glasgowcyclist
Charming but somewhat feckless
- Location
- Scotland
It's only too late for this case, it needn't be applicable to future cases.
Lorry driver 'oblivious' when he hit cyclist in Hessle Road, On trial
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
It's only too late for this case, it needn't be applicable to future cases.
Pale Rider
Legendary Member
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.
D
Deleted member 26715
Guest
We can only hope
D
Deleted member 26715
Guest
I only know what I see on TV which we all know is 100% factual
OP
OP
classic33
Leg End Member
" “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/
“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
Guru
Doesn't sound much like an expert to me.
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
Tights of Cydonia
- Location
- South Glos
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. 
.
.
D
Deleted member 26715
Guest
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
Some bloke that likes cycling alone
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.
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
Guru
- Location
- West Yorks
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!
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
Guru
Yes, let's blame anyone except the guy that actually killed someone.
D
Deleted member 26715
Guest
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.
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.
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.
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..
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.
Are you serious or now grabbing at straws, it's 2M wide coloured in a different coloured tarmac!
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?
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.
