Milton Keynes van driver sentenced to 175 hours community service for killing cyclist

56 thoughts on “Milton Keynes van driver sentenced to 175 hours community service for killing cyclist”

1. So was it at night? In the

   So was it at night? In the rain? If not, would the investigating officer care to explain the relevance of whether the victim was wearing fluorescent clothing?? Did they also request that the driver retake his driving test? (and possibly take an eye test…?)

   Log In or Register to post comments

2. 8.40pm in October, so it’ll
   8.40pm in October, so it’ll have been dark.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • nappe wrote:

     8.40pm in October, so it’ll have been dark.

     — nappe

     Oh, OK: i missed that, even looking at the original news story link. Doubt the victim didn’t have lights, mind…

     Log In or Register to post comments

3. She deserved to be raped, she

   She deserved to be raped, she wasn’t wearing a long skirt…

   Log In or Register to post comments

4. Going by Street view, there
   Going by Street view, there are long sections without street lights. If I rode that as part of my commute, I’d be lit up like a Xmas tree. Though even a cheap rear flasher, assuming the batteries are checked regularly would have been visible enough for the driver. Again reflectives, on a road like that would be quite easily picked out by headlights.

   Nobody deserves it, however if Mr Trotman had paid some attention to his own safety, he’d still be here. A man died for the sake of spending a tenner on some cheap kit, a damned shame.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • nappe wrote:

     Going by Street view, there are long sections without street lights. If I rode that as part of my commute, I’d be lit up like a Xmas tree. Though even a cheap rear flasher, assuming the batteries are checked regularly would have been visible enough for the driver. Again reflectives, on a road like that would be quite easily picked out by headlights. Nobody deserves it, however if Mr Trotman had paid some attention to his own safety, he’d still be here. A man died for the sake of spending a tenner on some cheap kit, a damned shame.

     — nappe

     ANY object on or just off the road would have quite easily have being picked out at sufficient distance by the headlights and thus the driver should have being able to avoid a collision. You know the go at a speed so that you can stop well within the distance you can see to be clear rule.

     So, no reflectives required, no hi-vis, in fact as per CTC in the early part of the 1920s you shouldn’t even need a rear light, this victim blaming bollocks is getting on my tits and the police are complicit in this yet again.

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • nappe wrote:

     Going by Street view, there are long sections without street lights. If I rode that as part of my commute, I’d be lit up like a Xmas tree. Though even a cheap rear flasher, assuming the batteries are checked regularly would have been visible enough for the driver. Again reflectives, on a road like that would be quite easily picked out by headlights. Nobody deserves it, however if Mr Trotman had paid some attention to his own safety, he’d still be here. A man died for the sake of spending a tenner on some cheap kit, a damned shame.

     — nappe

     Surely ANYTHING on that road would have been clearly picked out by headlights. Isn’t that the primary function of headlights??

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Quote:

       Trotman had not been wearing hi-vis clothing when he was hit and investigating officer, Sergeant Richard Moors, appeared to refer to this afterwards.

       I find it sad that the very people who we hope will protect and look after, blame the very people they are supposed to protect and look after. 

       Log In or Register to post comments

   • nappe wrote:

     Going by Street view, there are long sections without street lights. If I rode that as part of my commute, I’d be lit up like a Xmas tree. Though even a cheap rear flasher, assuming the batteries are checked regularly would have been visible enough for the driver. Again reflectives, on a road like that would be quite easily picked out by headlights. Nobody deserves it, however if Mr Trotman had paid some attention to his own safety, he’d still be here. A man died for the sake of spending a tenner on some cheap kit, a damned shame.

     — nappe

      

     NO,NO,NO… a man died because he was hit by a  2 ton van which was being driven carelessly.

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • nappe wrote:

     Going by Street view, there are long sections without street lights. If I rode that as part of my commute, I’d be lit up like a Xmas tree. Though even a cheap rear flasher, assuming the batteries are checked regularly would have been visible enough for the driver. Again reflectives, on a road like that would be quite easily picked out by headlights. Nobody deserves it, however if Mr Trotman had paid some attention to his own safety, he’d still be here. A man died for the sake of spending a tenner on some cheap kit, a damned shame.

     — nappe

      

     no mention that the cyclist didn’t have lights. No mention he wasn’t riding 100% within the Highway Code and law.

      

     and still people like you victim blame. I’ve seen so many of these cases over the years. Even when they’re lit up like a Xmas tree they’ll always be an excuse as to why it wasn’t the drivers fault regardless of evidence to the contrary. Always people like you blame the cyclist, nothing changes.

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • nappe wrote:

     Going by Street view, there are long sections without street lights. If I rode that as part of my commute, I’d be lit up like a Xmas tree. Though even a cheap rear flasher, assuming the batteries are checked regularly would have been visible enough for the driver. Again reflectives, on a road like that would be quite easily picked out by headlights.

