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
RANDOM said:
I never said they didn't.
See http://www.movingtargetzine.com/article/lorry-blind-spot-demo-in-trafalgar-square
col
Legendary Member
Because of the terrible outcome of this,its hard to give an opinion based on nothing more than common sense.There are blind spots,sometimes these blindspots may be difficult to check,sometimes not.It seems i was in error to say that shifting about on the seat would help with this particular vehicle.Non the less,the driver is still at error in this situation,with checking paperwork.Also ,i dont for one second think the cyclist put herself in a dangerous position on purpose,again mistake and accident comes to mind.Even though i believe that it is unfair to blame the drivers all the time,he should have been more vigilant than he was.The only real solution to this happening, is what has been suggested,with mirrors designed to cancel blind spots,and education of the dangers to cyclists,for both parties.
Jacomus-rides-Gen
New Member
- Location
- Guildford / London
I have often had the thought, and this isn't specific to this particular case but more to all road traffic incidents. That road safety would improve leaps and bounds simply by revoking the drivers licence and making them re-take their test.
There would obviously have to be a clear structure around this, to make sure (as much as possible) than an innocent party in a collision, presuming they are still alive of course, is not punished by this.
My reasoning is that to be involved in a collision, the driver obviously was not in control of their vehicle, thus they require re-testing to make sure that they are safe and under control of their vehicle. This includes drivers who require special licences needing to re-test for them too.
A £300 fine and a smattering of points on a drivers licence is far, far, less of a deterrent than having to go back to L-plates and get retested. It would also serve to replace the token fine by making the driver pay for their lessons and test.
There would obviously have to be a clear structure around this, to make sure (as much as possible) than an innocent party in a collision, presuming they are still alive of course, is not punished by this.
My reasoning is that to be involved in a collision, the driver obviously was not in control of their vehicle, thus they require re-testing to make sure that they are safe and under control of their vehicle. This includes drivers who require special licences needing to re-test for them too.
A £300 fine and a smattering of points on a drivers licence is far, far, less of a deterrent than having to go back to L-plates and get retested. It would also serve to replace the token fine by making the driver pay for their lessons and test.
col
Legendary Member
Jacomus-rides-Gen said:
Even though i agree with your reasoning,it might be more difficult to draw the rules up to go by.As one or the other party may not be to blame,and if the driver was not,is it still reasonable to expect them to retest?Or if the cyclist was to blame,what would the deterent be for them,or vice versa?
Jacomus-rides-Gen
New Member
- Location
- Guildford / London
That is why I'm no lawmaker 
I think given due attention it would be possible to create strong enough guidelines to make a workable system. It really would be very hard to do though, I totally agree.
The issue of non-licenced road users is a tricky one, and that I suppose should be dealt with through the normal fining system. It is certainly something that would need to be included.
I thought I mentioned that, must not have been clear what I meant!
That is what I meant when I said that there would need to be clear guidelines, probably based around the current method of determining / distributing blame. Naturally it would not be fair to have to re-take your test if some muppet smashed into the back of your car at the traffic lights.
Just a pipedream of mine, to go along with using smart cars as peak-hour taxis in central london to save space and emmissions, and also with being treated like a decent human being when I am cycling Hope (or delusion) is a wonderful thing!
I think given due attention it would be possible to create strong enough guidelines to make a workable system. It really would be very hard to do though, I totally agree.
The issue of non-licenced road users is a tricky one, and that I suppose should be dealt with through the normal fining system. It is certainly something that would need to be included.
I thought I mentioned that, must not have been clear what I meant!
That is what I meant when I said that there would need to be clear guidelines, probably based around the current method of determining / distributing blame. Naturally it would not be fair to have to re-take your test if some muppet smashed into the back of your car at the traffic lights.
Just a pipedream of mine, to go along with using smart cars as peak-hour taxis in central london to save space and emmissions, and also with being treated like a decent human being when I am cycling
Hope (or delusion) is a wonderful thing!
Buffalo Bill
New Member
- Location
- East London
col said:
Sorry, I have to take issue with the word 'accident'. An accident implies something unavoidable.
This was no accident. This was a collision resulting from negligence.
I agree that both parties have a duty to educate themselves. That's why I have done as much as I can to publicise the dangers.
The hauliers do not do enough. In fact, I think they do as little as they can get away with. Like blaming cyclists for being 'blind-spots'. Or striking attitudes like this.
col
Legendary Member
Jacomus-rides-Gen said:That is why I'm no lawmaker
I think given due attention it would be possible to create strong enough guidelines to make a workable system. It really would be very hard to do though, I totally agree.
