roaduser66 was obviously on the spot and in court. Rikki is correct, you’re blinded by your passion. None of us are smiling over this, but the fact remains that he was well in front of her and she rode along his nearside. There are other things to do besides sit there staring non stop at the n/s mirror. I’ve lost a cyclist in my n/s mirror at lights, only to see they’ve popped up on the o/s. You need eyes up yer arse with some of these people on bikes.
roaduser66:
Janina did nothing wrong. She was in the cycle lane.-
Indeed the Judge stated that Janina could not be held to blame for her own death, but a jury cleared the Mr Doyle, and that is how the system works, and I’m bloody sure it was not 12 truckers sitting on the Jury 
The pictures of her bike underneath the rear wheels of Doyles truck, do not show marking of a Cycle lane on the road.
I’m afraid a few of you are completely ignorant about road traffic law.
183
When turningkeep as close to the left as is safe and practicable
give way to any vehicles using a bus lane, cycle lane or tramway from either direction.
highwaycodeuk.co.uk/using-th … o-183.html
Doyle, who lied in court, twice, did not wait. He turned across someone who had done nothing wrong and was in her lane. He was supposed to give way. It’s the law.
Carryfast:
roaduser66:
Janina did nothing wrong. She was in the cycle lane. God knows people moan enough at cyclists for not using cycle lanes.Vehicle turns across an unclear lane and kills human being. By definition that’s death by dangerous driving. There’s no confusion of the law or rules as that rule already exists. If you turn left across an occupied lane into a vehicle that has pulled up alongside to you, you are 100% in the wrong every single time.
and the cyclist then obviously under taking the truck into the junction instead of waiting which would have been the deal breaker.
janina did not undertake anything. Please don’t lie about the dead woman. She was in her cycle lane, doing exactly what she was supposed to do. She did not undertake. Stop lying. She was in her lane. Doyle, who we already know is a liar, tyrned without checking the n lied to the police to try to blame the dead girl, like you just did.
roaduser66:
Vehicle turns across an unclear lane and kills human being. By definition that’s death by dangerous driving. There’s no confusion of the law or rules as that rule already exists. If you turn left across an occupied lane into a vehicle that has pulled up alongside to you, you are 100% in the wrong every single time.“Danny” Reidar Farr, killed October 1, 1999, junction of Westbourne Grove and Hereford Road, by a left turning skip lorry, driven by Vincent Doyle, operated by PowerDay. Despite witness evidence that driver failed to signal, court acquitted driver. autobus.cyclingnews.com/news.php … oct11news2 -
I’m a little puzzled by this, the 1999 accident does not seem to get a mention in the main stream media in connection with the latest accident. Is it the same Doyle ? has it really happened twice ?
roaduser66:
I’m afraid a few of you are completely ignorant about road traffic law.183
When turningkeep as close to the left as is safe and practicable
give way to any vehicles using a bus lane, cycle lane or tramway from either direction.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/using-th … o-183.html
Doyle, who lied in court, twice, did not wait. He turned across someone who had done nothing wrong and was in her lane. He was supposed to give way. It’s the law.
Actually the highway code uses a double-blind method to try and protect road users of all vehicle types Rule 183 for the motorist Rule 221 for the cyclist.
So even if one person is not playing by the rules safe progress should be possible, however if both aren’t playing by the rules then problems will occur.
I can see your point of view but there’s to much arrogance in it, this in itself is a dangerous mentality to have on the open road especially if a vulnerable road user.
That said I have to be honest and say I have my doubts about Mr Doyle’s statement but a jury has found him not guilty who are privy to a lot more evidence than me so I must respect their decision.
Mr Doyle knows the truth and that’s for him to come to terms with, either by knowing he did all he could or he could have done more.
Only by working together and coexisting on the roads can lives be saved which is one of the fundamental founding philosophies of the highway code.
Make progress not war.
peterm:
True enough,but she was described as an experienced rider, which begs the question ’ why did she go up the inside of a vehicle with it’s left indicator on and with audio warning as well’ ?
+1…yet another woman with brains but absolutely no common sense…if I was 8 stone on a bike I might think it relevant to stay well out of the road of 30 tons on a tipper. …having just read the mail article then it beggars belief once more at the total pish portrayed by the article.no matter who is meant to have right of way,then its not rocket science to be aware of your surroundings and keep yourself in a safe zone…sail has priority over steam,but try telling that to the hss ferry coming down Belfast loch when the fannies are out playing on there wee boats.if god had meant us to be riding bikes,then he wouldn’t have invented cars and buses.
