# Husband of cyclist killed by London lorry cries as driver is acquitted



## Dec66 (31 Mar 2016)

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...-by-london-lorry-cries-as-driver-is-acquitted 

Particularly resonates with me, this one, as I work nearby.

Awful.


----------



## Lonestar (31 Mar 2016)

> Judge Gerald Gordon said: “I would like it to be made absolutely clear to the family that the verdict of the jury does not imply any form of criticism of Gehlau.”
> 
> He added that it may be that the differing rules of the road from Germany were “a factor”.


----------



## Markymark (31 Mar 2016)

Lonestar said:


>


I'm guessing the judge means in Germany lorry drivers are expected to look where they're fecking well going. I can so how that is an easy mistake to make,


----------



## GrumpyGregry (31 Mar 2016)

I really didn't appreciate the way the media played up the driver's suffering.

Perhaps we need a new offence : Causing death whilst driving, equivalent to the lower end of manslaughter and thus take the subjectivity of dangerous, or, in this case, careless, out of it? Because if it takes juries less than an hour to decide about cases like these then I begin to despair.


----------



## Tin Pot (31 Mar 2016)

The article doesn't explain the verdict.


----------



## sidevalve (31 Mar 2016)

Very sad BUT once again we have a case of a rider going up the left hand side of a left turning vehicle. I mean why ? It was stood for a long time at lights - it didn't just swing around. In 23 seconds I could have WALKED the length of that truck so she came from behind it and CHOSE to go on the left.


Markymark said:


> Germany lorry drivers are expected to look where they're fecking well going.


And maybe cyclists are supposed to think. Every form of cycle training even back when I were a lad and including the highway code says DON'T do it but they still do No this is not 'victim blaming' it is a stupid thing to do. Stuff expecting the driver to see you - it's just simple self preservation and I'm afraid common sense.


----------



## Tin Pot (31 Mar 2016)

sidevalve said:


> Very sad BUT once again we have a case of a rider going up the left hand side of a left turning vehicle. I mean why ? It was stood for a long time at lights - it didn't just swing around. In 23 seconds I could have WALKED the length of that truck so she came from behind it and CHOSE to go on the left.
> 
> And maybe cyclists are supposed to think. Every form of cycle training even back when I were a lad and including the highway code says DON'T do it but they still do No this is not 'victim blaming' it is a stupid thing to do. Stuff expecting the driver to see you - it's just simple self preservation and I'm afraid common sense.



Once again, lots of criticism of the victim.

People are stupid, and do stupid things - this is life. If you choose to wield an enormous truck through London you had better have learned this before doing so or you will kill people. Like this guy has.

You drive the truck, you take great farking care with it.


----------



## Pale Rider (31 Mar 2016)

Tin Pot said:


> The article doesn't explain the verdict.



What part of the phrase 'not guilty' do you not understand?

That sounds flippant, but the jury does not explain its verdict to anyone, thus there is no explanation available.


----------



## Tin Pot (31 Mar 2016)

Pale Rider said:


> What part of the phrase 'not guilty' do you not understand?
> 
> That sounds flippant, but the jury does not explain its verdict to anyone, thus there is no explanation available.



What part of "explain" don't you understand.

Stop being such a ...........


----------



## Pale Rider (31 Mar 2016)

Tin Pot said:


> What part of "explain" don't you understand.
> 
> Stop being such a ............





Sit through a few crown court trials and you might grasp the point.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (31 Mar 2016)

Tin Pot said:


> The article doesn't explain the verdict.


Maybe it is inexplicable?


----------



## GrumpyGregry (31 Mar 2016)

sidevalve said:


> Very sad BUT once again we have a case of a rider going up the left hand side of a left turning vehicle. I mean why ? It was stood for a long time at lights - it didn't just swing around. In 23 seconds I could have WALKED the length of that truck so she came from behind it and CHOSE to go on the left.
> 
> And maybe cyclists are supposed to think. Every form of cycle training even back when I were a lad and including the highway code says DON'T do it but they still do No this is not 'victim blaming' it is a stupid thing to do. Stuff expecting the driver to see you - it's just simple self preservation and I'm afraid common sense.


sorry but that is victim blaming.

stupidity is not meant to be a death sentence.