     Nobody deserves it, however if Mr Trotman had paid some attention to his own safety, he’d still be here. A man died for the sake of spending a tenner on some cheap kit, a damned shame.

     — nappe

     Funny, I manage to see cyclists when in the car, even when theyre not using lights.

     As a recumbent rider, I have lights, but reflective clothing is sod-all use cos the seat obstructs it.

     The times when I’ve had drivers pull out on me without looking have been when, viewed from the front, I *have* been lit up like a fecking Christmas tree (Inc when I ve been riding an upright) or its been daytime.

     In about 45 yrs of cycling, IME reflectives, bright clothing etc mean sweet FA if they’re not paying attention.

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • nappe wrote:

     Going by Street view, there are long sections without street lights. If I rode that as part of my commute, I’d be lit up like a Xmas tree. Though even a cheap rear flasher, assuming the batteries are checked regularly would have been visible enough for the driver. Again reflectives, on a road like that would be quite easily picked out by headlights.

     Nobody deserves it, however if Mr Trotman had paid some attention to his own safety, he’d still be here. A man died for the sake of spending a tenner on some cheap kit, a damned shame.

     — nappe

     You’re wrong. The judge said that driver inattention was the cause of the accident.

     What do you know that the judge doesn’t, that would lead you to a different conclusion? Answer: Nothing, you just made it up.

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • nappe wrote:

     Going by Street view, there are long sections without street lights. If I rode that as part of my commute, I’d be lit up like a Xmas tree. Though even a cheap rear flasher, assuming the batteries are checked regularly would have been visible enough for the driver. Again reflectives, on a road like that would be quite easily picked out by headlights. Nobody deserves it, however if Mr Trotman had paid some attention to his own safety, he’d still be here. A man died for the sake of spending a tenner on some cheap kit, a damned shame.

     — nappe

      

     this is true, i regularly go drive off the road on to the sidewalk and drive onto trees, buildings, bushes, homeless people. It is damned shame they don’t put on reflectors on themselves for their own safety, otherwise i would be liable to see them and not run into them. I can not be expected to see out of my front windows things that are not reflective, what am i? Its not like i was given a license by an authority and mandated to operate a vehicle safely. 

     And another thing, they really should mandate that lake or pond water ive driven in too many of them to be my fault.

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • nappe wrote:

     Going by Street view, there are long sections without street lights. If I rode that as part of my commute, I’d be lit up like a Xmas tree. Though even a cheap rear flasher, assuming the batteries are checked regularly would have been visible enough for the driver. Again reflectives, on a road like that would be quite easily picked out by headlights. Nobody deserves it, however if Mr Trotman had paid some attention to his own safety, he’d still be here. A man died for the sake of spending a tenner on some cheap kit, a damned shame.

     — nappe

     Yawn. 

     Log In or Register to post comments

5. ” We are all responsible for
   ” We are all responsible for looking after each other on our roads”

   Cobblers. Nothing we do as cyclists will harm a motorist, so what exactly does this clown think we’re going to do to look after them – give them a hug?

   ” cyclists need to consider their visibility and use suitable lights”

   Difficult to avoid thinking we should all be using the brightest, most unpleasant, lights we can. At least when they moaned we’ll have been seen.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • oldstrath wrote:

     ” We are all responsible for looking after each other on our roads” Cobblers. Nothing we do as cyclists will harm a motorist, so what exactly does this clown think we’re going to do to look after them – give them a hug? “.

     — oldstrath

     Cobblers?

     e.g. Someone on a bike rides through a red light, causes a car to swerve, crash/hit another car or pedestrian? The one thing said correctly in this article is that people, no matter what form of transport need to look out for each other. Empathy and respect fix a lot.  Creating labels and tribes of cyclist/motorists is nothing but divisive and the biggest issue. 

     I don’t like to speculate on whether the sentence was too lenient but I doubt his family will get any closure from this outcome. Another very sad and all too common event.

      

      

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • Cupotea wrote:

       ” We are all responsible for looking after each other on our roads” Cobblers. Nothing we do as cyclists will harm a motorist, so what exactly does this clown think we’re going to do to look after them – give them a hug? “.

       — Cupotea

       Cobblers?

       e.g. Someone on a bike rides through a red light, causes a car to swerve, crash/hit another car or pedestrian? The one thing said correctly in this article is that people, no matter what form of transport need to look out for each other. Empathy and respect fix a lot.  Creating labels and tribes of cyclist/motorists is nothing but divisive and the biggest issue.

        

        — oldstrath

       Biggest issue round here is impatient drivers. Second biggest is not looking drivers.

       I can just about empathise, but respect? Sorry, no can do.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • oldstrath wrote:

         ” We are all responsible for looking after each other on our roads” Cobblers. Nothing we do as cyclists will harm a motorist, so what exactly does this clown think we’re going to do to look after them – give them a hug? “.

         — oldstrath

         Cobblers?

         e.g. Someone on a bike rides through a red light, causes a car to swerve, crash/hit another car or pedestrian? The one thing said correctly in this article is that people, no matter what form of transport need to look out for each other. Empathy and respect fix a lot.  Creating labels and tribes of cyclist/motorists is nothing but divisive and the biggest issue.

          

          

         — Cupotea Biggest issue round here is impatient drivers. Second biggest is not looking drivers. I can just about empathise, but respect? Sorry, no can do.— oldstrath

          

         Because we keep letting it go. Homicide by car is not a crime, not even a misdemeanor it seems like. 

         Log In or Register to post comments

     • Cupotea wrote:

       ” We are all responsible for looking after each other on our roads” Cobblers. Nothing we do as cyclists will harm a motorist, so what exactly does this clown think we’re going to do to look after them – give them a hug? “.

       — Cupotea

       Cobblers?

       e.g. Someone on a bike rides through a red light, causes a car to swerve, crash/hit another car or pedestrian? The one thing said correctly in this article is that people, no matter what form of transport need to look out for each other. Empathy and respect fix a lot.  Creating labels and tribes of cyclist/motorists is nothing but divisive and the biggest issue.

        

        — oldstrath

        

       NO. This is bollocks.

       In civised countries you don’t get this inexcusable sh*te.

       What kind of people come onto a forum like this and join in some scummy victim blaming exercise? It’s bad enough the little Englander gutteer press and it’s tiresome bile and hatred for those not encased in the latest aspirational  ‘normal’ mode of tranport cage on wheels.

       It is truly and utterly disgusting  that time after time the same old f*cking excuse gets trotted out…

       I mean…….. “did’t see her/him”   ????        FFS How many more times???

       The lady driver in Regent’s Street example….the cyclist was sent “flying through the air” –

       “didn’t see him….” “fair enoough madam….off you go then”…

       This stinks. F*ck the hi viz bollocks.

       Motor vehicles are routinely and regularly driven at criminsl speeds and with criminally negligent levels of conscientiousness and conideration for other rpad users.

       If you drive at 20mph you’ll get tail gated, spat on etc for holding up the over-indulged, over-entitled, single occupancy vehicles making their all too often inappropriate journeys, foulling up the roads – an inconvenience at the very least to those DARING to cycle: an impediment, a menace, a complete and total disgrace. 

       IF….people have to drive they should be driving with the UTMOST care and attention.

       Once this was normal. THe yob culture that now exists means that driving like a c*nt is normal.

       And you don’t have to worry about killing anyone on a bike cos you’ll get a few hours community service!!!

       Is this offensive to all you who go out proteted in your hi viz and helmets?

        

       I guess this is tribal then. Because the sort of sh*te written about cyclists going through a red light and causing cars to swerve and have an accident…..?

       FFS – You need to get a bit real. Once we have bit of respect for people that want to get on a bi/tricyle etc and use it as their means of getting about without being subject to the last ‘acceptable’ form of prejudice, hatred that leads to the above latest disgusting excuse for ‘legal protection’ we can start looking at the incidences of where cyclists may not follow rules of stopping at red lights …

       but to the anti-mass cycling (ie  8 to 80 in any clothing….y’know grand-kids and grand parents kind of thing….mobility aid for those who cycle but cannot easily walk kind of thing….or anyone els who just wants to go to the shops on a bike FCS) commenters above,

       I would  suggest are in need of an education.   

        

           

        

        

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • emishi55 wrote:

         ” We are all responsible for looking after each other on our roads” Cobblers. Nothing we do as cyclists will harm a motorist, so what exactly does this clown think we’re going to do to look after them – give them a hug? “.

         — emishi55

         Cobblers?

         e.g. Someone on a bike rides through a red light, causes a car to swerve, crash/hit another car or pedestrian? The one thing said correctly in this article is that people, no matter what form of transport need to look out for each other. Empathy and respect fix a lot.  Creating labels and tribes of cyclist/motorists is nothing but divisive and the biggest issue.

          

          

         — Cupotea

          

         NO. This is bollocks.

         In civised countries you don’t get this inexcusable sh*te.

         What kind of people come onto a forum like this and join in some scummy victim blaming exercise? It’s bad enough the little Englander gutteer press and it’s tiresome bile and hatred for those not encased in the latest aspirational  ‘normal’ mode of tranport cage on wheels.

         It is truly and utterly disgusting  that time after time the same old f*cking excuse gets trotted out…

         I mean…….. “did’t see her/him”   ????        FFS How many more times???

         The lady driver in Regent’s Street example….the cyclist was sent “flying through the air” –

         “didn’t see him….” “fair enoough madam….off you go then”…

         This stinks. F*ck the hi viz bollocks.

         Motor vehicles are routinely and regularly driven at criminsl speeds and with criminally negligent levels of conscientiousness and conideration for other rpad users.

