Emma Foa's death- verdict announced

[spindrift]

A lorry driver who ran over and killed a cyclist who was a writer and
jewellery designer was today fined £300 after admitting careless
driving.

Emma Foa, 56 died as she cycled from her home in Hampstead Heath to
work in Clerkenwell in December. She was killed instantly after being
crushed between the cement mixer's rear wheels and roadside railings.

At Westminster Magistrates Court today Michael Thorn, 52 of Headley
Down, Surrey was allowed to keep his driver's licence and was ordered
to pay £100 costs.

The court had been told that Thorn had been looking for some papers in
his cabin when the bike was beside him and also when his vehicle began
to turn left and the fatal crash occured.

The family of Ms Foa - the daughter of typewriter magnate Adriano
Ollivetti said she was wearing a luminious reflector jacket and a
helmet when she was crushed by the two tonne lorry.

District Judge Anthony Evans said:

"I accept in cases of this sort it's distressing for all concerned,
the family of the disceased and the driver whose inadvertance has
resulted in a fatality."


Prosecutor Graham Parkinson told the court the incident happened at
9.10am in Camley Street, Kings Cross.

"Emma was riding her bike and reached the traffic lights. She went
along the nearside and waited for the lights to change," he said.

"She was alongside for 37 seconds and would have been visible. He
moved off and turned left causing her to be pushed to the ground and
killed instantly. He had been looking for some paperwork in his truck...
He felt a bump, saw a bike and jumped out to find her."

Karen Dempsey, defending, said that Thorn was "shocked and distressed"
and that the incident "would live with him for the rest of his life".
She added that witnesses had said he was not driving aggressively.

I am not sure what I am most shocked by. I am not shocked that,
despite the fact that Mr Thorn's criminal negligence has resulted in
the unlawful killing of Ms Foa, the court is allowing him to continue
to drive.

I am not shocked that, despite being found guilty of road crime, the
driver has been fined £300.

The sentence is entirely in keeping with the tariff for road killing.
The driver who killed London bicycle messenger Sebastian Lukomski
received a 6 point endorsement and a £1000 fine.

Yet again, the old adage 'if you want to get away with murder, get
behind the wheel of a lorry' is proven true. OK, it's not murder, it's
manslaughter but someone is dead because someone else was in charge of
dangerous machinery, and failed to their job properly.


I am shocked that the judge has chosen the word "inadvertence" to
describe the actions of the driver. Making a left turn whilst fumbling
for papers in a HGV? That's not inadvertence - that's just f***ing
stupid.

I am shocked that the defending barrister said that the driver was not
driving aggressively.
As if a lack of aggression excuses somehow a negligent act which has
led to an avoidable death. The dead woman's only mistake was to be
riding her bicycle and assuming that "a luminous reflective jacket"
and a helmet would protect her.

She stopped at the lights, and she wasn't in the "blind spot". But
the driver didn't see her, because he wasn't looking. And she was
crushed to death because he was too busy checking his pay-sheet to
make sure he had got his overtime to pay attention to what his two-
tonne machine might be rolling over.


This is the reality of cycling in London. No matter how many
campaigns, no matter how much lobbying, no matter how many pro-cycling
articles the fact remains that any stupid, lazy, feckless waster of an
idiot of a driver can kill with virtual impunity- the fine equivelent
to less than the cost of the bike.

Beyond belief.

[Tony Raven[_2_]]

In article . com>,
says...
> A lorry driver who ran over and killed a cyclist who was a writer and
> jewellery designer was today fined £300 after admitting careless
> driving.
>

If he'd been a crane operator on site and had dropped a girder on
someone who had walked underneath because he was rummaging through some
papers at the time all hell would break loose with the HSE but because
he's driving for work, no-one really seems to be bothered with what he
did.

Another one happened last week in Cambridge
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/huntingdon/2007/09/17/a540dea3-
68e3-4e41-bea0-6409ef73de6c.lpf

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

[Brian G]

spindrift wrote:
> A lorry driver who ran over and killed a cyclist who was a writer and
> jewellery designer was today fined £300 after admitting careless
> driving.

> District Judge Anthony Evans said:
>
> "I accept in cases of this sort it's distressing for all concerned,
> the family of the disceased and the driver whose inadvertance has
> resulted in a fatality."

This is the current mindset. Roads are dangerous places and it's sad
but unavoidable that "fatalities" will occur. There's no need to do
anyhing about it because nothing can be done. C'est la vie...

> Beyond belief.

No, on current form, entirely believable.


--
Brian G
www.wetwo.co.uk

[[email protected]]

On Sep 21, 8:12 am, spindrift > wrote:
> A lorry driver who ran over and killed a cyclist who was a writer and
> jewellery designer was today fined £300 after admitting careless
> driving.
>
> Emma Foa, 56 died as she cycled from her home in Hampstead Heath to
> work in Clerkenwell in December. She was killed instantly after being
> crushed between the cement mixer's rear wheels and roadside railings.

........

> Beyond belief.

Unfortunately not, but I know what you mean.

Coincidentaly, I got a letter from the police this week detailing the
final outcome of an incident I was involved in a few months back. I
was knocked off my bike by a driver coming the other way that decided
to turn right. One cracked rib, six stitches in a head wound, very
sore left thumb that made using Campag shifters difficult for a few
weeks, road rash and £350 worth of damage to my bike.

The driver stopped, very apologetic, admitted fault straight away,
plenty of witnesses including an off-duty fire service paramedic who
patched me up until the ambulance arrived. Surrey police were
excellent, helped by the fact that the guy who took my statement in
A&E was a cyclist.

I got a letter informing me that the driver had been given the option
of going on a driver awareness course in leiu of prosecution, which
seemed like a good idea to me. However for whatever reason she didn't
go on it and pleaded guilty to driving without due care. £300 fine,
28 day ban & licence endorsed. Which sound like more than this guy
got for killing the poor woman.

Dave

[Marc Brett]

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 00:12:50 -0700, spindrift >
wrote:

>The dead woman's only mistake was to be
>riding her bicycle and assuming that "a luminous reflective jacket"
>and a helmet would protect her.

Getting into the habit of jumping red lights might have given her even
more protection.

[Coyoteboy]

spindrift wrote:
> A lorry driver who ran over and killed a cyclist who was a writer and
> to less than the cost of the bike.
>
> Beyond belief.
>

2 tonne lorry? What world are they living in, we've got car that weighs
more than that - im fairly sure a cement mixer would trump that!

Unbelievable, it really is.

[_[_2_]]

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 02:29:24 -0700, wrote:

> On Sep 21, 8:12 am, spindrift > wrote:
>> A lorry driver who ran over and killed a cyclist who was a writer and
>> jewellery designer was today fined £300 after admitting careless
>> driving.
>>
>> Emma Foa, 56 died as she cycled from her home in Hampstead Heath to
>> work in Clerkenwell in December. She was killed instantly after being
>> crushed between the cement mixer's rear wheels and roadside railings.
>
> .......
>
>> Beyond belief.
>
> Unfortunately not, but I know what you mean.
>
> Coincidentaly, I got a letter from the police this week detailing the
> final outcome of an incident I was involved in a few months back. I
> was knocked off my bike by a driver coming the other way that decided
> to turn right. One cracked rib, six stitches in a head wound, very
> sore left thumb that made using Campag shifters difficult for a few
> weeks, road rash and £350 worth of damage to my bike.
>
> The driver stopped, very apologetic, admitted fault straight away,
> plenty of witnesses including an off-duty fire service paramedic who
> patched me up until the ambulance arrived. Surrey police were
> excellent, helped by the fact that the guy who took my statement in
> A&E was a cyclist.
>
> I got a letter informing me that the driver had been given the option
> of going on a driver awareness course in leiu of prosecution, which
> seemed like a good idea to me. However for whatever reason she didn't
> go on it and pleaded guilty to driving without due care. £300 fine,
> 28 day ban & licence endorsed. Which sound like more than this guy
> got for killing the poor woman.
>

Dave, it is your duty to write a letter to the Times giving the same
account (and drawing the same comparison). Let us know if you do, and if
they publish it.

[Rob Morley]

In article >, Coyoteboy
says...

> 2 tonne lorry? What world are they living in, we've got car that weighs
> more than that - im fairly sure a cement mixer would trump that!
>
One of those Minimix things? They're just a LDV-type chassis cab with a
drum on the back, so probably not very heavy unladen.

[spindrift]

"Thorn had been looking for some papers in his cabin when the bike was
beside him and also when his vehicle began to turn left and the fatal
crash occured."

A person in control of 20t or so of stationary metal and cement should
not move this vehicle without a thorough check that there is nothing
in its path and, if he can't be sure whether he's about to squash
someone or not, stay still until he can be sure.

To behave otherwise is dangerous driving, which in this case caused
death.

And as for the ridiculous £300 fine - this bugger should have been
locked up for a few years and banned from driving for life, since he's
obviously incompetent as a driver and should not be allowed charge of
heavy machinery.

[spindrift]

Emma's husband and his daughters had turned up at court a few weeks
ago to be told that the case would be heard on October 3.

http://www.thecnj.co.uk/camden/09200...092007_04.html

"We made emotional space for that date, but I received a call this
morning from a police officer telling me the case was settled," he
said.

Typical really, isn't it. Wouldn't want upset and grieving relatives
messing up a routine points and fine outcome, would we? Best they
aren't in attendance. Might hold up the rest of the day's proceedings.
Give them a quick call after the event.

£300 and five points for a driver's inattention causing death is a
disgrace.

To suggest the cyclist was at fault is irrelevant. They were both
stationary at a junction, ffs. The lorry driver didn't check it was
safe to turn before manoevering.

[cupra]

spindrift wrote:
> Emma's husband and his daughters had turned up at court a few weeks
> ago to be told that the case would be heard on October 3.
>
> http://www.thecnj.co.uk/camden/09200...092007_04.html
>
> "We made emotional space for that date, but I received a call this
> morning from a police officer telling me the case was settled," he
> said.
>
> Typical really, isn't it. Wouldn't want upset and grieving relatives
> messing up a routine points and fine outcome, would we? Best they
> aren't in attendance. Might hold up the rest of the day's proceedings.
> Give them a quick call after the event.

Looks like the CPS 'did a deal' - probably something in mitigation that may
or may not exist....

A couple of years back the CPS stitched up [sic] my mate (stabbing victim,
in the side of the head) by charging the attacker with assault rather than
GBH.... he got away with community service pleading 'suicide, life ruined'
etc.

[p.k.[_2_]]

Marc Brett wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 00:12:50 -0700, spindrift >
> wrote:
>
>> The dead woman's only mistake was to be
>> riding her bicycle and assuming that "a luminous reflective jacket"
>> and a helmet would protect her.
>
> Getting into the habit of jumping red lights might have given her even
> more protection.

Not stopping by the side of a lorry might also have worked, or if she
arrived first, stopping in the primary position such that the lorry could
not come up alongside. See paras 2-5 page 84 of Cycle craft.

pk

[Dylan Smith]

On 2007-09-21, p.k. > wrote:
> Not stopping by the side of a lorry might also have worked, or if she
> arrived first, stopping in the primary position such that the lorry could
> not come up alongside. See paras 2-5 page 84 of Cycle craft.

This is why I never, ever pass stopped traffic on the nearside. Even if
you're in the right doing it, being "dead right" would suck. If traffic
is stopped for a short while, I wait in the queue with everyone else, in
about the position the offside wheel of cars run (to make me very
visible to the driver in front and behind, and also discourage foolish
overtaking when I can maintain traffic speed "driver principle Cyclists
Must Be Overtaken Now"). If I do need to pass traffic, I do so with
extreme caution and in the same way a motorcyclist would - i.e. be in
the place a driver would expect overtaking traffic.

Going up the nearside is also just begging to have a car door opened on
you. A passenger being given a lift, who decides to walk the rest of the
way, simply won't be expecting the car they are in to be overtaken by a
vehicle travelling in the gutter. The passenger may be wrong in not
checking it's clear first, but if you're on a bike, it's you who will be
in hospital if a door is opened into your path.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de

[Roger Merriman]

Dylan Smith > wrote:

> On 2007-09-21, p.k. > wrote:
> > Not stopping by the side of a lorry might also have worked, or if she
> > arrived first, stopping in the primary position such that the lorry could
> > not come up alongside. See paras 2-5 page 84 of Cycle craft.
>
> This is why I never, ever pass stopped traffic on the nearside. Even if
> you're in the right doing it, being "dead right" would suck. If traffic
> is stopped for a short while, I wait in the queue with everyone else, in
> about the position the offside wheel of cars run (to make me very
> visible to the driver in front and behind, and also discourage foolish
> overtaking when I can maintain traffic speed "driver principle Cyclists
> Must Be Overtaken Now"). If I do need to pass traffic, I do so with
> extreme caution and in the same way a motorcyclist would - i.e. be in
> the place a driver would expect overtaking traffic.
>
yup i tend to do that, filtering is a risk as your passing within the
blind zones of car, in heavy traffic cars etc maybe not beable to see
filtering bikes. so being where they might expect it seems wise.

and on some roads such as the 308 between kingston and hampton court,
they have a wide enought middle to allow much better visablity than
cutter hugging in the bike lane.

> Going up the nearside is also just begging to have a car door opened on
> you. A passenger being given a lift, who decides to walk the rest of the
> way, simply won't be expecting the car they are in to be overtaken by a
> vehicle travelling in the gutter. The passenger may be wrong in not
> checking it's clear first, but if you're on a bike, it's you who will be
> in hospital if a door is opened into your path.

quite

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

[David Hansen]

On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 09:09:34 +0100 someone who may be Brian G
> wrote this:-

>This is the current mindset. Roads are dangerous places and it's sad
>but unavoidable that "fatalities" will occur. There's no need to do
>anyhing about it because nothing can be done. C'est la vie...

I generally agree, but there are exceptions. A motorist is currently
on trial for murder after he crashed into a pedestrian in Edinburgh
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1551842007


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh
I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

[[email protected]]

On 21 Sep, 12:32, spindrift > wrote:
> "Thorn had been looking for some papers in his cabin when the bike was
> beside him and also when his vehicle began to turn left and the fatal
> crash occured."
>
> A person in control of 20t or so of stationary metal and cement should
> not move this vehicle without a thorough check that there is nothing
> in its path and, if he can't be sure whether he's about to squash
> someone or not, stay still until he can be sure.
>
> To behave otherwise is dangerous driving, which in this case caused
> death.
>
> And as for the ridiculous £300 fine - this bugger should have been
> locked up for a few years and banned from driving for life, since he's
> obviously incompetent as a driver and should not be allowed charge of
> heavy machinery.

OH dear - LONG.

In general I have great sympathy with the view that cyclists are
badly treated by motorists. I have for example given up cycling on the
road in central London due to the agressive nature of the driving.

I do not see however how I as a driver could meet the requirements
stated here. I don't think I have enough eyes. I am not discussing
by the way the particular death mentioned since I have
absolutely no knowledge of the case. Say the driver must
check to the left, behind to the left, and ahead. What order
is he to do this in? How much time must be given over to each
direction. After how much time has elapsed must the
checks be repeated? Requiring that drivers of possibly
large vehicles that are turning left take account of any possible
incursion
by an overtaking cyclist is just not in my view possible
while maintaing safe passage ahead.

Clearly the law could be changed and we could have a
platoon of drivers on large vehicles each watching a small
enough field of view such that they could cover it in a
concentrated manner. Not even a mouse could be at risk of
being inadvertently crushed. However, who is then in charge?
Who says stop, who says go? Who is to pay for it?

The key question is I feel:-

"Where should the driver be looking when he lets the clutch bite"

I think that have a responsibility to be looking forwards, I don't
see
how I can simultaniously be looking anywhere else.

When I was cycling on the road I took the view of another poster
here and would never consider going alongside a large
vehicle in any way that could result in me being trapped
as it turned or otherwise moved off. I am just not in that
much of a hurry.

The highway code recommends that motorists do not
overtake at junctions - I have no idea if that includes other
road users - and when I cycle I apply that as required.

It appears to me that in some cases (NOT in ANY
sense referring to the case that started this thread)
cavalier behaviour by cyclists is the result of
a lack of imagination. This could be changed by
training I would guess.

I think however that the most urgent training need on the
roads is that of motorists.

As I say, I just don't see that the suggeted standard of control
is practical. I would be delighted for it to be demonstrated
otherwise and of course there will be various technical
solutions around the corner.

Finally, I AM NOT including in this the cases where drivers
half overtake cyclists and - turn left, pull in at the bus stop
or manoeuvre in any other way. I am strictly refering to
cases where cyclists overtake other vehicles, stationary or
otherwise.

I do think that drivers treat cyclists attrociously, however
these left turn from stationary cases seem to me to
be the result of daft cycling. I am sure that if I wanted to pay
attention I could find for myself, every day, examples of cyclists
going alonside, and even stopping beside, large stationary
vehicles between a rigid steel fence and the side of the truck
right at the the lights where the truck may or may not be
turning left.

Simply daft.

[Simon Brooke]

in message >, David Hansen
') wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 09:09:34 +0100 someone who may be Brian G
> > wrote this:-
>
>>This is the current mindset. Roads are dangerous places and it's sad
>>but unavoidable that "fatalities" will occur. There's no need to do
>>anyhing about it because nothing can be done. C'est la vie...
>
> I generally agree, but there are exceptions. A motorist is currently
> on trial for murder after he crashed into a pedestrian in Edinburgh
> http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1551842007

I find that very, very encouraging - it marks a definite change of policy
by the Edinburgh Fiscal, and I look forward to the verdict with interest.

--
(Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Our modern industrial economy takes a mountain covered with trees,
;; lakes, running streams and transforms it into a mountain of junk,
;; garbage, slime pits, and debris. -- Edward Abbey

[Tony Raven[_2_]]

In article om>, Bod43
@hotmail.co.uk says...

>
> The key question is I feel:-
>
> "Where should the driver be looking when he lets the clutch bite"
>
> I think that have a responsibility to be looking forwards, I don't
> see

You seem to be under the misapprehension that cyclists suddenly appear
magically at a location in a split second. They do not. They occur
over several seconds at least. If you do not have the capability to
check all round in the period of time it takes for a situation like this
to develop then I suggest you hand in your license. Of course if you
are too busy shuffling through and reading papers to have the time to
undertake even rudimentary checks then I see your point in which case
your license should be removed from you. YMMV.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

[Kenneth MacKenzie]

Simon Brooke > writes:
> in message >, David Hansen
> ') wrote:
>
....
>> I generally agree, but there are exceptions. A motorist is currently
>> on trial for murder after he crashed into a pedestrian in Edinburgh
>> http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1551842007
>
> I find that very, very encouraging - it marks a definite change of policy
> by the Edinburgh Fiscal, and I look forward to the verdict with interest.

There's much to this than appears in the report in the link above.
This incident received a huge amount of coverage in the local press
when in originally happened. It seems that the car which killed the
boy had earlier been the subject of a police pursuit. After knocking
the boy down, the 3 occupants of the car dumped it and disappeared.
There was then a search for them which lasted several weeks (amid
reports that they were "travellers" who'd been involved in a sequence
of bogus workman incidents) until they were eventually arrested in
England. If you want to know more, the Scotsman website has close to
100 items.

(See http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh.cfm?id=1480762006,
http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh.cfm?id=1495072006,
http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh.cfm?id=1488792006
for example)

So this isn't your standard motorist-knocks-down-pedestrian story;
presumably the press are taking a subdued approach because the trial
is currently is progress.

KM

[[email protected]]

On 28 Sep, 21:44, Tony Raven > wrote:
> In article om>, Bod43
> @hotmail.co.uk says...
>
>
>
> > The key question is I feel:-
>
> > "Where should the driver be looking when he lets the clutch bite"
>
> > I think that have a responsibility to be looking forwards, I don't
> > see
>
> You seem to be under the misapprehension that cyclists suddenly appear
> magically at a location in a split second. They do not. They occur
> over several seconds at least. If you do not have the capability to
> check all round in the period of time it takes for a situation like this
> to develop then I suggest you hand in your license. Of course if you
> are too busy shuffling through and reading papers to have the time to
> undertake even rudimentary checks then I see your point in which case
> your license should be removed from you. YMMV.


Whether I am a fit person to drive or not is one
thing, however this is not the problem.

The problem is that the previous discussion
has one view on how motorists ought to behave
and the highway code and driving test has another.

A few years ago I sat my motorbike test. At no time
during the training or in my preparatory reading
or during the test was it mentioned, examined, or
required, to check for overtaking traffic of ANY kind
before moving off from a stationary position
at traffic lights.

Many years before that I sat the driving test and
I can recall no related training or examination
there either.

It may be that you would like it that drivers
take particular care to avoid collisions caused by
reckless overtaking by
cyclists but as far as I am aware there is no such
mention in the highway code or anywhere else.

As I recall it is quite the reverse - the responsibility is
quite firmly on the overtaker.

I would be prepared to accept such changes but
I am not interested in putting my health in the care of
such concepts unless supported by the law and the
practise of motorists. As I mentioned I think that
it is an onerous task to reliably detect such cyclists.

You mention several seconds. Perhaps you would
like to put some hard numbers on that,

The vehicle mentioned in this sad thread was stated to be
about 2 tons. Lets say 20 ft long.

Are you saying that drivers need to look our for
overtaking cyclists that are travelling at less that
5 feet per second (3 mph) and that other cyclists
are responsible for their own fate?

How might that be judged?

As I stated I am far from happy with the
way that drivers threaten cyclists with death
every day with complete impunity. I do however feel that
this particular issue is not one that has any
satisfactory conclusion in prospect.

Perhaps you would suggest that the highway code
should be amended to indicate that overtaking
trucks between the truck and a railing on the nearside
is safe and recommended as long as the cycle speed is
kept to less that 5 ft per sec? In that case it is the
truck drivers responsibility to check for several seconds
that there is no cyclist caressing the wheels, however
if the cyclist goes too fast then the driver has no
responsibilty since there will not be the required
several second detection window.

That is daft too.

The reason that I am writing this is that I
have concerns that a few contributors have
incorrect and unrealistic expectaions. I have no axe
to grind at all. I have not driven a car for 3 years
either, I just dont have to. On that day I drove 5 miles and
2 years before that I drove 400 miles on one day.

I just worry about the health of some that I
observe on the road.

[Marc]

wrote:
> On 28 Sep, 21:44, Tony Raven > wrote:
>> In article om>, Bod43
>> @hotmail.co.uk says...
>>
>>
>>
>>> The key question is I feel:-
>>> "Where should the driver be looking when he lets the clutch bite"
>>> I think that have a responsibility to be looking forwards, I don't
>>> see
>> You seem to be under the misapprehension that cyclists suddenly appear
>> magically at a location in a split second. They do not. They occur
>> over several seconds at least. If you do not have the capability to
>> check all round in the period of time it takes for a situation like this
>> to develop then I suggest you hand in your license. Of course if you
>> are too busy shuffling through and reading papers to have the time to
>> undertake even rudimentary checks then I see your point in which case
>> your license should be removed from you. YMMV.
>
>
> Whether I am a fit person to drive or not is one
> thing, however this is not the problem.
>
> The problem is that the previous discussion
> has one view on how motorists ought to behave
> and the highway code and driving test has another.
>
> A few years ago I sat my motorbike test. At no time
> during the training or in my preparatory reading
> or during the test was it mentioned, examined, or
> required, to check for overtaking traffic of ANY kind
> before moving off from a stationary position
> at traffic lights.

********, if you were trained properly you were told to look in both
mirrors before moving off.In fact I can remember being told to look in
both in turn , then do the Hendon shuffle then look in turn again.
Of course you could be one of those semi trained motocylcists that I see
daily that pull away with one of both feet trailing advertising their
lack of expertise?
>
> Many years before that I sat the driving test and
> I can recall no related training or examination
> there either.

Short memory? Does the phrase MIRROR- SIGNAL- MANOUVEUR jog your memory?
When moving forward MIRROR, then no SIGNAL is required, then MANOUVEUR
by paulling away.
>
> It may be that you would like it that drivers
> take particular care to avoid collisions caused by
> reckless overtaking by
> cyclists but as far as I am aware there is no such
> mention in the highway code or anywhere else.
How about ....
"211

It is often difficult to see motorcyclists and cyclists, especially when
they are coming up from behind, coming out of junctions, at roundabouts,
overtaking you or filtering through traffic. Always look out for them
before you emerge from a junction; they could be approaching faster than
you think. When turning right across a line of slow-moving or stationary
traffic, look out for cyclists or motorcyclists on the inside of the
traffic you are crossing. Be especially careful when turning, and when
changing direction or lane. Be sure to check mirrors and blind spots
carefully."
>
> As I recall it is quite the reverse - the responsibility is
> quite firmly on the overtaker.
I suggest you read the HC again then you may discover such gems as

"151

In slow-moving traffic. You should


* be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on
either side"
>
> I would be prepared to accept such changes but
> I am not interested in putting my health in the care of
> such concepts unless supported by the law and the
> practise of motorists. As I mentioned I think that
> it is an onerous task to reliably detect such cyclists.
>
> You mention several seconds. Perhaps you would
> like to put some hard numbers on that,
>
> The vehicle mentioned in this sad thread was stated to be
> about 2 tons. Lets say 20 ft long.
>
> Are you saying that drivers need to look our for
> overtaking cyclists that are travelling at less that
> 5 feet per second (3 mph) and that other cyclists
> are responsible for their own fate?
>
> How might that be judged?
>
> As I stated I am far from happy with the
> way that drivers threaten cyclists with death
> every day with complete impunity. I do however feel that
> this particular issue is not one that has any
> satisfactory conclusion in prospect.
>
> Perhaps you would suggest that the highway code
> should be amended to indicate that overtaking
> trucks between the truck and a railing on the nearside
> is safe and recommended as long as the cycle speed is
> kept to less that 5 ft per sec? In that case it is the
> truck drivers responsibility to check for several seconds
> that there is no cyclist caressing the wheels, however
> if the cyclist goes too fast then the driver has no
> responsibilty since there will not be the required
> several second detection window.
>
> That is daft too.
>
> The reason that I am writing this is that I
> have concerns that a few contributors have
> incorrect and unrealistic expectaions. I have no axe
> to grind at all. I have not driven a car for 3 years
> either, I just dont have to. On that day I drove 5 miles and
> 2 years before that I drove 400 miles on one day.
>
> I just worry about the health of some that I
> observe on the road.
>
>

[Tony Raven[_2_]]

In article om>, Bod43
@hotmail.co.uk says...
>
> A few years ago I sat my motorbike test. At no time
> during the training or in my preparatory reading
> or during the test was it mentioned, examined, or
> required, to check for overtaking traffic of ANY kind
> before moving off from a stationary position
> at traffic lights.
>

You clearly can't remember the mantra drilled into all learner drivers
of Mirror, Signal, Maneuver. Perhaps its time for you to retake your
test. This is from the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agencies website on
the ten main reasons for failing a driving test:

"Moving away

Remember always to use your mirrors, and signal if necessary. Just
before moving away, check that it is safe by looking round for traffic
and pedestrians in your blind spots. Move off in a controlled way
making balanced use of accelerator, clutch and brakes, and steer
safely...."

Don't forget that in the case in point there was clear video footage of
the accident and as the prosecution said in the trial "She was alongside
for 37 seconds and would have been visible." If the driver fails to
check his mirrors for that length of time before turning left at traffic
light then there is no excuse. Of course its not surprising that he
didn't because, as came out at the trial, he was busy searching for and
reading papers in his cab both while waiting for the lights to change
and moving off. But hey, it was only a cyclist he killed with his
carelessness and rates a much lower punishment than if he had walked
over someone's Lamborghini.

There is no dilemma; pay attention to the road and check your mirrors.
Simple really and it could save a life.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

[JNugent[_2_]]

Tony Raven wrote:

> Bod43 @hotmail.co.uk says...

>>The key question is I feel:-
>>"Where should the driver be looking when he lets the clutch bite"
>>I think that have a responsibility to be looking forwards, I don't
>>see

> You seem to be under the misapprehension that cyclists suddenly appear
> magically at a location in a split second. They do not. They occur
> over several seconds at least. If you do not have the capability to
> check all round in the period of time it takes for a situation like this
> to develop then I suggest you hand in your license.

And that, of course, as the PP may or may not have known, is actually
the typical extremist ukrc response. It sums to: "I'm going to do
exactly as I like, without regard for anyone or anything (including my
own safety) and everyone else had better watch out for me; and by the
way, if they don't - or can't - they'd better hand in their driving
licence".

> Of course if you
> are too busy shuffling through and reading papers to have the time to
> undertake even rudimentary checks then I see your point in which case
> your license should be removed from you. YMMV.

And there goes even more of it.

It absolutely clear that you did not read (or at least, did not
understand) the very reasonable points made by the PP.

[Danny Colyer]

On 29/09/2007 01:28, wrote:
> Many years before that I sat the driving test and
> I can recall no related training or examination
> there either.

Checking for bikes coming up on the inside when turning left came up in
my driving test, 17 years ago.

--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis

[Tony Raven[_2_]]

In article >,
says...
>
> > You seem to be under the misapprehension that cyclists suddenly appear
> > magically at a location in a split second. They do not. They occur
> > over several seconds at least. If you do not have the capability to
> > check all round in the period of time it takes for a situation like this
> > to develop then I suggest you hand in your license.
>
> And that, of course, as the PP may or may not have known, is actually
> the typical extremist ukrc response. It sums to: "I'm going to do
> exactly as I like, without regard for anyone or anything (including my
> own safety) and everyone else had better watch out for me; and by the
> way, if they don't - or can't - they'd better hand in their driving
> licence".

You clearly should have failed your driving test too (see my PP for a
top ten reason people fail their test)

>
> It absolutely clear that you did not read (or at least, did not
> understand) the very reasonable points made by the PP.
>

What? That he's incapable of carrying out the standard checks that
every driver has to master to pass their test?

But back to the case in point - do you think that a cyclist that was in
a position clearly visible to the driver if he had looked and was there
for 37 seconds while he was rummaging for his papers was "Doing exactly
as they liked without regard for anyone or anything" and that the driver
was not responsible for looking out for her?

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

[JNugent[_2_]]

Tony Raven wrote:

> says...

>>>You seem to be under the misapprehension that cyclists suddenly appear
>>>magically at a location in a split second. They do not. They occur
>>>over several seconds at least. If you do not have the capability to
>>>check all round in the period of time it takes for a situation like this
>>>to develop then I suggest you hand in your license.

>>And that, of course, as the PP may or may not have known, is actually
>>the typical extremist ukrc response. It sums to: "I'm going to do
>>exactly as I like, without regard for anyone or anything (including my
>>own safety) and everyone else had better watch out for me; and by the
>>way, if they don't - or can't - they'd better hand in their driving
>>licence".

> You clearly should have failed your driving test too (see my PP for a
> top ten reason people fail their test)

But I never failed. I passed first time (it was a long time ago, in a
busy part of London).

And you're at it again, aren't you?

>>It absolutely clear that you did not read (or at least, did not
>>understand) the very reasonable points made by the PP.

> What? That he's incapable of carrying out the standard checks that
> every driver has to master to pass their test?

No - he said he cannot look everywhere at once. Perhaps you think that
no-one without eyes in the back and sides of their head should "hand
in their driving licence".

> But back to the case in point - do you think that a cyclist that was in
> a position clearly visible to the driver if he had looked and was there
> for 37 seconds while he was rummaging for his papers was "Doing exactly
> as they liked without regard for anyone or anything" and that the driver
> was not responsible for looking out for her?

IIRC, you were referring to was a tragic case where a cyclist
unfortunately pulled up on the nearside of a lorry that was waiting to
turn left. A lorry is a large vehicle and the driver's position is
high up. As far as I'm aware (it's a long time since I was in the cab
of a lorry), there are no mirrors on a lorry aimed at the carriageway
adjacent to the nearside cab door or nearside front wheel. That spot
is shielded from the driver's gaze and will always be so until lorries
are made of Perspex. It's just one reason why overtaking on the left
in such a situation is, as the PP said, daft.

Whatever the "standard checks" may be, they cannot include any check
that requires the ability to see through solid steel.

But obviously, any lorry driver not blessed with X-Ray vision should
"hand in their driving licence".

Would you not agree even a little with HC advice not to overtake on
the left?

[p.k.[_2_]]

Tony Raven wrote:
>> Don't forget that in the case in point there was clear video footage
> of the accident and as the prosecution said in the trial "She was
> alongside for 37 seconds and would have been visible." If the
> driver fails to check his mirrors for that length of time before
> turning left at traffic light then there is no excuse. Of course its
> not surprising that he didn't because, as came out at the trial, he
> was busy searching for and reading papers in his cab both while
> waiting for the lights to change and moving off. .
>


all that is true, but if she had followed the guidance of cyclecraft - of
lauded here or its sensible guidance - she would not have put herself in
that position.

She was in the right - but dead right is still dead.

pk

[Tony Raven[_2_]]

In article >,
says...
>
> No - he said he cannot look everywhere at once. Perhaps you think that
> no-one without eyes in the back and sides of their head should "hand
> in their driving licence".

So when they require you on your driving test to "Just before moving
away, check that it is safe by looking round for traffic and
pedestrians in your blind spots." they are asking the impossible?
You should try that one on the examiner when you retake your test.

But how about looking everywhere in 37 seconds? Is that asking too much
or is checking they've got the overtime right on your payslip more
important than a cyclist's life?

>
> > But back to the case in point - do you think that a cyclist that was in
> > a position clearly visible to the driver if he had looked and was there
> > for 37 seconds while he was rummaging for his papers was "Doing exactly
> > as they liked without regard for anyone or anything" and that the driver
> > was not responsible for looking out for her?
>
> IIRC, you were referring to was a tragic case where a cyclist
> unfortunately pulled up on the nearside of a lorry that was waiting to
> turn left. A lorry is a large vehicle and the driver's position is
> high up. As far as I'm aware (it's a long time since I was in the cab
> of a lorry), there are no mirrors on a lorry aimed at the carriageway
> adjacent to the nearside cab door or nearside front wheel. That spot
> is shielded from the driver's gaze and will always be so until lorries
> are made of Perspex. It's just one reason why overtaking on the left
> in such a situation is, as the PP said, daft.

Yes, I'm referring to the subject of this thread. And it seems you
think they were wrong when the Court was told "?She was alongside for 37
seconds and would have been visible. He moved off and turned left
causing her to be pushed to the ground and killed instantly. He had been
looking for some paperwork in his truck? He felt a bump, saw a bike and
jumped out to find her.?

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

[JNugent[_2_]]

Tony Raven wrote:

> says...

>>No - he said he cannot look everywhere at once. Perhaps you think that
>>no-one without eyes in the back and sides of their head should "hand
>>in their driving licence".

> So when they require you on your driving test to "Just before moving
> away, check that it is safe by looking round for traffic and
> pedestrians in your blind spots." they are asking the impossible?
> You should try that one on the examiner when you retake your test.

Looking at places you can't see is unproductive.

I don't need to retake my test. I never drive down the gutter to try
to undertake lorries turning left.

> But how about looking everywhere in 37 seconds? Is that asking too much
> or is checking they've got the overtime right on your payslip more
> important than a cyclist's life?

No-one can see a spot where there is a solid obstruction between them
and that spot. Mirrors help, but there are only so many of them.

>>>But back to the case in point - do you think that a cyclist that was in
>>>a position clearly visible to the driver if he had looked and was there
>>>for 37 seconds while he was rummaging for his papers was "Doing exactly
>>>as they liked without regard for anyone or anything" and that the driver
>>>was not responsible for looking out for her?

>>IIRC, you were referring to was a tragic case where a cyclist
>>unfortunately pulled up on the nearside of a lorry that was waiting to
>>turn left. A lorry is a large vehicle and the driver's position is
>>high up. As far as I'm aware (it's a long time since I was in the cab
>>of a lorry), there are no mirrors on a lorry aimed at the carriageway
>> adjacent to the nearside cab door or nearside front wheel. That spot
>>is shielded from the driver's gaze and will always be so until lorries
>>are made of Perspex. It's just one reason why overtaking on the left
>>in such a situation is, as the PP said, daft.

> Yes, I'm referring to the subject of this thread. And it seems you
> think they were wrong when the Court was told "?She was alongside for 37
> seconds and would have been visible. He moved off and turned left
> causing her to be pushed to the ground and killed instantly. He had been
> looking for some paperwork in his truck? He felt a bump, saw a bike and
> jumped out to find her.?

The fact that a court was "told" something is neither here nor there.
The mind boggles, for instance, at what David Icke - or perhaps your
good self - might "tell" a court.

What does "would have been visible" mean when the cyclist was in a
spot simply not visible from the driver's seat? That's what the PP was
pointing out to you.

[Rob Morley]

In article >, p.k.
says...

> all that is true, but if she had followed the guidance of cyclecraft - of
> lauded here or its sensible guidance - she would not have put herself in
> that position.
>
Tony was only addressing some idiot who thinks it's OK to move his
vehicle when he's not fully aware of his surroundings - we already know
that filtering down the inside can be dangerous when there are numpties
around.

[Roger Merriman]

Danny Colyer > wrote:

> On 29/09/2007 01:28, wrote:
> > Many years before that I sat the driving test and
> > I can recall no related training or examination
> > there either.
>
> Checking for bikes coming up on the inside when turning left came up in
> my driving test, 17 years ago.

i have to say it didn't come up that i rember in my test, but then since
bikes are so rarely used nr my folks place....

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

[Terry]

In article >,
(Rob Morley) wrote:

> In article >, p.k.
> says...
>
> > all that is true, but if she had followed the guidance of
> > cyclecraft - of lauded here or its sensible guidance - she would
> > not have put herself in that position.
> >
> Tony was only addressing some idiot who thinks it's OK to move his
> vehicle when he's not fully aware of his surroundings - we already
> know that filtering down the inside can be dangerous when there are
> numpties around.
>

I'm not fmiliar with the word numpties but assuming it means fools it's
worth noting that ordinary sensible people make mistakes too. We can be
forgetful, momentarily distracted, pre-occupied, etc.

When I achieve perfection I'll expect the same of others. Until then
I'll expect the unexpected and try to leave myself room for manoeuvre.

[p.k.[_2_]]

Terry wrote:
>> I'm not fmiliar with the word numpties but assuming it means fools
> it's worth noting that ordinary sensible people make mistakes too. We
> can be forgetful, momentarily distracted, pre-occupied, etc.
>
> When I achieve perfection I'll expect the same of others. Until then
> I'll expect the unexpected and try to leave myself room for manoeuvre.

A very sensible approach!

Anyone who cycles up beside a stationary lorry at traffic lights is a
candidate for a Darwin Award.

Cyclecraft:

"From a cycist's point of view, the greates hazard is not being seen by
other drivers. with thei concentration already attractd by the signals
themselves, a cyclist can be overlooked, so it is necessary to makyourself
as conspicuous as possible by positioning.

.......occupy the primary position...... do not allow any other vehicle to
share the same lane to the side of you.

..... it is unusually foolish to creep up the inside of queues at signals, as
you will not easily be seen by other drivers. Never pass a bus or long
vehicle in the same lane near the head of a signal queue"


pk

[Rob Morley]

In article >, Terry
says...
> In article >,
> (Rob Morley) wrote:
>
> > In article >, p.k.
> > says...
> >
> > > all that is true, but if she had followed the guidance of
> > > cyclecraft - of lauded here or its sensible guidance - she would
> > > not have put herself in that position.
> > >
> > Tony was only addressing some idiot who thinks it's OK to move his
> > vehicle when he's not fully aware of his surroundings - we already
> > know that filtering down the inside can be dangerous when there are
> > numpties around.
> >
>
> I'm not fmiliar with the word numpties but assuming it means fools it's
> worth noting that ordinary sensible people make mistakes too. We can be
> forgetful, momentarily distracted, pre-occupied, etc.

I love the word 'numpty'. Apparently it will be included in the new
OED.
>
> When I achieve perfection I'll expect the same of others. Until then
> I'll expect the unexpected and try to leave myself room for manoeuvre.
>
I'm also less than perfect, but that's no argument against the
/principle/ of not moving away without making observations in all
directions. The earlier post stated

"A few years ago I sat my motorbike test. At no time
during the training or in my preparatory reading
or during the test was it mentioned, examined, or
required, to check for overtaking traffic of ANY kind
before moving off from a stationary position
at traffic lights.

Many years before that I sat the driving test and
I can recall no related training or examination
there either."

This fool apparently thinks that he only needs to look forward, and that
was the concern of the following comments.

[Terry]

In article >,
(Rob Morley) wrote:

> In article >, Terry
> says...
> > When I achieve perfection I'll expect the same of others. Until
> > then I'll expect the unexpected and try to leave myself room for
> > manoeuvre.

> I'm also less than perfect, but that's no argument against the
> /principle/ of not moving away without making observations in all
> directions. The earlier post stated

It wasn't intended as, and could never be, an argument against that
principle. It's an argument in favour of taking the world as it is
rather than what it would be if everyone obeyed every rule on every
occasion.

> This fool apparently thinks that he only needs to look forward, and
> that was the concern of the following comments.

On this point, having not had access to the driver's thoughts at the
time, I cannot comment.

[Rob Morley]

In article >, Terry
says...
> In article >,
> (Rob Morley) wrote:
>
> > In article >, Terry
> > says...
> > > When I achieve perfection I'll expect the same of others. Until
> > > then I'll expect the unexpected and try to leave myself room for
> > > manoeuvre.
>
> > I'm also less than perfect, but that's no argument against the
> > /principle/ of not moving away without making observations in all
> > directions. The earlier post stated
>
> It wasn't intended as, and could never be, an argument against that
> principle. It's an argument in favour of taking the world as it is
> rather than what it would be if everyone obeyed every rule on every
> occasion.

That wasn't the subject of that particular part of the thread - did you
mean to make the comment elsewhere?
>
> > This fool apparently thinks that he only needs to look forward, and
> > that was the concern of the following comments.
>
> On this point, having not had access to the driver's thoughts at the
> time, I cannot comment.
>
I quoted the relevant part of the earlier post - are you being
deliberately obtuse?

[Terry]

In article >,
(Rob Morley) wrote:

> In article >, Terry
> says...
> > In article >,
> > (Rob Morley) wrote:
> >
> > > In article >, Terry
> > > says...
> > > > When I achieve perfection I'll expect the same of others. Until
> > > > then I'll expect the unexpected and try to leave myself room
> > > > for manoeuvre. > > > I'm also less than perfect, but that's no
> > > > > > > argument against the /principle/ of not moving away
> > > without making observations in all directions. The earlier post
> > > stated
> >
> > It wasn't intended as, and could never be, an argument against that
> > principle. It's an argument in favour of taking the world as it is
> > rather than what it would be if everyone obeyed every rule on every
> > occasion.
>
> That wasn't the subject of that particular part of the thread - did
> you mean to make the comment elsewhere?

You may be misunderstanding the simplicity of my point. People make
mistakes. Ordinary people, like you & me. When you said, "we already
know that filtering down the inside can be dangerous when there are
numpties around," I would have said, "we already know that filtering
down the inside can be dangerous".

> > > This fool apparently thinks that he only needs to look forward,
> > > and that was the concern of the following comments.
> >
> > On this point, having not had access to the driver's thoughts at
> > the time, I cannot comment.
> >
> I quoted the relevant part of the earlier post - are you being
> deliberately obtuse?

No, I'm simply not interested in joining a wider argument. My point is
simple. Expect the unexpected. Whether other road-users disobey rules
because they are uninformed, distracted, or malicious, may be of use
after the fact, but it's largely irrelevant to the road-user seeking to
avoid accidents.

[Rob Morley]

In article >, Terry
says...
> In article >,
> (Rob Morley) wrote:

> > I quoted the relevant part of the earlier post - are you being
> > deliberately obtuse?
>
> No, I'm simply not interested in joining a wider argument.

Neither are you apparently interested in discussing the same thing as
the other people in this part of the thread. What do you think of -
=#PLONK#=- ?

[Tony Raven[_2_]]

In article >,
says...

> The fact that a court was "told" something is neither here nor there.
> The mind boggles, for instance, at what David Icke - or perhaps your
> good self - might "tell" a court.
>
> What does "would have been visible" mean when the cyclist was in a
> spot simply not visible from the driver's seat? That's what the PP was
> pointing out to you.
>

In this case we are talking about the Crown Prosecution Service not
David Icke. As as to what "would have been visible" means, in this case
it means the police watched the video of the 37 seconds she was
stationary before the accident and then reconstructed her position
relative to the cement truck and sat in the drivers seat to find she was
easily visible in his mirrors. But please be my guest fantasising in
your attempts to avoid the inevitable conclusion that she was clearly
visible if he had bothered to look but instead he was too busy worrying
about whether his pay slip had all his overtime in it.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

[p.k.[_2_]]

Tony Raven wrote:
>
> But please be my guest
> fantasising in your attempts to avoid the inevitable conclusion that
> she was clearly visible if he had bothered to look but instead he was
> too busy worrying

>>about whether his pay slip had all his overtime in
> it.


I take it the last bit is your invention?

But on to the substantive point: would you recommend other cyclists to cycle
as she did, or would you recommend they follow cyclecraft?

pk

[Terry]

In article >,
(Rob Morley) wrote:

> In article >, Terry
> says...
> > In article >,
> > (Rob Morley) wrote:
>
> > > I quoted the relevant part of the earlier post - are you being
> > > deliberately obtuse?
> >
> > No, I'm simply not interested in joining a wider argument.
>
> Neither are you apparently interested in discussing the same thing as
> the other people in this part of the thread. What do you think of -
> =#PLONK#=- ?

It's the sound of shutters coming down.

[JNugent[_2_]]

Tony Raven wrote:

> says...

>>The fact that a court was "told" something is neither here nor there.
>>The mind boggles, for instance, at what David Icke - or perhaps your
>>good self - might "tell" a court.

>>What does "would have been visible" mean when the cyclist was in a
>>spot simply not visible from the driver's seat? That's what the PP was
>>pointing out to you.

> In this case we are talking about the Crown Prosecution Service not
> David Icke.

Does the CPS now give evidence in court?

When did that start?

[Tony Raven[_2_]]

In article >, designer3579-
says...
> Tony Raven wrote:
>
> >>about whether his pay slip had all his overtime in
> > it.
>
>
> I take it the last bit is your invention?
>

No, that is what he was doing according to reports in Moving Target.
http://www.movingtargetzine.com/article/cyclist-killing-lorry-driver-
fined-300

> But on to the substantive point: would you recommend other cyclists to cycle
> as she did, or would you recommend they follow cyclecraft?
>

I don't think it advisable given the track record of cement trucks in
London but then there are lots of people who don't think it advisable to
cycle on the roads at all. Ignoring either should not carry a death
sentence and the focus should be on the killer not the victim.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

[Tony Raven[_2_]]

In article >,
says...
>
> Does the CPS now give evidence in court?
>
> When did that start?
>

"The Crown Prosecution Service is the Government Department responsible
for prosecuting criminal cases investigated by the police in England and
Wales.

As the principal prosecuting authority in England and Wales, we are
responsible for:

* Advising the police on cases for possible prosecution.
* Reviewing cases submitted by the police.
* Where the decision is to prosecute, determine the charge in all
but minor cases.
* Preparing cases for court.
* Presentation of cases at court."
http://www.cps.gov.uk/about/index.html


--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

[JNugent[_2_]]

Tony Raven wrote:

> says...

>>Does the CPS now give evidence in court?
>>When did that start?

> "The Crown Prosecution Service is the Government Department responsible
> for prosecuting criminal cases investigated by the police in England and
> Wales.

> As the principal prosecuting authority in England and Wales, we are
> responsible for:

> * Advising the police on cases for possible prosecution.
> * Reviewing cases submitted by the police.
> * Where the decision is to prosecute, determine the charge in all
> but minor cases.
> * Preparing cases for court.
> * Presentation of cases at court."
> http://www.cps.gov.uk/about/index.html

Not a word there about giving evidence (which is the function, as you
may or may not know, of witnesses).

Are you sure of your ground here?

[Tony Raven[_2_]]

In article >,
says...
>
>
> Not a word there about giving evidence (which is the function, as you
> may or may not know, of witnesses).
>
> Are you sure of your ground here?
>
>

Evidence can be a whole range of things: witness statements, police,
forensic and accident investigator reports, CCTV footage, photographs,
physical evidence etc.

What do you think "presenting the case" means? Do you have the first
clue about Court processes?

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

[[email protected]]

On 29 Sep, 10:29, Tony Raven > wrote:
> "Moving away
>
> Remember always to use your mirrors, and signal if necessary. Just
> before moving away, check that it is safe by looking round for traffic
> and pedestrians in your blind spots.

RIght. How, exactly, are you supposed to look for "traffic and
pedestrians in your blind spots"?

[JNugent[_2_]]

Tony Raven wrote:

> says...

>>Not a word there about giving evidence (which is the function, as you
>>may or may not know, of witnesses).

>>Are you sure of your ground here?

> Evidence can be a whole range of things: witness statements, police,
> forensic and accident investigator reports, CCTV footage, photographs,
> physical evidence etc.

But not argument, which is completely distinct from evidence.

> What do you think "presenting the case" means? Do you have the first
> clue about Court processes?

Yes, I do.

Presenting a case is the job of the prosecution (ie, they brief the
prosecuting counsel).

Counsel does not give evidence. I'm afraid you've got that wrong. They
may urge the court to a particular view, but that that is argument,
not evidence. If you had a clue about court processes you would have
known that.

[JNugent[_2_]]

wrote:

> Tony Raven > wrote:

>>"Moving away

>>Remember always to use your mirrors, and signal if necessary. Just
>>before moving away, check that it is safe by looking round for traffic
>>and pedestrians in your blind spots.

> RIght. How, exactly, are you supposed to look for "traffic and
> pedestrians in your blind spots"?

If you can't, you should hand in your driving licence, apparently.

I bet TR can do it, even if neither you nor I can.

[_[_2_]]

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 23:48:24 +0100, Tony Raven wrote:

> In article >,
> says...
>>
>>
>> Not a word there about giving evidence (which is the function, as you
>> may or may not know, of witnesses).
>>
>> Are you sure of your ground here?
>>
>>
>
> Evidence can be a whole range of things: witness statements, police,
> forensic and accident investigator reports, CCTV footage, photographs,
> physical evidence etc.
>
> What do you think "presenting the case" means? Do you have the first
> clue about Court processes?

I think you have found TrollN, Tony...

[Rob Morley]

In article . com>,
says...
> On 29 Sep, 10:29, Tony Raven > wrote:
> > "Moving away
> >
> > Remember always to use your mirrors, and signal if necessary. Just
> > before moving away, check that it is safe by looking round for traffic
> > and pedestrians in your blind spots.
>
> RIght. How, exactly, are you supposed to look for "traffic and
> pedestrians in your blind spots"?
>
In this instance "blind spots" are areas you can't see in your mirrors -
most can be checked by rear observation i.e. bothering to move your head
more than a few degrees. Most vehicles have areas that can't be checked
in this way, below the rear window being the obvious one - if you're
reversing outside an infants school you'd be reckless in the extreme not
to take extra care in that situation, as would the driver of a goods
vehicle who reversed into a loading bay without someone to see him back.
It's not rocket science.

[Tony Raven[_2_]]

In article >,
says...
>
> > Evidence can be a whole range of things: witness statements, police,
> > forensic and accident investigator reports, CCTV footage, photographs,
> > physical evidence etc.
>
> But not argument, which is completely distinct from evidence.


>
> > What do you think "presenting the case" means? Do you have the first
> > clue about Court processes?
>
> Yes, I do.
>
> Presenting a case is the job of the prosecution (ie, they brief the
> prosecuting counsel).
>
> Counsel does not give evidence. I'm afraid you've got that wrong. They
> may urge the court to a particular view, but that that is argument,
> not evidence. If you had a clue about court processes you would have
> known that.
>

You're all over the place - switching from evidence to argument, from
Prosecution to Counsel. Perhaps now you are suggesting that Counsel
acts like David Icke rendering anything they say untrustworthy. There
is clearly no point in carrying on this discussion with you - its like
trying to debate with someone who insists that bacon tastes yellow
(synesthetes excepted).

And by the way, yes, Counsel does present evidence to the jury by e.g.
showing them video evidence or the reports of expert witnesses.
--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

[JNugent[_2_]]

Tony Raven wrote:

> says...

>>>Evidence can be a whole range of things: witness statements, police,
>>>forensic and accident investigator reports, CCTV footage, photographs,
>>>physical evidence etc.

>>But not argument, which is completely distinct from evidence.

>>>What do you think "presenting the case" means? Do you have the first
>>>clue about Court processes?

>>Yes, I do.

>>Presenting a case is the job of the prosecution (ie, they brief the
>>prosecuting counsel).

>>Counsel does not give evidence. I'm afraid you've got that wrong. They
>>may urge the court to a particular view, but that that is argument,
>>not evidence. If you had a clue about court processes you would have
>>known that.

> You're all over the place - switching from evidence to argument, from
> Prosecution to Counsel.

Just explaining the difference between them. Claiming that I am "all
over the place" for explaining the difference doesn't change the fact
you were wrong about the CPS "telling" the court something, does it?

> Perhaps now you are suggesting that Counsel
> acts like David Icke rendering anything they say untrustworthy.

Anything put in argument has to be treated with a certain amount of
source criticism. It is not the same as evidence; it is not sworn, for
a start. It is really just opinion - in effect, the case that someone
chooses to put forward.

> There
> is clearly no point in carrying on this discussion with you - its like
> trying to debate with someone who insists that bacon tastes yellow
> (synesthetes excepted).

> And by the way, yes, Counsel does present evidence to the jury by e.g.
> showing them video evidence or the reports of expert witnesses.

Presenting the evidence of another party evidence and giving evidence
(ie, being the source of it, whether in writing or by testimony) are
two completely different things. The representative of the CPS,
completely contrary to what you claimed a few posts back, does NOT
give evidence and does not tell the court anything other than how they
want to see the case determined (just like the defence do). They may
summarise evidence, but that are not the source of it.

To get back to the matter that caused this diversion, you claimed that
the CPS had "told" the court: "She was alongside for 37 seconds and
would have been visible. He moved off and turned left causing her to
be pushed to the ground and killed instantly. He had been looking for
some paperwork in his truck? He felt a bump, saw a bike and jumped out
to find her".

That is not evidence. It is a claim in furtherance of a case. Such
things need not be true. There will usually/often be competing claims.
That's the way the courts work.

So to sum up, (M'Lud), the fact that a court was "told" something does
not mean that what it was "told" was true.

[Terry]

In article >,
(Rob Morley) wrote:

> In article . com>,
> says...
> > On 29 Sep, 10:29, Tony Raven > wrote:
> > > "Moving away
> > >
> > > Remember always to use your mirrors, and signal if necessary.
> > > Just
> > > before moving away, check that it is safe by looking round for
> > > traffic and pedestrians in your blind spots. > > RIght. How,
> > > > > exactly, are you supposed to look for "traffic and
> > pedestrians in your blind spots"?
> >
> In this instance "blind spots" are areas you can't see in your
> mirrors - most can be checked by rear observation i.e. bothering to
> move your head more than a few degrees. Most vehicles have areas
> that can't be checked in this way, below the rear window being the
> obvious one - if you're reversing outside an infants school you'd be
> reckless in the extreme not to take extra care in that situation, as
> would the driver of a goods vehicle who reversed into a loading bay
> without someone to see him back. It's not rocket science.

Lo! The PLONKer hath spoken. Go forth and spread his wisdom.

[Dave Larrington]

Those who inhabit London Town Devine and the surrounding spaces might like
to know that on tonight's "Inside Out" (19:30), one of the topics is "why
vehicle blind spots are a killer for cyclists"

"One in 10 cyclists in London are killed every year because of a blind spot
on construction vehicles.

And as London gears up for the 2012 Olympics its feared that the huge amount
of construction traffic being generated will increase accidents.

Inside Out follows Islington MP Emily Thornberry as she campaigns for trucks
to install European standard wing mirrors to the rear of construction
vehicles, eliminating the blind spot.

During her campaign Ms Thorberry (sic) meets the family of cyclist Emma Foa
who was killed four days before Christmas when a cement truck turned left
catching her under the wheels.

The truck driver was fined £300 and given five points on his licence."

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
The sixth student said, "I ride my bicycle because I want people
to look up to me and say 'Wow! He looks really good up there!'
The teacher replied: 'Go away, Fabrizio!'"

[Mark McNeill]

Response to Dave Larrington:
> "One in 10 cyclists in London are killed every year because of a blind spot
> on construction vehicles.


Now, *that's* open to misinterpretation! I hope what they mean is that
10% of cyclist deaths in London are caused by blind spots.


--
Mark, UK
"In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost
every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from
authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but
have taken them at second-hand from others."

[Dave Larrington]

Additional: it's on BBC1.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
Dead journalists make excellent objets d'art.

[Alan Braggins]

In article >, Mark McNeill wrote:
>Response to Dave Larrington:
>> "One in 10 cyclists in London are killed every year because of a blind spot
>> on construction vehicles.
>
>Now, *that's* open to misinterpretation! I hope what they mean is that
>10% of cyclist deaths in London are caused by blind spots.

Also open to misinterpretation in that one might think from the report
that Emma Foa was one of those killed because she was in a blind spot,
when the inquest said she would have been visible had the driver
looked in his mirrors rather than at the papers in his cab.
Better mirrors might well help, but not in cases like Emma's.

[JNugent[_2_]]

Alan Braggins wrote:

> Mark McNeill wrote:
>>Response to Dave Larrington:

>>>"One in 10 cyclists in London are killed every year because of a blind spot
>>>on construction vehicles.

>>Now, *that's* open to misinterpretation! I hope what they mean is that
>>10% of cyclist deaths in London are caused by blind spots.

> Also open to misinterpretation in that one might think from the report
> that Emma Foa was one of those killed because she was in a blind spot,
> when the inquest said she would have been visible had the driver
> looked in his mirrors rather than at the papers in his cab.
> Better mirrors might well help, but not in cases like Emma's.

That's actually a good example of misinterpretation.

The suggestion, AIUI, was NOT that the cyclist was not in a blind spot
(sorry about the - necessary - double negative).

The suggestion was rather that had the driver of the lorry spent the
whole of his time stationary at the junction looking to see what was
coming up behind him and alongside him, then he would have seen the
cyclist who had cycled up the nearside and stopped where they could
not be seen from the driver's cab. Maybe that is true. But many people
would take the view that requiring drivers stopped (sometimes for very
long times) in queues to do nothing but scan the immediate vicinity of
their vehicle and never ever to concentrate on matters within the
vehicle would be simply unreasonable. Very frequently, the time
waiting at traffic lights is the only realistic time one gets to tune
the radio, change CDs, consult a map, look at paperwork, etc, without
holding up other road-users by stopping at the side of the road (which
is itself usually illegal anyway).

[p.k.[_2_]]

JNugent wrote:
> The suggestion was rather that had the driver of the lorry spent the
> whole of his time stationary at the junction looking to see what was
> coming up behind him and alongside him, then he would have seen the
> cyclist who had cycled up the nearside and stopped where they could
> not be seen from the driver's cab. Maybe that is true. But many people
> would take the view that requiring drivers stopped (sometimes for very
> long times) in queues to do nothing but scan the immediate vicinity of
> their vehicle and never ever to concentrate on matters within the
> vehicle would be simply unreasonable. Very frequently, the time
> waiting at traffic lights is the only realistic time one gets to tune
> the radio, change CDs, consult a map, look at paperwork, etc, without
> holding up other road-users by stopping at the side of the road (which
> is itself usually illegal anyway).

All of which supports the suggestion of Cyclecraft: Don't cycle up beside
stationary lorries at junctions - by doing so you cede control of your
saftey to someone else.

If Emma had followed that advice she would not have been in a position where
the driver's error could kill her.

Would anyone here advise cyclists to follow Emma's example or to follow
cyclecraft?

pk

[Tony Raven[_2_]]

In article >,
says...
>
> The suggestion, AIUI, was NOT that the cyclist was not in a blind spot
> (sorry about the - necessary - double negative).
>
> The suggestion was rather that had the driver of the lorry spent the
> whole of his time stationary at the junction looking to see what was
> coming up behind him and alongside him, then he would have seen the
> cyclist who had cycled up the nearside and stopped where they could
> not be seen from the driver's cab.

You persist in ignoring the fact that she was visible and stationary,
had he bothered to look, for 37 seconds before he killed her. No need
to spend the whole time looking, one glance up to half a minute before
he moved off would have sufficed. But lets forget inconvenient facts
like that in order to maintain your charade that the driver was a victim
of the cyclist.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

[JNugent[_2_]]

Tony Raven wrote:

> says...

>>The suggestion, AIUI, was NOT that the cyclist was not in a blind spot
>>(sorry about the - necessary - double negative).

>>The suggestion was rather that had the driver of the lorry spent the
>>whole of his time stationary at the junction looking to see what was
>>coming up behind him and alongside him, then he would have seen the
>>cyclist who had cycled up the nearside and stopped where they could
>>not be seen from the driver's cab.

> You persist in ignoring the fact that she was visible and stationary,
> had he bothered to look, for 37 seconds before he killed her

....in a place where she was hidden from view by an obstruction (ie,
the structure of the cab of the vehicle). True, she was "visible" in
the sense that she was not actually invisible, but she was not visible
to the lorry driver.

That has not been ignored. It has been given its full weight.

"Bothering" to look down inside the cab towards the front nearside
wheel arch isn't helpful to anyone - is it?

> No need
> to spend the whole time looking, one glance up to half a minute before
> he moved off would have sufficed

It would have - as long as it happened to coincide with the moment
whilst the cyclist was still in view just before stopping out of view
of the cab.

Perhaps the driver did "glance" around his vehicle, but just not at
that precise moment. The only circumstances in which your "point"
would have any validity would be in a situation where the driver was
obliged by law to constantly scan the area around his vehicle just in
case. But no-one is expected to spend all their time whilst stationary
looking out of the windows to see who turns up.

> But lets forget inconvenient facts
> like that in order to maintain your charade that the driver was a victim
> of the cyclist.

[Would you call him a victim?]

Why not pay attention to what other cyclists are advising you (and
others) about the recommendations in "Cyclecraft"?

Or would you prefer to forget obvious but inconvenient facts in order
to maintain your charade that lorry drivers should hand in their
licences unless they can see through sheet steel?

[Alan Braggins]

>In article >,
says...
>>
>> The suggestion, AIUI, was NOT that the cyclist was not in a blind spot
>> (sorry about the - necessary - double negative).

You understand wrong then.

http://www.movingtargetzine.com/article/cyclist-killing-lorry-driver-fined-300
"She stopped at the lights, and she wasn't in the "blind spot". But the
driver didn't see her, because he wasn't looking."

[Marc Brett]

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 19:43:45 +0100, JNugent
> wrote:

>Or would you prefer to forget obvious but inconvenient facts in order
>to maintain your charade that lorry drivers should hand in their
>licences unless they can see through sheet steel?

She "would have been visible", according to the prosecutor. Is mirror,
signal, manoeuver an unreasonably high standard for a professional
driver? Couldn't he accomplish his in-cab duties in 36 seconds instead
of 37?

[Tony Raven[_2_]]

In article >,
says...
>
> > You persist in ignoring the fact that she was visible and stationary,
> > had he bothered to look, for 37 seconds before he killed her
>
> ...in a place where she was hidden from view by an obstruction (ie,
> the structure of the cab of the vehicle). True, she was "visible" in
> the sense that she was not actually invisible, but she was not visible
> to the lorry driver.
>
> That has not been ignored. It has been given its full weight.
>

My apologies, I didn't know you were Michael Thorne, the lorry driver,
and would know more about her position and visibility than the accident
investigators and CCTV footage.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

[JNugent[_2_]]

Alan Braggins wrote:

says...

>>>The suggestion, AIUI, was NOT that the cyclist was not in a blind spot
>>>(sorry about the - necessary - double negative).

> You understand wrong then.

No, I don't think I do.

Neither did other contributors to this thread.

> http://www.movingtargetzine.com/article/cyclist-killing-lorry-driver-fined-300
> "She stopped at the lights, and she wasn't in the "blind spot". But the
> driver didn't see her, because he wasn't looking."

Thanks for the URL. I think the story is substantially similar to the
one I'd seen before and which was quoted earlier in the thread. As I
expect you already know, it does not say that the cyclist was visible
from the driver's seat; it simply says she was not "...in *the* blind
spot..." (my emphasis on the quoted singular definite article).

Let's not start quibbling about the exact meaning of "the blind spot"
(which sounds over-precise to me - as though there is only one of
them). I, like other non-lorry-drivers, take the phrase as meaning any
spot which cannot be seen by the driver whether directly or via
mirrors - which means that there is rather more than one "blind spot".
As I also expect you already know, lorries are not usually fitted with
mirrors aimed at the space adjacent to the nearside front wheel.

But of course, for whatever reason (and I note that the lorry driver
pleaded guilty to careless driving), a cyclist has been tragically
killed in a traffic accident. And there are always some who bay for
blood - perhaps anyone's blood - when that happens.

[JNugent[_2_]]

Marc Brett wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 19:43:45 +0100, JNugent
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Or would you prefer to forget obvious but inconvenient facts in order
>>to maintain your charade that lorry drivers should hand in their
>>licences unless they can see through sheet steel?
>
>
> She "would have been visible", according to the prosecutor. Is mirror,
> signal, manoeuver an unreasonably high standard for a professional
> driver? Couldn't he accomplish his in-cab duties in 36 seconds instead
> of 37?

Can you see through steel?

[Roger Merriman]

p.k. > wrote:

> JNugent wrote:
> > The suggestion was rather that had the driver of the lorry spent the
> > whole of his time stationary at the junction looking to see what was
> > coming up behind him and alongside him, then he would have seen the
> > cyclist who had cycled up the nearside and stopped where they could
> > not be seen from the driver's cab. Maybe that is true. But many people
> > would take the view that requiring drivers stopped (sometimes for very
> > long times) in queues to do nothing but scan the immediate vicinity of
> > their vehicle and never ever to concentrate on matters within the
> > vehicle would be simply unreasonable. Very frequently, the time
> > waiting at traffic lights is the only realistic time one gets to tune
> > the radio, change CDs, consult a map, look at paperwork, etc, without
> > holding up other road-users by stopping at the side of the road (which
> > is itself usually illegal anyway).
>
> All of which supports the suggestion of Cyclecraft: Don't cycle up beside
> stationary lorries at junctions - by doing so you cede control of your
> saftey to someone else.
>
quite, filter as and when it makes sence, by it's nature filtering means
that your passing though blind spots.

being right and dead is not much comfort.

> If Emma had followed that advice she would not have been in a position where
> the driver's error could kill her.
>
> Would anyone here advise cyclists to follow Emma's example or to follow
> cyclecraft?
>
> pk

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

[Tony Raven[_2_]]

In article >,
says...
> Alan Braggins wrote:
>
> says...
>
> >>>The suggestion, AIUI, was NOT that the cyclist was not in a blind spot
> >>>(sorry about the - necessary - double negative).
>
> > You understand wrong then.
>
> No, I don't think I do.
>
> Neither did other contributors to this thread.
>
> > http://www.movingtargetzine.com/article/cyclist-killing-lorry-driver-fined-300
> > "She stopped at the lights, and she wasn't in the "blind spot". But the
> > driver didn't see her, because he wasn't looking."
>
> Thanks for the URL. I think the story is substantially similar to the
> one I'd seen before and which was quoted earlier in the thread. As I
> expect you already know, it does not say that the cyclist was visible
> from the driver's seat; it simply says she was not "...in *the* blind
> spot..." (my emphasis on the quoted singular definite article).
>

I can only conclude from your continued denial of the existence of the
phrase "?She was alongside for 37 seconds and would have been
*visible*." in the above URL and other articles means that you are just
here for the Troll. Perhaps you and MattB can have a productive
interaction in the plonk box.


--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

[JNugent[_2_]]

Tony Raven wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>
>>Alan Braggins wrote:
>>
>>
says...
>>
>>>>>The suggestion, AIUI, was NOT that the cyclist was not in a blind spot
>>>>>(sorry about the - necessary - double negative).
>>
>>>You understand wrong then.
>>
>>No, I don't think I do.
>>Neither did other contributors to this thread.

>>>http://www.movingtargetzine.com/article/cyclist-killing-lorry-driver-fined-300
>>>"She stopped at the lights, and she wasn't in the "blind spot". But the
>>> driver didn't see her, because he wasn't looking."

>>Thanks for the URL. I think the story is substantially similar to the
>>one I'd seen before and which was quoted earlier in the thread. As I
>>expect you already know, it does not say that the cyclist was visible
>>from the driver's seat; it simply says she was not "...in *the* blind
>>spot..." (my emphasis on the quoted singular definite article).

> I can only conclude from your continued denial of the existence of the
> phrase "?She was alongside for 37 seconds and would have been
> *visible*." in the above URL and other articles means that you are just
> here for the Troll. Perhaps you and MattB can have a productive
> interaction in the plonk box.

As I have already said (and as other, more reasonable, posters have
recognised), I do NOT deny the existence of that "phrase" (strictly,
it's a sentence, or at the least, a clause). I do, however, interpret
it correctly whereas you and perhaps one other poster are determined
to interpret it in a way that is clearly not justified.

The fact that those words were used in court does not prove that a
lorry driver can see through steel. In whatever way the cyclist was
"visible", she obviously cannot have been "visible" from the driver's
seat when she was stopped opposite the nearside front wheel of the
lorry. That is the entire point of that part of the article. It was
argued that there was a moment when she was visible, but because the
driver was apparently not looking out of the lorry at that precise
instant, the cyclist was not seen. It is also the whole point of the
general tenor of the discussion, and (AIUI, though I did not see it)
the whole point of the BBC TV programme shown last night on that
general topic.

Why are you so bent on taking that sentence to mean something it could
only mean if lorries were made transparent material? You seem to think
that the lorry driver could see the cyclist at all times, which is so
obviously untrue that your position is puzzling.

[p.k.[_2_]]

JNugent wrote:

> Why are you so bent on taking that sentence to mean something it could
> only mean if lorries were made transparent material? You seem to think
> that the lorry driver could see the cyclist at all times, which is so
> obviously untrue that your position is puzzling.

you forget, this is Planet URC where cyclists can do do wrong and all
drivers are the spawn of satan.

pk

[Mark McNeill]

Response to p.k.:
> you forget, this is Planet URC where cyclists can do do wrong and all
> drivers are the spawn of satan.


I'll freely admit that I have my faults, but I've never thought of
myself as the spawn of Satan before; well, one lives and learns.

That's assuming you're right, of course. :-D


--
Mark, UK
"The course of true anything never does run smooth."

[Alan Braggins]

In article >, p.k. wrote:
>JNugent wrote:
>
>> Why are you so bent on taking that sentence to mean something it could
>> only mean if lorries were made transparent material? You seem to think
>> that the lorry driver could see the cyclist at all times, which is so
>> obviously untrue that your position is puzzling.
>
>you forget, this is Planet URC where cyclists can do do wrong and all
>drivers are the spawn of satan.

What he actually seems to be forgetting is that lorries have mirrors.
A cyclist can quite easily be blocked from direct view by the cab,
and yet visible in a mirror if the driver looks in the mirror. When
a cyclist is in a position where that isn't possible, we describe that
as being in a blind spot, not as being visible.

Either the inquest was wrong (or wrongly reported) to say the cyclist
was visible, or JNugent is a clueless ****, or he's lying through his
teeth in a pathetic attempt to pretend the driver was blameless.
It _could_ be all three, but I'd only put money on two of them.

[JNugent[_2_]]

Alan Braggins wrote:

> In article >, p.k. wrote:
>>JNugent wrote:

>>>Why are you so bent on taking that sentence to mean something it could
>>>only mean if lorries were made transparent material? You seem to think
>>>that the lorry driver could see the cyclist at all times, which is so
>>>obviously untrue that your position is puzzling.

>>you forget, this is Planet URC where cyclists can do do wrong and all
>>drivers are the spawn of satan.

> What he actually seems to be forgetting is that lorries have mirrors.
> A cyclist can quite easily be blocked from direct view by the cab,
> and yet visible in a mirror if the driver looks in the mirror.

<sigh>

Lorries are not fitted with mirrors aimed at the nearside front wheel.
Perhaps you think they should be, but they're not. That fact is the
reason why good advice to cyclists is "don't cycle up the nearside of
a lorry turning left".

> When
> a cyclist is in a position where that isn't possible, we describe that
> as being in a blind spot, not as being visible.

That's absolutely fine, as long as what is meant is clearly
understood. There are lots of places adjacent to a lorry which are not
visible from the driver's seat and not visible via any of the mirrors.
Someone/something which can not be seen from the driver's seat is
correctly and accurately described as being not visible from the
driver's seat.

> Either the inquest was wrong (or wrongly reported) to say the cyclist
> was visible, or JNugent is a clueless ****, or he's lying through his
> teeth in a pathetic attempt to pretend the driver was blameless.
> It _could_ be all three, but I'd only put money on two of them.

The proceedings were almost certainly correctly reported (though
perhaps ambiguously). However (and this is not limited to the instant
case), it is not correct to treat everything "told" to a court as
being the undoubted truth - often, evidence will conflict. The cyclist
was obviously "visible" at all times (in a general sense), but not to
the driver of the lorry. She could only have been seen at all times by
that driver if the cab of the lorry (and all its contents) were
transparent or if there were a mirror aimed at that spot (and there
isn't).

You seem to have a lot of difficulty with simple and obvious facts.
Either that, or you are seizing upon ambiguously worded reporting as
though it means something it could clearly never mean.

[[email protected]]

On Oct 4, 8:21 am, JNugent >
wrote:
> Tony Raven wrote:
> > In article >,
> > says...
>
> >>Alan Braggins wrote:
>
> says...
>
> >>>>>The suggestion, AIUI, was NOT that the cyclist was not in a blind spot
> >>>>>(sorry about the - necessary - double negative).
>
> >>>You understand wrong then.
>
> >>No, I don't think I do.
> >>Neither did other contributors to this thread.
> >>>http://www.movingtargetzine.com/article/cyclist-killing-lorry-driver-...
> >>>"She stopped at the lights, and she wasn't in the "blind spot". But the
> >>> driver didn't see her, because he wasn't looking."
> >>Thanks for the URL. I think the story is substantially similar to the
> >>one I'd seen before and which was quoted earlier in the thread. As I
> >>expect you already know, it does not say that the cyclist was visible
> >>from the driver's seat; it simply says she was not "...in *the* blind
> >>spot..." (my emphasis on the quoted singular definite article).
[snip]
> As I have already said (and as other, more reasonable, posters have
> recognised), I do NOT deny the existence of that "phrase" (strictly,
> it's a sentence, or at the least, a clause). I do, however, interpret
> it correctly whereas you and perhaps one other poster are determined
> to interpret it in a way that is clearly not justified.
>
> The fact that those words were used in court does not prove that a
> lorry driver can see through steel. In whatever way the cyclist was
> "visible", she obviously cannot have been "visible" from the driver's
> seat when she was stopped opposite the nearside front wheel of the
> lorry. That is the entire point of that part of the article. It was
> argued that there was a moment when she was visible, but because the
> driver was apparently not looking out of the lorry at that precise
> instant, the cyclist was not seen. [snip]
> Why are you so bent on taking that sentence to mean something it could
> only mean if lorries were made transparent material? You seem to think
> that the lorry driver could see the cyclist at all times, which is so
> obviously untrue that your position is puzzling.

Whilst you are correct that there is some room for interpretation it
does seem perverse to assume that the cyclist being described as
visible in this context would mean anything other than "visible to the
driver if he were to have undertaken a reasonable check of his
surroundings"

best wishes
james

[JNugent[_2_]]

wrote:

> JNugent > wrote:
>>Tony Raven wrote:
says...
>>>>Alan Braggins wrote:
says...

>>>>>>>The suggestion, AIUI, was NOT that the cyclist was not in a blind spot
>>>>>>>(sorry about the - necessary - double negative).

>>>>>You understand wrong then.

>>>>No, I don't think I do.
>>>>Neither did other contributors to this thread.

>>>>>http://www.movingtargetzine.com/article/cyclist-killing-lorry-driver-...
>>>>>"She stopped at the lights, and she wasn't in the "blind spot". But the
>>>>>driver didn't see her, because he wasn't looking."

>>>>Thanks for the URL. I think the story is substantially similar to the
>>>>one I'd seen before and which was quoted earlier in the thread. As I
>>>>expect you already know, it does not say that the cyclist was visible
>>>>from the driver's seat; it simply says she was not "...in *the* blind
>>>>spot..." (my emphasis on the quoted singular definite article).

