Hit him at 52 in 40 area but not my fault!

Serious discussion of cycling issues
Mike Healey
Posts: 1009
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 21:28 pm
Contact:

Hit him at 52 in 40 area but not my fault!

Postby Mike Healey » Fri Nov 11, 2011 22:33 pm


Mr_Cellophane
Posts: 784
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 21:11 pm

Re: Hit him at 52 in 40 area but not my fault!

Postby Mr_Cellophane » Sat Nov 12, 2011 17:26 pm

Mr Poulson, a Cardiff University student, suddenly pulled out and hit the side of his lorry.

Mr Poulson put out his right hand as if to indicate a right turn but did not look behind him.


Sounds mainly the fault of the cyclist.

Mike Healey
Posts: 1009
Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2003 21:28 pm
Contact:

Re: Hit him at 52 in 40 area but not my fault!

Postby Mike Healey » Sat Nov 12, 2011 23:06 pm

And we are relying on the word of a driver who was not only exceeding the speed limit by 15mph before the collision, but was also on his mobile and had merely stopped talking at the time of the collision? And, of course he had no reason to lie, had he?

The young man was only an experienced cyclist, after all, so, naturally, he would have swerved into the path of the lorry without looking, would he not? On a 40mph road?

Oh, and would the driver have been at the collision point if he'd been obeying the speed limit, instead of being over it by, roughly 37.5%? And his concentration hadn't been affected by being on his mobile, would it, even tho' every piece of research I've read demonstrates that being on a mobile affects drivers even worse than alcohol?

It doesn't sound like the cyclist's fault to me, but more like a driver lying to save his skin

Mr_Cellophane
Posts: 784
Joined: Fri Mar 14, 2008 21:11 pm

Re: Hit him at 52 in 40 area but not my fault!

Postby Mr_Cellophane » Mon Nov 14, 2011 22:45 pm

Mike Healey wrote:And we are relying on the word of a driver who was not only exceeding the speed limit by 15mph before the collision, but was also on his mobile and had merely stopped talking at the time of the collision? And, of course he had no reason to lie, had he?

The young man was only an experienced cyclist, after all, so, naturally, he would have swerved into the path of the lorry without looking, would he not? On a 40mph road?

Oh, and would the driver have been at the collision point if he'd been obeying the speed limit, instead of being over it by, roughly 37.5%? And his concentration hadn't been affected by being on his mobile, would it, even tho' every piece of research I've read demonstrates that being on a mobile affects drivers even worse than alcohol?

It doesn't sound like the cyclist's fault to me, but more like a driver lying to save his skin

Where does it say these were the lorry drivers quotes ? They could have been the cyclist's mother's.

priory
Posts: 597
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2003 21:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Hit him at 52 in 40 area but not my fault!

Postby priory » Tue Nov 15, 2011 11:17 am

If the court heard that he was speeding to that extent and on the phone I do not see how they could find the driver innocent of blame; but not surprised. The courts are not prepared to do anything substantial to punish bad driving and drivers like this one know it.
Killing a student is just an inconvenience to some people. You have to look morose for a bit. I bet his colleagues expressed sympathy for him.

If he had not been speeding the cyclist's calculation about the turn might have been completelty correct and no collision would have happened. Even if there was still a crash he would have been hit at something less than 40mph and the time under the truck would have been shorter. Why did the court not agree with that? Because they are not interested in enforcing the driving laws. The judges and magistrates have more sympathy for the drivers than their victims. At one time they used to say so in court quite often, but they have stopped that.

not that I am cynical or anything, it's the truth I tell you.
raleigh oakland, peugeot PY10, , Dahon Jetstream XP, Raleigh Banana, Dawes super galaxy, Raleigh Clubman

http://s189.photobucket.com/albums/z122 ... =slideshow

spen666
Posts: 17444
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 20:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Hit him at 52 in 40 area but not my fault!

Postby spen666 » Tue Nov 15, 2011 11:44 am

priory wrote:If the court heard that he was speeding to that extent and on the phone I do not see how they could find the driver innocent of blame; but not surprised. The courts are not prepared to do anything substantial to punish bad driving and drivers like this one know it. ......




The driver was not found innocent of blame. He was found not guilty of causing death by careless driving. Am I splitting hairs? No - the system in England & Wales are that you are found guilty or not guilty. The verdict of the court was not guilty- this is different from being found innocent. The prosecution must prove defendant is guilty, not the other way round.


