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

[classic33]

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]

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]

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]

Blind spot my arse.

 

[raleighnut]

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

 

[classic33]

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]

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]

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

 

[raleighnut]

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]

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

 

[fossyant]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.