- 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).jpgDriver believed cyclist run over by another motorist was “a black bin bag”
A court in Scotland has heard that a driver who saw a cyclist who had fallen off his bike was “a black bin bag” just before the rider was run over by another motorist.
Post Office worker William Hicks, aged 39, admitted careless driving at Glasgow Sheriff Court in connection with the incident on 6 February 2019 on Fulton Street in the Glasgow district of Anniesland, reports the Daily Record.
The victim, Brian Shields, spent three weeks in hospital after sustaining multiple injuries when Hicks ran him over in his Volvo.
Mark Allan, prosecuting, said: “He failed to see Mr Shields lying on the road and drove over him.
“Mr Shield’s body passed underneath Hicks’ car. He then stopped after the collision.”
Describing Mr Shields’ injuries, he added: “He sustained a number of fractures on his vertebrae, bruised ribs and cuts and was released from hospital after 20 days.”
Paul Nelson, representing Hicks, said: “The driver on the opposite side of the road suspected Mr Shields was a black bin bag, but it turned out to be a person.
“No one thought it was a human being,” he added.
Sentencing Hicks, Sheriff Alan MacKenzie said: “There was someone on the road and you drove over that person.
“I recognise it wasn’t obvious to you or anyone there he was a human being.”
Hicks was fined £715 and had his driving licence endorsed with eight penalty points.
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
- BIRMINGHAMisaDUMP 1 sec ago
'What they are trying to do is make a Holland of us. It’s one of those woke agenda schemes.”. LOL 😂
- BIRMINGHAMisaDUMP 6 min 42 sec ago
They still have all those brexit benefits they can brag about.
- timmyotool 57 min 12 sec ago
The only gilet I'd buy would be the ultra packable type, and I've not seen anything lighter (sub 40g) than the sportful ultralight. That's now...
- marmotte27 2 hours 32 min ago
Don't forget, each of these places is a life hazard.
- VeloUSA 5 hours 8 min ago
It seems what you're searching for is a USB Micro to USB Type-C.
- Owd Big 'Ead 7 hours 11 min ago
Shetland Islanders must be a right bunch of Jessie's these days. The total population of the islands is less than 23,000 and Lerwick where the...
- ajuk.uk@gmail.com 7 hours 26 min ago
The same author seems to show something that looks like a shared space in his peice about the 85th percentile speed. However rather than an fully...
- imajez 9 hours 30 min ago
It should be noted that socialism doesn't prevent folk from starting or running their own succesful busineses. It's about making sure no-one get...
- ktache 10 hours 22 min ago
London does seem to exist, making it REAL, and also seems to be part of the WORLD, it is not a figment of someone's imagination, so by being there,...
Add new comment
38 comments
A black bin bag? clearly not wearing high viz.. cyclist at fault.
How does this fit with rule 126 "Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear."?
Doesn't this automatically imply if you drive over something that you couldn't identify correctly as being safe, then you were going too fast for the conditions.
Unfortunately it's a "should" rule so probably not enforcable. In the German traffic code (StVO) a similar rule is the fundamental catch-all rule right at the beginning (paragraph 3).
Oh, that one's entirely optional. Didn't you get the memo?
I suspect that only people who take an interest in driving would know that. Go on any advanced lesson on YouTube, and that's one of the first things mentioned.
By the way most people drive, they're also unaware of this....
I never understand why drivers would drive over an object even if it was a bag.
"A court in Scotland has heard that a driver who saw a cyclist who had fallen off his bike was “a black bin bag” just before the rider was run over by another motorist."
Needs work. This says that "a driver..." "was 'a black bin bag'..."
Yes, badly constructed sentence. I had to read it twice to understand what was being said.
So now the standard defence to driving into or over a cyclist, if claiming that you could or did not see them is untenable, is simply to say that yes, you saw them but assumed they were a bin bag? At what point is a driver actually held to account?
I would've thought that if a driver admits that they were unable to identify items on the carriageway when driving, then surely they aren't fit to drive and should surrender their license? You have to have sufficiently good eyesight (with corrective glasses if necessary) to legally drive, so why is it considered a defense to declare that you can't see so well?
This is the point I don't understand - how do they not incriminate themselves when they say, by way of defence, that they could not see well enough to drive safely?
