CityCyclingEdinburgh was launched on the 27th of October 2009 as "an experiment".
IT’S TRUE!
CCE is 16years old!
Well done to ALL posters
It soon became useful and entertaining. There are regular posters, people who add useful info occasionally and plenty more who drop by to watch. That's fine. If you want to add news/comments it's easy to register and become a member.
RULES No personal insults. No swearing.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-hampshire-25949342
It was a hit and run though the driver later owned up and:-
A post-mortem examination found Mr Irving, from Wimborne, suffered a head injury consistent with being hit by a wing mirror.
The Mercedes had "considerable damage" to its underside, including torn fabric and signs of impact with a human body, a forensic examiner told the court.
Guess the verdict.
Go on, guess.
The driver cleared was not the driver of the Mercedes though - if I read things correctly.
Appears that the "I couldn't see where I was going " defence has worked again.
How is it ok to drive at more than walking pace when you cannot see what is in front of you ?
I suspect that anyone who actually did slow down and got crashed into would be done for careless driving as the witness on the moped suggests
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25918390
I assume he was brought in by the defence. In a sane world this guy would have been a prosecution witness...
@AKen - Correct it was the minibus driver
Oh you could well be right. :-/ I am confused as to what is going on now.
@min - Minibus wing mirror hit cyclists head (probably fatally) the merc then ran over the body (probably causing rib fractures)
As far as I can tell these are the undisputed facts of the case along with the fact that the driver could not see what was in front of him and _still_ he was found not guilty of being careless.
Those planning a murder should take note...
Yes, after reading the story more carefully it does look like one of those multiple "didn't see him" moments that makes it even more okay instead of less.
It's another 'blinded by the light' killing I see.
Clearly it is unsafe bordering on suicidal for cyclists to be out on 'busy commuter roads' when the sun is shining. Or when it's dim and overcast. Or raining. Or foggy. Or dark.
In fact cyclists had better just stay off the roads altogether, they are likely to be killed you know. Especially when there's a perfectly good grass verge alongside to use instead. Jurors across the country will agree with this commonsense approach.
There seems to be some inconsistency between:
Mr Petterson, of Waterhouse Lane, Southampton, told the court he stopped his Ford Transit minibus after he heard a bang and his wing mirror "slammed against the van"
and
Mr Petterson told police he had been driving slowly as the glare of the sun had made visibility poor.
Being blinded by the sun seems to be an automatic get out of jail card nowadays, presumably because juries can see themselves doing exactly the same thing as the driver.
Appears that the "I couldn't see where I was going " defence has worked again.
Indeed. "I was driving with my eyes closed" is functionally identical, yet presumably would not be a valid defence?
Ah, but we have corroboration via witness testimony that none of the drivers at that particular place and time could see where they were going. Therefore it's nobody's fault that a cyclist was killed. I mean, you can't seriously ask people to slow down or stop when they can't see anything, can you? Someone else might run into the back of them.
you can't seriously ask people to slow down or stop when they can't see anything, can you?
| [+] Embed the video | Video Download | Get the Flash Video |
I hesitate to include this post, as it is only going to upset folk and encourage despair or futile anger. Yet this is the world we live in.
So, with fair warning, and only for those of a strong disposition, the Southampton Cycling Campaign attended and made some trial notes.
As it isn't a law, the jury was directed to ignore the Highway Code's "If you are dazzled by bright sunlight, slow down and if necessary, stop." 237
Courtesy of Beyond the Kerb for highlighting this reporting, and for more detailed analysis than I would have had the stomach to compose.
Robert
God, that was a horrible and depressing read.
As Roibeard says, the court reports are distressing. The Beyond the Kerb article should be read though.
Would such a judgement be likely to affect any insurance compensation payment? My gut feel is that it would, making a tragic situation even worse.
Truly astounding that a driver can be found not guilty when clearly causing an accident due to not driving properly.
Here is a civil case counter-point judgement (shows the difference a judge instead of a jury can make).
The court ruled it was the responsibility of the police driver, who was on his way to a shooting in Hackney with three other officers, to pass Mr MacLeod safely, and the cyclist could not be criticised for failing to take measures to avoid the impact.The officer, who entered the roundabout at 55mph, was driving at an excessive speed in circumstances where he could not bring the car to a halt in time to avoid the accident and contrary to the Met’s own policy, the judge said.
Sitting in London, the judge said: “The manner of his driving plainly fell below an acceptable standard.
“His speed was high and consistent with a desire to get to the rendezvous point as his priority rather than safely
.”
Julian Waters, a Metropolitan Police barrister, said Mr MacLeod had emerged from a side-road and into the path of the car, a theory which was backed up by the evidence of three of those who were in the vehicle.In his judgment, Judge McKenna said the officers’ statements had been written in the company of each other and that their “perception as to the claimant’s direction of travel is mistaken”.
You must log in to post.
Cycling in Edinburgh Flickr group
Video embedded using Easy Video Embed plugin
posts