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



## classic33 (6 Aug 2019)

Lorry driver Peter Sanderson, 62, of Bodmin Road, Bransholme, is on trial at Hull Crown Court and denies causing death by careless driving.

A cyclist's last moments were captured on his own GoPro camera as he was hit and killed by a lorry while riding in a cycle lane, a court has heard.

Craig Beharrell, 42, was fatally injured when he struck by an HGV in Hessle Road, west Hull, at 7.35am on July 17, 2017.

_"It's not in dispute that the death of Craig Beharrell was the result of this collision. The question for you to decide is whether one of the reasons for the collision happening was that the defendant, Mr Sanderson, was, as we allege, driving without due care and attention; that's to say below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver."_

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/new.../peter-sanderson-craig-beharrell-hull-3180641

Cyclists evidence is their footage of the incident. Not certain how the footage will be viewed legally.

Maybe there will be settlement/closure for the family of the cyclist.


----------



## Drago (6 Aug 2019)

How can he be driving in a cycle lane if he was indeed driving with due care and attention? Surely one an exclusive of the other?


----------



## Cycleops (6 Aug 2019)

Tragic for the poor man and and his family but even more tragic that if found guilty the lorry driver might get three years, out in eighteen months. No justice at all.


----------



## Slick (6 Aug 2019)

Blind spot my arse.


----------



## raleighnut (6 Aug 2019)

How come it has taken 2 years to come to court.


----------



## classic33 (6 Aug 2019)

Drago said:


> How can he be driving in a cycle lane if he was indeed driving with due care and attention? Surely one an exclusive of the other?


He, lorry driver, joined from Wiltshire Road. Which side I don't know. Road is a circular one


----------



## classic33 (6 Aug 2019)

raleighnut said:


> How come it has taken 2 years to come to court.


Original case adjourned for a fixed date, last year.

_Judge David Tremberg told him: "Would you stand, please sir.
"I'm going to adjourn your case for trial until next year. The reason for that is that this is a case which needs a fixed date."_
https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/new...s/lorry-driver-peter-sanderson-denies-1949146

Two keys hit, corrected spelling error caused


----------



## Drago (6 Aug 2019)

That's not a terribly long time for a DD or CD case to get to court, never mind a death by.


----------



## raleighnut (6 Aug 2019)

classic33 said:


> He, lorry driver, joined from Wiltshire Road. Which side I don't know. Road is a circular one
> View attachment 478970



According to the report in the paper he was turning left so he would have crossed the cycle path no matter where he emerged.


----------



## tom73 (6 Aug 2019)

It really is a sad state of affairs when one human being believes the life of another human being is worthless.


----------



## fossyant (6 Aug 2019)

Shakes my head again. Another reason why I gave up road biking.... MTB. A lad at work does Enduro racing, and won't go near roads..... it's that metal coming at you....


----------



## Shut Up Legs (7 Aug 2019)

> Mr Gordon said: "The prosecution say Mr Beharrell was not in any way at fault. He did nothing wrong at all in terms of the riding of his cycle, what he was wearing for him to be visible to other road users, and in terms of wearing a cycling helmet."
> 
> The junction between Wiltshire Road and Hessle Road had give-way markings which were "clear and visible", Mr Gordon said. He also said: "The weather was sunny. It was a clear day and visibility was good."


I see the prosecutor thinks that wearing brightly coloured clothing and wearing a helmet are somehow relevant, and then mentions that it was a clear, sunny day with good visibility. The prosecutor should find a job for which he's better qualified. He just made so many errors with those statements, I don't know where to start refuting them.


----------



## tom73 (7 Aug 2019)

Or maybe he's got in 1st and set the recored straight before anyone can start moving blame. He's probably also aware of preconceived views of cycle safety and trying to prevent it from filling jurors heads.


----------



## Drago (7 Aug 2019)

Shut Up Legs said:


> I see the prosecutor thinks that wearing brightly coloured clothing and wearing a helmet are somehow relevant, and then mentions that it was a clear, sunny day with good visibility. The prosecutor should find a job for which he's better qualified. He just made so many errors with those statements, I don't know where to start refuting them.



Prosecutors and defence throw mud in the hope of messing up the waters or having some stick. Facts have little to do with that process.

I know a case that was lost because one of the expert witnesses accidentally put 2 x full stops at the end of one sentence in his report. Facts were a mere inconvenience.


----------



## Pale Rider (7 Aug 2019)

Shut Up Legs said:


> I see the prosecutor thinks that wearing brightly coloured clothing and wearing a helmet are somehow relevant, and then mentions that it was a clear, sunny day with good visibility. The prosecutor should find a job for which he's better qualified. He just made so many errors with those statements, I don't know where to start refuting them.



The prosecutor will have seen a defence case statement, he will also have seen the defendant's police interview, so he will have an idea what the defence is going to be.

He opens his remarks by saying the cyclist did nothing wrong at all in terms of riding his cycle, which suggests the defendant might be intending to say the cyclist darted out in front of his lorry.

The hi-viz remark is largely a sideshow, but it's a positive point for the prosecution so he may as well chuck it in.

It's an adversarial system - a battle - no point in leaving any bullets in the chamber.

Similarly, the hi-viz taken with the helmet suggests to a largely non-cycling jury panel a well-prepared, responsible cyclist.

One, members of the jury might think, who is unlikely to ride his bike in a reckless fashion.

Good seeing conditions, if anything, reinforce the prosecution case because it gives the driver one less excuse for the collision.

I've not heard of this prosecutor, but your suggestion that he is incompetent doesn't stand up on the reported evidence we have.


----------



## Shut Up Legs (7 Aug 2019)

Pale Rider said:


> The prosecutor will have seen a defence case statement, he will also have seen the defendant's police interview, so he will have an idea what the defence is going to be.
> 
> He opens his remarks by saying the cyclist did nothing wrong at all in terms of riding his cycle, which suggests the defendant might be intending to say the cyclist darted out in front of his lorry.
> 
> ...


