"Absolutely unacceptable": HGV driver blocks protected cycle lane... at dangerous junction where urgent safety works followed cyclist's death; £1 donation to charity for every photo of bike lane parking; Cancellara sells a PS5 + more on the live blog

https://road.cc/content/news/cyclist-guilty-riding-carelessly-killing-mo...

While I have absolute sympathy for the family, why does the comment 'Cyclists need to be held accountable' need to be added by one of them when the story is reporting on exactly that having happened? Christ.

Does it strike anyone else as odd that the fact that the motorcyclist was doing 40 mph in a 30 mph zone appears to have been written off as of no importance? If the cyclist had been killed and the motorcyclist survived, one assumes the motorcyclist would've been up on a charge of death by careless or dangerous driving because he was exceeding the speed limit by 30%.

That's sort of what I was thinking, I know that junction very well, and without wishing to victim blame the motorcyclist for their excessive speed, it would have been difficult for the cyclist to judge whether the oncoming motorcycle rider was doing 30 or 40mph. 

That's what I thought too. How can the fact that the motorcyclist was breaking the law just be ignored when it comes to deciding culpability - it should have at least some bearing

I seem to remember a similar case around here where a driver was cleared even though he had no insurance (he did nothing wrong, a motorcyclist swerved into his lane head-on - but somehow the fact that he should not have been driving that car at all was not deemed important)

Surely for a criminal charge, the speed of the other vehicle would only have any bearing on whether or not the cyclist was acting carelessly if the speed of the motorist was so great that any cyclist taking proper observations would have reasonably concluded they had enough time to safely clear the junction without affecting the passage of the other vehicle had that vehicle been travelling at the speed limit. If it was likely even with a vehicle traveling at 30mph that the manoeuvre would have resulted in a collision or very near miss then that's still what the proverbial man on the Clapham Omnibus would define as a careless act so the excess speed is irrelevant.

If could be different in a civil suit for damages where any damage award may be reduced due to contributory negligence if it is decided that excess speed played a part in the seriousness of the outcome.

I am happy to let the law take its course here as a judge / jury have decided the case on the evidence before them. If I want motorists to be held to account for careless / dangerous acts then I have to support cyclists be held to account for any similar acts.

Glad you are still here. Thought you might have left in disgust !

No, I am still about. Trying to get a little more work done and not allow myself to get wound up by certain individuals.

Is it the fire service?
Always handy to have an emergency services person commenting.

Yes. For my sins I have done twenty odd years in the fire service as an on call firefighter, worked my way up to be in charge of my local station for the last few. As with all on call firefighters, you have to have another business / job as well as the fire service bit is a piece rate pay system paying only when they actually need you so I also work as a software developer. Strange combination, long total hours.

LeadenSkies wrote:

Surely for a criminal charge, the speed of the other vehicle would only have any bearing on whether or not the cyclist was acting carelessly if the speed of the motorist was so great that any cyclist taking proper observations would have reasonably concluded they had enough time to safely clear the junction without affecting the passage of the other vehicle had that vehicle been travelling at the speed limit.

Given that, as per Awavey's accurate calculations from the prosecution's own figures (150m in 7 secs), the motorcyclist was travelling at an average speed of 47mph in the 150m before the collision their speed clearly "was so great that any cyclist taking proper observations would have reasonably concluded they had enough time to safely clear the junction without affecting the passage of the other vehicle had that vehicle been travelling at the speed limit."

I can't quite go with this one, I'm afraid.  I agree it's sad if the prosecution's come up with something untrue and that may be ground for appeal.  Humanly "I wasn't expecting someone doing 50 in a 30" is understandable also.

However the task here as a responsible road user crossing the path of another is to observe if there is oncoming traffic and ensure you can clear the junction safely.  So if in doubt don't proceed.  That includes (to me) the requirement to assess the time it will take the oncoming vehicle to arrive - no matter what their speed.  (Obviously if it was at light speed they'd get a pass...).

Unless you've something to show that the cyclist's ability to assess speed was impaired I think they have been careless.  That's hard as in they made a mistake and to their own cost. (And if it had been a car not a motorcycle the motorist would be unhurt and the cyclist wouldn't have needed a trial most likely).  However the mistake was "voluntary" e.g. it didn't affect their own safety not to move.  It's foreseeable that getting this wrong could have serious consequences - as it did for them.  I would not include as "impairment" the results of their choices e.g. by "just following the truck" (not really looking) or being too close to the truck to give them time to look and react.

It all hinges not on the speed itself but the ability to assess it (e.g. sufficient time when motorcylist was visible and clarity of view).  So on evidence presented - and if they really had 7 seconds to assess - I think "careless" is a fair call.

Where I think it's fair to raise questions are a) the time available to assess speed and the visibility of the motorcyclist and b) the penalty phase.  Especially given that we sometimes see motorists punished with "knowing what they did", never mind suffering "life-changing injuries" as the cyclist did here.

