Tragic news.

[nb Innisfree]

We are told what he did......

 

And what he claimed......

 

 

 

The police have said the cyclist was properly within a well defined cycle lane...... Lots of "roadside furniture" in those, (not!).

 

Can you seriously send a cyclist flying 50 feet with a vehicle, and not know you have done it ?

 

You would either have to be completely out of your head on something, or have a severe medical condition - either way I'd not like to think they could be driving again in a year's time.

 

The police have 'claimed' he was in the lane, they don't know any more than us.

 

I don't know if that's possible, it could be.

 

Lots of possibilities, you have mentioned just two of them, perhaps he did have some sort of blackout, maybe he was distracted and didn't see him, maybe he fell asleep, maybe he did it deliberately, maybe the cyclist swerved just when the driver was distracted, all possibilities and we could go on all day but the fact is no there were no witnesses.

[Guest]

Round the corner from me.

 

Hyde has always had an above average quota of killers.

 

Even the local GP was at it at one time...

[Laurie Booth]

Very tragic for all concerned.

[Peter Reed]

Even the local GP was at it at one time...

 

A lot more than "one" time.

[bargemast]

The police have 'claimed' he was in the lane, they don't know any more than us.

 

I don't know if that's possible, it could be.

 

Lots of possibilities, you have mentioned just two of them, perhaps he did have some sort of blackout, maybe he was distracted and didn't see him, maybe he fell asleep, maybe he did it deliberately, maybe the cyclist swerved just when the driver was distracted, all possibilities and we could go on all day but the fact is no there were no witnesses.

 

 

Nobody is 100% sure to never be involved in an accident, but to continue and only stop 200m further to check the damage on the van, without going back to see if you could possibly do something to help the accidented and in this case maybe have saved his life.

 

Even IF it was the bicyclist fault, you stop and try all you can to limit the chances of making it worse for the victim.

 

To make it even worse, he drove by a bit later and again didn't stop.

 

I do my best to understand this drivers privat situation, but that could never be an excuse for not stopping.

 

If he couldn't concentrate on his driving, he should have stayed home.

 

Peter.

[nb Innisfree]

Nobody is 100% sure to never be involved in an accident, but to continue and only stop 200m further to check the damage on the van, without going back to see if you could possibly do something to help the accidented and in this case maybe have saved his life.

 

Even IF it was the bicyclist fault, you stop and try all you can to limit the chances of making it worse for the victim.

 

To make it even worse, he drove by a bit later and again didn't stop.

 

I do my best to understand this drivers privat situation, but that could never be an excuse for not stopping.

 

If he couldn't concentrate on his driving, he should have stayed home.

 

Peter.

 

But you're assuming he was aware that he had hit a cyclist, he may or may not have been, you or I simply don't know.

 

If he drove by later and wasn't aware that he had hit anybody why would he stop? We just don't know

 

How many times do we all lose concentration for a short while, if it doesn't result in an incident then we don't realise we lost concentration, on that basis should all of us stay at home.

 

You're just making assumptions.

Edited July 6, 2011 by nb Innisfree

[BelgiumBrit]

Nobody is 100% sure to never be involved in an accident, but to continue and only stop 200m further to check the damage on the van, without going back to see if you could possibly do something to help the accidented and in this case maybe have saved his life.

 

Even IF it was the bicyclist fault, you stop and try all you can to limit the chances of making it worse for the victim.

 

To make it even worse, he drove by a bit later and again didn't stop.

 

I do my best to understand this drivers privat situation, but that could never be an excuse for not stopping.

 

If he couldn't concentrate on his driving, he should have stayed home.

 

Peter.

 

 

Agreed. There was never any mention of the cyclist being at fault in the reports of the Trial. However , this man was found guilty of taking another persons life due to the standard of his driving being well below the expected level of that of a competent driver. He was found guilty 'beyond reasonable doubt' in a Court of Law; Tried by his 'Peers', a Jury of 12 members of the public.

 

As an aside, The Police Accident Investigators are trained to a very high standard. Their evidence will include, cross contamination of paint or fibres from cyclist to vehicle and vice versa , reconstructions of speed at the scene,trajectory of debris ( such as glass from lighting units and windscreens )from the vehicle across the accident scene. This alone can give a very good indication of direction, speed and angle at time of impact ( even without tyre braking marks on the road surface ). It is a science , and very precise.( When a hit and run occurs, glass fragments from lighting units recovered from the scene can be traced to the make and year of vehicle , and then onto a widespread sweep of CCTV around the time of the incident.)

 

I am sure that such evicence would have been included in the Fatal Accident enquiry report to The CPS. And that is how they caught the man who has now been convicted.

 

This is a very sad tale, and to suggest that 'maybe' the cyclist was in 'someway at fault' is very unfair.

 

The driver was convicted of causing his death due to the manner of his own driving. That should be accepted.

Edited July 6, 2011 by BelgiumBrit

[Guest]

Good post BB

[nb Innisfree]

[quote name='BelgiumBrit' timestamp='1309976765' post='714618'

 

This is a very sad tale, and to suggest that 'maybe' the cyclist was in 'someway at fault' is very unfair.

 

The driver was convicted of causing his death due to the manner of his own driving. That should be accepted.

 

I wasn't suggesting the cyclist was at fault just trying to illustrate how there are unlimited possibilities and that lots of assumptions based on unqualified judgements have been made, trying to ascertain the exact level of guilt is impossible without witnesses but a reasonable assessment was probably reached based on evidence, people stating that he should have had a long prison sentence etc etc is just an emotional knee jerk reaction based purely on assumptions.

[BelgiumBrit]

I wasn't suggesting the cyclist was at fault just trying to illustrate how there are unlimited possibilities and that lots of assumptions based on unqualified judgements have been made, trying to ascertain the exact level of guilt is impossible without witnesses but a reasonable assessment was probably reached based on evidence, people stating that he should have had a long prison sentence etc etc is just an emotional knee jerk reaction based purely on assumptions.

 

 

As I see it, the ONLY punishment this man has received relating to this offence, is that he'll be taking buses and taxi's for a year ( and looking for alternative employment presumably ) and his next insurance premium( if he can get insurance ) will be exhorbitant, and rightly so. All in all, not so harsh really is it , considering he is responsible for a mans death?

[nb Innisfree]

As I see it, the ONLY punishment this man has received relating to this offence, is that he'll be taking buses and taxi's for a year ( and looking for alternative employment presumably ) and his next insurance premium( if he can get insurance ) will be exhorbitant, and rightly so. All in all, not so harsh really is it , considering he is responsible for a mans death?

 

Yes it does seem that way.

[bargemast]

But you're assuming he was aware that he had hit a cyclist, he may or may not have been, you or I simply don't know.

 

If he drove by later and wasn't aware that he had hit anybody why would he stop? We just don't know

 

How many times do we all lose concentration for a short while, if it doesn't result in an incident then we don't realise we lost concentration, on that basis should all of us stay at home.

 

You're just making assumptions.

 

 

I'm not just making assumptions, I was reading post #27, in which was said that the man stopped 200m further to check the damage on his vehicle, so he very well knew he'd hit someone or something and didn't stop immediatly but 200m further, so why only then ?

 

Peter.

[mayalld]

As I see it, the ONLY punishment this man has received relating to this offence, is that he'll be taking buses and taxi's for a year ( and looking for alternative employment presumably ) and his next insurance premium( if he can get insurance ) will be exhorbitant, and rightly so. All in all, not so harsh really is it , considering he is responsible for a mans death?

Well there is also the unpaid work

[BelgiumBrit]

Well there is also the unpaid work

 

yep, that's a bit over the top isn't it? Expecting him to work for the 'good of the community' 'unpaid' for 200 hrs , instead of going to prison;Community service is the harsh option indeed !

[nb Innisfree]

I'm not just making assumptions, I was reading post #27, in which was said that the man stopped 200m further to check the damage on his vehicle, so he very well knew he'd hit someone or something and didn't stop immediatly but 200m further, so why only then ?

 

Peter.

 

But you are making the assumption that he knew he had hit a cyclist, why would he "very well know he'd hit someone"? just because he'd stopped to inspect any damage 200m further on? If indeed he did think he'd only hit some road furniture there might not be any immediate urgency and he stopped when he though it was safe to do so. If I thought I had hit something inanimate I probably would stop when it was safe to do so, if I thought I had hit someone I would stop immediately, there is a difference between the two.

[BelgiumBrit]

But you are making the assumption that he knew he had hit a cyclist, why would he "very well know he'd hit someone"? just because he'd stopped to inspect any damage 200m further on? If indeed he did think he'd only hit some road furniture there might not be any immediate urgency and he stopped when he though it was safe to do so. If I thought I had hit something inanimate I probably would stop when it was safe to do so, if I thought I had hit someone I would stop immediately, there is a difference between the two.

 

 

This incident occurred at 10.30 am, presumably good visiblity. If you collide with a cyclist and the force causes him to be 'flung' 50 feet , well, you know it's not a rabbit, and the sound and violence of any such collision would make you very well aware, very quickly that you had been involved in a significant collision, possibly with a person.

Edited July 6, 2011 by BelgiumBrit

[nb Innisfree]

This incident occurred at 10.30 am, presumably good visiblity. If you collide with a cyclist and the force causes him to be 'flung' 50 feet , well, you know it's not a rabbit, and the sound and violence of any such collision would make you very well aware, very quickly that you had been involved in a significant collision, possibly with a person.

 

I don't know how loud a collision would be that flings a cyclist 50' and I doubt you do.

 

You're still making assumptions.

Edited July 6, 2011 by nb Innisfree

[BelgiumBrit]

I don't know how loud a collision would be that flings a cyclist 50' and I doubt you do.

 

You're still making assumptions.

 

Now you're just being silly aren't you ?

[nb Innisfree]

Now you're just being silly aren't you ?

 

No I'm being logical.

[Guest]

I don't know how loud a collision would be that flings a cyclist 50' and I doubt you do.

 

You're still making assumptions.

 

Over the years I've killed several living creatures when driving, dogs that ran out unexpectently, rabbits, pheasants, birds etc etc.

 

I knew each time I had hit and killed something, I'm 99.9999999999999% no 100% sure I would know if I had hit a person and propelled them 50ft off their bike.

 

He is a tosser and very lucky the jails are full....

[nb Innisfree]

Over the years I've killed several living creatures when driving, dogs that ran out unexpectently, rabbits, pheasants, birds etc etc.

 

I knew each time I had hit and killed something, I'm 99.9999999999999% no 100% sure I would know if I had hit a person and propelled them 50ft off their bike.

 

He is a tosser and very lucky the jails are full....

 

Another assumption.

[sam pig]

No I'm being logical.

 

You are one of the saddest, most ridiculous internet trolls i have ever had the misfortune to read posts from..

 

A man died for gods sake!

 

Can you for once please stop defending the indefensible, stop being a complete t*****, and just shut the f*** up!

 

You are unreal and pathetic...

 

Mod - ban me if you wish but this needed saying...

[BelgiumBrit]

well said Mate, someone that members of this forum knew personally has died in tragic circumstances, and a man has been convicted of his death. End of. The trolls remarks are insensitive and crass.

[nb Innisfree]

You are one of the saddest, most ridiculous internet trolls i have ever had the misfortune to read posts from..

 

A man died for gods sake!

 

Can you for once please stop defending the indefensible, stop being a complete t*****, and just shut the f*** up!

 

You are unreal and pathetic...

 

Mod - ban me if you wish but this needed saying...

 

1) Well first of you are making an assumption.

 

2) I fully realize that a man died and have the utmost sympathy for his relatives, it really is a tragedy.

 

3) If you had the intelligence to read and understand my posts you would realise that I am not defending anyone (or accusing) just pointing the logic of the situation.

 

4) You are being unreal and pathetic descending into emotional ranting.

 

5) Calm down use the grey stuff between your ears.

 

well said Mate, someone that members of this forum knew personally has died in tragic circumstances, and a man has been convicted of his death. End of. The trolls remarks are insensitive and crass.

 

What exactly is a troll.

[BelgiumBrit]

.

 

 

 

What exactly is a troll.

 

 

Someone who tries to wind others up on a forum by posting offensive remarks,getting a reaction or 'bite', which will in turn fuel the trolls need to keep posting on the same offensive theme to get further reaction ! Does THAT sound familiar ? I won't be repsonding to you again on this thread, as that is exactly what a troll would desire.As i said before, your behaviour is inexcusable, and largely offensive.