cycling on the pavement cost family 150k

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/337500-for-family-of-cyclist-killed-by-truck-26679

he sneaked up the inside of a turning truck, but his family still got some
money!

[JNugent[_7_]]

Mrcheerful wrote:

> http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/337500-for-family-of-cyclist-killed-by-truck-26679

> he sneaked up the inside of a turning truck, but his family still got some
> money!

What can one make of that report? Perhaps it isn't accurate, because it does
not seem totally consistent with the outcome.

The cyclist bypassed some congestion by the expedient of cycling along a
footway, then returned to the carriageway alongside a lorry (ie, on its
nearside) in a spot where he could not see the vehicle's indicators (the
lorry was turning left) and the driver could not see him.

How, then, can it be the driver's fault or the vehicle owner's fault?

As the report said:

"Simon Michael, the family's barrister, told the court that the fatal
accident occurred after Mr Donald briefly headed onto the pavement close to
his home in Graham Road, Hackney when a gap in the markings of the cycle lane
he had been travelling on coincided with a traffic snarl-up".

And of course, probably the last thing he would want to do would be to wait
like everyone else. So onto the footway he went (but it was only "briefly").

The judge's comments on the "confusing" nature of cycle lane markings seem to
be an exercise in ultimate non-sequiturs. Surely he wasn't saying - or trying
to say - that this TV and film set-builder was too unintelligent to know that
you aren't allowed to cycle along footways in Dalston? Or that the absence of
a cycle lane means that he could do as he liked?

£335,000 is a fearful amount of money to have awarded against one even if it
is covered by insurance. There is an obvious and understandable temptation in
such cases for the judge to try to find reasons to compensate a bereaved
family. I've seen it happen in a case in which I was a witness, thirty+ years
ago. I shouldn't have been surprised if the insurance company had appealed
against it. However, the passage: "The family agreed to accept a payout on
the basis of 75 percent of full liability, due to the fact that Mr Donald had
left the road and travelled on the pavement just prior to his death" seems to
indicate some sort of bargain made in connection with the proceedings.

[Mrcheerful[_2_]]

JNugent wrote:
> Mrcheerful wrote:
>
>> http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/337500-for-family-of-cyclist-killed-by-truck-26679
>
>> he sneaked up the inside of a turning truck, but his family still
>> got some money!
>
> What can one make of that report? Perhaps it isn't accurate, because
> it does not seem totally consistent with the outcome.
>
> The cyclist bypassed some congestion by the expedient of cycling
> along a footway, then returned to the carriageway alongside a lorry
> (ie, on its nearside) in a spot where he could not see the vehicle's
> indicators (the lorry was turning left) and the driver could not see
> him.
> How, then, can it be the driver's fault or the vehicle owner's fault?
>
> As the report said:
>
> "Simon Michael, the family's barrister, told the court that the fatal
> accident occurred after Mr Donald briefly headed onto the pavement
> close to his home in Graham Road, Hackney when a gap in the markings
> of the cycle lane he had been travelling on coincided with a traffic
> snarl-up".
> And of course, probably the last thing he would want to do would be
> to wait like everyone else. So onto the footway he went (but it was
> only "briefly").
> The judge's comments on the "confusing" nature of cycle lane markings
> seem to be an exercise in ultimate non-sequiturs. Surely he wasn't
> saying - or trying to say - that this TV and film set-builder was too
> unintelligent to know that you aren't allowed to cycle along footways
> in Dalston? Or that the absence of a cycle lane means that he could
> do as he liked?
> £335,000 is a fearful amount of money to have awarded against one
> even if it is covered by insurance. There is an obvious and
> understandable temptation in such cases for the judge to try to find
> reasons to compensate a bereaved family. I've seen it happen in a
> case in which I was a witness, thirty+ years ago. I shouldn't have
> been surprised if the insurance company had appealed against it.
> However, the passage: "The family agreed to accept a payout on the
> basis of 75 percent of full liability, due to the fact that Mr Donald
> had left the road and travelled on the pavement just prior to his
> death" seems to indicate some sort of bargain made in connection with
> the proceedings.

I think getting the payout was because of the bit about the lorry mirrors
beig incorrectly adjusted. Mirror adjustment might have precluded the
driver seeing him getting there, but probably was fine for 'normal' traffic
that come up from behind, but the cyclist effectively came from the side!
It is hard to equate an apparently intelligent person doing something so
stupid.

