If that's true, something to respect.Defence barrister Rupert Taylor ... said that Mills was never going to drive again...".
It might mean there was an audible edge line and the cyclist was to the left of it and not on the main carriagewayWill1985 said:I'm uneasy about the part where it says the cyclist was "inside the rumble strip - not on the main road."
It doesn't change the blame, but it makes it sound as though that is where cyclists should be.
fossyant said:That's one view, but the driver should have 'corrected' as they heard the rumble. She didn't even know she'd hit the cyclist till after...something's fishy here though. Would have been a hell of a bang.
Having read the more detailed report in our local rag, that's the way I interpret it as well.Uncle Mort said:I saw the report on the BBC news and my understanding was that it was mentioned to show the driver had driven off the carriageway and into (or past) the rumble strip. I didn't read any implication that the cyclist should be segregated into it at all.
dave r said:Sad to here about more loss of life, but I have to agree with fossyant, there's something fishy about this. Why did she try to evict it whilst still moving? why didn't she hear the rumble strip and correct? How can she have not realised she had hit two cyclists.
Baggy said:The driver accepted blame right from the start, which is why the judge may have shown leniency. It's a sorry affair all round.