Killer driver sentenced

[Herr-B]

My god, how many factors applied here, and still it's the cyclists fault because he 'may' have had slightly inferior rear light - which if it was a flashy LED one, I doubt very much!

 

[Enid Agnus Dei]

Makes me wonder what the current cycle light regs are and am I breaking them buy using old 1980's lights on my Europa?

My thoughts are with the family of the victim not the driver.

 

[400bhp]

For some balance-we don't have the full facts, just a small story in a local rag.

 

[gary in derby]

just a thought, but how about a campain to raise the driving age from 17 to 20 years and to qualify for a provisional licence you have to prove you have spent those three years cycling. impractical i know but something needs to be done to help protect us on the roads.

 

[e-rider]

Judge Jack clearly likes drivers not cyclists - shameful decision!

 

[Davywalnuts]

Completely lost for words on this, completely.

What will it take for a custodial sentence to be applied, as this case quite clearly should have, just like many others.

But nope, a lame a pathetic excuse from a judge, yet again. We are treated like vermin.

 

[sabian92]

just a thought, but how about a campain to raise the driving age from 17 to 20 years and to qualify for a provisional licence you have to prove you have spent those three years cycling. impractical i know but something needs to be done to help protect us on the roads.

It would never work. How would people ride a bike? Who'd buy it?

How would you even prove it?

That sentence is shocking. I feel sorry for the family of the person killed - this can't be much closure for them knowing he isn't in jail.

Also, you can learn to drive at 16 if you are a full time carer for somebody, what about those people? Would they have to ride a bike as well?

 

[gary in derby]

It would never work. How would people ride a bike? Who'd buy it?

How would you even prove it?

That sentence is shocking. I feel sorry for the family of the person killed - this can't be much closure for them knowing he isn't in jail.

Also, you can learn to drive at 16 if you are a full time carer for somebody, what about those people? Would they have to ride a bike as well?

did mention it would not be practical, just need to find a way of raising peoples awareness. only way of that is by experiance.

 

[Ian Cooper]

...but something needs to be done to help protect us on the roads.

Let's not fall into the trap of thinking that cycling is dangerous or that we are more vulnerable than anyone else on the road. Cycling is a lot safer than driving - the lifetime risk of dying on a bike is about half that of dying in a car. Also, we get the added health benefits of regular exercise.

Whenever a cyclist is killed on the road, it's tragic, and an ignorant and biased legal system certainly does not help. But these things don't change the fact that cycling is the safest mode of personal transportation in existence.

 

[gambatte]

One thing I've noticed, and I may be wrong. Lots of campaigns, petitions etc from different vulnerable road users about the state of driving.
Someone I know a couple of days ago posted on Facebook, several links to petitions calling for awareness of horse riders being part of the driving test. The 'tie-in' to this being someone injured and their horse dead.
Maybe its time for all interested parties to get together. Campaign for greater awareness of all vulnerable road users.

 

[dawesome]

Do we know what, exactly, was supposed to be wrong with the rear light so we don't inadvertantly give a killer driver an excuse?

 

[colly]

An obvious question but who says the light was not bright enough?

If the driver claims that then it's plain he did see it. If it's someone examining the light after the accident, well how can anyone say what effect the crash had on the light.

 

[Judderz]

He has been spared jail after it was revealed Mr Andrew's rear light was not very bright.
Colly's statement above raises a good arguement for this.

Judge Simon Jack told Grogan: "You were driving a large HGV in a way that fell significantly below what is expected of a competent and careful driver."
The result is a life lost.


He claimed he had not seen the cyclist but admitted he had a smudge on the window, which affected his view of the road, but he continued his journey.
Common sense whilst driving in rain would shout "Need to clean my windows".

Judge Jack criticised Grogan for not addressing problems he was having with visibility through his windscreen and the speed at which he was travelling.
He also claimed the brightness of Mr Andrew's light "could" have contributed to the accident.
"I'm satisfied there were at least three main factors which led to the death of Mr Andrew, the first that you were aware you had a problem with your screen."
He said Grogan failed to slow down despite rain and smears on his windscreen caused by a problem with his windscreen wipers.
Only could have? Nice to see Judge Jack is "satisfied", very highly doubt Mr Andrews family is.

"The speed limit was 40mph and you should have slowed significantly below it," he said.
"You knew you had a difficulty and you didn't slow at all. Your tacograph suggested 46mph. I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you were right on the speed limit"
Tachographs, by law, do not "suggest" speed limits, but do give accurate speeds, they need to be calibrated (IIRC from when I was a HGV mechanic 20 years ago) every 2 years.

He said the "relatively poor state" of Mr Andrew's back light was another factor.
Poor state after the accident?...was there anything left of the light after the crash?

"I'm prepared to act on the basis that his rear light was not as bright as one would have wished and that was a factor leading up to the collision.
Ahhhh, so it was the cyclists fault.

"I'm satisfied that is because you were not paying proper attention."
So it's ok to drive and not pay attention, from someone who upholds the law.

Judge Jack said this was "relatively serious case of causing death by careless driving."
He said: "Mr Andrew's rear light may have contributed to the accident and, in these circumstances, I take the view that it wouldn't be just to send you straight to prison."
Had it been your kids Judge Jack, I'm sure you would have.

Grogan, of Applegarth Lane, Bridlington, was given a 12-month prison sentence, suspended for two years, and was ordered to carry out 300 hours of unpaid work.
He has been banned from driving for 18 months and given eight penalty points.
Far, far too lenient given the severity of a life lost by dangerous driving.

He has not ordered him to pay costs after the court heard he is suffering financially as he does not have a job.
So why was he driving a wagon? Is this his daily runaround to the shops?

Mr Andrew's brother Jeff, 45, said:
"He was always a safe cyclist and even carried spare batteries in case his lights failed. He took his bike in to be serviced twice a year."
Says it all really.

Disgusting outcome, both Judge Jack and Grogan should be ashamed to be human beings.

 

[Kiwiavenger]

In all fairness you can forget about the rear light to an extent as pedestrians are told in the highway code to walk facing traffic when there are no paths/pavements, (section 2 of the highway code) and there is no stipulation about lighting only to make yourself visible with bright colours etc so the judge was wrong to make a comment about that whether it was a contributing factor or not.

I do feel bad for the family who lost a loved one in this accident.

 

[benb]

This should be appealed to the Home Sec, IMO.