- News
- Reviews
- Bikes
- Accessories
- Accessories - misc
- Computer mounts
- Bags
- Bar ends
- Bike bags & cases
- Bottle cages
- Bottles
- Cameras
- Car racks
- Child seats
- Computers
- Glasses
- GPS units
- Helmets
- Lights - front
- Lights - rear
- Lights - sets
- Locks
- Mirrors
- Mudguards
- Racks
- Pumps & CO2 inflators
- Puncture kits
- Reflectives
- Smart watches
- Stands and racks
- Trailers
- Clothing
- Components
- Bar tape & grips
- Bottom brackets
- Brake & gear cables
- Brake & STI levers
- Brake pads & spares
- Brakes
- Cassettes & freewheels
- Chains
- Chainsets & chainrings
- Derailleurs - front
- Derailleurs - rear
- Forks
- Gear levers & shifters
- Groupsets
- Handlebars & extensions
- Headsets
- Hubs
- Inner tubes
- Pedals
- Quick releases & skewers
- Saddles
- Seatposts
- Stems
- Wheels
- Tyres
- Health, fitness and nutrition
- Tools and workshop
- Miscellaneous
- Buyers Guides
- Features
- Forum
- Recommends
- Podcast
Janina Gehlau (image via Slater and Gordon).jpgFamily "devastated" as London lorry driver cleared of killing cyclist
The mother of a cyclist killed in a collision with a skip lorry at Ludgate Circus in the City of London say her family are “devastated” after a jury today cleared the driver of the vehicle from causing her death by careless driving. She added that she hoped her daughter’s death would make people “think twice before cycling in London.”
Janina Gehlau, aged 26, a postgraduate student from Germany on a three-month unpaid internship in London, died in hospital in October 2014 three days after she was hit by the left-turning truck at the junction of Ludgate Circus and Farringdon Road.
Her husband Marcel Gehlau said after her death that she had bought a bicycle second hand so she could visit art galleries and museums since she was unable to afford the fares to use public transport.
He broke down and cried at the Old Bailey today after lorry driver Vincent Doyle, 45, who had been charged with causing Mrs Gehlau’s death by careless driving, was acquitted by the jury, reports the Guardian.
Judge Gerald Gordon said: “I would like it to be made absolutely clear to the family that the verdict of the jury does not imply any form of criticism of [Mrs] Gehlau.”
But he added that “a factor” in her death may have been a difference in traffic laws between UK and Germany, where – as the prosecution noted during the three-day trial – a cyclist in similar circumstances would have right of way.
According to an Evening Standard report, the prosecution had said Mr Doyle should have seen the cyclist, who was using the cycle lane to the left of the carriageway as she approached the bike box at the junction, in his vehicle’s mirrors for between 3 and 5 seconds.
The traffic light at the junction also had a Trixie mirror, designed to help drivers of large vehicles see what is happening in their blind spots. The vehicle had an audible warning that it was going to turn left.
The driver had initially told police that he had not stopped at the junction, but after being shown CCTV footage agreed that he had been stationary there for 23 seconds.
The court was told that Mr Doyle’s first reaction on getting out of the cab according to witnesses was to say, “Oh my God, You stupid girl, didn't you hear I was turning left?"
Explaining why he had used those words, he said: "At first I was angry. I thought: 'What is that stupid person doing?'
"Then, as I got close and I got down beside the girl, I realised how serious her injuries were.
"I was trying to keep her alive until the ambulance got there. I was holding her hand. I was feeling her pulse. I was shouting 'hang on, hang on'. I was pleading with her."
Allison Hunter, prosecuting, told the defendant that he was "telling one lie after another" in is account of the crash.
"If you were not aware of that Trixie mirror, it's a symptom of your carelessness,” she insisted. “That is an example of how careless and inattentive you were on October 17."
But Mr Doyle, whom the court heard spent eight weeks in a psychiatric hospital last year following a nervous breakdown, maintained: "There was no carelessness. I'm a careful driver and she was not in my mirrors."
After he was cleared today, Mrs Gehlau’s mother Andrea Tasic issued a statement on behalf of her family, reported by the Evening Standard’s Ross Lydall, in which she said: “We are devastated by the verdict and do not feel that we have got justice for Janina.
“We would like to thank the emergency services who tried so hard to save her and everyone who has supported us since her death.
“I miss her so much. She had a great future ahead of her and it was erased in a moment.”
A number of cyclists who have lost their lives in the capital in recent years have been foreign nationals, some of whom had only been in the city for a short time.
In part, the number of foreign victims may reflect London’s status as a world city that attracts young people from around the world to work or study there.
