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

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

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.

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.

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. 

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. 

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?

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..........

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.

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.

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.

"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.

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.

Well said WW 

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

With all due respect Sgt Moors.

Quote:

“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.

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?

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.