Eilidh Cairns verdict

The fact that the collision occurred at all is proof of one of two possible courses of action.

1. The driver failed to see a cyclist lawfully upon the road ahead of him.
   
2. The driver saw the cyclist and deliberately drove over her.
   I think we can discount 2.
   So lets analyse 1.
   Either he could not see her, through physical disability in which case he should not be driving.
   Or he did not see her due to inattention, distraction, or negligence.
   which is evidence of at least S3 RTA, driving without due care, or S1 Death by dangerous driving.
   Either way the driver is negligent and culpable and i fail to see how flxh can blithely comment that "accident happen" when this is as serious a matter. Hence the "terse" reply.
   This affects us all and dismissing it with a shrug and a "meh" is an attitude I find abhorrent.
   

Either way the driver is negligent and culpable and i fail to see how flxh can blithely comment that "accident happen" when this is as serious a matter. Hence the "terse" reply.
This affects us all and dismissing it with a shrug and a "meh" is an attitude I find abhorrent.

What im driving at is this idea that we should blame blame blame..

People have lapses in concentration all the time, for loads of reasons.. be they driving, cycling (I can think of numerous accidents i have witnessed/been involved in), firing on ranges, working with machinery etc.

We are only human and occasionally... sadly - people lose lives because of mistakes. This is inevitable. However i would agree that more could be done to stop lives being lost in such a way.

yeah i think the key difference is the height, buses are obviously a lot lower, and combined with the larger field of view they have to their front (and the sides) it gives them a better sense of awareness. With a lot of HGV's, i reckon the blind spot isnt entirely the issue, id imagine its just easier to overlook or miss things that other drivers would be made immediately more aware of due to the distance. A moments lapse in concentration/a distraction from another driver could be all it takes. Hence why any of these things, particularly doing things like using a phone while driving are all the more dangerous if done by HGV drivers.

another thing is that the bus drivers are trained to deal with driving in cities, not sure whether HGV drivers are trained for cities driving thought (or lack thereof).

What im driving at is this idea that we should blame blame blame..

People have lapses in concentration all the time, for loads of reasons.. be they driving, cycling (I can think of numerous accidents i have witnessed/been involved in), firing on ranges, working with machinery etc.

We are only human and occasionally... sadly - people lose lives because of mistakes. This is inevitable. However i would agree that more could be done to stop lives being lost in such a way.

"lapse in concentration". Are you for real?
We are talking about someone driving a 30 tonne + vehicle in a crowded urban environment, and you think a "lapse of concentration" is acceptable????
Luckily the law (and I) disagree with you.

You are obliged to pay due care and attention AT ALL TIMES when driving.
Let your concentration slip and if it results in a collision then you are guilty.
What a great way of making drivers stay alert: Watch where your going or suffer the consequences.
Unless, that is, the coroner pats you on the head and lets you off the hook.

As soon as you accept a lapse is inevitable, it becomes acceptable: And it is not.

What we wanted was an 'open verdict' so further investigation could happen. 'Accident' was certainly not what we wanted. How does this annoy?

Fair comment.

As soon as you accept a lapse is inevitable, it becomes acceptable: And it is not.

"O sorry about totalling your car mate, I had a lapse of concentration looking at that woman."
"In that case don't worry about it."

What we wanted was an 'open verdict' so further investigation could happen. 'Accident' was certainly not what we wanted. How does this annoy?

yeah my bad, i meant posts in general which run along the lines of "outrageous!!11!" "sickening"

"lapse in concentration". Are you for real?
We are talking about someone driving a 30 tonne + vehicle in a crowded urban environment, and you think a "lapse of concentration" is acceptable????
Luckily the law (and I) disagree with you.
as soon as you believe a "lapse" is inevitable it becomes acceptable, and it is not.
As soon as you accept a lapse is inevitable, it becomes acceptable: And it is not.
As soon as you accept a lapse is inevitable, it becomes acceptable: And it is not.
You are obliged to pay due care and attention AT ALL TIMES when driving.
Let your concentration slip and if it results in a collision then you are guilty.
What a great way of making drivers stay alert: Watch where your going or suffer the consequences.
Unless, that is, the coroner pats you on the head and lets you off the hook.

Im just saying that these things do happen, and there is certainly not even a hint of any such lapses becoming acceptable. However, what you will never be able to change is the fact that lapses are inevitable. That is what i was pointing out.

Face up to the fact that collisions do happen because of people genuinely 'not seeing' other road users. You will have been involved in at least one situation in your life where you have not noticed someone, be it opening a door/crossing a road/cycling/driving. I wasnt even saying this was the case in this instance... but we should not adopt the mentality that the cyclist is never at fault/the driver is always to blame exclusively.

The driver did fail the police eye test. This issue should be discussed in the trial, though it is unlikely that it will go ahead due to the coroner's inquest findings.

seems completely absurd...

sorry to hear that.

I long gave up on British "justice". This travesty only reinforces my dismay.

You are obliged to pay due care and attention AT ALL TIMES when driving.

I'd say that was impossible, as we are constantly distracted by things from behind, in front, on the left and on the right, and in any situation where your are distracted by something on the left for example, all other sides are momentarily exposed to a freak accident, as your attention if elsewhere, especially so at speed.