[Tom Crispin]

On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 10:12:31 +0100, "Mrcheerful"
> wrote:

>JNugent wrote:
>> Mrcheerful wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/337500-for-family-of-cyclist-killed-by-truck-26679
>>
>>> he sneaked up the inside of a turning truck, but his family still
>>> got some money!
>>
>> What can one make of that report? Perhaps it isn't accurate, because
>> it does not seem totally consistent with the outcome.
>>
>> The cyclist bypassed some congestion by the expedient of cycling
>> along a footway, then returned to the carriageway alongside a lorry
>> (ie, on its nearside) in a spot where he could not see the vehicle's
>> indicators (the lorry was turning left) and the driver could not see
>> him.
>> How, then, can it be the driver's fault or the vehicle owner's fault?
>>
>> As the report said:
>>
>> "Simon Michael, the family's barrister, told the court that the fatal
>> accident occurred after Mr Donald briefly headed onto the pavement
>> close to his home in Graham Road, Hackney when a gap in the markings
>> of the cycle lane he had been travelling on coincided with a traffic
>> snarl-up".
>> And of course, probably the last thing he would want to do would be
>> to wait like everyone else. So onto the footway he went (but it was
>> only "briefly").
>> The judge's comments on the "confusing" nature of cycle lane markings
>> seem to be an exercise in ultimate non-sequiturs. Surely he wasn't
>> saying - or trying to say - that this TV and film set-builder was too
>> unintelligent to know that you aren't allowed to cycle along footways
>> in Dalston? Or that the absence of a cycle lane means that he could
>> do as he liked?
>> £335,000 is a fearful amount of money to have awarded against one
>> even if it is covered by insurance. There is an obvious and
>> understandable temptation in such cases for the judge to try to find
>> reasons to compensate a bereaved family. I've seen it happen in a
>> case in which I was a witness, thirty+ years ago. I shouldn't have
>> been surprised if the insurance company had appealed against it.
>> However, the passage: "The family agreed to accept a payout on the
>> basis of 75 percent of full liability, due to the fact that Mr Donald
>> had left the road and travelled on the pavement just prior to his
>> death" seems to indicate some sort of bargain made in connection with
>> the proceedings.
>
>I think getting the payout was because of the bit about the lorry mirrors
>beig incorrectly adjusted. Mirror adjustment might have precluded the
>driver seeing him getting there, but probably was fine for 'normal' traffic
>that come up from behind, but the cyclist effectively came from the side!
>It is hard to equate an apparently intelligent person doing something so
>stupid.

The tipper truck was also in a lane with markings for ahead and
turning right.

Three weeks ago I cycled along the A202 as part of a consultation over
cycle superhighway 5, Lewisham to Victoria. We stopped for a chat at
Peckham, close to the point where a young lady had her pelvis crushed
by a left turning articulated container truck. From the pavement we
observed a large lorry *completely disappear from view* ahead of a
white van as the lorry pulled over to the right before turning left.
There was a huge open section of road on the left of the van and right
across the junction which is marked with a cycle lane.

[Doug[_3_]]

On 22 June, 09:54, JNugent > wrote:
> Mrcheerful wrote:
> >http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/337500-for-family-of-cyclist-ki...
> > he sneaked up the inside of a turning truck, but his family still got some
> > money!
>
> What can one make of that report? Perhaps it isn't accurate, because it does
> not seem totally consistent with the outcome.
>
> The cyclist bypassed some congestion by the expedient of cycling along a
> footway, then returned to the carriageway alongside a lorry (ie, on its
> nearside) in a spot where he could not see the vehicle's indicators (the
> lorry was turning left) and the driver could not see him.
>
> How, then, can it be the driver's fault or the vehicle owner's fault?
>
> As the report said:
>
> "Simon Michael, the family's barrister, told the court that the fatal
> accident occurred after Mr Donald briefly headed onto the pavement close to
> his home in Graham Road, Hackney when a gap in the markings of the cycle lane
> he had been travelling on coincided with a traffic snarl-up".
>
> And of course, probably the last thing he would want to do would be to wait
> like everyone else. So onto the footway he went (but it was only "briefly").
>
> The judge's comments on the "confusing" nature of cycle lane markings seem to
> be an exercise in ultimate non-sequiturs. Surely he wasn't saying - or trying
> to say - that this TV and film set-builder was too unintelligent to know that
> you aren't allowed to cycle along footways in Dalston? Or that the absence of
> a cycle lane means that he could do as he liked?
>
> £335,000 is a fearful amount of money to have awarded against one even if it
> is covered by insurance. There is an obvious and understandable temptation in
> such cases for the judge to try to find reasons to compensate a bereaved
> family. I've seen it happen in a case in which I was a witness, thirty+ years
> ago. I shouldn't have been surprised if the insurance company had appealed
> against it. However, the passage: "The family agreed to accept a payout on
> the basis of 75 percent of full liability, due to the fact that Mr Donald had
> left the road and travelled on the pavement just prior to his death" seems to
> indicate some sort of bargain made in connection with the proceedings.
>
At least there is a little justice but the life of the victim can
never be reclaimed.

