The Birmingham Mail reports that lorry driver, Graham Driver, has been found not guilty of causing the death of Muthumanaka Pinhamy by careless driving. Mrs Pinhamy was struck and crushed when Driver pulled out of a side street, but he said he was unaware that this had happened.
Mrs Pinhamy, a mother of five, had been cycling to work at 6.30am along Speedwell Road, Hay Mills on 4 October 2013. CCTV footage captured the moment when Driver pulled out of a side road, striking and crushing Pinhamy.
Driver went on to make a delivery in Speedwell Road before leaving the scene. When later questioned by police, he said he had not been aware that he had hit a cyclist and claimed to have made all the proper checks. Mrs Pinhamy was discovered by refuse collectors shortly afterwards but later died in hospital.
Hugh O’Brien Quinn, prosecuting, told Birmingham Crown that Mrs Pinhamy had been wearing a fluorescent and reflective jacket and had both front and rear lights on her bike. He also said that the street lights were on.
“The prosecution case, in a nut shell, is that Mrs Pinhamy was there to be seen and that the defendant did not see her because he failed to look properly, or possibly look at all.”
O’Brien Quinn also alleged that Driver later phoned a colleague and told him that there had been an accident, that somebody had been knocked off their bike and that he did not know whether he had run them over.
Driver said he was wrong to have left the scene but denied causing death by careless driving: “I do not think I could have done anything different when I took the junction.”
48 thoughts on “Articulated lorry driver cleared of careless driving after running over and killing Birmingham cyclist”
And once again justice is
And once again justice is served.
Jonathing wrote:And once
more like another case of cycling justice swerved! Wait until an MP gets splattered then they’ll take more notice, well unless its UKIP then no one will care
It beggars belief, it really
It beggars belief, it really does.
when i first read the head
when i first read the head line i was expecting the cyclist to have crept up the side of the truck, got into a blind spot, and tragic though it might be, brought it on herself through naivety. However if i am reading this correctly, she was cycling along doing everything, and far more than legally required, to be seen and keep herself safe.
The driver then pulled out of the side road and hit her.
FFS!
If the justice system cannot
If the justice system cannot enforce the law correctly, then that’s when people start resorting to vigilante action.
Assuming
1) that the driver
Assuming
1) that the driver is honest and not a lying callous scumbag only interested in himself
2) the jury were sensible people & not stupidly gullible or untouched by a mother being killed.
then it must be that although doing everything correctly, stopping and thoroughly checking all his mirrors before moving off, he not only failed to see a cyclist lit up & under streetlights, but was able to drive over her without feeling or hearing anything.
The only sensible conclusion then is that trucks like that have no place on urban streets and need to be banned.
Or the driver is a lying callous scumbag after all who actually deserves a long jail sentence
Yeah, that.
Does not equate:
Yeah, that. 🙁
Does not equate: Unaware of accident, later phones colleague saying think there might have been an accident.
What???
DRiver must have thought that
DRiver must have thought that he was assisting in a ” Suicide ” ?
There is a LAW on the Statute Book for that offence ?
Seems that a ” Jury of Peers ” can no longer be TRUSTED ?
Still busy reminding people that a visit to LOndon , can be a way to get a wooden overcoat , NOW , i will have to include the whole UK ?
So in a nut shell. Cyclist
So in a nut shell. Cyclist cycling to work wearing Hi Viz, with front and rear lights is killed by a lorry driver who fails to stop at a junction and kills her, and the courts let the driver off. The Courts really do fucking hate cyclists eh?
“I do not think I could have done anything different when I took the junction.” No? Perhaps you could have not crushed and killed the cyclist with your lorry, just an idea.
This case was at the Crown
This case was at the Crown Court, so presumably with a jury. It’s difficult to understand how they could come to this conclusion.
If running over and killing someone by pulling out of a side road, where the victim has right of way, doesn’t result in a conviction, what circumstances ever will?
There are parallels with rape
There are parallels with rape cases here with juries failing to convict because of their own prejudices towards victims. The government is taking steps to increase conviction rates in rape cases. Perhaps we need something similar in cases involving the death or injury of cyclists. As a minimum, judges should give clearer guidance to juries about victim blaming.
Without more details I feel
Without more details I feel that this should appealed to fuck.
The cycling press should be publicising this case and demanding changes.
RIP sister and condolences to your family and friends.
don simon wrote:Without more
Can it can be appealed? I think only the sentencing that can be appealed, by the CPS, which obviously never happened in this case.
Ok I agree accidents happen, things happen without intent, but ffs a not guilty verdict when cctv show him crushing her under the wheels. TBH Id like to see the CCTV.
This is unbelievable.
This is unbelievable. Unfortunately it’s not, it’s just another example of authority not caring about cyclists and believing that motor vehicles can do no wrong.
I’ll caveat this with the
I’ll caveat this with the fact that we’ve not heard all the evidence. But there are many examples where juries (not Courts remember) return some very odd verdicts. We’ve seen that recently with the sun in your eyes cases.
It’s long been my view that the thing that juries suffer from is the “it could happen to me syndrome.” Essentially they view mattes such as this as civil cases taking place in the criminal courts. They don’t see it as REALLY criminal. Why? Because it’s the sort of thing that might happen to them. And that’s scary. They wouldn’t like to be in the position of this driver. But they could be.
Most of the time, assaults, paedohillia, burglary, murder, they don’t really associate with the act. It’s not something that they are capable of doing. They couldn’t find themselves doing those things simply by a moment of inattention.
But most of our population drive or have some direct experience of it. They also have experience of that moment where that bit of inattention almost saw them drive over the cat or hit that car coming the other way. Indeed, some times, they don’t even register that it was inattention at all.
The consequence of the inattention is irrelevant in their mind. And, actually, the consequence is broadly irrelevant in Court as well (the only purpose of the death is to justify the charge in the first place).
So, we have juries who sit there, listen to a bloke who says he did everything and empathise with that position. Because they’ve experienced it. They’ve been there. They wouldn’t like to be there if they were him. Poor man, what could he do.
Essentially I’m still pretty fond of the jury system. But I do think in these cases in which there is a societal blurring of boundaries between what is “a bit criminal” and truly criminal acts, they tend to lead to possible wrong decisions.
Most people on here are
Most people on here are jumping to the conclusion that the lights were mega bright cree lamps so its obvious the cyclist could be seen and the street lighting was in perfect order and that the weather was fine and the driver had a clear unobstructed view of the junction and the road, so in other words everything was perfect.
Perhaps they were cheap and nasty little lights that cant be seen more than 10 ft away, and the number of comments on other reports about the inadequancies of hi vis, are they now wrong, and maybe, just maybe the weather was crap and the driver’s view of the cyclist was obscured ????.
All i’m saying is that the driver is being hung drawn and quartered from all sides without the full account even being known to some.
stumps wrote:Most people on
The advice in the Highway Code does not say something like ” if you can’t see any lights then it’s safe to drive there.”
It says, in paragraph 126, ” Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear.”
To my mind this does mean that if you cannot see the road is clear, then don’t drive there. This must apply even more when you are driving an HGV in traffic.
If drivers were expected to take this rule seriously the road would be a much safer place. This verdict reinforces the tendency of drivers to ignore the HC’s commonsense advice.
There is also a tendency for the police to enforce not the law, still less justice, but the norms of society. In this case the norms of how people drive, not the rules which define how they ought to drive to make the roads safe for all users.
stumps wrote:Most people on
As the defence did not use the weather or lamp brightness as a defence I think that we can safely assume that these were not factors.
Lorries have a massive blind-spot on either side caused by the size of their wing-mirrors. If you don’t actively look round the mirror then you could hide a bus, let alone a woman on a bicycle, in this blind spot.
Mr Driver is an experienced driver and should have checked his blind-spots before pulling out of the turning. He assumed his way was clear without making sure his way was clear. He made a mistake and Mrs Pinhamy paid the price.
I would have said that the primary cause of death was the careless driving of Mr Driver.
stumps wrote:Most people on
And of course if anyone dares recommend the use of ‘megabright cree lights’ to avoid the defence of near blindness, some other character, probably in an HGV, will be along to assure us that such lights are a terrifying threat to road safety, and someone else will point out that the Germans manage with two sick glow worms.
So what is the police view onsuch lights?
stumps wrote:Most people on
Poppycock.
Had Mr Driver looked properly and moved slowly and carefully into a roadway where the traffic he was moving into had preference, this would have been highly unlikely to take place.
Maybe the cyclist was obscured. If so, Mr Driver pulled his vehicle into a space where he didn’t know whether it was clear. Especially as when joining a larger road, you must expect that buses, cars, motorcycles and bicyclists are using it. If that’s not at least careless, I’m having difficulty knowing what would be.
stumps wrote:Most people on
I doubt it. It was established that the street lighting was working, the cyclist was not dressed entirely in black, was not riding inappropriately and had right of way. It’s on the CCTV.
The intensity/quality of the lady’s bike lights is not the issue. The HGV pilot pulled into the road. If the driver’s view was obscured then he should have done something about it before pulling out.
From what we’ve read, the prosecution put forward that he had no valid excuse for not seeing the cyclist so he is at fault. He also failed to stop at the scene. People like him should not be allowed to drive. THAT is why we’re ready to cut him into 4 pieces (metaphorically, of course). I’d make the unrepentant bastard do a job that requires him to ride a bicycle.
On a side note, I’d like to see a legal minimum standard regarding brightness/visibility for bicycle lights, even in favourable conditions those pimples you see on BSOs are far from adequate.
Simon E wrote:On a side note,
There is, see details here:
http://www.ctc.org.uk/cyclists-library/regulations/lighting-regulations
It’s the BS6102/3 or equivalent European standard. Mind, the minimum brightness isn’t much as without digging around much it seems to be just 4 Candela. Should be much higher given modern LED capabilities.
Lets ALL hope , YOU , are not
Lets ALL hope , YOU , are not called for Jury service , where a Cyclist is the victim of a similar miscarriage of Justice ?
Sharing the matter with a ” Mate ” , shows that the driver WAS AWARE !
skippy wrote:Lets ALL hope ,
There’s no way a cyclist could be on a jury in a case like this. The defence would never allow it. Of course that’s wrong – swapping one perceived bias for another – but it’s the way it is. Generally speaking, I think the British justice system is exceptionally good but trial by jury has had it’s day. It’s an anachronism, left over from the days when our society was much smaller and relatively mono-cultural.
portec wrote:There’s no way a
I’ve long thought that in cases like this the jury should be comprised of a mix of regular drivers, regular cyclists (in the sense that they ride a bike on the road) and ideally people who neither drive nor cycle regularally. Simply picking people at random is likely to result in a jury with a majority of non-cycling drivers, how can that be right?
stumps wrote:Most people on
To me, the point is actually less that the driver should have the book thrown at him, and more that the implications of these sorts of cases is simply that nobody in their right mind should ride a bike on our roads – not unless you enjoy playing Russian routlette.
If the driver – and apparently everyone else – is entirely without blame here and this is just an ‘accident’ (just as with the Regent’s street case recently), then one can only conclude that you should only cycle if you are prepared to accept the risk of sudden random death for no reason, no matter what you do to ‘keep yourself safe’.
So I don’t think the specifics of the incident are crucial, its still the case that either we need to hold drivers much more to account over events like this, or the whole design of roads (and the vehicles that use them) needs to be completely overhauled. Yet at the moment we do neither.
It’s a shame we don’t have
It’s a shame we don’t have jury selection like in the US. How can it be right to have a jury of drivers judging a driver. Imagine a jury of burglars on a burglary case.
Yet again people slagging the
Yet again people slagging the judicial system.
There’s a general election coming up – find a party that proposes to do away will the jury system and vote for them, because for now that’s what we’ve got.
This idea that cyclists are treated differently to others is total tosh in my opinion.
How is driving over a lady
How is driving over a lady directly in front of him, with right of way, NOT careless.
When will strict liability
When will strict liability for vulnerable road users be implemented in the UK? “Where a person is held responsible not for his failure to display the diligence of a reasonable man, but because he is in control of a source of danger to other people’s lives, health or property”
Seems like it would be a step forward.
dassie wrote:When will strict
Up to now I have been pretty 50/50 on the strict liability proposals. However, if cases like this keep coming up, then it seems like a sensible and proportionate response. Natural justice says it must be carelessness. If drivers and hauliers knew that they would be responsible in cases like this unless they can definitively prove otherwise, it would really create pressure from them to improve the visibility around HGVs. Currently, they see results like this in court and think ‘ah well, If I get lucky there’s a chance I we won’t get done for it.’ So why should they pressure manufacturers to make design changes in the current legal framework?
” Presumed Liability Laws “
” Presumed Liability Laws ” will ONLY be brought in , AFTER the MPs stop thinking about those they worked with whilst in the Legal Profession !
Currently the bread & butter of Lawyers , comes from being on BOTH Sides of Traffic Violence ! Acting for ” Victim ” & ” Perp. ” gives a cosy situation , where they have the op. to cosy up and profit , whilst the victim , OR , their family , rarely get the justice they are entitled to receive !
Even with ” Presumed Liability Laws ” there can be ” Miscarriage of justice “!
Time that ” Judicial Officials ” were trained and made ACCOUNTABLE for these “Lapses of judgement ” . This case was clearly NOT a case to put before a ” JURY” but a ” Trained Assessor/Administrator ” who should have been able to decide the PENALTY , to be levied for the offence committed ?
I’d like to be able to say
I’d like to be able to say I’m shocked with this case but it just another in a long line of travesties.
Hold a driving licence, really is just a licence to kill.
felixcat – your last
felixcat – your last paragraph is just pure monsense and typical of the comments on this forum.
stumps wrote:felixcat – your
Stumps, is it though, what is the current ACPO guidance on the enforcement of 20mph speed limits?
http://allpartycycling.org/2013/03/06/acpo-clairfy-their-position-on-20mph-speed-limits/
has it changed from this?
Like it or not, the police can never fully enforce the law, society works because people accept the law and the police can catch the odd offender. If everyone decided shoplifting was acceptable it would be impossible to stop, consider speeding or using a mobile, it is illegal, and it is unlikely you will be caught. And far too many carry on and do it.
stumps wrote:felixcat – your
Any reason you say that? Seems to me that paragraph is simply an obvious truth. The police follow the “priorities” set by politicians, either national or local. They might also interject their own personal biases of course, but I think that’s very much a secondary factor.
Hi All,
Newbie here! I
Hi All,
Newbie here! I registered specifically to respond to this article although I read a lot of the articles anyway.
I’m an avid cyclist currently flipping between road and long distance touring (16,000km in 2014 😀 )…. I also hold a LGV (to use its correct title) license and although this may be unpopular I can say in the defence of the driver that it is entirely feasible to run over someone/thing without realising, especially when the trailer is empty (trailers empty are surprisingly light and with modern air suspension the wheels rise and fall extensively without giving any ‘feedback’ up front in the cab).
I note the article states the driver ‘went on to make a delivery’ which indicates he was carrying a load, again though, if this was not a full load then there would still be scope for the explanation above to be applicable. notwothstanfing this, the driver of an LGV is at an elevated position and, in my experience, at that time of day there would have been minimal traffic, the cyclist was well ‘illuminated’ and therefore I would struggle to understand how this verdict was reached but again, there is scope for the driver to be acquitted and let’s not forget, a guilty verdict must be proved ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’.
Hi All,
Newbie here! I
Hi All,
Newbie here! I registered specifically to respond to this article although I read a lot of the articles anyway.
I’m an avid cyclist currently flipping between road and long distance touring (16,000km in 2014 😀 )…. I also hold a LGV (to use its correct title) license and although this may be unpopular I can say in the defence of the driver that it is entirely feasible to run over someone/thing without realising, especially when the trailer is empty (trailers empty are surprisingly light and with modern air suspension the wheels rise and fall extensively without giving any ‘feedback’ up front in the cab).
I note the article states the driver ‘went on to make a delivery’ which indicates he was carrying a load, again though, if this was not a full load then there would still be scope for the explanation above to be applicable. notwothstanfing this, the driver of an LGV is at an elevated position and, in my experience, at that time of day there would have been minimal traffic, the cyclist was well ‘illuminated’ and therefore I would struggle to understand how this verdict was reached but again, there is scope for the driver to be acquitted and let’s not forget, a guilty verdict must be proved ‘beyond all reasonable doubt’.
Leaving aside weather and
Leaving aside weather and lighting, which do not seem to have been contested in court,ie the lighting was poor or view obstructed( which as others have pointed out is tough, if view is obstructed you creep forward until you can see) …i wonder if time of day was an issue. It was early, it can be the case that people expect there to be not much movement ,and having glanced, decided no one is there….
Other than that, given the circumstances ,i really dont know how this can be acquitted…she made herself visible, it was a lit road,she had priority and he crushed her….unless you are claiming it was the lorries fault, it possessed by an evil cyclist killing demon,or that the cyclist did something wrong, it falls to the drivers of the lorry.
I believe strict liability
I believe strict liability would not apply to criminal cases like this, only civil cases.
I still think strict liability is a good idea, because the potential insurance impact of hitting a cyclist might make drivers behave more carefully.
kcr wrote:I believe strict
Ehh stupid! Strict liability is a criminal law concept NOT civil law , durrr!
And it’s not Strict Liability in the context you are thinking about using it, it is a Presumption of Liability. At least try to understand the legal concepts first before you start posting bull shit.
Deepest condolences to the
Deepest condolences to the family.
