A jury has found a delivery driver not guilty of causing death by careless driving following a trial that centred around the defence that the accused was unable to see the cyclist killed due to glare from the low sun.
Christopher Morrison was found not guilty at Peterhead Sheriff Court on Friday, the Press and Journal reports. The 41-year-old had been driving on the A90 Peterhead to Aberdeen route, near the turning to Stirlinghill Quarry, on 2 December 2022 when he hit Robert Cowie, who was cycling along the road. The 52-year-old cyclist was knocked from his bike by Mr Morrison, fell into the path of another vehicle and died as a result of the collision.
In court, fiscal depute Neil MacDonald called on the jury to convict Mr Morrison, saying that there is “no dispute” that the driver had hit the cyclist, only whether his driving had fallen “below the standard of a careful and competent driver”.
He argued Mr Morrison should have seen Mr Cowie and told the court the low winter sun could not have been a “surprise”. However, it was the glare of the sun that became the centre of the driver’s defence, legal representation David Nicholson pointing to witness accounts that described the sun as “blinding”.
“The sun glare was instantaneous – I heard a bang and saw the wing mirror was off,” Mr Morrison told the court. “Just like that it changed – the sun hit my eyes, then there was the bang. There was no cycle in front of me as far as I could see. The road had looked fine and clear up until the bend.”
Responding to a question from his defence, the motorist said he “didn’t have time” to see the cyclist. Likewise, under cross-examination, Mr Morrison said he “thought I was perfectly safe” and “there was nothing that would affect me drastically”.
That answer came to a question from Mr MacDonald asking why he had not altered his speed given the conditions. To a question about how the drivers ahead had managed to see Mr Cowie, Mr Morrison suggested “they had a better chance to see him maybe”.
“I didn’t see him that day because of the sun. Maybe it was bouncing off his high-vis vest – I don’t know,” he added before fielding a second question about how the Tesco van driver in front had managed to pass safely.
“He was ahead of me. He got lucky just like everybody else – and it’s me who is standing here today,” Mr Morrison answered.
The jury also heard from Stuart Blackwood of Arc Investigations, an expert witness called by the defence, who produced a report into the incident and said that he did not believe Mr Morrison’s van had struck Mr Cowie due to it being “physically impossible” for his bike to have remained upright, causing the black marks visible on the side of the van.
He did concede however that he had not had full access to dash-cam footage used by the police crash reports. When shown footage from the aforementioned Tesco van, Mr Blackwood was asked whether the sun would have changed position in the short time after when Mr Morrison would have passed.
“Not substantially,” he answered. Speaking outside court, Mr Morrison said he was “grateful for the jury’s decision”.
51 thoughts on “Delivery driver who hit cyclist and blamed low sun found not guilty of causing death by careless driving”
Not sure mutton headed
Not sure mutton headed drivist juries should be allowed on these cases.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
I’d love for all cases to be tried by juries of driving examiners, failing that I’d like to see the direction from judges be “do you think driving of this standard would pass a driving test?” rather than “judge this standard against the benchmark of yourself as a careful and competant driver”
Just remember Ashley Neal
Just remember Ashley Neal would probably qualify as being of driving examiner status.
And I know he is technically an instructor, but to instruct he has to know the same detail as the examiners.
stonojnr wrote:
You’d think that instructors should know the same detail as examiners, but I see a lot of dodgy practice from people driving with their instructor. Which is why I specifically said examiner and not instructor.
I have seen some very dodgy
I have seen some very dodgy driving from driving instructors in liveried driving school vehicles
I have seen some very dodgy
I have seen some very dodgy driving from driving instructors in liveried driving school vehicles
https://upride.cc/incident/yf70xwu_aadrivingschool_uwlcross/
been close passed more than
been close passed more than once by a driving instructor. I give a bit more leeway to drivers under instruction as I know when I learnt to drive I made enough mistakes.
my point was Ashley Neal would be considered equal in terms of skill and knowledge to a driving examiner, certainly among fellow jurors if he was selected for jury service, since he teaches people to pass a test with a driving examiner.
and some of his hot takes on the interactions between cars and cyclists are woefully misguided
stonojnr wrote:
He’s either qualified as an examiner, or he isn’t. It’s a matter of public record and any witness would have shared their credentials as part of disclosure.
