HGV-Cyclist incidents

FYI--the LCC has succeeded in campaigning for Parliament not to proceed with the anti-cycling clauses in the draft Bill.

Link here (don't want to re-post the same info in all the threads dealing with this):

http://www.londonfgss.com/post571664.html

HGVs account for 45 per cent of all London cyclists' deaths, and one in five of cyclists' deaths in the UK, yet represent only five per cent. of road traffic.

The driver had defective vision, had mirrors that weren't adjusted correctly, was in a vehicle wider than the lane, failed to notice a cyclist ahead of him in broad daylight, and killed her by smashing into her from behind.

Verdict "Accidental Death".

Punishment £200.

Not sure whether the driver was self-employed or not but either way there would be some kind of business entity and therefore, presumably, the potential to consider prefering charges of corporate manslaughter.

I have to say that I find it hard to talk so dispassionately about the circumstances surrouding an event that inspired such passion and community in the forum. Not wishing to appear ghoulish but given this sort of result I hope that the cycling communities can come together for some kind of direct action to express that this kind of action by the prosecution services is not acceptable and devalues human life.

HGVs account for 45 per cent of all London cyclists' deaths, and one in five of cyclists' deaths in the UK, yet represent only five per cent. of road traffic.

Other says 2% of traffic in London, can you give me statistic for the 5%? (just need to know).

Hey Ed, got it here:

http://ibikelondon.blogspot.com/2010/02/know-your-enemies-know-your-limits.html

ta!

man that website a mess.

No you don't.

Intent would only apply to murder. Manslaughter on the other hand requires only requires a condition of negligence of behaviour.

Wrong.

Unlawful act manslaughter [Archbold 19-99]

It must be proved that:
[INDENT]

• the defendants act caused the death of the victim;
  
• the defendants act constituted a criminal offence in itself;
  
• the defendant had the mens rea appropriate to the unlawful act which caused the victims death; and
  
• the defendants unlawful act is objectively recognised as subjecting the victim to the risk of some physical harm, albeit not necessarily serious harm.
  
  

[/INDENT]Unlawful act manslaughter will be the most appropriate charge when there is evidence to prove that a vehicle is used as an instrument of attack (but where the necessary intent for murder is absent) or to cause fright and death results.

scandalous.

yes the law needs to change. so that the drivers, vehicle manufacturers and the oil industry are all held responsible for the risks they create and the deaths they are causing.

Wrong.

Unlawful act manslaughter [Archbold 19-99]

It must be proved that:
[INDENT]

[]the defendants act caused the death of the victim;
[]the defendants act constituted a criminal offence in itself;
[]the defendant had the mens rea appropriate to the unlawful act which caused the victims death; and
[]the defendants unlawful act is objectively recognised as subjecting the victim to the risk of some physical harm, albeit not necessarily serious harm.

[/INDENT]Unlawful act manslaughter will be the most appropriate charge when there is evidence to prove that a vehicle is used as an instrument of attack (but where the necessary intent for murder is absent) or to cause fright and death results.

Well not really wrong. Negligence of behaviour covers the first point listed there. I appreciate I didn't cover all four points, nor did I use the exact wording. However, I was citing what I felt was the most relevant point.

How about saving the expert legal arguments for another time and place?

Errr, no.

In the House of Lords case of Andrews v DPP ([1937] A.C. 576), Lord Atkin stated that there was an obvious difference in the law of manslaughter between doing an unlawful act and doing a lawful act with a degree of carelessness that the Legislature makes criminal. Thus an act that is otherwise lawful, such as driving a vehicle, does not become an unlawful act for these purposes if it contravenes the criminal law merely by the manner of its execution. Hence, driving carelessly or driving dangerously do not, on their own, amount to unlawful acts for the purpose of unlawful act manslaughter.

scandalous.

yes the law needs to change. so that the drivers, vehicle manufacturers and the oil industry are all held responsible for the risks they create and the deaths they are causing.

The law already covers vehicle manufacturers to account. Indeed several of them have been pursued for damage, injuries and death caused by defects in their products. The oil industry is, in theory, accountable as far as the actions of their business are concerned. I don't see that it would be reasonable to hold either accountable for the actions of the users of their products. After all, if a cyclist caused a death, would you want to pursue the manufacturer of the bicycle that they were riding and suppliers of their food on the same matter. After market they can hardly be considered in reasonable control of their products.

