Eilidh Cairns verdict

Hello,

Just thought I'd post and let you all know about the EIlidh Cairns inquest verdict. The Coroner (Dr. Radcliffe) of Westminster Coroner's Court came to the verdict of 'Accidental Death'.

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.

Obviously this is not the verdict we wanted. Please write to your MPs about the EDM in this thread. It's a fight we're all going to have to do ourselves.

http://www.lfgss.com/thread35960.html

Jo

"Accidental death"???

The driver runs into her from behind, at such a speed differential that he was unable to stop before running over her.
So he was obviously not paying attention.
Prima facie evidence of dangerous driving: It would be clear to any reasonable and competent driver that the action was dangerous.

Running into then over a cyclist in front of you fulfills that definition IMO.
Verdict should have been unlawful killing.

Strongly worded letter to MP in post.

Ffs

if hitting the vehicle/person in front isn't negligent or dangerous but simply an accident then no one is safe.

Truly sickening.

thanks for posting. bad news.

is the inquest verdict made public ?

i.e. is it a document that i can access and read etc ?

thanks for posting - absolutely ridiculous verdict.

MP hassled, hopefully eventually something will change.

It doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I understand that if a lorry taps the rear end of a car, causing minor damage, no one bats an eyelid and calls it accidental: the lorry driver can be deemed to be driving safely even if he's close enough to the car to tap it. But a lorry driver who's close enough to a bike to 'tap' it, what's going on there? Why is he anywhere near the bike, when the consequences are so very very different?

This is very sad. Surely the primary problem here though is that no witnesses came forward? From my experience of accidents on building sites (a bit dfferent I know), without witnesses it can be very difficult for expert opinion alone to carry the necessary weight for the coroner to apportion blame.

Thanks for posting. This doesn't make much sense to me either.

Apologies if I've missed a thread somewhere but was the drivers defense that he hadn't seen Eilid at all? Or that he had seen her but the "tap" was unavoidable for other reasons?

Either way, the verdit seems bizarre. I'm not sure you'd even get away with these defences on a ski slope let alone London's Highways. Surely if he hasn't seen her he's negligent - or if he has and can't avoid contact he's driving wrecklessly?

flame away.

Accidents happen, and im certainly in favour of altering driver training/cab design if it would minimize the risk of cyclist/HGV collisions. (which i believe it would - something does need to be done) However, the assumption that it was due to driver negligence and the verdict isnt "what you wanted" does annoy me. The fact of the matter is, he could very well have been negligent, but i dont think we are at liberty to assume that all deaths of this kind are down to that.

i'm sorry to read this. must be very hard for family and friends to accept this outcome.

will write a letter also.

flame away.

Accidents happen, and im certainly in favour of altering driver training/cab design if it would minimize the risk of cyclist/HGV collisions. (which i believe it would - something does need to be done) However, the assumption that it was due to driver negligence and the verdict isnt "what you wanted" does annoy me. The fact of the matter is, he could very well have been negligent, but i dont think we are at liberty to assume that all deaths of this kind are down to that.

This is of course all true, we have not seen the evidence. However the cynicism though come from the fact that unfortunately there is a history and regular occurrence of events of this type being put down to accidents even when negligent has been show e.g. the case of the lorry drive checking his papers. The law is set up against the cyclist and courts are biased. Some good examples here.
http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.com/2009/11/cycling-against-car-culture.html

How is it not manslaughter?

Victim died as the result of the driver's actions, there was no malice intended or premeditation but the fact is a person died.

i really don't get it. if a driver "tapped" another car in front so hard it smashed up and people die, then is this accidental too ?
Jesus, this is realy scary, anything on the road can be put down as "accidental" like this, you run over an old lady on pedestrian crossing and you get away by saying " i didn't see her early enough" or " i only drove into her left leg, and then she fell over, it wasn't my fault" ?
This is madness.

and i'm very sorry to Eilidh's family, it must be a hard verdict to accept

flame away.

