Driver in France who parked van in cycle lane guilty of cyclist's manslaughter

Yorkshire wallet wrote:

I wonder what would happen if a pedestrian stepped into the cycle lane, the rider is doing more than 18mph so can't possibly stop, swerves round the pedestrian and gets wiped out by another vehicle.

Manslaughter for careless ped?

As if, I mean how many pedestrians would walk into a lane without checking, rather than use perfectly safe infrastructure such as a pedestrian crossing...

Christopher TR1 wrote:

Bravo to the court for this outcome. 

We don't have the full facts about the lorry which hit the cyclist but we know for sure that the van was parked in the cycle lane. All too often motorists don't take the cycle lanes seriously and it's this sort of outcome which is needed to act as a deterrent. Ideally it should have been an actual custodial sentence though.

Out of curiosity would you then expect a car driver to receive a similar sentence if they'd illegally parked their car in a normal road lane and another driver had died in a similar situation?

Boopop]</p>

<p>[quote=Christopher TR1 wrote:

Out of curiosity would you then expect a car driver to receive a similar sentence if they'd illegally parked their car in a normal road lane and another driver had died in a similar situation?

Yes I would if they had parked illegally or otherwise not in accordance with the Highway Code ie on a bend.  Probably wouldn't happen though.  I do recall there was a case, I think, last year; a lorry parked on a bend, but can't remember the details.

Boopop wrote:

Christopher TR1 wrote:

Bravo to the court for this outcome. 

We don't have the full facts about the lorry which hit the cyclist but we know for sure that the van was parked in the cycle lane. All too often motorists don't take the cycle lanes seriously and it's this sort of outcome which is needed to act as a deterrent. Ideally it should have been an actual custodial sentence though.

Out of curiosity would you then expect a car driver to receive a similar sentence if they'd illegally parked their car in a normal road lane and another driver had died in a similar situation?

Maybe, maybe not. But it's not a comparable situation in any case, so does it matter?

Cycle lanes exist precisely because cyclists are slower and more vulnerable than motorised vehicles. Blocking one is clearly dangerous because it's selfishly removing the protection that has been put in place for vulnerable road-users. This is clearly not the same as blocking a normal lane for cars.

Boopop wrote:

Christopher TR1 wrote:

Bravo to the court for this outcome. 

We don't have the full facts about the lorry which hit the cyclist but we know for sure that the van was parked in the cycle lane. All too often motorists don't take the cycle lanes seriously and it's this sort of outcome which is needed to act as a deterrent. Ideally it should have been an actual custodial sentence though.

Out of curiosity would you then expect a car driver to receive a similar sentence if they'd illegally parked their car in a normal road lane and another driver had died in a similar situation?

That Polish HGV driver is being tried for 8 counts of death by dangerous driving after being parked for 12 minutes. So yes.

Boopop wrote:

Christopher TR1 wrote:

Bravo to the court for this outcome. 

We don't have the full facts about the lorry which hit the cyclist but we know for sure that the van was parked in the cycle lane. All too often motorists don't take the cycle lanes seriously and it's this sort of outcome which is needed to act as a deterrent. Ideally it should have been an actual custodial sentence though.

Out of curiosity would you then expect a car driver to receive a similar sentence if they'd illegally parked their car in a normal road lane and another driver had died in a similar situation?

No but if they had parked blocking the pavement forcing potentially vulnerable pedestrians into the road u would.

Also the was a lorry driver convicted for parking beyond a bend as a car came round the bend driving too fast to stop in the distance they could see to be safe and hit the lorry.

[/quote]

 Also the was a lorry driver convicted for parking beyond a bend as a car came round the bend driving too fast to stop in the distance they could see to be safe and hit the lorry.[/quote]

That's the incident I was thinking of.

Boopop wrote:

Christopher TR1 wrote:

Bravo to the court for this outcome. 

We don't have the full facts about the lorry which hit the cyclist but we know for sure that the van was parked in the cycle lane. All too often motorists don't take the cycle lanes seriously and it's this sort of outcome which is needed to act as a deterrent. Ideally it should have been an actual custodial sentence though.

Out of curiosity would you then expect a car driver to receive a similar sentence if they'd illegally parked their car in a normal road lane and another driver had died in a similar situation?