         If you drive at 20mph you’ll get tail gated, spat on etc for holding up the over-indulged, over-entitled, single occupancy vehicles making their all too often inappropriate journeys, foulling up the roads – an inconvenience at the very least to those DARING to cycle: an impediment, a menace, a complete and total disgrace. 

         IF….people have to drive they should be driving with the UTMOST care and attention.

         Once this was normal. THe yob culture that now exists means that driving like a c*nt is normal.

         And you don’t have to worry about killing anyone on a bike cos you’ll get a few hours community service!!!

         Is this offensive to all you who go out proteted in your hi viz and helmets?

          

         I guess this is tribal then. Because the sort of sh*te written about cyclists going through a red light and causing cars to swerve and have an accident…..?

         FFS – You need to get a bit real. Once we have bit of respect for people that want to get on a bi/tricyle etc and use it as their means of getting about without being subject to the last ‘acceptable’ form of prejudice, hatred that leads to the above latest disgusting excuse for ‘legal protection’ we can start looking at the incidences of where cyclists may not follow rules of stopping at red lights …

         but to the anti-mass cycling (ie  8 to 80 in any clothing….y’know grand-kids and grand parents kind of thing….mobility aid for those who cycle but cannot easily walk kind of thing….or anyone els who just wants to go to the shops on a bike FCS) commenters above,

         I would  suggest are in need of an education.   

          

          

          

         — oldstrath

         So, I need to get real and get an education?  I think you need to climb off your high horse o-brave internet knight.

         I didn’t victim blame at all, but you, you become what you supposedly hate and treat someone you know nothing about with utter contempt and with language which would in a physical world translate to a punch, yet you claim some moral high ground. 

         You missed the entire point of my post.  I’m a cyclist. I’m a motorist. I’m a pedestrian.  A mode of transport does not brand a person. I fully agree that society today is breeding a lack of care for others and it needs addressing. That was the point of my post.

         And whilst you suggest I need an education and despair at the kind of people dare visit this site, at least look up the definition of a forum, which this isn’t. It’s a place to put forward your views and opinions. 

         Log In or Register to post comments

6. Maybe you ‘shouldn’t have to’

   Maybe you ‘shouldn’t have to’ wear hi-viz etc., maybe you ‘should’ be able to dress like a ninja with a barely legal rear light but in this day and age it helps to attract a drivers attention asap. The further away you initially spot someone the better IMO. 

   I really don’t think some of you drive and the world just goes by at 15mph or less. Seriously, banging on about the 1920s!??! You’re about 100 years out of date. 

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Yorkshire wallet wrote:

     Maybe you ‘shouldn’t have to’ wear hi-viz etc., maybe you ‘should’ be able to dress like a ninja with a barely legal rear light but in this day and age it helps to attract a drivers attention asap. The further away you initially spot someone the better IMO. 

     I really don’t think some of you drive and the world just goes by at 15mph or less. Seriously, banging on about the 1920s!??! You’re about 100 years out of date. 

     — Yorkshire wallet

     No, the point is valid. The CTC objected to the making compulsary for people riding bikes to have a rear light saying that this just encouraged motorists to drive faster and flout the law which is clearly what has happened over the last 100 years and some, or maybe you don’t want to accept that UK drivers have killed in that time over half a million people?

     We as people riding bikes have brighter lights, told to wear X, Y and Z and all the while driving standards are dropping further and further because the responsibility to drive safely is being taken away from them and the onus for safety pushed upon the vulnerable hence why we have the shit state of affairs that we do.

     it’s YOU that is out of date with your way of thinking and thinking that will not solve anything as seen by the numerous deaths and serious injuries sustained by those travelling not only within the law but well beyond what is required and are still blamed.

     Change/modify the behaviour of those doing the harm not that of the vulnerable/victims, least of all blame them for their demise when they’ve done sod all wrong.

      

     Log In or Register to post comments

7. Looking at an image in the
   Looking at an image in the Birmingham Mail, which appears to narrow down where the collision occurred, there is sufficient street lighting and it is a built up area, as such the driver could reasonably be expected to have spotted the cyclist. Also, the weather appears to have been fine (no rain).

   I

   Log In or Register to post comments

8. The ‘victim blaming’
   The ‘victim blaming’ comments are a bit hysterical.

   The police officer is simply reiterating the advice given in the highway code.

   If you disagree with the highway code campaign to get it changed but don’t blame people for basing advice on it.

   Rule 59.

   You should wear reflective clothing and/or accessories (belt, arm or ankle bands) in the dark.

   Log In or Register to post comments

   • Rich_cb wrote:

     The ‘victim blaming’ comments are a bit hysterical. The police officer is simply reiterating the advice given in the highway code. If you disagree with the highway code campaign to get it changed but don’t blame people for basing advice on it. Rule 59. You should wear reflective clothing and/or accessories (belt, arm or ankle bands) in the dark.