Accidents happen, and im certainly in favour of altering driver training/cab design if it would minimize the risk of cyclist/HGV collisions. (which i believe it would - something does need to be done) However, the assumption that it was due to driver negligence and the verdict isnt "what you wanted" does annoy me. The fact of the matter is, he could very well have been negligent, but i dont think we are at liberty to assume that all deaths of this kind are down to that.

I don't normally stoop to this kind of invective, but fuck right off you twat.

If you can't or don't see what's in front of you then you shouldn't be behind the wheel.
What else are incidents of this kind down to if not being negligent or deliberate?

I don't normally stoop to this kind of invective, but fuck right off you twat.

If you can't or don't see what's in front of you then you shouldn't be behind the wheel.
What else are incidents of this kind down to if not being negligent or deliberate?

Blind spot? Accident? Sudden medical emergency?
I'm sure there are more reasons for this sort of event, or a combination of a few. Not that I am saying thats what happened, i am unaware of the exact details of the incident. But that comment you just made is out of order, and I think you should apologise.

In my limited experience, it's very rare in a rear end car on car collision for the rear ender to not be found entirely culpable. Obviously culpability should be heavily considered when the accident is fatal, as is likely in the case of a rear ended cyclist, however the idea that as a cyclist you're life hangs in the balance every time a rear driver doesn't pay attention is frightening, especially when a legal precedent such as this is set, which seemingly just puts such events down to an unfortunate accident.

+1

How is it not manslaughter?

Victim died as the result of the driver's actions, there was no malice intended or premeditation but the fact is a person died.

Not saying this was the case at all, but, generally speaking I was under the impression that if the driver has committed no traffic offence and the situation was "unavoidable" then drivers aren't deemed to have committed mansalughter or any other crime. It can just be an accident that caused a fatality. I assume too that in many cases of deaths in RTAs that the driver that survives suffers from horrendous guilt whether it was there fault or not, and that having to live with that awareness must be horrendous.

But with respect to tragic incident the coroner must have been satisfied that the driver of the HGV was not acting negligently or deliberately, and that it was an accident. Clearly an upsetting result for Eilidh's family and friends, but that in itself does not make the verdict wrong. But without knowing all the facts and positioning I shouldn't like to either approve or disapprove of the verdict.

I disagree: HGV drivers are the first to tout their professional credentials.
They are (or damn well should be) aware of any blind spots. Yet this driver ran into a cyclist, then ran over her.
Just what how the hell do you define negligence if not by actions such as this?
And as for the coroner. I don't know how much experience you have of these non elected, all powerful appointees, but I happen to have quite a lot. And they have a long and inglorious history of being just plain wrong.

Look at bus drivers in London, they're very careful and considerate when it come to driving amongst cyclists (obviously it got a better view than lorry), surely it doesn't take much to be extra careful with lorry, even with the blind spot.

Marc: I'm not disagreeing. I think in my limited knowledge of what happened it does sound like negligence. I was just offering alternatives as you asked for them, and was doing so with a general rather than specific hat on. However the attitude you took and the insults you delivered were over the top, totaly uneccesary and just plain nasty, and I don't see any excuse for what you said and more importantly how you said it. This is a serious case, and someone did loose their life, but people have the right to disagree and he did so in a respectful manner. you did not.

Look at bus drivers in London, they're very careful and considerate when it come to driving amongst cyclists (obviously it got a better view than lorry), surely it doesn't take much to be extra careful with lorry, even with the blind spot.

Not all.

Obviously not all, there'll always be a bad seeds in any motorised vehicles, be it's taxi, buses, pogo stick or Dancing James, etc. but I'm sure you notice that the majority of bus drivers are always careful to overtake cyclists.

I don't normally stoop to this kind of invective, but fuck right off you twat.

If you can't or don't see what's in front of you then you shouldn't be behind the wheel.
What else are incidents of this kind down to if not being negligent or deliberate?

awwww,

dont cry.

Look at bus drivers in London, they're very careful and considerate when it come to driving amongst cyclists (obviously it got a better view than lorry), surely it doesn't take much to be extra careful with lorry, even with the blind spot.

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.