Causing death by dangerous driving....

UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUMS THE UK PROFESSIONAL DRIVERS FORUM (INTERACTIVE)
1

I know there’s been a lot of comment recently about how often HGV drivers are being killed in accidents recently, and there’s been lots of stories of cyclists/car drivers being killed in accidents with trucks, but I always seem to read in the news reports that someone, usually the surviving HGV driver, has been arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving.

Without having any intimate knowledge of any of the accidents I seem to read about so regularly, it does appear as if, when an RTA involves a death, someone has to be charged, as noted above, on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving.

Now that may be a valid reaction given evidence to suggest there is suspicion, but I do wonder if there is always such evidence, or the arrest is made, on the basis that corroborating evidence will be gathered in due course.

It may well be argued that if a vehicle is exceeding the speed limit, as evidenced by the tachograph, this could well be sufficient grounds for arrest?

But let’s say, if a vehicle is turning left at traffic lights, and a cyclist has been killed in a collision with the left turning vehicle, in an urban situation, there seems little chance the vehicle will be exceeding the speed limit. In this case, there would surely need to be more than one witness statement confirming the driver was negligent in turning left?

Otherwise, surely the driver is being arrested on the presumption of guilt, which, and I may be wrong here, is fundamentally opposed to our presumed innocence unless and until proven guilty? Or am I missing something?

Just a question. Any thoughts?

2

The PDF had exactly the same concerns as you EAT and wrote a series of letters to ACPO but couldn’t get a satisfactory answer.

I can post this link to the thread

pda-uk.org/nuke/modules.php? … ic&t=21616

I can’t copy and paste it as it nwent on far to long to do that but if the mods feel it is innapropriate to link to it then please delete it :neutral_face:

I really will understand!

Pat

3

When I done my crossrail induction they said police procedure is now to arrest drivers wether hgv psv car etc in an accident where there has been a fatality or serious injury as its better for a detective to question people ASAP after an incident rather than getting people to try and remember in days and weeks following.

4

I think you are confusing the terms “arrested”, “charged” and “convicted”. In the old pre-PACE Act days, when there was no general power of arrest, formal interviews with drivers suspected of quite serious offences had to take place at the scene, usually in the back of a patrol car. Nowadays it is SOP to arrest and take them back to the police station where they can be interviewed at length in a proper interview room, with solicitors etc present if requested.

5

Not really sure what your concerned about, driver gets arrested questioned then either found guilty or relised with out charge, seems fairly streight forward to me.

Also in the example you posted about a lorry turning left if a cyclist goes up the inside then the driver should have used his mirros properly, so yes the driver should be arrested and found guilty, cyclists do not just appear out of thin air in the blind spot, whitch on modern vehicled doesnt actally exists as there are so many mirros, they enter it through many non blind spots,so the “I couldnt see them excuse” shouldnt work, drivers are trained in opperating there vehicle safley around other road users.

6

AHT:
Also in the example you posted about a lorry turning left if a cyclist goes up the inside then the driver should have used his mirros properly, so yes the driver should be arrested and found guilty, cyclists do not just appear out of thin air in the blind spot, whitch on modern vehicled doesnt actally exists as there are so many mirros, they enter it through many non blind spots,so the “I couldnt see them excuse” shouldnt work, drivers are trained in opperating there vehicle safley around other road users.

You see, this is the attitude I find difficult to understand.

You seem to suggest that regardless of circumstances, it is automatically the driver’s fault, in a situation that is never as clear cut as you have described. Not only do you say the driver is at fault, but in your view he should be arrested and found guilty.

Now, I’m sure there are many instances where driver’s fail to adequately use their mirrors, and that can sometimes lead to accidents, but I simply can’t accept that EVERY accident where a cyclist is involved with a vehicle turning left, is the entire fault of the driver. And frankly, to suggest otherwise is absurd.

Unfortunately it does seem symptomatic of how many road users refuse to accept any responsibility for their own actions, and in particular when it places them in situations that could result in their own deaths. Quite unbelievable!

7

AHT:
Not really sure what your concerned about, driver gets arrested questioned then either found guilty or relised with out charge, seems fairly streight forward to me.

The problem is that there are several jobs where having been arrested (even if you were subsequently released W.O.C) are a big no-no for employers, such as the medical profession, teachers etc, as (as I understand it) the arrest itself will stay on your CRB for ever as these are Enhanced checks.

If it truly was an unavoidable accident, E.g someone running straight out with no time for you to stop say, you’re going to be stagmatised for ever more in these cases, when you might not be to blame.

8

…

9

EastAnglianTrucker:
I know there’s been a lot of comment recently about how often HGV drivers are being killed in accidents recently, and there’s been lots of stories of cyclists/car drivers being killed in accidents with trucks, but I always seem to read in the news reports that someone, usually the surviving HGV driver, has been arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving.

Without having any intimate knowledge of any of the accidents I seem to read about so regularly, it does appear as if, when an RTA involves a death, someone has to be charged, as noted above, on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving.

Now that may be a valid reaction given evidence to suggest there is suspicion, but I do wonder if there is always such evidence, or the arrest is made, on the basis that corroborating evidence will be gathered in due course.

It may well be argued that if a vehicle is exceeding the speed limit, as evidenced by the tachograph, this could well be sufficient grounds for arrest?

But let’s say, if a vehicle is turning left at traffic lights, and a cyclist has been killed in a collision with the left turning vehicle, in an urban situation, there seems little chance the vehicle will be exceeding the speed limit. In this case, there would surely need to be more than one witness statement confirming the driver was negligent in turning left?

Otherwise, surely the driver is being arrested on the presumption of guilt, which, and I may be wrong here, is fundamentally opposed to our presumed innocence unless and until proven guilty? Or am I missing something?

Just a question. Any thoughts?

From the horses mouth so to speak,
Involved in an RTA where where a cyclist died.
Arrested under caution of causing death by dangerous driving (due care and attention losing this game of top trumps due to the fatality)
Consequently bailed to re-appear at the police station every 5 weeks (5 weeks bail) as investigations were carried out (vehicle was seized for this period).
After 8 months cleared of any charges and fault.

In basic, cyclist pulled out infront of the vehicle and got a headfull of bonnet, windscreen and tarmac, body didnt bounce well, toxicology report on fatality showed signs of recent use of cannabis and was 3 times over the drink drive limit. Witnesses state they pulled straight infront of vehicle with no chance of stopping.

Thoughts - Well they cannot get a statement from a corpse and a corpse cannot defend itself, if the person is alive then you can have a row and both give statements :wink:

10

AHT:
Not really sure what your concerned about, driver gets arrested questioned then either found guilty or relised with out charge, seems fairly streight forward to me.

Also in the example you posted about a lorry turning left if a cyclist goes up the inside then the driver should have used his mirros properly, so yes the driver should be arrested and found guilty, cyclists do not just appear out of thin air in the blind spot, whitch on modern vehicled doesnt actally exists as there are so many mirros, they enter it through many non blind spots,so the “I couldnt see them excuse” shouldnt work, drivers are trained in opperating there vehicle safley around other road users.

When waiting at traffic lights to turn left I check my nearside mirrors regularly, before I pull away I check the six mirrors, windscreen and two door windows. Sadly because I only have two eyes there may be a delay between going back and rechecking the mirrors.

The cyclist on the other hand has options to ensure that he is within my vision. Whilst it is always a tragedy when some one loses their life we all have a responsibilty for our own self-preservation. It is no good relying on somebody else.

Regarding your final sentence, perhaps if cyclists were trained to the same standard there wouldn’t be a problem.

11

bazza123:

AHT:
Not really sure what your concerned about, driver gets arrested questioned then either found guilty or relised with out charge, seems fairly streight forward to me.

The problem is that there are several jobs where having been arrested (even if you were subsequently released W.O.C) are a big no-no for employers, such as the medical profession, teachers etc, as (as I understand it) the arrest itself will stay on your CRB for ever as these are Enhanced checks.

If it truly was an unavoidable accident, E.g someone running straight out with no time for you to stop say, you’re going to be stagmatised for ever more in these cases, when you might not be to blame.

I’ve had a criminal record check for immigration and I was arested but released without charge and it never came up on that.

12

waddy640:
Regarding your final sentence, perhaps if cyclists were trained to the same standard there wouldn’t be a problem.

As a cyclist myself I ensure I make myself as big as possible (no not by munching pies) and as visable both at junctions and approaching junctions, if say at lights there is a wagon/bus/van there wanting to turn left I either let them have the road or get somewhere infront and make eye contact with the driver (see you see me).
This is something I have taken with me when I am behind the wheel, until youve been on the road on your WiggoWheels you dont know just how vulnerable cyclists are.

13

B1 GGK:

waddy640:
Regarding your final sentence, perhaps if cyclists were trained to the same standard there wouldn’t be a problem.

As a cyclist myself I ensure I make myself as big as possible (no not by munching pies) and as visable both at junctions and approaching junctions, if say at lights there is a wagon/bus/van there wanting to turn left I either let them have the road or get somewhere infront and make eye contact with the driver (see you see me).
This is something I have taken with me when I am behind the wheel, until youve been on the road on your WiggoWheels you dont know just how vulnerable cyclists are.

I dont hate cyclists but the majority think they are above the law. I give them plenty of space when im waiting to overtake on a single carraige way by not driving up their arse and then i give them a nice wide birth if its available, i think thats reasonable respect. But then why further up the road traffic starts to slow or stop but they dont wait their turn in line, they are straight round the outside of you and your back to sqaure one going 10mph again waiting for another opportunity to overtake… failing that as soon as they see traffic slowing, boom they are up on the pavement!!! Defies the logic of being on the road in the first place. Idiots most of them with no concept of anything around them “just keep pedaling” mentality.

14

B1 GGK:

waddy640:
Regarding your final sentence, perhaps if cyclists were trained to the same standard there wouldn’t be a problem.

