A court in Scotland has heard that a driver who saw a cyclist who had fallen off his bike was “a black bin bag” just before the rider was run over by another motorist.
Post Office worker William Hicks, aged 39, admitted careless driving at Glasgow Sheriff Court in connection with the incident on 6 February 2019 on Fulton Street in the Glasgow district of Anniesland, reports the Daily Record.
The victim, Brian Shields, spent three weeks in hospital after sustaining multiple injuries when Hicks ran him over in his Volvo.
Mark Allan, prosecuting, said: “He failed to see Mr Shields lying on the road and drove over him.
“Mr Shield’s body passed underneath Hicks’ car. He then stopped after the collision.”
Describing Mr Shields’ injuries, he added: “He sustained a number of fractures on his vertebrae, bruised ribs and cuts and was released from hospital after 20 days.”
Paul Nelson, representing Hicks, said: “The driver on the opposite side of the road suspected Mr Shields was a black bin bag, but it turned out to be a person.
“No one thought it was a human being,” he added.
Sentencing Hicks, Sheriff Alan MacKenzie said: “There was someone on the road and you drove over that person.
“I recognise it wasn’t obvious to you or anyone there he was a human being.”
Hicks was fined £715 and had his driving licence endorsed with eight penalty points.
38 thoughts on “Driver believed cyclist run over by another motorist was “a black bin bag””
How on earth can someone,
How on earth can someone, including a sheriff, confuse a fully grown adult thrown from their bike with a bin bag? It’s up there with ‘the sun was in my eyes’ and SMIDSY.
mind you, he would have got more than 8 penalty points if he had hit a bin bag….
the little onion wrote:
I was wondering this too. Unless the victim was wearing a black shell suit and curled up in a ball then this really is a ridiculous defence.
the little onion wrote:
I once came across a bloke curled up in the road. It was bin night, dark, wet, and he did actually look like a bin bag. Only when I came to a stop did I realise it was a person.
But even if I was certain it was a bin bag, I wouldn’t have driven over it. I mean the size of it, the mess it would have made, we’re not talking an empty carrier bag blowing in the wind.
I can’t really see this being a credible defence; surely it’s very careless to purposefully drive over an object of this size no matter what it is?
HoarseMann wrote:
The binmen have to keep an eye out for homeless people being in recycling bins and skips, especially in winter. They like to climb in for shelter and warmth.
I’m not aware of anyone being fined for having a homeless person in the wrong coloured bin yet though…
“No one thought it was a
“No one thought it was a human being,” he added.
Isn’t this the whole ethos of the criminal justice system when it comes to cyclists?
Given I’ve been called a
Given I’ve been called a “cockroach of the road” on multiple occasions, is it any wonder drivers don’t recognise cyclists as human?
Are you a cockroach?
Are you a cockroach?
No, I’m not. Maybe I should
No, I’m not. Maybe I should be flattered, cockroaches are near indestructible. Funny thing is drivers don’t know many insect pests, they have no idea what I’m talking about if I ask if that means they’re a cockchafer ?
Philh68 wrote:
They were almost driven extinct with all our pesticide use, but since pesticide controls introduced in the 80s, their numbers are increasing.
Cute fellas.
The pesticide story is just
The pesticide story is just PR wash – the real reason for the decline was their incredible predeliction for gathering in large numbers to repeatedly bash their brains out against window panes (and anything else going).
mdavidford wrote:
Was that the work of Derek Taylor?
As per usual it’s the whole
As per usual it’s the whole “proceed regardless” approach to driving. Whatever you do, don’t slow down or stop to check it’s safe to proceed…
Reminds me of a jerk in a
Reminds me of a jerk in a Range Rover who hit and killed a 30 year old man in Shrewsbury. The driver, Richard Carver-Richards, “assumed he had hit a cone from the roadworks” and carried on driving, even though the victim had been projected onto the windscreen and over the top of the car.
The Police wanted to bring charges of death by careless driving and failing to stop but the CPS decided not to prosecute.
That’s a description of the policy chosen by many drivers on narrow lanes – “I’ll just keep going, the cyclist / pedestrian will have to stop and move onto the verge because I don’t want to stop my vehicle.”
Happened to me this morning. Happens to me great deal, in fact.
That is simialr to the one I
That is simialr to the one I was thinking about. A tramp was run over by a driver who was following the car in front but it was dark and she thought it was a black sack/cardboard box.
I never could find the original news article
A tramp was run over by a
A tramp was run over by a driver who was following the car in front but it was dark
The recent case near Aberystwyth shows that it doesn’t matter whether it’s light or dark, there always an excuse the law mostly accepts for driving over someone, especially a cyclist, in the road. That was a suspended sentence and a joke driving ban.
Simon E wrote:
I went through a pinch point that I had reached, assuming that an oncoming car which had slowly turned off a mini roundabout would see me and grant me priority.
