The lawwrr being somewhat ass like?

Your thoughts on this familiar type U.R.C post:

---

Lorry Driver fined for hitting Cyclist
Friday April 22nd 2005

An Arbroath Lorry driver, who admitted driving into the back of
a cyclist and knocking him in to a ditch, was fined
£300 at Arbroath Sheriff Coury yesterday.

Andrew George Whyte (36) of Almerie Close, admitted that
on October 14th last year on the A92 Arbroath-Dundee road he
drove carelessly and collided with a pedal cycle being ridden
by Albert Bremner, injuring Mr Bremner and damaging the cycle.

Depute fiscal Sandy Mitchell told the court Mr Bremner was a
daily cycle commuter between Arbroath and Dundee and had been
heading for his work at around 7am when he was struck.

As an experienced cyclist, Mr Bremner was displaying front
and rear lights on his bike and was also carrying a rucksack which
bore a large reflective 'keep right' sign and wearing shoes with
reflective stripes.

Mr Mitchell said Whyte, who was driving a dropside lorry, was
travelling in the same direction as Mr Bremner but failed to see
him and knocked him off his bike and into a trench.

Aware he had struck something, Whyte stopped his lorry a short
distance up the road and, after seeing the damaged bicycle, he and
his workmate found Mr Bremner in the ditch and called an
Ambulance.

The court was told that Mr Bremner sustained a fractured thoracic
vertbera and substantial bruising to his ribs, elbow and buttocks
but, after receiving treatment at Ninewells hosptial, had made a
good recovery.

---

My thoughts? Well at least the driver stopped etc, can't fault him
for that. But .. how much attention was he paying when not only did
he collide with this visibility enhanced cyclist, he didn't know what
he had hit? Was he tuning the radio? Chatting to his mate?
You do wonder.

There is no mention of points on the license etc. He could
easily have killed the cyclist, hitting him with a lorry on
a main road - a broken backbone was probably getting of lightly.
Personally .. too lenient.

The thought of being hit from behind by someone paying little
attention to the road ahead,, scares the &^% out of me.

If that driver had hit me I'd have expected more than a 300 quid
fine!

Straw wrote:

Your thoughts on this familiar type U.R.C post:

---

Lorry Driver fined for hitting Cyclist
Friday April 22nd 2005

An Arbroath Lorry driver, who admitted driving into the back of
a cyclist and knocking him in to a ditch, was fined
£300 at Arbroath Sheriff Coury yesterday.

Andrew George Whyte (36) of Almerie Close, admitted that
on October 14th last year on the A92 Arbroath-Dundee road he
drove carelessly and collided with a pedal cycle being ridden
by Albert Bremner, injuring Mr Bremner and damaging the cycle.

snip all too usual tale of incompetent driver

There is no mention of points on the license etc. He could
easily have killed the cyclist, hitting him with a lorry on
a main road - a broken backbone was probably getting of lightly.
Personally .. too lenient.

Far too lenient. It sends all the wrong messages out.
You can drive into a cyclist and get off with a slapped wrist.
The driver should at least be banned until he can prove by retest that
he is competent to be in charge of a lethal piece of machinery.
It's frightening that he could do teh same tomorrow.

Regarding the charge, the minimum this was dangerous driving yet he is
charged with simple carelessness, thus limiting the sentence that could
be imposed.

The thought of being hit from behind by someone paying little
attention to the road ahead,, scares the &^% out of me.

If that driver had hit me I'd have expected more than a 300 quid
fine!

I would hope that a civil case will be made against the driver for
compensation - several tens of thousands at least.

JohnB

"JohnB" wrote in message
...
I would hope that a civil case will be made against the driver for
compensation - several tens of thousands at least.

I'm sure it will be/would have been. But whether it would attract 'several
tens of thousands' is another matter. Damages are of two kinds: special and
general. The 'general' is for pain and suffering, lifestyle effects etc -
unquantifiable in direct money terms. You don't get a lot for generals in
the UK courts, sadly. The 'specials' are for quantifiable direct monetary
losses - loss of earnings, costs of repair/replacements - and in serious
cases, the cost of care, aids and adaptations etc. The 'big money' large
settlements are generally made up on specials related to care and treatment
costs. If this guy is, fortunately for him, expected to make a full
recovery, he is unlikely to see damages in the 'several tens of thousands'.

