Slackbladder:
Fulham cyclist killed after being hit by lorry… No arrests have been made.
That reads like a ‘press release’ no doubt issued by the local plod press div. I’m not saying it’s not accurate (often they are not), but you don’t have the benefit of seeing the time of the release, the circumstances - nor what happened after the release. It’s known in the business as ‘churnalism’.
Slackbladder:
The thing is that not all truckers are arrested at the scene. It all depends on the circumstances of the particular incident and how the relevant constabulary deal with it.
For example:
Fulham cyclist killed after being hit by lorry
You’re wrecking the conspiracy theorists claim that there’s an agenda against truck drivers with them automatically being arrested at the scene while the Police fabri . . . sorry, build a case against them.
Boomerang Dave:
Arrest is a procedure that can take place at any stage of an investigation. When anyone is arrested they are informed of their rights - particularly the right to remain silent. In short, it’s like a warning - what you are saying IS being recorded and may be used AGAINST you. Giving the driver that warning early is an asset to the driver.
Best advice is to STFU & ‘no comment’ to EVERYTHING until you have received legal advice. Do not even chat with the officers.
Boomerang Dave:
All fatal road traffic collisions are automatically declared a 'crime scene" and are investigated along those lines.
When I worked on recovery, it was explained to me when chatting with some of the collision investigators that the scene is treated as a murder scene until they can rule that out. Chucking the recently deceased into the passenger seat & going out to find an accident is a lot more common than you might think.
Chas:
Best advice is to STFU & ‘no comment’ to EVERYTHING until you have received legal advice. Do not even chat with the officers.
Indeed, the point of being read rights etc… get a lawyer and say: Foxtrot Alpha.
I’ve had the unfortunate experience of attending more road collisions (many fatal) in my professional capacity than I care to think about. And yes, although technically a ‘crime scene’, ruling out murder or otherwise is essential to the investigation. Declaring the incident and the area around it a crime scene, gives the police increased powers and the ability to quarantine an area for detailed investigation. As you clearly note: Nothing is ruled out until investigated etc.
Boomerang Dave:
bazza123:
I’m not against the police, I just don’t understand why there always seems to be a presumption of wrongdoing on the driver. If a train driver does not speed, shuts doors properly etc etc but someone is killed it is just a tragic accident. If a driver does everything right, but someone ends up dead, he is arrested.Just seems a bit odd really.
Ask yourself why you are assuming any presumption?
Arrest is a procedure that can take place at any stage of an investigation. When anyone is arrested they are informed of their rights - particularly the right to remain silent. In short, it’s like a warning - what you are saying IS being recorded and may be used AGAINST you. Giving the driver that warning early is an asset to the driver.
All fatal road traffic collisions are automatically declared a 'crime scene" and are investigated along those lines.
Arrest and conviction are not the same.
Suspicion is not the same as - I think you are to blame or presumption.
+1 
This is what I am trying to get at but people seem to twist it and say “Drivers” are being victimised and people at the scene should not be arrested and let on there way.
if it was that easy, every time there is a death at a scene of an accident people will be just walking away, and how do you know that the said person has gave proper details and not fake ones? then you have that problem of finding that person who caused the accident (If proven) .
People need to lighten up
Now now, you don’t want to let facts get in the way of a good possible scenario do you? What would the conspiracy theorists have to batter on about if we relied on facts?
also we don’t even know if the driver was british, had he been a foreign national the police would have to arrest him until all investigations were complete, that’s just adding another scenario to the case 
mickyblue:
how do you know that the said person has gave proper details and not fake ones? then you have that problem of finding that person who caused the accident (If proven) .People need to lighten up
Precisely! Well said!!!
This one is for those that think the cycling lobby are out to get all motorists. Note the report says “a rare move” when finding it dangerous driving. Usually they are reluctant to use that, preferring to go for the lesser careless driving, and therefore a lesser sentence.
Anyone know why they cannot, or don’t use manslaughter?
A driver who hit and killed a cyclist when she took her eyes off the road to adjust her sat nav has been convicted of death by dangerous driving.
Victoria McClure is almost certain to face a custodial sentence when she returns to court at the end of August.
