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

[sidevalve]

For once I agree with the CTC . The cyclist HAD lights AND reflectors - he WAS on the main road and without doubt he DID have right of way. It WAS the drivers responsibility to see him no if's no but's. Being able to stop in the distance you can SEE to be clear not just THINK is clear or SHOULD be clear [applies to cyclists too] would save a lot of grief.

 

[winjim]

Coroner: Cyclist "would not have expected" to be hit by lorry driver who killed him.

 

[glenn forger]

Coroner: Cyclist "would not have expected" to be hit by lorry driver who killed him.

It was the copper who said that. If I was local I would be desperate to discover from the copper which roads he declares cyclists would be a surprise on. I wonder if he could let us know the list of roads his opinion applies to?

 

[stoatsngroats]

[QUOTE 4005240, member: 9609"]I have had a bit of a search for the incident on the web and from this report LINK it would appear to have taken place at the following junction. google streeview a....</>....I'm really sorry the cyclist has been killed, my heart goes out to him, and yes the driver should have seen him and avoided him, but i am thinking the judge may have got this one right.[/QUOTE]

Good research! This is different to how i imagined from the original post.

 

[glenn forger]

Collision investigator Sergeant David Parry should supply his list of roads where cyclists aren't expected. Or admit he's drastically exceeded his brief and once again made leaps of faith to exonerate a killer driver. Parry, in short, has no idea what the driver was thinking and no right to make definite statements about what the driver was thinking.

 

[glenn forger]

[QUOTE 4005240, member: 9609"] i am thinking the judge may have got this one right.[/QUOTE]

No judge was involved.

 

[Pale Rider]

[QUOTE 4005240, member: 9609"]I have had a bit of a search for the incident on the web and from this report LINK it would appear to have taken place at the following junction.
google streeview
and a little research would show that this section of the A40 is an extremely busy dual carriageway, 33,700 per day (although only 3% HGVs) it would appear to be NSL so cars 70 - 80, lorries at 56. It was dark, heavy rain and strong winds.
Obviously I don't know exactly what happened, but at a guess I would imagine the trucker would have been looking for a place to filter-in, not so easy in an HGV if it is a busy road with evreyone tailgating each other at speed, lorries can't just accelerate and slot in.
I am presuming the cyclist was on the dual carriageway, and not on the slip road having just come off the motorway?
I'm not so sure it would have been a mirror blind spot situation. To be honest, and I'm sure I will be crucified on CC for what I am about to say - but I have great sympathy with the driver for not expecting a cyclist to be there, what a very unusual place to ride a bike. even on a good clear day that is not a road for bikes, and this was at night in the rain!
I'm really sorry the cyclist has been killed, my heart goes out to him, and yes the driver should have seen him and avoided him, but i am thinking the judge may have got this one right.[/QUOTE]

Cyclists have been banned on a similar type stretch of the A19 in Cleveland.

That follows two cyclist deaths of which I am aware.

In one sense it's locking the stable door after the horse has bolted, but it seems likely there would have been another death sooner or later if cyclists continued to use the road.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cyclists-banned-from-using-the-a19

 

[glenn forger]

How the local press reported it.

http://www.gloucestershireecho.co.u...tory-28168531-detail/story.html#ixzz3rODVx8Tl

Cyclist, 42, died in accident on the A40 despite being warned not to ride on busy roads

 

[Fisheh]

[QUOTE 4005240, member: 9609"]I have had a bit of a search for the incident on the web and from this report LINK it would appear to have taken place at the following junction.
google streeview
and a little research would show that this section of the A40 is an extremely busy dual carriageway, 33,700 per day (although only 3% HGVs) it would appear to be NSL so cars 70 - 80, lorries at 56. It was dark, heavy rain and strong winds.
Obviously I don't know exactly what happened, but at a guess I would imagine the trucker would have been looking for a place to filter-in, not so easy in an HGV if it is a busy road with evreyone tailgating each other at speed, lorries can't just accelerate and slot in.
I am presuming the cyclist was on the dual carriageway, and not on the slip road having just come off the motorway?
I'm not so sure it would have been a mirror blind spot situation. To be honest, and I'm sure I will be crucified on CC for what I am about to say - but I have great sympathy with the driver for not expecting a cyclist to be there, what a very unusual place to ride a bike. even on a good clear day that is not a road for bikes, and this was at night in the rain!
I'm really sorry the cyclist has been killed, my heart goes out to him, and yes the driver should have seen him and avoided him, but i am thinking the judge may have got this one right.[/QUOTE]

I see what you mean but you should have no problem seeing a cycle on that road, if the weather is bad and low visibility you should slow down irrespective of the type vehicle you are driving. We have a dual carriage way exactly like that one (A50) and a cycle club use it on a regular basis for time trial races , it may seem like suicide to non cyclists but they have every right to be there and motorists have to treat a cycle like any other vehicle.
If the cyclist had working lights and hi-viz clothing then the driver that hits him is driving without due care and attention and should be punished .

 

[Neilsmith]

I have never passed a pedestrian, or cyclist in high viz in any conditions that I haven't seen from distance no matter the road layout. I don't accept they were too difficult to see in the circumstances, which they seem to be implying.

 

[Pale Rider]

I have never passed a pedestrian, or cyclist in high viz in any conditions that I haven't seen from distance no matter the road layout. I don't accept they were too difficult to see in the circumstances, which they seem to be implying.

I agree.

Were I the driver, I like to think I would have seen the cyclist and worked out I couldn't safely join the main road without stopping.

So I'm then stopped on a slip road, but so what?

It's a 'give way' junction like any other, is you have to stop, you stop.

 

[400bhp]

Really poor, so now we have no clue whether a particular road is deemed to be reasonable for a cyclist to be on.

Pish poor judge.

 

[Illaveago]

It would be a bit ironic if the Coroner visited the site only to be hit by another lorry.

 

[oldstrath]

[QUOTE 4005240, member: 9609"]I have had a bit of a search for the incident on the web and from this report LINK it would appear to have taken place at the following junction.
google streeview
and a little research would show that this section of the A40 is an extremely busy dual carriageway, 33,700 per day (although only 3% HGVs) it would appear to be NSL so cars 70 - 80, lorries at 56. It was dark, heavy rain and strong winds.
Obviously I don't know exactly what happened, but at a guess I would imagine the trucker would have been looking for a place to filter-in, not so easy in an HGV if it is a busy road with evreyone tailgating each other at speed, lorries can't just accelerate and slot in.
I am presuming the cyclist was on the dual carriageway, and not on the slip road having just come off the motorway?
I'm not so sure it would have been a mirror blind spot situation. To be honest, and I'm sure I will be crucified on CC for what I am about to say - but I have great sympathy with the driver for not expecting a cyclist to be there, what a very unusual place to ride a bike. even on a good clear day that is not a road for bikes, and this was at night in the rain!
I'm really sorry the cyclist has been killed, my heart goes out to him, and yes the driver should have seen him and avoided him, but i am thinking the judge may have got this one right.[/QUOTE]
So if an HGV driver is in a hurry, he's allowed to bully, and if necessary kill, any cyclist who happens to be in the way. And it will be excused because this allegedly well trained professional driver can't be expected to be bothered looking or thinking. Why the fark bother with lights if killers are allowed not to look or think?

 

[oldfatfool]

Out and out murder, "He said he could not avoid hitting the cyclist because of vehicles in the outside lane as he joined the road at a speed of 45 miles an hour."

Basically he said he had the option to perhaps hurt himself or probably kill the cyclist, he opted to kill the cyclist.