A Berwick motorist who was involved in a fatal collision with a cyclist has been handed a 12-month community order and an 18-month driving ban after being convicted of causing death by careless driving at Newcastle Crown Court. Anne Lyst said she didn’t see George Eyre when entering a roundabout due to a particularly big blind spot on her Vauxhall Zafira.
Chronicle Live reports that on May 25 last year, Lyst left work in Berwick shortly before 5pm. On her way home she entered a roundabout junction on the A1167 Northumberland Road, at the entrance to the Swan Leisure Centre, and hit 62-year-old Eyre, who was riding a power assisted bike.
Eyre suffered fatal head injuries.
The court heard that Eyre was in Lyst’s blind spot, which she said was particularly big on her Vauxhall Zafira.
Judge Tim Gittins said that it was a driver’s responsibility to mitigate for the effects of a blind spot.
“He had lawfully entered that roundabout and was making his way across it in an entirely lawful manner.
“What transpired on examination of the scene was that it was likely he was or had been entirely in or partly within the blind spot created by the right side of your windscreen for the entirety of his journey across the roundabout.
“Anyone who considered the evidence in this case in relation to the size of the blind spot may have been alarmed at the potential masking effect. But as the jury found, something being in your blind spot is no defence to careless driving. It remains your responsibility to mitigate its effect and what you did, if anything, was insufficient.”
Duncan Dollimore, Cycling UK’s Head of Campaigns commented:
“The misleading headline in the Chronicle suggests that the car’s blind spot was to blame, with no responsibility falling on the pillar of the community behind the wheel. Given that the jury convicted Mrs Lyst, it’s clear they didn’t accept that a failure to see was a valid defence.
“If your car has a blind spot it’s your responsibility to take extra care, and mitigate the effect. Rather than reporting that Mrs Lyst was convicted due to a large blind spot, perhaps it would have been more accurate, and more responsible, to report that she was convicted because she didn’t do enough to mitigate the effect of the blind spot. ”
54 thoughts on “Driver who killed cyclist said she didn’t see him due to car’s large blind spot”
She was tried after entering
She was tried after entering a plea, presumably not guilty, in order for the trial to go ahead. So no admission of responsibility – blaming it on the car, rather than her actions in manouvering it. So why only an 18 month ban?
The standard of driving in this country is appalingly low and sentences like that show a tolerance of it.
I have noticed these blind
I have noticed these blind spots on my last two vehicles. I suspect – but do not know – that it has helped increase the safety inside the vehicle at the expense of visibility. That does not excuse the accused or the sentence.
Also noticed how much poorer indicators are, often cannot see them. A lot of drivers see them as optional these days however.
Blackhound wrote:
Not being a driver, I have no idea how new this is, but dark-tinted glass (often so dark nobody outside can see anything inside) seems to be extremely common on car windows now*. That can’t improve visibility in the other direction, surely?
All of this makes me wonder why some are so sure that self-driving cars – designed and programmed by the same people who design these vehicles – will attach great priority to the safety and wellbeing of those outside the vehicle.
* excluding the windscreen, obviously.
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
The Law – “Under regulations first issued 20 years ago and clarified three years ago, the windscreen must allow in at least 75 per cent of light while at least 70 per cent must pass through the driver’s side windows”
FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:
The tinting on the windows should make no difference to your visability in seeing out of the car. So while you and I can’t see in, if you are in the car you can see out clearly. The only time you may have a problem if they are added later on, like some people use to do. Also most windscreens on cars have slight tint to them and have done from the 90s.
Bluebug wrote:
The tinting on the windows should make no difference to your visability in seeing out of the car. So while you and I can’t see in, if you are in the car you can see out clearly. The only time you may have a problem if they are added later on, like some people use to do. Also most windscreens on cars have slight tint to them and have done from the 90s.— FluffyKittenofTindalos
Window tinting, by definition, reduces the amount of light passing through the glass in either direction. The less light, the less you can see. Simple.
However, the law allows a prescribed reduction in the light transmission capacity of car windows, presumably to reduce glare on bright days. Some police cars carry a meter that measures the reduction and exceeding it is an offence.