Similar incident features on BBC CRASH program this week. Horse wagon turning across a dual carriageway at night in the rain. Meant to be all in the protected reservation. But it wasn't. It was sticking out 50cm into the outside lane.

Poor sod hits the back end of the van and dies.
It went to court but the van driver was acquitted.
Apparently it's fine to leave the tail of your vehicle sticking out and kill people. Oh no. Not dangerous driving at all.

It's disgraceful.

Boopop wrote:

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for improved laws for cyclists, better infrastructure and so on, but wouldn't this be the cyclist's fault? The van driver was guilty of illegally parking, the lorry driver was possibly guilty of manslaughter if they had enough time to react but didn't.

 

Doesn't what the cyclist did (RIP) count as a lane change? So far as I'm aware when you change lanes it's your responsibility to check that it's safe. She should have checked and if it wasn't safe she should have stopped.

*Dons flameproof clothes*

It is also the responsibility of the motorist travelling behind the vulnerable road user to be aware that they may need to make an evasive action as in avoid a parked vehicle or pot hole. 

giff77 wrote:

It is also the responsibility of the motorist travelling behind the vulnerable road user to be aware that they may need to make an evasive action as in avoid a parked vehicle or pot hole. 

Very true, I'm regularly taking the lane on roads to force the issue so cars don't overtake me dangerously and as you say, I have room to manouvre around potholes.

Back to my original point though, she changed lane. I don't expect drivers to expect me to change lane without signalling and doing a shoulder check. Perhaps I'm picking at hairs here it just seems odd to charge the van driver with manslaughter.

We don't know (although I haven't the article that's linked to) whether the lorry driver had time to react. I guess you could easily argue it doesn't take much clairvoyance for the lorry driver to assume the cyclist is going to change lane and they should have been ready to react to that.

Boopop wrote:

giff77 wrote:

It is also the responsibility of the motorist travelling behind the vulnerable road user to be aware that they may need to make an evasive action as in avoid a parked vehicle or pot hole. 

 

Very true, I'm regularly taking the lane on roads to force the issue so cars don't overtake me dangerously and as you say, I have room to manouvre around potholes.

Back to my original point though, she changed lane. I don't expect drivers to expect me to change lane without signalling and doing a shoulder check. Perhaps I'm picking at hairs here it just seems odd to charge the van driver with manslaughter.

We don't know (although I haven't the article that's linked to) whether the lorry driver had time to react. I guess you could easily argue it doesn't take much clairvoyance for the lorry driver to assume the cyclist is going to change lane and they should have been ready to react to that.

The rider moved out of the 'cycling' lane. What form that takes isn't described, not should it particularly matter. The driver should be looking far enough ahead to anticipate the rider's actions regardless, rather than concentrating on the 6ft immediately in front of their bonnet.

JonD wrote:

 

The driver should be looking far enough ahead to anticipate the rider's actions regardless, rather than concentrating on the 6ft immediately in front of their bonnet.

Probably watching a good box set on their DVD.

In 2010, 324 drivers were caught watching a film in France

http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/audio-video/lorry-driver-filmed-by-police-wat...

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/11524862/Van-driver-caught-...

smh

Boopop wrote:

 

Back to my original point though, she changed lane. I don't expect drivers to expect me to change lane without signalling and doing a shoulder check. Perhaps I'm picking at hairs here it just seems odd to charge the van driver with manslaughter.

yep, splitting hairs. 

Boopop wrote:

Doesn't what the cyclist did (RIP) count as a lane change? So far as I'm aware when you change lanes it's your responsibility to check that it's safe. She should have checked and if it wasn't safe she should have stopped.

*Dons flameproof clothes*

So on the basis of a single report on the web, presumably translated from French, you know more than the court that heard all the evidence, and you know the law in a foreign country?

If this is typical of how you think, you must wear that flame proof suit 24/7.

burtthebike wrote:

So on the basis of a single report on the web, presumably translated from French, you know more than the court that heard all the evidence, and you know the law in a foreign country?

If this is typical of how you think, you must wear that flame proof suit 24/7.

Read what I said again. If you still think I was suggesting I knew more than the court about the case, then I suggest you take up some English lessons, never mind French.

I was only giving my opinion based on this individual report, I never purported to have detailed knowledge about it. Are you saying because I haven't done a day-long case study on the subject I shouldn't be allowed to comment?

