Just look at air crashes... the cost of an air crash is so high, large scale investigations take place each and every time, and measures to increase safety adn reduce re-occurance are taken. No one can afford the cost of a plane crash. 

As for the CPS, I get why they are taking no action...

The 'I was instructed to do what I did' argument will win over any jury it is presented to (unless it was a jury of 12 angry cyclists), so there is very little chance of a successful conviction.

Likewise with the licence. The serious ramifications of being convicted of the licence infringement would ironically save this chap again. Killing someone whilst driving illegally has to be a serious offence hey? and again I can see any juror thinking '"shit, I've made admin errors in the past, am I really going to fcuk this guys life for a mistake that could easily be done by any of us? Oh shit, wait, that reminds me, the address on my licence is wrong, better sort that tonight, tomorrow... well soon... 'not guilty M'lord!'"

Again... depressing. 

Anyone want to start a private prosecution? I'll chuck in a fiver.

This reeks of institutional anti-cyclist prejudice, in both the police and the CPS. It's disgraceful. 

The police are literally saying

a) it doesn't matter if a lorry driver doesn't see a cyclist, if they don't bother looking. It's only a problem if they look, see them, and run them over anyway.

b) It's OK to drive without a valid license.

This is proper killer driver Dr Helen Measures / Gail Purcell territory.

Just another cyclist sacrifice to the great god of motor vehicles, nothing to see here.

How the hell can breaking the law and causing someone's death not result in prosecution?  Especially when the driver didn't have a licence?

I don't give a damn what his training was, the law is clear:

Rule 171

You MUST stop behind the line at a junction with a ‘Stop’ sign and a solid white line across the road. Wait for a safe gap in the traffic before you move off.

Ignorance of the law is no defence; he should have been prosecuted and lost his licence.  Likewise, if it can be proved the people who trained him taught him to drive over a stop line without stopping, they should lose whatever accreditation they have, and be prosecuted too.

Given the failure of the Mick Mason private prosecution, I'm loath to suggest it, but if the Cyclists Defence Fund want to try again, they can count on me for few quid.