But Mrs Gehlau’s mother said that her impression of the city was that it was not safe to ride a bike on its streets.
She said: “I told her I thought the roads were too dangerous when I visited her, but she was an experienced cyclist and told me not to worry, she said it would be fine.
“My only hope is that this makes people think twice before cycling in London,” she continued.
“Too many families are losing loved ones in these circumstances and action needs to be taken to improve safety before there are any more tragedies.”
Solicitors Slater & Gordon are representing the family in a civil action.
Matthew Claxson, a lawyer at the firm, said: "When cyclists and heavy goods vehicles have to share the roads in such close proximity, all too often there are tragic consequences.
“This terrible incident again highlights the need for action to be taken to reduce the risks faced by vulnerable road users on our city’s streets.”
Mrs Gehlau’s death happened six months after another cyclist, Spanish national Victor Rodriguez, was killed at the same crossroads, which is on the route of the North-South Cycle Superhighway currently being built from King’s Cross to Elephant & Castle.
> Lorry driver who killed cyclist at Ludgate Circus given community service and driving ban
In December last year, lorry driver John Green was convicted of causing Mr Rodriguez’s death through careless driving. He was given a 12-month driving ban and ordered to carry out 150 hours of unpaid work.
Simon joined road.cc as news editor in 2009 and is now the site’s community editor, acting as a link between the team producing the content and our readers. A law and languages graduate, published translator and former retail analyst, he has reported on issues as diverse as cycling-related court cases, anti-doping investigations, the latest developments in the bike industry and the sport’s biggest races. Now back in London full-time after 15 years living in Oxford and Cambridge, he loves cycling along the Thames but misses having his former riding buddy, Elodie the miniature schnauzer, in the basket in front of him.
Latest Comments
- hawkinspeter 33 min 46 sec ago
Just the other day, Mrs HawkinsPeter remarked that our road seemed a lot quieter without all the rat-running and there's notably more traffic...
- hawkinspeter 6 min 9 sec ago
I would assume that it's the scent of huge profits that pulls in investment that does improve treatments, but we can see the end game of...
- hawkinspeter 48 min 46 sec ago
I was wondering if other countries used some kind of anti-copying technology. One type would be to use something like an RFID chip embedded into...
- Bungle_52 1 hour 15 min ago
Thanks for the info. I still can't find anything on the length of the ban, if he was banned, but I did find this interestng discussion on the...
- slc 1 hour 55 min ago
Doubly galling when, as has been pointed out here in the past, a binary search would efficiently reveal the time of theft. Triply galling when I...
- Rendel Harris 2 hours 4 min ago
I have the same having got fed up with losing/breaking/scratching £150+ pairs from Oakley and POC, also with constantly having to change lenses...
- Andrewbanshee 3 hours 6 min ago
I lived a fair distance, 40 ish minutes walk, which I did every day. Only one of my house shares had a car and he walked too. Back then 92 to 95...
- anke2 3 hours 47 min ago
The front one seems a bit useless - what is it protecting, if not the feet, chain(wheel) and entire bottom bracket area? I found that "ToeSavers"...
- Jaijai 5 hours 56 min ago
The vision couldn't have been that good ,they went bankrupt.
Add new comment
31 comments
(surprising)
I think the facts will emerge soon.
Wait, you mean: "The truth is out there "?
My understanding is that the severity of the charge is often reduced to increase the chances of of a conviction, based on an assumed bias in the jury in such cases.
I've observed a defending barrister asking for members of the jury to step down if they didn't fulfil certain criteria, namely the proximity of where they lived with respect to the collision and whether they were regular drivers on a particular road. I assume that the prosecuting counsel can do the same.
As it is the judge's responsibility to ensure that a trial is fair, that surely also means reducing the bias or prejudice that might affect a jury's decision.
So why in these types of cases don't the prosecution request that jurors who fulfil the following criteria are omitted from the panel
1) Have a conviction related to driving (unless someone can show that is already the case in law)
2) Have received a penalty from the police, i.e. points on their licence or the alternative of a trip to a "driving awareness course" (within the recent past, say 5 years)
3) a) If an HGV is involved - have an HGC licence
b) If a Public Service vehicle, e.g. a bus, is involved - have a PSV licence
c) if a taxi is involved, have the appropriate registration
4) Are a member of an organisation which has been openly hostile to cyclists or promotes and/or supports breaking the law in such a way that more vulnerable road users like cyclists are put at risk
This needs to be tattooed on his forehead in mirror writing.