----------



## Smokin Joe (31 Mar 2016)

Markymark said:


> I'm guessing the judge means in Germany lorry drivers are expected to look where they're fecking well going. I can so how that is an easy mistake to make,


It was the cyclist who was German, not the driver.

Tragic as it is, going up the inside of a truck with it's left indicator on is very unwise.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (31 Mar 2016)

Smokin Joe said:


> Tragic as it is, going up the inside of a truck with it's left indicator on is very unwise.


Unwise? So is going out in the rain without an umbrella.

But lacking wisdom should not get you killed by another person.


----------



## boydj (31 Mar 2016)

I think that what this tragedy illustrates is the difference in culture between cycling in Britain and cycling on the continent where there are more cyclists, much higher awareness from drivers to the presence of cyclists and much less of the 'me first' attitude from drivers.


----------



## 400bhp (31 Mar 2016)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Unwise? So is going out in the rain without an umbrella.
> 
> But lacking wisdom should not get you killed by another person.



Going out in a thunderstorm with an umbrella?


----------



## jefmcg (31 Mar 2016)

Tin Pot said:


> What part of "explain" don't you understand.


I'm not sure who you are expecting an explanation from. As it was a jury verdict, we are never going to know more than "not guilty". They are not allowed to talk about it.

---
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/lond...ze-opportunity-to-improve-safety-9810327.html


----------



## doog (31 Mar 2016)

Tin Pot said:


> Stop being such a ..........




Play nice now....he does have a point.


----------



## Lonestar (31 Mar 2016)

Yet another in a hurry to get to the traffic light yet again to spend 23 seconds there because I take it they were red or perhaps he wanted to light up his ciggy (sic)...How many times is there a dodgy overtake to catch the same vehicle up yet again at lights because people can't read ahead..

Sorry don't want to cause offence by this post but it's what I see on my commutes (as others do) day after day regardless of which vehicle is being driven...


----------



## J1888 (31 Mar 2016)

User13710 said:


> Do we know for certain that the indicator was on? Reports say he turned left, activating the warning announcement, which is not quite the same thing. @glenn forger has a link to this driver's previous conviction for the same thing, horrifyingly he was acquitted despite the fact that in that case he was not indicating.



I recall that Glenn foger found a link to a Vincent Doyle who was acquitted of death by dangerous driving (I think?) in 1999. 

Exceptionally coincidental?


----------



## growingvegetables (31 Mar 2016)

J1888 said:


> I recall that Glenn foger found a link to a Vincent Doyle who was acquitted of death by dangerous driving (I think?) in 1999.





> "Danny" Reidar Farr - London, d. 1.Oct.1999, killed on the job at the junction of Westbourne Grove and Hereford Road, by a left turning skip lorry, driven by Vincent Doyle, operated by PowerDay. Despite witness evidence that driver failed to signal, court acquitted driver. He was 30 and worked at Swiftcall.


----------



## J1888 (31 Mar 2016)

User13710 said:


> OH FOR FECK'S SAKE! TMN to me, again.



Que?


----------



## J1888 (31 Mar 2016)

That's the very one. 

Is there any way that we can prove it's the same bloke? I'm just wary of any legal implications of saying that it's definitely the same fella 100%


----------



## davefb (31 Mar 2016)

Age seems right.. and locality same.. can't be that many vincent doyles...


----------



## Lonestar (31 Mar 2016)

sidevalve said:


> Very sad BUT once again we have a case of a rider going up the left hand side of a left turning vehicle. I mean why ? It was stood for a long time at lights - it didn't just swing around. In 23 seconds I could have WALKED the length of that truck so she came from behind it and CHOSE to go on the left.
> 
> And maybe cyclists are supposed to think. Every form of cycle training even back when I were a lad and including the highway code says DON'T do it but they still do No this is not 'victim blaming' it is a stupid thing to do. Stuff expecting the driver to see you - it's just simple self preservation and I'm afraid common sense.