Rich

On 26 Apr 2005 20:44:39 GMT, "Straw" wrote:

snip of take of yet more careless driving.

Oh, come on, give the guy a break. It's not easy to keep your eyes on the road
_and_ send someone a text on your mobile!

Richard Goodman wrote:

"JohnB" wrote in message
...
I would hope that a civil case will be made against the driver for
compensation - several tens of thousands at least.

I'm sure it will be/would have been. But whether it would attract 'several
tens of thousands' is another matter. Damages are of two kinds: special and
general. The 'general' is for pain and suffering, lifestyle effects etc -
unquantifiable in direct money terms. You don't get a lot for generals in
the UK courts, sadly.

If this guy is, fortunately for him, expected to make a full
recovery, he is unlikely to see damages in the 'several tens of thousands'.

You're probably right.
Standard payout for fracture of a single vertebrae through the a
Criminal Injuries Compensation cliam is £2500 [1], though I'd guess a
civil case would likely to be higher.

[1] it bugs me this would come from the taxpayer instead of the
convicted driver.

John B

"JohnB" wrote:

You're probably right.
Standard payout for fracture of a single vertebrae through the a
Criminal Injuries Compensation cliam is £2500 [1], though I'd guess a
civil case would likely to be higher.

[1] it bugs me this would come from the taxpayer instead of the
convicted driver.

I'm pretty sure this is normally for uninsured drivers who have no money or
other assets.

"Adrian Boliston" wrote in message
...
"JohnB" wrote:

You're probably right.
Standard payout for fracture of a single vertebrae through the a
Criminal Injuries Compensation cliam is £2500 [1], though I'd guess a
civil case would likely to be higher.

[1] it bugs me this would come from the taxpayer instead of the
convicted driver.

I'm pretty sure this is normally for uninsured drivers who have no money
or other assets.

No, CICA compensation is for victims of violent crime, not victims of RTAs -
even if a motoring offence was involved. You're thinking of the Motor
Insurers Bureau, which can assist with getting compensation for the victims
of accidents with uninsured and untraced drivers. For those cases they
nominate an insurance company to deal with the case as if they were the
insurance provider of the liable driver. The taxpayer doesn't pay for it.

Rich

Straw wrote:
An Arbroath Lorry driver, who admitted driving into the back of
a cyclist and knocking him in to a ditch, was fined
£300 at Arbroath Sheriff Coury yesterday.

Oh, for ****'s sake. What *DO* you have to do in a vehicle
to get punished?

BugBear (furiously frustrated)

not only did he collide with this visibility enhanced cyclist, he
didn't know what he had hit?

When I was hit by a car waiting that had been behind me at a
roundabout, she didn't know she'd hit anything. Seriously. She didn't
hear the bang. She'd forgotten the reason she was back from the stop
line. And she carried on trying to accellerate until the car rode up on
the pedals and cranks and the car's front wheels started spinning.
Pushing me along the tarmac until that happenned. Had it been a rear
wheel drive, I'm quite sure she would have driven over me.

I'd say Bremner was extremely lucky to have been knocked clear,
otherwise, from the sound of it, the lorry-driver would have driven
over him. The penalty really should have taken account of how serious
this incident very nearly was.

Richard Goodman wrote:

"Adrian Boliston" wrote in message
...
"JohnB" wrote:

You're probably right.
Standard payout for fracture of a single vertebrae through the a
Criminal Injuries Compensation cliam is £2500 [1], though I'd guess a
civil case would likely to be higher.

[1] it bugs me this would come from the taxpayer instead of the
convicted driver.

I'm pretty sure this is normally for uninsured drivers who have no money
or other assets.

No, CICA compensation is for victims of violent crime, not victims of RTAs -
even if a motoring offence was involved.

Yes. I was using the CICA payouts as an estimation.
Quite why using a vehicle as a weapon is not a violent crime I don't know.

You're thinking of the Motor
Insurers Bureau, which can assist with getting compensation for the victims
of accidents with uninsured and untraced drivers. For those cases they
nominate an insurance company to deal with the case as if they were the
insurance provider of the liable driver. The taxpayer doesn't pay for it.

At least that's one advantage over the CICA.
The victim doesn't contribute towards the compensaton.
(i suspect someone could prove they do).

John B