Lorry driver 'oblivious' when he hit cyclist in Hessle Road, On trial

classic33

Legendary Member
Lorry driver Peter Sanderson, 62, of Bodmin Road, Bransholme, is on trial at Hull Crown Court and denies causing death by careless driving.

A cyclist's last moments were captured on his own GoPro camera as he was hit and killed by a lorry while riding in a cycle lane, a court has heard.

Craig Beharrell, 42, was fatally injured when he struck by an HGV in Hessle Road, west Hull, at 7.35am on July 17, 2017.

"It's not in dispute that the death of Craig Beharrell was the result of this collision. The question for you to decide is whether one of the reasons for the collision happening was that the defendant, Mr Sanderson, was, as we allege, driving without due care and attention; that's to say below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver."

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/news/hull-east-yorkshire-news/peter-sanderson-craig-beharrell-hull-3180641

Cyclists evidence is their footage of the incident. Not certain how the footage will be viewed legally.

Maybe there will be settlement/closure for the family of the cyclist.
 

Drago

Flouncing Nobber
Location
The Oval Office
How can he be driving in a cycle lane if he was indeed driving with due care and attention? Surely one an exclusive of the other?
 
OP
classic33

classic33

Legendary Member
How can he be driving in a cycle lane if he was indeed driving with due care and attention? Surely one an exclusive of the other?
He, lorry driver, joined from Wiltshire Road. Which side I don't know. Road is a circular one
a1166.jpg
 
OP
classic33

classic33

Legendary Member
Last edited:

raleighnut

Guru
Location
On 3 Wheels
He, lorry driver, joined from Wiltshire Road. Which side I don't know. Road is a circular one
View attachment 478970
According to the report in the paper he was turning left so he would have crossed the cycle path no matter where he emerged.
 

Shut Up Legs

Down Under Member
Mr Gordon said: "The prosecution say Mr Beharrell was not in any way at fault. He did nothing wrong at all in terms of the riding of his cycle, what he was wearing for him to be visible to other road users, and in terms of wearing a cycling helmet."

The junction between Wiltshire Road and Hessle Road had give-way markings which were "clear and visible", Mr Gordon said. He also said: "The weather was sunny. It was a clear day and visibility was good."
I see the prosecutor thinks that wearing brightly coloured clothing and wearing a helmet are somehow relevant, and then mentions that it was a clear, sunny day with good visibility. The prosecutor should find a job for which he's better qualified. He just made so many errors with those statements, I don't know where to start refuting them.
 

Drago

Flouncing Nobber
Location
The Oval Office
I see the prosecutor thinks that wearing brightly coloured clothing and wearing a helmet are somehow relevant, and then mentions that it was a clear, sunny day with good visibility. The prosecutor should find a job for which he's better qualified. He just made so many errors with those statements, I don't know where to start refuting them.
Prosecutors and defence throw mud in the hope of messing up the waters or having some stick. Facts have little to do with that process.

I know a case that was lost because one of the expert witnesses accidentally put 2 x full stops at the end of one sentence in his report. Facts were a mere inconvenience.
 
I see the prosecutor thinks that wearing brightly coloured clothing and wearing a helmet are somehow relevant, and then mentions that it was a clear, sunny day with good visibility. The prosecutor should find a job for which he's better qualified. He just made so many errors with those statements, I don't know where to start refuting them.
The prosecutor will have seen a defence case statement, he will also have seen the defendant's police interview, so he will have an idea what the defence is going to be.

He opens his remarks by saying the cyclist did nothing wrong at all in terms of riding his cycle, which suggests the defendant might be intending to say the cyclist darted out in front of his lorry.

The hi-viz remark is largely a sideshow, but it's a positive point for the prosecution so he may as well chuck it in.

It's an adversarial system - a battle - no point in leaving any bullets in the chamber.

Similarly, the hi-viz taken with the helmet suggests to a largely non-cycling jury panel a well-prepared, responsible cyclist.

One, members of the jury might think, who is unlikely to ride his bike in a reckless fashion.

Good seeing conditions, if anything, reinforce the prosecution case because it gives the driver one less excuse for the collision.

I've not heard of this prosecutor, but your suggestion that he is incompetent doesn't stand up on the reported evidence we have.
 
Top Bottom