As a cyclist myself I ensure I make myself as big as possible (no not by munching pies) and as visable both at junctions and approaching junctions, if say at lights there is a wagon/bus/van there wanting to turn left I either let them have the road or get somewhere infront and make eye contact with the driver (see you see me).
This is something I have taken with me when I am behind the wheel, until youve been on the road on your WiggoWheels you dont know just how vulnerable cyclists are.

Many of cyclists I meet on the road use common sense but you always get the ones who want to show off. I am also a cyclist occasionally and as you say “make sure I am seen”

15

On the question of cyclists being hurt by lorries turning left, unless the lorry overtakes the cyclist on the approach to the left turn, how on earth does the cyclist manage to actually put themselves into a position where a large (or any other) vehicle can hit them? Do they not see the vehicle? even if it’s not turning left, do they think that if they wobble and fall under the wheels that they will be able to re-spawn just like in the computer games?

As long as we dont slide a truck past cyclists without a lot of space for them, they must put themselves there. Should they be allowed on the road if they do this?

can anybody explain this behaviour by cyclists to me please?
thank you.

16

when i was 18, i cycled everywhere, doing anything up to 300 miles a week. and i could get round the city centre loads faster than you could by car. then when i was 19 i bought my first car. don’t think i’ve ridden my bike since. how i didn’t manage to kill myself on the bike i have no idea :laughing:

and they’re called RTCs now, not RTA. accident implys that no one is to blame, apparently

17

Ive seen loads of videos on YouTube of idiotic cyclists blatantly in the wrong but getting their knickers in a twist because they think the lorry driver is at fault! It really does infuriate me! I think cyclists should be made to do a simple theory test before riding on the road, how it would be enforced I don’t know.

To be fair, until I started doing my LGV theory training I’ve never given much thought to LGV’s, only now am I beggining to understand and try to make life easier for the lorry drivers when I’m out on my scooter or in the car. Simple things like saying thanks and giving way/ plenty of room should hopefully make LGV drivers have a nicer day.

18

There has recently been an accident outside my old pub where a 15 year old local lad got killed. I have seen the pictures and it didn’t look like the cyclist was at any fault. There was a 68 year old local woman driving an Audi arrested at the scene, so it is not just lorry drivers who get arrested

19

kr79:

bazza123:

AHT:
Not really sure what your concerned about, driver gets arrested questioned then either found guilty or relised with out charge, seems fairly streight forward to me.

The problem is that there are several jobs where having been arrested (even if you were subsequently released W.O.C) are a big no-no for employers, such as the medical profession, teachers etc, as (as I understand it) the arrest itself will stay on your CRB for ever as these are Enhanced checks.

If it truly was an unavoidable accident, E.g someone running straight out with no time for you to stop say, you’re going to be stagmatised for ever more in these cases, when you might not be to blame.

I’ve had a criminal record check for immigration and I was arested but released without charge and it never came up on that.

Interesting. What is it an Enhanced check?

20

B1 GGK:

EastAnglianTrucker:
I know there’s been a lot of comment recently about how often HGV drivers are being killed in accidents recently, and there’s been lots of stories of cyclists/car drivers being killed in accidents with trucks, but I always seem to read in the news reports that someone, usually the surviving HGV driver, has been arrested on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving.

Without having any intimate knowledge of any of the accidents I seem to read about so regularly, it does appear as if, when an RTA involves a death, someone has to be charged, as noted above, on suspicion of causing death by dangerous driving.

Now that may be a valid reaction given evidence to suggest there is suspicion, but I do wonder if there is always such evidence, or the arrest is made, on the basis that corroborating evidence will be gathered in due course.

It may well be argued that if a vehicle is exceeding the speed limit, as evidenced by the tachograph, this could well be sufficient grounds for arrest?

But let’s say, if a vehicle is turning left at traffic lights, and a cyclist has been killed in a collision with the left turning vehicle, in an urban situation, there seems little chance the vehicle will be exceeding the speed limit. In this case, there would surely need to be more than one witness statement confirming the driver was negligent in turning left?

Otherwise, surely the driver is being arrested on the presumption of guilt, which, and I may be wrong here, is fundamentally opposed to our presumed innocence unless and until proven guilty? Or am I missing something?

Just a question. Any thoughts?

From the horses mouth so to speak,
Involved in an RTA where where a cyclist died.
Arrested under caution of causing death by dangerous driving (due care and attention losing this game of top trumps due to the fatality)
Consequently bailed to re-appear at the police station every 5 weeks (5 weeks bail) as investigations were carried out (vehicle was seized for this period).
After 8 months cleared of any charges and fault.

In basic, cyclist pulled out infront of the vehicle and got a headfull of bonnet, windscreen and tarmac, body didnt bounce well, toxicology report on fatality showed signs of recent use of cannabis and was 3 times over the drink drive limit. Witnesses state they pulled straight infront of vehicle with no chance of stopping.

Thoughts - Well they cannot get a statement from a corpse and a corpse cannot defend itself, if the person is alive then you can have a row and both give statements :wink:

That will stick with you for as long as you live, which isn’t nice