Husband of cyclist killed by London lorry cries as driver is acquitted

[GrumpyGregry]

It was not his fault he was tried by his peers and was acquitted

Her death was his fault and responsibility.

Acquittal at law doesn't change that. It doesn't alter reality. It simply means a jury wasn't convinced to the standard required that the crime he was charged with was committed. That doesn't absolve the accused of their fault.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

It was a horrible ACCIDENT I live with the horror of reliving it every minute of the day

I don't doubt it. Seek help. Get counselling. But please don't post in a cycling forum about the death of a cyclist in order to defend your reputation.

 

[Markymark]

I did

Was she invisible?

 

[Spinney]

I don't doubt it. Seek help. Get counselling. But please don't post in a cycling forum about the death of a cyclist in order to defend your reputation.

If this driver is a different person to the other Vincent Doyle referred to further up the thread, posting here to point that out is justifiable.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

If this driver is a different person to the other Vincent Doyle referred to further up the thread, posting here to point that out is justifiable.

OK. I agree.

Whereas denying, in a cycling forum, that he was at not at fault is what, just plain offensive?

 

[flake99please]

It was a horrible ACCIDENT

Finish the following. Carelessness causes....

 

[400bhp]

It was a horrible ACCIDENT I live with the horror of reliving it every minute of the day

Well why not post your account of the incident here.

 

[Sixmile]

I would hazard a guess that we have an impersonator attempting to claim (I'm not sure why) the identity of the driver in some kind of sick belated April fools.

 

[Inertia]

I would hazard a guess that we have an impersonator attempting to claim (I'm not sure why) the identity of the driver in some kind of sick belated April fools.

Indeed, unless they are in the habit of talking about themselves in the third person.

 

[GrumpyGregry]

I think that what this tragedy illustrates is the difference in culture between cycling in Britain and cycling on the continent where there are more cyclists, much higher awareness from drivers to the presence of cyclists and much less of the 'me first' attitude from drivers.

SO let me share another perspective....

Imagine you are jogging down a main road and need to cross a side turning. A car is coming up the minor road. 99/100 times in the UK the driver will proceed all the way to the give way line, real or imagined, blocking your path, and you will have to go around the back of the car, if the car behind it has left any room and isn't trying to mate number plates. In Copenhagen the norm is for the driver to stop and allow the runner to cross. They do it for pedestrians too. They let pedestrians cross side roads if their car is on the main road turing into the side road; they wait. Heck, running in Copenhagen I've had cars reverse away from the give way line to unblock my path.

Too many UK drivers are unobservant, egotistical, selfish twats.

 

[boydj]

SO let me share another perspective....

Imagine you are jogging down a main road and need to cross a side turning. A car is coming up the minor road. 99/100 times in the UK the driver will proceed all the way to the give way line, real or imagined, blocking your path, and you will have to go around the back of the car, if the car behind it has left any room and isn't trying to mate number plates. In Copenhagen the norm is for the driver to stop and allow the runner to cross. They do it for pedestrians too. They let pedestrians cross side roads if their car is on the main road turing into the side road; they wait. Heck, running in Copenhagen I've had cars reverse away from the give way line to unblock my path.

Too many UK drivers are unobservant, egotistical, selfish twats.

It's 30 years or so since I was a fairly serious club runner - but that was not my experience then. Sounds like standards have fallen a long way.

Edit - btw, I'm in full agreement with your final observation.

 

[mjr]

Very sad BUT once again we have a case of a rider going up the left hand side of a left turning vehicle. I mean why ? It was stood for a long time at lights - it didn't just swing around.

That's one possible interpretation of the Guardian article. Another is that it may merely mean the Advanced Stop Box when they write "cycle lane" - as the cycle lanes at Ludgate Circus stop well before the junction and do not continue across it, so if the victim had still been in the cycle lane, a turning lorry shouldn't have hit them.

Roll on the NS superhighway reshaping that junction IMO.

And maybe cyclists are supposed to think. Every form of cycle training even back when I were a lad and including the highway code says DON'T do it but they still do No this is not 'victim blaming' it is a stupid thing to do.

Where does the highway code tell you not to think???

But seriously, if you mean that the highway code tells you not to ride in the cycle lane, it currently says almost the exact opposite: http://highwaycode.info/rule/63 - there are later rules warning of left-hooks and long vehicles but they are indeed later and IMO less memorable.

Heck, running in Copenhagen I've had cars reverse away from the give way line to unblock my path.

I didn't realise I'd moved to Copenhagen!

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ih70HEFE0TY

 

[Spinney]

[QUOTE 4220010, member: 9609"]Is there not someone on CC who has the wherewithal to put a date of birth on these two Vincents, seems a hell of a coincident, same name, similar age group doing a very similar job in the same city, but coincidents do occur.[/QUOTE]
People are not required to give DoB when they register (and even if they did, no way of checking it is correct!).

 

[Pale Rider]

If it's the same driver in both cases and he was acquitted of the 1999 incident, he has no driving convictions so could fairly claim in the most recent case to have an unblemished record, not least because that's what he has.

The circumstances of the 1999 case are far from clear, it was rather early for a death by dangerous prosecution because they generally didn't get underway until a few years later.

In the other thread, the victim's girlfriend mentions an inquest, which there would have been.

I wonder if the 1999 driver was ever prosecuted - the girlfriend wouldn't be the first person to confuse an inquest court inquiry with a criminal court prosecution.

The reason death by dangerous was created was because it was felt too many fatal road accidents equated to a 'free kill' for the at fault driver.

The offence is part of the 1988 Road Traffic Act, but that doesn't help a great deal because it wasn't fully enacted until some years later.

As I said earlier, I can't recall any death by dangerous prosecutions much before the early 2000s, but I'm happy to be corrected about that.

 

[jefmcg]

Here's a thought: if you are the driver in 2 fatal collisions, you lose your licence. I don't mean as some sort of punishment, no more than removing the licence of someone with failing sight or prone to seizures is a punishment, but just because it seems like it might be safer for them not to be on the road.