he is a lorry driver,what do you expect,the woman driver may have been to close to the lorry in front which is why she could not see him until it was too late,she is just as much too blame, but typical police,nick the lorry driver,he is the easiest target
ROG:
newmercman:
This is what is known as an ACCIDENTYou may have six mirrors, but the major flaw in that is that you only have two eyes
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
Firstly, I belong to the “there is no such thing as an accident” club.
Secondly, I believe that the gentleman (recently deceased) has substantial evidence, both forensic & eyewitness, that he was within the view of that front mirror when the truck rolled over him.
Rog. Whilst I love you to bits, sometimes I have very little respect for your logic. What on earth has 2 eyes & 6 mirrors got to do with it?
Again, I will stress the point that there is both forensic & eyewitness evidence that the gentleman (recently deceased) was within the view of the front mirror when the truck moved off.
This is the point I feel we should be discussing.
The LAW might say that a driver should ensure all is safe to move off but it also allows for the driver to do all that they reasonably can to avoid any incident
If the driver was to ensure that every mirror etc he checked was the last one before moving off then how would he do that?
Accident -1an unfortunate incident that happens unexpectedly and unintentionally, typically resulting in damage or injury:
That’s what the Oxford English Dictionary says. No such thing as an accident? You’d be a great boss at the bus company I used to work for 
ROG:
The LAW might say that a driver should ensure all is safe to move off but it also allows for the driver to do all that they reasonably can to avoid any incidentIf the driver was to ensure that every mirror etc he checked was the last one before moving off then how would he do that?
The point is Rog, that they’re trying to prove that the driver didn’t do all that he should before he moved off.
I have one of those mirrors Rog (ironically, you don’t) & I know the reality of what I see in that mirror.
To me an accident is something that was not preventable - this was an incident as it was preventable by someone
He doesn’t - Instead he checks and continues to check all his mirrors etc all the time - especially in town. We’re not talking about someone suddenly “stepping off the kerb” and into the path of a moving vehicle - we are talking about a very slow-moving, elderly bloke who would have taken several seconds to move from “on the pavement” to being “in front of the truck”. He didn’t suddenly materialise onto the pavement from the fourth dimension either - he was either standing at the kerbside or moving slowly towards it. Like it or not, it is down to the driver to be aware of other, vulnerable road users and to take responsibility for their safety. You cannot simply hide behind the size of your vehicle, shrug your shoulders and say “he shouldn’t have been there - it’s his fault”.
I was actually on the scene of that rtc… Very sad affair… We recovered the vehicles in volved, from how I understand the gentleman involved was very close 2 the truck n yes maybe he could ov been seen in the mirror but ppl down that road just cross when they fancy, regardless of lights, crossings etc… In the US I belive it’s called j walking? And is an offence? Y is it not here that law would stop incidents like this! I fail 2 understand how the lady following did not c the man in the road, she must have been paying alot less attention or driving on the bumper ov the trailer! Condolences 2 his family, and also I hope the lorryist does not loose his lively hood and gets sent down 4 a string ov events that could of been avoided by every1 in volved! Hind sight is a wonderful thing!
Chas:
ROG:
The LAW might say that a driver should ensure all is safe to move off but it also allows for the driver to do all that they reasonably can to avoid any incidentIf the driver was to ensure that every mirror etc he checked was the last one before moving off then how would he do that?
The point is Rog, that they’re trying to prove that the driver didn’t do all that he should before he moved off.
I have one of those mirrors Rog (ironically, you don’t) & I know the reality of what I see in that mirror.
Please explain your moving off procedure
The Mrs and me did the setting off procedure I mentioned earlier in real time
We took turns taking the part of the slow moving pedestrian who started off in the n/s pillar blind spot and then moved across the front of the lorry
Unless the front mirror was checked last then its easy to see how it happened but that leads to the point I made - which mirror or place do you check last?
Blind spot over the shoulder, isn’t it? At least that’s what I was always told.
@ cav551
Maybe,it is Leicester.
ROG:
The Mrs and me did the setting off procedure I mentioned earlier in real timeWe took turns taking the part of the slow moving pedestrian who started off in the n/s pillar blind spot and then moved across the front of the lorry
Unless the front mirror was checked last then its easy to see how it happened but that leads to the point I made - which mirror or place do you check last?
You do THAT on a Friday night? 
I actually just read the article in the Leicester mercury site and something made me very angry actually… 1 bit says ‘a woman driving a car following closely behind had no idea any1 was on the ground. It would of been impossible 2 c him’ wot a load of garbage… Again the trucker is taking all the blame it seems… I actually think that’s a bit of a joke, I would like 2 know y the woman wouldn’t have seen him!
