Tadej Pogačar unleashes Strava KOM revenge hunt after noticing Lombardia 2021 win was flagged; A humdinger to add to the puzzling cycle lane collection; How to train like a Tour de France champ — step one, get a dog; LTN vandalism + more on the live blog

mattw wrote:

Does anyone know what time the BMW driver killed the cyclist?

Sunset on that day in that location was 18:03. 

Was it light or dark?

According to local news reports at the time, "around 7pm".

Acquited!  App used on phone 10 seconds before collision and driver driving between 41-49mph in a 30mph zone.

I didn't read the whole text.  Was the phone handheld or in a cradle?

"Was the phone handheld or in a cradle?"

Cradle.

Don't forget :-

Hit on a Toucan crossing. 

Cyclist's bike and trainers left 30ft away.

Cyclist 'thrown into the air and lands on the opposite carriageway'

Jury deliberated for less than an hour.

Walks free from court without any action - not even points on his licence...

https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/bmw-driver-walks-free-court-27847465

Where's the justice for Tesform Hebtemichael.

Lights were green = cyclist should not have been there = not guilty.

As we always say, if you want to kill someone, use your car to do it, especially if they are a cyclist.

GREEN means you may go on if the way is clear. Take special care if you intend to turn left or right and give way to pedestrians who are crossing.

Had he been a pedestrian instead of a cyclist, his clothing would not have been a factor.

It doesn't actually say if he started crossing the road when a "red man" light was displayed - he could well have been crossing when a "green man" light was on and it changed part way.

Sorry, allowing time for red lights to become "established" is only a thing for motorists.  What with pedestrians moving slowly that would obviously be bonkers!  No, as soon as the light turns red you've got one more step to carry you the rest of the way across ("go go Gadget legs!") but that's it.  Otherwise you're fair game.

Don't you know that holding up the traffic (the "engine which drives the economy") makes you an enemy of the people?  Why do you think we have minimum speed limits?

chrisonatrike wrote:

Sorry, allowing time for red lights to become "established" is only a thing for motorists.  What with pedestrians moving slowly that would obviously be bonkers!  No, as soon as the light turns red you've got one more step to carry you the rest of the way across ("go go Gadget legs!") but that's it.  Otherwise you're fair game.

Don't you know that holding up the traffic (the "engine which drives the economy") makes you an enemy of the people?  Why do you think we have minimum speed limits?

I believe I heard an MP saying this yesterday....

No, green means go and all bets are off for anyone in the way.

And "driving at no less than 44mph in a 30mph zone"!  Would he have been able to better avoid Mr Hebtemichael if he'd been driving at - or below - the speed limit??

From the report, the prosecution claimed a minimum speed of 44mph the defence expert said 40 -50 mph. The brake lights were on 15.7m from the crossing. Here are the braking distances from a RAC website. This braking distance doesn't include thinking distance as brake lights already on.

20mph    6 metres
30mph    14 metres
40mph    24 metres
50mph    38 metres

From the above it is clear the cyclist would still be alive had the motorist not been speeding.

This doesn't take into account the possible complication of mobile phone distraction which has been shown to exist for many seconds or even minutes after mobile phone use. It is possible that without this distraction the motorist would have seen the cyclist even sooner and the cyclist would have had plenty of time to get across.

The lights were green though so the jury has presumably decided that the driver did well to brake at all. "The driver had no chance." Where have we heard that before?

It reminds me of the cyclist who was found guilty of causing the death of a motorcyclist who was speeding because he turned right into the path of the motorcyclist presumably thinking he had time to get across if the motorcycle was travelling at the speed limit.

The big question that we should all consider is this:

On the face of the report there appears to be overwhelming Prima Facie evidence to support a conviction, yet the Jury returned a not guilty verdict.  I can think of three other cases similar to this:  The 18 year old triathlete killed in Kent, the two pensioners killed in Wales and the two toddlers killed in Leicester.

The impression I am left with is Juries reflect the general public perception, driving a little bit too fast may be considered the norm, using a mobile phone is OK, drivers who end up in a serious collision whilst doing these 'normal' activities were just unlucky.  This is the impression I get when reading these reports.

The case with CyclingMikey, where there was clear video evidence the driver deliberately and repeatedly struck Mikey, but the driver was acquited.  And some news reports seemed to imply Mikey was the person at fault.

And TV adverts for cars these days are all about the ability to remain connected to social networks whilst driving.  The Peugeot 208 advert where the driver was receiving text messages "wish you were here".  The Toyota Aygo advert depicting the driver repeadetly making sharp changes of direction in a built up location, whilst deciding on whether to accept the text message invitations to either watch the football match, or a 'shag'!!!!

Watch all the car reviews on Youtube, they all go deeply into Apple Carplay and Android Auto, how the Infotainment [doesn't] work.  Driving and texting, Facetiming, selecting tracks on Spotify seems to be accepted as the 'norm'.

During the General Election in 2015, I woke up one morning to the news that both the Labour and Conservatives would be announcing their plans to "End the War on Motorists" that day.  I expect to hear the same during the next general election too.

Road safety is no longer on the agenda, and hasn't been for many years.

I think it's "unintentionally killed" - a new version of "there was nothing they could do".

The fact of them chosing to drive at all is so far from being considered as a choice it seems our consideration that how they were driving is also starting to be less relevant (e.g. speed, using phone, licenced or not, car being legal to drive...)  Because they had to drive.  Every journey is apparently required.  Journies are normally depicted as acts for others - going to check on someone, needing to be at work / back at home to support dependents...

It's the white-van-man's burden - driving for others.  It's almost a penance as you even have to pay to do so...

There's an issue with the jury / judiciary discounting faults on the part of the driver as "they would have made no difference to the outcome".  The principle seems reasonable but as others have noted that often seems to go further - to be assuming the results of bad choices.  A kind of "incompetence paradox".  So accepting "they couldn't stop in time / had no time to react" but discounting that this was partly / wholly because the driver was already driving over the limit.

Choosing to speed not only makes the outcomes worse but reduces the time to detect a potential collision and what could be done to prevent or mitigate it.

Trevor Anderson wrote:

 

The impression I am left with is Juries reflect the general public perception, driving a little bit too fast may be considered the norm, using a mobile phone is OK, drivers who end up in a serious collision whilst doing these 'normal' activities were just unlucky.  This is the impression I get when reading these reports.

A million percent this. I say it often, but nearly everyone drives, and (looking at KSI stats, speed compliance stats, studies on rule-breaking, etc.) nearly everyone drives badly. So what happens when you draw the jury/judge/barristers from this pool of people? Road crime hardly gets punished.

We don't put murderers on trial in front of a jury of murderers, or fraudsters in front of a jury of fraudsters, but we put dangerous drivers on trial in front of a jury of people who do the same stuff day-in, day-out but just haven't gotten "unlucky" yet. That's why the CPS drops intentional, concious acts of violence involving a car from “attempted murder” or “assault” or even “dangerous driving” to the banal "careless driving", and why the sentences are an absolute joke - because if they weren't, there would literally never be a conviction.

I want to be shocked by this result, but I'm really not.

How can people read about this and claim there is a "War on Motorists"?

Had the driver obeyed the speed limit he might have avoided killing the cyclist. If the speed limit had been 20mph......

HoldingOn wrote:

I want to be shocked by this result, but I'm really not.

How can people read about this and claim there is a "War on Motorists"?

Had the driver obeyed the speed limit he might have avoided killing the cyclist. If the speed limit had been 20mph......

War is peace.
Freedom is slavery.
Ignorance is strength.

.

(not sure mine fits anymore !)

Hirsute wrote:

.

(not sure mine fits anymore !)

Well, it is almost 40 years old

Trevor Anderson wrote:

Acquited! 

By a jury of speeding drivers addicted to their mobile phones perhaps?

How can browsing an app for home CCTV whilst speeding and swerving lanes through a junction be deemed to be the behaviour of a careful and competent driver (i.e. not careless)?

The whole area appears to be streetlit too, so the cyclist should have been visible. Of course the cyclist should not have crossed when they did, but had the driver been adhering to the speed limit, there may have been no collision.

This verdict normalises speeding and mobile phone use behind the wheel. Appalling.

That acquittal is a licence to mow down anyone cycling in black

lesterama wrote:

That acquittal is a licence to mow down anyone cycling in black

And had the result gone the other way, would it have been a license to ride with no lights, reflectors, and dark clothing? 

A Losers wrote:

lesterama wrote:

That acquittal is a licence to mow down anyone cycling in black

And had the result gone the other way, would it have been a license to ride with no lights, reflectors, and dark clothing? 

You really, really are a piece of sh*t aren't you.

P*ss off troll. 

.

Thank you for your valued contribution to the discussion.

.

Flintshire Boy wrote:

Thank you for your valued contribution to the discussion.

It's like rain on your wedding day

essexian wrote:

You really, really are a piece of sh*t aren't you.

P*ss off troll. 

Someone literally asked me to retract calling Rendel "a nasty piece of work" 

I do not intend to name drop him, but the fact I get called out for that, but you can use such abusive language on a perfectly reasonable comment is clearly a double standard and a reflection of bias & hypocrisy on this site. 

Mods - take note, if this is left up, it's left up as a precedent to all. 

Mods take note. This person is a previously banned user and makes no qualms in admitting it. So if they are not removed it sets a precedent for all.

What we've got here is... failure to communicate.  Some men (as opposed to the site as a whole, last week) you just can't reach.

The vulnerable road users are set against each other, fighting over scraps.

As the War on the Motorist grinds on (into its 137th year this year) I fear we will only see more of this kind of thing.