Cyclist found guilty of riding carelessly in crash which killed motorcyclist

hawkinspeter wrote:

 

I feel conflicted over this. The fine does seem fairly high for what would appear to be a simple mistake, .....

Hmm is this excuse viable for motorists? 

makadu wrote:

hawkinspeter wrote:

 

I feel conflicted over this. The fine does seem fairly high for what would appear to be a simple mistake, .....

Hmm is this excuse viable for motorists? 

I'd expect if the cyclist was driving a car, they'd probably have received a much smaller fine even though they most likely wouldn't have been injured themselves. By a 'simple mistake', I mean the cyclist did see the motorcycle and considered that they had enough time to make the turn - there didn't seem to be any aggression or MGIF attitude from the cyclist. But yes, I consider the cyclist to be at fault.

The motorcyclist was speeding, which clearly is contributory negligence; part of the reason for speed limits is that other drivers need to be able to predict how fast other vehicles are travelling when using the road; allowing others to make turns safely across the path of other vehicles is a big part of why drivers should not speed, along with being able to take corrective actions when other drivers make mistakes; eg, I regularly slow to avoid drivers that fail to see me, even though I have right of way.

As my other comment - this simply comes down to observation time.  As long as motorcyclist wasn't changing speed rapidly or there was some unexpected factor making observation harder e.g. had no working lights and road was unlit.  And the article doesn't mention that.  Haven't read the court detail but the report says there were seven seconds to observe (presumably from "possibly seen" until "collision"?)  The court appears to have concluded that that was enough time to both observe and judge speed (or at least know if you didn't know).

If another vehicle was blocking the view that doesn't change things for me - it's a case of "couldn't see (or assess movement) - shouldn't proceed".

I'd say you could question whether the amount of time given was correct etc. but the general principle seems fairly applied - from my skim of the article.

Again this is terrible for all concerned, particularly the relatives.  The motorcyclist's speed may well have had a critical outcome on their fate but - in this case - apparently not on responsibility for the crash.

Mungecrundle wrote:

Got to say that does seem a little rough on the cyclist. At what point does excessive speeding (in a 30mph zone) make such an incident the fault of the speeder? Twatting over the horizon at 120mph? 40.001mph? Speed limit + 10% leeway?

When they say 40mph that is likely a very conservative estimate and then rounded-down speed, in reality it was probably close to 50mph. 40mph is still 33% over the speed limit... it does make it much harder to make safety assessments when the oncoming traffic is travelling far in excess of what it should be.

Worth noting that a high proportion of motorcyclists use an illegal overpowered headlight bulb, if this as the case it would also have added difficulty in assessing speed accurately.

Accurately assessing speed and condfidence in accurate speed assessment are also two different things. It can be harder to accurately judge a speed due to certain conditions without perceiving that extra difficulty. So you could believe you've accurately judged speed but you've been tricked by conditions that should not be present.

This is bad all ways round - the cyclist "sustained life-changing injuries" and someone's dead.

If it's a case of misjudging speed, I'd say it's fair to prosecute under careless.  Even if the other party has not helped you by going faster than the posted legal limit.  Judging speed / the time you have to complete your manouever safely is an essential road skill requirement.  The only question is the time available to assess this (or whether the motorcyclist suddenly accellerated - but no evidence produced in this case).  Clearly that's a factor of speed but the evidence was this was 7 seconds.  The court thought this ought to have been sufficient.

However if this is "careless" then driving over someone when they were fully visible in front of you simply cannot be in the same "careless" category.  Or doing something risky / illegal yourself (e.g. speeding, crossing double-white lines) then hitting someone (note it's agreed here the cyclist had a green light - just that they should have ceded priority to the traffic going straight on).  Or e.g. illegally modifying your vehicle (tinted windscreens) etc.

Anyway, I'm sure the current government will be picking up that review of road traffic law any day.

Obviously this is a tragic incident and horrible to read about, but these were my thoughts exactly. If the motorbiker was travelling too fast then that would directly affect 1. The ability of another road user to judge distances and times when manoeuvring, and 2. The motorbikers ability to slow down (!) and take evasive action. How on Earth is this fact irrelevant?

Agreed, it seems very relevent. Particualy as the prosecutor mentions how many meter the motorcyclist would have been visible for, but the time they would have covered this in wold have been much less due to the excess speed.