Like motorists are supposed to think while they are chatting happily on their mobile phones.We are all supposed to look out for each other but it seems whatever sort of road user there is you know some of these people are pushing the old braincells, just driving the vehicle without doing other things or being able to read ahead as I have already stated..I know for a fact quite a majority of lorries or cars barely indicate half the time.What is that all about?


----------



## J1888 (31 Mar 2016)

User13710 said:


> It appeared that you had ignored my previous post about this issue. However, the quote of my post miraculously appeared in your contribution just after I posted in protest. You can find the definition of a TMN in Forum Abbreviations.



I haven't knowingly ignored any of your posts, no need to get antsy.

If it's the same guy (likely) then it makes a tragic situation even worse, but I would be interested to see if we could get solid proof to confirm that it's the same bloke.


----------



## growingvegetables (31 Mar 2016)

sidevalve said:


> And maybe cyclists are supposed to think. Every form of cycle training even back when I were a lad and including the highway code says DON'T do it but they still do No this is not 'victim blaming' it is a stupid thing to do.


[RANT ON]
Sorry, but this leaves me seething.

How the fark is somebody a month into a country to be expected to second guess the rank incompetence of generations of road engineers, the gross negligence of local and central government, and the aggressive culture of driving in Britain.

*Surprise, folks - it's NOT actually stupid* ......... to assume a cycle lane has been professionally and safely designed, with appropriate legislation about giving way to vulnerable road users in cycle lanes, and with appropriately aggressive standards of sentencing for lorry drivers who don't know what their Trixi mirror is, and whose other mirrors were imperfectly adjusted. 

Unless of course, as most of us have been, one is thoroughly institutionalised into the madness on Britain's roads.
[RANT OFF]

As you were, friends!


----------



## GrumpyGregry (31 Mar 2016)

400bhp said:


> Going out in a thunderstorm with an umbrella?


Is you getting killed by another person how?


----------



## 400bhp (31 Mar 2016)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Is you getting killed by another person how?



It was kind of my point.

We would probably mostly accept the stupidity of going out in a thunderstorm with an umbrella. Partly because the weather is what it is. You can't change it, it's just accepted.

Many people accept that deaths occur from driving/drivers because driving is seem as a normal event, not dissimilar to the weather. Which is disheartening.


----------



## glenn forger (1 Apr 2016)

If a cyclist overtook their car then swung left and struck their vehicle I expect those jury members would scream blue murder.


----------



## Accy cyclist (1 Apr 2016)

If this is the same Vincent Doyle as the one who killed someone in 1999 then surely it's a case of no smoke without fire. Were the jurors allowed to know it was him..IF it was him?


----------



## Rumple stilskin (1 Apr 2016)

J1888 said:


> That's the very one.
> 
> Is there any way that we can prove it's the same bloke? I'm just wary of any legal implications of saying that it's definitely the same fella 100%


It's not the same person get your facts right as none of you seem to know what you are talking about concerning this case


----------



## Rumple stilskin (1 Apr 2016)

User13710 said:


> Do we know for certain that the indicator was on? Reports say he turned left, activating the warning announcement, which is not quite the same thing. @glenn forger has a link to this driver's previous conviction for the same thing, horrifyingly he was acquitted despite the fact that in that case he was not indicating.


This driver does not have any accident record for his whole 25 years in the haulage industry


----------



## Rumple stilskin (1 Apr 2016)

J1888 said:


> I haven't knowingly ignored any of your posts, no need to get antsy.
> 
> If it's the same guy (likely) then it makes a tragic situation even worse, but I would be interested to see if we could get solid proof to confirm that it's the same bloke.


