Emma Foa's death-verdict announced

[spindrift]

Worth bearing in mind too the two recorded deaths above where the lorry driver overtook, and then immediatley turned left, killing two cyclists.

In other words the cyclists did nothing that even the most fervent victim-blamer could claim made them even partly culpable in their own deaths.

Cyclists, in other words, can be crushed to death by lazy, inattentive drivers and the drivers get off scot free.

 

[Cab]

Worth bearing in mind too the two recorded deaths above where the lorry driver overtook, and then immediatley turned left, killing two cyclists.

In other words the cyclists did nothing that even the most fervent victim-blamer could claim made them even partly culpable in their own deaths.

Cyclists, in other words, can be crushed to death by lazy, inattentive drivers and the drivers get off scot free.

I agree, many times cyclists have come off worst due to left turning vehicles when it isn't the fault of the cyclist. Stick to the point; do you have evidence that the court accepted the claim made by the prosecutor that the cyclist in this specific incident was visible? Yes, or no.

 

[spindrift]

There was the girl who worked for the PR department at CFC killed in this way.No verdict yet but it will be interesting if the lorry driver receives the same punishment as the driver who killed Ms Barlow. He was not punished at all.

 

[Cab]

There was the girl who worked for the PR department at CFC killed in this way.No verdict yet but it will be interesting if the lorry driver receives the same punishment as the driver who killed Ms Barlow. He was not punished at all.

For the fourth time (I think, might be more):

Stick to the point; do you have evidence that the court accepted the claim made by the prosecutor that the cyclist in this specific incident was visible? Yes, or no.

 

[BentMikey]

Come on Cab, that's being obtuse. I can't imagine anyone doubting the CCTV evidence in the way you're implying.

 

[spindrift]

Cab, your posts are becoming increasingly shrill and hysterical and you keep asking questions that have been addresses ten pages ago.

Please don't barge into threads and insist on answers already given, just read the thread properly:

http://www.movingtargetzine.com/article/cyclist-killing-lorry-driver-fined-300


Emma stopped at the lights, and she wasn’t in the “blind spot”. But the driver didn’t see her, because he wasn’t looking. And she was crushed to death because he was too busy checking his pay-sheet to make sure he had got his overtime to pay attention to what his two-tonne machine might be rolling over. The whole event including Emma's hideous death was captured on CCTV. The CCTV images were shown in court.

 

[Cab]

Come on Cab, that's being obtuse. I can't imagine anyone doubting the CCTV evidence in the way you're implying.

I absolutely can imagine the defense saying that CCTVfootage form a different angle is only questionably evidence for the driver being able to see the cyclist.

 

[Cab]

Cab, your posts are becoming increasingly shrill and hysterical and you keep asking questions that have been addresses ten pages ago.

So the answer is 'No, I don't have any further information, it was claimed by the prosecutor that she wasn't in a blind spot but I don't know whether that was accepted or rejected by the court as true'.

Look, we all have massive sympathy for the cyclist here, but you're forgetting that a prosecution isn't about who you have sympathy for. Its about what can be proved beyond reasonable doubt; if there is reasonable doubt about whether or not the driver could see the cyclist then you have to deal with that.

 

[cupoftea]

I blame the driver; he was looking at papers not the road. He admitted that. He should have his license taken away, if not be sent to jail.

Cyclists do, do silly things but then we’re not in charge of several tons of fast moving metal, what would have happened if he’d lost control and mounted the pavement? Oh that’s ok he was looking at page 3.

 

[Cab]

I blame the driver; he was looking at papers not the road.

I doubt whether anyone would disagree with you on that point.

 

[CotterPin]

The bottom line is (or should be) the driver is a trained professional. He should know that these incidents can occur and how to avoid them happening.

The cyclist is someone who jumped on a bike - there is no requirement for training. The only way the message not to go down the inside of a large vehicle can get to a cyclist is through advertising, point of sale material, none of which can be wholly effective.

I would certainly not argue for mandatory cycle training for all - who's going to pay for it?

But the lorry driver as a person who was sat in a cab, took a test, presumably passed it, and is the operator of the more lethal piece of machinery, should know that this kind of thing can happen, and be trained to deal with these incidents. And if necessary re-trained on regular occasions.

 

[Buffalo Bill]

So the answer is 'No, I don't have any further information, it was claimed by the prosecutor that she wasn't in a blind spot but I don't know whether that was accepted or rejected by the court as true'.

Look, we all have massive sympathy for the cyclist here, but you're forgetting that a prosecution isn't about who you have sympathy for. Its about what can be proved beyond reasonable doubt; if there is reasonable doubt about whether or not the driver could see the cyclist then you have to deal with that.

The evidence on the blind-spot would be easy to prove using CCTV to determine the relative positions of the vehicles on the road, and the measurements from the mirrors.

This is absolutely standard practice in these cases.

It may be an assumption, but it's based on knowledge of traffic police procedure in fatal collisions.

If you like, I can phone the standard reporter and find out, tho.

 

[gambatte]

Seems there are people on here who are assuming the vehicle actually has a blind spot.

 

[bonj2]

I haven't read the whole thread but on reading the OP, the report says the cement mixer is two tonne. I'm sorry but a cement mixer is not two tonne.

 

[Cab]

The evidence on the blind-spot would be easy to prove using CCTV to determine the relative positions of the vehicles on the road, and the measurements from the mirrors.

This is absolutely standard practice in these cases.

It may be an assumption, but it's based on knowledge of traffic police procedure in fatal collisions.

If you like, I can phone the standard reporter and find out, tho.

I agree, it should be relatively simple to work it out, yet we've seen many assertions that it was proven with absolutely no one willing to say 'yes, it was proven to the satisfaction of the judge'.

If it was proven in court that the driver could see the cyclist, and if the judge accepted that, then this sentence was far, far, far too lenient. But if there is doubt as to whether the driver could see the cyclist then thats a different matter.