Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Compensation to family of cyclist killed by truck at Bow cut because he jumped red light

Payout reduced even though truck also ran red ight

The compensation payout to the family of a cyclist killed at London's notorious Bow roundabout has been reduced because he rode through a red light — even though the lorry driver convicted of causing his death by careless driving also went through the light on red.

Brian Dorling was the first cyclist to die on a cycle superhighway when he was hit by a tipper truck driven by David Cox on October 24, 2011.

His widow Debbie Dorling described the reduction in damages as "cruel" amd hit out at the justice system for not treating the families of those killed on the roads as victims.

The Evening Standard's Ross Lydall reports that Mrs Dorling, has secured a High Court settlement from the lorry firm McArdle Group and QBE Insurance.

But the £210,000 payout was cut from £330,000 because Mr Dorling had ridden through a red light, even though the driver had done the same, and later pleaded guilty to causing death by careless driving.

Mrs Dorling, 54, from Hounslow, said: “It’s not a windfall. [Brian] died aged 58. He would have retired when he was 65. It’s the amount of money he would have earned had he been alive, plus £11,200 because he did odd jobs around the house.

“It’s been docked by £120,000. I should have had £330,000. Because [Brian] broke the law, the amount of money I got was cut.

“These damages are cruel... The family of somebody who is killed on the road are not [classed as] victims. If he had been murdered or stabbed or shot, I would have been a victim. In law, Brian was the victim.”

Mr Dorling was an experienced cyclist who commuted daily from his home in southwest London to the Olympic Park in the east of the capital, where he worked as a quantity surveyor.

At the inquest into the death of Mr Dorling, the coroner heard that both the cyclist and the driver went through the red light just after it changed. Martin Porter QC, representing the family at the inquest, suggested that Mr Dorling had jumped the light to get away from away from the lorry.

Coroner Mary Hassall recorded a narrative verdict and described the design of the cycle superhighway at Bow as "an accident waiting to happen".

Mrs Dorling said she had received no counselling from Victim Support but had been supported by the charity RoadPeace.

“Nobody cares about the trauma and suffering,” she said. “It’s been a very difficult journey, and the journey still hasn’t finished.”

Lorry driver David Cox was given a six month suspended sentence last year with 100 hours of community service and a two-year driving ban.

John has been writing about bikes and cycling for over 30 years since discovering that people were mug enough to pay him for it rather than expecting him to do an honest day's work.

He was heavily involved in the mountain bike boom of the late 1980s as a racer, team manager and race promoter, and that led to writing for Mountain Biking UK magazine shortly after its inception. He got the gig by phoning up the editor and telling him the magazine was rubbish and he could do better. Rather than telling him to get lost, MBUK editor Tym Manley called John’s bluff and the rest is history.

Since then he has worked on MTB Pro magazine and was editor of Maximum Mountain Bike and Australian Mountain Bike magazines, before switching to the web in 2000 to work for CyclingNews.com. Along with road.cc founder Tony Farrelly, John was on the launch team for BikeRadar.com and subsequently became editor in chief of Future Publishing’s group of cycling magazines and websites, including Cycling Plus, MBUK, What Mountain Bike and Procycling.

John has also written for Cyclist magazine, edited the BikeMagic website and was founding editor of TotalWomensCycling.com before handing over to someone far more representative of the site's main audience.

He joined road.cc in 2013. He lives in Cambridge where the lack of hills is more than made up for by the headwinds.

Add new comment

45 comments

Avatar
mikeprytherch | 10 years ago
0 likes

Its sad as this poor guy died, but I guess if he had not of run the red light he would still of been alive, so he did contribute and therefore there has to be a reduction, that's the way the law has to work I'm afraid.

Avatar
KiwiMike replied to mikeprytherch | 10 years ago
0 likes
mikeprytherch wrote:

Its sad as this poor guy died, but I guess if he had not of run the red light he would still of been alive, so he did contribute and therefore there has to be a reduction, that's the way the law has to work I'm afraid.

May I be the first to say: What a total asshat of a comment.

If he had braked, the lorry would most likely have run him over. The lorry didn't stop, and I doubt very much the lorry ran the red because he saw the cyclist do it.

But then I know as much about the circumstances as you do.

Regardless, the article focuses on how it is the victim of the CRIME that has been effectively punished here. No, 'the law' does not need to work like this. People get compensation for doing all sorts of dumb / illegal things that have unforeseen circumstances, all the time. Where blameless children/spouses are concerned, they should not become financial as well as emotional victims.

The only winner here was the insurance company, and the message sent to the HGV operating community is that your culpability is lessened if you can prove your victim was in the wrong too. What's next - less compensation because you weren't wearing thermonuclear Hi-Viz and a F1 helmet?

If his kids had been in nappies and orphaned by this HGV's illegal actions, I suppose you'd be all for slinging them into a workhouse.

Avatar
truffy replied to KiwiMike | 10 years ago
0 likes
KiwiMike wrote:

If he had braked, the lorry would most likely have run him over.
....
But then I know as much about the circumstances as you do.

Yet you judge the original comment.  7

To me, what is really disgusting, is the paltry punishment handed down to the track driver.

Avatar
Bikebikebike replied to mikeprytherch | 10 years ago
0 likes
mikeprytherch wrote:

Its sad as this poor guy died, but I guess if he had not of run the red light he would still of been alive, so he did contribute and therefore there has to be a reduction, that's the way the law has to work I'm afraid.

I guess if you had read the article or had not posted this stupid comment, then you wouldn't look like such a cunt.

Avatar
rggfddne replied to Bikebikebike | 10 years ago
0 likes
Bikebikebike wrote:
mikeprytherch wrote:

Its sad as this poor guy died, but I guess if he had not of run the red light he would still of been alive, so he did contribute and therefore there has to be a reduction, that's the way the law has to work I'm afraid.

I guess if you had read the article or had not posted this stupid comment, then you wouldn't look like such a cunt.

I read the article and at no point it is contested that running the red light was a factor in his death.

In a court, that would not be enough, but here it seems like tacit admission that it was relevant, since if it wasn't - and contributory negligence was still awarded - that would be the first thing to complain about.

Moan about specifics by all means but the tone here seems to be alleging the principle of contributory negligence is wrong, because it worked out badly for them specifically. Sorry, but I disagree, and if that wasn't the intention then it was written poorly.

Avatar
Bikebikebike replied to rggfddne | 10 years ago
0 likes
nuclear coffee wrote:
Bikebikebike wrote:
mikeprytherch wrote:

Its sad as this poor guy died, but I guess if he had not of run the red light he would still of been alive, so he did contribute and therefore there has to be a reduction, that's the way the law has to work I'm afraid.

I guess if you had read the article or had not posted this stupid comment, then you wouldn't look like such a cunt.

I read the article and at no point it is contested that running the red light was a factor in his death.

Errr...

"Martin Porter QC, representing the family at the inquest, suggested that Mr Dorling had jumped the light to get away from away from the lorry."

I should think that suggesting his running the red light to avoid the lorry is contesting that running the red light was a factor in his death.

As I'm commenting again, I'd like to reiterate: mikeprytherch is a cunt.

Avatar
jacknorell replied to mikeprytherch | 10 years ago
0 likes
mikeprytherch wrote:

Its sad as this poor guy died, but I guess if he had not of run the red light he would still of been alive, so he did contribute and therefore there has to be a reduction, that's the way the law has to work I'm afraid.

Sounds like he would have been run over regardless.

Avatar
AyBee replied to jacknorell | 10 years ago
0 likes
jacknorell wrote:
mikeprytherch wrote:

Its sad as this poor guy died, but I guess if he had not of run the red light he would still of been alive, so he did contribute and therefore there has to be a reduction, that's the way the law has to work I'm afraid.

Sounds like he would have been run over regardless.

Why does it sound like that?

I agree with mikeprytherch, as sad as it is to acknowledge, he contributed to his own death and therefore the payout his family gets is less. Yes, it's extremely sad for his family, but why should he get a higher payout when he contributed to his own death? If he'd stopped at the red light and been runover, I'd be furious if his family weren't getting the full amount awarded.

Avatar
giff77 replied to mikeprytherch | 10 years ago
0 likes
mikeprytherch wrote:

Its sad as this poor guy died, but I guess if he had not of run the red light he would still of been alive, so he did contribute and therefore there has to be a reduction, that's the way the law has to work I'm afraid.

You did read the article? What a poorly thought through comment. This tragic case would still have happened regardless of stopping for the red or not. The driver appears to have been fully intent on jumping the light. The only protection would have been a bunny hop onto the footpath. I find it totally offensive that the insurance company has obviously pushed for contributory negligence and the judge has been swayed by their influence.