It appears that the cyclist was following a lorry turning right AND it was dark. So it would be interesting what actual length of time the cyclist had to make the decision to ensure it was clear. It doesn't excuse the cyclist who shouldn't have lemming (we see enough of that from cars). I suspect the lorries CCTV, if it is ever released to the public, would give more of an idea on how stupid it was from both sides. 
 

I'd say that the cyclist was probably cutting it a bit fine, but you're quite right, if the motorcyclist had been travelling at the posted speed limit there wouldn't have been a collision. A very near miss though.

30mph - 13.4m/s, 40mph - 17.9m/s 

That means the motorbike must have been closer than 20m to the cyclist when they started their turn, don't think I'd of done that even if I was sure the approaching vehicle was only doing 30mph.

carlosdsanchez wrote:

I'd say that the cyclist was probably cutting it a bit fine, but you're quite right, if the motorcyclist had been travelling at the posted speed limit there wouldn't have been a collision. A very near miss though.

30mph - 13.4m/s, 40mph - 17.9m/s 

That means the motorbike must have been closer than 20m to the cyclist when they started their turn, don't think I'd of done that even if I was sure the approaching vehicle was only doing 30mph.

 

Only mention is that the motorcyclist was in the junction at the time the cyclist turned, given that typical lane width in uk is 3.7m even allowing for widening at the junction we are probably talking of the order of 10m across and the motorcyclist was already in the junction according to the report - so less than 10m seperation - which is why the prosecution were stating that speed of the motorcyclist could not be used as mitigation for the careless cycling.

I think the cyclist is guilty as charged (as found by a court who had access to far more evidence than on here) - it may be debateable as to the harshness of the penalty when compared to similar cases involving motorists.

Whilst the excess speed of the motorcyclist is no excuse for the cyclists lack of care - it may have played a role in the outcome i.e. he would have had a greater chance of survival at 30mph, it is not clear if this was taken into consideration in terms of charges brought or sentencing.

0

I don't believe it's for the prosecution to deny, rule or dictate on what contributing factors the defence can use or not.
Wouldn't that be for the judge to decide?
On the one hand:
The evidence of 'unsafe' speeding treated as irrelevant and not up for debate - had the cycle rider been driving a car, their defence likely would have challenged this rigorously as a critical factor - Mr loophole would likely have seen to that had he been involved in the defence.

On the other hand:
The failure to yield as the only relevant and contributing fator to the terrible collision.

This court ruling will probably embolden speeders, never mind the approaching junction or other hazzards - and does't do much for the message: 'speed kills'

Rendel Harris wrote:

I really don't understand this, a cyclist is pulling across the junction having assessed that he has sufficient time to do so and is hit by a motorcyclist driving at 30% over the speed limit, but the motorcyclist's speed cannot be used as part of the cyclist's defence? If the cyclist would have had time to clear the junction before the motorcycle arrived if the motorcyclist had been sticking to the legal limit, surely the excess speed is massively relevant?

I'd say that the speeding was a factor, but the onus is on the person performing a maneouvre (turning right) to ensure that it is safe to do so. Not being able to judge the speed/gap required is using incompetence as an excuse - if in doubt, let the other vehicle continue straight and turn after they pass.

hawkinspeter wrote:

I'd say that the speeding was a factor, but the onus is on the person performing a maneouvre (turning right) to ensure that it is safe to do so. Not being able to judge the speed/gap required is using incompetence as an excuse - if in doubt, let the other vehicle continue straight and turn after they pass.

Absolutely, I have no doubt that the cyclist made a bad misjudgement, just wondering why the motorcyclist's excess speed has apparently been deemed totally irrelevant? As I said on the main news thread, one suspects that if the cyclist had been killed and the motorcyclist survived he would've been on a charge himself for hitting somebody when driving at 30% over the speed limit.

Rendel Harris wrote:

Absolutely, I have no doubt that the cyclist made a bad misjudgement, just wondering why the motorcyclist's excess speed has apparently been deemed totally irrelevant? As I said on the main news thread, one suspects that if the cyclist had been killed and the motorcyclist survived he would've been on a charge himself for hitting somebody when driving at 30% over the speed limit.

Possibly, but it was the right turn that created the situation.