Would this even have come to court if the motorcyclist were not speeding - as in would they have hit?  Who knows but with less speed there is usually more time to react for all parties.  And better control.  With less speed would the outcomes for both parties have been inproved even if they still collided?  Pretty happy with "yes" there.

I don't dispute Wavey's figures. You make what I would consider to be an arguable point and one that I would want to explore if I had been on the jury. I won't comment on this specific case as I haven't seen all the evidence. That is why I am content to leave that decision to those who sat through the evidence. I can only assume they saw evidence that convinced them the cyclist was careless and the excess speed was irrelevant in this case.

LeadenSkies wrote:

I don't dispute Wavey's figures. You make what I would consider to be an arguable point and one that I would want to explore if I had been on the jury. I won't comment on this specific case as I haven't seen all the evidence. That is why I am content to leave that decision to those who sat through the evidence. I can only assume they saw evidence that convinced them the cyclist was careless and the excess speed was irrelevant in this case.

it wasn't actually a jury trial, it was at the Magistrate's Court, albeit with a district judge presiding; the defendant doesn't appear to have engaged counsel, which seems highly inadvisable. So the outcome is ultimately one man's opinion on the evidence as presented by a professional prosecutor.

I missed the fact it was a magistrates court. Thanks for correcting me politely. I agree that the fact the defendant doesn't see to have engaged counsel is inadvisable. Representing yourself and entering a not guilty plea is risky. I wonder whether it points to poor advice or possibly over confidence and an acceptance of more risk than you or I? I am slightly surprised the judge didn't issue strong advice that he get professional representation, or maybe they did?

The newspaper report stated the motorcycle was doing 40mph at the point of impact. So it's possible the speed prior to the collision was higher.

Speed is usually taken into account, such as with this case: https://www.suffolknews.co.uk/haverhill/news/dashcam-footage-showing-mom...

The cyclist was lucky to survive and sustained life changing injuries.

well the prosecution stated it was 150metres in 7 seconds, thats 47.9mph average speed to cover that distance in that time.

Awavey wrote:

well the prosecution stated it was 150metres in 7 seconds, thats 47.9mph average speed to cover that distance in that time.

Bloody hell, you're right aren't you (had to get out the calculator and check as I couldn't quite believe it)? Given that there must have been some slowing or braking as he approached the lorry at the junction the biker must have been going well over fifty in a thirty zone to start with. The cyclist would surely be well-advised to appeal this.

The difference there is that the person charged with the driving offence was also the person speeding. In that case, the speeding is possibly in itself proof of careless or dangerous driving and if not believed to be enough on its own, it is certainly an aggrovating factor that will be brought as part of an overall evidence package.

E&W courts don't see speed alone as careless/dangerous, there has to be another factor as well (or instead of) speeding.  
scotkand is different. They regularly charge dangerous for doing a ton plus on motorways. 

Ok, I wasn't aware of that. Speeding is given as an example of a possible behaviour that can constitute the offence of dangerous driving where "it falls far below the standard expected of a competent driver" according to the Met Police website. I have also had some minor involvement in an incident many years ago where the driver was charged with death by dangerous driving based purely on extreme speed they were doing in the run up to the incident. Admittedly the case was eventually dropped before it reached court as not in the public interest but that was down to the severity of the injuries sustained by the driver meaning they would never drive again, would never work again and weren't ever going to be imprisoned so there was no real punishment that could be imposed.

Monito wrote:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-24/mercedes-to-charge-a-...

Just what what we need...

Often it feels like end-stage capitalism is making fun of itself

Other than "The gammons would have a seizure" is there a reason it is still legal to sell a car that can go over 70mph? All modern cars have speed limiters that the user can choose to activate, why not mandate that it can't be turned off?

The arguments against it surely boil down to "I like doing crimes, don't stop me."

But but "safety"?  We all know (because homicidal attack, falling chimneys, tidal waves, Godzilla etc.) that sometimes you need to accellerate for safety reasons.  Example: if you're legally at 70 on a motorway and you see a car suddenly pulling across the lanes towards you then if there was a limiter you wouldn't be able to safely accellerate to avoid them.

Have I got this right?  I seem to be having a day...

chrisonatrike wrote:

But but "safety"?  We all know (because homicidal attack, falling chimneys, tidal waves, Godzilla etc.) that sometimes you need to accellerate for safety reasons.  Example: if you're legally at 70 on a motorway and you see a car suddenly pulling across the lanes towards you then if there was a limiter you wouldn't be able to safely accellerate to avoid them.

Have I got this right?  I seem to be having a day...

You'd be surprised how often drivers need to escape from falling chimneys

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jL29m3lW-k

Obviously chimneys hate VWs particularly because of how green and environmentally benevolent those cars are.

I bet Fred Dibnah could maintain a bike.

levestane wrote:

I bet Fred Dibnah could maintain a bike.

I'd take that bet, although he most likely could when he was alive.