An HGV driver who admitted to not having seen the young cyclist at a Glasgow traffic junction before he ran her over, dragging her for 53 metres and causing her death, has been sentenced to 100 hours of unpaid community work under police supervision and banned from driving for 12 months.
At the Glasgow Sheriff Court yesterday, 69-year-old Paul Mowat admitted to driving an HGV without due care and attention or without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road, when he killed Emma Burke Newman, a 22-year-old American-French student studying architecture at Glasgow School of Art, in January last year.
CCTV footage and dashcam clips which were played in court at a previous hearing showed Emma cycling to university at 10am when she approached the traffic lights at the junction of Broomielaw and Oswald Street at King George V Bridge.
The footage showed that both the HGV driver and another bus driver had moved over into the cycle space junction. Emma moved into the first lane, passing Mowat’s lorry on the nearside and waited for the lights to turn green. Mowat began moving the HGV forward, and Emma followed around two seconds later, always looking at the lorry.
However, Mowat turned left and the lorry’s bumper connected with the pannier rack of Emma’s bike, causing her to fall. She was dragged under the lorry for around 53 metres, with Mowat only realising what had happened after a driver began flashing his lights and blaring his horn.
She was rushed to the hospital, however her serious injuries meant that she lost her life there the same morning.
A previous hearing was also told that Mowat’s windscreen and mirrors were dirty and his view was obstructed by a reversing camera.
Glasgow Times reports crash investigators found that she had put herself in a vulnerable position due to her proximity to the lorry, but the driver would have been able to see her had he checked the blind spot behind his reversing camera screen.
The court heard that Mowat, whose previous driving record was “exemplary” held Emma’s hand and apologised before the ambulance arrived. Sheriff Matthew Jackson KC cited this, along with his own health issues and that that he’s the carer for his wife as “important information” that he learned later and suspected it was due to Mowat’s reluctance to speak up about the matter.
Gareth Reid, defending, said that Mowat gave up his job following Emma’s death, adding: “He’s been a professional driver for nearly 40 years. He’s held a car licence for even longer. This is the first time he’s been involved in any road traffic matter. He’s truly sorry for what occurred. He profusely apologises to Emma’s family.”
It was also heard that the older-style HGVs, which Mowat was driving at the time, are currently being phased out and replaced with modern vehicles where the driver’s seat is positioned lower. “This is not an excuse at all, but it explains the positioning of Mr Mowat,” Reid said.
After the sentencing, Emma’s parents Rose Marie Burke and John Newman told BBC Scotland’s Drivetime programme that their daughter had been an “exceptional human being”.
“She’s also compassionate – she’s one of these people if you were alone in the lunch room, she’d sit down next to you. She would take a new kid under her arm – she was just a loving person as well,” Ms Burke said.
They said they felt Glasgow was about a decade behind their home city of Paris when it came to safer cycling routes, and they hoped their calls for improvements would be their daughter’s legacy.
“Traffic seems to be a little more aggressive here — it seems like you haven’t quite got used to cyclists as part of the general environment yet, but we’re hopeful that things will change,” Mr Newman said.
Following Emma’s death, her parents had called for all political parties to support the adoption of “best-practice infrastructure” as well as other safety measures to better protect cyclists.
Writing in a blog post published through Pedal on Parliament, Emma’s parents said the symbolism of their daughter’s death, a young rider “devoted to making cities safer and more beautiful for all”, is “terribly searing”.
The architectural practice where Emma worked also launched a campaign calling for safer junctions in Glasgow last year, calling on local cyclists, pedestrians and drivers to share their experiences and help it gather data at the locations in question.
41 thoughts on “HGV driver given community sentence for running over and killing 22-year-old cyclist waiting at red light”
“It was also heard that the
“It was also heard that the older-style HGVs, which Mowat was driving at the time, are currently being phased out and replaced with modern vehicles where the driver’s seat is positioned lower.”
Yet in the aircraft industry, the plane would have been grounded.
Road safety does not trump convenience or cost.
Hmm… they’re definitely
Hmm… they’re definitely better, but (as we have been reminded recently) not perfect!
Clearly not absolutely, since
Clearly not absolutely, since if did, there would be no motor vehicles on the roads.
Well … yeah? Or rather –
Well … yeah? Or rather – more might be e.g. on the rails. Or the roads and vehicles would be rather different.