You make some good points, but I despair of the future of cycling in the UK, and in Australia where a similar attitude to cyclists exists, while those in the legal profession place so much importance on things that should be irrelevant to cycling. We should be able to cycle without being dressed in a particular way, and also without helmets that have never be proven to be effective. Instead, we have to repeatedly deal with all this garbage. So while the prosecutor may be doing all the right things to win the case, he's certainly not doing cyclists in general any favours. It's so bloody depressing.


----------



## icowden (7 Aug 2019)

As Pale Rider summed up perfectly, it's nothing to do with the Legal Profession. *It is entirely for the benefit of the Jury*. It is the job of the Prosecutor to persuade the Jury of guilt and the job of the defender to persuade the Jury that the accused is not guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

You can bang on about "We should be able to cycle without being dressed in a particular way, and also without helmets that have never be proven to be effective" but it means nothing if the prevailing attitude of a Juror is that one road user should make sure that they are visible to another road user. Perhaps whether or not the cyclist was visible shouldn't be a consideration, but by bringing it up first and pointing out that the cyclist was "correctly attired", and visibility was good, it removes a defense argument that the cyclist was not visible.

Neither barrister could give a brass monkeys about the attitude of the cycling community to their comments. They are there for one purpose - to establish the guilt or innocence of the accused. They don't have to believe the accused, like the accused or think that the accused is innocent. The defender defends and the prosecutor prosecutes.

We have an adversarial system which is about presenting two conflicting stories, other countries use an inquisitorial system which can be more factual (there isn't a case for the prosecution and a case for the defense - just "these are the facts" and " this is the information from the witnesses" you must decide whether the accused is guilty based on this). Both have strengths and weaknesses.

I thoroughly recommend the Secret Barrister's "the Law and why it is broken" if you want to get a good insight into our creaking and collapsing legal system.


----------



## Shut Up Legs (7 Aug 2019)

icowden said:


> As Pale Rider summed up perfectly, it's nothing to do with the Legal Profession. *It is entirely for the benefit of the Jury*. It is the job of the Prosecutor to persuade the Jury of guilt and the job of the defender to persuade the Jury that the accused is not guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
> 
> You can bang on about "We should be able to cycle without being dressed in a particular way, and also without helmets that have never be proven to be effective" but it means nothing if the prevailing attitude of a Juror is that one road user should make sure that they are visible to another road user. Perhaps whether or not the cyclist was visible shouldn't be a consideration, but by bringing it up first and pointing out that the cyclist was "correctly attired", and visibility was good, it removes a defense argument that the cyclist was not visible.
> 
> ...


Yes, I'm aware of why the prosecutor and defender make the points they do, and you've said nothing I don't already know, but it doesn't change the depressing fact that they're both reinforcing the myths about hi-vis clothing and helmets, and helping suppress cycling.


----------



## Drago (7 Aug 2019)

Perhaps the integrity of the drivers eyesight and situational awareness is of far more relevance than what shade of sequined ballgown the rider was wearing?

PR's explanation is very succinct, spot on, but I must agree with Mr Legs when he complains that this should not an issue at any level in our society. It _is_ an irrelevance, and it's a shame the uneducated driving public, ie, probably every member of the jury, do not regard it as such. That being the case, it's a good card for the prosecutor to play, but it is disturbing that they would have to do so at all.


----------



## icowden (7 Aug 2019)

Shut Up Legs said:


> it doesn't change the depressing fact that they're both reinforcing the myths about hi-vis clothing and helmets, and helping suppress cycling.



And it is language like this that perpetuate things. There is no myth about helmets or hi-vis clothing. There are two clearly opposing points of view. There is a body of evidence that supports both narratives. That being said, this is the law. If a Barrister feels that most reasonable people would support the view that a cyclist should try to be visible and to wear a helmet then they will make use of that.

In this case they use it to reinforce that the cyclist was visible. Had the cyclist been on a dark bike, on a dark street, at night with no lights then they would have taken the line that the lorry driver could not see the cyclist, and used that as a defence point whether it would have made a difference or not.

All of the dashcam and cyclists cam footage will be admissible, it is up to the barristers as to whether they rely on it. I suspect that the defence will argue that the cyclist darted in front of the lorry into the blind spot rather than braking and coming to a halt, while the prosecution will likely argue that the cyclist had insufficient time to stop and was visible (dependent on whether the dashcam footage supports that).

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


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV-rhiGRFTE


Personally I don't think that visibility in terms of high vis can always be said to be an irrelevance. In this case I think it is. From the looks of it, the trial could be a close call. Remember the Jury has to be sure beyond reasonable doubt that the driver was driving below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver.


----------



## raleighnut (7 Aug 2019)

icowden said:


> [QUOTE="Shut Up Legs, post: 5701571, member: 9294"it doesn't change the depressing fact that they're both reinforcing the myths about hi-vis clothing and helmets, and helping suppress cycling.



And it is language like this that perpetuate things. There is no myth about helmets or hi-vis clothing. There are two clearly opposing points of view. There is a body of evidence that supports both narratives. That being said, this is the law. If a Barrister feels that most reasonable people would support the view that a cyclist should try to be visible and to wear a helmet then they will make use of that.

In this case they use it to reinforce that the cyclist was visible. Had the cyclist been on a dark bike, on a dark street, at night with no lights then they would have taken the line that the lorry driver could not see the cyclist, and used that as a defence point whether it would have made a difference or not.

All of the dashcam and cyclists cam footage will be admissible, it is up to the barristers as to whether they rely on it. I suspect that the defence will argue that the cyclist darted in front of the lorry into the blind spot rather than braking and coming to a halt, while the prosecution will likely argue that the cyclist had insufficient time to stop and was visible (dependent on whether the dashcam footage supports that).