Edit: and how many of us have made the decision to jump a light and breath a sigh of relief as a vehicle roars past. And even if the lorry was turning to the left, the driver still would have noticed a cyclist ahead of him before he even hit the lights. And also if the light had turned red as the lorry went through, there had been ample time to stop due to the amber.

Avatar
userfriendly replied to giff77 | 10 years ago
0 likes
giff77 wrote:
mikeprytherch wrote:

Its sad as this poor guy died, but I guess if he had not of run the red light he would still of been alive, so he did contribute and therefore there has to be a reduction, that's the way the law has to work I'm afraid.

What a poorly thought through comment.

You expect a thought through comment from someone who has trouble distinguishing between "of" and "have"?  29

Avatar
zanf replied to userfriendly | 10 years ago
0 likes
userfriendly wrote:
giff77 wrote:
mikeprytherch wrote:

Its sad as this poor guy died, but I guess if he had not of run the red light he would still of been alive, so he did contribute and therefore there has to be a reduction, that's the way the law has to work I'm afraid.

What a poorly thought through comment.

You expect a thought through comment from someone who has trouble distinguishing between "of" and "have"?  29

Especially as they have no idea what Bow Roundabout is actually like:

http://youtu.be/CWbHw28AthQ
http://youtu.be/oT15kYXHxXI

Avatar
edster99 replied to giff77 | 10 years ago
0 likes
giff77 wrote:

Edit: and how many of us have made the decision to jump a light and breath a sigh of relief as a vehicle roars past. ..

I don't know the details of the accident and I don't pretend to.

But as for your comment : As far as I can remember, I have never made a decision to jump a light. Are you saying that it is frequently a good idea? If that is the case, are you also saying that there is never a downside - i.e a vehicle roaring past your front or rear wheel, or even t-boning you? I don't really understand your point.

Avatar
userfriendly replied to edster99 | 10 years ago
0 likes
edster99 wrote:

But as for your comment : As far as I can remember, I have never made a decision to jump a light. Are you saying that it is frequently a good idea? If that is the case, are you also saying that there is never a downside - i.e a vehicle roaring past your front or rear wheel, or even t-boning you? I don't really understand your point.

Sometimes you have a situation where t-boning is not one of the things that can happen. It depends on timing of the lights, the road layout, and other factors. In such cases it may be actually safer to get going before the light turns green, or not stop if it just turned red.

This has nothing to do with impatience, or deliberately flaunting the rules for the heck of it, but with safety when faced with a system that is tailored for motorised traffic only and ignores the needs of cyclists (sometimes fatally).

The default position of following the rules is perfectly fine. But don't do it at the cost of safety.

Avatar
edster99 replied to userfriendly | 10 years ago
0 likes
userfriendly wrote:
edster99 wrote:

But as for your comment : As far as I can remember, I have never made a decision to jump a light. Are you saying that it is frequently a good idea? If that is the case, are you also saying that there is never a downside - i.e a vehicle roaring past your front or rear wheel, or even t-boning you? I don't really understand your point.

Sometimes you have a situation where t-boning is not one of the things that can happen. It depends on timing of the lights, the road layout, and other factors. In such cases it may be actually safer to get going before the light turns green, or not stop if it just turned red.

This has nothing to do with impatience, or deliberately flaunting the rules for the heck of it, but with safety when faced with a system that is tailored for motorised traffic only and ignores the needs of cyclists (sometimes fatally).

The default position of following the rules is perfectly fine. But don't do it at the cost of safety.

Well, i'll take your word for that and I can kind of see the argument on an individual basis if you think something is coming up behind you and isn't going to stop - but that is for getting out of the way (if possible), not for going across a junction. I can't see it for starting off on a red light before it goes green - you don't know how soon its going to change.

My concern is that at a population level, this contributes to the normalising the jumping of red lights. I'm not putting the blame for that solely at the feet of cyclists,BTW. The long term effect is my concern, in the sense that the more that people do it, the more everyone else (cyclists, pedestrians, drivers, etc) will think it is OK, without taking into account the circumstances, even when it is justified. People doing it when it is not justified, which we've all seen, still has the same effect of 'normalising' the act of ignoring traffic signals. Considering the quality of driving (and some riding) we already see, that's the last thing we need. I guess it comes back to infrastructure nudging people into making bad choices.

Avatar
Leodis | 10 years ago
0 likes

Shocking.

Pages

Latest Comments