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

[Pale Rider]

The phrase 'beyond reasonable doubt' has been mentioned and emphasised several times.

It is no longer used.

Juries are told they must be 'satisfied so that you are sure' of guilt.

Some commentators think that is an even higher bar, although there is a risk of hair splitting.

I do wonder if some jurors ask: "How can I be sure? I wasn't there."

Yet we are told the jails are full, so criminals are being convicted.

 

[classic33]

I'm gong to be pernickety. The Jury found one thing and one thing only. They found that based on the evidence presented to them, they could not ascertain beyond reasonable doubt that the driver was driving at a standard below that of a reasonable driver (i.e. carelessly). They did not find that he was or was not careless or any other inference. They found that it was not proven beyond reasonable doubt.

There are lots of things he could have done, and should have done. There are things that the cyclist could have done, and should have done. Neither of these things will change. The family are still bereaved and the driver will still have to live with the fact that he killed someone. Maybe the decision was right, maybe wrong, but the decision was made based on the evidence given and the guidance around the charge.

So let's not blame the Jury or the Judicial system. Personally I find fault with truck design. The takeaway from this is that it is still much too difficult for a truck driver to see properly around his vehicle, and in this day and age it really shouldn't be. Secondly there needs to be more education around caution when approaching trucks. I see cyclists dodging around large trucks every day, taking that chance, rather than hitting the brakes, not wanting their flow to be broken.

Both drivers and cyclists need to be able to look from each other's perspective and appreciate each other's difficulties. One day soon the trucks will be driving themselves and be far safer, having 360 degree vision and split second decision making and reactions.

Lets blame the planners too. That "cycle lane" is barely worthy of the description. it's a foot of road with a white line down one side. Make the junction clear that it is a right of way for a cycle lane. Put in a road calming hump and clear markings and warnings to check for cyclists.

This case won't really form any case law as it doesn't really establish anything new or anything in a clear fashion.

The cyclist was on the main road, the lorry driver joining it from a side(minor) road.

He proceeded before he was certain it was safe to do so. If his side window was blocking his view from the cab, why was it not noted down in his walk-around? That check he was supposed to have done before setting off.

 

[icowden]

The phrase 'beyond reasonable doubt' has been mentioned and emphasised several times.

It is no longer used.

Juries are told they must be 'satisfied so that you are sure' of guilt.

Some commentators think that is an even higher bar, although there is a risk of hair splitting.

I do wonder if some jurors ask: "How can I be sure? I wasn't there."

Yet we are told the jails are full, so criminals are being convicted.

That's true but the prosecution must still show that a person committed an offence beyond reasonable doubt. I agree with you that both can end up misleading.

He proceeded before he was certain it was safe to do so.

The Jury disagree with you.

I get the impression that the law is the only thing that matters to you, it doesn't matter whether it's right or wrong only that the process has been followed.

What matters is that we don't misrepresent what a jury verdict means or put interpretations on it.

they were either presented the wrong information or the prosecution were asleep at the wheel, this should have been a slam dunk, they weren't going for murder, or manslaughter, not even dangerous driving, simply careless driving.

Which means that the CPS were not able to find evidence that supported anything other than careless driving, and that evidence proved insufficient.

if the driver was paying attention he would have seen the cyclist, the vehicle behind him did who was further back in the curvature of the road..

And so was in a completely different position, where he could see the cyclist. The expert evidence explains this.

Have you ever driven one?

Largest I have driven is a 7.5 tonne luton and i found visibility very poor. The EU are bringing in legislation so presumably they agree.

https://www.transportenvironment.org/news/better-visibility-truck-drivers-sight

Are you serious or now grabbing at straws, it's 2M wide coloured in a different coloured tarmac!

In which case I apologise. When I looked on google maps it looked quite thin and poorly marked. maybe i was looking at the wrong thing. I still wonder about having more obvious delimiters for vehicles on side roads like humps etc.

Anyway, i seem to be coming across too much like I am defending the lorry driver which wasn't my intention. I just think that these sorts of accident will keep happening until we change the parameters rather than the drivers.

 

[classic33]

It was not an accident. Careless couldn't care less driving, but no accident.

 

[icowden]

It was not an accident. Careless couldn't care less driving, but no accident.

Um...

https://www.google.com/search?q=acc...0j69i57j0l4.4452j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

It was not deliberate, or are you trying to redefine english?

 

[Origamist]

HGV drivers are taught to look around their mirrors on the approach to junctions and roundabouts. This has been established practice for decades as it is well known that mirrors affect direct vision from the cab and two-wheeled road users are more likely to be masked. I see HGV drivers doing this check regularly at a RaB near where I work. It's standard driving competency to take this off-side obscuration into account. The fact that the prosecution were not able to persuade the jury of the driver's carelessness, reflects badly on their case. Does anyone know if they called an expert witness themselves - a HGV driver trainer for example?

 

[Deleted member 26715]

Anyway, i seem to be coming across too much like I am defending the lorry driver which wasn't my intention.

I don't think you're defending the driver at all, I'm sure you are as appalled as I am about the death, but you do seem to have a different attitude towards the case, in that as long as the correct process was followed you are happy (that is not the right word, but no other comes to mind) with the result. I on the other hand am furious at the incompetence of the prosecution, which I do appreciate is a different thing.

I just think that these sorts of accident will keep happening until we change the parameters rather than the drivers.

Again we disagree, I've been on the road over 40 years, I've ridden/driven a huge range of vehicles in that time, from a bicycle to a HGV with a 60ft extended trailer in all that time I have only had 1 accident & that I admit was completely my fault, a momentary lapse of concentration. HGV's are safe, could they be made safer, sure they can, but in the end it's down to the driver, this driver was negligent & should have been found so.

 

[tom73]

As I have said before the rights and wrongs of this case is one thing and an important one. From what has been reported the drivers lack of any ounce of compassion and reflection on what has happened is quite another. To say "never saw no pushbike" to police after the accident says all you need to know. That in the eyes of some we become none human when we get on a bike.

 

[DRM]

As I posted earlier, this driver had only one thing in mind, keeping his vehicle moving, in order not to lose time by setting off from a standing start, which as I said was he on piece work? He was taking rubbish to the tip, for some reason these type of HGV's are driven in a rushed manner, by a driver in a constant state of anger, perhaps it's pressure to do as much as possible in not enough time, I think the prosecution have let the victim down badly, the statement "I didn't see no cyclist" says to me he didn't look properly, probably through rushing about, therefore was driving below an acceptable standard.

 

[steveindenmark]

Ive been a class 1 driver for 30+ years. If you cant see whats behind a mirror you move your body not your vehicle. If the object is moving, like a bike. It is behind the miirror for a fraction of a second. This driver wasnt looking. Its that simple.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

This driver wasnt looking. Its that simple.

Although I agree with you 100% it is very clear from this ruling that we are both wrong.

 

[Stephenite]

This tragic story comes often to mind as I lean forward, or to the side, to see round the pillar at the side of the windscreen.

I understand why the family of the deceased might not want to appeal. Maybe someone else ought to on their behalf.