flake99please
We all scream for ice cream
- Location
- Edinburgh
Words fail me.... 
Lorry driver 'oblivious' when he hit cyclist in Hessle Road, On trial
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
D
Deleted member 26715
Guest
OMFG!
raleighnut
Legendary Member
- Location
- One of the 'Elite'
RoadRider400
Some bloke that likes cycling alone
07:35 am in July, to not see a cyclist in a cycle lane who was not wearing a "bright-coloured fluorescent orange top".
Mr Sanderson told the van driver: "I didn't see him. I didn't see him,"
I would be interested in finding out why.
Mr Sanderson told the van driver: "I didn't see him. I didn't see him,"
I would be interested in finding out why.
D
Deleted member 26715
Guest
Probably carefully chosen so that would be zero
Slick
Guru
I know there probably wasn't a lot of truck driving experience on the jury either but how can the judge justify comments like that?
It is possible that the Judge was having a subtle dig. They do do that.
It is as likely that a cyclist was on the jury as it is that there was not. Jury selection is quite strict.
As I said before it was always likely that he would be found not guilty. His Barrister would not have instructed him to plead that way unless there was a strong chance of acquittal.
Remember, the Jury were not there to decide whether he killed the cyclist. The only decision they had to make was about whether beyond reasonable doubt the driver was driving at a standard which was below that of a reasonably careful driver. The evidence of the CCTV specialist I think was key as that will have persuaded the Jury that the cyclist was not visible due to the masking / synchronicity effect.
It is as likely that a cyclist was on the jury as it is that there was not. Jury selection is quite strict.
As I said before it was always likely that he would be found not guilty. His Barrister would not have instructed him to plead that way unless there was a strong chance of acquittal.
Remember, the Jury were not there to decide whether he killed the cyclist. The only decision they had to make was about whether beyond reasonable doubt the driver was driving at a standard which was below that of a reasonably careful driver. The evidence of the CCTV specialist I think was key as that will have persuaded the Jury that the cyclist was not visible due to the masking / synchronicity effect.
Slick
Guru
Why would a judge waste his time having a sly dig and at who exactly?
I'm sorry, I find that incredible.
Well if the Judge is a cyclist he may have thrown in the line about the Jury's driving expertise for example. His reported closing comments are:
He told the jury after the verdict that their “knowledge and experience of the world and their experience as drivers” helped them make their decision.
And he told Mr Sanderson: “That’s the end of it the jury have found you not guilty and you’re free to go.”
which does sound a little as if he would have preferred a guilty verdict IMHO. Or he just genuinely believes that . As neither of us was there to see and hear him say it, we shall never know.
He told the jury after the verdict that their “knowledge and experience of the world and their experience as drivers” helped them make their decision.
And he told Mr Sanderson: “That’s the end of it the jury have found you not guilty and you’re free to go.”
which does sound a little as if he would have preferred a guilty verdict IMHO. Or he just genuinely believes that . As neither of us was there to see and hear him say it, we shall never know.
OP
OP
classic33
Leg End Member
The camera in the lorry was forward facing. As was that of the following vehicle. The view from where he should have been looking, would have been completly different.
And your point is?
The CCTV expert said:
Giving evidence on Thursday, defence expert Matthew Cass, a CCTV analyst, said the lorry and cyclist became "synchronised" as they approached the junction, and Mr Beharrell would have been temporarily obscured from view by the wing mirrors.
Cyclist 'obscured for three seconds'
Referring to the conclusions in Mr Cass's report, Mark Laprell, defending, asked him if it was right to say "The cyclist is completely in a blindspot caused by the door mirrors for a significant amount of time, up to three seconds, and would have become partially obscured less than two seconds before the collision".
"That is correct," said Mr Cass, who also said impact could not have been avoided in the time he said Mr Beharrell emerged from the blindspot.
I suspect that that was the compelling evidence that led to a not guilty verdict. The reporter does not report any attempt to refute or disprove this evidence. If you accept that evidence can you beyond reasonable doubt say that the driver was driving below the standard expected of a driver? The jury thought not. That’s the end of it, rightly or wrongly. He has been judged innocent of the crime of driving without due care. He will still live with the fact that he killed a man. There may be a civil suit. But the charge he was prosecuted on he was found not guilty of.
The cycling community is no safer and in no worse a place than they were before this trial. There still remains a strong argument to improve visibility from HGVs (see Elon Musks - eHGV if you want to see how sight lines can be changed). It still pays to be ultra cautious around HGVs. This is a very sad incident and remains so.
The CCTV expert said:
Giving evidence on Thursday, defence expert Matthew Cass, a CCTV analyst, said the lorry and cyclist became "synchronised" as they approached the junction, and Mr Beharrell would have been temporarily obscured from view by the wing mirrors.
Cyclist 'obscured for three seconds'
Referring to the conclusions in Mr Cass's report, Mark Laprell, defending, asked him if it was right to say "The cyclist is completely in a blindspot caused by the door mirrors for a significant amount of time, up to three seconds, and would have become partially obscured less than two seconds before the collision".
"That is correct," said Mr Cass, who also said impact could not have been avoided in the time he said Mr Beharrell emerged from the blindspot.
I suspect that that was the compelling evidence that led to a not guilty verdict. The reporter does not report any attempt to refute or disprove this evidence. If you accept that evidence can you beyond reasonable doubt say that the driver was driving below the standard expected of a driver? The jury thought not. That’s the end of it, rightly or wrongly. He has been judged innocent of the crime of driving without due care. He will still live with the fact that he killed a man. There may be a civil suit. But the charge he was prosecuted on he was found not guilty of.
The cycling community is no safer and in no worse a place than they were before this trial. There still remains a strong argument to improve visibility from HGVs (see Elon Musks - eHGV if you want to see how sight lines can be changed). It still pays to be ultra cautious around HGVs. This is a very sad incident and remains so.
Last edited:
OP
OP
classic33
Leg End Member
Craig Beharrell, the cyclist in question, wouldn't have been caught on a forward facing camera until he was in front of it.
The driver following thought the driving erratic.
Craig Beharrell leaves behind a family that have seen the person who killed him walk free. He was on the main road when hit, and killed by a lorry joining it. Whose driver stated in police interview he "Never saw no pushbike".
The driver following thought the driving erratic.
Craig Beharrell leaves behind a family that have seen the person who killed him walk free. He was on the main road when hit, and killed by a lorry joining it. Whose driver stated in police interview he "Never saw no pushbike".
D
Deleted member 26715
Guest
I'm not sure I agree with you, this has sent a message saying its acceptable to kill cyclists & then claim it was their fault, afterall we know it's wasn't the drivers fault he's been cleared by the court, so the cyclist must be to blame.
Slick
Guru
I don't agree much with what you have posted on this thread but accept that your obviously posting from a position of experience and much more than likely to be correct. (You were certainly the only poster who saw the not guilty verdict coming) That said, all the driver of the truck would have been required to do to reduce his blindspot is to lean forward or even backward depending on the exact circumstances.
Similar threads
