Emma Foa's death-verdict announced
- Thread starter spindrift
- Start date
- Status
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Buffalo Bill
New Member
- Location
- East London
I posted the Standard piece, and have campaigned on the issue of HGV/cyclist deaths in London for a number of years. I have written to the Mayor of London, my MP, my MEP, various members of the London's Assembly etc etc.
In the reporting of the court case it very clearly states
"[The cyclist] was alongside for 37 seconds and would have been visible."
In the reporting of the court case it very clearly states
"[The cyclist] was alongside for 37 seconds and would have been visible."
Buffalo Bill
New Member
- Location
- East London
col said:
Good question. The reports don't say. I wouldn't like to assume one way or another.
Buffalo Bill
New Member
- Location
- East London
Tynan said:
I took that to mean 'would have been visible, had the driver looked in his mirrors'
Thats a statement from the prosecutor. That he is asserting that she would have been visible is simply a sign that he's doing his job, its an adversarial justice system and he's putting forward one version of events. Does anyone have any information as to whether it was established in court whether or not she really would have been visible, or is this solely based on what the prosecutor said?
I know this point cam eup on page 2 but I missed this thread until now.
What is the definition of 'filtering'? I believe it to be passing the offside of stationary/slow-moving vehicles. In effect, it's overtaking.
Is it lawful to pass down the nearside? That would be undertaking, which is not legal.
Filtering between two lanes is still overtaking the traffic on the left.
What is the definition of 'filtering'? I believe it to be passing the offside of stationary/slow-moving vehicles. In effect, it's overtaking.
Is it lawful to pass down the nearside? That would be undertaking, which is not legal.
Filtering between two lanes is still overtaking the traffic on the left.
BentMikey
Rider of Seolferwulf
- Location
- South London
Incorrect. Undertaking isn't always illegal, and it's often encouraged where there is a cycle lane.
You'd be right in saying that undertaking is ill-advised though. Undertaking leads to the undertakers.
You'd be right in saying that undertaking is ill-advised though. Undertaking leads to the undertakers.
ash68
New Member
- Location
- northumberland
having read this thread I feel very sorry for all concerned,mostly the cyclist and her family.Any death on the road is one too many,but as mentioned before without full facts it's hard to aportion blame.With arguments about undertaking/filtering on the go,perhaps we all need to make sure we are responsible for our own safety and don't put ourselves in dangerous circumstances just to save a few seconds.I feel it's fine to undertake when there is room & the traffic is slow moving,but if I am not sure of the drivers' intentions I will wait behind every time.We need to assume drivers can't or won't see us and be ready for their mistakes.It's us that gets hurt not them, the rights or wrongs of it don't come into it if your lying dead on the road.LOOK OUT FOR YOUR OWN SAFETY BECAUSE NO ONE ELSE WILL.
Rhythm Thief
Veteran
gambatte said:
Not really. If the driver was staring at his left hand mirror the whole time he was stationary then yes, he'd have seen her filtering. If on the other hand, he was using the time while stationary to check a map, say, to see where his next drop was then no, he wouldn't have seen her. And by the time he looked in his mirrors she'd have been in the blind spot and invisible to him, unless he leaned out of his cab window which is obviously not going to happen.
I'm not saying it's right that there's a blind spot there, but there is. I'm not saying we should be checking maps at traffic lights, but we do. I am saying the last thing cyclists should ever do is creep up the inside of large vehicles at traffic lights, especially when they're indicating. And before anyone jumps on me, I have at least one pedalestrian a week try and do this to my lorry and I haven't squashed anyone yet.
I do not know the full details of this case; only those included in this Thread so far.
However, I do believe that crashes on the road will usually be the blame of one or more of those involved (and/or possibly another party). Unfortunately the legal system in this country seems to treat those guilty of causing a road crash far too leniently. If blame could be proved then more severe penalties could be handed out to the guilty. If road users (and possibly other parties) thought that their actions could result in a conviction of this sort then maybe they would be more careful to try to prevent these crashes.
In my view the driver of this lorry may have thought twice about looking through his papers if the guilty in a case of this sort received a much more severe penalty.
However, I do believe that crashes on the road will usually be the blame of one or more of those involved (and/or possibly another party). Unfortunately the legal system in this country seems to treat those guilty of causing a road crash far too leniently. If blame could be proved then more severe penalties could be handed out to the guilty. If road users (and possibly other parties) thought that their actions could result in a conviction of this sort then maybe they would be more careful to try to prevent these crashes.
In my view the driver of this lorry may have thought twice about looking through his papers if the guilty in a case of this sort received a much more severe penalty.
- Status