Whoever, its sad, Ill say a prayer.
CityCyclingEdinburgh Forum » General Edinburgh
Cyclist dies after being hit by truck
(63 posts)-
Posted 14 years ago #
-
Posted 14 years ago #
-
Police have named the cyclist ...Craig Newton, 32 "officers want to speak to a cyclist wearing a yellow tabard who was seen near Mr Newton prior to the collision"
Posted 14 years ago # -
"
A tragic road collision near Broughton Primary School forms the backdrop of Greener Leith's response to the council's consultation on proposals for MacDonald Road.
"http://guardian.co.uk/edinburgh/2011/may/04/sighthill-fire-jawbone-walk-appeal
Posted 14 years ago # -
No more news from the investigation, although I suppose it's early days yet?
I wonder whether this will just fade into silence, as with the killing of Iain Wilson.
Posted 14 years ago # -
A cyclist was killed in London on the same day. Reported to have involved a waste collection truck at a junction.
Fulham Chronicle report: http://bit.ly/m2fB8p
London Evening Standard report: http://bit.ly/mOaLHwPosted 14 years ago # -
Two months on and, unless I missed something, the driver hasn't been charged (or it's just not been reported anywhere).
Another case of a cyclist being held responsible for a left-turning HGV going over the top of them?
Posted 13 years ago # -
I'd support a campaign that aimed to get politicians and judges to take drivers' roles in "accidents" more seriously. There are few if any accidents where none of the parties is to some degree at fault.
Posted 13 years ago # -
You can understand nothing being done about a minor bump with no injuries, as in fact happened to me when I was taken out on the bridges a few years ago - but it's quite another to realise that even a killing will not (apparently) be followed up.
There's still the death of Dr Ian Wilson underneath a left-turning Neil Williams Haulage truck to remember - nothing seemed to come from that either.
Surely when the driver of a left-turning HGV kills, the presumption should be to prosecute - it's no secret that this is what kills a majority of cyclists and consquently the driver has a clear responsibility to be sure their path is free before turning?
Posted 13 years ago # -
FoI request to the fiscal service to see if a charge was made? Hmmm, was the driver's name ever released? Might be on the court website records...
Posted 13 years ago # -
I've sent an enquiry to the force information unit by email. If the response isn't illuminating then I'll look at these options - thanks.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Good idea to follow this up Dave, I'll be interested to hear what happens.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Yep, good show old chap. I just have a feeling that something might have happened, but wasn't reported because it's old news, and didn't result in some major punishment.
The initial story makes the news because it backs up editorial policy that cycling is dangerous (and death sells). Someone being punished for doing a cyclist harm, on the other hand, isn't a serious issue, unless the punishment is severe in which case it can be promoted as 'out of proportion' to the 'misjudgment' that lead to the death of a cyclist, whcih, y'know, could happen to anyone so it's not that bad a thing.
Cynical? Me?
Posted 13 years ago # -
"Surely when the driver of a left-turning HGV kills, the presumption should be to prosecute - it's no secret that this is what kills a majority of cyclists and consquently the driver has a clear responsibility to be sure their path is free before turning?"
Whilst I agree with the posters above I have to take issue with this comment I'm afraid.
I have very nearly taken out a car at a roundabout (whilst driving an artic) because he nipped up my inside while I was looking to my right (to ensure I could ease over safely to make space for my trailer wheels to get round the corner without kerbing)as well as assessing the traffic on/joining the roundabout, he was invisible once 3/4 of the way along my trailer and I only saw him and stopped at the last second before my trailer would have squished him. I was doing everything by the book and still only just avoided a terrible accident.
The driver has a clear responsibility to *try* to make sure his path is clear before turning, but it is not as aesy or simple as it sounds. Where there has been negligence then prosecution should clearly follow, but the facts must be examined in every case for these sorts of accidents. (eg, what mirrors were fitted, what path did the other vehicle take, what was the traffic like etc etc.)There are certain types of accident where I would call for "guilty until found innocent", however I'm afraid this is not one of them.
Posted 13 years ago # -
"Whilst I agree with the posters above I have to take issue with this comment I'm afraid."
