Driver who killed cyclist said she didn’t see him due to car’s large blind spot

burtthebike wrote:

This collision was a combination of several factors: inattention by the driver, wide A pillars and increased numbers of roundabouts.

The driver in this case is particularly interesting, as she was actually convicted rather than found not guilty, and I'm sure a good lawyer would have got her off on any one of the usual excuses.

The wide A pillars on modern cars are the finest example of the law of unintended consequences ever.  Brought in by governments to make car occupants safer if the car rolls over, it puts vulnerable road users more at risk, so just like seat belts and all the other "safety" devices in cars, it just shifts the risk away from the cause onto the victim.  I've been driving the girlfriend's car while she's been ill, and I'm astonished at how bad the visibility is, not just because of the A pillars, but the head restraints and rear pillars.

The problems of such blind spots are exacerbated by the profusion of roundabouts, a modern obsession that keeps traffic moving but increases risk to vulnerable road users.  If drivers don't have to stop, they won't, and will take a cursory glance and keep going, with inevitable deadly consequences.

Can I add some knowledge of the roundabout in question to the mix?

It's a shocker. I wouldn't cycle through it unless I had to. It is on a steep gradient, on the main road in and out of Berwick. From Berwick, going south, (which would be the route home for the offender after work) you're going up a steep hill, and drivers tend to try and get a run at it. The west bound arm is the car park of a local leisure centre, the eastbound arm a housing estate.  The vast majority of traffic is north south, and I have seen near misses in the car both from northbound cars not braking in time, and southbound cars mistiming the movement of vehicles going east....

I tend to drive very cautiously through it, because I'm convinced it's dangerous. Tellingly, the DoT don't signpost it as the main route into Berwick, even though that's what it is used as.

ChrisB200SX wrote:

In 20 years of driving various types of car that vary in age by 40 years, I don't think I've ever lost a vehicle in a blind spot, certainly not in front of me like in this scenario anyway. I've only really taken up cycling in the last couple of years. So it's probably not the cycling that is making me check my blind spots since I was 17.

However, I have probably saved the lives of a few cyclists over those years when I was a passenger and noticed the driver had not checked their blind spot and had not seen a cyclist. This was horrifying on every occasion, the thought that I was being driven by someone who is paying less attention to their surroundings than their passenger and could easily kill someone. I don't want to be driven by someone like that and I don't want them able to drive (even if they were my girlfriend at the time).

We have far too many people like this on our roads who are ignorant and/or apathetic to the danger they are putting others in and the harm they can do. Killer drivers need to go to jail to set an example to the others and improve their behaviour. Rewarding their bad behaviour by not mailing them is making the situation of incredible poor driving standards worse.

That the judge didn't jail this blind idiot is sickening. The Alliston case really rams it home that drivers can do no wrong and cyclists must pay the heavy price for being in their way.

woah, just look at what you're saying there for a second...

obviously as a passenger you have a different perspective which is not obscured by the front right pillar, and you are also acting as a second set of eyes - obviously, two people looking from different perspectives are going to see more than a single person

you've also seen this happen on several occasions, which confirms that it is entirely feasible - you don't think you've ever done it, but you can't really be 100% sure

and yet you don't even consider the possibility that the design of cars could be improved upon, instead placing 100% on the responsibility on the individual driver who must move their head around the offending pillar in order to check every time on the fairly rare chance that this could happen...

there are so many factors involved here involving road design and car design, and yet you place the onus on the individual who you believe should be jailed, not for any mailcious act, but simply due to incompetence

so the result would be a world where the individual's mistakes woud be punished harshly, but the corporations who are responsible for creating the situations where these mistakes are actually made more likely simply go unchallenged?

personally, I don't see it as desirable to create an environment where such mistakes result in the destruction of lives for either party involved.

beezus fufoon wrote:

woah, just look at what you're saying there for a second...

obviously as a passenger you have a different perspective which is not obscured by the front right pillar, and you are also acting as a second set of eyes - obviously, two people looking from different perspectives are going to see more than a single person

you've also seen this happen on several occasions, which confirms that it is entirely feasible - you don't think you've ever done it, but you can't really be 100% sure

and yet you don't even consider the possibility that the design of cars could be improved upon, instead placing 100% on the responsibility on the individual driver who must move their head around the offending pillar in order to check every time on the fairly rare chance that this could happen...