Well, there is precedent for the defendent saying they thought that the cyclist was a flying sack of potatoes and their being found not guilty...
Because flying sacks of potatos in the road are much more likely than cyclists being in the road.
I'm also baffled as to how saying you're eyesight isn't good enough to identify a human being in front of your vehicle so you ran them over is a defence and not an instant admission of guilt and culpability.
It was the witness who made the bin bag comment not the driver.
But the defence heavily implied that the driver thought the same.
I suspect that it's more likely that Hicks' car passed over Mr Shields' body...
Ditto. Given that this was the prosecution, why are they indulging in victim blaming? This is the same thing as "Cyclist was in collision with...." when they've been struck by a car driven by an incompetent driver.
I have a very simple mantra when it comes to driving, don't deliberately drive over anything that isn't made of either tarmac or steel (i.e. manhole covers and the like). Cans, bottles or a McWrapper I'll avoid or they go between the wheels. A cardboard box, blowing paper let alone black bin bag, I'd drive around those. It's not that I assume there's body in the box or bag (tho' some sad people do dump unwanted kittens that way), but I don't want something either wrapped around the bonnet, trapped underneath the car, or worse, flying up and obscuring my vision.
The key detail missing from this report is what time the incident happened, why has that been left out of the report? If this was during the day then there was no permissible defence whatsoever and a more serious charge should have been brought against the offender. If it happened at night, it does still not provide a fair defence as you drive according to the conditions, but it saves the justice system looking like a complete joke.
As others have stated, the victim will suffer the consequences of their injuries probably for the rest of their life, whereas the offender suffers some short term inconveniences, not fair justice in my opinion.
If he was wearing all black (much like a lot of cycling gear reviewed here) and it was the dark of night it would've been harder to see him but as others have said - no good reason to drive over anything that is large and lying in the middle of the road.
The helpful thing would've been to stop and move the bin bag (or whatever) out of the road.
“He sustained a number of fractures on his vertebrae, bruised ribs and cuts and was released from hospital after 20 days.”
Terrible ;-(
Heal well and fast.
That's truly disgusting. This cretin almost killed someone but is allowed to drive home in the "weapon". Whereas the victim spends 3 weeks in hospital and no doubt will suffer consequences for a very long time.
Justice?!
As per usual it's the whole "proceed regardless" approach to driving. Whatever you do, don't slow down or stop to check it's safe to proceed...
Reminds me of a jerk in a Range Rover who hit and killed a 30 year old man in Shrewsbury. The driver, Richard Carver-Richards, "assumed he had hit a cone from the roadworks" and carried on driving, even though the victim had been projected onto the windscreen and over the top of the car.
The Police wanted to bring charges of death by careless driving and failing to stop but the CPS decided not to prosecute.
That's a description of the policy chosen by many drivers on narrow lanes - "I'll just keep going, the cyclist / pedestrian will have to stop and move onto the verge because I don't want to stop my vehicle."
Happened to me this morning. Happens to me great deal, in fact.
That is simialr to the one I was thinking about. A tramp was run over by a driver who was following the car in front but it was dark and she thought it was a black sack/cardboard box.
I never could find the original news article
A tramp was run over by a driver who was following the car in front but it was dark
The recent case near Aberystwyth shows that it doesn't matter whether it's light or dark, there always an excuse the law mostly accepts for driving over someone, especially a cyclist, in the road. That was a suspended sentence and a joke driving ban.
I went through a pinch point that I had reached, assuming that an oncoming car which had slowly turned off a mini roundabout would see me and grant me priority.
Instead, the driver continued. And was so very worried about the narrowness of the pinch point that he took both hands off his steering wheel to sarcastically slow-clap me as he passed me...
Nice gesture.
Most drivers I meet in those situations some to be too determined to grip the steering wheel and plough on through regardless of the obvious obstruction. And they wonder why they sometimes get a one- or two-fingered salute...
Brought a smile to my face Brooksby!
Something very similar happened to me a few days ago. Van driver raises both arms in a massive shrug, as tho' to say 'Why have you got right of way?'
When I had right of way
“No one thought it was a human being,” he added.
Isn't this the whole ethos of the criminal justice system when it comes to cyclists?
Given I've been called a "cockroach of the road" on multiple occasions, is it any wonder drivers don't recognise cyclists as human?
Are you a cockroach?
Pages