Having sat on a jury in a sexual assualt case where a lot of the people present basically said 'it was her fault' I can tell you that I have zero faith in the ability of a jury to overcome its members prejudices.
It's really time trial by jury was abolished, the law has nearly a thousand years of case law, primary and secondary legislation, regulations and legal academia, and we expect this to be understood and applied by a random collection of laymen. Trial by jury is not democratic, it's lunatic.
P.S. Having referenced his supposed involvement in a previous cyclist's death, I should add a note of caution. Apparently it hasn't yet been established with certainty that this is the same driver: http://singletrackworld.com/forum/topic/cyclist-killed-finding-an-old-co...
So, until/unless we have confirmation, I for one should not have been leaping to conclusions.
Roger Geffen
CTC, the national cycling charity
Is the judge confused about what "right of way" means?
I was starting to believe the tide was turning after some recent verdicts, but this one stinks.
Firstly, in response to:
Please note that this verdict was reached by a jury, not a judge.
That doesn't make it right, of course. I don't yet have a full report of the case or the evidence presented. However, I have to say I'm very doubtful of it, particularly given reports suggesting that the driver changed his story - claiming initially that he hadn't stopped at the junction, then admitting he had stopped for 23 seconds when the evidence on this became clear.
Legally, the court could not take account of his previous involvement in a cyclist's death [P.S. see my subsequent comment below], particularly given that he was acquitted on that first occasion. That was presumably why it wasn't mentioned in court until the jury reached its verdict.
However, now that this information has come to light, we will need to try and find out whether the company which employed him was aware of his past record. In other words, should he have declared it (bearing in mind that he wasn't convicted of the first alleged offence either)? And if he did, was he allowed to drive lorries again despite his past record? Did the Police alert the Traffic Commissioners to this case after it occurred? - note the possible similarities with the Alan Neve case. One way or the other, these questions all appear to warrant further investigation - assuming that this is the same driver [though this has yet to be established, so we shouldn't leap to conclusions - again, see below].
Whatever the rights and wrongs of this particular verdict though, I do have some sympathy with the viewpoint that the blame in cases like this shouldn't necessarily rest solely with the lorry driver. Another culrit is the lorry itself. It makes no sense whatsoever to allow such lethally badly designed machines to mix with cyclists and pedestrians. We should therefore be aiming to minimise their use on busy urban streets as far as possible.
Then, bearing in mind that we're unlikely to achieve the total elimination of lorries from urban streets any time soon, we should at least look to ban lorries with unsafe cab designs. At present that's the vast majority of them: in other words, any lorry whose cab places the lorry driver high up, where they can't see what's around them without needing mirrors and cameras. Apparently it takes at least 5 seconds to check all of the mirrors that a lorry driver is supposed to check. That's plenty of time for a cyclist to appear in a mirror that a driver thought they had checked.
Compare this lethal design flaw with buses, whose drivers sit close to ground level and can see cyclists alongside them through their window-filled doors; whereas lorry drivers typically sit high up off the ground, and are surrounded with a lot of metal. Safer lorry cab designs are now available and it is high time they became the norm, to the point where we can ban unsafe lorry designs completely. CTC is pressing London's mayoral candidates and others to commit to a road-map for doing this.
As others have said, we also need the protected infrastructure, and the European-style traffic rules which give both cyclists and pedestrians who are going straight ahead at a junction priority over vehicles turning across their path, even at a green light. I can well believe the comments suggesting that Janina Gehlau may have been assuming that these rules, which apply in Germany, also applied in Britain. Without them, the left-hook risk will not be elimited by protected cycle lanes, however they are designed - particularly at unsignalised junctions.
In short, this case raises an awful lot of issues for CTC's Road Justice and Space for Cycling campaigns, as well as our Action on Lorry Danger campaign
Given his record then there must be many fortunate cyclists out there who have managed to avoid being victims of Vincent Doyle.
Interesting that despite not giving a truthful answer about how long he was stationary, other evidence he gave was still believed by the jury.
Presumably in other legal cases our jury system delivers justice to victims?
"But he added that “a factor” in her death may have been a difference in traffic laws between UK and Germany"
yeah, the difference being that in the uk holding a driving licence is the same as having a licence to kill.
It would be dreadful if each member of the jury loss somebody close to them in similar circumstance, but it would be interesting to see if there still happy with the "shit happens" defence.
I am fairly sure in reading updates from the trial that the driver asserted an unblemished record. If that's not true then it is material to the case.
Simon - any chance of following up this Vincent Doyle 1999 thing?
If this is the same bloke and he's got for the is no freaking way he should be let off.
