- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
justice-2060093_1920“Distracted” lorry driver cleared of killing cyclist through dangerous or careless driving
A lorry driver has been cleared of causing death by dangerous or careless driving, despite prosecutors’ claims that he was distracted by a television show when he struck cyclist Arunn Niessan Marusaleen on the A40 Witney bypass in December 2018.
32-year-old Tomas Mikalajunas claimed that he had not seen Marusaleen before he hit him with his HGV on the straight section of road, despite the cyclist wearing a hi-viz jacket and a red rear light. Marusaleen died at the scene after Mikalajunas and another motorist performed CPR.
Prosecutor Nigel Osborne claimed that the lorry driver was distracted by a Lithuanian television programme – described earlier in the trial as a ‘Jeremy Kyle-type show’ – which the motorist was playing on YouTube through his phone in the moments before the crash.
However, the Crown could not confirm whether the HGV driver was watching the programme or simply listening to the audio.
During the trial, Mikalajunas maintained: “My attention was on the road, on the area that was lit by the lights of my car. I didn’t see [him]. [The TV show] was in my native language and I was not distracted.”
Both prosecution and defence collision experts agreed that the cyclist would have been visible between 10 and 13 seconds before the crash, though since the rear red light was destroyed in the incident it was impossible for the court to establish its make or model.
It took the jurors just over three hours to find Mikalajunas not guilty of causing death by dangerous driving and causing death by careless driving.
Ryan joined road.cc in December 2021 and since then has kept the site’s readers and listeners informed and enthralled (well at least occasionally) on news, the live blog, and the road.cc Podcast. After boarding a wrong bus at the world championships and ruining a good pair of jeans at the cyclocross, he now serves as road.cc’s senior news writer. Before his foray into cycling journalism, he wallowed in the equally pitiless world of academia, where he wrote a book about Victorian politics and droned on about cycling and bikes to classes of bored students (while taking every chance he could get to talk about cycling in print or on the radio). He can be found riding his bike very slowly around the narrow, scenic country lanes of Co. Down.
Latest Comments
- quadtodd 4 hours 54 min ago
And 3 of the 'workers' are just leaning!
- yellowjack 5 hours 25 min ago
Same sketch everywhere, or so it seems. Take Whitelegg Way in Bournemouth. Wide cycle lanes put in both sides of a (formerly very wide) two lane...
- yellowjack 5 hours 42 min ago
Sounds cool. I haven't taken an "unnecessary flight" since 1992. Flown many times since then for work, but you can't patrol the Iraqi desert, or...
- NOtotheEU 6 hours 5 min ago
My first thought on reading the headline was "ooh, has Clevedon put in covered bike parking now?".
- TheBillder 7 hours 2 min ago
I rented a car a few weeks ago, a Skoda Octavia (needed a big car for a weekend), and the ride was astonishingly good compared to my own 10 year...
- Sriracha 7 hours 58 min ago
Shimano were castigated for not bringing on new factories to meet pandemic demand, thus gumming up the supply chain. Their argument at the time was...
- Romanp 8 hours 8 min ago
I figured out a reason of that squeaking noise. I have xpresso 2 and 7, and also xpro 10 pedals, and that squeaking isn't present only at Xpresso 2...
- MichaelWinnerRIP 9 hours 9 min ago
Italian tourist and pussycat in Portugal.
Add new comment
53 comments
this whole thing just boils my piss! im on jury service next month no way would i have found him not guilty! there must be more to this otherwise we are all f@cked. the anti cycling agenda over the last week has been crazy, another guy killed near me this weekend sadly
Admitting that, ahead of time, would give the defence an excuse either to have you removed from the pool or else to appeal any verdict on the grounds that you had pre-judged it.
(Reference the recent Maxwell trial where a juror came out after the verdict and admitted he'd been assaulted when young and 'hated' offenders like Epstein, and the defence are calling for a retrial).
EDITED: 'Defence'
ye 100% wouldn't have sat on this case
We all know now, as we did before, what will happen after any careless nutter driver kills us, or any member of our families: very likely, nothing
Fucking disgusting.....end of.
In my opinion there is a flaw with any jury trial involving a cyclist.
In cases involving a motorist vs cyclist..... the majority of the jurors will be motorists themselves, therefore, there has to be some inherent bias towars the motorists because in a lot of cases they can put themselves in the position of the motorist involved....i.e. for example they could envision themselves being distracted by the motorists.
Then when you add in the bias, as shown by a lot of commentators on social media, about the frenzy that always gets whipped up about Hi-Viz and Lights..... as soon as it was mentioned that the light wasn't fitted on the bike, or that the hi viz tabard may have been obsucred by the riders rucksack then that helps the motorists to say it was partly the cyclist to blame. (I'm sure if the driver had been represented by GaL's hero Nick Freeman that would have been the only relevant point in his eyes)
The same goes for cyclist vs pedestrian cases..... every juror can put themselves in the position of the pedestrian but not in the position of a cyclist.
And if it was even suggested that the jury in relation to any cyclist trial was made up predominantly of cyclists..... there would be national outcry on the matter as the motorist/pedestrian would not get a fair trial.
so for analogy
a racism case where the jury was all white, and half of them were NF members - Insane
A sex discrimination case were the juroirs are all men and half of them are misogynists - unacceptable
a carelss driving case where the jury are all drivers and half of them are below average drivers. - business as usual
IIRC there was a jury trial in the US recently (white on Black violence) where the defence tried to get rid of any juror who said they believed that institutional racism existed, or that they had suffered racism, or even if they were just Black.