Bluey Circles:
roaduser66:
Vehicle turns across an unclear lane and kills human being. By definition that’s death by dangerous driving. There’s no confusion of the law or rules as that rule already exists. If you turn left across an occupied lane into a vehicle that has pulled up alongside to you, you are 100% in the wrong every single time.“Danny” Reidar Farr, killed October 1, 1999, junction of Westbourne Grove and Hereford Road, by a left turning skip lorry, driven by Vincent Doyle, operated by PowerDay. Despite witness evidence that driver failed to signal, court acquitted driver. autobus.cyclingnews.com/news.php … oct11news2 -
I’m a little puzzled by this, the 1999 accident does not seem to get a mention in the main stream media in connection with the latest accident. Is it the same Doyle ? has it really happened twice ?
I think that the Judge can prevent details of a defendants past from being heard in court, as a way of preventing the Jury from being influenced by the defendants past conduct.
On the other hand it could be a different Vincent Doyle, its very common name 
Dipper_Dave:
roaduser66:
I’m afraid a few of you are completely ignorant about road traffic law.183
When turningkeep as close to the left as is safe and practicable
give way to any vehicles using a bus lane, cycle lane or tramway from either direction.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/using-th … o-183.html
Doyle, who lied in court, twice, did not wait. He turned across someone who had done nothing wrong and was in her lane. He was supposed to give way. It’s the law.
Actually the highway code uses a double-blind method to try and protect road users of all vehicle types Rule 183 for the motorist Rule 221 for the cyclist.
So even if one person is not playing by the rules safe progress should be possible, however if both aren’t playing by the rules then problems will occur.
I can see your point of view but there’s to much arrogance in it, this in itself is a dangerous mentality to have on the open road especially if a vulnerable road user.
That said I have to be honest and say I have my doubts about Mr Doyle’s statement but a jury has found him not guilty who are privy to a lot more evidence than me so I must respect their decision.
Mr Doyle knows the truth and that’s for him to come to terms with, either by knowing he did all he could or he could have done more.Only by working together can lives be saved which is one of the fundamental philosophies of the highway code
Well said.
Few could feel anything put the deepest sympathy for the dead girls family, but a Jury cleared Mr Doyle. The CPS must have thought that conviction was likely, and in the public interest, these are the criteria for a prosecution to take place, but for a reason that will remain with the Jury, he was acquitted.
So if a cyclist turns left across your lane and scratches the length of your vehicle it’s not the cyclist’s fault if they were indicating?
Rule 221 is about cyclists FOLLOWING trucks. Janina wasn’t following. She was in her lane. Doyle lied about the lights being green in order to try to blame Janina.
Cyclists get “Get in the cycle lane!” screamed at them by angry drivers. Drivers have assaulted cyclists who shun cycle lanes. Janina was doing everything right. She had priority. It’s the law. She was in her lane. Doyle had overtaken her so he knew she was there. She hadn’t de-materialised after being overtaken. She was there. Doyle knew she was there, and he turned without checking and killed her.
If he knew she was there, he wouldn’t have turned. However much you dislike truck drivers,it doesn’t mean they go around gleefully killing cyclists deliberately.
In life, we have to make decisions based on best practice rather than the letter of the law. If I’m travelling down a road and a vehicle pulls out out a side road, it’s wiser to brake than to carry on blithely because technically it’s right and legal to do so.
He missed her, maybe looking at the off side mirrors, she could not have missed him or his audibles. personally if I was on a bike, I would have hung back and let him complete his turn, but then I don’t have the attitude that some cyclists have.
Maybe the jury took into account the poor judgement of passing a lorry on its’ nearside? She might’ve been in the cycle lane but is it really sensible to gamble on a driver seeing you?
If it’s true she was in a designated cycle lane however, then I think the driver is lucky to be avoiding a spot of “pass the soap” at shower time.
roaduser66:
So if a cyclist turns left across your lane and scratches the length of your vehicle it’s not the cyclist’s fault if they were indicating?Rule 221 is about cyclists FOLLOWING trucks. Janina wasn’t following. She was in her lane. Doyle lied about the lights being green in order to try to blame Janina.
Cyclists get “Get in the cycle lane!” screamed at them by angry drivers. Drivers have assaulted cyclists who shun cycle lanes. Janina was doing everything right. She had priority. It’s the law. She was in her lane. Doyle had overtaken her so he knew she was there. She hadn’t de-materialised after being overtaken. She was there. Doyle knew she was there, and he turned without checking and killed her.
How the zb wasn’t she ‘FOLLOWING’ the truck when the facts state that the truck had PASSED’ her ‘200 m’ ‘BEFORE’ the junction.In which case we’re clearly dealing with a cyclist,approaching a truck positioned to make a left turn,from behind and going along the inside of it.As stated cycle lanes can’t by definition continue through junctions and it was obviously within ‘THE JUNCTION’ ,which she entered together with the truck,where the collision took place.IE rule 221 applies.
roaduser66:
I’m afraid a few of you are completely ignorant about road traffic law.183
When turningkeep as close to the left as is safe and practicable
give way to any vehicles using a bus lane, cycle lane or tramway from either direction.highwaycodeuk.co.uk/using-th … o-183.html
Doyle, who lied in court, twice, did not wait. He turned across someone who had done nothing wrong and was in her lane. He was supposed to give way. It’s the law.
