Driver 'dazzled' by sun who killed cyclist handed suspended sentence

Aberdeencyclist wrote:

A bit more context would help. Such as was this the first time the driver had been on the road, had he never seen a low sun before, was he wearing sun glasses as a prudent driver heading in to a sunset on a regular route would surely do? And  is there anything covering driving in to low sun / sun set or sun rise? Shouldn't there be instruction in driver training to have sun glasses ready for such occasions and use sun visors - which by the way aren't fit for such occasions as they don't come down low enough ( because otherwsie they'd cover bits of the windscreen if they did )  -so why can't car makers install extendable visors? They are available as after market items. There's no reason why HM Govt cannot learn from even one accident and amend driver tuition and speak to can makers about the inadequacy of sun visors for low, strong sun

Or they could just adjust their speed to the conditions.

Aberdeencyclist wrote:

A bit more context would help. Such as was this the first time the driver had been on the road, had he never seen a low sun before, was he wearing sun glasses as a prudent driver heading in to a sunset on a regular route would surely do? And  is there anything covering driving in to low sun / sun set or sun rise? Shouldn't there be instruction in driver training to have sun glasses ready for such occasions and use sun visors - which by the way aren't fit for such occasions as they don't come down low enough ( because otherwsie they'd cover bits of the windscreen if they did )  -so why can't car makers install extendable visors? They are available as after market items. There's no reason why HM Govt cannot learn from even one accident and amend driver tuition and speak to can makers about the inadequacy of sun visors for low, strong sun

If I can't see very well or I don't know the road, I slow down as required.
Perhaps this is no longer part of the driving test

Aberdeencyclist wrote:

A bit more context would help. Such as was this the first time the driver had been on the road, had he never seen a low sun before, was he wearing sun glasses as a prudent driver heading in to a sunset on a regular route would surely do? And  is there anything covering driving in to low sun / sun set or sun rise? Shouldn't there be instruction in driver training to have sun glasses ready for such occasions and use sun visors - which by the way aren't fit for such occasions as they don't come down low enough ( because otherwsie they'd cover bits of the windscreen if they did )  -so why can't car makers install extendable visors? They are available as after market items. There's no reason why HM Govt cannot learn from even one accident and amend driver tuition and speak to can makers about the inadequacy of sun visors for low, strong sun

Highway Code section 93.

"Had he never seen a low sun before" Fucking what? I've seen the sun most days for the past 37 fucking years, so obviously I'm way smarter than this 46 year old moron who isn't aware that looking right at it makes it hard to see.

Stop apologising for this shit.

cbrndc wrote:

Been there! Hit from behind by a car travelling at 40mph; broken ribs, and only later (after payment of compensation) displaced pelvis; see pics (that is how far the bike went after impact and stopping distance of the car. The driver is in the picture on the right. Driver was not even charged with anything but only warned about the state of his windscreen. He did not want it to go through his (his son's) insurance and the police advised him to pay for the damage to the bike (which was a write-off because you cannot trust carbon frames after impact). It cost him a lot in the end as I don't think the police or drivers realise how expensive high-end bikes are plus clothing, compensation for injuries, loss of amenity of using the bike, a spoiled planned and paid for weekend etc. I doubt he ever informed his insurance company (a crime). The driver was genuinely remorseful, but the biggest injury is the don't care attitude of Hampshire Constabulary and the dismissive attitude of the nurse in A&E which has left a bitter taste to this day.

You should have taken down his plate, paid the few quid to find out who his insurer was and contacted them for him. Fuck what he did or didn't want.

nniff wrote:

"He said: “The defendant slowed down to well below the speed limit, but he acknowledges that he could have slowed down even more and that we suggest is the extent of his failing that evening."

 

Extent of his failing? You have got to be kidding me.  As a list of the top of my head:

• Proceeding without being able to see what was in front of him.
• Failing to see what was in front of him.
• Failing to recognise that it was not safe to proceed at any speed.
• Hitting and killing what was in front of him.
• Treating a speed limit as a target and using operating below the limit as a justfication for proceeding and a subsequent defence.
• Retaining a mouth-breathing waste of carbon as a lawyer.

but,but,but..the driver said he's sorry..

