Another dodges justice

The driver of an Argos delivery lorry who said he was unable to pull over or slow down before he struck and killed a cyclist near Stockton-on-Tees in May last year - an assertion challenged by the prosecution - has been given a six month prison sentence, suspended for two and a half years.

Joseph Reed, aged 50 and from Willington, County Durham, had pleaded guilty at Teeside Crown Court to causing the death by careless driving of 61-year-old father of four Sean Ruff on the evening of 21 May 2013, reports the Northern Echo.

Mr Ruff, who worked as a finance director for demolition specialists Able UK, had been making his usual post-work bike ride before driving home to Cleadon, South Tyneside, when he was struck from behind by Reed’s lorry.

The court was told that he suffered multiple injuries and that death would have been almost instantaneous.

Christine Egerton, speaking for the prosecution, said that the victim would have been visible to the driver for a minimum of 9 seconds and a distance of 227 metres prior to the collision at 6.20pm on the A66 at Elton, near Stockton-on-Tees.

She said: "Witnesses said he did not brake or deviate, even after the collision. Some witnesses feared he was not going to stop, although he did do so.

“An accident reconstruction found he was travelling at 55mph on the 70mph limit dual carriageway.”

She rejected claims made by Reed when he was interviewed by police that although he had seen Mr Ruff, traffic in the lane outside him meant he could not pull out, while vehicles behind meant he was unable to stop.

"Witness accounts do not support that, they say lane two was empty,” she said. “In any case, there was room for Mr Reed to pass safely while remaining in lane one.”

Christopher Dorman-O’Gowan, speaking in mitigation on behalf of Reed, said: “He does not seek to blame Mr Ruff in any way. A thoroughly decent man died that day, and a good man was at the wheel of the wagon.”

Passing sentence on Reed, Judge Peter Armstrong said: “Cases such as this are a tragedy for all concerned.
"Nothing I can say will provide comfort or recompense for the family of Mr Ruff, any life is priceless.”

"Your inattention to the road that day was not momentary, but neither was it a prolonged period of inattention.

"In passing sentence, I am bound to follow the guidelines for judges in such cases,” he added.

And still the best way to commit murder in this country & get away with it as yet another killer dodges justice. Speeding, visible for ages, didn’t deviate from his line even after hitting the cyclist. Couldn’t pull out due to traffic, fair enough. Couldn’t slow down due to traffic behind! Really? Couldn’t brake or anything radical like that? Then his brief has the nerve to say the driver doesnt blame the cyclist! Justice! Don’t make me laugh.

I don’t give a ■■■■ who’s behind me. Faced with the choice of squashing a cyclist (almost certain fatality) or pulling up on the brakes (possibly risking a vehicle - which would be travelling too close in the first place - to crash into the back) I’d choose the brakes every time.

His pitiful excuse is lame enough in my estimation to warrant contempt of court.
9 or more clear seconds of visibility? No braking and no attempt at avoidance?

What the hell was he doing that was more important than actually driving the thing - hoovering his footwell?
Another baffling “judgement” from the courts. All sympathies to the poor victim and his badly let-down family. :frowning:

Yes he was speeding, but doubt the extra 5mph would make any difference. Apart from that, that has to be the lamest excuses ever given for a collision. Who cares what’s behind? They shouldn’t be so close. Nine seconds at 55mph, that’s a hell of a long time to not be watching where you’re going.

“An accident reconstruction found he was travelling at 55mph on the 70mph limit dual carriageway.”

She rejected claims made by Reed when he was interviewed by police that although he had seen Mr Ruff, traffic in the lane outside him meant he could not pull out, while vehicles behind meant he was unable to stop.

"Witness accounts do not support that, they say lane two was empty,” she said. “In any case, there was room for Mr Reed to pass safely while remaining in lane one.”

About the only thing Mr Reed did right was to stop after the event.

The prosecution brief hardly covered herself with glory though: Speed limit on the road for the vehicle driven by Reed was? :unamused: Adequate room to pass safely even with the outer lane occupied? :imp: At the speed he was driving I think not at least half a lane preferably a whole lane.

“Unable to slow down?” Wtf why not? If there is someone on the outside of you easing off a few clicks to let him past and 9 seconds with the right indicator on is ample time to let the person behind know your changing lanes and the outside lane to know and possibly let you out.
Even if your not let out to overtake the cyclist everyone behind there is someone slower in front and you may need to brake.