I tend to agree with what you've said, but I am left wondering under what circumstances exceeding the speed limit would be seen as relevant, beyond simply a speeding ticket. In other words, is the speed limit there purely for its own sake, or is there some rationale behind it?

Sriracha wrote:

I tend to agree with what you've said, but I am left wondering under what circumstances exceeding the speed limit would be seen as relevant, beyond simply a speeding ticket. In other words, is the speed limit there purely for its own sake, or is there some rationale behind it?

Well, the judge seems to consider the distance that the rider was visible for to be a major factor. If they were speeding around a corner, then I'd guess that the case would have been very different.

I was a motorcycle cop and a big part of the reason speed limits exist, along with the road design, is making traffic predictable for road users; this includes driving at a speed appropriate to the conditions, so even keeping to the speed limit may be deemed unsafe during fog, rain or at night.

It would also be interesting to know the basis for the 40mph calculation. Further, at a junction, was 30mph an appropriate speed. A frequent observation is that being within the speed limit does not necessarily make the speed appropriate. In this case, of I've understood it, the motorcyclist's view of the road is obscured by the lorry yet they've continued at high speed, not having clear sight of the road ahead. So, although it seems the cyclist caused the collision by not properly ensuring his path was clear to proceed, the motorcyclist failed to do the basics of defensive riding and surely the speed was a factor in failing to cope. After all, if a pedestrian stepped out into the road without looking, would the blame be entirely on the pedestrian for their fatal mistake or would the police consider that someone exceeding the speed limit contributed?

Further, how likely is it that the motorcyclist have would have survived a crash at 30mph rather than 40mph?

IanMSpencer wrote:

It would also be interesting to know the basis for the 40mph calculation. Further, at a junction, was 30mph an appropriate speed. A frequent observation is that being within the speed limit does not necessarily make the speed appropriate. In this case, of I've understood it, the motorcyclist's view of the road is obscured by the lorry yet they've continued at high speed, not having clear sight of the road ahead. So, although it seems the cyclist caused the collision by not properly ensuring his path was clear to proceed, the motorcyclist failed to do the basics of defensive riding and surely the speed was a factor in failing to cope. After all, if a pedestrian stepped out into the road without looking, would the blame be entirely on the pedestrian for their fatal mistake or would the police consider that someone exceeding the speed limit contributed? Further, how likely is it that the motorcyclist have would have survived a crash at 30mph rather than 40mph?

I agree that speeding in the dark through a junction, just behind a lorry is not what I'd consider careful riding, but it's a case of comparing a lack of defensive riding with an unsafe maneouvre. One of them created a situation and the other failed to avoid it.

Yes, and the motorcyclist was not on trial and I feel that what was being assessed was the incident not the consequences. The fault is there whether there was a collision or not - a test of careless driving is that another road user had to brake or change direction, not there was a collision

Perhaps the culpability of the motorcyclist was part of the CPS decision not to go down the path of a more serious charge, and therefore the trial was avoiding getting into that area, perhaps in part to spare the relatives of the rider.

Quote:

I agree that speeding in the dark through a junction, just behind a lorry is not what I'd consider careful riding,

From the description, the motorcyclists lights were in the front camera and then the collision was shown in the rear one, (and the mention the cyclist followed the other vehicle without checking it was clear), the assumption I had was the lorry was turning right across the path of the motorbike similar to the cyclist, just that he had more time to do it. 

A large vehicle crossing right ahead of me would have still had me off the accelerator / pedals and ready on the brake simply because something might stop them completing the manouvre or the person behind the lorry could just follow like a lemming though. 

As mentioned, it would be interesting if the the CCTV does get released so more clarity could be shown on time difference between the two right turning vehicles etc. 

hawkinspeter wrote:

I agree that speeding in the dark through a junction, just behind a lorry is not what I'd consider careful riding, but it's a case of comparing a lack of defensive riding with an unsafe maneouvre. One of them created a situation and the other failed to avoid it.

An average of 47mph in a 30mph limit is not a lack of defensive driving - it's dangerous driving.

jh2727 wrote:

An average of 47mph in a 30mph limit is not a lack of defensive driving - it's dangerous driving.

I do agree, but in this instance it wasn't the direct cause of the collision.

100% this, but I see we still have armchair experts trying to conclude differntly.

From the photo it looks busy enough to warrant traffic signals but there is no filter light for right turn, so additional cauton should be taken when turning right.