As for the courts not being prepared to do anything substantial... are you really suggesting that the courts should be punishing the driver after a jury of members of the public had found him not guilty?

Remember who found him not guilty- yes, a jury of members of the public, not a decision of the Judge, but the jury.
Want to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com

Twittering @spen_666

priory
Posts: 597
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2003 21:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Hit him at 52 in 40 area but not my fault!

Postby priory » Tue Nov 15, 2011 13:08 pm

'''''The driver was not found innocent of blame. He was found not guilty of causing death by careless driving. Am I splitting hairs? No - the system in England & Wales are that you are found guilty or not guilty. The verdict of the court was not guilty- this is different from being found innocent. The prosecution must prove defendant is guilty, not the other way round.'''''

of course you are splitting hairs. what has any of that got to do with the fact that the court failed to take action against a truck driver who killed a boy while doing lethal, illegal speed and on the phone? The law is not protecting us or our children and as such is failing.

As has been said above it is not morally acceptable to drive past someone at such speed and with evidence of inadequate attention, whatever that cyclist might have got up to , because it is to be expected that people may make mistakes and put themselves in danger. For the cps to prosecute we may gather the evidence was good. he was let off by an inadequate system.
I shall spare you my opinion of the jury.
raleigh oakland, peugeot PY10, , Dahon Jetstream XP, Raleigh Banana, Dawes super galaxy, Raleigh Clubman

http://s189.photobucket.com/albums/z122 ... =slideshow

spen666
Posts: 17444
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 20:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Hit him at 52 in 40 area but not my fault!

Postby spen666 » Tue Nov 15, 2011 15:18 pm

priory wrote:'''''The driver was not found innocent of blame. He was found not guilty of causing death by careless driving. Am I splitting hairs? No - the system in England & Wales are that you are found guilty or not guilty. The verdict of the court was not guilty- this is different from being found innocent. The prosecution must prove defendant is guilty, not the other way round.'''''

of course you are splitting hairs. what has any of that got to do with the fact that the court failed to take action against a truck driver who killed a boy while doing lethal, illegal speed and on the phone? The law is not protecting us or our children and as such is failing.

As has been said above it is not morally acceptable to drive past someone at such speed and with evidence of inadequate attention, whatever that cyclist might have got up to , because it is to be expected that people may make mistakes and put themselves in danger. For the cps to prosecute we may gather the evidence was good. he was let off by an inadequate system.
I shall spare you my opinion of the jury.



So you want the courts to punish those whom the jury (remember 12 members of the public) have found NOT GUILTY.

right- you are obviously unable to see the consequences of such a proposal








Turning to the Jury- they are made up of 12 members of the public - what would you prefer- a jury hand selected by the state- thus ensuring we end up with Stalinist type show trials.
Want to know the Spen666 behind the posts?
Then read MY BLOG @ http://www.pebennett.com

Twittering @spen_666

StorckSpeed
Posts: 276
Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 12:47 pm

Re: Hit him at 52 in 40 area but not my fault!

Postby StorckSpeed » Fri Nov 18, 2011 09:11 am

I'm left dumbfounded by this.
"Christopher Shapland, aged 28, admitted exceeding the speed limit but denied it had contributed to the accident."
He was driving whilst on the phone and exceeding the speed limit by 37%. If he wasn't on the phone he might have been paying more attention. If he had been doing the speed limit then not only would he have been further from the cyclist before he made the manouevre but his thinking time and stopping time would have increased and instead of hitting the student at 52mph he might have hit him at 30mph which may have made all the difference. Surely some of this contributed to the cyclists death.
The Highway code suggests that you should slow down when passing vulnerable road users and give them as much room as you would a car. I don't think these rules of the road were being followed.
You can be found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving if you were in a collision and were talking on the phone at the same time, even if speed wasn't a factor which it was in this case. If this driver is not guilty of causing death by dangerous driving then I can't see how anyone is ever found guilty of this charge EVER.

"He said Mr Poulson put out his right hand as if to indicate a right turn but did not look behind him."
So the only person that suggests the student didn't look WAS the driver. The man with the vested interest.