Neither this article or the referenced one indicates the road layout nor the design of the lorry.
I would like to think that a better road design, with infrastructure catering to all road users, would go a long way to reducing the chances of a fatal crash (see Netherlands); and that implementing sooner the EU law on lorry cab design would help further.
Of course that still leaves some chances, and that would be where a liability law may help.
It will take a combination of all these – and people who look – to reduce road danger to zero.
~Andrew~
Here’s the Birmingham Mail’s
Here’s the Birmingham Mail’s report of Mrs Pinhamy’s death, shortly after it occurred:
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/local-news/birmingham-cyclist-dies-after-being-6141453
From this, we learn that the police found a lorry believed to have been involved, after it had left the scene. The driver had been identified and was due to be questionned.
Here’s the paper’s report of the trial:
http://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/lorry-driver-denies-leaving-mum-of-five-8438723.
From this we learn that:
(a) The prosecution reckoned the driver had nearly 7 seconds in which to see Mrs Pinhamy;
(b) He stopped soon after hitting Mrs Pinhamy, walked back, but then left and continued his delivery round;
(c) He later phoned a colleague, saying there had been an ‘accident’ where a cyclist had been hit, and he didn’t know whether he had hit her;
(d) He still told the police he was unaware of having hit a cyclist.
I cannot see how this stacks up.
I wish we knew more about what evidence was presented in court. (For instance, was the lorry found afterwards actually the right lorry? What did the CCTV footage show?) However from these media reports, it seems utterly incredible that a jury could return a not-guilty verdict.
CTC’s Road Justice campaign (www.roadjustice.org.uk) has secured a Government commitment to review road traffic offences and sentencing (http://www.ctc.org.uk/news/government-announces-full-review-of-driving-offences-and-penalties) – this is a step forward. Now, as part of this review, the word “careless” has got to be abolished from the definition of bad driving offences. If you cause danger that should have been obvious to someone driving with all due care and attention, that should be an offence: simple. The sentencing should reflect the gravity of that offence – and that’s where things get complicated. But ‘dangerous driving’ needs to be defined in a way that is jury-proof. It’s time to put an end to “There but for the Grace of God go I” verdicts – we cannot go on like this.
[And BTW, here is the crash location:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.460129,-1.831723,3a,75y,190.85h,58.3t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sPcDwT_fhRF5lF4uLcSzodw!2e0%5D
Roger Geffen wrote:Here’s the
Assuming the reporting is correct, this case is an utter miscarriage of justice and needs to be appealed.
I feel ill.
What else is new? it’s
What else is new? it’s obvious motorists can do no wrong.
This case has me seriously
This case has me seriously concerned and/or worried regarding the implications…
Has the time now arrived that ‘trials’ for this & similar cases should not go before a judge/magistrate or jury but a ‘trained’ assessor who purely reviews the facts presented? Both sides can present expert witnesses but take the juries, victim-blaming judges etc. out of the equation. No ‘good behaviour’ (https://beyondthekerb.wordpress.com/2014/01/10/the-problem-with-good-people/) or hardship (loss of job if cannot drive) is allowable as ‘evidence’ or mitigation.
Once guilt/innocence determined then based on the level of sub-standard driving, the fine/ban is confirmed. Where appropriate if a prison sentence is felt necessary, a judge can review the facts presented by the assessor & arrive at a decision.
May even be quicker/cheaper to obtain justice for the injured party.
Regardless of this verdict,
Regardless of this verdict, someone died, and someone caused this death.
It’s a shame that there is no blood money in this country like you get in the Middle East. A payment would have to be paid to the family by the driver who caused the death.
Now, regardless of whether you think it’s a good Idea, what you would get, is HGV drivers/companies and even car drivers being more careful. It’s all about the money, and from where I’m sitting life is cheap.
I do not need an incentive of any kind to drive carefully. I worked out long ago that I have no right to take the life of another by my careless or impatient behavior behind the wheel.
Look at how many deaths there are that are alcohol related each year: over 5,000 deaths in England and Wales in each of the last ten years, and they don’t ban this deadly substance.
So, it is reasonable to assume neither will killer cars and lorries be banned or curtailed anytime soon!
Sometimes I am disgusted by the inaction of those who seek positions of leadership and authority.
This looks like a case that
This looks like a case that should now proceed by private prosecution of the lorry driver and possibly their employer as well.
As all the evidence that was publicly presented and not disputed by the driver’s legal tems clearly points to a death by careless/reckless driving.