..if a pedestrian walks into the path of a cyclist,you can be bankrupted or be sent to prison;

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/public-raise-36k-for-cyclist-who-...

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/sep/18/cyclist-charlie-all...

Mungecrundle wrote:

Why is slowing down to account for conditions such a hard thing for people to do?

Why is slowing down to account for conditions such a hard thing for people to prosecutea gainst?

Mungecrundle wrote:

Last couple of Sundays the final leg of our club ride has been a long straight, slightly uphill, 60mph A-road, directly into the winter sun. It is hard enough to see clearly without the added distraction of a smeary winsdscreen and yet the number of motorists driving past, far too close at or near the speed limit is really quite alarming. Why is slowing down to account for conditions such a hard thing for people to do?

Have an A-road section like this on my commute in Winter, and it's the only bit that concerns me.  Uncharacteristically, I try to keep as left as possible, and also flash 1W rear LED, but it probably doesn't compete with the sun too well.

the little onion wrote:

The collision speed was relatively low - apparently hit from behind by a vehicle travelling at 30mph. So collision speed would have been less than this, assuming the cyclist was moving and hadn't stopped.

 

This raises the important question - what are the chances that Dr Cavaliere would have survived the crash had the driver been driving a 'normal' car and not an oversized 4*4?

 

Sorry but 30mph is 'speeding' and excessive speed, massively so, in fact SIX times faster than a careful driver would be going for the conditions! They might as well have had their eyes shut for all the view ahead they could see!

Define normal car, it's rather irrelevant because there are too many variables involved.

CyclingInBeastMode wrote:

the little onion wrote:

The collision speed was relatively low - apparently hit from behind by a vehicle travelling at 30mph. So collision speed would have been less than this, assuming the cyclist was moving and hadn't stopped.

 

This raises the important question - what are the chances that Dr Cavaliere would have survived the crash had the driver been driving a 'normal' car and not an oversized 4*4?

 

Sorry but 30mph is 'speeding' and excessive speed, massively so, in fact SIX times faster than a careful driver would be going for the conditions! They might as well have had their eyes shut for all the view ahead they could see!

Define normal car, it's rather irrelevant because there are too many variables involved.

I'd say having a mass of 1/3 more than 'normal' is relevant to the physics of the situation.

hirsute wrote:

CyclingInBeastMode wrote:

the little onion wrote:

The collision speed was relatively low - apparently hit from behind by a vehicle travelling at 30mph. So collision speed would have been less than this, assuming the cyclist was moving and hadn't stopped.

 

This raises the important question - what are the chances that Dr Cavaliere would have survived the crash had the driver been driving a 'normal' car and not an oversized 4*4?

 

Sorry but 30mph is 'speeding' and excessive speed, massively so, in fact SIX times faster than a careful driver would be going for the conditions! They might as well have had their eyes shut for all the view ahead they could see!

Define normal car, it's rather irrelevant because there are too many variables involved.

I'd say having a mass of 1/3 more than 'normal' is relevant to the physics of the situation.

Sorry but for a start the Land Rover Sport isn't a 1/3 more, Nissan Leaf 1580-1731 Range Rover Sport 1844-2020. were a person might be struck massively changes things, we cannot know from one crash to the next how much such a small increase in kinetic energy might have changed the outcome. 

The vehicle type is irrelevant, motors are driven by criminals, even if they are larger they need not present any significant fear or pose any increased threat of harm if they are driven better. You can be snuffed out by a fiat 500 or a 40ton HGV, if the latter is driven correctly it can pose zero threat of harm to you taking into account everything you should do, if the Fiat 500 is driven in the same way as the killer then that could still have killed the cyclist!

Braking doesn't come into the equation as there was no braking, he wasn't aware of the person he killed until he'd struck him! If the judgement was that he and everyone else passing the driver just fine had 20 seconds to see Cavaliere then his 30mph was dangerous if he could not see ahead of him someone who was plain as day to other drivers!

