What a nice man

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.u...and.5582835.jp

LN


--

Never knowingly understood

"lardyninja" wrote in message
...


http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.u...and.5582835.jp

I totally condemn the behaviour of the driver.

However, from the report, it seems that the lorry had overtaken the cyclist
and was then waiting at traffic lights. Somehow, the cyclist got in front
of the lorry at the lights.

Wouldn't it have been safer to queue behind the lorry like any other road
user would or should have done? You shouldn't jump a traffic queue at any
junction.

There aren't enough facts available in the report to make an accurate
judgement but it certainly seems that what the driver did after the accident
was completely unacceptable and I hope he is severely punished but I can't
help thinking that this accident was entirely preventable if the cyclist had
queued behind the lorry.

Mr Benn wrote:

Wouldn't it have been safer to queue behind the lorry

Evidently...

like any other road user would or should have done?

*any*? So there are no other [motor] cyclists anywhere that would have
nosed up to the front? That's a rather big assumption!

You shouldn't jump a traffic queue at any junction.

Why not? [Motor] cyclists often do simply because they can, and they
can because they take little road space and have the room. They're not
actually slowing the other traffic down to do this, and in fact in using
the available road space more effectively actually increase the chances
of A Random Driver in the queue getting to the lights themselves before
they turn red again.

The obvious "shouldn't" about squeezing past a queue is you need to know
the safety points to look for, so you don't get trapped in a blind spot
when the traffic starts up again. If you can see you might get stuck,
or you can't tell, /then/ you shouldn't. But to say nobody should ever
by-pass queues is daft.

There aren't enough facts available in the report to make an accurate
judgement but it certainly seems that what the driver did after the accident
was completely unacceptable and I hope he is severely punished but I can't
help thinking that this accident was entirely preventable if the cyclist had
queued behind the lorry.

Well, on the one hand yes but OTOH it's a bit like saying 200 service
deaths in Afghanistan could've been prevented by not going there, and
the personnel in question are to blame for their own demise by joining
the armed forces where people might shoot at them: i.e., victim blaming
and a shade ridiculous.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Mr Benn wrote:
"lardyninja" wrote in message
...

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.u...and.5582835.jp

I totally condemn the behaviour of the driver.

However, from the report, it seems that the lorry had overtaken the cyclist
and was then waiting at traffic lights. Somehow, the cyclist got in front
of the lorry at the lights.

Wouldn't it have been safer to queue behind the lorry like any other road
user would or should have done? You shouldn't jump a traffic queue at any
junction.


"and was in front of his cab"

Not at the side or undertaking but in front.
That and the witness who saw the cyclists banging on the truck door.

He wasn't queue jumping, he was in front of the thing at the lights.
If moving alongside and passing stationary traffic is 'queue jumping'
then we will all be guilty of it, no matter how many wheels we've got.

--

Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 11:34:41 +0100, lardyninja
wrote:

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.u...and.5582835.jp

Some years ago a friend of mine (who is a barrister with the CPS) had
to decide whether a driver should be charged with murder or
manslaughter. The driver had driven at a man to intimidate him, had
not realised there was a second man alongside him, hit the second man,
who was dragged under the car for some distance. The question hinged
on whether the driver was aware of the man's presence under his car
before the moment of death,

Here we have a lorry driver who was clearly aware of the presence of
the cyclist before the event, carried on anyway, and then disposed of
the evidence afterwards. The report indicates that this is not
negligence or an accident, it is a wilful act, at the very least
manslaughter and (if the eyewitness statements are to be believed)
more likely murder. Of course the CPS knows that getting such charges
to stick is hard, so they prosecute for lesser offences specific to
driving. I am not convinced that is a good thing. If this was a
factory and death was caused by such egregious behaviour then the
charges would be a good deal more serious, and the employer would also
be in the dock.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/
"Nullius in Verba" - take no man's word for it.
- attr. Horace, chosen by John Evelyn for the Royal Society

"Peter Clinch" wrote in message
...
Mr Benn wrote:

Well, on the one hand yes but OTOH it's a bit like saying 200 service
deaths in Afghanistan could've been prevented by not going there, and
the personnel in question are to blame for their own demise by joining
the armed forces where people might shoot at them: i.e., victim blaming
and a shade ridiculous.

That's a very poor analogy but I understand what you're trying to
illustrate. The cyclist put himself at risk by moving into a potential
blind spot for the lorry driver. Had he waitied behind the lorry, he would
only have wasted a few seconds. It's not worth putting yourself at risk.

Just because you can jump a queue does not mean it's the right thing to do.
Try doing that at a supermarket checkout and see where it gets you.

Just zis Guy, you know? wrote:
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 11:34:41 +0100, lardyninja
wrote:

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.u...and.5582835.jp

Here we have a lorry driver who was clearly aware of the presence of
the cyclist before the event,

When he overtook him earlier?

carried on anyway, and then disposed of
the evidence afterwards.

Allegedly.

The report indicates that this is not
negligence or an accident, it is a wilful act,
manslaughter and (if the eyewitness statements are to be believed)
more likely murder.

You think that the driver saw him and decided to kill him rather than
wait for him to get out of the way?

Of course the CPS knows that getting such charges
to stick is hard,

Especially when there is no evidence to support them.

so they prosecute for lesser offences specific to
driving. I am not convinced that is a good thing.

Me neither. But it is the result of the undignified clamour for
vengeance rather than justice.

If this was a
factory and death was caused by such egregious behaviour

Allegedly.

then the
charges would be a good deal more serious, and the employer would also
be in the dock.

Similarly, if it was not obviously a deliberate act, then the event
would be investigated - to identify the root cause, perhaps implicating
those responsible for providing inadequate or unsafe facilities, and to
help prevent such a thing happening again in the future - rather than
try to pin it on some unfortunate operative.

--
Matt B

Mr Benn wrote:
"Peter Clinch" wrote in message
...
Mr Benn wrote:

Well, on the one hand yes but OTOH it's a bit like saying 200 service
deaths in Afghanistan could've been prevented by not going there, and
the personnel in question are to blame for their own demise by joining
the armed forces where people might shoot at them: i.e., victim blaming
and a shade ridiculous.

That's a very poor analogy but I understand what you're trying to
illustrate. The cyclist put himself at risk by moving into a potential
blind spot for the lorry driver. Had he waitied behind the lorry, he would
only have wasted a few seconds. It's not worth putting yourself at risk.

Just because you can jump a queue does not mean it's the right thing to do.
Try doing that at a supermarket checkout and see where it gets you.

That's a very poor analogy: a supermarket queue is a first in, first out
queue where it is simply bad manners to push in. At a set of traffic
lights it's not pushing in, because it doesn't delay anyone else. In
fact it is likely to save everyone else time by reducing the length of
the queue.

You are familiar, perhaps, with advance stop lines for cyclists?
According to your ideas the only way anyone could ever get to use one
would be to happen to be at the head of the queue when the lights changed.

Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/

Mr Benn wrote:

The cyclist put himself at risk by moving into a potential
blind spot for the lorry driver.


Not found that info anywhere in the new report - have you got another
source?
--

Come to Dave & Boris - your cycle security experts.

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 13:38:43 +0100, Keitht KeithT wrote:

The cyclist put himself at risk by moving into a potential
blind spot for the lorry driver.

Not found that info anywhere in the new report - have you got another
source?

It would need to be a deaf spot as well, the cyclist was banging on
the cab literally for his life.

Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc | http://www.nohelmetlaw.org.uk/
"Nullius in Verba" - take no man's word for it.
- attr. Horace, chosen by John Evelyn for the Royal Society