I can confirm that the driver is NOT THE SAME PERSON


----------



## Spinney (1 Apr 2016)

Rumple stilskin said:


> I can confirm that the driver is NOT THE SAME PERSON


How do you know?


----------



## TheJDog (1 Apr 2016)

Rumple stilskin said:


> This driver does not have any accident record for his whole 25 years in the haulage industry



Well, now he does. And it's a bad one.


----------



## Rumple stilskin (1 Apr 2016)

Spinney said:


> How do you know?


Because I am the driver and I'm getting fed up of people's ignorant assumptions


----------



## Rumple stilskin (1 Apr 2016)

TheJDog said:


> Well, now he does. And it's a bad one.


It was not his fault he was tried by his peers and was acquitted


----------



## Rumple stilskin (1 Apr 2016)

User13710 said:


> OK, I did contradict myself with 'conviction' and 'acquitted'. I was repeating hearsay, which is not really a good thing.


It's not a good idea when you don't have the facts


----------



## Inertia (1 Apr 2016)

Spinney said:


> How do you know?


I think Vince promised him his firstborn


----------



## jefmcg (1 Apr 2016)

Rumple stilskin said:


> Because I am the driver and I'm getting fed up of people's ignorant assumptions


You drove your enormous vehicle over a young person, then got out of the cab and shouted at her. Now (if you are Vincent) you are coming on here, shouting at us because you don't like what we are saying.

She gets to stay dead, whether or not she deserved it. You are going to be hated by cyclists, whether or not you deserve it. Get over it. You walked free, which is more than your victim will ever do again.

The narrative in the Guardian made me believe that you were truly sorry. I no longer believe that.


----------



## Markymark (1 Apr 2016)

Why didn't you use your mirrors?


----------



## flake99please (1 Apr 2016)

Rumple stilskin said:


> It was not his fault he was tried by his peers and was acquitted



Do you believe the same outcome would have been reached if the jury were made up from commuting cyclists? I think we would be looking result if it had been the case.


----------



## Rumple stilskin (1 Apr 2016)

jefmcg said:


> You drove your enormous vehicle over a young person, then got out of the cab and shouted at her. Now (if you are Vincent) you are coming on here, shouting at us because you don't like what we are saying.
> 
> She gets to stay dead, whether or not she deserved it. You are going to be hated by cyclists, whether or not you deserve it. Get over it. You walked free, which is more than your victim will ever do again.
> 
> The narrative in the Guardian made me believe that you were truly sorry. I no longer believe that.


It was a horrible ACCIDENT I live with the horror of reliving it every minute of the day


----------



## Rumple stilskin (1 Apr 2016)

Markymark said:


> Why didn't you use your mirrors?


I did


----------



## GrumpyGregry (1 Apr 2016)

Rumple stilskin said:


> It was not his fault he was tried by his peers and was acquitted


Her death was his fault and responsibility.

Acquittal at law doesn't change that. It doesn't alter reality. It simply means a jury wasn't convinced to the standard required that the crime he was charged with was committed. That doesn't absolve the accused of their fault.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (1 Apr 2016)

Rumple stilskin said:


> It was a horrible ACCIDENT I live with the horror of reliving it every minute of the day


I don't doubt it. Seek help. Get counselling. But please don't post in a cycling forum about the death of a cyclist in order to defend your reputation.


----------



## Markymark (1 Apr 2016)

Rumple stilskin said:


> I did


Was she invisible?


----------



## Spinney (1 Apr 2016)

GrumpyGregry said:


> I don't doubt it. Seek help. Get counselling. But please don't post in a cycling forum about the death of a cyclist in order to defend your reputation.


If this driver is a different person to the other Vincent Doyle referred to further up the thread, posting here to point that out is justifiable.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (1 Apr 2016)

Spinney said:


> If this driver is a different person to the other Vincent Doyle referred to further up the thread, posting here to point that out is justifiable.


OK. I agree.