What goes on in the Jury room is not based on any qualification so other jurors cannot rely on what are opinions not evidence.
stonojnr wrote:
Many driving instructors apply to become examiners. The majority either fail the selection process or fail the 4-week residential course, which is rigorous.
Umm sooooo, wearing hi-viz is
Umm sooooo, wearing hi-viz is now going to count as an aggravating factor when the sun is out cos you’re blinding the poor drivist? I’ll wear black then……oh hang on
Worse , there was a cyclist
Worse , there was a cyclist killed somewhere in England one Autumn where the defence ( successful) was that the cyclist’s yellow jacket blended in to the yellow Autumn leaves of roadside trees . We’ll have to have multi coloured bright jackets next but not so bright nor so multi coloured as to confuse poor motorists .
So are you saying that I
So are you saying that I should not wear my bright orange winter jacket in winter then?
Please check out the case of
Please check out the case of Micheal Mason, whose hi-vis and lights wre disguised by the shop lighting in Regent Street. Micheal was killed and the driver not even charged with an offence I think.
cbrndc wrote:
They were charged, a private prosecution I think, but claimed that they thought a sack of potatoes had somehow collided with their car and were acquited.
Because Regent Street is so
Because Regent Street is so famous for potato retail… NOT
Not to mention that ambulatory potatoes sacks are literally impossible.
What Magistrate could be so stupid as to fall for such incredible nonsense…
cbrndc wrote:
wasn’t there a private prosecution? the fact police and CPS did not progress the case likely counted against that case suceeding.
cbrndc wrote:
I recommend CUK’s write up and some detail by a lawyer involved.
There were a number of troubling (but sadly not surprising to me) failures to act interested – or act at all – by police and courts. Overall reflecting the lack of interest in or even concern about killing on our roads by society – which of course includes those who drive…
cbrndc wrote:
That’s correct, the police refused even to pass the case to the CPS for a charging decision on the basis that Mr Mason was wearing dark clothing and no helmet and that even though he had fully functioning lights on his bike they could have merged with other traffic. Cycling UK brought a private prosecution but unfortunately the jury accepted the driver’s explanation that Mr Mason “came out of nowhere” even though he was riding in a straight line, with lights on, in a very well lit area and she drove up behind him and hit him. An absolute disgrace.
Rendel Harris wrote:
as I recall, the point of impact was directly in front of the driver as well.
https://www.cyclinguk.org
https://www.cyclinguk.org/blog/duncandollimore/mason-verdict
The flippant disdain of his
The flippant disdain in his answers, ‘could have been the the sun bouncing off his hi-viz vest’, and casting himself as the unlucky victim in the situation, ‘the other drivers got lucky … and it’s me who is standing here today’ are deeply troubling.
Quote:
They might as well remove that rule from the Highway Code, as it is clear that no jury of drivers will ever convict anyone for breaking it. There but for a radical change in society’s notion of personal responsibility go I.
I’ve driven this road many
I’ve driven this road many times . There is really no excuse . The trial summary is not yet available on line .
Only this morning when i was
Only this morning when i was out on my bike, I was very aware how low in the sky and bright the sun was, and it bothered me so much that drivers approaching me from behind may not be paying enough attention and may not see me, that I changed my route and got off the road onto the canal towpath.
Big question…was the sun
Big question…was the sun behind the driver, and reflecting off the back of the jacket, or was the sun in front of the driver and obscuring the cyclist? Simple geography would determine which. If the former then absolutely no excuse. “I saw a big light in front of me and drove straight at it because I couldn’t tell what it was”. Why do courts fall for this utter bullshit time and time again?
As others have said, the jury
As others have said, the jury are almost certainly “drivers” not “cyclists” and they can see themselves in the guy in front of them. “I sometime struggle to see when the sun is low”. “I too sometimes don’t see cyclists easily”.
If they find this guy guilty they would have to reflect on the fact their own driving standards are poor and they are relying on luck not to be setting where the defendant is.
Very sadly true.
Very sadly true.
There does need to be some
There does need to be some clarity on this, imagine just for a minute if the jury were all cyclists, I’m quite sure this would lead to grounds for an appeal on any conviction.
Well this is the problem isn
Well this is the problem isn’t it. There are certain cases where you need the jury to have no biases and yet in some cases they have massive bias in one direction. A jury of cyclists would be biased in the other direction no doubt.
