Four years jail...

I think most people would accept that an accident of some sort was likely
but the judge would have asked himself: "Would the motorist have been able
to avoid *killing* the cyclist if she had been travelling at the speed limit
and/or been looking where she was going?"

In this case he obviously decided that she would.

If it had been an old dear on a moped conking out in the middle of the
junction, you'd expect an alert motorist coming the other way to notice and
take the necessary action, no? Motorists need to understand that the road
is a dangerous place and they have to give it 100% concentration at all
times. A while ago a lady motorist negotiating the junction immediately
outside my house mounted the grass verge, knocked down a lamppost and ended
up on her roof. A witness said she had been turning round and spoon-feeding
a baby in the back seat. My young son and two of his friends were about
twenty feet away at the time.

The police decided not to prosecute despite my best attempts to convince
them otherwise. They said the poor woman had gone through enough already.

 

I don't wear a helmet, even in my Merc. Am I tempting fate?

It is patently obvious that a cycle helmet wouldn't have helped this
cyclist. From the little I know of this case, it appears to me that both
parties were in some way at fault. (I was trained, when learning to
drive, to slow down sufficiently when approaching a /green/ traffic
light to be able to stop in the time that a light might be amber. I
apply this training to my cycling.) However, the cyclist is now serving
the death sentence. In comparison, the driver's sentence appears
relatively light.

Cheers,
Luke

 

Indeed, and she did check. But it's also the responsibility of any
road used not to ride so close to parked vehicles that a opening door
could be a problem. Or at least it was when I did my bike test!

 

Apparently not. In the blind spot, who knows.

I've no idea. I said fast rather than too fast.

Well far enough away - this was a 1 way street - that you wouldn't
need to be so close.

Absolutely.

I'm not suggesting she was blameless, but the cyclist was also
culpable.

 

That you can't say with any certainty - that the accident occurred
doesn't automatically mean she did not check carefully. I believed
her when she said she checked as she's a cyclist herself and well
aware of the dangers of parked cars. My Solicitor was the one that
said that in any car/cyclist accident there is a presumption in favour
of the cyclist.

 

That's my take on it also.

 

It didn't seem equitable to me. She had the door only open so far
that the force of the impact ripped the door handle from her hand.
Had she flung the door open without any consideration I'd agree but
that wasn't the way it was.

Clearly it was her fault, but the cyclist wasn't without some fault of
his own.

 

The opener of a car door /must/ check. Passing road users /should/
check. The former has a better idea of the size of their car's doors
than anybody else and has no need to worry about anything else that may
be happening on the road. The latter may need to move in to avoid a
pothole or an oncoming vehicle. They may be blown by a gust of wind,
distracted by bugs committing suicide in their eyes or slipping on a
surprisingly smooth road surface.

All in all, I can see far more reasons for me to take care of other road
users when opening my car door than I can see reasons to worry that I
should be held liable if a driver fails to observe.

Cheers,
Luke

 

She obviously didn't check properly in this case.

 

You're right , but I recall a mate getting failed on his bike test for
riding too close to parked cars. Probably not his only fault but it
was one of the fail points.

 

She was speeding while texting and she killed someone - how is the
sentence OTT?

 

Clearly. I still tend to think that a cyclist riding fast enough to
bend a car door's frame when he hit it (bending it horizontally rather
than vertically, IYSWIM, is not exactly helping the situation though.

 

I failed my first driving test for failing to check my blind spot.

Cheers,
Luke

 

That would appear to suggest that the cyclist was ridiculously close but
the fact remains that the driver broke the law by failing to ensure that
she did not hit anyone. Mirrors are not magical and should only be used
in conjunction with proper observation, including of the blind spot.

Cheers,
Luke

 

FFS she was convicted of causing death by dangerous driving. Maximum
sentence is 14 years. Perhaps the fact that the cadaver ran a red light
meant that she /only/ got four years. Using a mobile phone is an
aggravating factor in the sentencing guidelines.

http://www.brake.org.uk/index.php?p=675

She'll be out in two, small enough sentence for taking a life IWHT.

 

Oop here too. Fucking idiots, but they wear farty little helmets, so it's Ok
and I don't think you can be banned from rising a push bike. Well not
unless.....


--
Beav

VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19

 

Sure and no it's not. But the presumption depsite obvious fault on
both sides was what I was getting at.

 

Indeed. There is a basic presumption that the cyclist is innocent in
most road cases. Other half knocked a chap off his cycle a year or
two back - she had parked up in a side street, in a marked bay, looked
in her mirror and then started to open the door, Cyclist chappie
coming up fast and too close to the parked cars hit the opening door
and in the process *bent the door frame*, which would indicate he was
moving some. But she was held 100% responsible by the insurers.

Obviously when she looked in her mirror, she was just checking her lippy
instead of checking to see if anything was approaching. She got HER just
desserts too.


--
Beav

VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19

 

Broke the law? The Highway Code isn't law....

 

And then opened her door on a cyclist. Neat trick if ever there was.

Things have changed, as have the rules regarding door opening.


--
Beav

VN 750
Zed 1000
OMF# 19