I'm afraid this strikes me once again as demonstrating that jurys feel a degree of sympathy towards fellow drivers who act irresponsibly and drive dangerously. They see themselves in a similar situation and are influenced by their own experiences and lifestyles.
There's warp speed - then there's Storck Speed

User avatar
thegibdog
Posts: 1637
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 21:17 pm

Re: Hit him at 52 in 40 area but not my fault!

Postby thegibdog » Thu Nov 24, 2011 12:53 pm

StorckSpeed wrote:I'm afraid this strikes me once again as demonstrating that jurys feel a degree of sympathy towards fellow drivers who act irresponsibly and drive dangerously. They see themselves in a similar situation and are influenced by their own experiences and lifestyles.

Agreed, it's a whole lot easier to sympathise with someone doing something you do every day; most jurors will be drivers, most drivers break the speed limit, a significant number use their mobile phone whilst driving. How many jurors will be regular cyclists?

It's also easier to sympathise with someone who is in front of you rather than someone who isn't, one of the reasons why trial by jury doesn't always work.

dilemna
Posts: 2207
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 12:49 pm

Re: Hit him at 52 in 40 area but not my fault!

Postby dilemna » Sun Nov 27, 2011 10:31 am

spen666 wrote:
priory wrote:'''''The driver was not found innocent of blame. He was found not guilty of causing death by careless driving. Am I splitting hairs? No - the system in England & Wales are that you are found guilty or not guilty. The verdict of the court was not guilty- this is different from being found innocent. The prosecution must prove defendant is guilty, not the other way round.'''''

of course you are splitting hairs. what has any of that got to do with the fact that the court failed to take action against a truck driver who killed a boy while doing lethal, illegal speed and on the phone? The law is not protecting us or our children and as such is failing.

As has been said above it is not morally acceptable to drive past someone at such speed and with evidence of inadequate attention, whatever that cyclist might have got up to , because it is to be expected that people may make mistakes and put themselves in danger. For the cps to prosecute we may gather the evidence was good. he was let off by an inadequate system.
I shall spare you my opinion of the jury.



So you want the courts to punish those whom the jury (remember 12 members of the public) have found NOT GUILTY.

right- you are obviously unable to see the consequences of such a proposal








Turning to the Jury- they are made up of 12 members of the public - what would you prefer- a jury hand selected by the state- thus ensuring we end up with Stalinist type show trials.



You are surely not this naive Spen?

Juries are directed by judges on the law and told what they should and should not be considering. The CPS has many questions to answer as they and their advocates from time to time put forward very weak cases or only prosecute much lower offences and still c0ck up the prosecution of these and when faced with a particularly tenacious defence cave in. Also juries have been known not to be as impartial as you hypothetically suggest. The jury may have had a disproportionately high number of truckers in it :wink: . In your world miscarriages of justice don't exist whether an innocent is found guilty or a guilty person is found not guilty. It works both ways. This case is shocking. It is morally and legally repugnant that this guy got off.
Life is like a roll of toilet paper; long and useful, but always ends at the wrong moment. Anon.
Think how stupid the average person is.......
half of them are even more stupid than you first thought.

User avatar
symo
Posts: 1672
Joined: Fri Oct 03, 2008 08:53 am

Re: Hit him at 52 in 40 area but not my fault!

Postby symo » Tue Jan 24, 2012 11:25 am

Where does he live?
Who is his employer?
+++++++++++++++++++++
we are the proud, the few, Descendents.

Panama - finally putting a nail in the economic theory of the trickle down effect.

Will Nunez
Posts: 178
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 08:53 am

Re: Hit him at 52 in 40 area but not my fault!

Postby Will Nunez » Fri Jan 27, 2012 11:01 am

Id like to know where tis happened. If its a clear stretch of road with good visibity then surely the truck driver should have seen the cyclist and given him due space. He should also have been cognisent that there was a potential for turning if he could see a junction or service station. Surely competant driving is about predicting the movement of vehicles around you. He should have been going at a speed to react to the cyclist signalling which he clearly wasnt, especially with a heavy load behind him. Even if it wasnt a clear stretch then if he was rounding abend then the speed was inappropriate. Coming from behind surely there is a massive onus on the truck driver to have allowed for all outcomes.