So, an HGV with faulty mirrors was the cause then. There are so many
faulty vehicles and drivers on our roads at present, which the
government seems either to tolerate or ignore, is it any wonder that
so many are killed or seriously injured? While the penalties for this
carnage remain so derisory?

The usual attempt to direct blame at the vulnerable victim, because he
had been cycling on the pavement prior to the collision, obviously
failed this time around. Yet another victory for justice!

-- .
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

Tom Crispin wrote:

>
> The tipper truck was also in a lane with markings for ahead and
> turning right.
>
> Three weeks ago I cycled along the A202 as part of a consultation over
> cycle superhighway 5, Lewisham to Victoria. We stopped for a chat at
> Peckham, close to the point where a young lady had her pelvis crushed
> by a left turning articulated container truck. From the pavement we
> observed a large lorry *completely disappear from view* ahead of a
> white van as the lorry pulled over to the right before turning left.
> There was a huge open section of road on the left of the van and right
> across the junction which is marked with a cycle lane.

Have you never heard of a 'lorry turn' idiot? Large vehicles often have to
swing right to make aleft turn. Anyone with an ounce of common sense should
know that.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

[JNugent[_7_]]

Doug wrote:
> On 22 June, 09:54, JNugent > wrote:
>> Mrcheerful wrote:
>>> http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/337500-for-family-of-cyclist-ki...
>>> he sneaked up the inside of a turning truck, but his family still got some
>>> money!
>> What can one make of that report? Perhaps it isn't accurate, because it does
>> not seem totally consistent with the outcome.
>>
>> The cyclist bypassed some congestion by the expedient of cycling along a
>> footway, then returned to the carriageway alongside a lorry (ie, on its
>> nearside) in a spot where he could not see the vehicle's indicators (the
>> lorry was turning left) and the driver could not see him.
>>
>> How, then, can it be the driver's fault or the vehicle owner's fault?
>>
>> As the report said:
>>
>> "Simon Michael, the family's barrister, told the court that the fatal
>> accident occurred after Mr Donald briefly headed onto the pavement close to
>> his home in Graham Road, Hackney when a gap in the markings of the cycle lane
>> he had been travelling on coincided with a traffic snarl-up".
>>
>> And of course, probably the last thing he would want to do would be to wait
>> like everyone else. So onto the footway he went (but it was only "briefly").
>>
>> The judge's comments on the "confusing" nature of cycle lane markings seem to
>> be an exercise in ultimate non-sequiturs. Surely he wasn't saying - or trying
>> to say - that this TV and film set-builder was too unintelligent to know that
>> you aren't allowed to cycle along footways in Dalston? Or that the absence of
>> a cycle lane means that he could do as he liked?
>>
>> £335,000 is a fearful amount of money to have awarded against one even if it
>> is covered by insurance. There is an obvious and understandable temptation in
>> such cases for the judge to try to find reasons to compensate a bereaved
>> family. I've seen it happen in a case in which I was a witness, thirty+ years
>> ago. I shouldn't have been surprised if the insurance company had appealed
>> against it. However, the passage: "The family agreed to accept a payout on
>> the basis of 75 percent of full liability, due to the fact that Mr Donald had
>> left the road and travelled on the pavement just prior to his death" seems to
>> indicate some sort of bargain made in connection with the proceedings.
>>
> At least there is a little justice but the life of the victim can
> never be reclaimed.
>
> So, an HGV with faulty mirrors was the cause then.