Some people (quite a few on here) feel that the the regulation vs. level of risk vs. ease of use calculus that we apply to operating motor vehicles is an outlier compared to other industries. Yes – that will vary – but it’s just way too casual in the case of driving. As we’ve largely prioritised road freight authorities are under constant pressure from a wide number of interests to reduce the costs and ultimately regulation.
I hate that ‘it’s the first
I hate that ‘it’s the first time this happened’ is a valid excuse to not punish dangerous driving. It’s pure dumb luck he didn’t kill somebody sooner, not good driving or good judgement. Prior driving record should not be a consideration in sentencing of driving. “I didn’t murder anyone for 40 years before now” isn’t an excuse!
Utterly pathetic sentencing.
Exactly. Nobody would say
Exactly. Nobody would say “well he’s 45 now m’lud and he’s never killed anyone in cold blood before”.
It’s pure dumb luck that we
It’s pure dumb luck that we don’t all kill people much sooner. I doubt there’s a driver on the road who hasn’t taken a risk or made a mistake at some time or other.
That’s rather a good argument
That’s rather a good argument for banning cars in proximity to any vulnerable road users (cyclists, pedestrians, horses, take your pick). If driving is inherently dangerous because drivers (all of us) are sometimes a bit stupid/careless/inattentive, then driving really is the problem.
Motorways for Motors, all the other roads for the rest of us?
Motorways for Motors, all the
Motorways for Motors, all the other roads for the rest of us?
Well, that’s not the way that Blackpool Police saw it when they tweeted (longstanding denizens of the site will recall) ‘if cyclists don’t like the conditions on the road, they should seek another mode of transport’. These are the b******s we have to suffer around here- the ones who just ignored this
https://upride.cc/incident/yn67mvj_sainsburys44tonner_closepass/
and claimed to be taking action over this, but in the end did nothing at all, except possibly the worthless ‘words of advice’
https://upride.cc/incident/4148vz_travellerschoicecoach_closepass/
fwhite181 wrote:
I think there’s a good argument that big lorries are particularly dangerous because they have “blind spots” that I would think should make them unsuitable for use on shared public roads. Maybe they should be banned during certain times such as between 8am and 7pm if the vehicles can’t be made to be operated safely.
I think there’s a good
I think there’s a good argument that big lorries are particularly dangerous because they have “blind spots” that I would think should make them unsuitable for use on shared public roads
Apologies for the rapid repetition of the Sainsbury’s lorry assault below, but we can be sure that Lancs-and ScotFilth don’t agree with your argument and have decided that cyclists deserve all they get for obstructing otherwise law-abiding drivers just trying to make a living
john_smith wrote:
Presumably the irony is strong here, but of course it’s not exactly either way.
There is a bit too much reliance on luck here – or “it’s only other motor vehicles (with some protection)”. To make progress here likely requires several things. The most draconian would be weeding out some of the worst drivers. We treat driving like a club with an entry ritual but essentially open to all. Perhaps some people are just not cut out for it? Or were OK but have since declined?
Also – civil engineering / road and street design is a profession. It’s not simply about building stuff which doesn’t have holes in / immediately fall apart – there’s a large “human factors” part. In the UK we already e.g. build motorways in curves with rumble strips at the edges – among many other “engineering solutions”.
This is where the “Predictability” and “Forgivingness” parts of “sustainable safety” would emphasise ensuring that people’s predictable risk-taking and fallibility doesn’t immediately lead to them killing themselves or others. That would involve eliminating some possibilities for error entirely, making it obvious what you should do, if possible providing feedback when you’ve made an error that can allow you to correct it and finally mitigate the severity of likely consequences.
Again – stuff we already do in UK road design but how we do that for “vulnerable road users” essentially involves removing them from the motor traffic. So they lose their convenience OR safety (sometimes both).
Not really irony. I was
Not really irony. I was simply responding to this:
“I hate that ‘it’s the first time this happened’ is a valid excuse to not punish dangerous driving. It’s pure dumb luck he didn’t kill somebody sooner, not good driving or good judgement. Prior driving record should not be a consideration in sentencing of driving. “I didn’t murder anyone for 40 years before now” isn’t an excuse!”
It’s true that the driver was lucky not to have killed someone earlier, but the same goes for all of us. I think fwhite181 should get off his high horse before he comes a cropper, but it’s his choice.
Careful driving isn’t luck.
Careful driving isn’t luck. This wasn’t careful driving. I’m my opinion, we should hand out driving bans more readily and then people would drive more carefully.