Whereas denying, in a cycling forum, that he was at not at fault is what, just plain offensive?


----------



## flake99please (1 Apr 2016)

Rumple stilskin said:


> It was a horrible ACCIDENT



Finish the following. Carelessness causes....


----------



## 400bhp (1 Apr 2016)

Rumple stilskin said:


> It was a horrible ACCIDENT I live with the horror of reliving it every minute of the day



Well why not post your account of the incident here.


----------



## Sixmile (1 Apr 2016)

I would hazard a guess that we have an impersonator attempting to claim (I'm not sure why) the identity of the driver in some kind of sick belated April fools.


----------



## Inertia (1 Apr 2016)

Sixmile said:


> I would hazard a guess that we have an impersonator attempting to claim (I'm not sure why) the identity of the driver in some kind of sick belated April fools.


Indeed, unless they are in the habit of talking about themselves in the third person.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (1 Apr 2016)

boydj said:


> I think that what this tragedy illustrates is the difference in culture between cycling in Britain and cycling on the continent where there are more cyclists, much higher awareness from drivers to the presence of cyclists and much less of the 'me first' attitude from drivers.


SO let me share another perspective....

Imagine you are jogging down a main road and need to cross a side turning. A car is coming up the minor road. 99/100 times in the UK the driver will proceed all the way to the give way line, real or imagined, blocking your path, and you will have to go around the back of the car, if the car behind it has left any room and isn't trying to mate number plates. In Copenhagen the norm is for the driver to stop and allow the runner to cross. They do it for pedestrians too. They let pedestrians cross side roads if their car is on the main road turing into the side road; they wait. Heck, running in Copenhagen I've had cars reverse away from the give way line to unblock my path.

Too many UK drivers are unobservant, egotistical, selfish twats.


----------



## boydj (1 Apr 2016)

GrumpyGregry said:


> SO let me share another perspective....
> 
> Imagine you are jogging down a main road and need to cross a side turning. A car is coming up the minor road. 99/100 times in the UK the driver will proceed all the way to the give way line, real or imagined, blocking your path, and you will have to go around the back of the car, if the car behind it has left any room and isn't trying to mate number plates. In Copenhagen the norm is for the driver to stop and allow the runner to cross. They do it for pedestrians too. They let pedestrians cross side roads if their car is on the main road turing into the side road; they wait. Heck, running in Copenhagen I've had cars reverse away from the give way line to unblock my path.
> 
> Too many UK drivers are unobservant, egotistical, selfish twats.



It's 30 years or so since I was a fairly serious club runner - but that was not my experience then. Sounds like standards have fallen a long way.

Edit - btw, I'm in full agreement with your final observation.


----------



## mjr (1 Apr 2016)

sidevalve said:


> Very sad BUT once again we have a case of a rider going up the left hand side of a left turning vehicle. I mean why ? It was stood for a long time at lights - it didn't just swing around.


That's one possible interpretation of the Guardian article. Another is that it may merely mean the Advanced Stop Box when they write "cycle lane" - as the cycle lanes at Ludgate Circus stop well before the junction and do not continue across it, so if the victim had still been in the cycle lane, a turning lorry shouldn't have hit them.

Roll on the NS superhighway reshaping that junction IMO.


sidevalve said:


> And maybe cyclists are supposed to think. Every form of cycle training even back when I were a lad and including the highway code says DON'T do it but they still do No this is not 'victim blaming' it is a stupid thing to do.


Where does the highway code tell you not to think??? 

But seriously, if you mean that the highway code tells you not to ride in the cycle lane, it currently says almost the exact opposite: http://highwaycode.info/rule/63 - there are later rules warning of left-hooks and long vehicles but they are indeed later and IMO less memorable.


GrumpyGregry said:


> Heck, running in Copenhagen I've had cars reverse away from the give way line to unblock my path.


I didn't realise I'd moved to Copenhagen!

