Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

Lorry driver admits killing Boris Bike rider Claire Hitier-Abadie

Driver will be sentenced for causing deth by careless driving of French mother

A lorry driver has pleaded guilty to killing Claire Hitier-Abadie as she cycled on a Boris Bike near Victoria in London.

Alan Warwick, 61, of Rayleigh, Essex, admitted causing her death by careless driving at Southwark Crown Court this week.

Claire Hitier-Abadie, who was 36, was killed on February 19 last year while riding a Boris Bike when Warwick, whose vehicle was involved in Crossrail works near Victoria Station, struck her.

The French national moved to London in 2014 from Paris, with her husband and two children.

The collision in Bressenden Place was just a few metres from the spot where Katharine Giles, 35, was killed by a left-turning HGV in April 2013.

It was the second fatal Boris Bike collision in London. In July 2013 Philippine De Gerin-Ricard, 20, who was also French, died in Whitechapel.

Witnesses at the time reported seeing Ms Hitier-Abadie’s bicycle crushed beneath the truck's wheels.

A colleague of Mr Abadie wrote on Twitter at the time: "Absolutely devastated. My colleague's wife was killed while cycle commuting this morning, crushed by a lorry.

"The boss came over to tell us as we all work on an open floor. It's awful at work. Who does her husband hug and cry with?"

Warwick will be sentenced on April 18.

Add new comment

11 comments

Avatar
dougie_c | 7 years ago
0 likes

French cyclists in London! They probably died assuming that UK law would impose strict liability on the user of the more powerful vehicle, as it does at home. Plus, French police have no hesitation in arresting a driver who's at fault in a serious collision and/or removing a driving license on the spot. French courts often impose lengthy driving bans rather than continuing the initial detention, which seems the appropriate sanction.
All this does seem to make motorists in France more circumspect around cyclists than their UK counterparts...
French Fordists are fighting back, of course, proposing separatist infrastructure to remove cyclists' right to the road, plus pressing for compulsory helmet laws to make cycling less attractive and convenient.
Interesting times! Et vive la différence!

Avatar
ironmancole | 7 years ago
1 like

Society has a perverted leniency towards motoring, it is unique.

Example? You can't move in the workplace or do anything with a child if it's even remotely 'dangerous'.

Friends adopting two young boys had their home assessed at the early stages and 'dangerous' things were highlighted, which were to be made 'safe'.

Society is arguably paralysed by the fear, not always justified, of something 'dangerous' happening to them...we quickly sue for the most trivial of injuries, most of which actually are true accidents.

Then comes the car. The motoring industry spends billions drumming into the buying public about how powerful, responsive, intelligent their latest car is. This is a 'true drivers car' and all that crap, an extension of your soul.

Impatient numpty then runs out of skill and inserts his car into another human being, stealing their life in an instant and sentancing an innocent family to years of grief and then anger when the justice system inevitably makes a mockery of a life.

'Dangerous' suddenly vanishes. I'm sorry but anything anyone does that results in the taking of life is nothing but dangerous is it not?!

Do ANYTHING that hurts let alone kills and try arguing it wasn't dangerous and you'll go down in flames. Now, use a car and kill and you immediately have the legal system offering you the potential for having dangerous diluted to something that is merely 'careless'.

Yes I did carelessly stab someone with my knife. Yes, I did carelessly fracture a skull with a bat. Yes, I did carelessly leave that live electrical cable dangling next to the bath. 

It doesn't wash.

Yes, I did carelessly drive this intelligent, powerful, feels every emotion and bump, drivers machine into a fellow human being and take their life...

Now that, the court will buy and positively embrace. Suddenly it was the cars fault, poor old motorist just happened to be in the car when it all went wrong. It's the ultimate in avoidance of responsibility and unique to motoring. This is why the death and injury rates are so horrifically high...it just happened and no one meant to do it.

It's utter bullshit and until someone or maybe a group can challenge the obvious inhumanity and injustice extended to dangerous killers in their cars, not dangerous hammer wielding maniacs in a dark alleyway, then my life, your life, your families lives will remain at continued risk of being snubbed out in the most violent and arbitrary manner.

There must be a way to challenge the continued mindlessness of all this. Dangerous is dangerous, there should never be dangerous 'unless you were in your car' loopholes, which merely insult life and allow perpetuation of daily violence.

So...what's the angle to run with?

Should all killers start pleading carelessness in court on the grounds of equality with those killing in cars?! Why should killers be treated differently just because one used a car to kill and the other a crowbar?

Seriously, anyone have any ideas?

 

 

Avatar
ironmancole | 7 years ago
1 like

Another completely avoidable and tragic death. So, we move on to the 'punishment'.

Seems the driver has managed to negotiate the lesser of the two charges so that'll be something of a relief for him.  Little need to attend sentencing hearing with a toothbrush.