Seems like the defendant was given the benefit of even the possibility of a doubt. It can't be proven he was watching the TV show he was playing, as if that wasn't an unnecessary distraction anyway. And moreover it can't be proven that the victim's rear light wasn't faulty, clearly it's a shame the victim wasn't in court to defend themselves.
It is beyond belief that driving into another road user (and killing them) who is clearly visible is not considered to be careless. I feel so sorry for the family of the victim for not only his sudden demise but also of this travesty of justice. It's a horrible double wammy.
Does anyone have links to give more details? I find this case staggering
It all seems to hinge on the visibility of the cyclist. The cyclist's rear flashing led light was not mounted to the bike, so was not legally compliant. It was also destroyed in the collision, so its lumen rating (or whether it was working at point of impact) could not be established.
Despite other drivers being able to see him, the whole incident being recorded on the lorry's dashcam (including the cyclist being visible for 13 seconds) and overwhelming circumstantial evidence of a distraction. It seems this was not enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the lorry driver could have seen him. The law is an ass.
https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/19874458.a40-fatal-crash-driver-had-je...
I'm thinking there should be a new type of alternate punishment in these cases. Allow families of the victim to enact whatever punishment they deem appropriate for the amount of time (13 seconds) that the driver didn't pay attention.
Am I missing something - the lorry's dashcam could see the cyclist, but no evidence that the cyclist was visible to the driver - if he chose to look through the windscreen (instead of, say, at his phone screen).
Yes that appears to be the case. The defence were arguing that the reflectives and flashing led light, whilst visible in the dashcam footage, were not identifiable as a cyclist to the driver. If the bike did not have the required reflectives (unsure) and light mounted to the frame, then technically, it did not conform to lighting regulations.
It's an absolute shambles this can be used as an excuse. He could just have easily been a pedestrian.
It's like a Columbo case - everyone knows the perp is guilty as sin, but nailing the proof is the problem.
There might be an issue with lorry drivers and retro-reflectives. With the headlamps well below the driver's eye the retroreflective will not reflect strongly towards the driver, a situation which gets worse as the distance closes.
So he could see there was something in his way but because he could not positively identify it as a human being he felt the correct thing to do was to run over it?
I assume he has now been classed as too stupid to be allowed to hold a driving licence!
You probably assume wrong.
Like the other killer drivers, Gail Purcell and Helen Measures he has been cleared of any wrongdoing and will continue being able to drivet to heir own excellent abilities...
https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/19880259.lorry-driver-killed-cyclist-a...
From the link above and not covered in the intro : the lorry driver did not use full beam and was concentrating on the road covered by his dipped headlights. The driver claimed that this was to avoid dazzling oncoming traffic but dashcam footage showed there were no oncoming vehicles during 42 seconds before the collision.
'Kin hell it gets worse the more you dig. I despair.
yes, the failure to use full beam ought to be seen as a significant aggravating factor.
Has anyone written to the Times leader writer to ask their opinion? While the irate masses of frustrated drivers froth at the mouth at the very mention of a cyclist and demand to be allowed to run them over without a second thought, someone is missing their friend, lover, husband, wife, son, daughter, father, mother.
There is no justice for cyclists, and society will give us none, witness the reaction to the rather less than radical changes to the HC; see the idiot truck driver smoking a completely innocent person that he doesn't know. This country has now become so absurd, so ridiculous, so infantile, that someone can kill someone else and face no consequences.
In any other field of human activity, the failure to control a killing machine and protect other people would be instantly found to be negligent homicide; not in the UK. Kill a cyclist and the cyclist has to prove that you were distracted, even though it's your job to drive this machine safely; in fact, it's your only job. This is totally insane.
I just don't see why it's not enough to prove the cyclist would have been visible ahead for 10seconds, why the driver failed to see him is irrelevant, perhaps a video of a reconstruction (no impact) of the view form the drivers seat, might show the jurors there really is no reasonable excuse for failing to see, so it must have been careless.
Fecking obvious to any cyclist but 'momentary lapse if concentration' is allowable for non cyclist. Because it could happen to any of us. Shit happens or something.
13 seconds at 60 mph is 350m, I cant see how over 1/3 of a KM equates to a "momentary" lapse of concentration. I wonder how many of the jury are motorists? Its that mentality that it could happen to anyone of them, its happened before, it will happen again. Wonder if the outcome would be different if the jury was mostly cyclists?
One of the most telling things from the reports is that other drivers did see him. So if other reasonably competent drivers can see the cyclist, surely not seeing him is clear evidence that the driver isn't competent?
Leaving aside the question of whether his phone was a distraction, surely the fact that he hit a cyclist who was in view for 10+ seconds on a straight road is by definition careless driving.
This seems to be the universal get-out clause. You're guilty of an offence if you kill someone through dangerous or careless driving. The fact that you killed them is not an offence, neither is it taken as proof that your driving fell below the required standard - that remains for the prosecution to prove, and I can see that very often that is impossible for them to do. A driver could be caught up in their own thoughts, distracted by their daydreams, or the radio, and that would have to be proved, which is nigh impossible.
Surely the law should accept that to kill someone with your vehicle is at the very least careless, unless proven otherwise.
Sounds like the Incompetence Paradox.
Presumably Shapps thinks there ought to be a law against this kind of thing?
Pages