.[/quote] Not being a driver,
I have dark tinted windows on my estate, funnily enough so people cant easily see into the back and see my bike!, anyway the windows are legal and the view is clearer inside out than it is outside in.
All cars have blind spots (some worse than others), but I dont pull out or join the motorway without physically checking behind me so overall there’s no mitigation or excusing this….boils down to not being arsed or caring about this cyclist.
Ever been in an Evoke? It’s
Ever been in an Evoke? It’s as if it’s designed to kill and injure people you can’t see. How on earth are manufactuers allowed to make such patently idiotic vehicles?
Some cars do have really bad
Some cars do have really bad blind spots and I remember reading how some Vauxhall models do score poorly in this respect. Our Ford isn’t great, but isn’t the worst. New cars do have much thicker roof pillars. I was struck by this when driving a classic Porsche we’d rented some years back as its field of view was incredibly good.
But this shouldn’t detract from the fact the drivers have a responsibility when they get behind the wheel. If they can’t see, they should slow down and keep looking all around. I’m sure all of us who also commute on two wheels are all too well aware of the poor use of mirrors of far too many drivers for instance.
And to think, she could have
And to think, she could have moved her fat lazy head and a human being would still be alive.
I think that putting the grieving family through the trial by not having the decency to plead guilty, and blaming deficiencies on the vehicle that she had chosen to drive rather than inadequecies in her driving abilities shows a lack of remorse.
Sympathy for the family, my arse!
I’m sure there’s a good
I’m sure there’s a good reason….
But why is killing someone because your car stopped you seeing them less worthy of 18 months in prison, interviews on every significant media outlet with a grieving relative and instant knee jerking from Jesse the clown than killing someone by failing to brake on a fixie?
Quote:
Seems an odd intervention for the police to make, compare with the kid on a track bike whose lack of remorse went massively against him in sentencing. Though in my experience Northumbria Police don’t care about cyclist lives so not so odd perhaps.
bstock wrote:
Seems an odd intervention for the police to make, compare with the kid on a track bike whose lack of remorse went massively against him in sentencing. Though in my experience Northumbria Police don’t care about cyclist lives so not so odd perhaps.
I think you actually mean lack of visible, conventionally displayed, remorse. Our judges seen incapable of recognising that remorse can easily be faked by someone who cares little, and conversely that some who care deeply cannot express that caring ”normally’.
oldstrath wrote:
That’s a fair point, should have qualified it as “perceived lack of remorse” or some such.
Careless driving/driving
Careless driving/driving without due care and attention is practically universal these days so it is virtually impossible to persuade a jury, most or all of whom drive themselves, to convict someone of anything more than minor carelessness on the basis of behaviour which they regard as normal.
I think we need to help
I think we need to help drivers with car defects. Anyone involved in an RTA whose defence is that their car is built with such basic design faults then said vehicle should be removed from the road and destroyed. They can then buy a more suitable vehicle.
their are legal requirements
their are legal requirements for exterior vision. Vision is only going to get worse i’m afraid with the advent of electric cars in the short term at least. The increase in weight over an ICE car in a rollover means more structure in the pillars. Material science can only offset a little. Also the additional mass will likely damage roads more. On the bright side your lungs will be happier.
What we now need to see is
What we now need to see is the family commencing an action against Vauxhall for a product that is clearly dangerous to those outside of it, irrespective of what the law states is a proficient amount of visibility. Similar actions I believe have been taken in the US where an individual has been killed or seriously injured by a product. How realistic it actually is I have no idea but I do know that cash talks, no amount of arguing with a disinterested government will get us anywhere, start suing however and things do change very quickly.
If normal drivers can’t
If normal drivers can’t really be expected to make the necessary adjustments to see in cars like this, they should be removed from the road, or need a special category of license to drive with training to overcome these hideous blind spots.
Or the judge is a helmet and hasn’t punished the lack of “responsibility to mitigate its effect” properly.
Quote:
I assume we’ll be seeing a removal of all those twattish stickers that trucks and vans have that victim blame cyclists for leagally filtering on the inside. Good on ya Tim!
Blinded by the sun, blinded
Blinded by the sun, blinded by lights and now blinded by your car. What next?
Yorkshire wallet wrote:
Blinded by love?
Gourmet Shot wrote:
Blinded by love?— Yorkshire wallet
according to the priests at my prep school it’s self-love that causes blindness.
Surely driving a vehicle with
Surely driving a vehicle with such a large blind spot that it prevents safe operation of the vehicle is choosing to use a vehicle which is not fit for the roads.
Death by wanton and furious driving?
wycombewheeler wrote:
Or more precisely, perhaps, not fit for the driver?
I don’t own a car but i drive
I don’t own a car but i drive various vehicles at work and i’ve got to say the blind spots are getting worse.
The combination of a strengthened A pillar (to keep the occupants safe in a roll over) and the wing mirrors being built in rather than outside are bad enough but now a lot of vehicles have such sloping windscreens that to be able to really see right around the pillar you’d have to climb on the seat and put your head and shoulders over the steering wheel.
I’ve nearly been side swipped on several occasions and i know from these bum gripping moments exactly what has happened the driver did not see me.
This has happened in the dark on lit streets, lights on my bike and various bits of reflective clothing
There is a perfect combination of you and the driver approaching a junction at the right speed and you’ll be in that blind spot.
The driver has been looking forward until the stop line possibly turns a bit to the left as he reaches it keeping you in that blind spot,looks out the side window all clear,then continues turning left probably still being more concerned with whether anythings approaching from the right as they join the road look forward and if your lucky they then see you lit up like a xmas tree going woooohhhh doing a kinda turn away whilst getting ready to slide across a bonnet.
Ratfink wrote:
Exactly right. There is no point in blaming the drivers because 1. Very very few if any set out intending to harm cyclists, and 2. No matter how much people cry they are incompetent and carless c*unts they still have a licence till, basically, death, so it goes nowhere.
We have commonly for a few quids tech to stop you backing into a bollard in a car park and scratching your paint, but sod all to stop you mowing down a cyclist in an A piller blind spot. This is neither sensible nor necessary.
BarryBianchi wrote:
Although I agree with you about the engineering, I can think of one good reason to want severe punishment for drivers like this, which is to motivate demand for the tech. Maybe if people see that they might suffer because of the remediable defect in their car, they will demand the remedy.
oldstrath wrote:
… or buy cars with less chance of them doing time.
She is talking bullshit. I’ve
She is talking bullshit. If you can’t see out of a Zafira then you’ve not much hope seeing out of anything.
I wish lie detectors were compulsory when defendents give evidence. She just didn’t look at all.
The view from inside a Zafira
The view from inside a Zafira doesn’t look particularly bad, at least not compared with a SEAT Ibiza which is what I drive.
In my opinion not seeing something when it clearly is your responsibility, is quite simply careless driving and the “defense” based on the blind spot shouldn’t be considered for even a second as slightly valid.
The Ford Kuga I drive
The Ford Kuga I drive sometimes has a rather annoying large rearview mirror mount, this does cause a slight blind spot when looking left from the drivers position but then you have to adapt like you do on any vehicle.
embattle wrote:
I getchya, but this dones’t work. Even if you are part of the tiny hyper aware minority who ride bikes, when you are in a rush, the windows steam up, there is a dustraction, yada yada yada, it all goes to pot. There is no milage in abdicating sensible design responsibility to the user.
As a former professional
As a former professional advanced driving instructor, this is bullshit.
A blind spot is only an issue when there is a tiny speed differential, i.e. The target to be observed is moving at the same speed and ina similar direction to you.
Examples being on multi land roads where someone drives close to the side of another vehicle within its wheelbase at the same speed, or in traffic where a cycle or pedestrian is doing the same speed and both are stopped.
Neither are an excuse for anyone with proper driver training as you should be scanning and noting that a particular vehicle is missing.
How the Police AI confirmed that a cycle travelling at right angles to a vehicle can be in a blind spot for more than a millisecond is beyond me. The driver should have looked twice and in that case observed. Its incompetence and over confidence.
I may not have explained this very well, but in essence with a reasonable speed differential, horizontal blind spots do not exist. (Vertical are another matter, i.e. At the front of HGV’s)
We need to raise the driving test standard to an advanced level, especially in terms of observation and anticipation, and make a resist mandatory every 5 years, to include a simulator section with hazard perception, road rules and reaction times. The drivers can pay for this and therefore it wont cost any more in tax, unlike actually putting some proper road policing into effect and not relying on the technicalities of speed cameras.
The standard of driving is appalling and getting worse, despite my training and accreditation, I no longer give motor vehicles the benefit of the doubt and I no longer avoid idiots at low speed, they can just bloody hit my (OK company) car and take the consequences.
End of rant.
Flying Scot wrote:
Except is isn’t. You can be stationary turning left onto a main road angled down the traffic stream direction with a huge door piller blocking your view to the right of traffic cloing any speed whatsover, for example. Im a retired pilot, and current patrol coxswain and instructor, and this phemonomon is very well regonised in maritime and aviation, and is dealt with by varying the relative position of the craft to the colliision vector; you can’t do that in a stationary car, you have to move your head/body.
The simple point is, you don’t drive into a space that you can’t see is clear and safe.
Flying Scot wrote:
This is what I didn’t get either – how long is a cyclist on a roundabout really in anyone’s blindspot?
Helmut D. Bate wrote:
How the Police AI confirmed that a cycle travelling at right angles to a vehicle can be in a blind spot for more than a millisecond is beyond me. The driver should have looked twice and in that case observed. Its incompetence and over confidence.
— Helmut D. Bate This is what I didn’t get either – how long is a cyclist on a roundabout really in anyone’s blindspot?— Flying Scot
I was driving a volvo – renowned for large pillars and hated by motorcyclists for that reason – towards what looked like an empty roundabout when I noticed my passenger stamping his foot and acting strangely – he finally said “bike” and pointed, not realising that I hadn’t seen it…
it did seem a chance in a million that the motorbike was travelling at exactly the speed and direction to remain long enough behind the pillar – and with no passenger that day I dread to think what might’ve happened.
– now as a cyclist I am very aware of this and make sure I get eye contact, even to the point of changing my position in the lane (basically swerving) to create some sideways movement if I think the driver hasn’t seen me.
Helmut D. Bate wrote:
How the Police AI confirmed that a cycle travelling at right angles to a vehicle can be in a blind spot for more than a millisecond is beyond me. The driver should have looked twice and in that case observed. Its incompetence and over confidence.
— Helmut D. Bate This is what I didn’t get either – how long is a cyclist on a roundabout really in anyone’s blindspot?— Flying Scot
it will depend on the angles, distances and the speed of both objects,but it certainly is possible for someone in a car and it may be more of a thing when the car is still moving slowly forward and not stationary,so youve got a match on the intersecting angle, that when you approach at a right angle to be completely lost in the A pillar zone for more than a few seconds which is enough time for a driver to conclude its “safe” enough to pull out, and would no doubt afterwards then claim you appeared from nowhere.
I know when I approach some junctions or roundabouts I wont hug the kerbside for that reason,as its pointless trying to make eye contact with someone looking through an a pillar because they dont have x-ray eyes,you have to be in the bit of road they are looking at for them to see you.
In my view, an excellent rant
In my view, an excellent rant.
Seems to me the blind spot
Seems to me the blind spot was sat in the driver’s seat.
Two moving objects on a
Two moving objects on a converging course that remain on a constant bearing relative to each other will inevitably collide.
Thus, if a driver fails to check their blind spot by moving their head, they will collide with something that remains in it. The vehicles also only need to be on a constant bearing and hidden while the driver is looking, so as soon as the driver’s not looking, all bets are off .
With a car blind spot, it gets worse, because the car is rather bigger than the blind spot – thus a cyclist/motorcyclist fits neatly into a lot of blind spots, but the size of the car means that the margin for error in avoiding a collision is further reduced.
Thus any driver who pulls out of a junction without stopping or checking their blind spot or drives across a roundabout in the same way is dangerous and relying on luck trumping the basic principles of moving objects.
I assume that any car that comes up to a junction and doesn’t have an obvious reason to stop will not have seen me. If I can’t see their face, I know they haven’t seen me and it’s a near certainty what’s going to happen next.
