The lorry driver involved in the collision that resulted in the death of Esther Hartsilver has been found not guilty of causing her death by careless driving. Hartsilver was hit and killed at the junction of Denmark Hill and Orpheus Street in Camberwell, South London in May 2015.
CCTV footage shown at Blackfriars crown court showed Hartsilver cycle towards Philip Beadle’s Co-op delivery lorry as he waited at a pedestrian crossing. She was in the bus lane as Beadle turned left off Denmark Hill, and suffered multiple injuries when she went under the wheels of his lorry.
The collision took place less than half a mile from Kings College Hospital where Hartsilver worked as a senior physiotherapist. She was taken there and died later that day.
Beadle said he checked his mirrors normally and had not seen Hartsilver pull alongside. Prosecutor Benedict Kelleher said that he “could and should” have spotted her in a six-second window before he made his turn.
The London Evening Standard reports that following a four-day trial, the jury’s decision was unanimous.
Judge Raj Shetty thanked Beadle for the way in which he had conducted himself during the trial and praised the families of both Hartsilver and Beadle for their dignity.
In June, Hartsilver’s death was the focus of a “die in” vigil organised by the Stop Killing Cyclists campaign group.
Speaking at the event, co-organiser Nicola Branch said: “Tonight’s emotional die-in, which included the cyclist’s family and friends, sends a loud message to Southwark Council that it must urgently install protected cycle lanes and protected left hand turns at junctions across the borough.”
44 thoughts on “Lorry driver cleared of killing cyclist Esther Hartsilver”
Another killer walks free.
Another killer walks free.
unconstituted wrote:
Yes, but he did conduct himself well during the trial.
Baffling.
Baffling.
So he cuts off another road user in a lane to his left, a lane he should have made sure was clear before turning. As heard he had ample time to spot that road user in said lane, a lane which he should have made sure was clear and didn’t. He turns left anyway and kills that road user.
Yet he is deemed not guilty of causing her death and not guilty of careless driving? What the actual fuck am I missing here?
You have to wonder who is
You have to wonder who is allowed to turn up for jury service.
If I recall correctly, he turned left, across a bus lane that she was cycling in, which means that he should have checked the mirror, properly, in which case he would have seen her.
In my opinion, any cycle lane painted on the road Is inadequate, as drivers just seem to cut across them without checking. You wouldn’t pull straight across from the fast lane of a dual carriageway without checking.
He stopped at the ped
He stopped at the ped crossing which is less than 10 metres from the lh turn he needed to take.
He didn’t start indicating until the crossing lights went green, whilst Ester was already alongside him and stopped in the bus lane.
Astounding decision.
Perhaps filmed enactments are neeed for Jurys to visually understand what is being explained to them?
Perhaps jurors that drive
Perhaps jurors that drive should declare an interest when the defendant is a driver.
After all, most drivers appear to be predisposed to think it could happen to any of us, poor chap. And that sentiment is towards the driver, not the dead person.
psling wrote:
I can sympathise with that view to some extent. If they find the defendant guilty he may serve a prison sentence. If he is a genuine honest person who undoubtedly did not wish to cause any harm this is probably the one way he can find himself locked up alongside criminals who for the most part have willingly broken the law.
I think there should be seperate criminal and licensing courts. The Jurors thought that he did not act criminally in a way that would justify a prison sentence. They might have been right.
As a result he escapes completely and is free to drive without any penalty.
I think there should be a way for a court to give bans from driving without a jury thinking that any form of guilt could lead to imprisonment.
Put another way if someone killed me due to a one-off “accident” then I would get no satisfaction seeing them serve a prison sentence but as a live cyclist I would feel much safer if such “accidents led to the drivers being taken off the road and the resulting disincentive that would give to the others.
You might say he should heave checked mirrors etc. but how many of have decades of driving experience without at least once have not fully checked before at least one manoeuvre.
ooldbaker wrote:
He did “willingly break the law”. The fact that lots of people break the same laws every day is, or rather should be, completely irrelevant. That his lawbreaking is seen as somehow less blameworthy than, say, a housebreaker who has not killed anyone, is simply evidence of our crazed addiction to motor vehicles.
oldstrath wrote:
Save that he didn’t break the law. That’s the verdict of a jury who listened to the evidence. Now, he may have “broken” the civil law but that’s a different matter. Now, there’s certainly, once again, a big discussion to be had about how/whether we use juries in such cases. But, remember, there will have been expert testimony here as well. And, of course, what the prosecution say is not evidence, it’s their version of events, one which was rejected by the jury.