there are so many factors involved here involving road design and car design, and yet you place the onus on the individual who you believe should be jailed, not for any mailcious act, but simply due to incompetence

so the result would be a world where the individual's mistakes woud be punished harshly, but the corporations who are responsible for creating the situations where these mistakes are actually made more likely simply go unchallenged?

personally, I don't see it as desirable to create an environment where such mistakes result in the destruction of lives for either party involved.

the driver is fully and solely responsible. They chose to drive the car, knowing its imperfections, and are responsible for taking the imperfections into consideration. This applies to ordinary people driving ordinary cars just as much as it applies to lorry drivers and the deathtraps they throw around.

At the same time we all need to put pressure on manufacturers to improve the vehicles they make, and on governments to improve the road conditions, including by legislating for higher vehicle standards and higher driver training standards.

But in the end people cannot evade their responsibility for the decisions they make, or not, when they drive. Or ride their bikes. 

ConcordeCX wrote:

beezus fufoon wrote:

woah, just look at what you're saying there for a second...

obviously as a passenger you have a different perspective which is not obscured by the front right pillar, and you are also acting as a second set of eyes - obviously, two people looking from different perspectives are going to see more than a single person

you've also seen this happen on several occasions, which confirms that it is entirely feasible - you don't think you've ever done it, but you can't really be 100% sure

and yet you don't even consider the possibility that the design of cars could be improved upon, instead placing 100% on the responsibility on the individual driver who must move their head around the offending pillar in order to check every time on the fairly rare chance that this could happen...

there are so many factors involved here involving road design and car design, and yet you place the onus on the individual who you believe should be jailed, not for any mailcious act, but simply due to incompetence

so the result would be a world where the individual's mistakes woud be punished harshly, but the corporations who are responsible for creating the situations where these mistakes are actually made more likely simply go unchallenged?

personally, I don't see it as desirable to create an environment where such mistakes result in the destruction of lives for either party involved.

the driver is fully and solely responsible. They chose to drive the car, knowing its imperfections, and are responsible for taking the imperfections into consideration. This applies to ordinary people driving ordinary cars just as much as it applies to lorry drivers and the deathtraps they throw around.

At the same time we all need to put pressure on manufacturers to improve the vehicles they make, and on governments to improve the road conditions, including by legislating for higher vehicle standards and higher driver training standards.

But in the end people cannot evade their responsibility for the decisions they make, or not, when they drive. Or ride their bikes. 

isn't that just another version of the CC–PP game?

- manufactures are profiting from advertising cars on their performance and safety for the occupants - they do not, and are in no way obliged to mention the possible risks to those outside the car

you're relying on the idea of individuals being held accountable for some kind of civic responsibility, while the groups that are actually directly responsible for managing public space are not only unaccountable, but actually profiting from this situation.

beezus fufoon wrote:

ChrisB200SX wrote:

...lost a vehicle in a blind spot, certainly not in front of me like in this scenario anyway.

...when I was a passenger and noticed the driver had not checked their blind spot and had not seen a cyclist.

woah, just look at what you're saying there for a second...

obviously as a passenger you have a different perspective which is not obscured by the front right pillar, and you are also acting as a second set of eyes - obviously, two people looking from different perspectives are going to see more than a single person

you've also seen this happen on several occasions, which confirms that it is entirely feasible - you don't think you've ever done it, but you can't really be 100% sure

and yet you don't even consider the possibility that the design of cars could be improved upon, instead placing 100% on the responsibility on the individual driver who must move their head around the offending pillar in order to check every time on the fairly rare chance that this could happen...

there are so many factors involved here involving road design and car design, and yet you place the onus on the individual who you believe should be jailed, not for any mailcious act, but simply due to incompetence

so the result would be a world where the individual's mistakes woud be punished harshly, but the corporations who are responsible for creating the situations where these mistakes are actually made more likely simply go unchallenged?

personally, I don't see it as desirable to create an environment where such mistakes result in the destruction of lives for either party involved.