Being only a driver in essentially a “driver vs cyclist” case should be considered a bias but it won’t be. I would wager that if you spoke to a group of people about cyclists you would find that a large proportion of them are very biased against cyclists and hold a lot of negative views on them. If you then asked those people if they were biased in any way and shouldn’t be on a jury for a driver vs cycling related case they would almost certainly say no.
Sadly the “man on the Clapham
Sadly the “man on the Clapham omnibus” no longer exists, there are no more omnibuses for one. As a legal construct of a ‘reasonable’ person, he’s sadly now the “man in an Audi swearing in traffic on the Wandsworth road”
ROOTminus1 wrote:
“Bus” is simply an abbreviation of omnibus, a vehicle for carrying large numbers of passengers, so there are still plenty of them, in London at least. It’s often assumed that “omnibus” refers to the horse-drawn variety, but those were in fact horse-drawn omnibuses and the ones we have now are motor omnibuses.
mctrials23 wrote:
Indeed, so instead they conclude that potentially lethal driving is OK, and that use of the roads should carry some risk.
pockstone wrote:
This was a jury trial – it’s the education and attitude of the public that’s the problem.
danhopgood wrote:
This was a jury trial – it’s the education and attitude of the public that’s the problem. — pockstone
The court system assumes no bias and takes no action to quantify or avoid bias.
Blind justice is not competent and the irony is that blind was supposed to mean not biased…
Just had my language
Just had my language questioned at home until I read out the details.
The other drivers didn’t kill him through luck then.
And it must be the first time ever that the driver had used this road.
perhaps its time for the
perhaps its time for the “Death By” to be dropped from the court proceedings, the jury don’t need to only assess the driving, if he is guilty of the caeless driving the “death by” is automatic and the sentencing then reflects that
It does seem that we are
It does seem that we are punishing the outcome rather than the behaviour.
Consider someone driving on a country road and driving far too fast round a bend when they can’t possibly know the road is clear. They do this 99 times without incident but then one day a cyclist is there and the cyclist is killed. Is it just this 1% of driving which is dangerous? (careless, inconsiderate or, as here, neither)
Now suppose the cyclist is seriously injured rather than killed. Does this make the driving any better or affect the culpability in any way.
Suppose the cyclist manages to get out of the way and reports it to the police with evidence. Is the driving then perfectly acceptable?
Bungle_52 wrote:
quite true, this is the argument in favour of people like cycling Mikey. Only by acting against unsafe practices can we make roads safer. Chances are the vast majority who cause a serious accident will not want to repeat that regardless of draconian sentances. Others will not see the court cases and consider that it applies to them, after all people are not thinking “I’ll drive like a knob as long as it only results in a death of someone else and not a prison sentance”. They simply do not consider that they will cause a collision, because 999/1000 times someone uses a phone, no crash occurs.
It’s driver centric bullshit.
It’s driver centric bullshit. A jury does not understand risk mitigation as you have described it. They all probably think there but for the grace of god….. The death should be avoidable. The driver and road conditions cannot both be blameless so either road shuts or driver is at fault.
In a slightly different
In a slightly different context, this is why we have ‘near miss’ reporting at work for H&S. It is so we can pick up behaviour that is ‘potentially’ dangerous and correct it before the potential becomes reality.
“What’s your defence for
“What’s your defence for murder?”
“I killed him with a vehicle, and it was only a cyclist for fuck’s sake. Not like it was a proper person or even an animal is it?”
“ah, of course. Off you go, now please don’t use your car for a couple of weeks”
“The sun glare was
“The sun glare was instantaneous – I heard a bang and saw the wing mirror was off,” Mr Morrison told the court. “Just like that it changed – the sun hit my eyes, then there was the bang”
If the the impact came in the instant immediatly after the sun appeared then surely a careful and competent driver would have been aware of what was in the space they were driving in to as they should have been observing the road ahead
IMHO one way to fix an awful
IMHO one way to fix an awful lot of the issues would be to make court outcomes a mandatory part of the councils obligation to ensure infra is safe.