bendertherobot wrote:
Listened to the evidence, or to voices in their heads saying “this could be you”? There should indeed be a discussion about the role of juries, unfortunately it’s not one politicians seem prepared to have.
bendertherobot wrote:
Listened to the evidence, or to voices in their heads saying “this could be you”? There should indeed be a discussion about the role of juries, unfortunately it’s not one politicians seem prepared to have.
ooldbaker wrote:
if driving license removal was actually completely and totally enforceable, so literally without a valid driving license you could never drive a car,van,bus or truck, and keep in mind there are around 70,000 drivers on the roads today ignoring these types of rules and they are only the ones who get caught and get given more points on their non existant license, then fair enough.
but until then yes I think you have to say the price for causing death by careless driving is a prison sentence, because if you know, and I bet most jurors when first presented with these types of cases, or the majority of drivers dont even know thats current setup and likely react with thats far too severe a punishment, then perhaps they will make the effort to indicate properly, they will check the mirrors, they wont drive around as so many people seem to thesedays thinking not doing any of those things and then crashing into something is some kind of non fault accident on their part.
maybe the DfT instead of making stupid cycling videos, should do a death by careless driving video in the same vein as those drink driving ones.
Awavey wrote:
Obviously we know many unlicenced drivers continue to drive their cars, but e,ployers can and do check, so it should impact them driving large killing machines with poor visibility.
psling wrote:
Actually, this is something my wife and I argue about a lot. She is very, very quick to say “it’s an accident and everyone makes mistakes ” whenever I bring up cases like this one. She drives a lot; I drive maybe once a fortnight, at most.
(Makes me wonder how she’d react if I got killed on my bike, which is a bit depressing.)
Time for direct action
Time for direct action
Morat wrote:
I really despair if the current system
The direct action I would like to see is “decommissioning these lethal weapons”
If it isn’t the driver, and it isn’t the infrastructure. It must be the vehicle. It certainly wasn’t ghe cyclist in this case.
I don’t understand it.
I don’t understand it.
If the jury put in a not-guilty verdict because of the possible punishments, then they are not doing their job. It’s the judge’s job to determine appropriate punishment and it’s the juries job to decide if the accused did the crime or not. Turning left across/into a cyclist is extremely careless driving and it’s obvious to anyone that he should have been found guilty. Sympathy for the driver does not alter the facts of the case.
Just highlights again the
Just highlights again the need for reform around driving offences.
The point is this was a tragic accident, one that even more tragically could have been so easily avoided.
The point is, that just because someone was careless they shouldn’t have to rot in prison forever… but likewise, they shouldn’t go unpunished because a jury thinks ‘that could so easily be me stood there’.
These cases shouldn’t go before a jury unless there is clear directive to take emotion and empathy out of the situation.
For me, the lack of signalling whilst at the crossing was negligent, as that caused the chain of events to happen. How was the victim to know the lorry was turning left and therefore not move up the lane without the signal. The mirrors, blind spots etc. Is exactly that, smoke and mirrors.
A conviction should have happened, scandalous that it didn’t, unless I’m missing something obvious.
Jimmy Ray Will wrote:
You’re missing a lot because you didn’t sit there. A 4 day trial which would have had several hours of testimony each day, proper summing up from prosecution and defence and a direction from the Judge. There are many problems with surmising of course. The lack of a signal may well be negligent. But negligence does not equate to culpability in the criminal sense though there may well be overlaps in the concept of that and being careless. But the main issue is that a civil case requires proving on the balance of probabilities and a criminal case so that the jury is “sure.”
And a lack of signalling doesn’t necessarily equate to negligence, if you accept that as a similar concept to carelessness, unless the action is causative of the accident. That causative point is missing in much of what everyone has written above. It’s simply impossible to comment on these cases with any certainty at all other than the outcome being one of being not guilty.
bendertherobot wrote:
I think you are being too generous. Simple principle the recurs throughout the highway code has always been mirror, signal, manouver. Failure to do the first parts is negligence in my book, plain and simple.
Grahamd wrote:
No, read the rest and don’t selectively quote where I put a comma. Negligence is a civil concept not a criminal one (if we ignore a few exceptions). My point is about whether it’s causative which is a point only the jury could possibly have determined having heard all of the evidence.
bendertherobot wrote:
Juries are often a seething mass of bias, though, so I don’t really trust them to have made this determination correctly. But that will doubtless always be the case, so, you know, ‘infrastructure’. Its the only way. Humans will always be a bit crap.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
No, read the rest and don’t selectively quote where I put a comma. Negligence is a civil concept not a criminal one (if we ignore a few exceptions). My point is about whether it’s causative which is a point only the jury could possibly have determined having heard all of the evidence.
