Lorry driver on trial over Golden Mile tragedy

thisisleicestershire.co.uk/H … z2dRkuM33k

A lorry driver who failed to see an 85-year-old man crossing the road has gone on trial.

Robert Barnett (pictured) denies causing death by careless driving. He was driving an HGV in a “stop-start” traffic queue in Melton Road, Leicester, when Kantilal Shah walked in front of the stationary vehicle.

As the articulated lorry slowly moved off, Barnett unknowingly knocked over Mr Shah, and the pensioner fell under the vehicle, which passed over him.

A woman driving a car following closely behind had no idea anyone was on the ground.

It would have been impossible for her to have seen him — and she drove over him, Leicester Crown Court was told.

Mr Shah, the founder of a family accountancy business in Melton Road, who was well known on the Golden Mile, suffered fatal chest injuries and died in hospital.

The tragedy happened near the junction with Lancashire Street at about 11am on July 10 last year.

Avik Mukherjee, prosecuting, said the lorry was correctly fitted with six types of mirrors, including one specially angled to see directly in front of the cab.

He said: “The driver should have seen Mr Shah crossing, but failed to do so because he had a lapse in concentration.”

Witness David Hills allegedly saw what happened from his Hair Today barber’s shop opposite.

In a statement read out, he said he knew Mr Shah, who was “quite frail”.

He said: "I saw Mr Shah on the pavement on the opposite side of the road to me.

"He stepped into the road directly in front of the lorry, with his right shoulder a foot from the lorry, walking towards the centre of the road.

“Before he got to the offside to look for traffic on the other side of the road, the traffic started to move off and the front of the lorry made contact with Mr Shah’s right side. It toppled him over.”

He also described a Honda behind driving over Mr Shah.

The Honda driver, Vijya Chauhan, in a statement read out, said: "As far as I was aware the lorry was driving normally.

"I was doing 10 or 15mph and felt my car had gone over something and I stopped.

“When I got out I saw a black walking stick in the road and saw a gentleman lying in the road and I didn’t know how he’d got there.”

She is not being prosecuted.

A witness ran after Barnett’s lorry and told him he had run someone over.

He replied: “Have I?” and immediately returned.

In interview, Barnett, 55, of Sheridon Street, Coton Fields, Stafford, told the police: "He must have walked straight in front of my grille.

“I never saw him. My cab is quite tall, I never felt a thing.”

He said he did not see anyone in front when using his angled front mirror, telling police: “I’d looked at the mirrors and by the time I had my foot on the accelerator, that split second must have been when the chap walked in front of me.”

Barnett said he did not see anyone who was about to cross on the pavement and had “no idea” which side of the road Mr Shah crossed from.

Police accident expert Pc James Lawrence said that if Barnett had checked the front-facing mirror — showing what was within a metre of the front of his cab — he would have seen the pedestrian.

He said: “It’s not likely to be one second. It’s going to take a time for a pedestrian of his age with a back condition and a walking stick.”

The trial continues.

So this accident expert knows the driver would of seen him if checking his mirrors? Bull ■■■■, doing all round checks is obviously the right thing to do but this guy caused his own death by wandering in front of the cab. If you concentrated on mirrors only you would never go forward as you’d have to keep checking mirrors in case some ■■■■■■■■■ does this. I hope the guy doesn’t get charged, that expert could do with a good slap to knock some common sense in to him to.

We all know that it’s really important to check all our mirrors for pedestrians and cyclists etc…

BUT, you have to wonder at the intelligence of some of the morons who do actually cross in front of big cabbed trucks, especially when there’s usually a car in front or behind the truck which would be easier to cross in front of.
We’re not the easiest thing to see around when you do eventually get to the centre, do they bother checking for cyclists / motorcyclists passing the truck or just look for cars coming the opposite way??

I’m not saying he deserved to be ran over and certainly not to die, but if we got rid of health and safety, idiots wouldn’t survive long enough to breed which would improve the intellect of the public in general :grimacing:

tin hat on

My reading of the report simply says that the truck ‘toppled’ the man over and the vehicle passed over him.
It appears by the wording that the car was the vehicle that actually crushed him, so , I don’t understand how the truck driver can be 100% to blame and the car driver who could not see the road in front was clear is blameless.
Sad for all concerend, but this is one of those cases where blame is so diluted by others actions that it is unfair for one person to be held accountable.