The argos ■■■■ doesn’t deserve his licence back tbh

Jeff

I didn’t know Argos trucks are capable of doing 55, I pass so many of them…

should lose his bloody licence too

Putting aside a poor excuse, what punishment could they give him? He didn’t go out with the intention of killing someone, he wasn’t drunk either. Maybe take his hgv entitlement. Maybe a longer suspended. These are the kinds of cases that enforce my view of bikes. They should only be used on proper cycle paths, or ridden through country parks. The health benefits of riding to work are wiped out by all the pollution they inhale along the A13 in the mornings. You wouldn’t let a pedestrian walk in the road, and they are a polystyrene hat more protected

OVLOV JAY:
These are the kinds of cases that enforce my view of bikes. They should only be used on proper cycle paths, or ridden through country parks. The health benefits of riding to work are wiped out by all the pollution they inhale along the A13 in the mornings. You wouldn’t let a pedestrian walk in the road, and they are a polystyrene hat more protected

What a load of nonsense!!

It is but going for a bike ride on the A66 might not have been the best idea, there must be roads quieter

mac12:
It is but going for a bike ride on the A66 might not have been the best idea, there must be roads quieter

Yes they have a right to be there, just like the family known for cycling along the A34 near Bicester in the summer. It’s their total lack of common sense which is dangerous.

Don’t let’s try and push the blame onto the cyclist. The danger in this case was down solely to the guy driving the truck, who if you believe his account has seen the cyclist and thought “hmmm, can’t slow down, can’t pull out … I’ll just have to drive over you. Sorry mate”. I don’t believe for a moment that this is what happened, it’s far more likely that he was messing about with his radio or something, but whatever he was doing if his attention had been where it should have been he wouldn’t have hit the cyclist. The problem isn’t with cyclists on dual carriageways, it’s with idiot drivers who don’t pay enough attention to the roads. Pedestrians are permitted to cross dual carriageways, after all … would his excuse be acceptable if he’d hit someone trying to cross the road? Of course it wouldn’t.

“An accident reconstruction found he was travelling at 55mph on the 70mph limit dual carriageway.” They got that bit wrong don’t they know the speed limits for LGV’s

knight:
“An accident reconstruction found he was travelling at 55mph on the 70mph limit dual carriageway.” They got that bit wrong don’t they know the speed limits for LGV’s

They can only work this out with tyre/skid marks left on the road. As he didn’t stop untill after there is no way of ever knowing the speed at which the collision took place. My old man is retired traffic police.

GBPub:

OVLOV JAY:
These are the kinds of cases that enforce my view of bikes. They should only be used on proper cycle paths, or ridden through country parks. The health benefits of riding to work are wiped out by all the pollution they inhale along the A13 in the mornings. You wouldn’t let a pedestrian walk in the road, and they are a polystyrene hat more protected

What a load of nonsense!!

You missed the bit where I said my view of bikes, as I put my safety in front of my rights. It’s my right not to be stabbed in the street, and it’s my right to walk through Hackney at 2 in the morning, but I wouldn’t bloody do it

Danny_b:

knight:
“An accident reconstruction found he was travelling at 55mph on the 70mph limit dual carriageway.” They got that bit wrong don’t they know the speed limits for LGV’s

They can only work this out with tyre/skid marks left on the road. As he didn’t stop untill after there is no way of ever knowing the speed at which the collision took place. My old man is retired traffic police.

er not quite that’s what the tachograph does it shows SPEED at ?Time the reconstruction would be used to work out visibility and other factors at the speed shown on the tachograph

Danny_b:

knight:
“An accident reconstruction found he was travelling at 55mph on the 70mph limit dual carriageway.” They got that bit wrong don’t they know the speed limits for LGV’s

They can only work this out with tyre/skid marks left on the road. As he didn’t stop untill after there is no way of ever knowing the speed at which the collision took place. My old man is retired traffic police.

They only have to download the digicard or vdo all the info second by second is on there.

MADBAZ:

Danny_b:

knight:
“An accident reconstruction found he was travelling at 55mph on the 70mph limit dual carriageway.” They got that bit wrong don’t they know the speed limits for LGV’s

They can only work this out with tyre/skid marks left on the road. As he didn’t stop untill after there is no way of ever knowing the speed at which the collision took place. My old man is retired traffic police.

They only have to download the digicard or vdo all the info second by second is on there.

Of course :unamused:

knight:
“An accident reconstruction found he was travelling at 55mph on the 70mph limit dual carriageway.” They got that bit wrong don’t they know the speed limits for LGV’s
[/quote

Its just ■■■■-poor journalistic writing, mate. Theyve not actually implied that he had the right to travel at 70, just that the dual itself carried that limit. That said, they probably
think he had, and haven`t a bloody clue what the LGV limit is anyway. :wink: