It’s a straight road and a very short pedestrian crossing, and given that the accident happened at about 19:00 in July it’s reasonable to assume that visibility was OK, so it looks to me that the cyclist must have crossed the junction without even looking to see if the road was clear.
Regardless of the lorry drivers poor standard of driving prior to the accident, his conviction and penalty should have been based on what happened at the time of the accident and nothing else, he was speeding and not paying the attention to his driving as he should have been.
While everything seems to point to the lorry driver being a complete bell-end who’s standard of driving was pretty appalling it doesn’t change the fact that with what we know of this accident it appears to be the cyclist who was at-least equally responsible for his own demise, in fact given that he appears to have taken his own safety so much for granted I’m inclined to place more blame on him than the idiot lorry driver.
Regardless of whether your driving a lorry a car a bicycle or just walking, you cannot cross roads without paying attention to the traffic and expect to always get away with it, all road users should be doing what they can to prevent accidents happening but that doesn’t change the fact that all adults have to take responsibility for their own actions.
I still think the penalty served on the lorry driver was a bit harsh, he appears to have been held to be completely responsible for what happened when in fact the cyclist appears to have been at-least as much to blame if not more so, however I still have little sympathy for the lorry driver because while he’s locked up the rest of us road users are a little safer.
shuttlespanker:
the cyclist went through the red light, which would have put a green light for the driver, regardless of what type of red/green light it was
Green used to mean go if it is safe to do so not go regardless. Jeeez I’m so old.
so, seeing as you’re so old and reminiscing about the olden days…
what did a red traffic light mean?
The same as an amber light - stop.
I take the point your making about the cyclist, honest. I don’t think either parties covered themselves with glory and the cyclist didn’t live to regret his decision. The driver did.
waynedl:
That’s fine, the law didn’t say the cyclist was innocent, and neither has anybody on here, what they and we’ve said, if the ‘driver’ was doing 40mph, he would have had longer to react, possibly slowing down before impact, possibly not impacting, which could have resulted in a different outcome for the cyclist.
Chances are though, he’d have been too busy reading a text, doing facebook and god knows what else to actually react anyway.
I still fail to comprehend the scenario - a lorry is approaching a pedestrian crossing where he has right of way, a cyclist decides to gamble with his life and doesn’t stop on red. given a speed of 40mph he can safely stop the lorry in a matter of milliseconds (as that is the time between realizing if the cyclist is going to stop where he is legally obliged to stop or he keeps going) but given a speed of 51mph it takes 10 times more to stop the rolling behemoth. is it so? the cyclist still at fault imo, why should the driver be hanged for his unability to foresee the future, pecularities of a comfortable society I guess.
waynedl:
That’s fine, the law didn’t say the cyclist was innocent, and neither has anybody on here, what they and we’ve said, if the ‘driver’ was doing 40mph, he would have had longer to react, possibly slowing down before impact, possibly not impacting, which could have resulted in a different outcome for the cyclist.
Chances are though, he’d have been too busy reading a text, doing facebook and god knows what else to actually react anyway.
I still fail to comprehend the scenario - a lorry is approaching a pedestrian crossing where he has right of way, a cyclist decides to gamble with his life and doesn’t stop on red. given a speed of 40mph he can safely stop the lorry in a matter of milliseconds (as that is the time between realizing if the cyclist is going to stop where he is legally obliged to stop or he keeps going) but given a speed of 51mph it takes 10 times more to stop the rolling behemoth. is it so? the cyclist still at fault imo, why should the driver be hanged for his unability to foresee the future, pecularities of a comfortable society I guess.
That’s not what I’ve said is it?
I said, had he been going the speed limit - 40mph, NOT 51mph (over 25% faster), then he would have had longer to react, he’d have had less speed to bleed off.
And that video is based on KNOWING where he was going to brake and is based on a basic car, not a 7.5t which weighs quite a bit more and takes longer to stop.
I’m not saying he could’ve avoided the impact - although he probably could’ve done, but his impact would have been at a slower speed, even had he not seen the problem or reacted due to being too busy doing other things than driving.
waynedl:
And that video is based on KNOWING where he was going to brake and is based on a basic car, not a 7.5t which weighs quite a bit more and takes longer to stop.
I’m not saying he could’ve avoided the impact - although he probably could’ve done, but his impact would have been at a slower speed, even had he not seen the problem or reacted due to being too busy doing other things than driving.
precisely, I’d say the puddlejumper would’ve turned the cyclist into curry even at 30mph. the driver still should’ve taken the optional nostradamus-course with his cpc though. and I presume (after all the presuming on here) that the driver wasn’t even wearing his hi-viz and hard hat and deffo wasn’t thinking of the children.
waynedl:
And that video is based on KNOWING where he was going to brake and is based on a basic car, not a 7.5t which weighs quite a bit more and takes longer to stop.
I’m not saying he could’ve avoided the impact - although he probably could’ve done, but his impact would have been at a slower speed, even had he not seen the problem or reacted due to being too busy doing other things than driving.
precisely, I’d say the puddlejumper would’ve turned the cyclist into curry even at 30mph. the driver still should’ve taken the optional nostradamus-course with his cpc though. and I presume (after all the presuming on here) that the driver wasn’t even wearing his hi-viz and hard hat and deffo wasn’t thinking of the children.