That is not the case and cannot be refined out of the facts.

> There are so many
> faulty vehicles and drivers on our roads at present, which the
> government seems either to tolerate or ignore, is it any wonder that
> so many are killed or seriously injured? While the penalties for this
> carnage remain so derisory?

Many would say that thios case was predominantly one of faulty cycling.

> The usual attempt to direct blame at the vulnerable victim, because he
> had been cycling on the pavement prior to the collision...

....and arrived at the spot *from* the footway (not "the pavement").

[JNugent[_7_]]

The Medway Handyman wrote:

> Tom Crispin wrote:

>> The tipper truck was also in a lane with markings for ahead and
>> turning right.

>> Three weeks ago I cycled along the A202 as part of a consultation over
>> cycle superhighway 5, Lewisham to Victoria. We stopped for a chat at
>> Peckham, close to the point where a young lady had her pelvis crushed
>> by a left turning articulated container truck. From the pavement we
>> observed a large lorry *completely disappear from view* ahead of a
>> white van as the lorry pulled over to the right before turning left.
>> There was a huge open section of road on the left of the van and right
>> across the junction which is marked with a cycle lane.

> Have you never heard of a 'lorry turn' idiot? Large vehicles often have to
> swing right to make aleft turn. Anyone with an ounce of common sense should
> know that.

TC probably thinks that the driver should have driven straight on for
whatever distance was needed in order to find a roundabout, then change
direction by 180 degrees, come back to the spot and turn right.

[The Medway Handyman[_2_]]

Doug wrote:

>
> The usual attempt to direct blame at the vulnerable victim, because he
> had been cycling on the pavement prior to the collision, obviously
> failed this time around. Yet another victory for justice!

Oh look. A very large vehicle that must weigh 30 tonnes or more. He may
well not be able to see me. I have no idea which way he is going to
proceed.

I know - I'll just cycle along his nearside where visibility is worse.

How stupid was that cyclist?

He certainly won't be leaving his brain to medical research.


--
Dave - intelligent enough to realise that a push bike is a kid's toy, not a
viable form of transport.

[Tom Crispin]

On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 19:18:02 +0100, JNugent >
wrote:

>The Medway Handyman wrote:
>
>> Tom Crispin wrote:
>
>>> The tipper truck was also in a lane with markings for ahead and
>>> turning right.
>
>>> Three weeks ago I cycled along the A202 as part of a consultation over
>>> cycle superhighway 5, Lewisham to Victoria. We stopped for a chat at
>>> Peckham, close to the point where a young lady had her pelvis crushed
>>> by a left turning articulated container truck. From the pavement we
>>> observed a large lorry *completely disappear from view* ahead of a
>>> white van as the lorry pulled over to the right before turning left.
>>> There was a huge open section of road on the left of the van and right
>>> across the junction which is marked with a cycle lane.
>
>> Have you never heard of a 'lorry turn' idiot? Large vehicles often have to
>> swing right to make aleft turn. Anyone with an ounce of common sense should
>> know that.
>
>TC probably thinks that the driver should have driven straight on for
>whatever distance was needed in order to find a roundabout, then change
>direction by 180 degrees, come back to the spot and turn right.

If you re-read my message you will note that I made no judgement on
the rights or wrongs of any manoeuvre by a left turning lorry or a
cyclist unaware of the presence of such a lorry.

My observation is simply that a large lorry about to turn left can
completely disappear from view from close to the kerb with a wide gap
to its left.

I would offer the following advice to cyclists and drivers:

Cyclists - when passing a side road be aware that a large vehicle,
which you may not have seen, may be preparing to turn left across your
path into the side road.

Drivers - when turning left into a side road be aware that cyclists
may not be aware of your presence and may be passing on your left.
Take extra care and proceed with caution; if you have a driver's mate
in your cab, have him get out to warn or stop any passing traffic.

