the WMN article seems to explain it well.
Cyclist crossing on a red light…but truck speeding and being badly driven.
Cyclist paid for his mistake with his life, driver had clearly alarmed his companions with his poor standard of driving…significantly they both seemed to see the hazard before him.
Why do people have to constantly play with their phones…you even see it on building sites etc?
Both share some blame, though it’s pretty harsh to say the cyclist deserved it - please consider how his family might be affected by reading such callous remarks. I think he was expecting approaching vehicles to be adhering to the speed limit and would normally have had the time to cross the road safely but made a grave misjudgement. By the sound of the WMN article though, it seems that the driver was a right liability and thoroughly deserved whatever he got. People’s phones these days have become comforters for some - I seriously think they just can’t bear to be parted from them for an instant - seems like immaturity to me.
Snudger:
Both share some blame, though it’s pretty harsh to say the cyclist deserved it - please consider how his family might be affected by reading such callous remarks. I think he was expecting approaching vehicles to be adhering to the speed limit and would normally have had the time to cross the road safely but made a grave misjudgement. By the sound of the WMN article though, it seems that the driver was a right liability and thoroughly deserved whatever he got. People’s phones these days have become comforters for some - I seriously think they just can’t bear to be parted from them for an instant - seems like immaturity to me.
and, it would be a fair assumption that any driver, not just this one, would be expecting cyclists/pedestrians to be adhering to the laws of the highway too
i don’t want to sound callous and laying all the blame on the cyclist, it was a tragic accident of circumstance, where both parties were in the wrong, and the cyclist came off worse
from reading the reports in the papers, the driver was a bell end of the highest order, BUT, that still does not excuse what the cyclist did in the lead up to the accident
If it hadn’t been for the tachograph there would have been no way of proving that the truck driver was speeding, they are very precise in saying that he was doing 51mph. Point been, if this was a car driver he would have probably been found not guilty.
lightning:
I concur about the cyclist not looking after his own safety. But what would the result have been if the lorry was doing 40 on the dot, and the cyclist had still crossed? Possibly he may of survived, but at least the driver of the truck would have been complying with the law - in terms of his speed. He wasn’t so the rest is history. Is 14 months in clink for that too harsh. I dont think so… its 12 months max with good conduct.
The cps will very rarely use dangerous driving as, they say, it’s harder to get a conviction. The max for dangerous driving is 14 years & 5 for careless driving, driver got 14 months, he’ll do a maximum of 7. Given the information at hand would anyone on here say he wasn’t driving carelessly?
Jumping red lights is something you see so often on the roads these days, by all road users, that it rarely gets a comment. Not all cyclists do it all the time, anymore than all drivers do it all the time. The vast majority get away with it, this cyclist didn’t & it’s a lesson they will never now learn. Just remember this next time the lights flick to Amber as you approach them.
I’m with the most that say its both their faults. Its my biggest fear which keeps me on the right side of the law, I don’t speed, text while driving and my bike and car both have bluetooth. The worry about hitting someone or something if I’m being a fool stops me doing it. Like 40 on a single carriageway, although I agree that 40 is way to slow on some roads and by doing 50 you prevent someone having the frustration of trying a dangerous overtake, better you do 40 and when they do crash, your’e in the clear as your Tacho reads 40. If they’re being a ■■■, they deserve it and it isn’t your job to protect them.
The cyclist made a mistake and paid the ultimate price.
To me a green light means proceed with caution.
It is not a defence but a mitigating factor.
You were correct about the location bb; I’m not an expert on that road but perhaps the precise location was the middle set of lights where speed can be got up, or maybe the final set - that seems to cover them all in retrospect! The point I was trying to make, ss, was that normally the cyclist would have made it across OK, as you probably get used to the average max speed on that stretch, but in this case he didn’t allow for the wally who was speeding. As ever, I think this incident shows you can get away with all sorts of driving misbehaviour (presuming this wasn’t the first time the driver had done that sort of stuff), perhaps exacerbated here by lack of sleep, until something happens.
Not sure what you mean by “what the cyclist did in the lead up”? As far as I can tell, he made one terrible mistake. We can speculate on other factors from his side but we know the evidence against the driver, including witness evidence given, in all fairness, by those who one might have thought would be on “his side”.
oatcake1967:
The cyclist made a mistake and paid the ultimate price.To me a green light means proceed with caution.
It is not a defence but a mitigating factor.
and, quite rightly so
but…
RED means STOP, regardless of who it is for, pedestrians/cyclists or motorists
Snudger:
You were correct about the location bb; I’m not an expert on that road but perhaps the precise location was the middle set of lights where speed can be got up, or maybe the final set - that seems to cover them all in retrospect! The point I was trying to make, ss, was that normally the cyclist would have made it across OK, as you probably get used to the average max speed on that stretch, but in this case he didn’t allow for the wally who was speeding. As ever, I think this incident shows you can get away with all sorts of driving misbehaviour (presuming this wasn’t the first time the driver had done that sort of stuff), perhaps exacerbated here by lack of sleep, until something happens.Not sure what you mean by “what the cyclist did in the lead up”? As far as I can tell, he made one terrible mistake. We can speculate on other factors from his side but we know the evidence against the driver, including witness evidence given, in all fairness, by those who one might have thought would be on “his side”.
by choosing to ignore the red traffic light 
14 month jail sentence= 7 months inside before release
eligible for a tag after 4 months as he can serve up to a 3 month tag for this sentence
after one month he will be transfered to an open prison because the catergory of crime does not involve drugs or violence
he will be eliglbe for day release (probably sundays) after serving 12 weeks inside
so its hardly a harsh sentence, if you ask me, 16 weeks in jail for taking a life is just a lesson the judge is trying to learn him, he shouldnt have been speeding but the cyclist should not have jumped the light, there both to blame in ways because if he hadnt have been speeding there would have been no custodial sentence, but if the cyclist hadnt of jumped the light he would still be alive, both to blame
R.I.P
both did wrong both paid / paying the price end of.