The issue of non-licenced road users is a tricky one, and that I suppose should be dealt with through the normal fining system. It is certainly something that would need to be included.
I thought I mentioned that, must not have been clear what I meant!
That is what I meant when I said that there would need to be clear guidelines, probably based around the current method of determining / distributing blame. Naturally it would not be fair to have to re-take your test if some muppet smashed into the back of your car at the traffic lights.
Just a pipedream of mine, to go along with using smart cars as peak-hour taxis in central london to save space and emmissions, and also with being treated like a decent human being when I am cycling
OOps yes you had mentioned it,sorry bout that
.But getting a working set of rules to go by,as you say,would ,i believe take a very long time,of the best legal minds.As for the general idea,i think its a good un.Your pipedream of saving emissions and space is,i think something that could be workable.But would need the councils to actually do something.like widen the traffic free zone in town centres,thats if they already have them,and allow non engine transport only.But being treat like a decent human being?come on,you cant have everything.
col
Legendary Member
Buffalo Bill said:
I agree,wrong choice of word there,but in general terms,an accident is the only way to describe something that happened ,that wasnt the intention of either party.And yes ,i also agree not enough is done in the vehicle department to help stop these things happening.But the sad fact seems to be the cost,in this profit orientated world.But how to get across to cyclists the dangers involved too?Its a difficult problem.
Looks like we may soon have a good way of apprtioning blame. Won't be long till they push standardising the rule in effect in many parts of europe. In a collision between bike and car/van/bus etc there would be an instant presumption of blame (not against the cyclist) in the absence of any contrary evidence.
This bears re-posting:
The sentencing of the driver who killed Emma Foa has attracted a lot of interest and comment in the virtual world of cycling forums.
Most contributors have expressed outrage at the sentence. However, a significant minority have criticised the cyclist for positioning herself in the ‘wrong’ place, and also sought to absolve the driver by suggesting that Ms Foa was hidden in the vehicle’s ‘blind-spot’.
I want to correct this impression. The prosecutor was reported as making the statement:
She was alongside for 37 seconds and would have been visible.
This is a remarkably precise statement. How can the prosecution have been so certain of the length of time that she was along-side the truck, and that she would have been visible?
The answer is that the junction was over-looked by CCTV cameras, and that the police examined the vehicle and its mirrors to determine what would have been visible. It is this evidence that allowed the prosecution to state so unequivocally that the driver would have seen the cyclist in his mirrors, had he been paying attention to the road, instead of looking at page 3 or whatever it was.
As to whether the truck was signalling, whether Ms Foa arrived at the junction before or after the truck, I can’t say, based on the reports that I have read. It is true to say that the left-hand side of a truck is no place for a cyclist, given the number of London cyclists that have been killed by lorries.
However, given that nearly all on-road cycle lanes are on the left, and that TfL published a series of posters showing cyclists in exactly the wrong position, I findit difficult to criticise a cyclist, particularly a dead cyclist, for following the intuitive line, and keeping to the left. I also find it regrettable that, despite the unequivocal statements at the trial, cyclists are rushing to the defence of the driver, using the perennial blind-spot defence. I hope that I have dismissed this red-herring.
The sentencing of the driver who killed Emma Foa has attracted a lot of interest and comment in the virtual world of cycling forums.
Most contributors have expressed outrage at the sentence. However, a significant minority have criticised the cyclist for positioning herself in the ‘wrong’ place, and also sought to absolve the driver by suggesting that Ms Foa was hidden in the vehicle’s ‘blind-spot’.
I want to correct this impression. The prosecutor was reported as making the statement:
She was alongside for 37 seconds and would have been visible.
This is a remarkably precise statement. How can the prosecution have been so certain of the length of time that she was along-side the truck, and that she would have been visible?
The answer is that the junction was over-looked by CCTV cameras, and that the police examined the vehicle and its mirrors to determine what would have been visible. It is this evidence that allowed the prosecution to state so unequivocally that the driver would have seen the cyclist in his mirrors, had he been paying attention to the road, instead of looking at page 3 or whatever it was.
As to whether the truck was signalling, whether Ms Foa arrived at the junction before or after the truck, I can’t say, based on the reports that I have read. It is true to say that the left-hand side of a truck is no place for a cyclist, given the number of London cyclists that have been killed by lorries.
However, given that nearly all on-road cycle lanes are on the left, and that TfL published a series of posters showing cyclists in exactly the wrong position, I findit difficult to criticise a cyclist, particularly a dead cyclist, for following the intuitive line, and keeping to the left. I also find it regrettable that, despite the unequivocal statements at the trial, cyclists are rushing to the defence of the driver, using the perennial blind-spot defence. I hope that I have dismissed this red-herring.
- Status