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

[Ming the Merciless]

There is no body of evidence that supports hiviz when it coming to cycling on roads.

 

[icowden]

If there are no winners in cases like this, explain that to the family that lost one of theirs.
Driving licence should be removed for life. No hardship plea should be allowed/accepted.

So justice is only about punishment, not redemption? And punishment should extend unilaterally to the accused and his family regardless.
I'm not sure I'd want a justice system that works like that.

 

[classic33]

So justice is only about punishment, not redemption? And punishment should extend unilaterally to the accused and his family regardless.
I'm not sure I'd want a justice system that works like that.

Justice is what we get when the verdict is in our favour.

The driver has denied killing the cyclist, not guilty plea entered in the first hearing. Which is why it got this far. Two years after killing an innocent person, who was, I'm assuming, going about his lawful business in a manner he felt offerred him the best chance of doing so in safety. The driver still pleads "Not Guilty". What has the family of the deceased been put through by him maintaining his "Not Guilty" stance?

Whatever happens in court, it won't bring the cyclist back. He can't be part of any restorative system.

And yes, I'm in favour of the licence being withdrawn for life. No "hardship" plea should be allowed.


In italics added in edit.

 

[icowden]

The driver will have pled based on the advice from his Solicitor / Barrister. He is pleading "not guilty" to driving without due care and attention, not as to whether or not he killed the cyclist.

As he has pled not guilty, his legal team must feel that the body of evidence is in their favour, in that if they lose the case, he will get a heavier sentence than had he pled guilty in the first instance.

I'll stick to being a fan of restorative justice rather than punishment for punishment's sake.

 

[Rusty Nails]

The underlined bit is very debatable (look at how much information there is in the helmets thread), but this isn't the helmets thread, so I won't debate it here.

Debatable is the important word. That's why it's debated so much.

 

[icowden]

Which in itself is debateable...

 

[classic33]

Lorry driver "Never saw no pushbike" when he hit cyclist.

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/new...ws/lorry-driver-peter-sanderson-trial-3185477

His own vehicle camera has been used against him.

 

[Drago]

Christ, he can barely grunt out a sentence in English, yet he was allowed in charge of a multi ton kinetic weapon.

 

[Slick]

Christ, he can barely grunt out a sentence in English, yet he was allowed in charge of a multi ton kinetic weapon.

Him and thousands like him.

 

[Slick]

Surly the fact that he never saw no push bike would mean he's guilty?

 

[classic33]

Surly the fact that he never saw no push bike would mean he's guilty?

You'd think so.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

As for the "blind spot" argument there is a great video that illustrates just how much a lorry driver can / can't see.:

I'm sorry but this is a complete Red Herring, I would humbly suggest you remove the post or at least the link to the misleading video. In this instance the lorry driver was was approaching the junction, he was turning left, the victim (because that was what he was) was coming from the right, there is no way he should have been missed. Had the driver been paying proper attention he would have seen the cyclist at some point, either as he approached the junction or at the junction he didn't stop at.

 

[flake99please]

I am of the opinion that the lorry driver approached the junction and was looking for ‘motorised traffic’. He saw the van (behind the cyclist), and attempted the squeeze into the space in front of the van.

Drivers attempting to put themselves in a perceived space that really isn’t there is a pattern of driving I see with some degree of regularity, but without the tragic consequences of this incident

 

[Deleted member 26715]

I am of the opinion that the lorry driver approached the junction and was looking for ‘motorised traffic’. He saw the van (behind the cyclist), and attempted the squeeze into the space in front of the van.

Drivers attempting to put themselves in a perceived space that really isn’t there is a pattern of driving I see with some degree of regularity, but without the tragic consequences of this incident

That's not what I read the van was behind the lorry he saw the cyclist the lorry driver didn't

 

[Rusty Nails]

I am of the opinion that the lorry driver approached the junction and was looking for ‘motorised traffic’. He saw the van (behind the cyclist), and attempted the squeeze into the space in front of the van.

Drivers attempting to put themselves in a perceived space that really isn’t there is a pattern of driving I see with some degree of regularity, but without the tragic consequences of this incident

Yes. I've lost count of the times when drivers pull out of junctions as if they have been looking right through me at the motorised traffic. Bikes barely seem to register with some.