Driver handed suspended sentence for cutting across and killing cyclist claimed he was “blinded by the sun” before fatal crash – despite motorist behind saying she spotted victim

Highway Code Rule 0:

"(a) Don't drive like a tw@t; and (b) do everything you can not to kill any other road user!"

Thankfully for me, when I was hit by a driver 'blinded by the sun' I was only knocked into the verge (which was thankfully soft) but the police accepted her excuse, that the sun was in her eyes and she'd forgot her sun glasses.  She gave me the excuse first and I just about exploded but kept it to the highway code (aka common sence) 'dazzled by bright sunlight, slow down and if necessary, stop' :-\

Indeed, and problem is "was visible" is pragmatically judged by "if they were not seen, they were not visible" ... ah, I think we've found the nub.

Unfortunately in reality a) cyclists may be harder to see than cars because visually smaller / often slower-moving, but most importantly b) as drivers we *train ourselves to pay attention to the other motor vehicles*. Most places people mostly see other motor vehicles on the roads, not cyclists, so even a careful driver will mostly get reinforcement on one type of pattern.

What about pedestrians? I think we're primed to check in *certain environments* / locations.

Conclusion is that the way to safety is ... exactly how places (and county) with mass cycling do it - avoid any interaction between drivers and cyclists in high speed limit environments, and install very consistent infra at junction points. Then the frequency of encounters with cyclists (and fact that drivers are likely to cycle themselves) should help keep their observation skills.

Sriracha wrote:

The judge said of the cyclist, "He should have been visible." The implication of this comment is that the judge accepts that the cyclist was somehow not visible. This is the problem, the judge accepts that the cyclist was invisible to the motorist, and so ... suspended sentence.

That's also annoying as it is using "visibility" as a passive property of the cyclist when it's far more to do with the active "looking" of the driver. If you don't look properly, then you're not going to see a cyclist.

Sriracha wrote:

The judge said of the cyclist, "He should have been visible." The implication of this comment is that the judge accepts that the cyclist was somehow not visible. This is the problem, the judge accepts that the cyclist was invisible to the motorist, and so ... suspended sentence.

I think that's sloppy language, is the judge not suggesting there is no reason for the driver not to have been able to see the cyclist? Rather than saying I agree the cyclist was not visible, can't understand why it's baffling.

It's really strange how some people still have their privacy settings set so that any random stranger can see anything they've posted, or even like / comment on said posts

His profile picture says "staying home, saving lives".

If only he had stayed at home. Not fit to be let out. 

bikes wrote:

How can we get lifetime driving bans to be introduced into the law?

Spend more money on politicians than the oil and motor industries do

Sad but mostly true - it's about influence, and "concentrations of money" are important there. Cycling? Tends to the "cheap compared to other modes" and "distributed".

I think those are virtues (also "positive health benefits and lower potential for harm") and we can set up systems which reinforce their value ... but from where we are now that doesn't happen spontaneously. Until the fuel / power runs out / permanent gridlock. Or far more people - ideally children - are being killed. And looking at the US at the start of the previous century even that can be spun around to blame the victims...

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2022-06-14/citylab-daily-how-...

I suppose just getting the laws we do have enforced would be a start. It seems you can drive appallingly and even the ridiculously short bans we have are almost never handed out.

Not just that but the inconsistency across forces.

West Yorks Police manage to deal with over 70% of Op Snap reports through courses, fixed penalties or courts.

Essex Police is just over 30% for July 2024 (In July 2023 60% of reports by cyclists resulted in a notice of intended prosecution).

I'm trying to remember where I read about suggestions for improvements to the Op Snap submission system. It included the option for users to have an account, speeding up multiple submissions and giving the opportunity to track what's happening with them. 

In addition to that, there either needs to be better and more uniform training for those who review the videos, or the initial screening (at least) needs to be handled by a central service that doesn't just understand the rules, but also has adequate sympathy for victims, especially when it comes to near misses. 

I think most of us understand that to take forward a prosecution there needs to be a certain level of evidence, so more thought given to how to best deal with situations where it's borderline or looks bad, but there's not quite enough to justify prosecution would be helpful. I'm OK with warning letters in those circumstances, but warning letters need to be considered in the event of a future complaint. Where evidence is ambiguous, constructive feedback on what would make a future submission less ambiguous should be provided.

I agree with the idea of being able to create an account.  It's surprising how much time can be wasted re-entering the same information over and over again when you are reporting multiple incidents.  I've had times when I've reported six drivers in one day, that's an hour of my time filling in the online form alone before I talk about editing the video ready for submission.

I also think there should be just one portal for all police forces.  That way there's no need for an individual to have to figure out what force they should be contacting if they are not in the area in which they live, which can easily be a problem if you're driving.  And, from personal experience, I've become aware that the portal for the Lancashire Police is very different to the one used by Greater Manchester Police.  Whilst, the Greater Manchester Police portal is almost the same as the one used by London's Metropolitan Police.  I find that really odd considering we're supposed to live in the same country!

How I edit the videos for the GMP is also different to how I edit for the Lancashire Police.  I've had to learn what each of these two forces like and dislike in the submissions I make.

I've become aware that the portal for the Lancashire Police is very different to the one used by Greater Manchester Police

The portal for Lancashire Constabulary is just the bin. Show us a case where it can be confirmed that they took genuine action over an offence against you when you were cycling!

We have to accept that some people don't have the disposition / attention span / temperament to be a safe driver. If anyone is serious about vision zero then they should not hold a license.

Hold up a few motorists on the M25.

NotNigel wrote:

Hold up a few motorists on the M25.

Or just plan on holding up a few motorists on the M25

Commiserations to Mr Newman`s family. The thing is crime has been 'legalised' in the UK. The criminal justice system has been, deliberately, run into the ground ; along with every other publicly funded body. That said, 13 convictions later, maybe, even though our prisons are full, it's time for a bit of porridge.
I used to be a keen cyclist but don't go out anymore : potholes, close passes, lack of police action, the desire to stay alive, the wish not to have my wife on edge.