ROG:
The Mrs and me did the setting off procedure I mentioned earlier in real timeWe took turns taking the part of the slow moving pedestrian…
This gets my vote for the most tragic post of 2013.
ROG:
The Mrs and me did the setting off procedure I mentioned earlier in real timeWe took turns taking the part of the slow moving pedestrian who started off in the n/s pillar blind spot and then moved across the front of the lorry
Unless the front mirror was checked last then its easy to see how it happened but that leads to the point I made - which mirror or place do you check last?
As I said - the pedestrian didn’t simply materialise at the kerbside, in the act of walking in front of the truck. He was there (or nearby) as the truck arrived there some minutes earlier. If he wasn’t there when the truck got there, he moved into “crossing the road” position while the truck was stationary. I am pretty sure the driver wouldn’t have moved off if a concrete bollard had been in front of the truck, so why do it when a squishy pedestrian is there?
For the avoidance of doubt, we are not discussing the situation where someone runs (or rides, or even drives) at speed into the path of a truck (although even then the driver should at least have half an idea of what is about to happen). We are talking about a slow moving, elderly bloke - just like your or my father (or grandfather, if you are reasonably young yourself).
So to answer your question - you don’t check any particular place or mirror last, rather you continue to check all of them.
Roymondo:
ROG:
So to answer your question - you don’t check any particular place or mirror last, rather you continue to check all of them.
And crash into the vehicle in front because it has just stopped again! You have to look where you are going at some point when in a queue of very slow moving traffic, you can’t just keep looking in the mirrors.
Left, front, right, over the shoulder and down, look ahead and go. PSV holders, from habit, will probably have a very quick look to the n/s as they start to move because they are used to the idiots who bang on the doors.
Many of us will be watching the n/s mirror while stationary on the look out for Kamikaze cyclists sneaking up on the inside to sit right where they can’t be seen.
So did Plod giving evidence ‘that there was a view to be had’, adjust the seat and all the mirrors to take account of his stature and then allow for his size relative to the driver’s? We shall see what defence counsel makes of it.
Edit: misquote, comment is not to Rog.
Chas:
newmercman:
This is what is known as an ACCIDENTYou may have six mirrors, but the major flaw in that is that you only have two eyes
To be a lorry driver it seems you need superhuman powers to compensate for the stupid and reckless behaviour of others
We have these things on our road network called PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS, if you want to cross the road in safety you should use one
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
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
It should never have reached a court of justice, the coroner could have dealt with it. Cause of death, stupidity
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?
It doesn’t matter how out of context you want to take what I said, you could never come up with a ridiculous statement like that & attribute it to me
I won’t waste my time with an explanation as you are clearly a little challenged
And crash into the vehicle in front because it has just stopped again! You have to look where you are going at some point when in a queue of very slow moving traffic, you can’t just keep looking in the mirrors.
Many of us will be watching the n/s mirror while stationary on the look out for Kamikaze cyclists sneaking up on the inside to sit right where they can’t be seen.
That about sums it up, the car in front moves off, you look in all your mirrors, see nothing in the way and nothing approaching (like a cyclist) and off you go.
A pedestrian could be out of the field of view of the forward mounted mirror as you start to move, as you check your five other mirrors, you hit them.
Whose fault is that? Not the driver of the lorry, note the fault of the pedestrian for placing themselves in danger. It is obvious that traffic would start to move again at some point and if you’re elderly and walking with the aid of a stick, the time you’re exposed to danger is increased significantly.
So it maybe an idea not to try and dodge traffic as you’re then relying on somebody else (in this case a lorry driver) to compensate for your poor judgement.
I walk amongst lorries all the time, at fuel stops and in yards and I never walk in front of one unless I make eye contact with the driver. Clearly that never happened in this instance…
Unbelievable. If I’m in my car behind a lorry, or anything else for that matter, I wait until there’s a bit of space between us before I move off. So why was this woman able to run over a bloke without knowing she was doing it. Look at this way: you’re moving off real slow in traffic with a car, all of a sudden the car doesn’t want to go on the amount of throttle you’re giving it. What do you do ? Think to yourself that something’s wrong and stop to see ? or give it some wellie to get over whatever’s holding it back regardless of what it might be !
As for the poor bugger in the lorry, it could happen to anyone, and anyone who’s arrogant enough to say it would never happen to me, is just that; ignorant and arrogant !
Why not have the common sense to walk behind the lorry if there’s no crossing near enough. Or why not have the common sense to clock the queue of traffic in front of the lorry to see if it’s moving.
Not trying to be TNUK CSI, just a point of view.
I just hope the bloke is found not guilty and the woman behind is charged instead.