Possible error killed cyclist

[Red Light]

It's easy to blame someone who is not there to give their side of the story. As the Torygraph noted:

"There were 4,274 reported accidents involving bicycles on London's roads between August 2010 and July 2011, with 12 resulting in the death of a cyclist.

Eight of these deaths involved a heavy goods vehicle (HGV), large lorry or refuse collection vehicle.

The reports show that cyclists involved in collisions with HGVs are 78 times more likely to be killed than those hit by a car, and how the majority of these deaths happened after large vehicles turned across the cyclist’s path."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/motoring...n-two-thirds-of-cyclist-deaths-in-London.html

 

[Cheradenine]

Surly his taco graph would show that and If true you can be arrived they would have thrown the book at him, but they didn't

He could have been mini cab driving as well for all we know.

 

[gb155]

He could have been mini cab driving as well for all we know.

All operators must log drivers hours - if he was a hackney driver then they would have asked for working records

Am sure if he's a registered taxi driver then it would have been mentioned / investigated ?

 

[Cheradenine]

All operators must log drivers hours - if he was a hackney driver then they would have asked for working records

Am sure if he's a registered taxi driver then it would have been mentioned / investigated ?

I said mini-cab.

 

[Paul_L]

come on guys the speculation about the driver's hours and even whether he's working as a taxi driver on the side aren't helpful. There is no mention of that in the article.

RIP the cyclist and thoughts to the driver if, as the FACTS appear he could have done nothing more to prevent the collision.

Re. the drugs, our company (construction work) carries out regular drug and alcohol testing and there are trigger levels of substances above which impairment to carry out duties is considered likely. Trace levels, whilst demonstrating illegal drug activity may well be - as is the case here - below the levels at which impairment is likely.

 

[classic33]

come on guys the speculation about the driver's hours and even whether he's working as a taxi driver on the side aren't helpful. There is no mention of that in the article.

RIP the cyclist and thoughts to the driver if, as the FACTS appear he could have done nothing more to prevent the collision.

Re. the drugs, our company (construction work) carries out regular drug and alcohol testing and there are trigger levels of substances above which impairment to carry out duties is considered likely. Trace levels, whilst demonstrating illegal drug activity may well be - as is the case here - below the levels at which impairment is likely.

For the side effects
http://www.urban75.com/Drugs/drugspeed.html

I'm taking legal prescription medication where drowsiness is a known side effect. One is capable of "permanent sleep" if taken by the wrong person.

If drugs were used, how would that compare for those that have answered sofar with drinking & driving.

 

[Pigo]

[QUOTE 1673287, member: 9609"]I bet he's doing back flips at that outcome, taking drugs, driving a lorry, squishing cyclists and getting off with it. jeez ....[/quote]

I find that response to my thoughts on this pathetic. Did you actually read the report in the original post I wonder?
The drug taking, although inexcusable, was not deemed contributory to the incident...
Just because this is a cycling forum, it doesn't automatically make every cyclist incapable of making mistakes.
The investigations would have been thorough & in-depth & the verdict reflects that.

 

[yello]

Whether we should have to put up with this indefinitely is a different matter.

I agree. From my perspective, things are not moving quickly enough on doing something about it either. You hear noises about this or that change but this type of accident has become a too common occurrence and nobody (cyclists included) seems to be learning.

 

[xpc316e]

I am amazed by the contributors who are so quick to say that the truck driver has got away with it. Causing the death of another human, even if one is not prosecuted for it, places a huge burden on the driver. It is a very odd kind of person who is able to shrug off such a thing. There is no evidence in the report that the driver bore the brunt of the responsibility for the collision; the Coroner infers that the blame is split 50/50. Whilst I do not condone his use of drugs, it does not appear to have contributed to the cyclist's death, and the use of recreational drugs is considered acceptable by a large portion of society.

 

[Pigo]

[QUOTE 1674115, member: 9609"]Yes I read the article referred to in the first post. "

both the driver and the cyclist should have taken extra care at the junction" ​

Now clearly the cyclist has paid a heavy price for his error, however the HGV driver has had no price to pay - not taking proper care while driving a heavy goods vehicle, killing someone and being let off as its just one of those things that happens! Oh yes he may have an occasional sleepless night.

And what is this continuously bleated excuse by lorry drivers about blind spots, if the visibility of the space around them is so poor then they shouldn't be driving that vehicle. These vehicles should be taken off the road until necessary improvements have been made.

In any case its a load of bollocks about not being able to see properly, visibility around trucks is quite adequate (i used to drive lorries for a living), any competent driver giving 100% attention would have been aware of the cyclist, and if that cyclist suddenly disappeared from view they would be thinking to themselves could that cyclist be in a blind spot, I better wait a moment in case he has made a mistake.

And as for the drug use, they now know he is a drug user and yet they are letting him keep his heavy goods vehicle drivers licence! At the bare minimum he should have to prove he has been free of drugs for at least 3 years before they let him get behind the wheel again.[/quote]

A Verdict of 'Accidental Death' does by law clear the driver of causing the sad death of the cyclist.
It is just that - an accident.
I'm pleased for you that you are so perfect, can drive (& no doubt cycle) so well & have never put a foot wrong but the reality is that the most of us have made the occasional error of judgement or mistake as we are afterall only human.
As xpc has said in the post above - ' It is a very odd kind of person who is able to shrug off such a thing'
Unfortunately I know from experience just what he is likely to face in the days, nights, months & even years ahead......Dont think for one second that he has ' no price to pay' ........

 

[Muddyfox]

[QUOTE 1674115, member: 9609"]

And what is this continuously bleated excuse by lorry drivers about blind spots, if the visibility of the space around them is so poor then they shouldn't be driving that vehicle. These vehicles should be taken off the road until necessary improvements have been made.

In any case its a load of bollocks about not being able to see properly, visibility around trucks is quite adequate (i used to drive lorries for a living), any competent driver giving 100% attention would have been aware of the cyclist,
[/quote]

I spent 15 years driving trucks and if you think a truck has no blindspots then you've either never driven one or you drove a piddly little 7.5 tonner and think you're a truck driver

Now tell me again a truck has no blindspots

 

[PK99]

He could have been mini cab driving as well for all we know.

and the cyclist could have been in a zombie state because he had been up for 3 nights straight playing poker, for all we know.

FFS stop inventing things to hit the driver with!

 

[classic33]

I spent 15 years driving trucks and if you think a truck has no blindspots then you've either never driven one or you drove a piddly little 7.5 tonner and think you're a truck driver

Now tell me again a truck has no blindspots

The truck, in the video, I'd have to say is in the wrong posistion for a left turn. Taking that from the "lane markings". Wouldn't most drivers be further to the right, if turning left at a junction. Also most wouldn't start their turn just after they'd passed the stop line. Due to the length of the vehicle. As it is the trailer is going to mount the pavement. In italics miissed on origional post, added 23:57 09/01/12

Hey ho, I'm only a cyclist that has no idea about what can & can't be seen from the cab of a truck. Video is misleading. If there were a line of cars down the left hand side would the be missed as well.

As for drug use. Are we now saying that it is okay to drive if you had been using them the day before. I'll liken their use to that of drinking & driving the following day. How would people react then. Neither will leave your system overnight.

 

[col]

He could have been stacking shelves all night, or even driving pizza delivery vans or even blah blah blah. Accidents happen, why try to paint the driver in as bad a light possible?

 

[xpc316e]

One of the problems with modern trucks is that they have so many different mirrors. By the time the driver has finished checking them all prior to moving off, it is time to go back and check the first one again because things might have changed, and so on ad infinitum. It's like painting the Forth Road Bridge (used to be).