It's good that 'we' have differences of opinion here and remain polite!
One real problem is that no-one actually seems to know anything apart from the happening of the original event.
I think it's reasonable to assume that the ENews would have mentioned if there had been a court case, and probably if there had been any statement about 'no action'.
This was a very public event, which resulted in a death and was widely reported. It involved a driver and vehicle from the local council.
Surely one or more of these should mean it should be possible to 'track' the incident and its aftermath for straightforward public information/accountability reasons(?)
Posted 13 years ago # -
"The driver has a clear responsibility to *try* to make sure his path is clear before turning, but it is not as easy or simple as it sounds."
I'm not sure I follow - surely it's as simple as looking in the various mirrors to ensure there's nobody about to go under the wheels, and not pressing the accelerator if there is any doubt. Removing (or not fitting) mirror(s) which would cover the swing of the trailer should be no excuse.
In your example, a driver (substitute cyclist, or pedestrian) unwisely came close to your trailer while you were waiting to turn. However, at the end of the day the responsibility not to turn over them is yours alone - one you happily lived up to.
Don't get me wrong - I think it's very important that drivers / cyclists / pedestrians are educated about the space large vehicles take up and that they are dangerous and unwise things to be alongside. But one might as well tell women that it's unwise to walk in certain areas after dark (or wear certain clothes) - it might be true but it bears no relevance to the responsiblity of people who attack them.
No, I'm not suggesting lorry drivers deliberately run over cyclists ;-)
"Where there has been negligence then prosecution should clearly follow, but the facts must be examined in every case for these sorts of accidents. (eg, what mirrors were fitted, what path did the other vehicle take, what was the traffic like etc etc.)"
I quite agree, and in fact my post above makes this clear. There should be a *presumption* for prosecution, but the investigation might lead to circumstances which excuse the death, although these would be extremely limited (and not include "somebody came up the inside but I pulled off without checking the mirrors again").
In this case a truck turned left at a side street over the top of someone. It's hard to think up a viable excuse that gets the driver off the hook, but then we could say the same for the last Edinburgh truck death, and nothing seems to have come from that either. Not even 'without due care'.
Posted 13 years ago # -
I've a couple of freinds who work as fiscals. I'll make enquiries but I can't promise anything.
Posted 13 years ago # -
I drive these things every day. On the whole MOST other road users keep back, as is stated in the highway code, to allow manuevering of larger vehicles.Most road users allow for cyclists avoiding potholes or wobbling. Its when things go wrong that the problems occur. NO ONE WANTS TO KILL A CYCLIST. While driving a vehicle of a larger size, its very difficult to see all round at all times. we have to do the best we can.,I am not backing up any negligent drivers , but when a cyclist sneaks up the inside, or outside of a signaling vehicle of any size then problems may ensue.Its not just cyclists,cars, buses and easp taxis or white merc sprinters !Ive said it before, we all have to use the roads together, apportioning blame when there is blame but surely we cant just say that all hgv are to blame when they are involved in an accident.We must ALL try and be a wee bit more patient and look out for each other !
Posted 13 years ago # -
Dave, I think I understand your feelings, it is an emotive subject, but you mention the excuse "but I pulled off without checking the mirrors again", my point is, whilst approaching the junction (moving slowly) I *had* to look right to ensure it was safe for me to move over, whilst that was happening the car moved up my left, once I looked back he was not visible in any of my left hand mirrors.
It's not that I didn't look, it's that he was in my blind spot on the nearside, it was pure good fortune that our relative positions changed and I saw (a small part of) the car at the last second. That's on a relatively modern big tractor unit (ERF EC10 since you ask) I'm a cyclist and motorcyclist and when I drive wagons I try to watch out for vulnerable road users.How much harder is it to see a bike? As splitshift says, 90+% of LGV drivers try their utmost to drive safely, but it is far more difficult than it sounds to negotiate traffic/badly designed roads and maintain an effective lookout 100% of the time.
IMHO It's simply wrong to assume by default that one group of road users will be guilty of an offence, each incident should be assessed on it's own circumstance.
The situations described sound like negligence, but without knowing the full circumstances it would be cruel indeed to effectively accuse a person of murder without the full info and I certainly would not wish to speculate on such a sensitive subject.
