HGV driver sentenced after killing cyclist on roundabout

FFS. I can't condone drink-driving even on an e-scooter, but a 17 month ban seems ridiculous given the (low) potential to harm, even before we start considering the often shorter bans handed out to people who actually kill or maim will driving cars/vans/lorries.

Velophaart_95 wrote:

The driver 'assumed' - really?? If so, then they shouldn't be driving - and there are lots out there similar. Assume is no good, they need to be 100% sure.

I never assume a driver has seen me at roundabouts/junctions - I want to know they defintely have seen me - this isn't possible, so I cross these junctions on foot, and mount after the junction when it is safe. Not ideal but better than hoping I've been seen.

exactly, it was that unsupported assumption that lead to the victim's violent death. It's not a mitigation.

About time that overtaking on a roundabout was classed as an offence in itself

Indeed even if the cyclist had taken the same exit there is the real possibility that the trainer taking a straighter line than either cab or cyclist will impact the cyclist.

This is why i can't believe those cycle lanes painted round the outside of roundabouts, which will lead drivers to assume the cyclist is taking the next exit, due too their position on the left. 

He was so remoresful that he instructed or allowed his defence lawyer to argue that this was simple a momemtary lapse of concentration. The implication being that it couldn't really be helped.

At least the court rejected this argument.

At least the court rejected this argument

You're a generous man! The court may have overtly rejected it, but kept it in mind as a backup dodge to justify the joke punishment.

I've mentioned with the jury in Dangerous driving cases is that they come into the court rooms with certain views 

-Cycling is Dangerous on the roads.
-Cyclists go through red lights and don't follow the rules of the road. 
-As a driver, I sometimes speed or cross doube whites (or do some other manouvre) so it can't be that dangerous. 

So with those views entrenched, the first two means hard to get results in favour of cyclist victims and the third means hard to get results in favour of any victims of dangerous driving. 
 

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

I've mentioned with the jury in Dangerous driving cases is that they come into the court rooms with certain views 

-Cycling is Dangerous on the roads.
-Cyclists go through red lights and don't follow the rules of the road. 
-As a driver, I sometimes speed or cross doube whites (or do some other manouvre) so it can't be that dangerous. 

So with those views entrenched, the first two means hard to get results in favour of cyclist victims and the third means hard to get results in favour of any victims of dangerous driving.

Which is exactly why the law needs to be changed so that dangerous driving is clearly defined, one definition being that someone was killed/injured as a result.  The law as it stands is clearly not fit for purpose, and dangerous drivers are being acquitted when they kill/injure cyclists.

eburtthebike wrote:

AlsoSomniloquism wrote:

I've mentioned with the jury in Dangerous driving cases is that they come into the court rooms with certain views 

-Cycling is Dangerous on the roads.
-Cyclists go through red lights and don't follow the rules of the road. 
-As a driver, I sometimes speed or cross doube whites (or do some other manouvre) so it can't be that dangerous. 

So with those views entrenched, the first two means hard to get results in favour of cyclist victims and the third means hard to get results in favour of any victims of dangerous driving.

Which is exactly why the law needs to be changed so that dangerous driving is clearly defined, one definition being that someone was killed/injured as a result.  The law as it stands is clearly not fit for purpose, and dangerous drivers are being acquitted when they kill/injure cyclists.

or judged by experts, but I doubt they ccould try all driving cases in front of juries of driving test examiners.

Selected a just of 12 random drivers, some of whjom will be poor and expecting 10 of them to agree the standard of driving was far below their own actions is nonsense

And that's the thing that I really can't understand about the case, the driver admitted that he thought the cyclist was taking the same exit as him on the roundabout but still decided to overtake on the roundabout?  That is not careless IMHO it is premeditated and by definition dangerous.  It is basically, I must get in front of the cyclists at all costs even if it means overtaking on a roundabout.

I cannot for the life of me fathom how the jury at the dangerous driving trial found him not guilty of dangerous driving..... other than the facts stated by AlsoSomniloquism in relation to the jurors.  I just wonder had it been the same circumstances but the death of another motorist whether the outcome would have been different in the dangerous driving case.

There are however a couple of things that don't make sense to me about the case in general.

The News and Star state that the victim was taking the third exit onto Cargo Road, which means they were coming over the railway bridge, and turning right so would have been in the right hand lane at the roundabout.

The roundabout itself is plenty wide enough for 2 vehicles to get round the roundabout side by side (even a car taking the third exit and a lorry taking the 2nd exit onto the A689).  So assuming the victim was in the right hand lane the ONLY way for them to come into contact with the lorry would be if the lorry decided to straight line the roundabout.

At that roundabout straight lining is a pretty common occurance as it allows cars to carry a bit more speed through the roundabout.