     — Rich_cb

      

     should is not the same as must.

      

      

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • StoopidUserName wrote:

       should is not the same as must.

        

       — StoopidUserName

       Where did I say it was?

       If you disregard ‘Should’ rules that apply to cyclists you can’t complain when motorists disregard ‘Should’ rules that apply to them.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Rich_cb wrote:

         should is not the same as must.

          

         — Rich_cb Where did I say it was? If you disregard ‘Should’ rules that apply to cyclists you can’t complain when motorists disregard ‘Should’ rules that apply to them.— StoopidUserName

         Actually, I can and I will, because of morality, despite some retarded rules which you seem to believe legitimises someone operating a lethal weapon in a dangerous manner.

         Oh look, that cyclist is wearing hi-viz and a helmet, I should give them adequate space when overtaking at 30mph.

         Oh look, this cyclist isn’t wearing hi-viz, I’m totally fine to almost skim him at 50mph.

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • ChrisB200SX wrote:

           Actually, I can and I will, because of morality, despite some retarded rules which you seem to believe legitimises someone operating a lethal weapon in a dangerous manner.

           Oh look, that cyclist is wearing hi-viz and a helmet, I should give them adequate space when overtaking at 30mph.

           Oh look, this cyclist isn’t wearing hi-viz, I’m totally fine to almost skim him at 50mph.

           — ChrisB200SX

           Be a hypocrite if you want but don’t complain when people call you out on it.

           Personally I’d like to see a minimum passing distance enshrined in law and that particular rule upgraded to a ‘must’.

           Until that happens you’re going to struggle to persuade people to follow the ‘Should’ rules if you yourself do not.

         • Rich_cb wrote:

           Actually, I can and I will, because of morality, despite some retarded rules which you seem to believe legitimises someone operating a lethal weapon in a dangerous manner.

           Oh look, that cyclist is wearing hi-viz and a helmet, I should give them adequate space when overtaking at 30mph.

           Oh look, this cyclist isn’t wearing hi-viz, I’m totally fine to almost skim him at 50mph.

           — Rich_cb

           Be a hypocrite if you want but don’t complain when people call you out on it.

           Personally I’d like to see a minimum passing distance enshrined in law and that particular rule upgraded to a ‘must’.

           Until that happens you’re going to struggle to persuade people to follow the ‘Should’ rules if you yourself do not.

           — ChrisB200SX

           Because what matters is the exact word of the law and not treating human beings as human beings but instead choosing to jeopardise their lives because should is not must. only sociopaths think that way.

           If drivers are to be excused for lack of high vis and reflective then it should be a requirement for all pedestrians crossing the road
           and not just cyclists.
           It’s not, why? because it is not difficult to see people in the dark using car headlights.

         • wycombewheeler wrote:

           Because what matters is the exact word of the law and not treating human beings as human beings but instead choosing to jeopardise their lives because should is not must. only sociopaths think that way.

           If drivers are to be excused for lack of high vis and reflective then it should be a requirement for all pedestrians crossing the road
           and not just cyclists. It’s not, why? because it is not difficult to see people in the dark using car headlights.

           — wycombewheeler

           The problem with the passing distance rule lies entirely in its wording.

           It is far too vague, making enforcement difficult.

           The highway code does advise pedestrians to wear reflective clothing too.

           Rule 3
           Help other road users to see you. Wear or carry something light-coloured, bright or fluorescent in poor daylight conditions. When it is dark, use reflective materials (eg armbands, sashes, waistcoats, jackets, footwear).

   • Rich_cb wrote:

     The ‘victim blaming’ comments are a bit hysterical.

     The police officer is simply reiterating the advice given in the highway code.

     If you disagree with the highway code campaign to get it changed but don’t blame people for basing advice on it.

     Rule 59.

     You should wear reflective clothing and/or accessories (belt, arm or ankle bands) in the dark.

     — Rich_cb

     Rule 126. How many drivers do you think follow it? If they all did, most problems go away.

     Log In or Register to post comments

   • Rich_cb wrote:

     The ‘victim blaming’ comments are a bit hysterical. The police officer is simply reiterating the advice given in the highway code. If you disagree with the highway code campaign to get it changed but don’t blame people for basing advice on it. Rule 59. You should wear reflective clothing and/or accessories (belt, arm or ankle bands) in the dark.

     — Rich_cb

     So a bias/discriminatory rule should be used at all, never mind against the vulnerable, all the whilst without any hard evidence it works anyway (except to use against victims).

     You can lob off with that kind of fecked up thinking!

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

       So a bias/discriminatory rule should be used at all, never mind against the vulnerable, all the whilst without any hard evidence it works anyway (except to use against victims).

       You can lob off with that kind of fecked up thinking!

       — BehindTheBikesheds

       As I said, if you disagree with the highway code then campaign to get it changed.

       You can’t criticise the police for advising people to follow the highway code.

       We’ve previously discussed the evidence regarding bright colours, there is some evidence that bright colours reduce your likelihood of being in an accident.

       There is no evidence that I am aware of that shows the opposite.

       Log In or Register to post comments

       • Rich_cb wrote:

          

         So a bias/discriminatory rule should be used at all, never mind against the vulnerable, all the whilst without any hard evidence it works anyway (except to use against victims).

         You can lob off with that kind of fecked up thinking!

         — Rich_cb As I said, if you disagree with the highway code then campaign to get it changed. You can’t criticise the police for advising people to follow the highway code. We’ve previously discussed the evidence regarding bright colours, there is some evidence that bright colours reduce your likelihood of being in an accident. There is no evidence that I am aware of that shows the opposite.— BehindTheBikesheds

          

         I have some evidence:

          

         I have been knocked off my bike twice, 9.15am and 9.25am in October, slightly dim but certainly not dark as many drivers had no lights. And yes, it was the same day. 3 lights on the back, two on the front, reflective and high vis jacket – I was hit from behind by a driver cutting a roundabout and the front by a driver desparate to turn into a McDonalds.

          

         I have never been hit when wearing team sky black clothing.

          

         See, there’s some evidence.

          

         Incidentally I was hit from behind on a retail park a few nights ago, old lady driver wasn’t impressed with my right hand turn from a right hand filter lane. She had time to beep at me for no apparent reason before I stopped and she seemed unable to stop her car from approx 8mph.

          

         Nice people turn into morons when they get in a car…

         Log In or Register to post comments

         • alansmurphy wrote:

           I have some evidence:

            

           I have been knocked off my bike twice, 9.15am and 9.25am in October, slightly dim but certainly not dark as many drivers had no lights. And yes, it was the same day. 3 lights on the back, two on the front, reflective and high vis jacket – I was hit from behind by a driver cutting a roundabout and the front by a driver desparate to turn into a McDonalds.

            

           I have never been hit when wearing team sky black clothing.

            

           See, there’s some evidence.

            

           Incidentally I was hit from behind on a retail park a few nights ago, old lady driver wasn’t impressed with my right hand turn from a right hand filter lane. She had time to beep at me for no apparent reason before I stopped and she seemed unable to stop her car from approx 8mph.

            

           Nice people turn into morons when they get in a car…

           — alansmurphy

           Anecdotal evidence is the best kind.

   • Rich_cb wrote:

     The ‘victim blaming’ comments are a bit hysterical. The police officer is simply reiterating the advice given in the highway code. If you disagree with the highway code campaign to get it changed but don’t blame people for basing advice on it. Rule 59. You should wear reflective clothing and/or accessories (belt, arm or ankle bands) in the dark.

     — Rich_cb

      

     He seems to have said “Hi-Vis” not reflective.  You can’t see colours in the dark so hi-vis makes no difference.  

      

     You also can’t see anything if you’re not looking…  considering the driver admitted being distracted it sounds like he wasn’t looking.

     Log In or Register to post comments

     • jestriding wrote:

       He seems to have said “Hi-Vis” not reflective.  You can’t see colours in the dark so hi-vis makes no difference.  

        

       You also can’t see anything if you’re not looking…  considering the driver admitted being distracted it sounds like he wasn’t looking.

       — jestriding

       The policeman’s words are quoted in the article.

       He doesn’t mention hi-vis.

       Log In or Register to post comments

9. Quote:

   Trotman had not been wearing hi-vis clothing when he was hit and investigating officer, Sergeant Richard Moors, appeared to refer to this afterwards.

   No mention of a rear light sugests that Mr Trotman did indeed have one?

   Log In or Register to post comments

10. With all due respect Sgt

    With all due respect Sgt Moors.

    “I hope this sentencing brings some closure to the family of Mr Trotman,” he said. “We are committed to keeping Staffordshire’s roads as safe as possible and I would like to take this opportunity to remind all road users of their responsibilities.

    But go fuck youself.

    Log In or Register to post comments

11. Absolutely no way to prove
    Absolutely no way to prove that Hi Viz would have changed the outcome. “A moments inattention can lead to anything not being seen”.

    Log In or Register to post comments

12. Well said WW 

    Well said WW 

    Log In or Register to post comments

13. It seems that every time the

    It seems that every time the excuse “I didn’t see him/her” is given, that the investigation stops there. What about the obvious follow-up?: Why didn’t you see him/her? What were you doing instead?

    Some are going to lie, and will get away with it, but more, if pressed, would reveal the real reason for the inattention.

    I wish this excuse would stop being acceptable. It’s not as if the Code says: If you should hit a pedestrian, motorcyclist, cyclist, or anything, simply tell the investigating officers that you did not see the victim, and you will be allowed to continute on your way.

    Sorry for the cynicism, but this situation is very frustrating.

