A lorry driver has been cleared of causing death by dangerous or careless driving, despite prosecutors’ claims that he was distracted by a television show when he struck cyclist Arunn Niessan Marusaleen on the A40 Witney bypass in December 2018.
32-year-old Tomas Mikalajunas claimed that he had not seen Marusaleen before he hit him with his HGV on the straight section of road, despite the cyclist wearing a hi-viz jacket and a red rear light. Marusaleen died at the scene after Mikalajunas and another motorist performed CPR.
Prosecutor Nigel Osborne claimed that the lorry driver was distracted by a Lithuanian television programme – described earlier in the trial as a ‘Jeremy Kyle-type show’ – which the motorist was playing on YouTube through his phone in the moments before the crash.
However, the Crown could not confirm whether the HGV driver was watching the programme or simply listening to the audio.
During the trial, Mikalajunas maintained: “My attention was on the road, on the area that was lit by the lights of my car. I didn’t see [him]. [The TV show] was in my native language and I was not distracted.”
Both prosecution and defence collision experts agreed that the cyclist would have been visible between 10 and 13 seconds before the crash, though since the rear red light was destroyed in the incident it was impossible for the court to establish its make or model.
It took the jurors just over three hours to find Mikalajunas not guilty of causing death by dangerous driving and causing death by careless driving.
53 thoughts on ““Distracted” lorry driver cleared of killing cyclist through dangerous or careless driving”
I’d love to see a full
I’d love to see a full transcript of this trial. There must be more to this story – even without the video a hitting someone on a straight road at night is clearly below an acceptable standard of driving.
Flabbergasted.
Flabbergasted.
What does it matter if the driver was “watching the programme or simply listening to the audio”? They were distracted and therefore guilty of causing this death.
The issue was the audio
The issue was the audio played through the on board radio so there was doubt whether the phone was a distraction. What is questionable though was that would bring the charge down careless rather than dangerous. But the jury found him not guilty on both counts.
So, being flippant, you’re
So, being flippant, you’re allowed to drive over vulnerable road users just so long as you are not distracted at the time. That, and the fact that no jury of motorists will accept that listening to the radio is allowable as a cause of distraction, since they would be incriminating themselves. It makes you wonder why so many car audio systems mute the radio when you engage reverse.
Sriracha wrote:
I think this should be a mandatory regulation. Unfortunately it’s not. The car I’ve got at the moment does the opposite, if you put it in reverse, the camera takes over the screen and you can’t turn off the audio or even adjust the volume!
Even worse. If you turn off the audio, the next time you start the car it comes back on again. Arrrghhh!!!! I’ve spent a while digging through the settings and there’s no option to change it.
The other thing that should be regulated, is when mirrors fold in. The default for this car is they fold in when you turn off the ignition. So, before you open the door to exit the vehicle, you can’t check the mirror for passing cyclists! Thankfully this can be altered to fold when you lock the car. But why the hell that isn’t the default (or only!) option, I do not know.
HoarseMann wrote:
I’m not even sure why they need to fold in at all, as far as I can tell it reduce the width of the mirrors by less than 50mm, and the body colour exterior is the expensive part, not the glass which is now being protected.
wycombewheeler wrote:
Because folding them in is not designed to protect your wallet, it is designed to protect the part of the mirror that acts as the mirror.
Jetmans Dad wrote:
And yet in 30 years of driving cars, I’ve never had a car mirror damaged while parked up.
Is the perceievd risk other drivers accidentally hitting them (acknowledging that drivers skills are below what they think they are) or vandalism?
In fact if the percieved risk is drivers being stuck witout mirrors, it might well be cheaper to provide replacement mirror glass in the glovebox of new cars, than the additional motors and control gear to fold them in.
wycombewheeler wrote:
You are lucky … I have had to replace 6 in the same 30 years living in the same street with no off road parking (and none since I had mirrors that were easy to fold away). And no motors involved.
There is also the “cars today are wider than they used to be and a considerate driver folds the mirrors to allow humans to fit between them in parking spaces” factor.
Sriracha wrote:
Yep, as long as you are not competant enough to see a road user with lights and reflectives, apparently you can escape a careless driving charge.
Prosecution – this driver is not competant to drive on the roads and it has led to a death
Defence – the accused is not competent enough for that to be the case.
Jury – well not guilty then
I think in this case a large
I think in this case a large part of it will be the location and time. It’s unusual for a cyclist to be on a main A-road dual-carriageway in the early hours of the morning.
There seems to be a general acceptance of collisions on our roads if the circumstances are out of the ordinary.
This is wrong, because it’s often unusual circumstances that are the reasons collisions occur. In other sectors, these unusual events are thought about and mitigated in advance.
HoarseMann wrote:
No, it’s still just shit driving. A driver looking where the are going should be able to avoid anything unexpected in the road ahead, be that
I can’t accept the driver was paralysed into indecisive inaction by the entirely unexpected sight of a cyclist in the road.
I agree. But if it wasn’t for
I agree. But if it wasn’t for the fallen tree, then no collision would occur. People don’t think they need to drive as if there’s a fallen tree around the corner, but they should. I don’t know why it’s seen as an acceptable risk and unavoidable by a large part of society when it can be easily mitigated by the use of appropriate speed.
Recently in our town, a man who was lying in the road, was run over by a car. It was dark, but the road it occurred on is well lit. It’s also a road where the 30mph limit is regularly exceeded. It will be interesting to hear if any charges are brought against the driver. There ought to be.
Some years ago a similar thing happened to me. There was a man lying in the road. But I was driving well within the speed limit and paying attention. I stopped, helped him up and gave him a lift home (he had a medical condition that caused frequent blackouts).
Just a thought for any
Just a thought for any politicians touting new legislation… maybe have a wee check of what happens right now and see if existing laws do justice to those who are killed.
Or does that not matter because your base gives zero shits about the TENS OF THOUSANDS killed or seriously injured by motorists each year.
rare for me to comment. But
rare for me to comment. But really ! FFS – 10 seconds in view with a light in front of you and you plough straight in – without seeing a cyclist. – Not guilty of any driving offence.. i absolutely despair with this country… poor man, poor family – to see this two years later. it reeks
Horrendous result.
Horrendous result.
Don’t forget this was a jury trial. I cant help thinking the result is based on a lack of understanding by the jurors of what it is to ride a bike on a busy road. Perhaps even the thought that the cyclist shouldn’t have been there, so somehow it was their fault.
All the more reason for the highway code changes to be publicised and emphasised repeatedly until the culture changes.
And they spent just 3 hrs
And they spent just 3 hrs deliberating. 3hrs of their time was all that poor guys life was worth. Which is why I said I’d love to see a full transcript of that trial. Either the prosecution screwed up, the jury was full of boy racers, or there was more to the trial than reported here or in the Oxford mail.
Secret_squirrel wrote:
Hopefully it was not rhe case the jury was full of drivers triggered by recent press reports of cyclists taking over the roads.
Ride On wrote:
Perhaps, and rather chillingly, it reflects that most drivers consider it reasonable to travel 350m between glances at the road ahead.
Poor reporting of the actual
Poor reporting of the actual facts of this case and the expert witness’ stance.
A tradgey nonetheless.
What are the actual facts of
What are the actual facts of the case and where are you getting these from ?
I read the Oxford Mail report
I read the Oxford Mail report. Whilst it puts in doubt death by dangerous driving, how a jury can find not guilty death by careless driving is beyond me.
50kcommute wrote:
Really? Provide some proof then!
Presumably Shapps thinks
Presumably Shapps thinks there ought to be a law against this kind of thing?
Leaving aside the question of
Leaving aside the question of whether his phone was a distraction, surely the fact that he hit a cyclist who was in view for 10+ seconds on a straight road is by definition careless driving.
This seems to be the
This seems to be the universal get-out clause. You’re guilty of an offence if you kill someone through dangerous or careless driving. The fact that you killed them is not an offence, neither is it taken as proof that your driving fell below the required standard – that remains for the prosecution to prove, and I can see that very often that is impossible for them to do. A driver could be caught up in their own thoughts, distracted by their daydreams, or the radio, and that would have to be proved, which is nigh impossible.
Surely the law should accept that to kill someone with your vehicle is at the very least careless, unless proven otherwise.
Sounds like the Incompetence
Sounds like the Incompetence Paradox.
I just don’t see why it’s not
I just don’t see why it’s not enough to prove the cyclist would have been visible ahead for 10seconds, why the driver failed to see him is irrelevant, perhaps a video of a reconstruction (no impact) of the view form the drivers seat, might show the jurors there really is no reasonable excuse for failing to see, so it must have been careless.
Fecking obvious to any
Fecking obvious to any cyclist but ‘momentary lapse if concentration’ is allowable for non cyclist. Because it could happen to any of us. Shit happens or something.
13 seconds at 60 mph is 350m,
13 seconds at 60 mph is 350m, I cant see how over 1/3 of a KM equates to a “momentary” lapse of concentration. I wonder how many of the jury are motorists? Its that mentality that it could happen to anyone of them, its happened before, it will happen again. Wonder if the outcome would be different if the jury was mostly cyclists?
wycombewheeler wrote:
One of the most telling things from the reports is that other drivers did see him. So if other reasonably competent drivers can see the cyclist, surely not seeing him is clear evidence that the driver isn’t competent?
Has anyone written to the
Has anyone written to the Times leader writer to ask their opinion? While the irate masses of frustrated drivers froth at the mouth at the very mention of a cyclist and demand to be allowed to run them over without a second thought, someone is missing their friend, lover, husband, wife, son, daughter, father, mother.
There is no justice for cyclists, and society will give us none, witness the reaction to the rather less than radical changes to the HC; see the idiot truck driver smoking a completely innocent person that he doesn’t know. This country has now become so absurd, so ridiculous, so infantile, that someone can kill someone else and face no consequences.
In any other field of human activity, the failure to control a killing machine and protect other people would be instantly found to be negligent homicide; not in the UK. Kill a cyclist and the cyclist has to prove that you were distracted, even though it’s your job to drive this machine safely; in fact, it’s your only job. This is totally insane.
Does anyone have links to
Does anyone have links to give more details? I find this case staggering
It all seems to hinge on the
It all seems to hinge on the visibility of the cyclist. The cyclist’s rear flashing led light was not mounted to the bike, so was not legally compliant. It was also destroyed in the collision, so its lumen rating (or whether it was working at point of impact) could not be established.
Despite other drivers being able to see him, the whole incident being recorded on the lorry’s dashcam (including the cyclist being visible for 13 seconds) and overwhelming circumstantial evidence of a distraction. It seems this was not enough to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the lorry driver could have seen him. The law is an ass.
https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/19874458.a40-fatal-crash-driver-had-jeremy-kyle-type-show-playing-lorry-cab-oxford-court-told/
HoarseMann wrote:
I’m thinking there should be a new type of alternate punishment in these cases. Allow families of the victim to enact whatever punishment they deem appropriate for the amount of time (13 seconds) that the driver didn’t pay attention.
Am I missing something – the
Am I missing something – the lorry’s dashcam could see the cyclist, but no evidence that the cyclist was visible to the driver – if he chose to look through the windscreen (instead of, say, at his phone screen).
Sriracha wrote:
Yes that appears to be the case. The defence were arguing that the reflectives and flashing led light, whilst visible in the dashcam footage, were not identifiable as a cyclist to the driver. If the bike did not have the required reflectives (unsure) and light mounted to the frame, then technically, it did not conform to lighting regulations.
It’s an absolute shambles this can be used as an excuse. He could just have easily been a pedestrian.
It’s like a Columbo case –
It’s like a Columbo case – everyone knows the perp is guilty as sin, but nailing the proof is the problem.
There might be an issue with lorry drivers and retro-reflectives. With the headlamps well below the driver’s eye the retroreflective will not reflect strongly towards the driver, a situation which gets worse as the distance closes.
HoarseMann wrote:
Yes that appears to be the case. The defence were arguing that the reflectives and flashing led light, whilst visible in the dashcam footage, were not identifiable as a cyclist to the driver. If the bike did not have the required reflectives (unsure) and light mounted to the frame, then technically, it did not conform to lighting regulations.
It’s an absolute shambles this can be used as an excuse. He could just have easily been a pedestrian.— Sriracha
So he could see there was something in his way but because he could not positively identify it as a human being he felt the correct thing to do was to run over it?
I assume he has now been classed as too stupid to be allowed to hold a driving licence!
You probably assume wrong.
You probably assume wrong.
Like the other killer drivers, Gail Purcell and Helen Measures he has been cleared of any wrongdoing and will continue being able to drivet to heir own excellent abilities…
https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk
https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/19880259.lorry-driver-killed-cyclist-a40-near-witney-says-i-didnt-see-him/
From the link above and not covered in the intro : the lorry driver did not use full beam and was concentrating on the road covered by his dipped headlights. The driver claimed that this was to avoid dazzling oncoming traffic but dashcam footage showed there were no oncoming vehicles during 42 seconds before the collision.
‘Kin hell it gets worse the
‘Kin hell it gets worse the more you dig. I despair.
yes, the failure to use full
yes, the failure to use full beam ought to be seen as a significant aggravating factor.
It is beyond belief that
It is beyond belief that driving into another road user (and killing them) who is clearly visible is not considered to be careless. I feel so sorry for the family of the victim for not only his sudden demise but also of this travesty of justice. It’s a horrible double wammy.
Seems like the defendant was
Seems like the defendant was given the benefit of even the possibility of a doubt. It can’t be proven he was watching the TV show he was playing, as if that wasn’t an unnecessary distraction anyway. And moreover it can’t be proven that the victim’s rear light wasn’t faulty, clearly it’s a shame the victim wasn’t in court to defend themselves.
In my opinion there is a flaw
In my opinion there is a flaw with any jury trial involving a cyclist.
In cases involving a motorist vs cyclist….. the majority of the jurors will be motorists themselves, therefore, there has to be some inherent bias towars the motorists because in a lot of cases they can put themselves in the position of the motorist involved….i.e. for example they could envision themselves being distracted by the motorists.
Then when you add in the bias, as shown by a lot of commentators on social media, about the frenzy that always gets whipped up about Hi-Viz and Lights….. as soon as it was mentioned that the light wasn’t fitted on the bike, or that the hi viz tabard may have been obsucred by the riders rucksack then that helps the motorists to say it was partly the cyclist to blame. (I’m sure if the driver had been represented by GaL’s hero Nick Freeman that would have been the only relevant point in his eyes)
The same goes for cyclist vs pedestrian cases….. every juror can put themselves in the position of the pedestrian but not in the position of a cyclist.
And if it was even suggested that the jury in relation to any cyclist trial was made up predominantly of cyclists….. there would be national outcry on the matter as the motorist/pedestrian would not get a fair trial.
TriTaxMan wrote:
so for analogy
a racism case where the jury was all white, and half of them were NF members – Insane
A sex discrimination case were the juroirs are all men and half of them are misogynists – unacceptable
a carelss driving case where the jury are all drivers and half of them are below average drivers. – business as usual
wycombewheeler wrote:
IIRC there was a jury trial in the US recently (white on Black violence) where the defence tried to get rid of any juror who said they believed that institutional racism existed, or that they had suffered racism, or even if they were just Black.
Fucking disgusting…..end of
Fucking disgusting…..end of.
We all know now, as we did
We all know now, as we did before, what will happen after any careless nutter driver kills us, or any member of our families: very likely, nothing
this whole thing just boils
this whole thing just boils my piss! im on jury service next month no way would i have found him not guilty! there must be more to this otherwise we are all f@cked. the anti cycling agenda over the last week has been crazy, another guy killed near me this weekend sadly
binny wrote:
Admitting that, ahead of time, would give the defence an excuse either to have you removed from the pool or else to appeal any verdict on the grounds that you had pre-judged it.
(Reference the recent Maxwell trial where a juror came out after the verdict and admitted he’d been assaulted when young and ‘hated’ offenders like Epstein, and the defence are calling for a retrial).
EDITED: ‘Defence’
ye 100% wouldn’t have sat on
ye 100% wouldn’t have sat on this case