Most drivers see driving as a
Most drivers see driving as a chore, something that happens in the background while they listen to the radio or talk to someone on the handsfree. Most drivers also take great offence when you suggest that they aren’t very good at driving. Most drivers aren’t very good at driving. The skill and standard required to put yourself in charge of a couple of tons of fast-moving metal are laughably low.
If cars were invented today, with today’s levels of litigation, risk management and health & safety legislation, you’d need to be far more qualified in order to drive one, and the penalty for killing someone by being careless at the wheel of your car would be the same as that for being careless while driving a fork-lift in a warehouse, or an excavator on a building site.
In 20 years of driving
In 20 years of driving various types of car that vary in age by 40 years, I don’t think I’ve ever lost a vehicle in a blind spot, certainly not in front of me like in this scenario anyway. I’ve only really taken up cycling in the last couple of years. So it’s probably not the cycling that is making me check my blind spots since I was 17.
However, I have probably saved the lives of a few cyclists over those years when I was a passenger and noticed the driver had not checked their blind spot and had not seen a cyclist. This was horrifying on every occasion, the thought that I was being driven by someone who is paying less attention to their surroundings than their passenger and could easily kill someone. I don’t want to be driven by someone like that and I don’t want them able to drive (even if they were my girlfriend at the time).
We have far too many people like this on our roads who are ignorant and/or apathetic to the danger they are putting others in and the harm they can do. Killer drivers need to go to jail to set an example to the others and improve their behaviour. Rewarding their bad behaviour by not mailing them is making the situation of incredible poor driving standards worse.
That the judge didn’t jail this blind idiot is sickening. The Alliston case really rams it home that drivers can do no wrong and cyclists must pay the heavy price for being in their way.
ChrisB200SX wrote:
woah, just look at what you’re saying there for a second…
obviously as a passenger you have a different perspective which is not obscured by the front right pillar, and you are also acting as a second set of eyes – obviously, two people looking from different perspectives are going to see more than a single person
you’ve also seen this happen on several occasions, which confirms that it is entirely feasible – you don’t think you’ve ever done it, but you can’t really be 100% sure
and yet you don’t even consider the possibility that the design of cars could be improved upon, instead placing 100% on the responsibility on the individual driver who must move their head around the offending pillar in order to check every time on the fairly rare chance that this could happen…
there are so many factors involved here involving road design and car design, and yet you place the onus on the individual who you believe should be jailed, not for any mailcious act, but simply due to incompetence
so the result would be a world where the individual’s mistakes woud be punished harshly, but the corporations who are responsible for creating the situations where these mistakes are actually made more likely simply go unchallenged?
personally, I don’t see it as desirable to create an environment where such mistakes result in the destruction of lives for either party involved.
beezus fufoon wrote:
the driver is fully and solely responsible. They chose to drive the car, knowing its imperfections, and are responsible for taking the imperfections into consideration. This applies to ordinary people driving ordinary cars just as much as it applies to lorry drivers and the deathtraps they throw around.
At the same time we all need to put pressure on manufacturers to improve the vehicles they make, and on governments to improve the road conditions, including by legislating for higher vehicle standards and higher driver training standards.
But in the end people cannot evade their responsibility for the decisions they make, or not, when they drive. Or ride their bikes.
ConcordeCX wrote:
isn’t that just another version of the CC–PP game?
– manufactures are profiting from advertising cars on their performance and safety for the occupants – they do not, and are in no way obliged to mention the possible risks to those outside the car
you’re relying on the idea of individuals being held accountable for some kind of civic responsibility, while the groups that are actually directly responsible for managing public space are not only unaccountable, but actually profiting from this situation.
beezus fufoon wrote:
Are you deliberately misunderstanding what I wrote, or do you have problems with comprehension of text?
It’s feasible that cyclists will be lost in the blind spots where drivers have not bothered to check when they obviously should.
The result we are talking about here is a cyclist being killed or injured by a driver that has made a mistake, why should the cyclist be punished if the driver making the mistake doesn’t even go to jail for killing someone?
Vehicle or road design might be improved upon (it won’t though) but it won’t eliminate blind spots and won’t make people check them. It’s the latter that is the actual cause here, it’s not that blind spots are so blarge you physically cannot find a way to see around it.
ChrisB200SX wrote:
It’s feasible that cyclists will be lost in the blind spots where drivers have not bothered to check when they obviously should.