[Steve Walford]

On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 19:16:38 +0100, JNugent >
wrote:

>Doug wrote:
>> On 22 June, 09:54, JNugent > wrote:
>>> Mrcheerful wrote:
>>>> http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/337500-for-family-of-cyclist-ki...
>>>> he sneaked up the inside of a turning truck, but his family still got some
"The family agreed to accept a payout on
>>> the basis of 75 percent of full liability, due to the fact that Mr Donald had
>>> left the road and travelled on the pavement just prior to his death" seems to
>>> indicate some sort of bargain made in connection with the proceedings.
>>>
>> At least there is a little justice but the life of the victim can
>> never be reclaimed.
>>
>> So, an HGV with faulty mirrors was the cause then.
>
>That is not the case and cannot be refined out of the facts.
>
>> There are so many
>> faulty vehicles and drivers on our roads at present, which the
>> government seems either to tolerate or ignore, is it any wonder that
>> so many are killed or seriously injured? While the penalties for this
>> carnage remain so derisory?
>
>Many would say that thios case was predominantly one of faulty cycling.
>
>> The usual attempt to direct blame at the vulnerable victim, because he
>> had been cycling on the pavement prior to the collision...
>
>...and arrived at the spot *from* the footway (not "the pavement").

How would the case have gone if the cyclist had been stopped at a shop
and pushed his bicycle to the road and then got on it

OK, maybe an idiotic thing to do, but you should see the stupid things
I see everyday by cyclists and drivers

I would think the majority of cyclists (this forum excepted) are
oblivious to the dangers of cars and lorries

Me even if I'm in the right I give all forms of motorised transport a
wide berth when out cycling

Yes I do ride a bicycle, around 30 miles a day and I also have a HGV
licence

Safest HGV drivers as far as I am concerned appear to be left-hand
drive foreigners. One once had to stay behind me for around a mile,
when I turned off I gave a wave of appreciation, he gave me a tune on
his horn and a friendly wave. They always appear to give cyclists
plenty of room. Not like normal HGV drivers

[JNugent[_7_]]

Steve Walford wrote:

> JNugent > wrote:
>> Doug wrote:
>>> JNugent > wrote:
>>>> Mrcheerful wrote:

>>>>> http://www.bikeradar.com/news/article/337500-for-family-of-cyclist-ki...

>>>>> he sneaked up the inside of a turning truck, but his family still got some

> "The family agreed to accept a payout on
>>>> the basis of 75 percent of full liability, due to the fact that Mr Donald had
>>>> left the road and travelled on the pavement just prior to his death" seems to
>>>> indicate some sort of bargain made in connection with the proceedings.

>>> At least there is a little justice but the life of the victim can
>>> never be reclaimed.

>>> So, an HGV with faulty mirrors was the cause then.

>> That is not the case and cannot be refined out of the facts.

>>> There are so many
>>> faulty vehicles and drivers on our roads at present, which the
>>> government seems either to tolerate or ignore, is it any wonder that
>>> so many are killed or seriously injured? While the penalties for this
>>> carnage remain so derisory?

>> Many would say that thios case was predominantly one of faulty cycling.

>>> The usual attempt to direct blame at the vulnerable victim, because he
>>> had been cycling on the pavement prior to the collision...

>> ...and arrived at the spot *from* the footway (not "the pavement").

> How would the case have gone if the cyclist had been stopped at a shop
> and pushed his bicycle to the road and then got on it

The same way as it should have gone this time.

> OK, maybe an idiotic thing to do, but you should see the stupid things
> I see everyday by cyclists and drivers

I agree. But there is and should be no reward for stupid driving or stupid
cycling. No "consolation prizes". And that, I suspect, is a large part of the
explanation here.

> I would think the majority of cyclists (this forum excepted) are
> oblivious to the dangers of cars and lorries

There is still great scope - IMHO - for a series of relevant road traffic
public information films shown at cinemas and on TV, such as we we had in the
1950s and 1960s. I wonder how many of us had our first glimpse of motorways
(and our first grasp of the rules, including the "no HGVs in the third lane"
rule) long before we were old enough to drive, let alone afford a car. The
concept eventually developed - perhaps degenerated - into the Tufty Club and
the Green Cross Code Man - but it was not always aimed at children.

> Me even if I'm in the right I give all forms of motorised transport a
> wide berth when out cycling

> Yes I do ride a bicycle, around 30 miles a day and I also have a HGV
> licence

> Safest HGV drivers as far as I am concerned appear to be left-hand
> drive foreigners. One once had to stay behind me for around a mile,
> when I turned off I gave a wave of appreciation, he gave me a tune on
> his horn and a friendly wave. They always appear to give cyclists
> plenty of room. Not like normal HGV drivers

:-)

If you posted this "elsewhere" you'd get a different reaction...