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


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lV-rhiGRFTE


Personally I don't think that visibility in terms of high vis can always be said to be an irrelevance. In this case I think it is. From the looks of it, the trial could be a close call. Remember the Jury has to be sure beyond reasonable doubt that the driver was driving below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver.[/QUOTE]

This has nothing relevant to the accident that occurred, the cyclist was travelling along a main road (in the cyclepath) when a lorry turning left out of a side road drove straight into him. The driver claims that the cyclist was obscured by his mirror array. The witness in the van that was behind the lorry claims that instead of stopping at the 'give way' the driver "lurched forward'


----------



## Drago (7 Aug 2019)

Thank heavens for witnesses.


----------



## classic33 (7 Aug 2019)

Drago said:


> Thank heavens for witnesses.


Willing to come forward.


----------



## Rusty Nails (7 Aug 2019)

Shut Up Legs said:


> Yes, I'm aware of why the prosecutor and defender make the points they do, and you've said nothing I don't already know, but it doesn't change the depressing fact that they're *both reinforcing the myths about hi-vis clothing and helmets,* and helping suppress cycling.





icowden said:


> And it is language like this that perpetuate things. *There is no myth about helmets or hi-vis clothing. There are two clearly opposing points of view. *There is a body of evidence that supports both narratives. That being said, this is the law. If a Barrister feels that most reasonable people would support the view that a cyclist should try to be visible and to wear a helmet then they will make use of that.
> .



I agree completely with @icowden on this. There is a perfectly reasonable debate about the efficacy of helmets and hi-vis, but the barristers quite rightly don't give a rat's a#se about an internal debate in the cycling world other than how it could be used to benefit their client. 

The debate will go on and on and on.....no matter what is said in this trial.


----------



## classic33 (7 Aug 2019)

Rusty Nails said:


> I agree completely with @icowden on this. There is a perfectly reasonable debate about the efficacy of helmets and hi-vis, but the barristers quite rightly don't give a rat's a#se about an internal debate in the cycling world other than how it could be used to benefit their client.
> 
> The debate will go on and on and on.....no matter what is said in this trial.


Other than showing that the deceased had done everything legally possible to make himself visible to other road users, and taken care(whatever your belief on them) to protect himself. Right down to riding in the cycle lane.


----------



## DRM (7 Aug 2019)

The one thing about this is that as Hull is a quite flat area it’s inundated with cyclists, and always has been, therefore if you’re driving you would expect to see cyclists,on the roads and drive accordingly, it’s not a surprise to see people on bikes!


----------



## icowden (7 Aug 2019)

That's a good point for the prosecution. The Lorry driver is a local, and should be familiar with the area.


----------



## icowden (7 Aug 2019)

Drago said:


> Thank heavens for witnesses.



Yes and no. The thing about witnesses is that barristers can confuse them easily. Your memory of what happened can be unreliable. If a witness is called and the defense can show any discrepancy whatsoever between Police statement and statement at the court they can show that the witness testimony is unreliable. 

I'm not defending the driver by the way, just pointing out how difficult it can be to get a conviction, and how easily good barristers can make a difference. Let's face it, there are no winners from this trial. I often think that we need an alternative to "prison" for this sort of conviction. It seems unlikely that the lorry driver will be more penitent after a prison sentence (assuming a conviction). It would make more sense for a sentence of restitution IMHO, in consultation with the family of the victim for an appropriate period. Life-long payment to support the deceased's children / family for example, or donations to a charity, community service, or a combination of things etc.


----------



## classic33 (7 Aug 2019)

It's hard to present video evidence, from two seperate vehicles in any other way than it was recorded. 

You get a view of what happened that words, spoken or written, and diagrams can never give you.

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.


----------



## Shut Up Legs (7 Aug 2019)

icowden said:


> And it is language like this that perpetuate things. There is no myth about helmets or hi-vis clothing. There are two clearly opposing points of view. There is a body of evidence that supports both narratives.


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.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (7 Aug 2019)

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


----------



## icowden (8 Aug 2019)

classic33 said:


> 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 (8 Aug 2019)

icowden said:


> 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 (8 Aug 2019)

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 (8 Aug 2019)

Shut Up Legs said:


> 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 (8 Aug 2019)

Which in itself is debateable...


----------



## classic33 (8 Aug 2019)

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 (8 Aug 2019)

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


----------



## Slick (8 Aug 2019)

Drago said:


> 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 (8 Aug 2019)

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


----------



## classic33 (8 Aug 2019)

Slick said:


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


You'd think so.


----------



## Phaeton (8 Aug 2019)

icowden said:


> 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 (8 Aug 2019)

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


----------



## Phaeton (8 Aug 2019)

flake99please said:


> 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 (8 Aug 2019)

flake99please said:


> 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.


----------



## flake99please (8 Aug 2019)

Phaeton said:


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



If that’s the case in this instance, then I stand corrected.


----------



## Profpointy (8 Aug 2019)

The moral I take from this is the lethality of cycle lanes, regardless any the blame due to the lorry driver


----------



## TheDoctor (8 Aug 2019)

I don't actually understand why vehicles with massive blind spots are allowed on the road in the first place.


----------



## Zanelad (8 Aug 2019)

icowden said:


> 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.



He can find alternative employment, or should he be able to continue to kill others just so his family can eat?


----------



## Origamist (9 Aug 2019)

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/new...craig-beharrell-peter-sanderson-trial-3189591

The defence is employing the 'constant bearing, decreasing range' phenomenon to argue the driver's innocence (although their CCTV specialist is defining it as 'synchronicty'). Whilst the article does not go into much detail on the extent of the cross-examination, hopefully the prosecution made it clear that if the driver had made any effort to change his head position and therefore perspective on the approach to the junction - as a competent HGV driver would, the cyclist would have been visible and the collision avoidable.


----------



## icowden (9 Aug 2019)

Zanelad said:


> He can find alternative employment, or should he be able to continue to kill others just so his family can eat?



Alternative employment might not be as easy as you think it is, if driving is his only skill-set and given his age. You then make a false equivalence. His driving is likely to be much more cautious as a result of this horrific incident. The point of restorative justice is to try to find the best way of dealing with a crime. It may be to disqualify him from driving. It might be to force him to retake his tests. It might be a permanent ban. But his circumstances are still valid. You have no idea about his family, who relies on him and for what. On the other hand he might not want to drive again anyway, he's close to retirement age. In which case banning him serves no real purpose.