Sounds to me lik ethe usual overtake and leave the bike 2inches of space instead of doing a proper overtake manouvre away from junctions and turnoffs. But then a 1page story on the BBC doesnt provide the "unnewsworthy 200 page report with the details in it.
Current Stock:
Carrera Vanquish '08
Orbea Onix T105 '11
Carrera Fury '07

User avatar
Pross
Posts: 15204
Joined: Thu Sep 10, 2009 10:32 am

Re: Hit him at 52 in 40 area but not my fault!

Postby Pross » Fri Jan 27, 2012 12:44 pm

These issues always look cut and dried from news headlines but juries will be sitting for days in many cases listening to all the facts (and opinions) from both sides before making a decision so are in possession of far more information. I'm not saying the driver wasn't seriously in the wrong or that the cyclist did anything he shouldn't have but none of us on here have enough information to contradict the jury's decision.

Will Nunez
Posts: 178
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2010 08:53 am

Re: Hit him at 52 in 40 area but not my fault!

Postby Will Nunez » Fri Jan 27, 2012 13:02 pm

cases from the prosecution and the defence in a little more detail

http://www.thisissouthwales.co.uk/Drive ... story.html

One story quotes him as a keen motorcyclist and "He loved his BMX", more info to give us prejudices in the case ;-)
Current Stock:

Carrera Vanquish '08

Orbea Onix T105 '11

Carrera Fury '07

User avatar
sfichele
Posts: 578
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 21:19 pm

Re: Hit him at 52 in 40 area but not my fault!

Postby sfichele » Fri Jan 27, 2012 13:52 pm

The location, I think, was High Noon service station

Found from this site

Its a long clear stretch of road. From reading other websites another driver saw Poulson give a hand signal. Clearly the lorry driver didn't because the idiot was on the phone not-concentrating and obviously just overtaking them on auto-pilot.
It was also significant, said Mr Wright, that a motorist had seen Mr Poulson with his right arm extended, signalling his intention to turn, at the time of the collision.

User avatar
diy
Posts: 6383
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 20:49 pm

Re: Hit him at 52 in 40 area but not my fault!

Postby diy » Fri Jan 27, 2012 15:36 pm

There are age old criminal law concepts which need to be understood: mens rea and actus reus - the guilty mind and the guilty act.

Until fairly recently courts judge a person, not on the results of their actions, but their acts and their intent. Imagine two scenarios:

A: an impatient driver fails to look properly and pulls out of a junction.
B: an impatient driver fails to look properly and pulls out of a junction running over a cyclist and killing them.

the intent and the act are the same in A and B. Is it fair that A gets off and B goes to prison, when what they did and intended to do is the same? In criminal law there are now different penalties for the result. Death by dangerous driver vs dangerous driving for example.

But in both cases it is the intention and the act that is being judged.

IMO You should judge a person not on the result of actions, but the intention and the action.

User avatar
sfichele
Posts: 578
Joined: Mon Apr 13, 2009 21:19 pm

Re: Hit him at 52 in 40 area but not my fault!

Postby sfichele » Fri Jan 27, 2012 18:50 pm

So basically if I were to drive like a reckless Mr Magoo reaping havoc, destruction and killing people in my wake, its all fine and good so long as a I didn't mean to.

Oh wait what happened to driving with due care and attention?

User avatar
diy
Posts: 6383
Joined: Mon Sep 14, 2009 20:49 pm

Re: Hit him at 52 in 40 area but not my fault!

Postby diy » Fri Jan 27, 2012 22:05 pm

If a reasonable person would know or should know that its dangerous, then you have both the guilty act and the guilty mind.

The point I'm making is that (and nobody knows the facts here) this is a case where it appears a lorry driver exceeding the speed limit for his vehicle was unable to react when a cyclist pulled across his path while being overtaken.

His guilty act was speeding. There may have been other aspects, but the Jury didn't find evidence beyond reasonable doubt. So they had to consider the facts as proven. They were asked to judge - did this speed equal dangerous or careless driving. The Jury were asked to judge the act on its attributes. The result of the act is irrelevant to the guilt.

BigJimmyB
Posts: 1245
Joined: Sat May 31, 2008 17:55 pm

Re: Hit him at 52 in 40 area but not my fault!

Postby BigJimmyB » Fri Jan 27, 2012 22:52 pm

Mike Healey wrote: every piece of research I've read demonstrates that being on a mobile affects drivers even worse than alcohol?


Really?
Please share your sources
Worse than how much alcohol?

Genuinely interested BTW....


Return to “Campaign”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests