Cyclist found guilty of riding carelessly in crash which killed motorcyclist

Which ones?  I'm not seeing shameful victim-blaming.

Many people have pointed out this is a tragedy all round.  I personally disagree with those on here who have mentioned "contributary negligence" (depending on how defined - I'm not a lawyer).  My own take is that on information here the cyclist was at fault for the collision as they appear to have had enough time to assess if they should have proceeded (I've not read the trial transcripts).  So the courts had that right.

There does seem to have been an unchallenged mistake by the prosecution in mentioning speeds.  You could question that.  The motorcyclist's speeding very likely had an impact on the severity of the outcome.  I think questioning how that affects the penalty is fair.  It's not a "but they weren't wearing hi-vis / a helmet" or "they were seen undertaking 3 minutes before" - certainly victim-blaming.  Or even "they were on a stolen vehicle" (not the case I hasten to add) - it's a positive choice someone made to do something illegal which is almost certainly a direct factor in the severity of the outcome and may have contributed to them not being able to avoid the cyclist after their mistake.

Or are you privy to information not aired here already e.g. that the cyclist deliberately set out to cause the crash, or was doing something illegal, or managed to accellerate to 30mph and hit the motorcyclist from the side?

I might agree if it weren't for the fact that any objective and pragmatic look at the countless "NMOTD" posts, suggesting any portion of fault to the cyclist elicits a tirade if accusations of victim blaming and being a troll.

Adam Sutton wrote:

I might agree if it weren't for the fact that any objective and pragmatic look at the countless "NMOTD" posts, suggesting any portion of fault to the cyclist elicits a tirade if accusations of victim blaming and being a troll.

The NMOTD posts are mostly selected by the cyclists themselves and are instances of poor driving, so why are you expecting that the videos would show the cyclists to be primarily at fault?

Do you have any particular example of an accusation of victim blaming that you believe to be incorrect?

hawkinspeter wrote:

The NMOTD posts are mostly selected by the cyclists themselves and are instances of poor driving, so why are you expecting that the videos would show the cyclists to be primarily at fault?

Do you have any particular example of an accusation of victim blaming that you believe to be incorrect?

I haven't said there is an expectance of videos showing cyclists at fault, as stated it is about being objective and looking at the whole scenario. I gave up paying attention to them after having the temerity myself (after being clear that the driver was in the wrong) to mention that the cyclist in questions road positioning didn't help matters. 

I expect it depends on the NMOTD. Alot will blame a cyclist for being too far out or too far in or too fast or too slow or not wearing a helmet or...... None are breaking any laws of the road and does appear to be blaming the cyclist when driver is the one pulling the illegal manouvre.  We still have comments of "wouldn't have filtered there" or "cyclist should have been aware of the gap left for right turning vehicles" which are normally fair. 

In this case, the cyclists actions caused the death of another road user, and seriously injured himself because he appeared to lemming across following the lorry. This is not in dispute. However the motorcyclist, as admitted in court by the prosecution, was going at least 33% faster then legally allowed on that road, in the dark. We all know speed kills, so the speculation is "if the motorbike had been going legal speeds, would the incident have still happened, and would they have died?" I don't know any NMOTD where the cyclist obviously breaks road laws as well as the driver, but if there were, and the cyclist was being exonerated by commenters and others being jumped on for "dissenting", then you would have a comparable point. 

It would have been interesting if the cyclist had actual professional legal counsel, what the outcome might have been.

I do try and make a comment on what could have been done better but 95% of them there is not a lot.

The only one I can recall where it was the cyclist's fault was one where they came off the main road round a blind bend and complained about someone doing a three point turn.

As it always said, you should be able to stop within the distance you can see to be clear, as the three point turn could as easily have been someone waiting to turn right.

Hmm... well I can't claim that I'd agree with every single post I've ever read here criticising a motorist.  And of course we're all more sensitive to injuries to us (or people we identify with).  There certainly are one or more regular individuals here who're all about trying to wind up the whole room and get a reaction.  Plus "internet" so people type first and consider later.

However your claim was about this particular case and victim blaming.  So I was responding to that claim - asking about examples for this particular case.

If you want to drop that and widen this to a general "taking the side of the cyclist not other road users..." it might be fairer to ask if you switched the roles in this case would that generate the same questions and degree of concern? This gets difficult though as it's unlikely a cyclist would be doing nearly 50mph.

I guess it's what you're "looking for" - I've missed / misread some things here because of my preconceptions.  However there certainly are some people who have questioned the details of the cyclist's actions in some NMOTD articles and they're not accused of trolling.  In fact IIRC that is not uncommon.

Adam Sutton wrote:

I guess victim blaming is only a bad thing when directed at cyclists. F*** me these comments are shameful.

Really? Take away the outcome and look at the bare bones of the case: a cyclist making a right turn at a crossroads on a green light was hit by a motorcyclist doing at least 47 mph in a 30 mph zone in the dark. Given those facts, which seem to be undisputed, I don't see how you can say that attributing at least part of the blame for the incident to the motorcyclist could be described as victim blaming.

Hear, hear. As someone on the receiving end of a similar collision (me motorbike, them car), but without me speeding, everyone (including Avon and Somerset police) passed it off as an 'accident'.

I don't understand why the car driver in my collision was not 'careless' but this cyclist was. It's it because I only could have died? The outcome should have nothing to do with it, when looking at RTA 1988.

Re: 47mph. 150 metres and 7 seconds. It would be interesting where they got those figures from. However, I noticed the title picture and the road the motorbike is coming from is downhill with a crest of the hill. A quick measurement shows the hill is about 150 metres away. So they have taken that as the length. Now the 7 seconds, I'm guessing is the time he appeared on the camera of the truck until the time of the accident. 

If the lorry was the vehicle being followed by the cyclist, it does seem disingenous to state he had such a clear view, although doesn't excuse the cyclist at all. However if they took the 7 seconds from when the lorry turned and the cyclist could see, to when the incident occurred.... (however the speed wouldn't corroborate with the the prosecutions claims then). But might not have been that high is what I'm stating.

Main point really is probably best to go on the legally stated "above 40mph" then "47mph" when disussing this. It still is above the speed limit so is relevant in the discussions, but doesn't start to stray into Martin/Rakia area of "facts" when we have no idea on that.

I see what you're saying but it's still logical, isn't it, to assume from the figures stated by the prosecution that the motorcyclist would have been visible to the cyclist from 150 metres away for seven seconds that he was travelling at a speed that enabled him to cover the 150 m in seven seconds, i.e. 47 mph? But even if you take the prosecution's admission of 40 mph it surely still has to be regarded as a contributory factor. It would be interesting to see where the prosecution got their 40 mph figure from, if accident investigators determined that the motorcyclist was travelling at 40 mph at the time of collision then it would be a reasonable assumption that they were travelling faster on the approach.

Just glanced at the Bournemouth Echo report which rather than stating (as it does here) the prosecution said the motorcyclist was travelling at 40 mph says the prosecution said he was travelling "in the region of 40mph". If nothing else this case, as discussed elsewhere, shows the importance of securing legal representation when accused which the defendant doesn't appear to have done; any decent defence brief would have immediately been asking what "in the region of" meant and where the figure came from.

The prosecution stated that they would have been visible, but that still leaves a raft of questions. For example, what sort of headlight did the motorbike have, was this a modern bright one or an old yellow one? A single light in the dark is harder to judge - which actually argues for more caution from the cyclist - but a quick glance, notes light is far away, and with a shrug of the shoulder swings across road. It seems that the cyclist did see the motorcylist and unfortunately dismissed the rider as not being a threat - though I would guess the cyclist does not really know what happened from his phrasing. In that context, excessive speed would be a factor, and should have been taken into account. As others have said, lack of representation is a problem, and even having a friend in court could have helped. 

well the calculations cant be based on 30mph as that would be 13.4 metres per second, which would give you roughly 11 seconds over 150metres, assuming they measured the distance accurately.

and I think theyve taken the timeframe from the videos off a lorry they reference.

why it doesnt get highlighted that the prosecution are actually proving the motorcyclist was travelling at a much higher excessive speed in their evidence if the court are prepared to do the maths, or the prosecution went as far as to say the speeding could not be used as a defence, is a mystery.

but I think the point at which the cyclist moves into the collision path of the motorbike might be the crucial point, if you moved at the last couple of seconds into its way when its only metres away, then thats very different to moving whilst its still 150m away, regardless of the speed its travelling at.

Jay_Bee wrote:

Something seriously wrong with the design of that junction if both the cyclist and motorcyclist could have proceeded through green lights. A massive rethink in design is needed there.

They were travelling along the same road in different directions and it was only due to the cyclist attempting to turn right at that junction that they collided.

With respect, I would add that the motorcyclist by exceeding the speed limit by 33% was also a contributory factor in the accident. However, this does not gainsay my original point that a junction which permits road users travelling in potentially conflicting directions to both pass green lights is poorly designed.

Whilst you may have a point there are many many examples of this and its essentialy no different to a standard right turn across oncoming traffic.  Plus the cyclist was a local so no excuses there. 

Perhaps this tragic incident will prompt the local council to make it filter on green?

Jay_Bee wrote:

With respect, I would add that the motorcyclist by exceeding the speed limit by 33% was also a contributory factor in the accident. However, this does not gainsay my original point that a junction which permits road users travelling in potentially conflicting directions to both pass green lights is poorly designed.

I'd agree that the speed should have been a factor.

As far as I'm aware, just about any light controlled junction allows traffic to pass green lights and come into conflict by turning (maybe not roundabouts though). For a typical cross-roads junction to avoid that, it would require the traffic lights to have at least four phases - one for each direction. Having just two phases allows more traffic flow, but does mean that turning traffic has to wait for a suitable gap.

Might be a poor design, but I would estimate that 90% of them are like that in the UK so anything different is the exception and not the rule.

The ones I hate and are definitely a bad design are the when the lights initially change to green for both paralell directions, then change to red for one direction, but stay green for the other. I'm waiting to turn right, see my lights start changing to red so would automatically think the same for the other direction and start moving. There are no warnings when approaching these lights that the other direction stays green for longer. 

Indeed.  Isn't there some fundamental difference in how standard phasing works at signalised junctions works in the UK vs. NL?  I think the general idea is that phases work to ensure better if not full protection.  I'm not just talking about "advanced green for cyclists" / "leading pedestrian intervals".  Example:

https://beyondtheautomobile.com/2020/08/11/signals-for-change/

In the UK if you can see a green then unless there are split signals for particular lanes / directions it's GO! so you can go straight, turn left, turn right etc.  At a 4-way the opposite direction can do the same.  So there will absolutely be crossing traffic.

In a "full Dutch" treatment of course some directions are "protected" by default e.g. you can very often make a right turn (they drive on the right and normally single-direction cycle paths are in the same direction) when cycling (or walking) without waiting for the lights at all as you don't cross the path of motor vehicles.

Clearly nonsensical to state that a junction which permits road users travelling in potentially conflicting directions to both pass green lights is poorly designed; most road junctions I use with light controls allows drivers going in both directions to turn on green when safe; in my area, only major multi-lane intersections have dedicated turn arrow controls.

Secret_squirrel wrote:

This feels like box ticking because someone died rather than justice.  It doesnt say how life changing the cyclists injuries are but I'm pretty sure a fine of 2.5k would hurt most people who are carrying a life changing injury - possibly more than jail time would have.

As for the mother's comments?  I would have been biting my tongue. I fail to see how the speed couldn't have been a contributing factor.    At 30mph the rider would have had 3 more seconds to take evasive action (8s vs 11s)

It doesnt mention the defense lawyer either.  I wonder if they were a bit shit tbh.  Though dont forget the full fine is part of the "punishment" for not pleading guilty earlier.

I feel conflicted over this. The fine does seem fairly high for what would appear to be a simple mistake, but then again it did cause the loss of someone's life. Also, I would consider that there's about zero chance that the cyclist would ever make a similar mistake again, so the high fine is hardly going to act as a deterrent.