Left turn truck flattens motorbike

Forum for general chat, news, blogs, humour, jokes etc.

Postby vonhosen » Sun Aug 02, 2015 12:45 pm


StressedDave wrote:
vonhosen wrote:
If he'd done it on a DVSA test he'd have failed because it fell short of the standard required.
If you are very close to any of the myriad of hazards to be found in a target rich environment you should be slowing to the point that you aren't going to hit it. Him taking the piece of road isn't a problem, failing to ensure it's safe to take it is. The bike wasn't in a position on the road that you wouldn't expect it to be or it didn't move into that space suddenly.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing here, you understand, merely giving the fruits of my experience looking at these things.


As am I.

We can only, of course, judge it on the information before us.

From what we can see in the video there were no extraordinary circumstances that would excuse/mitigate a collision & as such his driving fell short of the standard expected/required IMHO.

Looks like a case of his focus being the person with the pushchair (important of course) but it also looks like he was rushing to make the turn before that person got to the junction. That desire/combo robbed him of the time & presence of mind he needed to check adequately the other places he needed to check before making such a turn. It was his focus on the threat to his desire (getting there before them) that was his problem & he didn't check adequately into the junction he intended to turn because of it. Not the presence of the (the obstacle that is the) A pillar & mirrors, which are there & must be surmounted for every tight left turn.
Any views expressed are mine & mine alone.
I do not represent my employer or these forums.
vonhosen
 
Posts: 2624
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 8:18 pm
Location: Behind you !

Postby MGF » Sun Aug 02, 2015 1:33 pm


I agree with WG that the only way the driver could have avoided being caught out by the biker is if the driver had entered the junction at a crawl. Would a careful driver have reduced his speed to a crawl to carry out the manoeuvre? I think the answer is, 'not obviously'.

I believe there are plenty of people who would view the culpability of the driver as being insufficient to deserve a conviction for careless driving and that is more likely to be decisive than a technical analysis.
MGF
 
Posts: 2547
Joined: Thu Jun 29, 2006 11:33 pm
Location: Warwickshire

Postby trashbat » Sun Aug 02, 2015 2:16 pm


No comment on the fact that, after the accident with the rider gesticulating in the road, he continues moving the lorry and runs over the guy's bike some more? The bloke's a numpty.
Rob - IAM F1RST, Alfa Romeo 156 JTS
trashbat
 
Posts: 764
Joined: Wed Jun 22, 2011 11:11 pm
Location: Hampshire

Postby jont » Sun Aug 02, 2015 2:18 pm


MGF wrote:Would a careful driver have reduced his speed to a crawl to carry out the manoeuvre? I think the answer is, 'not obviously'.

I believe there are plenty of people who would view the culpability of the driver as being insufficient to deserve a conviction for careless driving and that is more likely to be decisive than a technical analysis.

Really? Have driving standards slipped so badly that it's okay to run someone/something over because you haven't bothered to clear your blind spots? :shock:

/guess it has reached that level having read some of ancient's links about cyclists being run over and drivers let off because they were driving into the sun :(
User avatar
jont
 
Posts: 2990
Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 9:56 pm
Location: Cambridgeshire

Postby Ancient » Tue Aug 04, 2015 2:24 pm


The law has been a 'broken' tool for fixing fataly poor driving for some time, see for example https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2013/09/07/what-the-law-told-us-this-week-no-3/. Of particular relevance here is the addendum.
Ancient
 
Posts: 518
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 12:22 pm

Postby Ancient » Tue Aug 04, 2015 4:11 pm


Well however long the Birmingham Mail was in the court or not, unless they are outright lying (which would render them open to damages) the lorry driver in that case was sending text messages while travelling at speeds of 55mph (billing and tacho evidence), which he deleted after climbing back into his cab to do so. He had driven over the girl whilst pulling away on a green light. He pleaded guilty to dangerous driving and perverting the course of justice. Clearly, when texting at speed he was not paying suitable attention to his driving (unless some here think that this is suitable attention?). In charge of an 18 tonner vehicle which has 'blind spots' large enough to lose a person, clearly with no regard for such. Three months served and back driving (if contractors bother to check his ban) a year later.
If I were to come round a bend and drive into a group of pedestrians hidden by the hedge, it would be my bad driving that caused their injuries/deaths; as I hadn't seen that section of the road to be clear before entering it. Somehow trucks are exempt from that. As an accident investigator Dave, that attitude seems to go with the territory. :cry: Sad
Ancient
 
Posts: 518
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 12:22 pm

Postby Ancient » Wed Aug 05, 2015 8:22 am


The driver patently cared nothing about the danger he continually posed for other road users. The ONLY reason that his dangerous behaviour was identified was when he killed the girl. Despite this, he will have been back riving in (probably less than) a year: There is no deterrent in this and the system is broken. It is now normal not to see what you are driving into/over, juries findings demonstrate this, judges comments demonstrate this, the (in)actions of the CPS and police (particularly the Met) demonstrate this.

