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

[tom73]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

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]

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

Yeah, I did forget about that.

 

[Slick]

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.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

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]

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]

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]

...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.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Deleted member 26715]

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?