The result we are talking about here is a cyclist being killed or injured by a driver that has made a mistake, why should the cyclist be punished if the driver making the mistake doesn’t even go to jail for killing someone?
Vehicle or road design might be improved upon (it won’t though) but it won’t eliminate blind spots and won’t make people check them. It’s the latter that is the actual cause here, it’s not that blind spots are so blarge you physically cannot find a way to see around it.— ChrisB200SX
As I said the issue that concerns me here is this;
roundabouts and the angle of approach are very often designed to place the pillar of the vehicle directly in the required line of sight
due to the fact that these pillars are increasing in size, it would seem that narrower vehicles such as bicycles are not being accounted for, and so are more likely to find themselves in that position
your demand for drivers to be jailed will not improve this situation for cyclists
beezus fufoon wrote:
In this case, if youre right, a stop line (as opposed to a give way line) might make roundabouts like this safer, by buying some time for the driver to notice the cyclist.
beezus fufoon wrote:
While I agree that the design of the vehicles is a factor, and credit to you for raising it as an issue, it’s prepostorous to argue that the driver has any less than 100% responsibility for the vehicle they are driving.
Shoulder checks are standard on a motorcycle test (for example) and they are called a life-saver because that is what they are. Vehicles can and do easily fall into your blind spots and as someone has already said a driver should be checking their mirrors and realising that a particular vehicle is missing, and drive accordingly. I doubt that 5% of drivers actually do this, let alone check their blind spot.
As for you, surely you’re not so lazy as to actually eschew checking your blind spots? If you actually think it is unreasonable or burdensome to “move your head […] to check every time” then please get off the fucking roads before you kill someone
Surely a car with a blind
Surely a car with a blind spot as big as is claimed is at least the equivalent of having no fixed brake on a fixed so both the driver and manufacturers should have been convicted and giving 18 months
There is a bit of a muddle of
There is a bit of a muddle of my terms here, a blind spot is where the driver thinks they have a good view of the road, eg on a motorway, in the mirror but in fact it is a partial view.
Where you just cant see, for example in a 2 door sports car with roof up (the worst example) at a shallow angle to oncoming traffic, you obviously cant see anything and need to adjust your seating position – that’s not a blind spot, that’s propelling the vehicle forward into the unknown. COuld flatten a cyclist, or indeed be crushed by a tipper or skip truck.
BTW my 5 year re-test would include this and probably preclude some older drivers who cant look over their shoulders from driving.
This collision was a
This collision was a combination of several factors: inattention by the driver, wide A pillars and increased numbers of roundabouts.
The driver in this case is particularly interesting, as she was actually convicted rather than found not guilty, and I’m sure a good lawyer would have got her off on any one of the usual excuses.
The wide A pillars on modern cars are the finest example of the law of unintended consequences ever. Brought in by governments to make car occupants safer if the car rolls over, it puts vulnerable road users more at risk, so just like seat belts and all the other “safety” devices in cars, it just shifts the risk away from the cause onto the victim. I’ve been driving the girlfriend’s car while she’s been ill, and I’m astonished at how bad the visibility is, not just because of the A pillars, but the head restraints and rear pillars.
The problems of such blind spots are exacerbated by the profusion of roundabouts, a modern obsession that keeps traffic moving but increases risk to vulnerable road users. If drivers don’t have to stop, they won’t, and will take a cursory glance and keep going, with inevitable deadly consequences.
burtthebike wrote:
Can I add some knowledge of the roundabout in question to the mix?
It’s a shocker. I wouldn’t cycle through it unless I had to. It is on a steep gradient, on the main road in and out of Berwick. From Berwick, going south, (which would be the route home for the offender after work) you’re going up a steep hill, and drivers tend to try and get a run at it. The west bound arm is the car park of a local leisure centre, the eastbound arm a housing estate. The vast majority of traffic is north south, and I have seen near misses in the car both from northbound cars not braking in time, and southbound cars mistiming the movement of vehicles going east….
I tend to drive very cautiously through it, because I’m convinced it’s dangerous. Tellingly, the DoT don’t signpost it as the main route into Berwick, even though that’s what it is used as.