Eilidh Cairns verdict

That is totally unbelievable. What an arse.

WAC!
[URL="http://www.roadtransport.com/assets/getAsset.aspx?ItemID=13124350"][/URL]

"May I point out that 100% of cyclists were involved in the above fatal
incidents, and I presume 100% of them saw the truck before the accident.
The simple way for cyclists to reduce the number of road deaths is to
stay well clear of HGVs."

Errr.... yeah. I dont recall being involved in any of them.

How do you stay clear of an HGV when it rumbles up behind you? Jump down a drain? This isn't Marioworld!

WAC!

Looks like he's never been near a bike in his life the fat gozzy eyed cunt!

If you search the word "cyclist" on that website, you will see quite a few sensible reports about raising drivers' awareness of cyclists.

Sadly Mr Walton appears to be rather immature and stupid and clearly does not understand the party line.

tel: 020 8652 3448
mob: 07885 503593
email: christopher.walton@rbi.co.uk

If anyone's bored at work and has some time to kill....

"May I point out that 100% of cyclists were involved in the above fatal
incidents, and I presume 100% of them saw the truck before the accident.
The simple way for cyclists to reduce the number of road deaths is to
stay well clear of HGVs."

Errr.... yeah. I dont recall being involved in any of them.

Just what I was gonna say, what a daft cunt.

just emailed this:

Hello Mr Walton,

I just wanted to take my time to tell you that this is a totally dumb and inappropriate remark that you've made.
It also is utterly insulting to the relatives of the victims.

In fact it is you saying "cyclist are at fault for dying" while you have no idea whether they have seen the lorry before or not.
Also, seeing a lorry doesn't mean that there's anywhere to go, for example when there's railings that prevent any escape.

I am not going to insult you here, but I feel tempted to, I must admit.
Please shut up in the future.
I hope someone in your organisation gets hold of this crap you wrote and you get a good talking to from HR.

my real name

I have just e mailed this individual asking him to either confirm or deny that he made this statement:
Don't want to make a fuss if its bogus.
I await a reply.

This is what he came back with:

Dear [my real name]

Many thanks for your response to my email .

I think you have misconstrued my point. The industry I write about on a day to day basis takes its safety responsibility as road users very seriously. It has invested heavily in (now mandatory) driver training as well as in technological investments in the cab. My point is that all road users have a responsibility for their safety, and that of others, when using the road - which is something we can all agree on.

You say that a cyclist who has seen a lorry can find his-or-her self in a position where there is nowhere to go - such as between a HGV and some railings. My argument would be that a cyclist who has put themselves in that position has not taken their responsibility for their own safety on the road very seriously - as it is clearly a very dangerous place to be.

As for your final points I won't dignify them with a response. It is very hard to have a debate on these issues if you believe that freedom of speech, and the freedom of the press, should be a HR policy.

Regards

Chris

This is going the same direction as saying "You shouldn't have put a short skirt on!" to a rape victim, and then talking about responsibilities and dangerous places ... utter rubbish

His reply to me:

Dear Mark

T*his quote has entirely been taken out of context. There is the wonder of the internet for you...

The industry I write about on a day to day basis takes its safety responsibility as road users very seriously. It has invested heavily in (now mandatory) driver training as well as in technological investments in the cab. My point is that all road users have a responsibility for their safety, and that of others, when using the road - which is something I think we can all agree on.
*
Regards

Chris
Looks like its game on!

What is the source of the email, by the way? I don;t want to misrepresent anything in the email the I'm writing.

It was a response given to the journalist who wrote this: http://www.hamhigh.co.uk/content/camden/hamhigh/news/story.aspx?brand=NorthLondon24&category=Newshamhigh&tBrand=northlondon24&tCategory=newshamhigh&itemid=WeED04%20Feb%202010%2010%3A06%3A21%3A300

Dear Mark
It has invested heavily in (now mandatory) driver training as well as in technological investments in the cab

so they teach people how to drive and give them a gps, how thoughtful.