CyclingInBeastMode wrote:

the little onion wrote:

The collision speed was relatively low - apparently hit from behind by a vehicle travelling at 30mph. So collision speed would have been less than this, assuming the cyclist was moving and hadn't stopped.

 

This raises the important question - what are the chances that Dr Cavaliere would have survived the crash had the driver been driving a 'normal' car and not an oversized 4*4?

 

Sorry but 30mph is 'speeding' and excessive speed, massively so, in fact SIX times faster than a careful driver would be going for the conditions! They might as well have had their eyes shut for all the view ahead they could see!

Define normal car, it's rather irrelevant because there are too many variables involved.

I'm not disputing that the driver was too fast for the conditions - I fully agree. I know the road well - it's the Cow and Calf road, and it is a twisty and narrow road with lots of ups and downs. Not one to speed on.

My point is that a Landrover and their ilk are demonstrably more dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists than a, say, Ford Fiesta or similar because of their weight, height and bonnet/bumper shape. We have seen a 40% increase in sales of 'SUVs' in the last 10 years - as these are more dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists than a hatchback, estate car etc, this surely will contribute to an increase in road deaths relative to the amount that there would have been had these people bought smaller, less dangerous cars.

the little onion wrote:

CyclingInBeastMode wrote:

the little onion wrote:

The collision speed was relatively low - apparently hit from behind by a vehicle travelling at 30mph. So collision speed would have been less than this, assuming the cyclist was moving and hadn't stopped.

 

This raises the important question - what are the chances that Dr Cavaliere would have survived the crash had the driver been driving a 'normal' car and not an oversized 4*4?

 

Sorry but 30mph is 'speeding' and excessive speed, massively so, in fact SIX times faster than a careful driver would be going for the conditions! They might as well have had their eyes shut for all the view ahead they could see!

Define normal car, it's rather irrelevant because there are too many variables involved.

My point is that a Landrover and their ilk are demonstrably more dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists than a, say, Ford Fiesta or similar because of their weight, height and bonnet/bumper shape. We have seen a 40% increase in sales of 'SUVs' in the last 10 years - as these are more dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists than a hatchback, estate car etc, this surely will contribute to an increase in road deaths relative to the amount that there would have been had these people bought smaller, less dangerous cars.

This is fundamentally the issue. All the ped safety features brought in c.2005 - high bonnet-line, void above the engine, steeply-raked windscreens conveniently don't apply to Chelsea tractors. If you're hit by one of those what typically happens is that you're pushed partly on to the bonnet in the initial impact and as the driver slows you fall back in front of the vehicle and get crushed at low speed. The whole point of the passenger car safety requirements is to scoop the pedestrian on to the bonnet and keep them there, with their head cushioned from impacting on the top of the engine.

According to the Tesla Cybertruck story pedestrian fatalities have increased 41% in the US since 2008, something the tweet author claims is partly attributable to the increased uptake of SUVs.

the little onion wrote:

My point is that a Landrover and their ilk are demonstrably more dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists than a, say, Ford Fiesta or similar because of their weight, height and bonnet/bumper shape. We have seen a 40% increase in sales of 'SUVs' in the last 10 years - as these are more dangerous to pedestrians and cyclists than a hatchback, estate car etc, this surely will contribute to an increase in road deaths relative to the amount that there would have been had these people bought smaller, less dangerous cars.

I was at a bus stop the other week, noticing a few cars go by and wondering why these massive bmw X series, audi Q series and those VW ones are allowed on the roads. There is no need for a vehicle that size.

hirsute wrote:

1 year driving ban for a 'collision which should never have happened.'

Don't worry, there's that in depth review of road traffic safety and sentencing that's surely just about to happen.

hawkinspeter wrote:

hirsute wrote:

1 year driving ban for a 'collision which should never have happened.'

Don't worry, there's that in depth review of road traffic safety and sentencing that's surely just about to happen.

I'm sure it was in the tory party manifesto, along with unicorns; the only problem is they're all liars.  And they've promised it before.