Posted 13 years ago # -
I don't think anyone has suggested there was a deliberate killing - i.e. murder. Speaking in generalities now, I would describe this class of crash "merely" as a homicide through negligence. I don't even necessarily think that a prosecution should result in jail and/or a driving ban - it would entirely depend on the circumstances. I find it impossible to accept that someone has driven with due care and attention if they kill someone who is effectively stationary however.
I don't see how having blind spots so large in any way justifies driving over something that is in them. It makes it more difficult to drive safely but that should only increase the liability of the driver who gets it wrong, not reduce it.
Otherwise the logical endpoint is that a driver just needs to remove *all* their mirrors (apart from the legal minimum) and would have *less* responsibility for crashes even though they'd made their vehicle more dangerous, because "oh, it was in my blind spot" covers more physical positions.
Think about it. There's almost no parallel situation where people are responsible for dangerous actions where using *more dangerous* equipment *reduces* their responsibilities to others.
Legally I don't have to have a left wing mirror on my car, so long as I have the rear-view. This would create a very large blind spot all down my left hand side. Would this reduce my liability if I turn across a cyclist, or is the privilege only enjoyed by vehicles over a certain weight? ;-)
Posted 13 years ago # -
Dave-are you trying to say, in a roundabout way, that all HGVs have sufficient mirrors so that blindspots don't exist? I think Splitshift mentioned such mirrors recently and said they were very good.
Posted 13 years ago # -
Someone mentioned testing a Fresnel panel for windows...
Posted 13 years ago # -
Dave, the logical extension of what you're saying is that if there are blind spots then you simply can't move because something might be in them. Sure you could get out of the cab and check, but by the time you're back in the cab something could have moved into the blind spot.
So, in order to be allowed to move then there can be no blind spots on a vehicle...
Posted 13 years ago # -
I don't think what dave is suggesting is too much work if companies want to run rigs like these in UK cities. It wouldn't be to much to ask for a couple of small cameras with motion sensors and a small lcd monitor on the dash. This wouldn't be too expensive and could save lives. Blind spots in cars are easily manage a quick turn of the head solves the problem not so in heavy's I believe.
Posted 13 years ago # -
anth - I guess so. As a compromise though, perhaps we could accept that vehicles with blind spots *are* allowed to move, but the driver is responsible for the assumption that they are clear - which takes us back to my first post (actually, I didn't even suggest the driver was responsible, only that there ought to be a presumption that way).
Let's face it - you can buy a high definition camera now for under £100, which would provide a real-time crystal clear view down the whole side of a large vehicle and trailer completely eliminating blind spots. Notwithstanding that this is largely an issue for haulage companies rather than individual drivers, it seems almost embarrassing to try and defend as routine killing on the roads by saying that there are not enough mirrors and/or they don't cover the necessary area or it's just too much trouble *not* to kill someone once in a while...
Again, I don't think these drivers, in the vast majority of cases, are anything other than regular, hard working, prudent people (let's face it, are goods vehicles not among the best driven on the roads? I'd rather have that 40 ton John Lewis truck behind me than a private hire!)
Posted 13 years ago # -
fresnell lenses, yes my company has a trial on going, my usual vehicle,tractor unit, is a Scania R420,or a DAF XF430.both are equiped with 6 mirrors,two of which are wide angle,i spend nearly more time looking behind me than I do looking forward ! not quite, but if driven properly then the blind spots should"dissapear. "The old system of mirror signal manuvere sp ! still holds water, which is why most lorries seem to take just that wee bit too much time to get moving, its cause the driver is checking all those mirrors before moving off. How many mirrors have double deck buses ?