How about saving the expert legal arguments for another time and place?

New thread I reckon*, this one should respect and support Eilidh's family

*says he who started it, sorry

As some may have noticed, I've moved some posts from the thread about Eilidh Cairn to this one as they were a little inappropriate in the Eilidh thread.

Thanks, good decision.

http://londonroadsafety.tfl.gov.uk/www/downloads/publications/reports_research_police-collision-files_2001-2006.pdf

On Dutch Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management's
website
http://www.verkeerenwaterstaat.nl/english/topics/road_traffic_safety/

under "Road and traffic safety" you find five subcategories:

** Alcohol, drugs and driving

• Blind spot
  
• Safety in and around your car
  
• Safety in and around lorries
  
• Seat belts and child booster seats*
  
  
  

Here's an excerpt of what you find under "Blind spot":

*Blind spot
History

The blind spot has been a problem for cyclists and pedestrians for* *
years. Too many road users die every year because drivers do not see
them when turning. In 1998, twenty moped riders and cyclists died in
blind-spot accidents. Relatives and next of kin are devoting
themselves to solving the problem.

Writer Anna Enquist wrote an open letter to Tineke Netelenbos, the* *
minister at the time, when she lost her daughter in a traffic
accident in 2001. This received a lot of media attention. In 1999 the
effectiveness of blind-spot mirrors and camera systems was
investigated. When it was found that these systems are effective, a
subsidy scheme was created. However, the scheme still did not equip
enough Heavy Goods Vehicles (HGVs) with blind-spot mirrors.
This was why in spring 2002 minister Netelenbos made the blind-spot
mirror mandatory, a law which came into effect on 1 January 2003.
Between 2000 and 2003 the number of blind-spot victims decreased, but
since then the number of deaths has again increased. New technologies
and solutions are therefore still required.*

The pages are in English, but the Dutch versions have more info, like
this statistic (babel fished):

Table 1.1 numbers died cyclists as a result of accident with
Right-refuseeing freight car
Year died cyclists:
1997 20
1998 16
1999 15
2000 16
2001 19
2002 6
2003 7
2004 16
2005 15
2006 19

http://www.rospa.com/roadsafety/resources/videos/cyclists-and-lorries.aspx

Latest London hipstah kid stylee, eh?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/bike-blog/2010/nov/18/hgv-city-ban-to-protect-cyclists

Look like someone finally says it.

Not a solution though*, but least they're now aware of the situation.

*last thing I want is to have lots of HGV speeding past my usual cycle route in the middle of the night.

I was knocked into a hedge ! It has been the first in 40 years of cycling though

By a HGV?!

Hi, I was one of the few people in the area at the time. It was busy with motorists as always but actually a quiet moment for the Junction when it happened. I didn't see what happened and so cannot be a witness but I did hear it happening. The emergency services deserve a special mention. The police were here literally in less than 20 secs and an ambulance in 45 seconds. The lights had just changed from red to green and the lorry was the first vehicle in a queue of traffic. I'm not sure where Dan was when the lights were red, either on the inside of the truck or in the middle going straight on. It is a total tragedy and I'm sorry for all his family and friends, sincerely. It's a lovely memorial.
However, I'm also sorry for the driver of the truck. It must be appauling to have to endure being involved in something like this. Everyone seems to blame the driver but the truth is there's no way to know how responsible for the accident the driver was. I'm not saying the cyclist in this incident was responsible either because I was there and I don't know. By far the group of road users I see breaking the highway code and in a league to themselves are cyclists. How many cyclists fail to wear helmets? Jump red lights? As a pedestrian walking along Kingsland Road the number of times a cyclist has jumped a light and is trying to get past me whilst I'm crossing. Cyclists in the middle of the road not wearing anything reflective yelling at you to get out of the road! This week I've paid special attention to the lousy cycling going on and have observed a bike weaving through stationay traffic, a bike at a snails pace going past a bus stop and nearly being hit by a bus, several red light jumpers, one of whom had a small child attached to their back and was flying down the road.

May I suggest cyclists are made to sit a test just like any other road user? How much of learning to drive a vehicle involves increasing awareness of the danger of blind spots and respecting the highway code?

Again, thoughts go out to you.

edited-
still think you're a prat.

Edited.
, speculative, misinformed, clueless, .
but kept the relevant.