You’ve gone completely the wrong way there haven’t you?
Here’s another little vid for you… Possibly the best one I’ve ever seen.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not a good 2 shoes, I speed in my car and on my bike, I’ll admit it, but I’m also picky about where I speed and aware of the risks and dangers.
5km/h at the braking point was 27km/h difference at the impact point in that video, so had the 7.5t been doing 40mph and braked, 11mph slower than he was doing - 11mph is just under 20kp/h - then how much difference would there really have been at the point of impact? Would there even have been an impact?
As I said earlier, I’m not saying the cyclist was innocent, he basically committed suicide in my opinion, but the 7.5t driver is deservedly being punished for his part in it by his speeding
so when you approach an intersection, the light is green for you, you see a cyclist coming from your right and although you know you have right of way and he is obliged to stop, do you go into panic mode every time, lay on the horn and slam on the brakes? because you know, he might be suicidal. do it every time do you?
and if you keep on rolling after seeing the cyclist, but he doesn’t stop where he is supposed to, you have what, a second or two until impact at best, what difference do 11mph make? like I said, you can’t stop it in time even at 30mph and best reflexes in the world.
milodon:
so when you approach an intersection, the light is green for you, you see a cyclist coming from your right and although you know you have right of way and he is obliged to stop, do you go into panic mode every time, lay on the horn and slam on the brakes? because you know, he might be suicidal. do it every time do you?
and if you keep on rolling after seeing the cyclist, but he doesn’t stop where he is supposed to, you have what, a second or two until impact at best, what difference do 11mph make? like I said, you can’t stop it in time even at 30mph and best reflexes in the world.
Not when it’s coming from my right, but when it crosses into my road, then yes. As do you, you’ve done it hundreds of times in every town centre in the country, cyclists or pedestrians come straight out.
No I wouldn’t ease off BEFORE it became imminent danger, but I would when it did, 11mph makes a HELL of a difference.
alrighty then, said cyclist crossing into your road - the dangerous part of the crossing he has to pass in front of a lorry is 9 feet long. so considering your claim that you can, while driving at the maximum legal speed and concentration of a sharpshooter, stop in good time when you see the cyclist passing the threshold from the pavement to your trajectory I only have one question. How slow is the cyclist going? although having never ridden a bicycle in the uk myself, according to your claim the average speed for a cyclist would be in the neighbourhood of a few feet per hour. come to think of it, haven’t heard of a brit winning tour de france lately so it might just be the case.
waynedl:
That’s fine, the law didn’t say the cyclist was innocent, and neither has anybody on here, what they and we’ve said, if the ‘driver’ was doing 40mph, he would have had longer to react, possibly slowing down before impact, possibly not impacting, which could have resulted in a different outcome for the cyclist.
Chances are though, he’d have been too busy reading a text, doing facebook and god knows what else to actually react anyway.
I still fail to comprehend the scenario - a lorry is approaching a pedestrian crossing where he has right of way, a cyclist decides to gamble with his life and doesn’t stop on red. given a speed of 40mph he can safely stop the lorry in a matter of milliseconds (as that is the time between realizing if the cyclist is going to stop where he is legally obliged to stop or he keeps going) but given a speed of 51mph it takes 10 times more to stop the rolling behemoth. is it so? the cyclist still at fault imo, why should the driver be hanged for his unability to foresee the future, pecularities of a comfortable society I guess.
You have to take into account that had he been doing 40mph he would have had more time to react to the situation and I’m not saying he would have got stopped but he may well have been able to swerve and avoid hitting the cyclist. People will always do stupid things and make mistakes so if you drive like a ■■■■ you will eventually get caught out.
milodon:
alrighty then, said cyclist crossing into your road - the dangerous part of the crossing he has to pass in front of a lorry is 9 feet long. so considering your claim that you can, while driving at the maximum legal speed and concentration of a sharpshooter, stop in good time when you see the cyclist passing the threshold from the pavement to your trajectory I only have one question. How slow is the cyclist going? although having never ridden a bicycle in the uk myself, according to your claim the average speed for a cyclist would be in the neighbourhood of a few feet per hour. come to think of it, haven’t heard of a brit winning tour de france lately so it might just be the case.
Which part of
waynedl:
I’m not saying he could’ve avoided the impact - although he probably could’ve done, but his impact would have been at a slower speed
do you not understand? Are you a simpleton or a troll? I can’t decide, either way you’re a ■■■■■■■ muppet
You carry on driving on the limiter wherever you feel like it, and I hope you end up as his bum buddy cell mate, because, let me tell you, kill any of my family whilst speeding and you’ll hope to be in jail
ooh, there we go with the namecalling again, must be nice having nothing else to back your claims with
it’s quite naive to think that a split second to react and slow down before a collision at 51mph is much less than a split second to react and slow down at 40mph. but I’m not the one to rock the boat of the members of a comfortable society who think nothing bad will happen to them at 40mph, it’s the law you know. off to my morning commute of 10 miles on my bicycle, won’t be suicidal though.
milodon:
ooh, there we go with the namecalling again, must be nice having nothing else to back your claims with
it’s quite naive to think that a split second to react and slow down before a collision at 51mph is much less than a split second to react and slow down at 40mph. but I’m not the one to rock the boat of the members of a comfortable society who think nothing bad will happen to them at 40mph, it’s the law you know. off to my morning commute of 10 miles on my bicycle, won’t be suicidal though.