not trying to be flippant here, does anyone know if the majority of fatalities/accidents are involving artics or rigids ?Turning left an artic has to swing out right (generally speaking ! )which actually increases the field of vision.( or carry on "past" the entrance opening further the area of vision)A rigid MIGHT haver the ability to cut in earlier and hence be a more targeted vehicle.Again , not being flippant but surely having to look at a dash mounted display may actually be removing your view from the "road " and COULD be undue care and attention !very dodgy area ! We have a tracking system fitted in our cabs, it incorperates a screen where by txt messages can be sent to us, but it cannot show any message or image when the vehicle is in motion or for a period of approx 1 minute after stopping, for those reasons.It is a very serious issue, and I for 1 become very nervous if I see a cyclist approach my nearside when in traffic, Great western road in glasgow seems to be the worst offender.Many times "cyclists" have banged my n/s door (step ) with handlebars as they try to sneak through, to just jump the red lights !At no point do they become invisible, because of the many mirrors. Perhaps another7th mirror, fish eye type , mounted really high at windscreen, looking back might be an idea. not too pin sharp image but would alert us of movement ?
be safe, wherever !Posted 13 years ago # -
I'm not sure what the difference would be between a camera showing the side of the trailer and a mirror (I mean, you could put the screen where the mirrors are I suppose!)
Rigid trucks do seem to be quite commonly involved, certainly more than I would expect (the fatality we're discussing was caused by the driver of a rigid vehicle). I'm not sure if that makes extra excuses for blind spots or fewer.
Posted 13 years ago # -
I agree, a screen or a mirror, not REALLY any diferent.On a slight tangent....in the usa, where school buses have extra rules about overtaking them while stationary,are there any states whereby you are not allowed to "undertake " large stationary vehicles showing a certain light ? I think we all agree that HGV are inherrently problematic, although not actually dangerous if driven properly,surely we ALL must concentrate on education of all road users !we all have a legal, if not moral duty of care to everybody else !If a cyclist "sneaks " into a position whereby the driver of a vehicle, (hgv or otherwise )cannot be reasonable expected to see that cyclist,(again assuming that the vehicle was signaling left ! )and a collision ensues, then who is at fault ?
the driver has sat (preumably ! ) a test whereby they have shown the prerequisite standard of skill.Many,(but not all ! )cyclists have no experience of driving, anything, and have therefore no concept of vehicle behaviour.we must all look out for each other,at great risk of being called a hippy,AGAIN !the roads belong to us all, we need to share them,look at each other,get eye contact, not with a growl, but a smile ! Again, if i see a cyclist, or motorcyclist, or emergency vehicle doing the blues and twos stuff, I always point at it,sometimes just in the mirror, making sure that the driver/rider sees that I have seen them and appreciates they are there! But, I am not perfect, I will make mistakes, just like you ! Look in the mirrors of buses and wagons, you will be able to see if the driver is looking at you, or the attractive member of the oppositte/same sex on the pavement. Youve prob had a wee look too !
Lets not forget the original post here and remember the family of the deceased. be safe !
ps....I am still cycling !
scottPosted 13 years ago # -
Cameras on trucks? More mirrors? What does my road tax pay for eh? This government just seems to want to kill the freight industry, just look at the price of fuel innit. And now they want us to put more mirrors on so we can see around the trucks properly! How much is that going to cost eh? And are the government going to pay for it? People should know not to go into my blind spots.... ad infinitum
I wonder what that same person would say if a gun was put to his wife's head and was told she wouldn't be shot if he paid 50 quid... Some lives are more equal than others...
Splitshift, as ever, always illuminating to have a cycling trucker's view.
Posted 13 years ago # -
If a cyclist "sneaks " into a position whereby the driver of a vehicle, (hgv or otherwise )cannot be reasonable expected to see that cyclist,
That's the nub of the problem. I would say that in the space age society we inhabit, it's reasonable to expect the driver of a vehicle to see anyone they're about to run over. That's all there is to it.
The problem is that many drivers can't see people they're about to run over, but instead of increasing their liability (driving something not fitted with basic safety equipment) the onus somehow falls on the victim (not keeping away from someone who doesn't have basic safety equipment).
I'm not even really sure this is the responsibility of drivers rather than the haulage companies. Perhaps if directors were held criminally accountable if a crash occurs due to inadequate mirror coverage, all their drivers would see upgrades pronto...
While I think they're very useful, in some ways it's ironic to have the police run these HGV awareness days instead of just going around fitting mirrors to the HGVs and solve the problem ;-)
Posted 13 years ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
posts
