Cleared of killing a cyclist

[Ian Cooper]

BUT a jury of people just like you and I, some of them possibly cyclists, have found him not guiltty.

It's extremely unlikely, given the percentage of cyclists in the general population, that any of the jury were cyclists. Even if just one of the jury was a cyclist, it is important to note that many cyclists - possibly most - are fearful of riding in the road and believe that riding in the road outside of the gutter is risky, and that accidents like this are caused by a cyclist riding in primary or secondary position. It's not just motorists who believe that.

If we want to discuss why the jury ruled the way they did, what we need to know is precisely what needs to be shown to prove the case. It would be useful to know the judge's instructions to the jury.

One thing to note is that the killer claimed that the car in front 'swerved' to pass the cyclist. This is a common claim by motorists and even police (see http://www2.tricities.com/news/2011...10-year-old-should-not-ride-bike--ar-1275159/) who see a normal overtake of a cyclist who is riding in primary or secondary position - because motorists expect cyclists to be in the gutter so that they can overtake without changing lanes or moving laterally.

I expect the jury's decision may have had to do with the lateral road position of the cyclist. If the victim was riding in primary or secondary position, the jury may not have a clue that this is normal, so they may have partially based their decision on her "dangerous" road position.

 

[Accy cyclist]

If it's true that a newspaper wrote words advocating attacking cyclists then words fail me!!​

What's all this crap about "they don't pay road tax"?! We shouldn't have to.....we don't churn up the damn roads, we don't cause pollution, we don't, cause mayhem outside schools because we're too damn lazy to walk a few hundred yards etc etc!​

I'd be happy to pay road tax if they'd provide decent maintained cycle lanes, that lazy motorists are fined for parking in. Tarmac a yard from the pavement, enabling cyclists to enjoy a bump bump, pot hole free ride, ensure that cars are ticketed, and those responsible are named to get the message across, don't bother tarmacing the whole road, cars can take the bumps, we can't!​

The local council have just completed tarmacing a pavement hardly used by pedestrians, outside a carwash/second hand car business. Guess what! the car wash owners now have a nice new forecorte, to fill with their vehicles, but no cyclists or pedestrians are allowed as the cars take up the whole width of the pavement, and the cycle lane.​

​

 

[Accy cyclist]

Going back to the poor woman mowed down by white van man. Will her family receive any form of compensation? I know it'll mean very little, but surely some payment for her funeral or compensation for her potential loss of earnings is due to her family?

 

[dawesome]

One thing to note is that the killer claimed that the car in front 'swerved' to pass the cyclist. This is a common claim by motorists and even police

Yep, the driver admitted tail-gating in court, that's usually enough to secure a conviction. The driver was way too close to the vehicle in front. So saying "the cyclist suddenly appeared" is moving the blame, cyclists don't suddenly materialise out of thin air.

 

[Ian Cooper]

...I'd be happy to pay road tax if they'd provide decent maintained cycle lanes, that lazy motorists are fined for parking in. Tarmac a yard from the pavement, enabling cyclists to enjoy a bump bump, pot hole free ride, ensure that cars are ticketed, and those responsible are named to get the message across, don't bother tarmacing the whole road, cars can take the bumps, we can't!...

​

The problem is, cyclists don't all confine themselves to the left-hand 3ft of roadway, and some of us think it's unsafe to do so. I never ride that close to the kerb. I agree with the idea behind your argument, but if we start voluntarily segregating ourselves from the general traffic lane, we're playing into the hands of those who want us off the road. I believe all of the road should be surfaced with cyclists in mind, because cyclists can and should use all of the road.

 

[Ian Cooper]

Going back to the poor woman mowed down by white van man. Will her family receive any form of compensation? I know it'll mean very little, but surely some payment for her funeral or compensation for her potential loss of earnings is due to her family?

Here in the US (not sure if it's the same in the UK - I only began being a cyclist advocate since I moved to the US), there are different trials for criminal and civil law. The criminal trial is usually first, and there's a high level of proof required to convict. In a civil trial, which comes later, any monetary damages are assessed and the level of proof needed to find fault is lower.

 

[bellevueace]

If the vehicle in front of him had braked and he had run in the back of it he would have been liable, so i cant understand how hes not liable for the cyclist given he didnt leave enough room to take avoiding action, its the lack of time to avoid the cyclist that caused the fatality.

 

[bellevueace]

When i drive im always aware of being too close to the vehicle in front, but as you say is the norm i always end up with someone right on my back bumper, too many have little patience and common sense and sadly it leads to tragedies like the one in the story.

 

[Accy cyclist]

Being"tailgated" is a bad enough experience in a car, but when on a bike it makes you think "my life is in this idiots hands"!

 

[Peowpeowpeowlasers]

[QUOTE 1934450, member: 9609"]No body seems to have picked up on the 2½ - 4 transit lengths the driver says he was behind the vehicle in front. Let us assume that the transit was travelling at 55mph (a bit unusual a white van doing less that 70 on the spine road but let's give him the benefit of the doubt) At 55mph and a vehicle length of 4.3m, to be at the edge of the recommended 2 second rule he would have needed to have been 11½ transit lengths behind. Now if he had been 11½ vehicle lengths (50 metres) behind there would have been ample time to avoid the collision, or at least braked to such a speed that the impact would have been minimal..[/quote]

You assume that the driver manoeuvred himself into such a position, when in reality the van he was following may seconds before the accident have changed lanes. I can't count the number of times someone's pulled across in front of me like that.