Callous maybe but that’s life the driver will forever know where when and what he was doing on that day so yes he’ll live with it forever.
shuttlespanker:
Snudger:
You were correct about the location bb; I’m not an expert on that road but perhaps the precise location was the middle set of lights where speed can be got up, or maybe the final set - that seems to cover them all in retrospect! The point I was trying to make, ss, was that normally the cyclist would have made it across OK, as you probably get used to the average max speed on that stretch, but in this case he didn’t allow for the wally who was speeding. As ever, I think this incident shows you can get away with all sorts of driving misbehaviour (presuming this wasn’t the first time the driver had done that sort of stuff), perhaps exacerbated here by lack of sleep, until something happens.Not sure what you mean by “what the cyclist did in the lead up”? As far as I can tell, he made one terrible mistake. We can speculate on other factors from his side but we know the evidence against the driver, including witness evidence given, in all fairness, by those who one might have thought would be on “his side”.
by choosing to ignore the red traffic light
Yes, agreed. A big mistake.
I think they were both in the wrong but the difference is that as a driver you have a duty of responsibility towards cyclists and pedestrians and by doing 51 in a 40 (which in all honesty is way to fast) he showed a blatant disregard of that responsibility but I do feel sorry for him because I don’t believe that any of us are complete angels out on the road even though some will make themselves out to be.
shuttlespanker:
oatcake1967:
The cyclist made a mistake and paid the ultimate price.To me a green light means proceed with caution.
It is not a defence but a mitigating factor.and, quite rightly so
but…
RED means STOP, regardless of who it is for, pedestrians/cyclists or motorists
That’s not necessarily true. How often have you crossed a road when the little man is red? I don’t think the law is quite as clear cut as you make out.
If the cyclist was cycling across a pedestrian crossing then I think you’ll find he was breaking the law there too, the clue is in the name pedestrian crossing. Both people contributed to this death and whether the sentence is judged harsh or not for the driver the cyclist will not get a second chance to amend his ways.
colin woolgar may have been in the wrong but i love the way these judges seem to think they are right all the time ie if you had been driving safely and at the correct speed mr moore would be alive today YEAH,RIGHT,even had he been hit at 40 mph he would more than likely die from the impact anyway,maybe alive from a 20 mph impact but 40, not a chance
Looks to me like the lorry drivers work colleagues have got him hung for his general bad driving. If all his colleagues had of said he was usually a great driver, i don’t think we’d be having this conversation.
I love they way they ram home what they see as important points too, in the report. “12 hours shift” “4 hours sleep”.
I think maybe if the lorry driver had another brief he wouldn’t of got that conviction. I’d of been highlighting the cyclists disregard for his own saftey and the safety of others by crossing at red lights.
Thank God none of us where there eh?
Cyclist not at fault.
Puddle jumper driver totally to blame due to a combination of texts/calling his girlfriends best mate (read into that what you will), driving without due care and attention and generally looking and acting like a prick who i could never get tired of kicking.
[The driver of a 7.5ton vehicle is not a lorry driver, never has been / never will be]
Don’t believe the BS, his mates in the cab will have been egging him on during the whole phone/texting bravado and only went all wimpish when they realised what had happened.
As the driver of a 44ton vehicle I allow for other road users mistakes and vunerabilities, speed limit is 40 so i go at 40 (well 40-43 allowing for a margin of error). This gives me time to react and avoid this eventuality.
Only good thing to come from this is that the oxygen stealer will spend a lifetime seeing this accident repeated ad infinitum when he is alone in the dark which will hopefully lead to him taking his own life as the cowards way out in the very near future.
Theres too much bollox on this forum about cyclists as it is when we are responsible for the safety of other road users because we are the professionals. Yes there are blind spots and yes cyclists may endanger their own lives due to moments of madness/lack of awareness… but we know this and we expect this and we have a responsibilty to protect the safety of other road users.
Lets be clear here, this prick is not a professional driver he is a danger to other road users and should be treated as such. I can only hope the family of the victim are fibbing at their acceptance of the sentance and in reality they can not wait till this loony gets out so real justice can be served. Thats what I would do.
[Edited to soften the swear words]
truckman20:
colin woolgar may have been in the wrong but i love the way these judges seem to think they are right all the time ie if you had been driving safely and at the correct speed mr moore would be alive today YEAH,RIGHT,even had he been hit at 40 mph he would more than likely die from the impact anyway,maybe alive from a 20 mph impact but 40, not a chance
Really, yet at 40 mph theres a high likelihood that this accident would never have happened, do you really think 51mph was the fastest this prick was going. Perhaps you may consider that in a 40 mph you go 40 mph. Would it not be logically correct that if woolgar was going at 40 mph his reaction times would have been increased and the impact with the cyclist would have been less devastating, OMG he may have been able to apply the brakes momentarily resulting in a 20 - 30mph impact.
Just maybe you are correct and the speed made no difference, 40 / 51 he would still have been toast- please keep us posted how this mindset unfolds for you in the near future.