— Grahamd Juries are often a seething mass of bias, though, so I don’t really trust them to have made this determination correctly. But that will doubtless always be the case, so, you know, ‘infrastructure’. Its the only way. Humans will always be a bit crap.— bendertherobot
But that’s a generalisation. They’re statistically likely to be drivers more than cyclists but they are also mothers, fathers, sons and daughters. There’s no real statistical evidence, as yet, that they do feel “there but for the grace of God.” And, for the sake of openess, I do believe that is the case and have written extensively about it.
The point about trust is that we get to see the headline and determine what we would have done. We’re instrinsically biased as well but at least they heard the case and listened to all sides. The system appears to be imperfect because or outside view of it is that it must be. One of the ideas floated above is a good one. Taking liberty away in terms of prison is one thing. But there has to be a greater disincentive to start with. Start with more points for mobile use. Make it easier for licences to be lost. Make the terms of that loss longer. Sending a message in those cases where people are convicted isn’t enough. It has to be widely spread that all negligent actions will be caught, will be enforced and will be punished. Of course, for that, we need more enforcers……
One hopes that they listened,
One hopes that they listened, yes. But they were unanimous and properly directed it appears. It’s very easy on the internet to cast doubt on the role they play and in some cases I’m very much of the belief that the “it could happen to me” part plays very heavily. But they are still the ones who heard the evidence, watched the video, listened to the entire case and found, in the end, that no law had been broken. That’s where we are. This driver was not criminally culpable.
How could the victim (or any
How could the victim (or any of us) have avoided the incident.
This sounds appalling. No indication until the instant of turning. Cycling in a lane you’re meant to be in! How can the driver NOT be liable.
The driver clearly
The driver clearly contravened rule 183 of the Highway Code.
Rule 183
When turning
keep as close to the left as is safe and practicable
give way to any vehicles using a bus lane, cycle lane or tramway from either direction.
Basically, he broke a rule of the Highway Code, leading to someone’s death, therefore it’s death by careless driving.
Personally I am anti the current cycling infrastructure. It feeds cyclists along the near side of vehicles, and those vehicles contravene rules 182 and 183 on a regular basis, leading to death and injury. Sod wearing helmets and hi-viz when people don’t even check their mirrors. It also puts cyclists in a lorries forward blind spot at traffic lights, or leaves you stranded on the nearside when you reach the ASL box only to find it busy or blocked.
By his own admission he
By his own admission he started indicating as soon as he pulled away. By which time she was already beside him and the turning is about 5m from the crossing.
Why was the indicator not on before he stopped especially as there was a bus lane on his left.
Driving licence is simply a licence to kill.
I had a ‘discussion’ with a
I had a ‘discussion’ with a lorry driver who ‘also cycles’ earlier.
He said it wasn’t the drivers fault because the cyclist was cycling in the lorries blind spot.
Perhaps this is why Sadiq Khan wants to ban inadequate lorries. Unfortunately, despite it being bleeding obvious, nothing has been done for years, and won’t happen for at least 4 more!
Of course haulage companies will just continue using these dodgy lorries elsewhere in the country.
So basically the law is.
So basically the law is. Anyone can move their massive metal (killing machine) box wherever they please, and it is down to YOU to make sure you are not in my way.
But to spice things up a bit they will not tell you where they intend to move it.
and apparently this is OK?
Does this also apply to guns, knives or bombs?
It certainly doesn’t apply to bicycles
wycombewheeler wrote:
Only on the public highway though, as on construction sites they then magically need to have a banksperson to guide them!
Maybe for vehicles lacking proper visibilty, a second person acting as a spotter must be in the cab – that might then provoke a change within the industry!
I love my bike wrote:
Its a little off topic, but last week I came up behind a HGV which had the usual ‘blind spot, cyclists stay back’ stickers on the left side as I approached. Except that as I passed it on the right (heavy/stationery traffic) I realised that it was a left hand drive vehicle?!?
Presumably, having walked
Presumably, having walked from court, this fella can continue in his career?
Professional drivers must be held to a higher standard, so that, even if they’re not deemed criminally responsible, they’re petrified of the effect of any repercussions on their career from such events.
At the very least, this bloke was personally negligent on the job, and his actions partly caused someone’s death.
He turned without seeing her,
He turned without seeing her, crushed her, killed her. Somehow he’s not guilty, somehow it must be someone else’s fault?! This fcuking stinks, juries who don’t drive is the only way forward.
Just playing devils advocate
Just playing devils advocate – all vehicles regardless of how old / new / make / model etc have a blind spot.
Now you look in your mirror – nothing there, you start to pull away and before turning you check again – bike in your blind spot, you turn……and the rest is history. Six seconds is no time at all.
I dont expect anyone on here to agree but a defence brief will go down these lines and straight away there is that element of doubt in a jurors mind no matter how small and once thats there they wont find a person guilty.
Stumps wrote:
So we have a police officer saying that, provided he has an at least moderately competent weasel, it is essentially impossible to convict a killer driver. Great, that’s cheering.
Alternatively, you’re agreeing that it is impossible to drive a motor vehicle without endangering others, so why aren’t you removing these dangerous things from the road?
oldstrath wrote:
Yeah there needs to be another, more civil or less criminal, approach towards driving standards that aren’t where they should be.
Fines, points and bans are regularly issued for speeding, drink driving, parking where you’re not supposed to be and disrespecting box junctions.
At the other end of the scale, we have the careless and dangerous driving charges, but these aren’t working – seemingly too many cases of lack of will to prosecute or convict. Does the potential sentence discourage prosecution/conviction?
So either they get shaken up to be issued automatically or there needs to be another ‘negligent’ automatic penalty to cover the ‘you weren’t paying sufficient attention in a really dangerous situation, and look what happened, you dick’ black hole that seems to swallow up a lot of the middle ground at the moment. Save the court and prison sentence for the more extreme cases, but make whopping fines and 6/9/12 points more frequent.
oldstrath wrote:
Nope, as expected on here people jump straightaway to the wrong conclusion. I have seen it happen at Crown Court before, the defence brief only has to put the element of doubt into a juror’s mind. Its upto the Crown to prove otherwise and get rid of that doubt, thats why drivers are convicted and sentenced so its not impossible.
Without knowing the full ins and outs of this case its very hard to say what made them decide on not guilty but the Crown simply saying he had 6 seconds to check his mirrors isnt really a good enough arguement to put across.
As for your second point, its not the vehicle that is the dangerous thing, its the person driving it and again your use of the word “impossible” is way off.
Stumps wrote:
Well, according to you ‘all vehicles have a blind spot’, and apparently it’s reasonable to miss anyone unlucky enough to be in that place. Which feels awfully like you’re admitting that, however good the driver, these things cannot be risk free.
Getting ‘careless’ to stick
Getting ‘careless’ to stick in this one didn’t work (and there’s a reasonable debate to be had as to what constitutes careless driving).
Getting ‘we expect more of a professional driver in that situation – here’s 9 points and a £5k fine’ might have had more grip.
Walking away with nothing seems like injustice.
I don’t really understand how
I don’t really understand how this isn’t a strict liability offence. You changed lanes and hit something already in the lane you moved into. You have to give way to anything already there. No discussion required.
You forget if the crime is
You forget if the crime is against the Police you’ll always be convicted, well according to previous comments you’ve made that is.
In the end there was insufficient evidence against the driver to convict him an no amount of blustering on forums will change that.
It is agreed that the whole criminal justice system needs to be overhauled and dragged into the 21st century but only if the govt can be arsed.
Am I missing something, are
Am I missing something, are we not supposed to check our blind spots before manoeuvring?! You can look in the mirror AND turn your head, they aren’t mutually exclusive. Or do we just cross our fingers and hope no-one gets killed when we haven’t bothered to look properly first and it’s just tough luck if you were in the blind spot?
I imagine cyclists don’t deliberately cycle up to HGVs in their blind spot angle like a masochistic suicidal ninja?
ChrisB200SX wrote:
Quite right, and in any other circumstances, someone in charge of a machine capable of killing has a responsibility to be extremely careful. But as we all know, somehow that doesn’t apply to motor vehicles, and you can blame the sun, the road, and even the victim, and you won’t be held legally responsible.
In this case, he didn’t blame anybody or anything else, and didn’t deny that he should have looked in his mirrors, but he still wasn’t guilty of anything in law. Morally of course, it’s a very different story, and I hope he never sleeps again.
There has been a considerable
There has been a considerable number of these cases, of cyclists being killed by HGV drivers who didn’t bother looking before manouvering, sometimes resulting in a conviction, sometimes not. This time not, but there is clearly a problem with HGV drivers not looking for cyclists. Fortunately, DfT have realised this and issued a video about it. http://road.cc/content/news/205892-fury-over-government-cycling-hgv-warning-video
So take heed of the DfT warning, and make sure that the HGV driver has seen you. I recommend a baseball bat on the side door, or possibly a warning shot with a Kalashnikov. Whatever happens, you can be sure that the British judicial system will find you guilty or dead, and the driver innocent.