The only other way I can see the two ever coming into contact is if the cyclist was in the left hand lane, and was trying to navigate round the roundabout on the outside of the 2 lanes, and the lorry driver decided that the road was wide enough for him to pass on the roundabout, and that the exit was wide enough for him to leave the victim sufficient space had they not completed the overtake by the exit of the roundabout.

In that case the victim would have been continuing to travel round the outer edge of the roundabout as the lorry cut across their path resulting in the tragedy.

On a purely hypothetical note if it was the latter of the 2 situations this might explain the sentence being so lenient and also the lack of a dangerous driving conviction, on the basis that had the victim been in the right hand lane then the entire situation could have been avoided but this however does fail to take into account rule 187 of the highway code which states "In all cases watch out for and give plenty of room to ........cyclists and horse riders who may stay in the left-hand lane and signal right if they intend to continue round the roundabout. Allow them to do so"

The Beeb reported the cyclist joined in the left lane looking to take the 3rd exit, whilst the lorry joined behind was taking the 2nd https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cumbria-57685554 apparently there was dashcam footage available
as well https://cumbriacrack.com/2021/07/01/hgv-driver-sentenced-after-his-carel...

I simply dont think a jury would convict on dangerous driving with the cyclist joining in the left lane but turning right.

My condolences are to the family/friends of the cyclist killed who are impacted by this.

Watching the channel UK Dash Cameras on youtube, at least half the entries every week would be people treating roundabouts as extensions of whatever road they left from and overtaking / cars and vehicles assuming a direction of travel. So yes, it wouldn't be a Dangerous Driving Conviction based on a jury verdict as people pull that same manouvre regularly so don't want to set a precedent in case they are in the dock at some point. 

Awavey wrote:

I simply dont think a jury would convict on dangerous driving with the cyclist joining in the left lane but turning right.

I think you are right - whilst techincally legal and actually advised in the HWC, it's not something I've ever done or encountered out on the roads. I'm willing to bet the vast majority of motorists are unaware of this rule.

HoarseMann wrote:

Awavey wrote:

I simply dont think a jury would convict on dangerous driving with the cyclist joining in the left lane but turning right.

I think you are right - whilst techincally legal and actually advised in the HWC, it's not something I've ever done or encountered out on the roads. I'm willing to bet the vast majority of motorists are unaware of this rule.

Not soemthing I particularly do, I have been given abuse from a driver for taking the correct lane rather than the left turn only one which he then "had" to use in order to undertake me

The problem with the sentence is rarely with the judge, but with the sentencing guidelines.  The maximum sentence can only be applied if there were aggravating factors, no mitigating factors, and no guilty plea. That said, 12 weeks does seem very low - but we don't know the evidence presented.

Again, the DQ is barely above the 12mo minimum but there are guidelines around that also.

There's no point sentencing far above the starting/minimum points only to have it reduced on appeal as we've seen so many times before.  The issue is that driving offences aren't taken as seriously by legislators and so to the sentencing council, (seemingly) because there is a perceived inalienable right to drive.

Not just the Judge though. 12 (or at least 9 I think for majority) members of the public decided that "assuming" the direction of someone so I will drive 12 tonnes of trailer that way and hope I'm right is not Dangerous driving for a professional driver. 

Look at any sentencing guidelines and "Showing Remorse" is one of the reasons used for mitigation on sentences. 

I understand that in the case of intentional homicide, where remorse indicates that you have altered your position. But you'd have to have a diagnosable psychopathy not to feel remorse if you take someone's life unintentionally, especially as cheaply as this. It is just the normal, automatic, human response. So why does it count towards leniency?

I don't disagree that unless you are psychopathic, you should show remorse. I think it is one of those gimme in most cases although you do get some where lack of it being used against people because of their social media posts straight afterwards like Aliston. 

If it's a given that people show remorse, maybe they should alter the law so showing remorse gets you the usual tariff. Whether it's genuinely felt or they've advised to show it by their defence, it really takes something not to show any. Change the emphasis to where the judge has the discretion to add years for not showing remorse. There could be other actions that a defendent could take that might lead to lenience of course but maybe not the automatic human response of remorse.

Starting point & range for a not guilty plea for CD is community order for "momentary inattention with no aggravating factors". This was obviously above that since he ended up with a custodial. So the starting point (if it was felt that it did not "fall short of dangerous driving") is 36wks. 

Aggravating factors push it up, mitigating factors pull it down; the range is community order to 2yrs.  After that, there's the automatic 1/3 discount for the guilty plea.

As for remorse: "Remorse is identified as personal mitigation in the Council guideline and the Council can see no reason for it to be treated differently for this group of offences. It is for the court to determine whether an expression of remorse is genuine; where it is, this should be taken into account as personal mitigation."

So yes - it's almost certainly one reason for the short sentence.