Lorry that killed Paula Jurek had faulty indicator inquest told - CPS dropped case against driver

stealth wrote:

Isn't there a tell-tale on the dashboard when an indicator bulb has failed/not working?? Either a rapid flash on an older vehicle or a message on the dash-panel on a modern, computerised one.

In short yes but judging by the amount of vehicles you see regularly with fast flashing indicators it is ignored. I pointed it out to one once at traffic lights and was promptly told to 'f**k off and mind my own business'.

Kestevan wrote:

I can see the justification for dropping this case, as said above, we'll never know the truth, but there's enough doubt about exactly who was at fault - we've all seen enough dangerous drivers, and idiots on bikes putting themselves at risk.

The problem with perception however is that the CPS default attitude (and sentencing) so often leans towards leniency/benefit of the doubt to the driver that cyclists now automatically assume any decision is flawed.

Until we get a re-balancing in the prosecution/sentencing of drivers to protect the more vulnerable this will continue to be the case.

The problem here is that part of the argument that can be made is that drivers receive training and have to pass a test (or tests as in the case of HGV drivers - some of whom are very skilled). Most drivers will go around without having an accident and many without incurring the black mark of points on their license.
Cyclists on the other hand have no training and from what one observes in London, many would soon be banned if they required a license. Irrespective of that, I'm not blaming cyclists for being hit - just pointing out that part of the perception is of the 'qualification' as a road user. I do think that road education should be what we as a community press for (both for cyclists and for drivers). Awareness on both sides improves our position - people would therefore be more qualified in they're stance to talk about road positioning or the likelihood that they would move into a poor position, and that they would not find themselves in a blind spot in any case.
But as it is every hoon who jumps a red light, undertakes a bus, sits in a blind spot, cuts across traffic and rides on the pavement build a picture of a population that are a law unto themselves.
As to the comment that cyclists are always the victims ignores the responsibility that cyclists have as road users to themselves and to others. Cycling does not exist in a bubble and cyclists can be victim of their own stupidity - excusing them of responsibility for their actions does not help move cycling forward (from a legal perspective or any other perspective). And having a victim mentality is hardly a grown up way of viewing the world.

Kestevan wrote:

I can see the justification for dropping this case, as said above, we'll never know the truth, but there's enough doubt about exactly who was at fault - we've all seen enough dangerous drivers, and idiots on bikes putting themselves at risk.

The problem with perception however is that the CPS default attitude (and sentencing) so often leans towards leniency/benefit of the doubt to the driver that cyclists now automatically assume any decision is flawed.

Until we get a re-balancing in the prosecution/sentencing of drivers to protect the more vulnerable this will continue to be the case.

There is one way that we might get a proper level of confidence in the decisions taken by CPS and Coroners, and that is to get impartial and professional reports on dangerous road incidents to the same standards as those produced for air, rail and maritime incidents. These reports would take no stance on liability or guilt of any party involved, but simply identify "causal factors" which lead to the incident, along with the prevailing conditions which would have affected the outcome of actions taken.

At the end of such report there is usually a list of specific actions which need to be taken and recommendations to eliminate conditions which can increase the potential for similar events.

In this instance the route from Camden down to St Pancras was a key way to bring in the vehicles for construction work at the Francis Crick and King's Cross Central sites.
At one stage around 150 truck trips per day were running to clear the spoil excavated from the Francis Crick site plus other deliveries and traffic for Kings Cross Central. St Pancras Way and York Way would be 2 main routes for thos concentration of HGV traffic, being especially focussed on the substantial construction activity. To mitigate the enhanced risk options might have included moving the bulk materials by rail (1 train = 50-75 trucks off the road) of on the canal (1 barge = 4 trucks) This would also reduce carbon footprint and road damage at the same time. If the loads cannot go by rail, the the key road route needs to be identified and planned for safe operation.

arfa wrote:

This is just astonishing. If a person dies at your hands, the only complete defense is that it was self defense. However if you are driving a vehicle, there is no case to answer. Where is the deterrence for poor driving ?