But the thing is, it WOULD make a massive difference, ie he’d most likely not be in jail had he been doing 40mph
My commute is 12 miles, so too far for me to cycle, I’ll take the motorbike
Like I’ve already said; both as bad as one another.
Now, Milodon; I don’t want to be Albions protege, but show me anywhere in any rule book where it says that one vehicle has “right of way” over another. The puddle jumper did not have right of way, the cyclist should have given way, end of.
Of course speed makes a difference. If said ■■■■ in truck couldn’t do 40 in a 40 zone, then he really is a cockhead, particularly when there’s a crossing coming up.
So we’ve got two idiots that met each other. If only one had been an idiot, the bike rider would probably still be riding just as stupidly and laughing at how he made the big bad truck slam the brakes on.
Think I’m the only one that doesn’t blame the cyclist in this, i’ve already mentioned what green lights mean so no need to go over that again.
It doesn’t make sense (unless the cyclist had suicidal tendancies) that he would enter the crossing (whatever the lights where on) without judging the road was clear. As the puddlejumper was driving far too fast its logical to consider the cyclist missjudged the speed.
People dash across pelican crossings all the time when they consider the road is clear enough to make it.
Also I notice a lack of independant witness evidence in the report and the claims of the lights being on red would be supported by the two colleagues in the vehicle who also claimed they warned the driver seconds before the impact that there was a cyclist in the road.
Mr Woolgars solicitors will also have been aware that the cyclist crossing the road on a red light would lead to the case being based on ‘careless driving’ rather than ‘dangerous driving’ which carries a much higher sentence.
Strangely the CPS definition of dangerous driving is:
ignoring traffic lights, road signs or warnings from passengers;
the driver being avoidably and dangerously distracted, for example by:
using a hand-held phone or other equipment
reading, or looking at a map
talking to and looking at a passenger
lighting a cigarette, changing a CD or tape, tuning the radio.
No wonder he pleaded guilty to the lesser ‘careless driving’ charge.
As Mr Woolgar had to be warned of the cyclist its clear that he wasn’t even watching the road, so his version of events regarding the colour of the lights cannot be counted on.
Was the light really on red- I doubt it.
If the guy ( on the bike ) had been in a car driving through a light controlled cross junction on red and the Driver in the truck was driving through the cross junction on green ( exceeding the speed limit but still with a green light) who’s at fault .
Dipper_dave…As the puddlejumper was driving far too fast its logical to consider the cyclist missjudged the speed
The cyclist was a fork lift driver (I would expect him to have some judgement of speed) and the bike was a POWERED bike therefore it could be conceived that the rider thought he could beat the lorry through the junction.
It appears the conviction of the driver is compiled from the blatant use of his mobile phone whilst driving which was prob matched with phone records and his tacho, the near miss with a car and clipping the kerb at some point and the passengers with him.
This simple matter is . IF the cyclist had NOT crossed ignoring the red light the collision would not have happened.
nick2008:
If the guy ( on the bike ) had been in a car driving through a light controlled cross junction on red and the Driver in the truck was driving through the cross junction on green ( exceeding the speed limit but still with a green light) who’s at fault .
Both but more the car as he should also be aware of the highway code. Don’t think cyclits have to pass a test or have any understanding of the highway code. In fact I would go as far as to say theres a minority of cyclists who haven’t a clue or at best choose when the HC applies to suit their needs.
The cyclist was a fork lift driver (I would expect him to have some judgement of speed) and the bike was a POWERED bike therefore it could be conceived that the rider thought he could beat the lorry through the junction.
Possibly but I would say an unpowered cyclist has a faster initial pull away speed than some heavier bike with a battery on it. Perhas something went wrong with the bike.
It appears the conviction of the driver is compiled from the blatant use of his mobile phone whilst driving which was prob matched with phone records and his tacho, the near miss with a car and clipping the kerb at some point and the passengers with him.
The conviction is compiled as he killed someone on a pelican crossing, the colour of the lights makes little difference apart from to reduce the charge and sentence issued by the Judge based on the predifined guide he has to use. In this case the Judge choose to increase the sentence from the minimum due to aforementioned reckless driving.
Notice the usual ‘Churchgoer’ character reference, like thats supposed to make any difference. I hate to be stereotypical but it doesn’t look like Mr Woolgars the type to warm a Pew on a regular basis.
This simple matter is . IF the cyclist had NOT crossed ignoring the red light the collision would not have happened.
IF the lights where in fact on red…
All if’s, buts & speculation on my part admittedly, one fact remains is that a green light is not a thumbs up to proceed unless it is safe to do so and to give way to pedestrians crossing.