 

[Crankarm]

Life is cheap. One of the reasons I don't ride on the roads any more. If you are run down the criminal justice system will more than likely do bugger all to apprehend, prosecute, convict and punish the killer driver. I know in this case the jury found McKay not guilty but the prosecution must have presented what was a strong case extremely poorly which is no surprise as the CPS have form on this. He should have been prosecuted with causing death by reckless or dangerous driving. The CJS is so heavily stacked against cyclists in many instances failing miserably.

There was a similar case here in Cambs where cyclist Mr Mark Robinson was killed in much the same way except by an approaching car over taking at speed driven by a Matthew Rice. The first car pulled in having passed the vehicle they were over taking having seen cyclist Mr Robinson but the second over taking car driven by Rice hadn't seen him as he was so close to the rear of the car in front. RIce ploughed straight into Mr Robinson when the car in front pulled back in, hitting him head on causing him multiple serious injuries from which he died shortly after in hospital. Rice was also a young male driver like McKay. Rice was actually jailed for 20 weeks but this was over turned on appeal. Shocking, only 20 weeks for what should have been causing death by dangerous driving and then let out on appeal!

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Cambridge/Driver-who-killed-cyclist-freed-from-jail.htm

 

[Peowpeowpeowlasers]

[QUOTE 1936469, member: 9609"]That's an even worse scenario - in that case the driver should have been aware he was approach a cyclist before the other van cut in front of him and obscured his view.
Can anyone come up with a scenario where the van driver is blameless?[/quote]

The court found the driver blameless, and it had access to all the available evidence. You don't have that same access so what makes you think you're right?

 

[Boris Bajic]

[QUOTE 1936469, member: 9609"]That's an even worse scenario - in that case the driver should have been aware he was approach a cyclist before the other van cut in front of him and obscured his view.
Can anyone come up with a scenario where the van driver is blameless?[/quote]

I cannot, but the jury did not say he was blameless, nor were they asked to deliver a verdict on that question.

On the evidence put before them, they found that they could not find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. Blamelessness didn't come into it and in that context, rightly so.

For all that, it is a horrible story - one that will cause many of today's cyclists to shiver a little when they think of their own daily ride.

 

[400bhp]

I've just read this thread.

Given the type of accident (rear ended) I thought I'd have a look at the road in question, here

It's not a road that I would choose to cycle on-indeed, stuff like this reinforces my opinion that I am doing the right thing by avoiding A roads where I can.

Is there something to be said in banning cycles off roads like this? For clarity, I am not suggesting banning cycles from all A-roads, just ones that have are more like urban motorways (ring roads/dual carriageways with speed limits greater or equal to 50). I appreciate that it could be perceived as a thin edge of the wedge and that it is drivers that should take more care, but there's only one outcome when colliding with a vehicle whose speed is 50 or above.

I wonder how many cycle fatalities can be subdivided into collisions on such roads, with left turning lorries etc? Anyone know?

 

[Accy cyclist]

Life is cheap. One of the reasons I don't ride on the roads any more. If you are run down the criminal justice system will more than likely do bugger all to apprehend, prosecute, convict and punish the killer driver. I know in this case the jury found McKay not guilty but the prosecution must have presented what was a strong case extremely poorly which is no surprise as the CPS have form on this. He should have been prosecuted with causing death by reckless or dangerous driving. The CJS is so heavily stacked against cyclists in many instances failing miserably.

There was a similar case here in Cambs where cyclist Mr Mark Robinson was killed in much the same way except by an approaching car over taking at speed driven by a Matthew Rice. The first car pulled in having passed the vehicle they were over taking having seen cyclist Mr Robinson but the second over taking car driven by Rice hadn't seen him as he was so close to the rear of the car in front. RIce ploughed straight into Mr Robinson when the car in front pulled back in, hitting him head on causing him multiple serious injuries from which he died shortly after in hospital. Rice was also a young male driver like McKay. Rice was actually jailed for 20 weeks but this was over turned on appeal. Shocking, only 20 weeks for what should have been causing death by dangerous driving and then let out on appeal!

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Cambridge/Driver-who-killed-cyclist-freed-from-jail.htm

That is a chilling story there Crankman. I've always been a fan of wearing the brightest cycle clothing possible, and having reflectors and lights that can be very easily seen. In fact i'm very similar to those Blackpool trams http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgu...xIEUNuALKf80QXnmeGxBw&ved=0CGgQ9QEwCA&dur=159 they have during the illuminations.
The reason being that i don't want any one who god forbid, knocks me off my bike to say in court "he was hard to see, so that's why i ran into him"! Don't give the swines an excuse i say!! However as we've read, the poor woman in Sunderland was lit up like a Christmas tree but her safety concious attitude failed to save her from white van man. It seems that even when highly visible some idiots are oblivious of our presence on the road, or are aware but don't give a toss about our right to cycle and more importantly our right to return home safely!
I couldn't begin to imagine how her loved ones must feel about her death, and to be honest, if it was my relative i'd be thinking that justice definately had not been done and i'd be looking at alternative measures to see that it was!