Boopop wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

So on the basis of a single report on the web, presumably translated from French, you know more than the court that heard all the evidence, and you know the law in a foreign country?

If this is typical of how you think, you must wear that flame proof suit 24/7.

Read what I said again. If you still think I was suggesting I knew more than the court about the case, then I suggest you take up some English lessons, never mind French.

I was only giving my opinion based on this individual report, I never purported to have detailed knowledge about it. Are you saying because I haven't done a day-long case study on the subject I shouldn't be allowed to comment?

I did read it again, you blamed the cyclist on absolutely no evidence other than the road.cc report, and there is nothing wrong with my English comprehension.  Perhaps if you gave your opinion on things you actually knew something about, or were in possesion of more than the briefest account from a single source, you wouldn't need a flame proof suit.

burtthebike wrote:

Boopop wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

So on the basis of a single report on the web, presumably translated from French, you know more than the court that heard all the evidence, and you know the law in a foreign country?

If this is typical of how you think, you must wear that flame proof suit 24/7.

Read what I said again. If you still think I was suggesting I knew more than the court about the case, then I suggest you take up some English lessons, never mind French.

I was only giving my opinion based on this individual report, I never purported to have detailed knowledge about it. Are you saying because I haven't done a day-long case study on the subject I shouldn't be allowed to comment?

I did read it again, you blamed the cyclist on absolutely no evidence other than the road.cc report, and there is nothing wrong with my English comprehension.  Perhaps if you gave your opinion on things you actually knew something about, or were in possesion of more than the briefest account from a single source, you wouldn't need a flame proof suit.

I blamed the cyclist based on the evidence available, I made it quite clear I hadn't looked in to it any further. I see you haven't repeated the implication that I knew everything about the case (without any evidence of such), so that's something at least =/

Boopop wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

Boopop wrote:

burtthebike wrote:

So on the basis of a single report on the web, presumably translated from French, you know more than the court that heard all the evidence, and you know the law in a foreign country?

If this is typical of how you think, you must wear that flame proof suit 24/7.

Read what I said again. If you still think I was suggesting I knew more than the court about the case, then I suggest you take up some English lessons, never mind French.

I was only giving my opinion based on this individual report, I never purported to have detailed knowledge about it. Are you saying because I haven't done a day-long case study on the subject I shouldn't be allowed to comment?

I did read it again, you blamed the cyclist on absolutely no evidence other than the road.cc report, and there is nothing wrong with my English comprehension.  Perhaps if you gave your opinion on things you actually knew something about, or were in possesion of more than the briefest account from a single source, you wouldn't need a flame proof suit.

I blamed the cyclist based on the evidence available, I made it quite clear I hadn't looked in to it any further. I see you haven't repeated the implication that I knew everything about the case (without any evidence of such), so that's something at least =/

Apologies everyone, I didn't realise this was a new troll.

Boopop wrote:

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for improved laws for cyclists, better infrastructure and so on, but wouldn't this be the cyclist's fault? The van driver was guilty of illegally parking, the lorry driver was possibly guilty of manslaughter if they had enough time to react but didn't.

 

Doesn't what the cyclist did (RIP) count as a lane change? So far as I'm aware when you change lanes it's your responsibility to check that it's safe. She should have checked and if it wasn't safe she should have stopped.

*Dons flameproof clothes*

I see what you mean but if it was not a van but a very large pothole that had caused the cyclist to suddenly veer or fall into the path of a vehicle it would be the existence of the pothole and therefore the lack of maintenance of the infrastructure at fault. So if from this we accept that it is the obstacle that is at fault then it is easy to substitute pothole for van and assume the same (depending on other environmental factors).

There are three factors that caused this unfortunate event to unfold, the cyclist, the van and the lorry. Take any of the three away and the incident would not have happened. One of those factors were without a doubt illegal in their actions, the others are innocent without facts to prove the contrary (at least in an English court of law, not sure about France).

People ethically should be held accountable for the results of their actions, a person who willingly drops a knife from a 10th story window is not only guilty of dropping a knife, they are responsible for all further injuries caused from the dropping of that knife until it is retrieved by them. That includes damage done from the drop as well as any damage that may be done by anyone falling upon the knife that otherwise would not be there.

Just my opinion…