Jont asked "Have driving standards slipped so badly that it's okay to run someone/something over because you haven't bothered to clear your blind spots? " The answer is 'Yes, they have. Drivers repeatedly are let off because no-one expects them to be thinking about what might be out of sight. That is no longer required of a 'normal and competent driver'.
Ancient
 
Posts: 518
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 12:22 pm

Postby Ancient » Wed Aug 05, 2015 1:09 pm


Remembering all of those things (which are part of 'the system) and mean Dangerous Drivers are not removed from our roads for any meaningful length of time (plenty of evidence that rogue contractors are happy to employ disqualified drivers, there are not the resources apparently to police this) means that 'the system' is indeed broken.

As for the Met, the decision that a driver should not even face charges having not seen, driven into and killed a legally lit cyclist because (to quote the reasons given)
-The cyclist was not wearing a helmet (irrelevant)
-The cyclist was wearing dark clothing (irrelevant)
-The driver may have been confused by the number of lights present (so should have slowed/stopped)
-The driver maintained her speed and course (apparently now what you do when confused by too many lights?)
Really speaks for itself. The system is broken and apologists who are part of the broken system cannot see this.
Ancient
 
Posts: 518
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 12:22 pm

Postby TripleS » Wed Aug 05, 2015 1:13 pm


Hmm, it looks as if we're maybe getting a bit touchy here again.

TBH, Dave, in the 'lorry versus motorbike' case we originally looked at, I feel you're letting the lorry driver off the hook a bit too readily; but that's just my feeling. I'm surprised you didn't expect a bit more care from him than he actually displayed, but there you go.
TripleS
 
Posts: 6025
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 9:47 pm
Location: Briggswath, Whitby

Postby Ancient » Wed Aug 05, 2015 1:49 pm


Nope, the Met refusd to forward the incident to CPS.

Regent street, hardly a place where you wouldn't expect cyclists - or unlit pedestrians in dark clothing.

And without looking for it, another indicator http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/tfl-refuse-to-release-cctv-footage-of-mod-chief-cycle-crash-because-he-did-not-die-10436969.html - oh but that's a newpaper report - it can't be true... Of course Rear Admiral Mark Beverstock might just be telling porkies to the standard? He also seems to agree with me "The bottom line is there is someone out there who has got away with it. There is no deterrent at all for these drivers if they are not going to be brought to justice.”
Ancient
 
Posts: 518
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 12:22 pm

Postby Mr Cholmondeley-Warner » Wed Aug 05, 2015 2:08 pm


StressedDave wrote:
TripleS wrote:TBH, Dave, in the 'lorry versus motorbike' case we originally looked at, I feel you're letting the lorry driver off the hook a bit too readily; but that's just my feeling. I'm surprised you didn't expect a bit more care from him than he actually displayed, but there you go.

When you pull away from traffic lights [??], do you get out of the car, walk to the end of the bonnet and look under it to see if there's a dead cyclist there? No, didn't think so - if the driver took all relevant precautions possible - checking his blindspots as re (look at the number of lorries these days without a mirror pointing down) before pulling away, most right-thinking men in the street would probably not convict, particularly as it was a dead cyclist rather than a live one and thus even more likely to be invisible without that walkaround check.

You need to a) be reasonable as to what is possible and expected of a careful and competent driver and b) not work with the benefit of hindsight in judgment

You'd kind of hope the driver would have noticed the impact and all the scraping noises, as well as the motorcyclist gesticulating angrily at him, the pedestrians shouting ...

