- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Tubeless valves
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
news
Justice (Lonpicman, Wikimedia Commons)Driver who killed cyclist said she didn’t see him due to car’s large blind spot
A Berwick motorist who was involved in a fatal collision with a cyclist has been handed a 12-month community order and an 18-month driving ban after being convicted of causing death by careless driving at Newcastle Crown Court. Anne Lyst said she didn’t see George Eyre when entering a roundabout due to a particularly big blind spot on her Vauxhall Zafira.
Chronicle Live reports that on May 25 last year, Lyst left work in Berwick shortly before 5pm. On her way home she entered a roundabout junction on the A1167 Northumberland Road, at the entrance to the Swan Leisure Centre, and hit 62-year-old Eyre, who was riding a power assisted bike.
Eyre suffered fatal head injuries.
The court heard that Eyre was in Lyst’s blind spot, which she said was particularly big on her Vauxhall Zafira.
Judge Tim Gittins said that it was a driver’s responsibility to mitigate for the effects of a blind spot.
“He had lawfully entered that roundabout and was making his way across it in an entirely lawful manner.
“What transpired on examination of the scene was that it was likely he was or had been entirely in or partly within the blind spot created by the right side of your windscreen for the entirety of his journey across the roundabout.
“Anyone who considered the evidence in this case in relation to the size of the blind spot may have been alarmed at the potential masking effect. But as the jury found, something being in your blind spot is no defence to careless driving. It remains your responsibility to mitigate its effect and what you did, if anything, was insufficient.”
Duncan Dollimore, Cycling UK's Head of Campaigns commented:
“The misleading headline in the Chronicle suggests that the car’s blind spot was to blame, with no responsibility falling on the pillar of the community behind the wheel. Given that the jury convicted Mrs Lyst, it’s clear they didn’t accept that a failure to see was a valid defence.
“If your car has a blind spot it’s your responsibility to take extra care, and mitigate the effect. Rather than reporting that Mrs Lyst was convicted due to a large blind spot, perhaps it would have been more accurate, and more responsible, to report that she was convicted because she didn’t do enough to mitigate the effect of the blind spot. ”
Alex has written for more cricket publications than the rest of the road.cc team combined. Despite the apparent evidence of this picture, he doesn't especially like cake.
Latest Comments
- Mr Blackbird 33 min 56 sec ago
I agree. The officials probably earn a pittance or just get paid expenses. They do what they do for love of the sport. Without them the sport would...
- Bungle_52 38 min 4 sec ago
Just found this government petition on CUK forum. It's a petition for presumed liability. Not a panacea but a step towards getting the law to match...
- ubercurmudgeon 2 sec ago
Those rainbow bands look more like plaid at that speed.
- Hirsute 1 hour 51 min ago
Oxford from Emily Kerr "Anyone know anything about the THIRD major smash up on Iffley Rd in my ward in a year? "
- Miller 3 hours 7 min ago
It may not be as bad as made out but it's not great. In fact it is frustrating because bits of it are actually quite good but it repeatedly does...
- bensynnock 3 hours 51 min ago
There also seems a constant requirement for public consultation about every change to three roads, but I don't remember there being any...
- Bigtwin 3 hours 51 min ago
It's sad to see the likes of Milla under threat of disappearance, but the bike indrustry needs to sort itself out. Selling bikes that cost more...
- lerrup 6 hours 27 min ago
This is correct, if we're going to invest in the criminal justice system we should do so on catching people and processing them through the system...
- Surreyrider 6 hours 33 min ago
I think the frames are open mould so there will be others exactly like it around the world decked out as another brand. I saw a few comments on...
Add new comment
54 comments
Or more precisely, perhaps, not fit for the driver?
Blinded by the sun, blinded by lights and now blinded by your car. What next?
Blinded by love?
according to the priests at my prep school it’s self-love that causes blindness.
I assume we'll be seeing a removal of all those twattish stickers that trucks and vans have that victim blame cyclists for leagally filtering on the inside. Good on ya Tim!
If normal drivers can't really be expected to make the necessary adjustments to see in cars like this, they should be removed from the road, or need a special category of license to drive with training to overcome these hideous blind spots.
Or the judge is a helmet and hasn't punished the lack of "responsibility to mitigate its effect" properly.
What we now need to see is the family commencing an action against Vauxhall for a product that is clearly dangerous to those outside of it, irrespective of what the law states is a proficient amount of visibility. Similar actions I believe have been taken in the US where an individual has been killed or seriously injured by a product. How realistic it actually is I have no idea but I do know that cash talks, no amount of arguing with a disinterested government will get us anywhere, start suing however and things do change very quickly.
their are legal requirements for exterior vision. Vision is only going to get worse i'm afraid with the advent of electric cars in the short term at least. The increase in weight over an ICE car in a rollover means more structure in the pillars. Material science can only offset a little. Also the additional mass will likely damage roads more. On the bright side your lungs will be happier.
I think we need to help drivers with car defects. Anyone involved in an RTA whose defence is that their car is built with such basic design faults then said vehicle should be removed from the road and destroyed. They can then buy a more suitable vehicle.
Careless driving/driving without due care and attention is practically universal these days so it is virtually impossible to persuade a jury, most or all of whom drive themselves, to convict someone of anything more than minor carelessness on the basis of behaviour which they regard as normal.
Seems an odd intervention for the police to make, compare with the kid on a track bike whose lack of remorse went massively against him in sentencing. Though in my experience Northumbria Police don't care about cyclist lives so not so odd perhaps.
I think you actually mean lack of visible, conventionally displayed, remorse. Our judges seen incapable of recognising that remorse can easily be faked by someone who cares little, and conversely that some who care deeply cannot express that caring ''normally'.
That's a fair point, should have qualified it as "perceived lack of remorse" or some such.
I'm sure there's a good reason....
But why is killing someone because your car stopped you seeing them less worthy of 18 months in prison, interviews on every significant media outlet with a grieving relative and instant knee jerking from Jesse the clown than killing someone by failing to brake on a fixie?
And to think, she could have moved her fat lazy head and a human being would still be alive.
I think that putting the grieving family through the trial by not having the decency to plead guilty, and blaming deficiencies on the vehicle that she had chosen to drive rather than inadequecies in her driving abilities shows a lack of remorse.
Sympathy for the family, my arse!
Some cars do have really bad blind spots and I remember reading how some Vauxhall models do score poorly in this respect. Our Ford isn't great, but isn't the worst. New cars do have much thicker roof pillars. I was struck by this when driving a classic Porsche we'd rented some years back as its field of view was incredibly good.
But this shouldn't detract from the fact the drivers have a responsibility when they get behind the wheel. If they can't see, they should slow down and keep looking all around. I'm sure all of us who also commute on two wheels are all too well aware of the poor use of mirrors of far too many drivers for instance.
I have noticed these blind spots on my last two vehicles. I suspect - but do not know - that it has helped increase the safety inside the vehicle at the expense of visibility. That does not excuse the accused or the sentence.
Also noticed how much poorer indicators are, often cannot see them. A lot of drivers see them as optional these days however.
Not being a driver, I have no idea how new this is, but dark-tinted glass (often so dark nobody outside can see anything inside) seems to be extremely common on car windows now*. That can't improve visibility in the other direction, surely?
All of this makes me wonder why some are so sure that self-driving cars - designed and programmed by the same people who design these vehicles - will attach great priority to the safety and wellbeing of those outside the vehicle.
* excluding the windscreen, obviously.
The Law - "Under regulations first issued 20 years ago and clarified three years ago, the windscreen must allow in at least 75 per cent of light while at least 70 per cent must pass through the driver's side windows"
The tinting on the windows should make no difference to your visability in seeing out of the car. So while you and I can't see in, if you are in the car you can see out clearly. The only time you may have a problem if they are added later on, like some people use to do. Also most windscreens on cars have slight tint to them and have done from the 90s.
Window tinting, by definition, reduces the amount of light passing through the glass in either direction. The less light, the less you can see. Simple.
However, the law allows a prescribed reduction in the light transmission capacity of car windows, presumably to reduce glare on bright days. Some police cars carry a meter that measures the reduction and exceeding it is an offence.
I have dark tinted windows on my estate, funnily enough so people cant easily see into the back and see my bike!, anyway the windows are legal and the view is clearer inside out than it is outside in.
All cars have blind spots (some worse than others), but I dont pull out or join the motorway without physically checking behind me so overall there's no mitigation or excusing this....boils down to not being arsed or caring about this cyclist.
Ever been in an Evoke? It's as if it's designed to kill and injure people you can't see. How on earth are manufactuers allowed to make such patently idiotic vehicles?
She was tried after entering a plea, presumably not guilty, in order for the trial to go ahead. So no admission of responsibility - blaming it on the car, rather than her actions in manouvering it. So why only an 18 month ban?
The standard of driving in this country is appalingly low and sentences like that show a tolerance of it.
Pages