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

[Shut Up Legs]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

[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]

Thank heavens for witnesses.

 

[classic33]

Thank heavens for witnesses.

Willing to come forward.

 

[Rusty Nails]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[icowden]

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]

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]

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.