I think that it is you who are ignorant of road traffic law. For a start, the Highway Code is not the law. Those paragraphs which reflect what the law says always include, in bold capitals, the words YOU MUST or YOU MUST NOT. Section 183 of the Code does not contain those words and is therefore intended to be read as best practice/good advice and not as a statement of “the law”. Hells teeth, the Code specifically states this in its introduction pages: gov.uk/guidance/the-highway … troduction
Mr 66 deserves ■■■■■■■■■■■ with lightning…
This happened to me years ago in liverpool,it was around by the university’s on catherine street,i was in a old 6 wheel foden tanker,just pulled up at the lights to indicating to turn left when a ■■■■■■■ a bike rode up along side,the lights changed checked mirrors moved of and felt the bump i felt sick,i got out expecting the worst to see her sat on the pavement her bike crushed under under the wheel she was very very lucky,and so was i as a police car was sat at the lights facing and seen everything.we made sure she was ok first then the policeman said it happens all the time here cause of stupid people on bikes coming down the inside of turning trucks.she agreed it was her fault.
I can see both points here. On one hand the cyclist has went up the n/s of a stationary lorry at lights. Never a good idea putting your life in the hands of a lorry driver!
On the other hand if you overtake a cyclist 200 metres from lights and the lights turn to red…what does every half decent lorry driver do? They watch out for that cyclist!
Usually I side with the lorry driver as I sit in the same seat as them, in the same cities and I see the the suicdal behaviour for myself, but this case what I’ve read it doesn’t sit right with me.
Evil8Beezle:
eddie snax:
war1974:
totally agree no winners at all and so sad, I still say too many riders have no idea of how much danger they often put themselves in mind.They don’t seem to care !!! I was driving past the Oval recently, and they’ve put in a whole lane for Cyclist’s, by taking out what was a lane for traffic, and that is fine by Me (you never expect to get anywhere quickly in London anyway), yet at least 3 cyclist’s rode past Me in the vehicle lane
Its a very sad situation for all, but for members of the Family to claim she had no justice is wrong, a Jury cleared the Man, that’s how it works. They listen to all the evidence, and make a judgement. There must have been compelling evidence to clear him, as the Jury deliberated for less than an hour.
I wish Mr Doyle well for the future.
+1
All very sad, so can’t we have more education for cyclists? Some “rules of the road” adverts on TV maybe?
We could even have ones motor vehicles, showing that outer lanes are for overtaking, and how vehicles SHOULD join traffic from a slip road. Or is that too easy?
Yes all very sad but…
What good would that do? Look at the training car and lorry drivers get (fully educated ) and then look at today’s standards.
Most cyclists drive cars. They know the score. Education would make no difference. It’s all about attitude on both sides.
albion1971:
Education would make no difference. It’s all about attitude on both sides.
What does education do if it doesn’t change attitudes?
merc0447:
I can see both points here. On one hand the cyclist has went up the n/s of a stationary lorry at lights. Never a good idea putting your life in the hands of a lorry driver!On the other hand if you overtake a cyclist 200 metres from lights and the lights turn to red…what does every half decent lorry driver do? They watch out for that cyclist!
Usually I side with the lorry driver as I sit in the same seat as them, in the same cities and I see the the suicdal behaviour for myself, but this case what I’ve read it doesn’t sit right with me.
Firstly there isn’t much difference between watching out for all cyclists whether you passed them 200 m before the lights or more.The fact is if they’ve got along the nearside ‘from behind you’ it’s just a matter of Russian Roulette of them doing that and then not being seen.Bearing in mind that still won’t produce a collision.The problem is cyclists actually then entering the junction together with and at the side of a turning or potentially turning truck when common sense says wait at the line and let it go first regardless.
As for this specific case it’s all about the ‘prosecution’ proving the driver did wrong beyond reasonable doubt.Not a guilty verdict based on just having doubts about the defence case of which I agree with you to some extent but not enough to return a guilty verdict.Especially bearing in mind that such a guilty verdict in this case would probably set precedents removing any protection of innocent drivers contained in rule 221 of the highway code. 
Carryfast:
The problem is cyclists actually then entering the junction together with and at the side of a turning or potentially turning truck when common sense says wait at the line and let it go first regardless.
Wait at what line though? The cyclist in question was in a cycle lane which doesn’t have a Stop line until the ASL some distance in front of the truck. Seems she was doing exactly what cyclists are supposed to do and was making her way to the ASL zone while the truck (and any other traffic) was waiting at a red light. That’s the way ASLs are supposed to work.