That might be, but it’s still
That might be, but it’s still not a reason to make pronouncements on the gentleman’s driving in the past.
I have my doubts about whether handing out more bans would make people drive more carefully. People who argue for capital punishment often follow a similar kind of thinking, and there’s not a lot of evidence of its validity.
john_smith wrote:
You’ve conflated two different ideas there – increasing the number of punishments vs increasing the severity of punishments. The evidence suggests that people don’t really respond well to increasing the severity (e.g. capital punishment) unless they believe that they are likely to get caught. By increasing the number of punishments, drivers are more likely to think that they may get caught – especially if some of their colleagues and friends are caught. Currently, a lot of drivers use their phones whilst in control of a car precisely because they know that there’s very little chance of them getting caught. This is one reason why there’s so much manufactured anger directed at cyclists using cameras – it’s a very effective way of catching out the phone using drivers.
As HP wrote – the amount of
As HP wrote – the severity of punishment may be a factor but is often much less relevant than chance of getting caught. (Assuming we’re talking about crimes in which thought or at least social conditioning plays much part of course.) And contrary to the folk wisdom that “they throw the book at you” in the UK the severity part is often low IMHO.
I’d agree with you in part – I suspect there’s a built in (fairly low) limit on “police it better”* because costs grow rapidly, will the public accept it – and is it even wise for a democratic state to continue increasing the relative size of the police force? However given the clear disinclination to police some road offenses (pavement driving, speeding, careless / dangerous) or police it at all in some places (Lancs, Scotland) I don’t think we’re that close to reaching that limit yet.
Also – even in a police state (god forbid) much comes down to an activity’s social acceptability**.
I think – if we get beyond acceptance of the status quo – we’ll maybe realise that laws or training are some less effective ways to make things safer. Plus they won’t make our streets nicer to be in or do much encourage more active transport.
* I’ve not seen numbers but suspect that for a given system of roads / vehicles / laws there is a baseline rate of death – because mass motoring (small rate of human failures which cause KSIs times a very large number of faillible, shortcut-taking humans).
In more detail that carnage will be divided between (1) a few who’re almost certain to cause accidents in short order (road rage / serial unqualified drug drivers / speed demons / people not reporting their eyesight or cognition are failing etc.), (2) “negligent / antisocial” types who might get away with things for longer (I suspect this is a larger group) and (3) the majority who will have a certain statistical chance of crashing because “indifferently trained human”. To be fair it may be that (4) “highly trained and motivated individuals” may have a lower risk also – but not many of them about…
Exactly how those contributions stack up I would like to know. Clearly some people believe by far the biggest contribution is from group (1) (wrong’uns) – so we just need to catch ’em all somehow – and/or they just accept that from group (3) as an inevitable “cost of driving”.
** Because there are always far fewer policemen than people so it’s the culture of the informers e.g. people at large which is key. Although more pervasive surveillance / automatic detection through technology may change the balance.
It’s hard to get banned. Take
It’s hard to get banned. Take a look at a dash cam compilation, what happens to all those drivers? Nothing. What happened to the driver who lost control of his Ferrari and drove it onto the pavement and into the bike racks in a 20mph zone? Nothing – a thumbs up from the police. There may be a lack of evidence for the effectiveness of capital punishment, but how about the evidence for the effectiveness of policing bad driving rather than doing nothing?
Sunak and Harper ‘on the side
Sunak and Harper ‘on the side of drivers’.
Cyclist Charlie Alliston had a defective bike, gets 18mths in prison for pedestrian death. This driver had a defective vehicle, gets 100hrs of community service. Can we get this election sooner, so these useless bastards are booted out…
If they’re on the side of
If they’re on the side of drivers are they on the side of more driving and thus more traffic (bearing in mind induced demand if the carrot is “we’ll put in new road / widen existing”)? And if they’re for making it cheaper / easier to drive are they on the side of more careless, distracted or even unlicenced drivers?
They’re gone next election – I believe and hope. But Labour give me no confidence that they have this on their priority list. Outside of continuing to guide things in the direction they’re already going e.g. “Cars 2.0 – now (some of) the emissions are elsewhere!”
That’s every governing party of course* – barring the current “abberation” in Wales where they tweaked some of the speed limits. And in Scotland I’m far from confident the SNP would have done much different without the stipulations of the Greens they went into coalition with.