Or poor cycling? The assumption always seems to be that the cyclist is not culpable on this site. I see cyclists doing stupid things like this everyday (cutting up on lorries, buses etc. at lights) without thinking about the coincidences.
The problem is ultimately education. I do scuba diving and you don't just pick up a pair of air canisters and dive into the ocean, but yet from an insurance point of view cycling and diving are in a similar bracket because both are dangerous without some understanding of the risks. Go figure! And yet you can launch yourself into confrontation with 5 tonne trucks without so much as a by-your-leave.....I wasn't there, but in my mind I can see this happening everyday of the week and it wouldn't necessarily be the drivers fault.

Very sorry for her family - sorry that justice cannot give them the closure they need.

Colin Peyresourde wrote:

arfa wrote:

This is just astonishing. If a person dies at your hands, the only complete defense is that it was self defense. However if you are driving a vehicle, there is no case to answer. Where is the deterrence for poor driving ?

Or poor cycling? The assumption always seems to be that the cyclist is not culpable on this site. I see cyclists doing stupid things like this everyday (cutting up on lorries, buses etc. at lights) without thinking about the coincidences.
The problem is ultimately education. I do scuba diving and you don't just pick up a pair of air canisters and dive into the ocean, but yet from an insurance point of view cycling and diving are in a similar bracket because both are dangerous without some understanding of the risks. Go figure! And yet you can launch yourself into confrontation with 5 tonne trucks without so much as a by-your-leave.....I wasn't there, but in my mind I can see this happening everyday of the week and it wouldn't necessarily be the drivers fault.

Very sorry for her family - sorry that justice cannot give them the closure they need.

If it was poor cycling then the CPS should have established it, that's the point in a justice system.

I cycle alot in London London and there is plenty of poor cycling but there is also some pretty appalling driving. I have nearly been taken out by badly driven HGV' s where they've forced themselves through too narrow a gap and quite frankly the drivers have shown complete disregard for anything other than their schedule. Until there is some form of deterrence there will be no change and the raft of recent court decisions is not helping

arfa wrote:

If it was poor cycling then the CPS should have established it, that's the point in a justice system.

I cycle alot in London London and there is plenty of poor cycling but there is also some pretty appalling driving. I have nearly been taken out by badly driven HGV' s where they've forced themselves through too narrow a gap and quite frankly the drivers have shown complete disregard for anything other than their schedule. Until there is some form of deterrence there will be no change and the raft of recent court decisions is not helping

I think the point in this case is that they couldn't be sure that it wasn't poor cycling. You're right about poor driving too. I come across a heap of that, but it sounds like you, like me, are aware of the potential for it. This is where education and experience come in. You spot the tight gaps and notice the HGV and you decide discretion is the part of valour and avoid seeing who gets squeezed out first. I eyeball every HGV driver at a junction (actually cars too), and every car trying to join the main road. The point being that if I can anticipate the action I can take a reaction. A lot of cyclists in London are very blithe about that (and some of that can be seen in the way people drive their cars too). My friend once posted a video on Facebook because he was indignant at the driving of a bus. When a bunch of us friends pointed out that he had no right to expect the bus to cede the space he learned a valuable lesson. When I rode down my road the other day and some Nigerian driver pulled out into the flow of traffic from the right and slowed my progress I had anticipated the shitty manoeuvre. I made it clear to him that he was wrong. I don't he liked that, but at least he knew I was there and displeased. The point is that just as good drivers drive defensively, so do good cyclists. And that's about understanding the risks around you, not undertaking buses and HGVs, not always making the mad dash to the cyclists box (I think these actively encourage people to move through traffic when they are safer to wait - if you are caught in a tight spot when the lights change you are in trouble), checking to see if motorists and pedestrians have clocked you.....