This is all a bit dodgy. I hope that either the Journalist or Ufrasia cant be held liable for putting this chaps details onto the public domain.

Although he is an arse and deservers some harsh questioning, I wouldnt want either of those two to get into leagle trouble.

I agree with Andy. This email shouldn't be in the public domain.

The cyclist was in front of the HGV So the driver should have seen her: He should also have seen any narrowing of the road.
How can it not be his fault?

We all like to go to the shop for this and that, so lorries are a fact of life in the city.
What is needed is a fundamental change in driver training and behavior.
Training is in the hands of the DoT, behavior modification is a matter for the courts.
The coroner in this case has effectively closed the door on any further investigation or action under the RTA.

Cab heights and blind spots mean that he could well not have seen her.

completely agree with the change in training. like london bus drivers. they think first of the passengers

The fact the case is closed is a massive loss. huge momentum for sweet FA!

I concur. I do not think it unreasonable to expect a driver to be able to see what is on the road in front of him. And if a driver genuinely cannot see what is on a particular bit of road, then he should not drive into that space. With this in mind I think that the presumption should be that in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the driver was neglegent.

Aside from the issue of whether this particular driver should be punished, a big problem is that this judgement, and others before it, make it clear that you can drive neglegently and it doesn't matter, because even if you take a life, you will only get a slap on the wrist.

I fail to understand why part the function of many legal punishments is to funtion as a deterrent to others, but there is no mention of the idea that we need a legal deterrent to stop people from putting others' lives at risk on the roads.

So you believe if in doubt the larger more dangerous road user should be guilty by default?
i think the insurance lobbies might nudge this out of the govts agenda

• 1 Andy/ Andy
  
  

I think going on the attack makes cyclists look a little worse and adds fuel to his fire

he isn't a smart guy, but his point (i.e. cyclists need to look after themselves) is acurate, just badly worded. in a game of chinese whispers i'd sit tight

I was wondering if it was in the public domain is all.

He wrote it to the journalist as a comment to be published. The journalist has sent it to us first though... The author knew it would be posted under the article.

Apparantly he ok's his details being published... I think you're right though. Will delete his email.

My goodness, my blood pressure is rising quite sharply. An HGV rolling up behind, then into / onto you, was one my worst nightmares in London, simply because no amount of being Awesome, or having Skillz could save you.

As an aside, the situation in France is that motor vehicles are presumed to be at fault when they hit cyclists, and cyclists are presumed to be at fault when they hit pedestrians.

He wrote it to the journalist as a comment to be published. The journalist has sent it to us first though... The author knew it would be posted under the article.

I'm sure you've posted it in good faith. I doubt however that the Ham&High would include his email address in any comments attributed to him.

• 1 Andy/ Andy
  
  

I think going on the attack makes cyclists look a little worse and adds fuel to his fire

he isn't a smart guy, but his point (i.e. cyclists need to look after themselves) is acurate, just badly worded. in a game of chinese whispers i'd sit tight

Double, double, agreed. In a game of politics, which unfortunately this is (forget about people getting killed for a moment, that's not the point here). Cyclists ranting (in any shape or form no matter how subtle) at this turnip will only serve his ends.

We're the only country in Europe where we do not have Strict Liability applied to cyclist.

drivers should automatically be at fault unless proven otherwise, exactly like peds.

he isn't a smart guy, but his point (i.e. cyclists need to look after themselves) is acurate, just badly worded.

I disagree. Even if he meant it well, there is a lot more than saying "cyclists just need to stay clear of HGVs".
In fact you don't often have a choice. Only if it's in front of you, you do have the possibility to stay well clear. When they're rolling up from behind all you can do is take a road position that might make you seen, and that's that.

This is a systemic failure of car culture, and it should be dealt with by redesigning roads, forcing better security measures etc etc. To say "You have to look out for yourself" does exactly nothing, but put the blame on cyclists, as if they didn't cycle sensibly.