Another 'sun in my eyes' Death Acquittal

[sheddy]

Simply unbelievable
https://road.cc/content/news/delivery-driver-who-hit-cyclist-found-not-guilty-306185

 

[classic33]

"I didn't see him that day because of the sun. Maybe it was bouncing off his high-vis vest – I don't know,"

Another one in the Hi-Vis approach.

 

[Slick]

Simply unbelievable
https://road.cc/content/news/delivery-driver-who-hit-cyclist-found-not-guilty-306185

It must be late, as none of that makes any sense to me.

I was just discussing a similar situation with @Brandane and I can't believe people are still getting away with it.

 

[Mo1959]

I am feeling less and less like getting back outside on my bike.

 

[Drago]

This is ridiculous. If you can't see then the onus is on the driver to stop the vehicle immediately. Even worse, its clearly bollards as none of the other drivers had issues with visibility.

The law needs changing to remove this ridiculous defence, as it has for the so called rough sex defence. It is unacceptable that people are lying their backsides off to evade justice and the system not only permits it but seems to positively encourage it.

 

[Happy_Days]

The Highway Code (rule 237) seems to have been ignored in this case. The code is clear that drivers must slow down ‘if you are dazzled by bright sunlight’ or stop ‘if necessary’.

https://www.alsterskelley.com/sunglasses-when-driving/

 

[Brandane]

How can SMIDSY possibly be a defence? Obviously you didn't see the victim, because presumably if you HAD seen them, you wouldn't have driven into them!
Therefore the problem is that when you were blinded by the low sun, you didn't take the appropriate action as required by the law to drive with due care and attention. You didn't slow down or stop, you simply carried on driving blindly into an area which you couldn't possibly see was clear.
How can a jury fall for this defence, time and time again?

 

[Drago]

How can a jury fall for this defence, time and time again?

Because Crown prosecutors are, for the most part, simply shite and are useless at explaining the law to a jury in order to head off specious arguments given in defence.

 

[Vantage]

How can a jury fall for this defence, time and time again?

One of the commenters in the article has this figured out. The jury are more than likely all motorists themselves and are making sure they can use the same bs when they're in the firing line.
It's sickening.

 

[fossyant]

It's one reason I have a couple of lights with a 'day flash', especially in low sun in winter. That said, there is no-way this is an excuse as the sun is there every day, it's not as though it's magically appeared (unless you've been in Manchester the last 6 months )

A fair few years ago I saw two accidents involving cyclists getting hit from cars pulling out of side junctions. Same week, nearly the same location. Reason was the clocks had changed, and that pesky sun was suddenly low in the sky in the morning, rather than still being below the horizon. Really brought it home. Always be extra careful around clock changes.

 

[mjr]

I am feeling less and less like getting back outside on my bike.

It's worth remembering that, despite this sort of legal atrocity, such deaths are rare and the reward outweighs the risks.

 

[Slick]

It's worth remembering that, despite this sort of legal atrocity, such deaths are rare and the reward outweighs the risks.

Not for the boy in the OP, unfortunately.

 

[fossyant]

I am feeling less and less like getting back outside on my bike.

Mountain biking - Scotland is ideal !

 

[icowden]

One of the commenters in the article has this figured out. The jury are more than likely all motorists themselves and are making sure they can use the same bs when they're in the firing line.

Seems unlikely. What is more likely is that they have been given quite tight direction as to what they should consider. Remember - they were not to consider whether the van hit the cyclist, that was not the issue. The only issue to debate was whether the van driver's driving had fallen below a reasonable standard of driving - beyond reasonable doubt.

 

[Drago]

It's worth remembering that, despite this sort of legal atrocity, such deaths are rare and the reward outweighs the risks.

Indeed. Regular cyclists are still likely to outlive sedentary drivers by 7 years, and won't be such utter bell ends.