Emma Foa's death-verdict announced

[Cab]

To suggest the cyclist was at fault is irrelevant. They were both stationary at a junction, ffs. The lorry driver didn't check it was safe to turn before manoevering.

So a cyclist is never at fault for picking a road position where they can't realistically be seen?

 

[spindrift]

How do you know I don't campaign for these mirrors to be fitted?

How do you know Emma was in a blind spot.

Why do you think a £300 fine for killing someone is fair?

Why do you think it fair for a person in charge of twenty tons of vehicle in public not to check it's safe to turn?

The only option is that <deleted>.


TFL never even responded to these questions:

1. Number of cycle K/SI(Killed & Seriously Injured) cycle collisions at junctions, analysed by: a. by other vehicle involved
b. involving turning lorry?
c. involving red light running by cyclist
d. involving red light running by other vehicle
e. involving pavement cycling
f. other contributory factor
2. Number of pedestrian K/SI collisions
a. by vehicle involved
b. by location (on pavement, on crossing, near crossing, etc)
c. involving pavement cycling
d. other contributory factor
3. Illegal road user behaviour
a. number of complaints re speeding
b. number of complaints re red light running by vehicle type involved, if possible
c. number of complaints re pavement cycling
d. estimate of the percentage of motor vehicles speeding in London
e. estimate of the percentage of motor vehicles red light running in London
f. estimate of the percentage of cyclists running red lights in London
g. estimate of the percentage of cyclists cycling on pavements in
London.

 

[habibi]

Indeed, he drove, she died. Do you know that he didn't look?

The court had been told that Thorn had been looking for some papers in his cabin when the bike was beside him and also when his vehicle began to turn left and the fatal crash occured.

 

[spindrift]

So a cyclist is never at fault for picking a road position where they can't realistically be seen?

Why do you think it unrealistic for a driver to check that it's safe to turn?

 

[habibi]

So a cyclist is never at fault for picking a road position where they can't realistically be seen?

no. i didn't say that. but its irrelevant to the case.

and you sir, are an arse.

 

[Cab]

How do you know I don't campaign for these mirrors to be fitted?

Do you?

How do you know Emma was in a blind spot.

I don't, which is why I'm in no position to comment on whether or not she was. You don't know either, so you're in no position to comment.

Why do you think a £300 fine for killing someone is fair?

Thats the second time you've misrepresented what I've said in this discussion. Second strike. Three strikes and you're out.

I didn't say that, I don't think its fair. I don't see what 'fair' has to do with it.

Why do you think it fair for a person in charge of twenty tons of vehicle in public not to check it's safe to turn?

Third strike. You're out.

 

[Cab]

The court had been told that Thorn had been looking for some papers in his cabin when the bike was beside him and also when his vehicle began to turn left and the fatal crash occured.

And for that, you'll see if you read what I've written, I'm all in favour of the bloke being punished more severely than he has been. But I don't know (and neither do you) whether or not he would have seen her had he been looking more carefully; she was kerb side of him, its entirely possible that he couldn't see her anyway.

Do you have more information on this you're not sharing? If you do, then share it, because from what I've seen none of us are in a position to say whether or not the driver could feasibly have seen her.

 

[Cab]

no. i didn't say that. but its irrelevant to the case.

and you sir, are an arse.

What you said was:

To suggest the cyclist was at fault is irrelevant.

Yes, it really is relevant. If the cyclist puts himself in a place where the motorist cannot see the him, then it really, really is relevant. Your implication is that the cyclist can't be at fault for sitting in a blind spot; are you now saying that you know that she didn't do that? Do you have more information on this case than you're sharing then, or are you just speculating?

And you should lighten up a bit and stop assuming you're more convincing because you're willing to throw personal insults around in an argument.

 

[Cab]

Not wanting to side with anyone, but how does the fact that this driver has got to live with the knowledge that he killed someone fit into the equation?

I wouldn't have thought so. Although all too often its something used as a defense for a weak sentence.

 

[Tynan]

what cab said

frankly I think that 14 deaths a year relative to the number of cyclists in London, a significant number of them riding with very little consideration for their safety (no lights after dark being the classic) is almost insignificant

how many people kill themselves falling down their own stairs every year

takes two to make an accident like that happen, being inside a big truck at a junction really is asking for something bad to happen, it's a matter of time

 

[spindrift]

what I've seen none of us are in a position to say whether or not the driver could feasibly have seen her.

I am, as I've said repeatedly. Unless the cyclist is directly behind the middle of the back of the lorry (and therefore unlikely to be crushed by a lorry moving forwards) there are no blind spots- they simply do not exist.

If you mean it is unreasonable for the driver to take the trouble to fit extended mirrors or get off his fat arse and look out of the nearside window, then yes indeed, you are a fool.

The driver could have checked to see if Emma was there. He chose not to do so (and may very well have been paid per load) and killed a woman. You can bleat all you want about how the driver of lorries can't see their nearside but this compounds their guilt rather than mitigates it, as you repeatedly claim.


http://www.lcc.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=917

‘All HGV vehicles, operating in the UK, must have a mirror positioned on the exterior of the vehicle on the passenger side, which enables the driver to have a full view of vehicles and other road users in the neighbouring lanes, when driving on all roads in the United Kingdom.'.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmstand/a/st060420/pm/60420s01.htm

 

[spindrift]

frankly I think that 14 deaths a year relative to the number of cyclists in London, a significant number of them riding with very little consideration for their safety (no lights after dark being the classic) is almost insignificant

I'd very much like to see your evidence for such victim blaming, especially since most KSI incidents involving cyclists occur in daylight and in only 17% of cases is the cyclist held to be at fault.

 

[col]

The nearside and offside mirrors cover the side of the vehicle,the blindspots could be lower than the bottom of the door,if its a high vehicle,This cement vehicle is fixed as far as i understand,so the driver,if unaware of whats there when he pulls up,can check by sitting up in his cab for any blindspot,so making them not blindspots,or even sliding about in his cab.It doesnt matter what is next to him,he can see it if he makes an effort to try.Doing these checks can be affected by a number of things,being in a hurry for what ever reason,seems to be the main reason these days,to make people take short cuts in what they do.Could this be classed as dangerous driving?Yes i think it should,because we still need to see if anyone or anything is in the way of a manouver.Ultimately the driver is responsible for the results of his actions in his vehicle,Im sure he will be feeling terrible about what has happened,because he should have checked properly before moving off.

 

[Tynan]

frankly I think that 14 deaths a year relative to the number of cyclists in London, a significant number of them riding with very little consideration for their safety (no lights after dark being the classic) is almost insignificant

I'd very much like to see your evidence for such victim blaming, especially since most KSI incidents involving cyclists occur in daylight and in only 17% of cases is the cyclist held to be at fault.

where do I blame anyone? Where do a say the cyclists are to blame? Where do I say cyclists are killed after dark?

Dear god do you understand any of the posts you reply to with such certainty? I merely say, again, that considering the number of cycle journeys in London every year, 14 seems very small to me for deaths, especially considering the manner many cyclists ride in such heavy dangerous traffic

and cement mixers and similar sized trucks have blind spots you can hide a car in never mind a bike, regular cars do for that matter, have you ever been in the cab of an HGV?

I have a feeling that it'd be a bit hard to make a left hand turn while leaning out the left hand window, that's just me though, you'll doubtless know better

 

[spindrift]

considering the number of cycle journeys in London every year, 14 seems very small to me for deaths,

According to CItycyclists the Square Mile is the most dangerous place in England in which to cycle, despite comprising a tiny part of the English road netwrok.

I don't see any grounds for complacency at all.