I think that the pedestrian has brought about his own demise.That lorry driver could be any one of us tomorrow.

Amen brother.

The CPS are ■■■■ heads bringing this.

OllieNotts:
I hope the guy doesn’t get charged,

Seeing that the report is giving an account of court proceedings and clearly states that the driver has gone on trial, I think it’s fairly safe to say that he has already been charged…

So the truck driver topples the pedestrian and is in court for it BUT the car driver who ran over the pedestrian is not being charged? surely this is wrong?

As the articulated lorry slowly moved off, Barnett unknowingly knocked over Mr Shah, and the pensioner fell under the vehicle, which passed over him.

A woman driving a car following closely behind had no idea anyone was on the ground.

It would have been impossible for her to have seen him — and she drove over him, Leicester Crown Court was told.

Initial impact by lorry then secondary by car … I wonder which killed him especially as it says ‘passed over him’ and not ‘ran over him’

Hmmmm… could just be bad wording by journalist

Pensioner has caused his own death in my opinion, stupidity, but probably not all there with regards to his age (with respect)

I personally think the women should go to prison… How the ■■■■ do you not see someone lying in the road from a car drivers position.

I hope he gets off.

My thoughts exactly. lorry knocked him down, but no proof it actually killed him, however, if the car behind failed to see him lying in the road then she was either way too close to the lorry or applying her makeup in the rear view mirror, and the report says SHE actually squashed him…As usual, prosecute the lorry driver whilst the one whos actually done it walks away. As for the expert, he has probably never driven a truck, and has just stood next to one so that qualifies him as an expert. I suppose he has to justify his job title

I feel sorry for all involved.

Yet I fail to understand how the HGV driver can be on trial for not seeing him, yet the woman who actually rode over him isn’t and she didn’t look that her path was clear either.

If I was going to cross in front of a large vehicle or any vehicle for that matter I always make eye contact with the driver first.

ROG:
A woman driving a car following closely behind had no idea anyone was on the ground.

…she drove over him, Leicester Crown Court was told.

She is not being prosecuted.

British justice at its best. :unamused:

ROG:
http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/HGV-driver-didn-t-cause-tragedy/story-19728406-detail/story.html#axzz2dRkuM33k

A lorry driver who failed to see an 85-year-old man crossing the road has gone on trial.

Robert Barnett (pictured) denies causing death by careless driving. He was driving an HGV in a “stop-start” traffic queue in Melton Road, Leicester, when Kantilal Shah walked in front of the stationary vehicle.

As the articulated lorry slowly moved off, Barnett unknowingly knocked over Mr Shah, and the pensioner fell under the vehicle, which passed over him.

A woman driving a car following closely behind had no idea anyone was on the ground.

It would have been impossible for her to have seen him — and she drove over him, Leicester Crown Court was told.

Mr Shah, the founder of a family accountancy business in Melton Road, who was well known on the Golden Mile, suffered fatal chest injuries and died in hospital.

The tragedy happened near the junction with Lancashire Street at about 11am on July 10 last year.

Avik Mukherjee, prosecuting, said the lorry was correctly fitted with six types of mirrors, including one specially angled to see directly in front of the cab.

He said: “The driver should have seen Mr Shah crossing, but failed to do so because he had a lapse in concentration.”

Witness David Hills allegedly saw what happened from his Hair Today barber’s shop opposite.

In a statement read out, he said he knew Mr Shah, who was “quite frail”.

He said: "I saw Mr Shah on the pavement on the opposite side of the road to me.

"He stepped into the road directly in front of the lorry, with his right shoulder a foot from the lorry, walking towards the centre of the road.

“Before he got to the offside to look for traffic on the other side of the road, the traffic started to move off and the front of the lorry made contact with Mr Shah’s right side. It toppled him over.”

He also described a Honda behind driving over Mr Shah.

The Honda driver, Vijya Chauhan, in a statement read out, said: "As far as I was aware the lorry was driving normally.

"I was doing 10 or 15mph and felt my car had gone over something and I stopped.

“When I got out I saw a black walking stick in the road and saw a gentleman lying in the road and I didn’t know how he’d got there.”

She is not being prosecuted.