    Log In or Register to post comments

14. “The presiding Judge said it

    “The presiding Judge said it was a moment of inattention that led to Mr Trotman’s death.”

    I don’t know whether the reporter was simply referring to the sentencing judge, or the Presiding Judge in Stafford.

     

    If it is the latter, then that is very disturbing.  Pat Kenny was killed by a motorist who was spared jail by that judge.  At the time, I already had the judge marked as a known “petrol head“; but if it’s the same judge it means that he also has no regard for the safety of cyclists.  On the other hand, it could be that ALL the judges in Stafford care little for us.

     

    When can we start indiscriminately killing motorists in the same way that they kill cyclists?

     

    FWIW, I ride on that road quite regularly.  It SHOULD be perfectly safe – but many drivers ignore the posted speed limit.

    Log In or Register to post comments

15. Most of the Dutch and Danish

    Most of the Dutch and Danish cyclists don’t wear helmets of hi-viz.

    Perhaps that’s down to better infrastructure and better drivers?

     

    I don’t often cycle in the dark so all near-misses that I have had when cycling have been in broad daylight when wearing bright clothing. But surely drivers should see a cyclist in broad daylight whilst wearing bright colours?

    Personally, I see high-viz as a red herring. Drivers are expected to drive carefully, to leave enough stopping distance and to stick to speed limits as well as pay attention to the road. Most drivers will admit to the odd lapse of concentration, and the odd bit of speeding.

    The real issue is with the minority of drivers that routinely drive without paying attention, or whilst routinely breaking the Highway Code and yet think that it is acceptable.

     

    Ultimately all of these arguments online won’t bring back the dozens of cyclists killed each year.

    Log In or Register to post comments

16. If you can’t see an object

    If you can’t see an object either at night, in fog, bright sun, heavy rain, ordinary clear day and not manage to avoid them without giving them a scare then you have no business whatsoever being in charge of a machine that is proven time and again to have enough kinetic energy to kill a human being…none whatsoever. You’re either going too fast for the conditions, not looking properly, not understanding your legal responsibility and acting on it, don’t give a flying one about other people or a combination of all of them.

    The sooner some people who purport to be ‘cyclists’ change their thinking as to what standard of driving should be the absolute minimum the better they themselves will be as a person riding a bike and if they drive also when they do that too.

    Every time you drive and ride and see a person on a bike OR on foot, you should think how should I be doing so (driving/riding) so as not to induce fear and/or reduce the chances of harm as much as is possible if that were my 7yr old child or my invalided 80year old grandmother. Whilst on your bike you are massively less capable of killing/seriously injuring someone the application of being safe AND courteous to others applies.

    That the vast majority of people who ride bikes also having a driving license has I truly beleive an effect on how they ride their bikes.  The aggression/poor judgement by swathes of people on bikes is incredible at times, especially the last 10 years and I truly believe this is in part down to latent agression from being an entitled driver and also due to the swaddling their heads in plastic and polystyrene foam.

    All too often people with bikes on roofs/backs of motors or the tell tale empty bike rack and they drive like crunts no better than any other.

    Anecdotal, of course but having being an on road cyclist in many guises for over 30 years now I’ve seen the changes in both driver and cyclist behaviour, as both camps overlap considerably I think my point is valid.

    Log In or Register to post comments

17. Not to comment on this
    Not to comment on this particular incident as like most others here I do not know the full details…

    Having succesfully not driven over any cyclists, pedestrians or animals in over 30 years of driving, whether they be lit, unlit or in camouflage as nature intended. I can say for sure, and especially at night, that something reflective or high vis in the environment is generally observed far sooner and gives a driver more planning time and more options to deal with the developing situation appropriately.

    Just because the advice in the HC is not 100% proof against all circumstances and cannot protect from the wilful negligence of others, is no reason not to follow it and at least take the actions that are under your own control. MUST carry lights at night. SHOULD wear light coloured or flourescant clothing and at night reflective clothing.

    Log In or Register to post comments

18. People make mistakes because

    People make mistakes because we are human, not machines. On this occasion the mistake led to a man losing his life and before anyone jumps down my throat the driver shoud have gone to prison regardless of any excuses or mitigation he came up with. 

    However i dont see why other cyclists when out on the roads dont use as much lighting as they can.

    Why should we, i hear people say, well in an ideal world where everyone for every moment of time is fully conscious of what they are doing and what is going on around them then i agree but we dont and we aren’t aware so by lighting up we give ourselves, the most vulnerable of road users, a much better chance of being seen and ultimately being squashed by a ton of metal. 

     Also “behindthebikesheds” is that you sp59 reincarnated ? I only ask as the comments you make and the tone are very very similar, without the swearing, as sp59 used to do……….

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • Stumps wrote:

      People make mistakes because we are human, not machines. On this occasion the mistake led to a man losing his life and before anyone jumps down my throat the driver shoud have gone to prison regardless of any excuses or mitigation he came up with. 

      However i dont see why other cyclists when out on the roads dont use as much lighting as they can.

      Why should we, i hear people say, well in an ideal world where everyone for every moment of time is fully conscious of what they are doing and what is going on around them then i agree but we dont and we aren’t aware so by lighting up we give ourselves, the most vulnerable of road users, a much better chance of being seen and ultimately being squashed by a ton of metal. 

       Also “behindthebikesheds” is that you sp59 reincarnated ? I only ask as the comments you make and the tone are very very similar, without the swearing, as sp59 used to do……….

      — Stumps

      I think what people find offensive is the remark about cyclists being visible, made when the driver was guilty of inattention. So visibility is irrelevant and blames the victim.

      Together with the derisory sentence imposed, inadequate infrastructure, the anti-cycling press etc etc gives the impression that society doesn’t care about cyclists being killed.

      Cyclists should do their best to make themselves visible but that is way down the list of priorities ( even if it was relevant to this case), when faced with the above institutional problems.

      PS yes I believe your detective skills are spot on, officer! It’s good for the forum to have him back 😉

      Log In or Register to post comments

19. How can we encourage more
    How can we encourage more people to cycle if we stipulate everybody must carry a set of lights and a hi vis vest with them at all times, even in street lit built up areas, just in case it gets cloudy or night falls before they intend to make their journey, and if you don’t your killer will walk free?

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • rliu wrote:

      How can we encourage more people to cycle if we stipulate everybody must carry a set of lights and a hi vis vest with them at all times, even in street lit built up areas, just in case it gets cloudy or night falls before they intend to make their journey, and if you don’t your killer will walk free?

      — rliu

      If more bikes were sold with dynamo lights fittef

      Log In or Register to post comments

20. 700c – “I think what people

    700c – “I think what people find offensive is the remark about cyclists being visible, made when the driver was guilty of inattention. So visibility is irrelevant and blames the victim”

     

    Your possibly right, however, had the poor chap been more visible at an earlier stage perhaps the numpty driver might have seen him earlier and been more aware he was coming up towards a cyclist…….We will never know but i agree with your comments that people dont seem interested in a cyclist being killed, its just another statistic to some or even irrelevant to others which is even more scary. 

     

    Log In or Register to post comments

21. For me the point is the

    For me the point is the sentence, which however accidental the incident, seems insultingly low. 

    The Police officers comments seem to provide some indication for the leniency… that the impression in court was the victim was not doing all he could to ensure he was seen.

    So basically it was the old, “don’t be too harsh on the chap, that could be any one of us” sympathy card. 

    To me, there needs to be more emphasis on should and must in these situations. If a cyclist must have reflective material and failed to do so, then fair enough, be lenient on the car driver. If teh rider should have refelctive material and didn’t, that can not be seen as a mitigating circumstance. 

    There has to be clarity here.

    I fully support and understand why many complain about victim blaming. hell yes, you should make sure you are seen, but as mentioned many times already, it doesn’t matter what you do if the driver isn’t looking… which was admitted here.

    Victim blaming simply takes away the focus of a car driver not paying adequate attention… again… and getting away with it… again!

    As mentioned before, lobby your MP, make noise in the right places, bickering on here just pisses everyone off. 

    As an aside, my biggest bug bear about victim blaming is the de-humanising aspect of it all… instead of living in mortifying guilt at taking another man’s life, instead people are able to say “ah but the victim didn’t do xxxx so its not my fault”… how can that be a good thing for anyone but the perpetrator. 

    Log In or Register to post comments

22. I withdraw my previous

    I withdraw my previous objections to bicycle front lights with round beam patterns and will now be looking for the brightest, most dazzling and anti-social front light available.

    If you hear reports of drivers in North Yorkshire with burnt retinas, it was me and frankly I don’t care. If drivers are able to kill cyclists and get off with community service the law is an arse and I’m going to protect myself with 8000 lumens of chinese ebay tat.

    Log In or Register to post comments

    • Morat wrote:

      I withdraw my previous objections to bicycle front lights with round beam patterns and will now be looking for the brightest, most dazzling and anti-social front light available.

      If you hear reports of drivers in North Yorkshire with burnt retinas, it was me and frankly I don’t care. If drivers are able to kill cyclists and get off with community service the law is an arse and I’m going to protect myself with 8000 lumens of chinese ebay tat.

      — Morat

      Don’t forget the rear – Dinotte or Orfos flare should do it. Maybe one of each to be sure.

      Log In or Register to post comments

23. I’ve got a Blaze Burner on

    I’ve got a Blaze Burner on the back. Despite all the hate from the kickstarter campaign they really are painfully bright once you actually get hold of one.

    Log In or Register to post comments

24. Hope district +, same LEDs as

    Hope district +, same LEDs as car rear lights, well made, work of art bracket.

    Log In or Register to post comments