Is it just us? Road safety, nicer places and more active travel just don’t hold our attention? We like these things if they’re already here but they normally aren’t priorities compared to money / immediate convenince to get us through the day?
* Apologies to NI – I don’t know the situation there at all – but then there hasn’t been much governing happening there…
Muddy Ford wrote:
I was thinking of him the other day as I was on my little commute in W London, taking care not to hit yet another pedestrian wandering randomly across the busy road. Alliston got absolutely shafted by a populist court system.
And Charlie Allistons case
And Charlie Allistons case was all over the national press and TV for weeks This gets minor coverage in a local publication.
I think there is a regional
I think there is a regional thing here too.
ScotRozzer’s cant be arse to enforce road laws for cyclists.
ScotBeaks dont give a f**k if cyclists die. The killer *ALWAYS* gets a break.
I’m not saying I’m for hate
I’m not saying I’m for hate speech, but I’m beyond angry at the impending bin-fire and waste of police resources it’s going to consume when it comes into force next month. Meanwhile, Police Scotland refuses to give us a portal for submitting dash-cam and other footage of actual dangerous driving.
How many fines have been
How many fines have been issued for driving into ASLs? How many fines for dirty mirrors? Zero? The first one isn’t enforced at all as far as I can tell.
Quote:
She had put herself in a vulnerable position. What you mean by having the audacity to cycle on the road.
Bungle_52 wrote:
The audacity to use the cycling infrastructure as designed?
It’s awful that the crash investigator would say she put herself in a vulnerable position. How are you to know in advance that the lorry had a dirty windscreen and part of it was blocked by the screen of a reversing camera? Or that the drivers had encroached into the cycle area?
It doesn’t take a lot of
It doesn’t take a lot of experience to know that being close to a lorry when you’re on a bike can be dangerous.
My understanding is that she
My understanding is that she was in a dedicated cycle lane and that the lorry had encroached into it. I can picture myself making the same choices as Emma and I would consider myself an experienced and cautious cyclist.
The driver seems to have shown genuine remorse so I am not going to discuss the (in my view) inadequate sentence but feel more should be done to force motorists to respect cycle lanes, advance stop lines etc.
Bungle_52 wrote:
Up the inside of a lorry? I’ve been leary of those bastards for years.
Yet you do this Motorcyclist
Yet you do this Motorcyclist falls from Milton Keynes bridge after collision – BBC News and this is worthy of Jail, extended retest plus being tried for not just Dangerous Driving but also GBH.
Following Emma’s death, her
Following Emma’s death, her parents had called for all political parties to support the adoption of “best-practice infrastructure” as well as other safety measures to better protect cyclists.
Great idea, but sadly we have the party of the driver in power, and the party of we aren’t going to change anything radically about to take power.
Sadly, it is this sort of
Sadly, it is this sort of behavior on the part of the legal system that makes cycling so dangerous. If there are no serious consequences for driving badly – and killing someone with your vehicle is the ultimate in bad driving – there is no real reason to pay serious attention to your driving. Obviously there need to be stiff mandatory sentences established for driving without due care because judges don’t seem to understand the impact of pissant sentences.
Still the best way to get
Still the best way to get away with murder in this country. What will it take for one of these people to get any sentence even approaching appropriate?
One of “these people”?
One of “these people”?
One of these…
One of these…
dangerous drivers?
‘They said they felt Glasgow
‘They said they felt Glasgow was about a decade behind their home city of Paris when it came to safer cycling routes . . . . . ‘
and there you have it. So much is down to infrastructure.
And we’re falling farther
And we’re falling farther behind all the time because the party of the driver keeps announcing massive spending on cycling, then cutting it by 75%.
As usual the comments in the
As usual the comments in the Evening Times are the k**bhead’s guide to sh*tery
Am I the only one that read
Am I the only one that read this sentence. Quote Sheriff Matthew Jackson KC cited this, along with his own health issues and that that he’s the carer for his wife as “important information” Unquote and thought how do you care for your wife and dangerously drive at the same time?
Important for sentencing I
Important for sentencing I assume. The driver stopped at the scene, rendered assistance, pled guilty, seemed to have shown genuine remorse and quit his job. I’d like to have seen a longer ban but drivers have done much worse and got off scott free in the past, so I have some sympathy for a non custodial sentence. There was also the crash investigators comment (erroneous in my view but I suppose the Sheriff was obliged to take it into account.) that the cyclist had put herself in danger.