The thing is previous convictions are not made known to yhd jury never mind aquitals.
We also say juries won't convict drivers because they think 'that could be me' clearly not the case here. I wonder if the truth is worse, that there is a general attitude in this country that cyclists have chosen to put themselves in a dangerous situation and therefor no one else is ever responsible.
This! Especially in London.
When new acquaintances discover that I use cycling as one of my modes of transport in London, after the usual (nonsense) jokes about lycra (wouldn't be seen dead in it), red line jumpers etc ... the most typical response is an astonished "You're brave!", as if I had announced I was a naked skydiver with a russian roulette parachute.
I think the sporty image of cycling, especially post 2012 hasn't helped. When people think "cyclist", they think of a lycra-wearing man on a road bike, taking risks to set a new PB on Strava, not a child riding to school, or an elderly lady carrying her groceries home on an ebike.
Which is a shame.
Not quite true re previous convictions. If as part of your defence you assert that you are of good character, the prosecution may introduce evidence to rebut that.
That depends, however, on the prosecution knowing about it - is this the same Vincent Doyle?
I cannot understand how he has been cleared of careless driving when the evidence (quoted above by Brooksby) points to the fact that he should have seen her. If he hasn't seen her then he can't have looked properly despite his assurances that he did. He also claimed he didn't stop but this was proven to be untrue. How can a jury possible acquit in this case?
And then we find out he's killed another cyclist 17 years ago. In a lorry. Turning left.
He's got form - wow! & just what was he doing for the 23 seconds? (watching stuff on phone/laptop etc?)
23 seconds doesn't sound like a long time, but I counted it out on my way home last night, and it is a VERY long time if you're just sitting there.
Some wonderful soul called Neurocyc on Twitter dug this up. It appears that despite how careful a driver can claim to be, lightening can strike twice
http://autobus.cyclingnews.com/news.php?id=news/2004/oct04/oct11news2
Wow. Just wow.
The judge went as far as stating that the verdict does not imply criticism of Ms Gehlau. The jury finds the defendant not guilty. All this tells us is that in the UK if you get on a bike and get wiped out, then it's just your hard luck.
I am absolutely disgusted.
I think what this specific case tells us is that the crap infrastructure we have in this country is dangerous. Combine that with a cyclist not necessarily familiar with the rules, a lorry driver who probably wasn't looking any too carefully, and poorly designed vehicles. The results are often distressingly predictable.
Sure, it's tempting to blame the driver, but much more useful to identify and try to fix the system failures.
It seems to me that a big part of the system failure is that drivers have generally poor standards and few take proper responsibility for the safety of other more vulnerable road users.
As I said above, I cannot understand how he wasn't convicted and if you ask me he should have had the book thrown at him. Proper staunch convictions may go some of the way to sharpening the focus of those drivers who are too distracted or innatentive to pay proper attention to the road.
Given tbe awesomely poor infrastructure I agree with you, but I suspect we can do much better by changing the entire system.
Possibly because juries sympathise with drivers (which they are more likely to be themselves) over cyclists. Because they think "it's just one of those things", or that they've done the same thing themselves plenty times before - but just without the tragic consequences.
Well juries might well sympathise but they are supposed to make decisions based on evidence and within the letter of the law, not on personal sympathies or conjecture.
Obviously we don't have a court transcript but from what has been reported there was a period of over twenty seconds where Doyle should have been aware of her prescence and another five seconds where he failed to use either his trucks mirrors or the trixie mirrors at the junction - clearly it is careless (if not downright dangerous) driving not to be aware of another road user you have overtaken or to check your mirrors before making a manouvere.
I'm sick of this lazy dogma that "it's just one of those things" - the fact that this is seemingly accepted as a legal verdict is disgusting.
Right. Which is why Bikeability, Forester, Allen et al have been talking for years about the danger of creating a parallel road system on which traffic _undertakes_ the dangerous traffic.
I know you're not trying to blame her, but I don't see any suggestion that she did anything except follow the rules. And, not knowing anything other than what I've read here, that law-abiding (helmet and hi-vis wearing, bicycle lane adhering) and rule following may have tricked her into the situation where a rule-breaker could harm her.
It seems to me that the systemic failure is that there are too many cars, travelling too fast, driven by people who are at least some of the times un-intelligent, feckless, lazy or distracted. Individual, motorized transport has as its consequence this death and the deaths of many other pedestrians and car drivers.
It is sad when a cyclist is killed in such a manor but in all my years I don't go down the side of lorries at traffic lights, you are just hoping they've actually seen you and it isn't a good gamble at 100kg vs up to 44000kg.
Pages