The CPS will be pleased as a conviction, irrespective of the fact it is neither punishment or deterrant, will recird their efforts as a success.

Bit like losing £1000 and then finding 50p enabling you to report that funds were recovered so all ok now.

Once again evidence that government and authorities consider road death to be a hilarious and inevitable side show.

We keep putting up with this slaughter for what reason again?!

 

Avatar
oldstrath replied to ironmancole | 7 years ago
1 like

ironmancole wrote:

Another completely avoidable and tragic death. So, we move on to the 'punishment'.

Seems the driver has managed to negotiate the lesser of the two charges so that'll be something of a relief for him.  Little need to attend sentencing hearing with a toothbrush.

The CPS will be pleased as a conviction, irrespective of the fact it is neither punishment or deterrant, will recird their efforts as a success.

Bit like losing £1000 and then finding 50p enabling you to report that funds were recovered so all ok now.

Once again evidence that government and authorities consider road death to be a hilarious and inevitable side show.

We keep putting up with this slaughter for what reason again?!

 

Because  most of the lawyers, judges and jurors drive themselves,  and are self aware enough to know that their own driving is frequently awful, and so find it easy to sympathise with the driver, and thus regard the usual 'one little mistake' as exoneration, rather than the admission of criminal incompetence  and negligence it really is.

Because most people in this benighted country are too idle to cycle, and don't  really care about injuries to people so unlike them.

Avatar
Must be Mad | 7 years ago
1 like

The headline is missleading - the driver has aditted 'Carless driving', which is hardly an admission of killing someone.

Another slap on the wrist?

Avatar
ron611087 | 7 years ago
3 likes

I remember when this happened, and the slew of accompanying opinion in the media about cylists riding up the inside of lorries.  All pre-judged. All prejudice.

Cyclists can only control the smallest part of the danger, and yet this is still the focus of effort by the authorities, and nothing is being done to correct the public prejudice.

Protected and segregated infrastructure, is the only way to eliminate both driver and cyclist error.

Avatar
brooksby replied to ron611087 | 7 years ago
2 likes

ron611087 wrote:

I remember when this happened, and the slew of accompanying opinion in the media about cylists riding up the inside of lorries. 

And that's the problem: there are all the stickers telling cyclists not to pass this vehicle on the inside, but nothing telling the vehicles not to place themselves dangerously close to the cyclists (eg. When approaching a red traffic light with cyclists waiting, the f-ing HGV needs to stay back...).

Avatar
bendertherobot replied to brooksby | 7 years ago
2 likes

brooksby wrote:

ron611087 wrote:

I remember when this happened, and the slew of accompanying opinion in the media about cylists riding up the inside of lorries. 

And that's the problem: there are all the stickers telling cyclists not to pass this vehicle on the inside, but nothing telling the vehicles not to place themselves dangerously close to the cyclists (eg. When approaching a red traffic light with cyclists waiting, the f-ing HGV needs to stay back...).

 

There is, it's written in the Highway Code. That it's ignored is the issue. It's interpreted as "open road overtaking" whereas the rule is basically give room wherever you are. 

Besides, if we're going down the sticker route where are we cyclists sticking them?

Avatar
ron611087 replied to bendertherobot | 7 years ago
2 likes

bendertherobot wrote:

There is, it's written in the Highway Code. That it's ignored is the issue. It's interpreted as "open road overtaking" whereas the rule is basically give room wherever you are. 

Precisely, In addition, rule 151 instructs motorists to be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on either side.

ASZ feeder lanes and cycle lanes explicitly guide cyclists past the left hand side of vehicles, and when they get killed or injured doing so, get blamed for it in the name of "common sense". It's a crazy fucked up system.

Avatar
brooksby replied to bendertherobot | 7 years ago
2 likes

bendertherobot wrote:

brooksby wrote:

ron611087 wrote:

I remember when this happened, and the slew of accompanying opinion in the media about cylists riding up the inside of lorries. 

And that's the problem: there are all the stickers telling cyclists not to pass this vehicle on the inside, but nothing telling the vehicles not to place themselves dangerously close to the cyclists (eg. When approaching a red traffic light with cyclists waiting, the f-ing HGV needs to stay back...).

 

There is, it's written in the Highway Code. That it's ignored is the issue. It's interpreted as "open road overtaking" whereas the rule is basically give room wherever you are. 

Besides, if we're going down the sticker route where are we cyclists sticking them?

I would so love for the police to have an Operation Safeway style crackdown: just a couple of days, but high publicity, when they would enforce the Highway Code in its entirety, no excuses, but aiming at motorists as well as cyclists, and handing out FPNs .

It would be hilarious.

Avatar
oldstrath | 7 years ago
4 likes

Another 'careless driving' case. Bizarre how we never see people convicted of 'careless knife use'. 

We don't  'think cyclists are special'. We know that motorists  are apparently  special though.

Latest Comments