A witness ran after Barnett’s lorry and told him he had run someone over.

He replied: “Have I?” and immediately returned.

In interview, Barnett, 55, of Sheridon Street, Coton Fields, Stafford, told the police: "He must have walked straight in front of my grille.

“I never saw him. My cab is quite tall, I never felt a thing.”

He said he did not see anyone in front when using his angled front mirror, telling police: “I’d looked at the mirrors and by the time I had my foot on the accelerator, that split second must have been when the chap walked in front of me.”

Barnett said he did not see anyone who was about to cross on the pavement and had “no idea” which side of the road Mr Shah crossed from.

Police accident expert Pc James Lawrence said that if Barnett had checked the front-facing mirror — showing what was within a metre of the front of his cab — he would have seen the pedestrian.

He said: “It’s not likely to be one second. It’s going to take a time for a pedestrian of his age with a back condition and a walking stick.”

The trial continues.

A desperately sad accident for all involved and Particularly for poor Mr Shah’s family for whom I have the greatest sympathy, but is there a political agenda here?

If you fail to see why the driver is being prosecuted then you have very little understanding of the law.

There seems to be strong forensic evidence, backed up by eyewitness accounts, that the driver should have seen the victim in that front mirror.

Apparently we are to be held accountable if we don’t see what people assume or expect us to see.

Interesting one this & I hope the jury can do their job.

Unfortunately we see this far too often, pedestrians are too lazy to walk to a safe crossing place and instead take a shortcut between vehicles. In my opinion the second they step onto the road they are taking a risk with there own life. I have sympathy for the mans family but a bit of common sense is needed here !

Chas:
If you fail to see why the driver is being prosecuted then you have very little understanding of the law.

I understand why the lorry driver is being prosecuted, but I fail to see why the woman “following closely behind” is not.

You know everything Chas… and if there’s something you don’t know, you have a good friend who does. We know already. :unamused:

Perhaps you could explain why she is presumed innocent but the lorry driver is not?

You can use a “phone a friend” if you wish.

Alternatively, you could start your reply with “when I worked on recovery”.

This is what is known as an ACCIDENT :exclamation:

You may have six mirrors, but the major flaw in that is that you only have two eyes :bulb:

To be a lorry driver it seems you need superhuman powers to compensate for the stupid and reckless behaviour of others :unamused:

We have these things on our road network called PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS, if you want to cross the road in safety you should use one :bulb:

The crossing may not be exactly where you want to cross, but that’s how it is, you have to walk a little further, it won’t, unlike being run over by a lorry, kill you :bulb:

The driver cannot possibly be convicted of causing the death as it is impossible to say which vehicle that ran him over actually killed him :bulb:

It should never have reached a court of justice, the coroner could have dealt with it. Cause of death, stupidity :unamused:

newmercman:
This is what is known as an ACCIDENT :exclamation:

You may have six mirrors, but the major flaw in that is that you only have two eyes :bulb:

To be a lorry driver it seems you need superhuman powers to compensate for the stupid and reckless behaviour of others :unamused:

We have these things on our road network called PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS, if you want to cross the road in safety you should use one :bulb:

The crossing may not be exactly where you want to cross, but that’s how it is, you have to walk a little further, it won’t, unlike being run over by a lorry, kill you :bulb:

The driver cannot possibly be convicted of causing the death as it is impossible to say which vehicle that ran him over actually killed him :bulb:

It should never have reached a court of justice, the coroner could have dealt with it. Cause of death, stupidity :unamused:

On this basis & with your logic applied. If I see a pedestrian crossing the road 100yds ahead I can run them over if they’re still there when I pass that point.

What about if I speed up in order to hit them midpoint? Would that be classed as murder or manslaughter?

newmercman:
This is what is known as an ACCIDENT :exclamation:

You may have six mirrors, but the major flaw in that is that you only have two eyes :bulb:

Good point

A driver would have a moving off procedure

Driver checks n/s mirrors, front mirror, o/s mirrors, blind spot, looks forward and moves off

In the second or so since the front mirror was checked a pedestrian steps out from the kerb

DRIVER HAS DONE ALL THAT IS REASONABLY POSSIBLE

ADD - and I am the first to berate ANY DRIVER but especially a professional if I think they are being a numpty !!