Instead, the driver continued. And was so very worried about the narrowness of the pinch point that he took both hands off his steering wheel to sarcastically slow-clap me as he passed me…
brooksby wrote:
Instead, the driver continued. And was so very worried about the narrowness of the pinch point that he took both hands off his steering wheel to sarcastically slow-clap me as he passed me…— brooksbyNice gesture.
Most drivers I meet in those situations some to be too determined to grip the steering wheel and plough on through regardless of the obvious obstruction. And they wonder why they sometimes get a one- or two-fingered salute…
Brought a smile to my face
Brought a smile to my face Brooksby!
Something very similar happened to me a few days ago. Van driver raises both arms in a massive shrug, as tho’ to say ‘Why have you got right of way?’
When I had right of way
That’s truly disgusting. This
That’s truly disgusting. This cretin almost killed someone but is allowed to drive home in the “weapon”. Whereas the victim spends 3 weeks in hospital and no doubt will suffer consequences for a very long time.
Justice?!
The key detail missing from
The key detail missing from this report is what time the incident happened, why has that been left out of the report? If this was during the day then there was no permissible defence whatsoever and a more serious charge should have been brought against the offender. If it happened at night, it does still not provide a fair defence as you drive according to the conditions, but it saves the justice system looking like a complete joke.
As others have stated, the victim will suffer the consequences of their injuries probably for the rest of their life, whereas the offender suffers some short term inconveniences, not fair justice in my opinion.
If he was wearing all black
If he was wearing all black (much like a lot of cycling gear reviewed here) and it was the dark of night it would’ve been harder to see him but as others have said – no good reason to drive over anything that is large and lying in the middle of the road.
The helpful thing would’ve been to stop and move the bin bag (or whatever) out of the road.
“He sustained a number of fractures on his vertebrae, bruised ribs and cuts and was released from hospital after 20 days.”
Terrible ;-(
Heal well and fast.
I have a very simple mantra
I have a very simple mantra when it comes to driving, don’t deliberately drive over anything that isn’t made of either tarmac or steel (i.e. manhole covers and the like). Cans, bottles or a McWrapper I’ll avoid or they go between the wheels. A cardboard box, blowing paper let alone black bin bag, I’d drive around those. It’s not that I assume there’s body in the box or bag (tho’ some sad people do dump unwanted kittens that way), but I don’t want something either wrapped around the bonnet, trapped underneath the car, or worse, flying up and obscuring my vision.
Quote:
I suspect that it’s more likely that Hicks’ car passed over Mr Shields’ body…
brooksby wrote:
Ditto. Given that this was the prosecution, why are they indulging in victim blaming? This is the same thing as “Cyclist was in collision with….” when they’ve been struck by a car driven by an incompetent driver.
So now the standard defence
So now the standard defence to driving into or over a cyclist, if claiming that you could or did not see them is untenable, is simply to say that yes, you saw them but assumed they were a bin bag? At what point is a driver actually held to account?
I would’ve thought that if a
I would’ve thought that if a driver admits that they were unable to identify items on the carriageway when driving, then surely they aren’t fit to drive and should surrender their license? You have to have sufficiently good eyesight (with corrective glasses if necessary) to legally drive, so why is it considered a defense to declare that you can’t see so well?
This is the point I don’t
This is the point I don’t understand – how do they not incriminate themselves when they say, by way of defence, that they could not see well enough to drive safely?
Sriracha wrote:
Well, there is precedent for the defendent saying they thought that the cyclist was a flying sack of potatoes and their being found not guilty…
brooksby wrote:
Because flying sacks of potatos in the road are much more likely than cyclists being in the road.
I’m also baffled as to how saying you’re eyesight isn’t good enough to identify a human being in front of your vehicle so you ran them over is a defence and not an instant admission of guilt and culpability.
It was the witness who made
It was the witness who made the bin bag comment not the driver.
WiznaeMe wrote:
But the defence heavily implied that the driver thought the same.
“A court in Scotland has
“A court in Scotland has heard that a driver who saw a cyclist who had fallen off his bike was “a black bin bag” just before the rider was run over by another motorist.”
Needs work. This says that “a driver…” “was ‘a black bin bag’…”
andystow wrote:
Yes, badly constructed sentence. I had to read it twice to understand what was being said.
I never understand why
I never understand why drivers would drive over an object even if it was a bag.
How does this fit with rule
How does this fit with rule 126 “Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear.”?
Doesn’t this automatically imply if you drive over something that you couldn’t identify correctly as being safe, then you were going too fast for the conditions.
Unfortunately it’s a “should” rule so probably not enforcable. In the German traffic code (StVO) a similar rule is the fundamental catch-all rule right at the beginning (paragraph 3).
Stephan Matthiesen wrote:
Oh, that one’s entirely optional. Didn’t you get the memo?
I suspect that only people
I suspect that only people who take an interest in driving would know that. Go on any advanced lesson on YouTube, and that’s one of the first things mentioned.
By the way most people drive, they’re also unaware of this….
A black bin bag? clearly not
A black bin bag? clearly not wearing high viz.. cyclist at fault.