In a rare move, the jury found Ms McClure guilty of the more serious offence of death by dangerous driving, although she had already pleaded guilty to death by careless driving.
Anthony Hilson was out for a Sunday morning ride on September 9th 2012 when he was hit from behind by McClure on the A4 Bath Road in Twyford, Berkshire.
It was a straight stretch of road and visibility was good, but Ms McClure was adjusting the zoom function on her sat nav.
According to Rhia Weston, a road safety campaigner for the CTC: “Although this was a successful prosecution, the presentation of evidence did cause some concern. The police forensic investigator made no attempt to calculate exactly how long Hilson would have been in McClure’s sight if his speed were taken into consideration.”
Prosecutor Matthew Walsh was left to tell the jury, “Assuming she’s travelling at the speed limit of 60mph, it takes about 18 seconds to cover the distance - that’s the length of time she would have had the cyclist in her view.” He added that there were no skidmarks or signs of evasive action at the scene.
The jury did not in the end accept the defence claim that Mr Hilson’s black, red and white cycling gear made him difficult to spot.
Although a strong sentence for dangerous driving leading to the death of a cyclist is welcomed by the CTC, it’s not a custodial sentence that they were pushing for in this case, although a representative attended the trial.Â
In a statement the organisation said: "CTC does not think that imposing custodial sentences on drivers who cause death is the ideal solution, as in most cases they only present a danger to the public when behind the wheel of a car. Thus, imposing long-term or life-time driving bans is a more effective solution and deterrent to bad driving.
“When drivers have caused danger intentionally or recklessly, or if they have a history of breaching driving bans, long custodial sentences are more appropriate.”
Last year, British Cycling and CTC were among organisations that launched a campaign urging for a review of sentencing in cases in which the victim is a cyclist, leading to a meeting with justice minister Helen Grant that the governing body’s director of policy and legal affairs, Martin Gibbs, afterwards called “a significant step forward.”
In February, CTC launched another campaign calling on residents of England and Wales to urge their Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) to prioritise road safety.
The organisation said that police forces need to thoroughly investigate road traffic incidents involving vulnerable users including cyclists and ensure the drivers involved face appropriate action.
According to CTC, shortcomings in investigations of such cases result in less evidence being available to the prosecution, which has a knock-on effect in terms of the charges that are brought and, ultimately, sentencing in the event of a conviction.
Slackbladder:
Anyone know why they cannot, or don’t use manslaughter?
Some time since I read up on this one. But it stems from poor conviction rates - specific to the charge of manslaughter. And because death on the road is very much a regular, daily occurrence - the number of potential charges justified having a charge specific to the crime. This doesn’t rule out manslaughter.
wildfire:
also we don’t even know if the driver was british, had he been a foreign national the police would have to arrest him until all investigations were complete, that’s just adding another scenario to the case
Ah good point made there. If there let on there way you will defiantly find it hard to find them
Slackbladder:
This one is for those that think the cycling lobby are out to get all motorists.Last year, British Cycling and CTC were among organisations that launched a campaign urging for a review of sentencing in cases in which the victim is a cyclist, leading to a meeting with justice minister Helen Grant that the governing body’s director of policy and legal affairs, Martin Gibbs, afterwards called “a significant step forward.”
In February, CTC launched another campaign calling on residents of England and Wales to urge their Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) to prioritise road safety.
The organisation said that police forces need to thoroughly investigate road traffic incidents involving vulnerable users including cyclists and ensure the drivers involved face appropriate action.
According to CTC, shortcomings in investigations of such cases result in less evidence being available to the prosecution, which has a knock-on effect in terms of the charges that are brought and, ultimately, sentencing in the event of a conviction.
I don’t see anything there which wouldn’t confirm the idea of a politically driven regime being requested and supported by the cyclist lobby,in which the balance of blame will always be put on the motor vehicle driver,in the case of collisions with ‘more vulnerable’ cyclists,all based on those bs grounds of ‘vulnerability’ of cyclists not the fact that the majority of cyclists are the ones who are actually ‘causing’ most of those collisions.No surprise either that there wouldn’t be any room in those calls for more road safety to get cyclists off the roads and onto the pavements and making the use of existing provided cycleways compulsory,with an automatic presumption of innocence in favour of motor vehicle drivers in the case of collisions with cyclists where it can be shown that such alternatives existed.
Boomerang Dave:
bazza123:
I’m not against the police, I just don’t understand why there always seems to be a presumption of wrongdoing on the driver. If a train driver does not speed, shuts doors properly etc etc but someone is killed it is just a tragic accident. If a driver does everything right, but someone ends up dead, he is arrested.Just seems a bit odd really.
Ask yourself why you are assuming any presumption?
Arrest is a procedure that can take place at any stage of an investigation. When anyone is arrested they are informed of their rights - particularly the right to remain silent. In short, it’s like a warning - what you are saying IS being recorded and may be used AGAINST you. Giving the driver that warning early is an asset to the driver.
All fatal road traffic collisions are automatically declared a 'crime scene" and are investigated along those lines.
Arrest and conviction are not the same.
Suspicion is not the same as - I think you are to blame or presumption.
If arrest and suspicion aren’t the same thing as presumption of blame then there’s no reason as to why any description of
causing death by careless or dangerous driving would need to be applied at that stage.It would just be the driver has been arrested and bailed on suspicion of an unspecified charge or charges subject to pending investigations.Which is obviously not what the cycling lobby agenda is all about.The reality is an agenda of the most serious type of offence being applied to drivers from the start and all investigations then being led by that criterea,regardless of who actually caused the collision and that’s just based on the circumstantial evidence that a collision took place involving a vulnerable road user being a cyclist.Which no surprise in the eyes of the cyclist lobby and their raving politician supporters is sufficient reason to charge a driver with causing death by careless or dangerous driving regardless of the actions of the cyclist in question or the actual standard of driving in question.IE having a typically suicidally stupid cyclist collide with the side of a truck and /or missing them in the mirrors who’ve decided to undertake a truck along a narrowing section of road with insufficient clearance or before a junction where a turn is likely is in the cyclists view a case of careless or dangerous driving on the part of the truck driver regardless of the actions of the cyclist just because the cyclist is a ‘vulnerable road user’.The fact that,at least some,drivers themselves seem to support and are prepared to work under that regime is unbelievable.
Sorry, I am laughing my back side off here
mickyblue:
Sorry, I am laughing my back side off here
+1 
Don’t know about you wildfire but I am seeing the same post being posted a number of times in the same topic. It’s like a broken record
I know what you mean micky done to many fatal accidents I my time on recovery, so I know exactly how the system works, to many people seem to have a bee in their bonnet thinking there is some alterative agenda on arresting someone at the scene of a fatal
I started ignoring him via the ignore button, then posted to him that I was ignoring him and could not see his posts. Then after that, I see people quoting him rattling on at me, even though he knows I’m ignoring him. He’s relentless when he gets the bit between his teeth. All his posts are single sentence, incoherent, angry rants.
Let me guess: all cyclists are suicidal idiots with a death wish, working in a conspiracy with politicians and police, with the aim of attacking truckers and truckers shouldn’t stand for it. Or a rant to that effect.
Boomerang Dave:
I started ignoring him via the ignore button, then posted to him that I was ignoring him and could not see his posts. Then after that, I see people quoting him rattling on at me, even though he knows I’m ignoring him. He’s relentless when he gets the bit between his teeth. All his posts are single sentence, incoherent, angry rants.Let me guess: all cyclists are suicidal idiots with a death wish, working in a conspiracy with politicians and police, with the aim of attacking truckers and truckers shouldn’t stand for it. Or a rant to that effect.
correct dave
Carryfast you are like a broken record. You blather on about some imaginary cyclist agenda despite no proof, that’s because there is none. I was thinking of staying on this forum until one of two things happen. You admit that a trucker might, just might, have been at fault in some small way in the killing of a cyclist, or the hole in my arse heals up.
Get it into your head, nobody is going to force cyclists to ride on the pavement. The police in certain areas, Cambridge I believe, have been charging cyclists for doing it recently, at 5am! If that’s the cycling lobby at work then there is something drastically wrong. I cannot believe people come on here spewing out the same guff and expecting things to change. If you want something done, get in touch with people that can do something. The rha or fta etc, they must be lining the politicians pockets given the amount of cash they want to spend on roads and the motor industry.