Are you deliberately misunderstanding what I wrote, or do you have problems with comprehension of text?

It's feasible that cyclists will be lost in the blind spots where drivers have not bothered to check when they obviously should.

The result we are talking about here is a cyclist being killed or injured by a driver that has made a mistake, why should the cyclist be punished if the driver making the mistake doesn't even go to jail for killing someone?

Vehicle or road design might be improved upon (it won't though) but it won't eliminate blind spots and won't make people check them. It's the latter that is the actual cause here, it's not that blind spots are so blarge you physically cannot find a way to see around it.

ChrisB200SX wrote:

Are you deliberately misunderstanding what I wrote, or do you have problems with comprehension of text?

It's feasible that cyclists will be lost in the blind spots where drivers have not bothered to check when they obviously should.

The result we are talking about here is a cyclist being killed or injured by a driver that has made a mistake, why should the cyclist be punished if the driver making the mistake doesn't even go to jail for killing someone?

Vehicle or road design might be improved upon (it won't though) but it won't eliminate blind spots and won't make people check them. It's the latter that is the actual cause here, it's not that blind spots are so blarge you physically cannot find a way to see around it.

As I said the issue that concerns me here is this;

roundabouts and the angle of approach are very often designed to place the pillar of the vehicle directly in the required line of sight 

due to the fact that these pillars are increasing in size, it would seem that narrower vehicles such as bicycles are not being accounted for, and so are more likely to find themselves in that position

your demand for drivers to be jailed will not improve this situation for cyclists

beezus fufoon wrote:

ChrisB200SX wrote:

Are you deliberately misunderstanding what I wrote, or do you have problems with comprehension of text?

It's feasible that cyclists will be lost in the blind spots where drivers have not bothered to check when they obviously should.

The result we are talking about here is a cyclist being killed or injured by a driver that has made a mistake, why should the cyclist be punished if the driver making the mistake doesn't even go to jail for killing someone?

Vehicle or road design might be improved upon (it won't though) but it won't eliminate blind spots and won't make people check them. It's the latter that is the actual cause here, it's not that blind spots are so blarge you physically cannot find a way to see around it.

As I said the issue that concerns me here is this;

roundabouts and the angle of approach are very often designed to place the pillar of the vehicle directly in the required line of sight 

due to the fact that these pillars are increasing in size, it would seem that narrower vehicles such as bicycles are not being accounted for, and so are more likely to find themselves in that position

your demand for drivers to be jailed will not improve this situation for cyclists

In this case, if youre right, a stop line (as opposed to a  give way line) might make roundabouts like this safer, by buying some time for the driver to notice the cyclist.

beezus fufoon wrote:

ChrisB200SX wrote:

In 20 years of driving various types of car that vary in age by 40 years, I don't think I've ever lost a vehicle in a blind spot, certainly not in front of me like in this scenario anyway. I've only really taken up cycling in the last couple of years. So it's probably not the cycling that is making me check my blind spots since I was 17.

However, I have probably saved the lives of a few cyclists over those years when I was a passenger and noticed the driver had not checked their blind spot and had not seen a cyclist. This was horrifying on every occasion, the thought that I was being driven by someone who is paying less attention to their surroundings than their passenger and could easily kill someone. I don't want to be driven by someone like that and I don't want them able to drive (even if they were my girlfriend at the time).

We have far too many people like this on our roads who are ignorant and/or apathetic to the danger they are putting others in and the harm they can do. Killer drivers need to go to jail to set an example to the others and improve their behaviour. Rewarding their bad behaviour by not mailing them is making the situation of incredible poor driving standards worse.

That the judge didn't jail this blind idiot is sickening. The Alliston case really rams it home that drivers can do no wrong and cyclists must pay the heavy price for being in their way.

woah, just look at what you're saying there for a second...

obviously as a passenger you have a different perspective which is not obscured by the front right pillar, and you are also acting as a second set of eyes - obviously, two people looking from different perspectives are going to see more than a single person

you've also seen this happen on several occasions, which confirms that it is entirely feasible - you don't think you've ever done it, but you can't really be 100% sure

and yet you don't even consider the possibility that the design of cars could be improved upon, instead placing 100% on the responsibility on the individual driver who must move their head around the offending pillar in order to check every time on the fairly rare chance that this could happen...

there are so many factors involved here involving road design and car design, and yet you place the onus on the individual who you believe should be jailed, not for any mailcious act, but simply due to incompetence

so the result would be a world where the individual's mistakes woud be punished harshly, but the corporations who are responsible for creating the situations where these mistakes are actually made more likely simply go unchallenged?

personally, I don't see it as desirable to create an environment where such mistakes result in the destruction of lives for either party involved.

While I agree that the design of the vehicles is a factor, and credit to you for raising it as an issue, it's prepostorous to argue that the driver has any less than 100% responsibility for the vehicle they are driving.

Shoulder checks are standard on a motorcycle test (for example) and they are called a life-saver because that is what they are. Vehicles can and do easily fall into your blind spots and as someone has already said a driver should be checking their mirrors and realising that a particular vehicle is missing, and drive accordingly. I doubt that 5% of drivers actually do this, let alone check their blind spot.

As for you, surely you're not so lazy as to actually eschew checking your blind spots? If you actually think it is unreasonable or burdensome to "move your head [...] to check every time" then please get off the fucking roads before you kill someone

Flying Scot wrote:

As a former professional advanced driving instructor, this is bullshit.

A blind spot is only an issue when there is a tiny speed differential, i.e.  The target to be observed is moving at the same speed and ina similar direction to you.

 

Except is isn't. You can be stationary turning left onto a main road angled down the traffic stream direction with a huge door piller blocking your view to the right of traffic cloing any speed whatsover, for example.  Im a retired pilot, and current patrol coxswain and instructor,  and this phemonomon is very well regonised in maritime and aviation, and is dealt with by varying the relative position of the craft to the colliision vector; you can't do that in a stationary car, you have to move your head/body.

The simple point is, you don't drive into a space that you can't see is clear and safe.

Flying Scot wrote:

How the Police AI confirmed that a cycle travelling at right angles to a vehicle can be in a blind spot for more than a millisecond is beyond me. The driver should have looked twice and in that case observed. Its incompetence and over confidence.

This is what I didn't get either - how long is a cyclist on a roundabout really in anyone's blindspot?

Helmut D. Bate wrote:

Flying Scot wrote:

How the Police AI confirmed that a cycle travelling at right angles to a vehicle can be in a blind spot for more than a millisecond is beyond me. The driver should have looked twice and in that case observed. Its incompetence and over confidence.

 

This is what I didn't get either - how long is a cyclist on a roundabout really in anyone's blindspot?

I was driving a volvo - renowned for large pillars and hated by motorcyclists for that reason - towards what looked like an empty roundabout when I noticed my passenger stamping his foot and acting strangely - he finally said "bike" and pointed, not realising that I hadn't seen it...

it did seem a chance in a million that the motorbike was travelling at exactly the speed and direction to remain long enough behind the pillar - and with no passenger that day I dread to think what might've happened.

- now as a cyclist I am very aware of this and make sure I get eye contact, even to the point of changing my position in the lane (basically swerving) to create some sideways movement if I think the driver hasn't seen me.

Helmut D. Bate wrote:

Flying Scot wrote:

How the Police AI confirmed that a cycle travelling at right angles to a vehicle can be in a blind spot for more than a millisecond is beyond me. The driver should have looked twice and in that case observed. Its incompetence and over confidence.

 

This is what I didn't get either - how long is a cyclist on a roundabout really in anyone's blindspot?

it will depend on the angles, distances and the speed of both objects,but it certainly is possible for someone in a car and it may be more of a thing when the car is still moving slowly forward and not stationary,so youve got a match on the intersecting angle, that when you approach at a right angle to be completely lost in the A pillar zone for more than a few seconds which is enough time for a driver to conclude its "safe" enough to pull out, and would no doubt afterwards then claim you appeared from nowhere.

I know when I approach some junctions or roundabouts I wont hug the kerbside for that reason,as  its pointless trying to make eye contact with someone looking through an a pillar because they dont have x-ray eyes,you have to be in the bit of road they are looking at for them to see you.

In my view, an excellent rant. 

Flying Scot wrote:

As a former professional advanced driving instructor, this is bullshit.

A blind spot is only an issue when there is a tiny speed differential, i.e.  The target to be observed is moving at the same speed and ina similar direction to you.

 

Examples being on multi land roads where someone drives close to the side of another vehicle within its wheelbase at the same speed, or in traffic where a cycle or pedestrian is doing the same speed and both are stopped.

 Neither are an excuse for anyone with proper driver training as you should be scanning and noting that a particular vehicle is missing.

 

How the Police AI confirmed that a cycle travelling at right angles to a vehicle can be in a blind spot for more than a millisecond is beyond me. The driver should have looked twice and in that case observed. Its incompetence and over confidence.

I may not have explained this very well, but in essence with a reasonable  speed differential, horizontal blind spots do not exist. (Vertical are another matter, i.e. At the front of HGV's)

 

We need to raise the driving test standard to an advanced level, especially in terms of observation and anticipation, and make a resist mandatory every 5 years, to include a simulator section with hazard perception, road rules and reaction times. The drivers can pay for this and therefore it wont cost any more in tax, unlike actually putting some proper road policing into effect and not relying on the technicalities of speed cameras.

 

The standard of driving is appalling and getting worse, despite my training and accreditation, I no longer give motor vehicles the benefit of the doubt and I no longer avoid idiots at low speed, they can just bloody hit my (OK company) car and take the consequences.

 

End of rant.

embattle wrote:

The Ford Kuga I drive sometimes has a rather annoying large rearview mirror mount, this does cause a slight blind spot when looking left from the drivers position but then you have to adapt like you do on any vehicle.

I getchya, but this dones't work.  Even if you are part of the tiny hyper aware minority who ride bikes, when you are in a rush, the windows steam up, there is a dustraction, yada yada yada, it all goes to pot.  There is no milage in abdicating sensible design responsibility to the user.

Ratfink wrote:

I don't own a car but i drive various vehicles at work and i've got to say the blind spots are getting worse.

Exactly right.  There is no point in blaming the drivers because 1.  Very very few if any set out intending to harm cyclists, and 2.  No matter how much people cry they are incompetent and carless c*unts they still have a licence till, basically, death, so it goes nowhere.

We have commonly for a few quids tech to stop you backing into a bollard in a car park and scratching your paint, but sod all to stop you mowing down a cyclist in an A piller blind spot.  This is neither sensible nor necessary.

BarryBianchi wrote:

Ratfink wrote:

I don't own a car but i drive various vehicles at work and i've got to say the blind spots are getting worse.

Exactly right.  There is no point in blaming the drivers because 1.  Very very few if any set out intending to harm cyclists, and 2.  No matter how much people cry they are incompetent and carless c*unts they still have a licence till, basically, death, so it goes nowhere.

We have commonly for a few quids tech to stop you backing into a bollard in a car park and scratching your paint, but sod all to stop you mowing down a cyclist in an A piller blind spot.  This is neither sensible nor necessary.

Although I agree with you about the engineering, I can think of one good reason to want severe punishment for drivers like this, which is to motivate demand for the tech. Maybe if people see that they might suffer because of the remediable defect in their car, they will demand the remedy. 

oldstrath wrote:

BarryBianchi wrote:

Ratfink wrote:

I don't own a car but i drive various vehicles at work and i've got to say the blind spots are getting worse.

Exactly right.  There is no point in blaming the drivers because 1.  Very very few if any set out intending to harm cyclists, and 2.  No matter how much people cry they are incompetent and carless c*unts they still have a licence till, basically, death, so it goes nowhere.

We have commonly for a few quids tech to stop you backing into a bollard in a car park and scratching your paint, but sod all to stop you mowing down a cyclist in an A piller blind spot.  This is neither sensible nor necessary.

Although I agree with you about the engineering, I can think of one good reason to want severe punishment for drivers like this, which is to motivate demand for the tech. Maybe if people see that they might suffer because of the remediable defect in their car, they will demand the remedy. 

... or buy cars with less chance of them doing time.