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ih70HEFE0TY


----------



## Spinney (2 Apr 2016)

[QUOTE 4220010, member: 9609"]Is there not someone on CC who has the wherewithal to put a date of birth on these two Vincents, seems a hell of a coincident, same name, similar age group doing a very similar job in the same city, but coincidents do occur.[/QUOTE]
People are not required to give DoB when they register (and even if they did, no way of checking it is correct!).


----------



## Pale Rider (2 Apr 2016)

If it's the same driver in both cases and he was acquitted of the 1999 incident, he has no driving convictions so could fairly claim in the most recent case to have an unblemished record, not least because that's what he has.

The circumstances of the 1999 case are far from clear, it was rather early for a death by dangerous prosecution because they generally didn't get underway until a few years later.

In the other thread, the victim's girlfriend mentions an inquest, which there would have been.

I wonder if the 1999 driver was ever prosecuted - the girlfriend wouldn't be the first person to confuse an inquest court inquiry with a criminal court prosecution.

The reason death by dangerous was created was because it was felt too many fatal road accidents equated to a 'free kill' for the at fault driver.

The offence is part of the 1988 Road Traffic Act, but that doesn't help a great deal because it wasn't fully enacted until some years later.

As I said earlier, I can't recall any death by dangerous prosecutions much before the early 2000s, but I'm happy to be corrected about that.


----------



## jefmcg (2 Apr 2016)

Here's a thought: if you are the driver in 2 fatal collisions, you lose your licence. I don't mean as some sort of punishment, no more than removing the licence of someone with failing sight or prone to seizures is a punishment, but just because it seems like it might be safer for them not to be on the road.


----------



## User16625 (2 Apr 2016)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Unwise? So is going out in the rain without an umbrella.
> 
> But lacking wisdom should not get you killed by another person*.*



I am gobsmacked. How would going out in the rain compare to these circumstances.

Different context, supposing someone was walking along railroad tracks when the person got run over by a train. Would it be the train driver's fault?


----------



## Mugshot (2 Apr 2016)

RideLikeTheStig said:


> I am gobsmacked. How would going out in the rain compare to these circumstances.
> 
> Different context, supposing someone was walking along railroad tracks when the person got run over by a train. Would it be the train driver's fault?


Are you suggesting that the cyclist should not have been on the road?


----------



## Smokin Joe (2 Apr 2016)

jefmcg said:


> Here's a thought: if you are the driver in 2 fatal collisions, you lose your licence. I don't mean as some sort of punishment, no more than removing the licence of someone with failing sight or prone to seizures is a punishment, but just because it seems like it might be safer for them not to be on the road.


So you're stationary at the lights on two occasions when you get rear ended with fatal consequences for the other drivers/riders you get banned?

That would be fair, eh?


----------



## PK99 (2 Apr 2016)

jefmcg said:


> Here's a thought: if you are the driver in 2 fatal collisions, you lose your licence. I don't mean as some sort of punishment, no more than removing the licence of someone with failing sight or prone to seizures is a punishment, but *just because it seems like it might* be safer for them not to be on the road.



Fortunately, the law does not work on the basis of "*just because it seems like it might"*


----------



## User16625 (2 Apr 2016)

Mugshot said:


> Are you suggesting that the cyclist should not have been on the road?



No. I am saying that it seems like the cyclist went up the left side of a lorry about to turn left. This is a big no no whether or not you think the vehicle is going to turn or not. Best to hang back at junctions. I feel this was a tragic mistake by the cyclist if this was the case. Tragic events sometimes unfold that can involve other people through no fault of their own. 

[QUOTE 4220505, member: 45"]That's not a good comparison. A better one would be a person on a level crossing, with the gates up, being hit by a train.[/QUOTE]

Again I wouldn't consider the train driver at fault. There is no way a train driver can stop in time. Maybe I'm wrong but truckers simply cannot see into certain blind spots from their position in the cab. If someone is directly below the mirrors on the left side of the cab (driver positioned on right?) then how could the driver possibly see that person. I do not know the specifics of trucks and their blind spots, but this is how I interpreted what I have read in general.


