Coroner: Lorry driver "would not have expected" to encounter cyclist he killed

[andyfraser]

http://road.cc/content/news/171190-...not-have-expected-encounter-cyclist-he-killed

I agree with Duncan Dollimore of CTC. It may have been highly unusual to see a cyclist on that road in those conditions at that time but he wasn't breaking any laws and was allowed to be there. This seems to be yet another get out of jail free card for motorists.

 

[shouldbeinbed]

Shameful comments. Could have been a pedestrian walking to a broken down vehicle, the vehicle itself, a random swan, my ex.colleague who was jailed for driving the wrong way up a dual carriageway drunk.

Lots of things legal and not are unexpectedly on the roads nobody should drive in a way that endangers them or themselves.

The judge needs a lesson in the highway code

 

[Fisheh]

What a load of rubbish , that driver needs to be banned at least... Grrrrrrr.

 

[steve50]

"He was there to be seen but the collision occurred when Mr Ashford looked but failed to see him. -

That ^^^^^^^^^ says it all, would they have said the same had it been a motorcyclist that had been killed?
The driver "failed" to see the cyclist.................undue care and attention................"the driver did not expect to see a cyclist on the road at that time of night or in those conditions"..............so that makes it alright then???????
The driver of the lorry should be convicted and charged to fullest extent of the law, he is a professional driver and as such his driving abilities should be beyond reproach.

 

[Drago]

Coroner sounds like a self appointed road safety and cycling expert, the sort with no knowledge of either. May as well get Judge bleeding Rinder to run these things.

 

[Illaveago]

The lorry driver was lucky that it wasn't the back of another lorry that he ran into.

 

[Brandane]

he is a professional driver and as such his driving abilities should be beyond reproach.

Without defending the driver here; this statement is wrong.
I am the holder of an HGV class 1 (i.e. for artics) licence, and I do use it. Does that make me a professional driver? I would say no, it doesn't. All I have done is pass another test, 10 years ago, which allows me to drive a different class of vehicle. I do it part time a couple of days a week when I can be bothered (I have another source of income unconnected with driving). EVERYONE's driving should be beyond reproach, not just HGV drivers. What about other professionals who drive? Sales reps, van drivers, taxis, window cleaners....... That HGV you see out on the road could well be driven by someone who passed their test yesterday, and I can assure you that as with most things, passing the HGV test is only the beginning of a very steep learning curve! Sorry, but this "professional driver" thing just gets on my t!ts, it strikes me as an excuse for non-"professionals" to drive like nobbers.

 

[shouldbeinbed]

I get your point @Brandane but when you are driving your HGV class 1 unit, whether daily or ad-hoc, you are doing it for money and therefore are a professional driver. Sales reps etc could use a different mode of transport to get from appointment to appointment - its a poor analogy to class them as professional drivers rather than regular drivers with a different purpose who have to do no assessment or testing above the bare minimum that anyone else has to, to be allowed propel the 'easiest' classes of vehicle on a bog standard driving licence.

Like it or not you are in a different category and are more of a professional driver when the purpose of your being behind the wheel is the driving, as opposed to it being to get to an end point to sell or consult or meet with......

Irrespective of that, anyone controlling the progress and the steering wheel of anything has the duty of care to themself and others and needs to expect the unexpected. Neither of which were met in this instance, also the thing we cannot get away from with any semantic debates on what is a professional driver is the massively increased killing potential that is tied to massively increased size & kinetics.

 

[Mrs M]

Sad news, poor man.

 

[stoatsngroats]

I can't comment on the location, but I can comment on driving a lorry, and the factual element of the "Collision investigator Sergeant David Parrys" comments are given extra weight here (if reported correctly) are the issue for the coroners failure. HGVs and coaches have very large blind spots caused by the mirrors, and I can imagine this is an equally strong part of the failure of the driver to see the cyclist. If the speed of collision was indeed 45mph, this implies to me that the cyclist could have been in this mirror blind spot (I realise this is speculation, but would be a primary investigation point to determine the drivers actions.)
To conclude an investigation without establishing this single point could result in the wrong conclusion.
The facts appear to me to be that the lorry driver believed the junction was clear, and drove accordingly, whereas the junction was NOT clear - therefore the drivers actions were fatally incorrect. the legal judgement following this I am uncertain of, but in my laymans understanding, indicate a manslaughter.
It's a very sad incident!

 

[Brandane]

HGVs and coaches have very large blind spots caused by the mirrors, and I can imagine this is an equally strong part of the failure of the driver to see the cyclist.

That is correct; mirrors do cause blind spots. So you have to actually move your head and upper body to look around them; same as you do with door pillars on cars. You can't just sit rigidly still in your seat and pull out at a junction or in this case, slip road, hoping for the best!

 

[Drago]

Thing is, items don't suddenly materialise into physical existence in the blind spots. They travel across the field of view before working their way into a blind spot.

 

[machew]

Next up:
"Tourist, 65, died in Central Park after accidentally colliding with a bullet despite being warned against vigorous exercise"

 

[stoatsngroats]

@Drago and @User9609
I realise that my post might appear to exonerate the lorry driver, which is not my intention! The fact is that mirrors (particularly HGV ad Coach mirrors - look at them, some are HUGE!!) do cause a large area of road off to the right for the off-side mirror, and off to the left for the near-side mirror, and these can, and do (I speak from experience) shield the view, particularly of a moving pedestrian, bicycle, and motorcycle, because the movement of the HGV and the ped/bike/motorbike, can be commensurate with the moving field of vision of the lorry driver. It's not a case of something materialising into a blind spot, it's a case of the lorry driver, not making certain that the blindspot is clear.
@Brandane makes the point more clearly than my original post, but the issue, IMVHO is that the HGV driver did not see the cyclist, and the mirror blind spot is a very important point for investigation - although, I am not familiar with the road, nor the specific incident, so I am very likely to be wrong. - it's nothing to do with not expecting
the cyclist to be on that road at that time, it's more to do with not being certain that the road was clear, which appears not to have been part of this investigation, or, if it was, not to have been reported in the article.

 

[Neilsmith]

What absolute b***ocks "would not have expected to see a cyclist" when I go out driving I don't plan what I expect to see I judge my speed and the manoeuvres I undertake based on what's in front ( and behind me ) on the day. Ridiculous comments that excused terrible driving.