In any case, training drivers of low visibility vehicles such as HGV to be more aware of the risks is a good way to go. However drivers won't be too concerned as they wont be the ones getting hurt.

I do think that cyclist training is the real way to go, because it is them, indeed us, that catch the brunt of a drivers inattention.

But it's still a gray area, as for example in London and other extremely congested roads, you are forced into dangerous situations, no matter what you do, or know.

It still makes me feel sad and helpless when i hear someone has died cycling on the road, because i always feel it could have been avoided, had the person known a little more about his/her safety on the road,
the driver been more aware of the risks to fellow cyclists
and the road been more suitable for cyclists.

The law means nothing because once a person dies, the damage has already been done.
Justice perhaps can be sought in the continual improvement of conditions for cyclists ?

I'd say that was impossible, as we are constantly distracted by things from behind, in front, on the left and on the right, and in any situation where your are distracted by something on the left for example, all other sides are momentarily exposed to a freak accident, as your attention if elsewhere, especially so at speed.

In any case, training drivers of low visibility vehicles such as HGV to be more aware of the risks is a good way to go. However drivers won't be too concerned as they wont be the ones getting hurt.

I do think that cyclist training is the real way to go, because it is them, indeed us, that catch the brunt of a drivers inattention.

But it's still a gray area, as for example in London and other extremely congested roads, you are forced into dangerous situations, no matter what you do, or know.

It still makes me feel sad and helpless when i hear someone has died cycling on the road, because i always feel it could have been avoided, had the person known a little more about his/her safety on the road,
the driver been more aware of the risks to fellow cyclists
and the road been more suitable for cyclists.

The law means nothing because once a person dies, the damage has already been done.
Justice perhaps can be sought in the continual improvement of conditions for cyclists ?

pretty much sumarises my view.

If I've got an inattentive lorry driver coming up behind me on a busy road, with traffic passing left and right, I'm not sure cycle training is going to help me much. I steer as far clear as I can when I can but sometimes there's nothing you can do. If you can't make eye contact, you pray. That's where we're being failed by verdicts like this.

Yes, as a driver, you are subject to momentary distractions.
But, if you had allowed one of these to distract you during your test then you would have failed.
So drivers are capable of full attention, however the majority just don't apply it after their test.

The coroner has basically accepted that the driver displayed a standard of attention and driving below that required to pass a test and accepted that it is "one of those things".
I fundamentally disagree with this: The best way to reduce road casualties it to improve overall driver standards.
And a fine way to achieve this aim it to set a driving standard (which we have in place), then properly punish those who fall below it.
In order to drive you must be licensed, if you cannot drive to the required standard i.e not mow down a cyclist in front of you, then your licence should be revoked.
The coroner in this case has sent a clear message: These things happen, so we will shrug and walk away and allow it to continue.

hello, i'm new to the forum but knew of eilidh through friends of mine

as has already been said by many of you, this is a very dissapointing verdict.

just read some details of the inquest from an evening standard article here:
http://bit.ly/4Tsm18

some truly shocking details of the incident are mentioned... my thoughts go out to her family and those close to her

can the verdict be appealed? is it this final?

I think we need an approach that specifically seeks to protect the most vulnerable road users, such as cyclists. The relationship between a car and a car is very different from that between a car and a bike, or that between a lorry and a bike. If I'm driving my car through West London in heavy traffic and lightly bump into the car in front, the driver might not even get out if I wave an apology (and his car is shit): this is the model of the situation the coroner seems implicitly to be applying, completely inappropriately, in this ruling. We need to get into a situation where major alarm bells go on for HGV drivers when they see a cyclist (as they go on for most of us, no doubt, when we see an HGV). People need to think it abhorrent that a lorry driver was that close to a cyclist on a busy road.

+1 to everything markrjohnson has said. Not because I'm a cyclist, but because he's obviously correct.

Ufrasia, I'm sorry about the verdict.

This is the type of lorry that Eilidh met her untimely end;

Surely this is easier to drive than an HGV.

Note the amount of attention the driver is paying.

The lorry appear to be stationary though.

Ed, this is an HGV, anything over 7.5 tonnes gross weight is mate.

Sorry yes, I forget the term HGV is classified via weight, not type of vehicle, I was referring to those HGV with trailer.

You are right though, they are much easier to drive: No trailer swing.

I'll need to check that later properly, but were the vehicles involved in the death of cyclists are tipper lorry? because if so, they do appear to be poorly maintained/driven in comparison to the HGV with trailer.

The police crime scene expert believed that EIlidh was out in front of the lorry. The driver tapped her rear wheel and she fell off.

So no witnesses ever came out?

i guess without hard evidence they have to go accidental, open verdict implies their is a crime committed, there was no intent?

it's very sad. but you are right something good has to come out of this

You are right though, they are much easier to drive: No trailer swing.

Speaking as someone with a HGV C license, I would say trailer swing does not add that much in terms of driving a lorry. The main part of driving a lorry is coping with looking everywhere and planning well in advanced where you need to go as you are not maneuverable and people don't let you change change lanes / position very easily. I would liken driving a lorry in traffic to walking though a primary school corridor carrying a big heavy box. Children running everywhere, pushing to get by and though doors e.t.c. You have to contently be on the lookout for children trying to cut by at the last second, looking in every direction. The difference is on the road is adults in cars acting like children pushing past all th time in every direction.