It might be that he has no dependents. It might be that he has a severely disabled son / daughter / mother / father and the money he earns pays for treatment and care. There is a whole spectrum of circumstances that a Judge takes into account to determine the appropriate sentence. Throw him in prison? That's expensive. Is his attitude going to be any different when he leaves prison, or is he already contrite and devastated by his own actions?

This is why Judge's take great care when sentencing and consider all factors. Otherwise you end up like America and just throw everyone in prison for ever.


----------



## tom73 (9 Aug 2019)

Origamist said:


> https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/new...craig-beharrell-peter-sanderson-trial-3189591
> 
> The defence is employing the 'constant bearing, decreasing range' phenomenon to argue the driver's innocence (although their CCTV specialist is defining it as 'synchronicty'). Whilst the article does not go into much detail on the extent of the cross-examination, hopefully the prosecution made it clear that if the driver had made any effort to change his head position and therefore perspective on the approach to the junction - as a competent HGV driver would, the cyclist would have been visible and the collision avoidable.



From what has been reported what ever they are paying him it's too much and the defence don't look to have done much homework round it either.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (9 Aug 2019)

How could it be constant bearing decreasing range if the driver was stopped, other than approaching at 90 degrees in which case it'd be obvious to spot the approach ?


----------



## Origamist (9 Aug 2019)

YukonBoy said:


> How could it be constant bearing decreasing range if the driver was stopped, other than approaching at 90 degrees in which case it'd be obvious to spot the approach ?



The driver stated he never stopped at the junction and looked but failed to see the cyclist. This explains the line of defence. I hope the prosecution robustly challenged this theory.


----------



## midlife (9 Aug 2019)

Origamist said:


> https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/new...craig-beharrell-peter-sanderson-trial-3189591
> 
> The defence is employing the 'constant bearing, decreasing range' phenomenon to argue the driver's innocence (although their CCTV specialist is defining it as 'synchronicty'). Whilst the article does not go into much detail on the extent of the cross-examination, hopefully the prosecution made it clear that if the driver had made any effort to change his head position and therefore perspective on the approach to the junction - as a competent HGV driver would, the cyclist would have been visible and the collision avoidable.



Is that the same as Target Fixation or is that something different. Just trying to understand the defence and not giving any excuses.


----------



## Ming the Merciless (9 Aug 2019)

So he is admitting he fell below the standard expected. That's idiotic behaviour given the layout of the junction and known deficiencies in the truck with its blind spots. Only way to get round the blind spots is to stop and take a long enough time to take in the road you wish to join.


----------



## Origamist (9 Aug 2019)

midlife said:


> Is that the same as Target Fixation or is that something different. Just trying to understand the defence and not giving any excuses.



It's different. Bez provides a detailed analysis of the 'rolling blindspot' here: https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/collision-course/


----------



## midlife (9 Aug 2019)

Origamist said:


> It's different. Bez provides a detailed analysis of the 'rolling blindspot' here: https://beyondthekerb.org.uk/collision-course/



Thanks.


----------



## classic33 (9 Aug 2019)

icowden said:


> Alternative employment might not be as easy as you think it is, if driving is his only skill-set and given his age. You then make a false equivalence. His driving is likely to be much more cautious as a result of this horrific incident. The point of restorative justice is to try to find the best way of dealing with a crime. It may be to disqualify him from driving. It might be to force him to retake his tests. It might be a permanent ban. But his circumstances are still valid. You have no idea about his family, who relies on him and for what. On the other hand he might not want to drive again anyway, he's close to retirement age. In which case banning him serves no real purpose.
> 
> It might be that he has no dependents. It might be that he has a severely disabled son / daughter / mother / father and the money he earns pays for treatment and care. There is a whole spectrum of circumstances that a Judge takes into account to determine the appropriate sentence. Throw him in prison? That's expensive. Is his attitude going to be any different when he leaves prison, or is he already contrite and devastated by his own actions?
> 
> This is why Judge's take great care when sentencing and consider all factors. Otherwise you end up like America and just throw everyone in prison for ever.


Did the person he ended up killing have anyone relying on him being there?

If he was devasted by his actions, why plead "Not Guilty" for two years and saying he "Never saw no pushbike"?


----------



## DRM (9 Aug 2019)

As I read the article, it’s got nothing to do with blind spots, it’s all about this vehicles bigger then yours, tough shoot I’m keeping going cos it’s too big to argue with, makes me wonder seen, as it’s an old truck, hauling crap to the tip if he was on piece work, also being on a Y plate get the mechanical state of the thing checked along with maintenance records, then throw the the book at him, preferably in a sack weighted with bricks.


----------



## Zanelad (9 Aug 2019)

icowden said:


> Alternative employment might not be as easy as you think it is, if driving is his only skill-set and given his age. You then make a false equivalence. His driving is likely to be much more cautious as a result of this horrific incident. The point of restorative justice is to try to find the best way of dealing with a crime. It may be to disqualify him from driving. It might be to force him to retake his tests. It might be a permanent ban. But his circumstances are still valid. You have no idea about his family, who relies on him and for what. On the other hand he might not want to drive again anyway, he's close to retirement age. In which case banning him serves no real purpose.
> 
> It might be that he has no dependents. It might be that he has a severely disabled son / daughter / mother / father and the money he earns pays for treatment and care. There is a whole spectrum of circumstances that a Judge takes into account to determine the appropriate sentence. Throw him in prison? That's expensive. Is his attitude going to be any different when he leaves prison, or is he already contrite and devastated by his own actions?
> 
> This is why Judge's take great care when sentencing and consider all factors. Otherwise you end up like America and just throw everyone in prison for ever.



If his livelihood, and that of his family depend on his licence, then his driving should be above reproach. It boils my piss when people rack up points and then play the hardship card.

It's not that hard to drive within the law and carefully.


----------



## raleighnut (10 Aug 2019)

The driver still should have stopped at the 'stop line', not been 'creeping' out onto the main road.


----------



## Phaeton (10 Aug 2019)

I don't understand the whole case here, forget the legal part for a minute, just concentrate on the moral issue, giving the driver a leap of faith & using the logic that it is possibly physical (however unlikely) that as the driver approached the junction that the victim was obscured by the drivers right mirror. As the driver continued to move forward in a left arch the victim continued to cycle forward he stayed in the 'blindspot' up until the point of impact. Forgetting the fact that the driver should have seen the victim prior to this point had he been paying correct attention, afterall the van behind the lorry did, I think if it was me who had caused somebody's death I would plead guilty, after all there is no doubt he killed the cyclist.



raleighnut said:


> The driver still should have stopped at the 'stop line', not been 'creeping' out onto the main road.


Is there a 'stop line' there are very few in the UK, most are 'Give Way' which if they are clear has no requirement to stop, in the drivers mind there was no need to stop as the junction was clear (although it wasn't)


----------



## Bazzer (10 Aug 2019)

Phaeton said:


> Is there a 'stop line' there are very few in the UK, most are 'Give Way' which if they are clear has no requirement to stop, in the drivers mind there was no need to stop as the junction was clear (although it wasn't)



Google Maps at August 2018 and July 2017, (the dates are different at each end of Wiltshire Road), show only the broken double white Give Way road markings.


----------



## raleighnut (10 Aug 2019)

Phaeton said:


> I don't understand the whole case here, forget the legal part for a minute, just concentrate on the moral issue, giving the driver a leap of faith & using the logic that it is possibly physical (however unlikely) that as the driver approached the junction that the victim was obscured by the drivers right mirror. As the driver continued to move forward in a left arch the victim continued to cycle forward he stayed in the 'blindspot' up until the point of impact. Forgetting the fact that the driver should have seen the victim prior to this point had he been paying correct attention, afterall the van behind the lorry did, I think if it was me who had caused somebody's death I would plead guilty, after all there is no doubt he killed the cyclist.
> 
> Is there a 'stop line' there are very few in the UK, most are 'Give Way' which if they are clear has no requirement to stop, in the drivers mind there was no need to stop as the junction was clear (although it wasn't)


Even if the junction was 'un-marked' you'd have thought the driver would have stopped instead of running someone over.


----------



## DRM (10 Aug 2019)

Phaeton said:


> I don't understand the whole case here, forget the legal part for a minute, just concentrate on the moral issue, giving the driver a leap of faith & using the logic that it is possibly physical (however unlikely) that as the driver approached the junction that the victim was obscured by the drivers right mirror. As the driver continued to move forward in a left arch the victim continued to cycle forward he stayed in the 'blindspot' up until the point of impact. Forgetting the fact that the driver should have seen the victim prior to this point had he been paying correct attention, afterall the van behind the lorry did, I think if it was me who had caused somebody's death I would plead guilty, after all there is no doubt he killed the cyclist.
> 
> Is there a 'stop line' there are very few in the UK, most are 'Give Way' which if they are clear has no requirement to stop, in the drivers mind there was no need to stop as the junction was clear (although it wasn't)


The bottom line here is he’s local, I go into Hull a couple of times a month & I know it’s full of cyclists using bikes as ordinary transport, therefore if he doesn’t know, or drive accordingly then he’s a complete a*seh#le that’s not fit to be on the road at all


----------



## icowden (10 Aug 2019)

Phaeton said:


> I think if it was me who had caused somebody's death I would plead guilty, after all there is no doubt he killed the cyclist.



I agree with you re the sentiment. However, in a court case you are represented by your Solicitor and Barrister. They will advise you on how to plead. If you choose to ignore their advice, they may then choose not to represent you. The not-guilty plea isn't really about the accused and what they think they should plead, it's what the legal brief will have recommended. They will be aware that the not-guilty plea carries a risk in that it puts the family of the deceased under additional strain and if found guilty, there will be no sentence mitigation for an early plea of guilty.

It follows therefore that they must believe that they have a reasonable chance of achieving a not-guilty plea.


----------



## Phaeton (10 Aug 2019)

icowden said:


> It follows therefore that they must believe that they have a reasonable chance of achieving a not-guilty plea.


I presume you mean verdict, I just can't see how it can be achieved unless they have managed to assemble a cycle hating jury.


----------



## raleighnut (10 Aug 2019)

icowden said:


> It follows therefore that they must believe that they have a reasonable chance of achieving a not-guilty plea



Or making a bunch of money out of the case.  Let's face it they're gonna get a bunch of Wonga come what may.


----------



## icowden (11 Aug 2019)

Actually probably not. If it's a fixed cost trial, they make very little money. It's one of those myths that the Daily Mail like to peddle. A top Queens Council Barrister with a juicy libel trial - tonnes of wonga. 

If the accused is on legal aid (seems likely), his barrister is likely to be a junior and could be on course for maybe £200 for the whole trial and preparation. Some barristers make less money than baristas. The state are paying the costs of this and the cost-cap is pretty draconian. 

A good illustration is here:


View: https://twitter.com/c0unse1/status/1151383194010312705


or here:


View: https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1139149228645736448


----------



## classic33 (11 Aug 2019)

icowden said:


> Actually probably not. If it's a fixed cost trial, they make very little money. It's one of those myths that the Daily Mail like to peddle. A top Queens Council Barrister with a juicy libel trial - tonnes of wonga.
> 
> If the accused is on legal aid (seems likely), his barrister is likely to be a junior and could be on course for maybe £200 for the whole trial and preparation. Some barristers make less money than baristas. The state are paying the costs of this and the cost-cap is pretty draconian.
> 
> ...



A man was killed and you come down on the side of the person who killed him.

Spare a thought for the family of the deceased. Nothing can bring back what they have lost.


----------



## winjim (11 Aug 2019)

classic33 said:


> A man was killed and you come down on the side of the person who killed him.
> 
> Spare a thought for the family of the deceased. Nothing can bring back what they have lost.


Whatever happened, he's in court and is entitled to proper legal representation. Those providing that representation are entitled to proper remuneration. That's not taking sides, quite the opposite.


----------



## icowden (11 Aug 2019)

classic33 said:


> A man was killed and you come down on the side of the person who killed him..



As @winjim said - I'm on the side of justice not the accused. He has a right to a fair trial. Proper legal representation is part of that fairness, as is proper Judgement and sentencing.

The whole "he should go to prison for ever" lobby annoys me. If he is found guilty then the Justice system should find the best way of dealing with that guilt. Prison is rarely the best option. If you want an example of punitive justice without sense look to the USA where if you are black and in possession of a joint you can go to prison for most of the rest of your life, but if you are white and defraud a company you can be out in a few years.


----------



## classic33 (11 Aug 2019)

icowden said:


> As @winjim said - I'm on the side of justice not the accused. He has a right to a fair trial. Proper legal representation is part of that fairness, as is proper Judgement and sentencing.
> 
> The whole "he should go to prison for ever" lobby annoys me. If he is found guilty then the Justice system should find the best way of dealing with that guilt. Prison is rarely the best option. If you want an example of punitive justice without sense look to the USA where if you are black and in possession of a joint you can go to prison for most of the rest of your life, but if you are white and defraud a company you can be out in a few years.


And as you've already said you want no part in such a system.

He killed an innocent person.


----------



## Origamist (12 Aug 2019)

Not guilty:

https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/new...ter-sanderson-craig-beharrell-verdict-3201421

Judge Paul Watson told the jury after the verdict that their “knowledge and experience of the world and their experience as drivers” helped them make their decision.


----------



## flake99please (12 Aug 2019)

Words fail me....


----------



## Phaeton (12 Aug 2019)

OMFG!


----------



## raleighnut (12 Aug 2019)

Origamist said:


> Not guilty:
> 
> https://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/new...ter-sanderson-craig-beharrell-verdict-3201421
> 
> Judge Paul Watson told the jury after the verdict that their “knowledge and experience of the world and their experience as drivers” helped them make their decision.


----------



## RoadRider400 (12 Aug 2019)

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.


----------



## Slick (12 Aug 2019)

We've no chance.


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.


How much cycling experience was on the jury?


----------



## Phaeton (12 Aug 2019)

Slick said:


> How much cycling experience was on the jury?


Probably carefully chosen so that would be zero


----------



## Slick (12 Aug 2019)

Phaeton said:


> Probably carefully chosen so that would be zero


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?


----------



## icowden (12 Aug 2019)

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.


----------



## Slick (12 Aug 2019)

icowden said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



Why would a judge waste his time having a sly dig and at who exactly?

I'm sorry, I find that incredible.


----------



## icowden (12 Aug 2019)

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.


----------



## classic33 (12 Aug 2019)

icowden said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## icowden (13 Aug 2019)

And your point is?

The CCTV expert said:

G_iving 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.


----------



## classic33 (13 Aug 2019)

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"_.


----------



## Phaeton (13 Aug 2019)

icowden said:


> The cycling community is no safer and in no worse a place than they were before this trial.


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 (13 Aug 2019)

icowden said:


> And your point is?
> 
> The CCTV expert said:
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## tom73 (13 Aug 2019)

The other side to this other than the right's and wrong's of this case. Is the driver who look's to have a total lack of remorse or lack of even showing they care. Unless someone can find any reports to show they have i've not seen anything.


----------



## winjim (13 Aug 2019)

classic33 said:


> 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"_.


That's what acquitted him. Had he seen the cyclist, or had it been proven that he had seen the cyclist, he would have been found guilty.

And if I understand it correctly, the video evidence that led to the acquittal came from the cyclist's own camera, not that of the lorry.


----------



## raleighnut (13 Aug 2019)

Slick said:


> 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.



Even obeying the 'Give Way' sign would have been a start.


----------



## Phaeton (13 Aug 2019)

raleighnut said:


> Even obeying the 'Give Way' sign would have been a start.


The difficulty with that one is he didn't have to, as he claims "I didn't see no cyclist" then there was no need to "Give Way"


----------



## Slick (13 Aug 2019)

raleighnut said:


> Even obeying the 'Give Way' sign would have been a start.


Yeah, I did forget about that.


----------



## Slick (13 Aug 2019)

Phaeton said:


> The difficulty with that one is he didn't have to, as he claims "I didn't see no cyclist" then there was no need to "Give Way"


I can't believe that's a defence though. 

I think the fact he didn't see something that was quite clearly there, makes him guilty.


----------



## Phaeton (13 Aug 2019)

Slick said:


> I can't believe that's a defence though.
> I think the fact he didn't see something that was quite clearly there, makes him guilty.


Well the defence appears to have been that as he approached the junction the cyclist was in the blindspot at the other side of his right hand mirror & as he continued to approach in a left arc the cyclist stayed in that blindspot. 

I agree with you I believe he should have been found guilty. As a professional driver he should have seen the cyclist at an earlier point, although we don't know the speed of the cyclist but from the Google map image I find it difficult to imagine the cyclist at some point wasn't in the blind spot. I feel we have been let down by the either the jury or the prosecution.


----------



## Smudge (13 Aug 2019)

Experienced lorry drivers should be well aware of another vehicle or person being constantly obscured by your mirrors when both of you are moving. Its certainly something i was aware of in the many years i was driving wagons.
The fact he pulled out onto a main road, where there was a cycle lane, shows it wasn't a case of him not seeing the cyclist, but a case of him not looking properly. He should have been extra vigilant in his observation at this junction and taken into account cyclists may be there and could be obscured by his blind spots.
Really surprised he got a not guilty on this.


----------



## Origamist (13 Aug 2019)

Smudge said:


> Experienced lorry drivers should be well aware of another vehicle or person being constantly obscured by your mirrors when both of you are moving. Its certainly something i was aware of in the many years i was driving wagons.
> The fact he pulled out onto a main road, where there was a cycle lane, shows it wasn't a case of him not seeing the cyclist, but a case of him not looking properly. He should have been extra vigilant in his observation at this junction and taken into account cyclists may be there and could be obscured by his blind spots.
> Really surprised he got a not guilty on this.



Sadly, I was not surprised by the verdict. HGV drivers are aware of the blind-spots caused by their multiple mirror arrays. As you make clear, competent HGV drivers take this into account when approaching junctions, incompetent ones do not. Mr Sanderson falls into the latter category. From the limited information in the Hull Daily Mail, it appears that the prosecution did not cross-examine the CCTV specialist with a great deal of rigour and this contributed to the not guilty verdict. 

My thoughts go out to the family of Craig Beharrell. This cannot feel like justice for them.


----------



## glasgowcyclist (13 Aug 2019)

> ...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.



In my view this must not become acceptable as a defence.

Any blind spot on a vehicle is the responsibility of that vehicle's driver. One of the more enlightened road policing twitter accounts (possibly WMP or Surrey) has sent out messages in the past that an obstructive A-pillar or a large external mirror is something the driver must allow for, moving his/her head or upper body to mitigate the restricted view.

It is not right to expect others to know the particular blind spots of every vehicle.


----------



## Phaeton (13 Aug 2019)

glasgowcyclist said:


> In my view this must not become acceptable as a defence.


But it's too late it already has & now there is precedent for future use.


----------



## Smudge (13 Aug 2019)

Dont know what the training is like nowadays for HGV training, i took mine way back in 83. At that time a lot of emphasis was put on keeping an eye out for cyclists and the blind spots they can get into. I can still hear my instructors voice banging on about it and telling me if i hit a cyclist it will be deemed my fault and the penalties will be severe.


----------



## Slick (13 Aug 2019)

Smudge said:


> Dont know what the training is like nowadays for HGV training, i took mine way back in 83. At that time a lot of emphasis was put on keeping an eye out for cyclists and the blind spots they can get into. I can still hear my instructors voice banging on about it and telling me if i hit a cyclist it will be deemed my fault and the penalties will be severe.


I was a bit later, probably around 2002 I think, but I got the same lecture when I tried to pull away from a junction with a cyclist along side me. It was a female instructor who told me to always wait for the cyclist to clear the truck before moving off. I can't imagine that the training is much different today. rules regarding the mirrors has changed though. Around 2008 I think the new wide angle mirrors came in although they wouldn't have helped in this case.


----------



## Pale Rider (13 Aug 2019)

Phaeton said:


> But it's too late it already has & now there is precedent for future use.



There is no precedent.

A defendant in a similar case could run a blind spot defence, but the jury could reject it.


----------



## Phaeton (13 Aug 2019)

Pale Rider said:


> There is no precedent.
> A defendant in a similar case could run a blind spot defence, but the jury could reject it.


But could they not then appeal it sighting it had been used before?


----------



## glasgowcyclist (13 Aug 2019)

Phaeton said:


> But it's too late it already has & now there is precedent for future use.



It's only too late for this case, it needn't be applicable to future cases.


----------



## Pale Rider (13 Aug 2019)

Phaeton said:


> But could they not then appeal it sighting it had been used before?



It matters not, each case is taken on its merits, and in any event no two cases are ever the same.

Precedent is over-used, very few decisions set one, and those that do would be legal rather than evidential.

Having said that, the next lorry driver in court might think: 'a blind spot defence worked in the Hull case so it could work for me'.

Put another way, I bet that rent-an-expert's fee has just gone up.


----------



## Phaeton (13 Aug 2019)

glasgowcyclist said:


> It's only too late for this case, it needn't be applicable to future cases.


We can only hope


----------



## Phaeton (13 Aug 2019)

Pale Rider said:


> Precedent is over-used, very few decisions set one, and those that do would be legal rather than evidential.


I only know what I see on TV which we all know is 100% factual


----------



## classic33 (13 Aug 2019)

_" “Indeed, yes,” said Mr Cass. “Viewed one by one?” Mr Laprell asked. “Yes,” said Mr Cass. In cross-examination, David Gordon, prosecuting, asked Mr Cass: “This phenomenon – wing mirror blindspot synchronicity – have you come across this in other cases?” Mr Cass said he had, but not with the specifics of Mr Sanderson’s case. 

“So you have not come across a case such as this before?” Mr Gordon asked. “Not in its specifics, no,” said Mr Cass. 

“Is there any academic research being done into this phenomenon?” Mr Gordon asked. “Not that I’m aware of,” said Mr Cass. Mr Gordon said: “These particular wing mirrors, these double wing mirrors on HGVs, they’ve been a standard feature of HGVs for ten years now, haven’t they?” Mr Gordon asked. 

“That is my understanding, yes,” said Mr Cass. “These wing mirrors are a potentially fatal feature of all HGVs driving up and down our roads every day, aren’t they?” Mr Gordon asked. “That’s not for me to comment on,” Mr Cass said. 

Mr Gordon said: “We heard Mr Sanderson tell the ladies and gentlemen of the jury that he looked in the direction of the flyover and he saw nothing approaching.” 

“That is my understanding of his evidence,” Mr Cass said. “And he told the ladies and gentlemen of the jury that his view was in no way obstructed by his wing mirrors. I asked him specifically about that.” 

“Indeed,” said Mr Cass. 
_
*‘Your evidence doesn’t match defendant’s’*
_Mr Gordon said: *“How do you account for that? Mr Sanderson is saying he looked in that direction, his view was not obscured by the wing mirrors, and he saw nothing. You say he can’t possibly have seen the cyclist because the cyclist was hidden and must have been hidden.* 

“How do you reconcile his evidence with yours?” Mr Cass said: “Well, I can say what the CCTV imagery tells me about the position of the vehicles.” 

Mr Gordon said: “Isn’t his the best evidence of what he saw? He didn’t see what he was able to see and what he could see.” 

Mr Laprell stood and said: “I’m sorry, but that must be a comment rather than a proper question.” “Certainly sounded like it to me,” said Judge Paul Watson QC, Honorary Recorder of Hull and the East Riding_."

https://truckerworld.uk/2019/08/cra...hen-hit-and-killed-by-peter-sandersons-lorry/


----------



## Slick (13 Aug 2019)

classic33 said:


> _" “Indeed, yes,” said Mr Cass. “Viewed one by one?” Mr Laprell asked. “Yes,” said Mr Cass. In cross-examination, David Gordon, prosecuting, asked Mr Cass: “This phenomenon – wing mirror blindspot synchronicity – have you come across this in other cases?” Mr Cass said he had, but not with the specifics of Mr Sanderson’s case.
> 
> “So you have not come across a case such as this before?” Mr Gordon asked. “Not in its specifics, no,” said Mr Cass.
> 
> ...


Doesn't sound much like an expert to me.


----------



## Origamist (13 Aug 2019)

This is the junction in question. The cyclist was coming from the direction of the flyover (Hessle Road), using the cycle lane and approaching the junction with Wiltshire Road. The driver was coming from Wiltshire Road and turning left onto Hessle Rd.


----------



## Smudge (13 Aug 2019)

Origamist said:


> This is the junction in question. The cyclist was coming from the direction of the flyover (Hessle Road), using the cycle lane and approaching the junction with Wiltshire Road. The driver was coming from Wiltshire Road and turning left onto Hessle Rd.
> 
> 
> View attachment 479880



From the angle of the side road coming up to the main road, its easy to see how the cyclist could have been obscured by the trucks offside mirror, and constantly so with the movement of both.
However, that doesn't absolve the driver from any responsibility whatsoever imo. He should have made sure there was nothing hiding from view by moving himself and getting a perspective view of ALL the road.


----------



## Arjimlad (13 Aug 2019)

The jury seems to have found that it's not careless or dangerous to neglect to move one's head a bit to look out for cyclists in obvious blind spots when driving. .


----------



## Phaeton (13 Aug 2019)

Origamist said:


> This is the junction in question. The cyclist was coming from the direction of the flyover (Hessle Road), using the cycle lane and approaching the junction with Wiltshire Road. The driver was coming from Wiltshire Road and turning left onto Hessle Rd.
> View attachment 479880


Sorry that to me makes it even worse, if that is the correct end he was coming out of (as it is just a loop), he should have been looking out of his right window as he approached the street light on his right, there is no way he should have missed a cyclist the mirror should not have even been in play. But without seeing the actual video & CCTV we'll never know, but it doesn't feel like the right decision was made by the jury.


----------



## RoadRider400 (13 Aug 2019)

That decision is absolute bull cheet.

The jury have basically said its acceptable for an experienced lorry driver to not see a cyclist in a cycle lane, wearing an orange top in the hours of daylight.


----------



## DRM (13 Aug 2019)

As far as I'm concerned, Give Way is, or should be irrelevant for any HGV, it should be stop, before continuing, this is just about momentum and as I posted earlier with regard to anyone already on Hessle Rd, his attitude is f*ck you, I'm big, you're small, I'm right, you're wrong and there's nothing you can do about it!


----------



## icowden (19 Aug 2019)

Arjimlad said:


> The jury seems to have found that it's not careless or dangerous to neglect to move one's head a bit to look out for cyclists in obvious blind spots when driving. .



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.


----------



## Slick (19 Aug 2019)

icowden said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


Yes, let's blame anyone except the guy that actually killed someone.


----------



## Phaeton (19 Aug 2019)

Your previous responses have been clear & objective, this one seemed to drop into trolling or defense of the indefensible, 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.



icowden said:


> So let's not blame the Jury or the Judicial system.


Why? 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.


icowden said:


> Personally I find fault with truck design.


Again way? these trucks are driven potentially millions of miles a day, more likely to hundreds of thousands a day without incident, I don't care what the "expert" states, 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..


icowden said:


> The takeaway from this is that it is still much too difficult for a truck driver to see properly around his vehicle


Have you ever driven one? I've driven so many different tractor units, rigids & vans I couldn't name them all, yet in all that time I never killed a cyclist, as far as I know I never missed one, I know on occasions they have disappeared from view for a fraction of a second, on those occasions I've stopped until they reappear. But this is not one of those occasions, the driver was turning left, the cyclist was coming from the right, it's inconceivable that an experience driver paying attention missed the cyclist he would at some point been in clear view through the right hand window.


icowden said:


> 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.


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


icowden said:


> Make the junction clear that it is a right of way for a cycle lane.


You mean like making the cycle lane a different coloured tarmac & putting "Give Way" double white broken line across the road along with a white painted triangle?


icowden said:


> Put in a road calming hump and clear markings and warnings to check for cyclists.


Are you proposing that we are going to do that on EVERY junction in EVERY city, town & village, just because a driver wasn't paying attention?

Sorry maybe I don't know all the facts, but this to me appears to be a tragic accident that could have been avoided if the driver had been paying a little more attention. But we can't roll the clock back & no matter what happens it won't bring Craig Beharrell back, but I'm not convince justice was served in this case.


----------



## Pale Rider (19 Aug 2019)

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 (19 Aug 2019)

icowden said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


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 (20 Aug 2019)

Pale Rider said:


> The phrase 'beyond reasonable doubt' has been mentioned and emphasised several times.
> 
> It is no longer used.
> 
> ...



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.



classic33 said:


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



The Jury disagree with you.



Phaeton said:


> 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.



Phaeton said:


> 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.



Phaeton said:


> 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.



Phaeton said:


> 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




Phaeton said:


> 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 (20 Aug 2019)

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


----------



## icowden (20 Aug 2019)

classic33 said:


> 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 (20 Aug 2019)

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?


----------



## Phaeton (20 Aug 2019)

icowden said:


> 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.


icowden said:


> 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 (20 Aug 2019)

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 (21 Aug 2019)

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 (24 Oct 2019)

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.


----------



## Phaeton (24 Oct 2019)

steveindenmark said:


> 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 (24 Oct 2019)

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.


----------