I.e. if the jury wants to claim that the driving was acceptable for a careful and competent road user then the council cannot also claim that the road is safe for a careful and competent road user. Therefore the road must be shut pending suitable alterations (allowing for emergency changes like drastically reduced limits with mobile camera van enforcement)
It shouldn’t be possible to both argue the environment (road design) is safe AND that the driver is safe outside extreme conditions (i.e. something you see a few hours/year where we tell people not to drive unless critical) (which definately doesn’t include low sun that lasts for hours/day for several weeks of the year)
This just makes no sense.
This just makes no sense. Arsehole sentence, defence should never be acceptable ‘I couldn’t see’.. drive to the conditions, slow down or stop, it couldn’t be more simple.
“being unable to see clearly” is one of the classes of ‘Dangerous Driving’ as per the law.
So it should really be
So it should really be ‘Driver fails to see cyclist BECAUSE of hi-vis vest’ .
Does this mean we shouldn’t wear hi viability clothing just in case it’s too visable?
Hmm, sun low in the sky at a
Hmm, sun low in the sky at a certain time of day?
Who could possibly have predicted that?
And driven accordingly.
I remember a similar case from maybe 25 years ago when the same pathetic excuse was excused for the death of a cyclist (driver leaving a motoway slip road if my memory serves). No, sorry. The sun will be there, it does that on a regular basis and if you have to drive at a few miles per hour until it’s safe to do so, then that’s what you do.
Every single flippin’ time.
I’ve become paranoid now when I’m riding into a very low sun, and try to avoid it.
Another terrible, terrible decision.
What ever happened to
What ever happened to ‘driving to the conditions’?
I know many will think this usually means rain, snow, fog etc but for some reason think a beautiful bright sunny morning won’t also bring with it other issues. I used to regularly have to drive into the North Yorkshire Moors early in the morning. If it was clear you could guarantee, as you headed east up the hills, you would have the low sun directly in your eye line. You had to drive accordingly. I would have thought a professional driver would be used to these conditions and be able to recognise when it’s going to be a problem. It’s not a rare phenomena even on the east coast of Scotland
I quite agree. The question
I quite agree. The question is if a ‘delivery-van driver’ could be considered a “professional”. I know that he would have been doing it for his living, but did he have any extra training beyond an ordinary driving test?
luke.wiseman wrote:
Exactly. “But I drive every day…” – yes, and practice makes … habit.
And not only “did he have any extra training…” – when was that? How was that assessed / tested? Is this regular or – like the driving test – is this a “member’s club” where you effectively pay a joining fee and that’s it?
“The jury also heard from
“The jury also heard from Stuart Blackwood of Arc Investigations, an expert witness called by the defence, who produced a report into the incident and said that he did not believe Mr Morrison’s van had struck Mr Cowie due to it being “physically impossible” for his bike to have remained upright, causing the black marks visible on the side of the van.”
I wonder why he believes it was physically impossible for the bike to have remained upright? If you suddenly steer to the left (because your right shoulder and arm have been pushed forwards by a vehicle that has hit you from behind) without leaning into the turn, your hips are automatically going to shift to the right, and the bike will tip to the right. If there is a van right next to you, you will end up leaning on it. In such a situation it will be physically almost impossible not to remain upright. And it doesn’t seem implausible that, as you and the bike bounce along the side of the vehicle, you might leave marks on the side of it.
As a (very) latecomer to this
As a (very) latecomer to this discussion, I would just like to add something that I read or was told about years ago; and I’m 69 now.
Most car and van drivers are not looking for bicycles and cyclists; they are looking, or are at least on the look-out for, cars, vans and lorries. Subconsciously, they are aware of blocks of colour; squares and rectangles of colour. The relatively thin, line-like appearence of a cyclist just doesn’t register. I ride a bike, and have ridden motor-bikes. I have driven cars and vans and even small lorries a couple of times.
I believe that all that one can do, as a cyclist on a road used mostly by motor vehicles, is to ride pretty darned defensively. Have some lights on; even flashing ones during the day, maybe clothing, thought the victim was wearing hi-vis, it seems. Almost assume that a car or van driver will not see one, unless one practically looks them in the eyes. One feels very protected inside a vehicle.
Having said all that, and appreciating that we ask juries to decide, it seems to me that the delivery-van driver and his defence was pretty callous: “a bang and the wing mirror was gone”, “Impossible for the van to have hit the cyclist”. Members of the jury; a human being died there; because of a collision with a van! Isn’t that manslaughter?
Best wishes and may you ride safely.