weepej wrote:
In Gear wrote:
But then a cyclist should be aware of Highway Codes 72 -73 which tells the cyclist not to riide up the inside of a vehicle signalling left.
Yeees.
And lorry drivers should be checking their sides before they move off in case some f****g idiot on a cycle is sitting there. If they don't, they're f*****g idiots too.
It's not hard!
No.. it's not hard. It's why I keep plugging COAST. Folk may think it stating the obvious - but the sad fact is that all accidents are the result of this failure.
I am in possession of a piece with the Wild
found on a Swiss news site. She says she's put it on PH and intends to place on here when she gets a minute. As her lingusistic skills are better than any of ours - despite the inability to spell a couple of words s a constant. It's how she talks and when she's in "chat mode" - she just types that way.
I gather that Ks are down in Eurozone 2008 .. but that SIs reflect the reality of the actual number of serious accidents occurrng out there - as these are eithr static or show up increases which also vary as regards regional "specifics". But one thing the police and accident investigation team are now finding and now reporting - is that all accidents are caused by road user error on the part of one or each or all parties involved.
Basically we seem to find that driver error and not the actual speed itself causes the accident. No one person denies that kinetic force (and this is where the vehicles' speeds become very valid in the investigation into any incident - nor does anyone deny that that kinetic force of any two moving object can cause injury or that a colliision with a tree or brick wall can cause serious damage to a car and its occupants - if hit with a force.# and not a nudge. .
But again.. and again.. we find that the driver who pays attention and can be described as constantly COAST led in general driving styles - tend to hang up ther driving licences in genteel old age as clean or one SP 30 only over a long driving commuting and for personal leisure career. And many of these have never had an accident other than the odd "non faulty"
When we investigate any incident - we find all too often that driver error was the primary cause. We also may well find mitigation in that the other party's actions contributed. Insurers will pay out accordingly if police reports are obtained . and we do submit these as requested to each insurer But even if we think the other party's actions played a part... if we have reasoned cause to suspect the main instigator committed an offence.. we put the file in front of the CPS who do the deciding here
Wildy did pass a comment to me in private and which I see no reason to keep quiet about
She did wonder if we prosecute as a "sop ot the bereaved" - given some charges do get dismissed by the courts.
I can only say that if we .. here in Durham .. have cause to suspect a person committed ANY crime .. we arrest and caution them in full accordance with the law. What happens next? Ball rests with magistrates and perhaps I am defending a recent notorous which involved a child and an alleged and suspected internet "groomer" - who allegedly committed an offence which the alleged victim reported to US. Guy in that case? We did not have the evidence to argue a place in custody. He got bail. It's a rant which I should place in the soapbox forum Sorry. I just mention to show that we are at the mercy of the courts at times. We have to have watertight evidence all of the time.
This case? I think from speaking to Jazz and seeing some photos she took and which I am loathe to upload on the basis of a court relying on CCTV from a local shop .. which was filming from a sharp angle.. Jazz took a photo from the only shop's car park
I've been there. Defence will milk that one dry.
In Gear wrote:
One thing you do not ever do is take the other road user for granted or assume anything
What like "assume" there's nobody up the side of your lorry?[/quote]
Well .. ain't that the sad fact of life. Folk do. They assume folk operate at the same level of logic as they themselves do.
I lose count of all the incidents over my long career to date. I know I emptied my stomach more than once.. . cried with the bereaved more than once. .. been clung to in fear of realisation of what they did in sheer mistake /.and the consequences of that . by those who knew they caused the carnage more than once.
And it's because of all this that I fully understand what Ian P's family are going through and what the driver of that lorry is going through. Both suffer the same hell here. But those who have never done the job I did at age 23 years to more senior ranks could never really understand the sheer awfulness of a human being''s nightmare of causing a death/serious injury -= and that of the persons harmed b# so absolutely by that one split second of not looking into a mirror.
DO you honestly think that lorry driver feels smug? I can assure you that he suffers. Wishes he had looked into that mirror . waited.. if he could turn back the clock. I know this .. even when I have submitted charges in the past. I never made the person I was charging feel "criminally stupid" - or hope I did not. I kept it objective. professional .
Any other action can give defence a loophole
But all the same.. I may apply the law. I also understand how a person may feel - and take such consideration into account. You never rub a nose into any offence. It undermines our profession to do so.
ian P made an error in this case. The lorry driver made a serious error by not asking himself about where Ian P vanished to.
I want folk to learn though. Ian P may have died by the dictact of his generation's Profiiciency test which told him to keep to the kerb.
Bikeablity tells us to use primary. be visible .. make ourselves In Yer face HUGE to numpty out there. NEGOTIATE with the other road users.
BLEND ./ adopt primary /n heavy but flowing traffic.
I think Ian did not do so.
The lorry driver falied to make a final check.
I fear the court may not give Ian's family what they wish to hear based on the pres report as to dates.. but this wil not at all be as reported
Court may be privy to other evidence
**
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Members
Maybe if they fitted 