----------



## Mugshot (2 Apr 2016)

RideLikeTheStig said:


> No. I am saying that it seems like the cyclist went up the left side of a lorry about to turn left. This is a big no no whether or not you think the vehicle is going to turn or not. Best to hang back at junctions. I feel this was a tragic mistake by the cyclist if this was the case. Tragic events sometimes unfold that can involve other people through no fault of their own.


The problem is that somebody has lost their life, they weren't the first and unfortunately they wont be the last. Even if we accept that it is big no no to go up the inside of a truck, to lose your life for doing so seems a disproportionately harsh penalty. It also doesn't help to explain the incidents where people have been KSI'd when they were already waiting at the lights and have a had a large vehicle pull up either alongside or behind them.



RideLikeTheStig said:


> Again I wouldn't consider the train driver at fault. There is no way a train driver can stop in time. Maybe I'm wrong but truckers simply cannot see into certain blind spots from their position in the cab. If someone is directly below the mirrors on the left side of the cab (driver positioned on right?) then how could the driver possibly see that person. I do not know the specifics of trucks and their blind spots, but this is how I interpreted what I have read in general.


If the truck driver is unable to see the areas that they are going to be driving the vehicle in to, shouldn't efforts be concentrated on alleviating such a fundamental flaw? Remember that these vehicles, which are allegedly impossible to see out of, are being driven around every town and city in the UK. Instead the blame and responsibility is shifted and laid at the feet of the individual that has lost their life.


----------



## Pale Rider (2 Apr 2016)

Mugshot said:


> Instead the blame and responsibility is shifted and laid at the feet of the individual that has lost their life.



There is a middle ground.

It may be the jury in this case thought it was a genuine accident - no blame to be laid on either party.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 Apr 2016)

RideLikeTheStig said:


> I am gobsmacked. How would going out in the rain compare to these circumstances.
> 
> Different context, supposing someone was walking along railroad tracks when the person got run over by a train. Would it be the train driver's fault?


Stationary train. Person standing on tracks in front of train cab. Driver pulls away. Would it be the train driver's fault?


----------



## Smokin Joe (3 Apr 2016)

GrumpyGregry said:


> Stationary train. Person standing on tracks in front of train cab. Driver pulls away. Would it be the train driver's fault?


That must happen a lot.


----------



## GrumpyGregry (3 Apr 2016)

Smokin Joe said:


> That must happen a lot.


Lots of reasons why it doesn't.


----------



## markharry66 (5 Apr 2016)

This is sad. I feel so sorry for the driver and the pain he feels (really).
How long and how many lives before road safety is really embraced rather than brushed under the rug.


----------



## benb (5 Apr 2016)

From the article:


> The first he knew of Gehlau’s position was after he felt a “bump” and looked in his mirror to see her head sticking out



So she was visible in the mirrors then?
There is no way of her being not visible in the mirrors before being hit, and then suddenly visible after being hit.
Plus the driver had literally only just overtaken her, and should have been well aware of the possibility of her cycling up the feeder lane.
I find in inexplicable that the jury came to the conclusion that the driver had fulfilled their responsibility to properly carry out his observations before manoeuvring.


----------



## JtB (5 Apr 2016)

I know this video has been posted several times already, but it struck me that the only thing visible in the mirror is the lorry itself plus a very thin strip of road down the side.


The thing I fail to understand is how vehicles like this where the driver is unable to see the space into which they are being driven can be taken out onto the roads. Even cars these days have CCTVs to facilitate reversing. What's even more difficult to understand is how it can be considered acceptable to blindly drive into a cycle lane, would it also be considered acceptable to blindly drive across a footpath placing pedestrians lives at risk?

I'm sure the driver's life has been changed forever, but I know exactly what the cyclist's family are going through. A similar thing happened to my sister 22 years ago with the same outcome.


----------