Possibly your reply refers to a different case?
User avatar
Mr Cholmondeley-Warner
 
Posts: 2928
Joined: Tue Jan 23, 2007 12:03 am
Location: Swindon, Wilts




Postby Horse » Wed Aug 05, 2015 2:25 pm


Mr Cholmondeley-Warner wrote:You'd kind of hope the driver would have noticed the impact and all the scraping noises


Hmm . . . :oops:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXOg4FDxx50
Anything posted by 'Horse' may be (C) Malcolm Palmer. Please ask for permission before considering any copying or re-use outside of forum posting.
User avatar
Horse
 
Posts: 2811
Joined: Mon Feb 05, 2007 2:40 pm
Location: Darkest Berkshoire

Postby Ancient » Wed Aug 05, 2015 4:47 pm


Dave, you are looking at it from the point of view of the system as it is. Whilst I am horrified at the fact that rogue haulier contractors have repeatedly been shown not to check their driver's ban status when employing them, I am aware that there are too few resources for that to be enforced. Whilst I am horrified that too many drivers are complacent about distractions in the cab and care little about what is happening around them (I see this frequently enough even from the level of a car, to understand it is common), I am aware that these are only caught as and when they actually have an incident. The complacency shown by police, CPS, juries and the judiciary all contribute to the expectation that 'it can happen to anyone'. Anyone can fail to see a cyclist in front of them (after all, they are so invisible), anyone can drive around a blind bend on the wrong side of the road and be surprised to find oncoming vehicles; anyone can stop at lights and not see someone crossing in front of them - after all there are blind spots (which the RFA resist pressures to eliminate by retro-fitting down-gazer mirrors on all vehicles); anyone can have too many mirrors to check too many places and accidentally squash a pedestrian - you know, stuff just happens! :evil:

It is that attitude which is ingrained in our road traffic system, from design (of vehicles and roads) through to enforcement (of rules to prevent real and proven dangers). Rail accident investigation got the balance long ago and astonishingly it doesn't involve automatically blaming someone :shock: (which is what you seem to attribute to me). The system is broken Dave, or we wouldn't have so many blind spots on trucks, so many mirrors to check - or if we did, one person wouldn't be left to check them all (with the certainty that deaths would result); we wouldn't allow banned drivers to drive (we'd have the resources to stop them) and we wouldn't allow drivers with a proven record of deliberate endangerment (such as repeatedly texting at 55mph) to hold licences.
Ancient
 
Posts: 518
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2010 12:22 pm

Postby TripleS » Wed Aug 05, 2015 4:54 pm


StressedDave wrote:
TripleS wrote:TBH, Dave, in the 'lorry versus motorbike' case we originally looked at, I feel you're letting the lorry driver off the hook a bit too readily; but that's just my feeling. I'm surprised you didn't expect a bit more care from him than he actually displayed, but there you go.

When you pull away from traffic lights, do you get out of the car, walk to the end of the bonnet and look under it to see if there's a dead cyclist there? No, didn't think so....


Well no, you're quite right, I do not carry out such a check. In any event, such a check would be best carried out before moving off rather than when moving off. :P

On the other hand, I usually check to see that there are no dead cyclists lying in the road where the front of my car is going to be while I wait for the green light. Normally there are no dead cyclists in the aforementioned location, and therefore I draw what is to me the reasonable conclusion that no dead cyclists are likely to enter that space between me arriving, and moving off. To date I have found that this gives a safe and satisfactory result, but of course there are always new things to learn. 8)

Best wishes all,
Dave - graduate of the SD School of Smartarsery. :)
TripleS
 
Posts: 6025
Joined: Thu Oct 13, 2005 9:47 pm
Location: Briggswath, Whitby

Postby vonhosen » Wed Aug 05, 2015 5:24 pm


TripleS wrote:Hmm, it looks as if we're maybe getting a bit touchy here again.

TBH, Dave, in the 'lorry versus motorbike' case we originally looked at, I feel you're letting the lorry driver off the hook a bit too readily; but that's just my feeling. I'm surprised you didn't expect a bit more care from him than he actually displayed, but there you go.



I assure you it's not.

My take on it was that he was too fast into (rushing to beat the pedestrian to) the junction & in doing so didn't leave himself the time & space he needed to make the necessary & expected checks to complete the manoeuvre safely. That resulted in him not seeing an approaching motorcycle that he should have seen (in a position & doing what it was reasonable to expect it to do).
Last edited by vonhosen on Wed Aug 05, 2015 5:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Any views expressed are mine & mine alone.
I do not represent my employer or these forums.
vonhosen
 
Posts: 2624
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2005 8:18 pm
Location: Behind you !

PreviousNext

Return to General Car Chat Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests