Killer drivers who get away with it- Inside Out tonight 19.30

[spindrift]

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."

[TerryJ]

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

crikey, looks like bomber command had it easy.

TerryJ

[Dave Larrington]

In ups.com,
spindrift > tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
> 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."

I wish I'd said that.

Hang on, I /did/ say that.

If you're going to cut and paste someone else's post in its entirety, then
at least have the common courtesy to acknowledge the fact.

--
Dave Larrington
<http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
If you are choking on an ice cube, simply pour a jug of boiling
water down your throat and presto! The blockage is almost
instantly removed.

[spindrift]

On 3 Oct, 10:24, "Dave Larrington" >
wrote:
> roups.com,
> spindrift > tweaked the Babbage-Engine to tell us:
>
>
>
>
>
> > 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."
>
> I wish I'd said that.
>
> Hang on, I /did/ say that.
>
> If you're going to cut and paste someone else's post in its entirety, then
> at least have the common courtesy to acknowledge the fact.
>
> --
> Dave Larrington
> <http://www.legslarry.beerdrinkers.co.uk>
> If you are choking on an ice cube, simply pour a jug of boiling
> water down your throat and presto! The blockage is almost
> instantly removed.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Sorry Dave, very cheeky of me but important to distribute.

Many apologies.

[spindrift]

When the Great North Run was on they interviewed the parents of the
woman killed by a lorry in Chelsea.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7020520.stm

I don't think the inquest into Vicky's death has taken place yet.

Similar circumstances, she was at the lights, a lorry arrives
alongside, lights change, lorry turns left....

[Matt B]

spindrift wrote: [the title]

spindrift, I get the impression from the title that you have given to
this copy of someone else's post, that you are more interested in
punishing errant drivers than making the roads safer.

Can you please clarify your position: would you rather that the "blind
spot" problem was solved, or are you happy with it so long as those that
inadequately take account of it are more severely punished?

--
Matt B

[spindrift]

On 3 Oct, 10:32, spindrift > wrote:
> When the Great North Run was on they interviewed the parents of the
> woman killed by a lorry in Chelsea.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7020520.stm
>
> I don't think the inquest into Vicky's death has taken place yet.
>
> Similar circumstances, she was at the lights, a lorry arrives
> alongside, lights change, lorry turns left....

Originally taken from :

http://www.anothercyclingforum.com/index.php?topic=40659.60


So the driver who killed Emma admits he was rummaging around for
papers, did not notice a cyclist alongside for 37 seconds, and ran
over and killed her.

Now, when the punishment for such stupid bloody behaviour on the roads
is an insulting fine (probably less than the cost of the bike) then
there is no sensible deterrent. Been said before, want to kill
someone, use a car, you'll get away scot free.

You can sign the petition to get mirrors compulsory on the London
Messengers website, or write to Channel Tunnel Rail Link and ask if
the killer driver is still employed by them...

[Matt B]

spindrift wrote:
>
> Been said before, want to kill
> someone, use a car, you'll get away scot free.

Yes, and been corrected before - will you never learn?

If it is suspected that you deliberately killed someone with a car you
will be charged with murder. If the jury accept the evidence, and find
you guilty, you will get a life sentence.

--
Matt B

[Haggis McMutton]

On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 01:33:25 -0700, spindrift wrote:
> "One in 10 cyclists in London are killed every year because of a blind
> spot on construction vehicles.

What? So does this mean that after 10 years all cyclists on the road today
will have been killed because of blind spots?

[spindrift]

On 3 Oct, 10:44, spindrift > wrote:
> On 3 Oct, 10:32, spindrift > wrote:
>
> > When the Great North Run was on they interviewed the parents of the
> > woman killed by a lorry in Chelsea.
>
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/7020520.stm
>
> > I don't think the inquest into Vicky's death has taken place yet.
>
> > Similar circumstances, she was at the lights, a lorry arrives
> > alongside, lights change, lorry turns left....
>
> Originally taken from :
>
> http://www.anothercyclingforum.com/index.php?topic=40659.60
>
> So the driver who killed Emma admits he was rummaging around for
> papers, did not notice a cyclist alongside for 37 seconds, and ran
> over and killed her.
>
> Now, when the punishment for such stupid bloody behaviour on the roads
> is an insulting fine (probably less than the cost of the bike) then
> there is no sensible deterrent. Been said before, want to kill
> someone, use a car, you'll get away scot free.
>
> You can sign the petition to get mirrors compulsory on the London
> Messengers website, or write to Channel Tunnel Rail Link and ask if
> the killer driver is still employed by them...

For instance, say a woman overtook dangerously and smashed into, ran
over and killed a cyclist. You would expect at the very least a ban
from driving, right?


Wrong:

http://www.johnstone-wheelers.co.uk/bloody_cyclists.php

[spindrift]

"What? So does this mean that after 10 years all cyclists on the road
today
will have been killed because of blind spots? "

I think there's a "killed" missing there.

More here:



In 2004 a quarter of all people killed cycling in London have lost
their lives in the City, despite the Square Mile (shown as the red dot
in the map) making up just a thousandth of the total area of Greater
London. Since the turn of the century the City has had a tenth of all
fatalities so this is no statistical blip.



No enforcement
There is no enforcement action (at best the occasional warning) being
taken in London against drivers abusing cycle boxes ('ASLs'), cycle
lanes etc. Even those driving in an advisory cycle lane could be
prosecuted for due care & attention. Instead drivers have become used
to ignoring cyclists and their facilities and clipping past them with
inches to spare.

http://www.citycyclists.org.uk/

[Matt B]

spindrift wrote:
>
> For instance, say a woman overtook dangerously and smashed into, ran
> over and killed a cyclist. You would expect at the very least a ban
> from driving, right?

Surely it would depend on what offence she was charged with, which would
depend on the evidence that the police were able, or willing to collect.

Would you support widespread use of kangaroo courts, with evidence being
unnecessary?

Perhaps a better solution would be to remove the raft of "special" laws
which have been created to make the prosecution of motorists easy, with
little evidence of wrongdoing. Why not rely on the time-tested laws
concerned with murder and manslaughter.

Of course, removal of the "easy options" would mean that the police had
to collect evidence of intent, or of criminal negligence, which isn't
always easy to find, especially if there was /no/ intent, or negligence,
so, inevitably, less charges would be brought.

Could we tolerate less charges against those who who made an honest
mistake, if those who posed a real threat to safety were dealt with more
severely?

--
Matt B

[Timothy Baldwin]

In message >, Haggis McMutton
> wrote:

> On Wed, 03 Oct 2007 01:33:25 -0700, spindrift wrote:
>> "One in 10 cyclists in London are killed every year because of a blind
>> spot on construction vehicles.
>
> What? So does this mean that after 10 years all cyclists on the road today
> will have been killed because of blind spots?

No, about 65% killed.

[Doki]

"Matt B" > wrote in message
...
> spindrift wrote: [the title]
>
> spindrift, I get the impression from the title that you have given to this
> copy of someone else's post, that you are more interested in punishing
> errant drivers than making the roads safer.
>
> Can you please clarify your position: would you rather that the "blind
> spot" problem was solved, or are you happy with it so long as those that
> inadequately take account of it are more severely punished?

Go and drive a Vauxhall Meriva. If you're going round a vaguely tight bend,
you can't see the road ahead. IMO it should never have been type approved.
I'm sure it does well on crash tests, and pedestrians probably bounce of the
bonnet quite well too, but you're more likely to hit them if you can't see a
thing from inside the car.

[JNugent[_2_]]

Doki wrote:
>
> "Matt B" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> spindrift wrote: [the title]
>>
>> spindrift, I get the impression from the title that you have given to
>> this copy of someone else's post, that you are more interested in
>> punishing errant drivers than making the roads safer.
>>
>> Can you please clarify your position: would you rather that the "blind
>> spot" problem was solved, or are you happy with it so long as those
>> that inadequately take account of it are more severely punished?
>
>
> Go and drive a Vauxhall Meriva. If you're going round a vaguely tight
> bend, you can't see the road ahead. IMO it should never have been type
> approved. I'm sure it does well on crash tests, and pedestrians probably
> bounce of the bonnet quite well too, but you're more likely to hit them
> if you can't see a thing from inside the car.

Hmmm... I had one of those on hire for a week a couple of years ago.
Can't say I noticed that problem, but perhaps events never revealed it.

Surely that's typical of most flat-fronted "van-type" cars, though?