> [snip]

>>As I have already said (and as other, more reasonable, posters have
>>recognised), I do NOT deny the existence of that "phrase" (strictly,
>>it's a sentence, or at the least, a clause). I do, however, interpret
>>it correctly whereas you and perhaps one other poster are determined
>>to interpret it in a way that is clearly not justified.

>>The fact that those words were used in court does not prove that a
>>lorry driver can see through steel. In whatever way the cyclist was
>>"visible", she obviously cannot have been "visible" from the driver's
>>seat when she was stopped opposite the nearside front wheel of the
>>lorry. That is the entire point of that part of the article. It was
>>argued that there was a moment when she was visible, but because the
>>driver was apparently not looking out of the lorry at that precise
>>instant, the cyclist was not seen. [snip]
>>Why are you so bent on taking that sentence to mean something it could
>>only mean if lorries were made transparent material? You seem to think
>>that the lorry driver could see the cyclist at all times, which is so
>>obviously untrue that your position is puzzling.

> Whilst you are correct that there is some room for interpretation it
> does seem perverse to assume that the cyclist being described as
> visible in this context would mean anything other than "visible to the
> driver if he were to have undertaken a reasonable check of his
> surroundings"

I understand your point.

I understood the report to mean that the cyclist was "visible" (to the
driver) at a certain point, but not all of the time and not whilst
she was stopped near the nearside wheel. That is the only way in which
the "criticism" of the driver for looking at papers whilst stopped
(rather than constantly scanning the visible space around his vehicle)
can make sense.

The driver could only see her whilst she was stopped if he had a
driving mirror aimed at that point, and there is no evidence that he
had such a non-standard fitment - I'm sure it would have been mentioned.

[Sara Kirk]

In article >,
JNugent > wrote:

[snip]

> That is the only way in which
> the "criticism" of the driver for looking at papers whilst stopped...

The report indicated that he was still looking at papers whilst moving.

--
Sara

The teeth are free at last! Fly free, young teethies!

[JNugent[_2_]]

Sara Kirk wrote:

> JNugent > wrote:

> [snip]

>>That is the only way in which
>>the "criticism" of the driver for looking at papers whilst stopped...

> The report indicated that he was still looking at papers whilst moving.

That is terrible if true (even if his looking at papers whilst turning
left at a junction somehow seems counter-intuitive), but it isn't what
was said in the reports I've seen. The impression I had was that the
driver was looking at papers whilst stationary.

Actually, with that addition, it becomes easier to understand how he
pleaded guilty to DWDCAA. Of course, he still couldn't have seen
through the steel body of the cab even if he had not looked at any
papers - and this type of collision is far too common for the reading
of papers whilst turning left to be the cause of them all, as I'm sure
you'll agree.

[Sara Kirk]

In article >,
JNugent > wrote:

> Sara Kirk wrote:
>
> > JNugent > wrote:
>
> > [snip]
>
> >>That is the only way in which
> >>the "criticism" of the driver for looking at papers whilst stopped...
>
> > The report indicated that he was still looking at papers whilst moving.
>
> That is terrible if true (even if his looking at papers whilst turning
> left at a junction somehow seems counter-intuitive), but it isn't what
> was said in the reports I've seen. The impression I had was that the
> driver was looking at papers whilst stationary.
>
> Actually, with that addition, it becomes easier to understand how he
> pleaded guilty to DWDCAA. Of course, he still couldn't have seen
> through the steel body of the cab even if he had not looked at any
> papers - and this type of collision is far too common for the reading
> of papers whilst turning left to be the cause of them all, as I'm sure
> you'll agree.

I think it was appalling that anyone turns without looking where they're
going - let alone anywhere eles. I'm not sure why you keep trying to
excuse the driver.

The guy drove off and turned a corner without looking. Someone died.

--
Sara

The teeth are free at last! Fly free, young teethies!

[_[_2_]]

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 11:31:00 +0100, Sara Kirk wrote:

> In article >,
> JNugent > wrote:
>
>> Sara Kirk wrote:
>>
>>> JNugent > wrote:
>>
>>> [snip]
>>
>>>>That is the only way in which
>>>>the "criticism" of the driver for looking at papers whilst stopped...
>>
>>> The report indicated that he was still looking at papers whilst moving.
>>
>> That is terrible if true (even if his looking at papers whilst turning
>> left at a junction somehow seems counter-intuitive), but it isn't what
>> was said in the reports I've seen. The impression I had was that the
>> driver was looking at papers whilst stationary.
>>
>> Actually, with that addition, it becomes easier to understand how he
>> pleaded guilty to DWDCAA. Of course, he still couldn't have seen
>> through the steel body of the cab even if he had not looked at any
>> papers - and this type of collision is far too common for the reading
>> of papers whilst turning left to be the cause of them all, as I'm sure
>> you'll agree.
>
> I think it was appalling that anyone turns without looking where they're
> going - let alone anywhere eles. I'm not sure why you keep trying to
> excuse the driver.
>
> The guy drove off and turned a corner without looking. Someone died.

And surely, as the driver should know that he cannot "see through steel" as
TrollN puts it, he should *not* have taken his eyes away from the scanning
of his exterior. If he is driving a vehicle which has such poor vision, he
must take extra care; to fail to do so is negligence by definition.

[spindrift]

On 5 Oct, 11:59, _ > wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 11:31:00 +0100, Sara Kirk wrote:
> > In article >,
> > JNugent > wrote:
>
> >> Sara Kirk wrote:
>
> >>> JNugent > wrote:
>
> >>> [snip]
>
> >>>>That is the only way in which
> >>>>the "criticism" of the driver for looking at papers whilst stopped...
>
> >>> The report indicated that he was still looking at papers whilst moving.
>
> >> That is terrible if true (even if his looking at papers whilst turning
> >> left at a junction somehow seems counter-intuitive), but it isn't what
> >> was said in the reports I've seen. The impression I had was that the
> >> driver was looking at papers whilst stationary.
>
> >> Actually, with that addition, it becomes easier to understand how he
> >> pleaded guilty to DWDCAA. Of course, he still couldn't have seen
> >> through the steel body of the cab even if he had not looked at any
> >> papers - and this type of collision is far too common for the reading
> >> of papers whilst turning left to be the cause of them all, as I'm sure
> >> you'll agree.
>
> > I think it was appalling that anyone turns without looking where they're
> > going - let alone anywhere eles. I'm not sure why you keep trying to
> > excuse the driver.
>
> > The guy drove off and turned a corner without looking. Someone died.
>
> And surely, as the driver should know that he cannot "see through steel" as
> TrollN puts it, he should *not* have taken his eyes away from the scanning
> of his exterior. If he is driving a vehicle which has such poor vision, he
> must take extra care; to fail to do so is negligence by definition.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Cost of mirrors to eliminate a blind spot?

£100


Fine for being a **** driver and crushing a woman to death?

£300


No need to fit mirrors- kill cyclists at a rate of less than one every
three years and you're quids in.

[Alan Braggins]

In article om>, spindrift wrote:
>Cost of mirrors to eliminate a blind spot?
>£100
>
>Fine for being a **** driver and crushing a woman to death?
>£300
>
>No need to fit mirrors- kill cyclists at a rate of less than one every
>three years and you're quids in.

Only if the cost of mirrors is 100 _a year_. Otherwise you have to keep
it down to only 1/3 of drivers killing a cyclist at all for that to be
the cheaper option for a fleet.

[JNugent[_2_]]

Sara Kirk wrote:
> In article >,
> JNugent > wrote:
>
>
>>Sara Kirk wrote:
>>
>>
>>> JNugent > wrote:
>>
>>>[snip]
>>
>>>>That is the only way in which
>>>>the "criticism" of the driver for looking at papers whilst stopped...
>>
>>>The report indicated that he was still looking at papers whilst moving.
>>
>>That is terrible if true (even if his looking at papers whilst turning
>>left at a junction somehow seems counter-intuitive), but it isn't what
>>was said in the reports I've seen. The impression I had was that the
>>driver was looking at papers whilst stationary.
>>
>>Actually, with that addition, it becomes easier to understand how he
>>pleaded guilty to DWDCAA. Of course, he still couldn't have seen
>>through the steel body of the cab even if he had not looked at any
>>papers - and this type of collision is far too common for the reading
>>of papers whilst turning left to be the cause of them all, as I'm sure
>>you'll agree.
>
>
> I think it was appalling that anyone turns without looking where they're
> going - let alone anywhere eles. I'm not sure why you keep trying to
> excuse the driver.

> The guy drove off and turned a corner without looking. Someone died.

It isn't at all clear that he would have been able to see the cyclist,
even if he had directed 150% of his attention to the task at hand.
Rather, the evidence points the other way.

This "excusing" of the driver that you mention is merely a refusal to
condemn him for something he could not help. Had he been responsible
for the death, he'd have been done for "death by dangerous" or "death
by careless". But we know he wasn't - don't we?

But at least, thanks to your sharp-eyed reading of the report, it is
now clear why he pleaded guilty to "careless driving" (something which
I confess had puzzled me). If he was looking at papers whilst on the
move, he would be guilty of that even if there hadn't been another
road-user within a mile.

[JNugent[_2_]]

spindrift wrote:
> On 5 Oct, 11:59, _ > wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 11:31:00 +0100, Sara Kirk wrote:
>>
>>>In article >,
>>> JNugent > wrote:
>>
>>>>Sara Kirk wrote:
>>
>>>>> JNugent > wrote:
>>
>>>>>[snip]
>>
>>>>>>That is the only way in which
>>>>>>the "criticism" of the driver for looking at papers whilst stopped...
>>
>>>>>The report indicated that he was still looking at papers whilst moving.
>>
>>>>That is terrible if true (even if his looking at papers whilst turning
>>>>left at a junction somehow seems counter-intuitive), but it isn't what
>>>>was said in the reports I've seen. The impression I had was that the
>>>>driver was looking at papers whilst stationary.
>>
>>>>Actually, with that addition, it becomes easier to understand how he
>>>>pleaded guilty to DWDCAA. Of course, he still couldn't have seen
>>>>through the steel body of the cab even if he had not looked at any
>>>>papers - and this type of collision is far too common for the reading
>>>>of papers whilst turning left to be the cause of them all, as I'm sure
>>>>you'll agree.
>>
>>>I think it was appalling that anyone turns without looking where they're
>>>going - let alone anywhere eles. I'm not sure why you keep trying to
>>>excuse the driver.
>>
>>>The guy drove off and turned a corner without looking. Someone died.
>>
>>And surely, as the driver should know that he cannot "see through steel" as
>>TrollN puts it, he should *not* have taken his eyes away from the scanning
>>of his exterior. If he is driving a vehicle which has such poor vision, he
>>must take extra care; to fail to do so is negligence by definition.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
>
>
> Cost of mirrors to eliminate a blind spot?
>
> £100
>
>
> Fine for being a **** driver and crushing a woman to death?
>
> £300
>
>
> No need to fit mirrors- kill cyclists at a rate of less than one every
> three years and you're quids in.

Have you ever seen a lorry fitted with sufficient mirrors to eliminate
all "blind spots" around the vehicle?

No, neither have I.

It'd be something to see, though. CCTV could probably do it more easily.