UK and Europe · Public discussion

Cyclict killed in Oxford, no question of dangerous driving

Started by Just zis Guy, you know? · · Last activity · 32 posts · 1,111 views

This thread is locked and is currently read-only.

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
UK and Europe
Published
22 March 2006
Last activity
23 March 2006
Original author
Just zis Guy, you know?
Posts
32
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
1,111
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 32
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. This one has me minded to reach for the cluebat:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,172-2097961,00.html

    Emilie Harris, 20, was crushed under the wheels of the single decker
    bus after she was knocked off her mountain bike two years ago in
    Oxford city centre.

    Ms Harris, a first-year student of human sciences at St Catherine’s
    College, died instantly.

    The inquest was told that the driver, Paul Willis, 47, was chatting to
    colleague Henry Stuart who was standing on a platform at the front of
    the bus seconds before the student was killed.

    Richard Whittington, the assistant deputy coroner for Oxford, said
    that Mr Willis had broken drivers’ regulations by having someone on
    the platform at the front of the bus.

    Police Constable Stephen Moffat, who investigated the incident, said
    Mr Willis had been travelling too fast and too close to Emilie.

    He said that although the bus had been travelling at under 25mph at
    the time of the incident, he should have been doing the same speed as
    Emilie’s cycle, which was believed to have been travelling at 8mph.

    “He had not given himself any margin for error,” he said. “I think he
    should have been travelling at the same speed as Emilie. He should
    have weighed up what was ahead of him.”

    Witnesses told the inquest how they had heard a “thud” shortly before
    the bus ran over her body.

    CCTV images taken from the bus showed Emilie cycling in front of the
    bus two seconds before she was run over.

    Emilie, who was wearing a crash helmet, was wearing flip-flops on the
    day of the incident in May 2004, which may have contributed to her
    falling off the bike, the inquest was told.

    Recording a verdict of accidental death Dr Whittington said that
    having his colleague on the platform next to him must have been a
    distraction to the driver.

    But he added: “Whether Mr Stuart [his colleague] actually obstructed
    the vision forwards is unlikely but his presence there must have been
    a distraction.”

    “There is no question of Emilie’s death being caused by dangerous
    driving, this is sadly an accident.

    “For some reason she had lost control of her bike. It has been
    suggested her flip-flops could have been the reason, or she panicked
    because she heard the sound of the bus or she might have looked back.
    I do not think the bike was in an upright position at the time of the
    accident.”

    A spokesman for the Oxford Bus Company said after the inquest: “Ever
    since the tragic accident our thoughts have been with Emilie’s parents
    and family. They continue to have our deepest sympathy. We cannot
    comment further at this stage as a court case involving the driver is
    still active and until that is finished our own inquiry into the
    incident and any possible disciplinary action can not be concluded.”

    Police said after the inquest that court proceedings against Mr Willis
    would now resume.

    He is charged with careless driving and breaching public service
    vehicle regulations. His colleague who was on the bus at the time,
    Henry Stuart, faces the latter charge.

    Emilie’s parents Martin and Judy Harris, both 52 and from Shawford,
    Hampshire, attended the inquest but made no comment afterwards.

    Guy
    --
    May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
    http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

    85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound

  2. Guy said:

    This one has me minded to reach for the cluebat:

    I need a new dictionary - the definition mine gives for "dangerous"
    appears to be wrong.

    d.

  3. Just zis Guy, you know? a écrit :

    Quoted message said:

    This one has me minded to reach for the cluebat:

    [...]

    So sad story... and as usual, deep suspicion concerning the cyclist
    behaviour.

    This *enforces* once again my determination to keep the middle of the
    lane in some very narrow streets.
    To be shouted or horned is better than be crushed... and you almost
    always have the next red signal to quietly explain to the driver why you
    did that (in France 1 meter lateral distance in town and 1,5 meter in
    country is mandatory when a motor vehicle overtakes a cycle).

    --
    Marien

  4. Marien LEBRETON said:

    To be shouted or horned is better than be crushed...

    Agreed, but I'm not sure if it is strictly relevant to this case -
    there's nothing in the story to suggest she was riding in such a way as
    to make it hard for the bus driver to see her.

    It seems the bus driver just wasn't looking where he was going. It seems
    the first he knew of the cyclist was the crunch as she went under his
    wheels. In these circumstances, hanging, drawing and quartering would be
    lenient treatment for the bus driver.

    d.

  5. It seems all the blame is on the cyclist for falling off. But the first para
    says she was knocked off becsue the driver was distracted. Since a thud was
    heard, isn't it possible that the bus actually ran her down? Odd that the
    CCTV ends two seconds before impact, and odd that the driver had
    conveniently finshed chatting seconds before the incident.

    The only concrete factor against Emilie was that she was wearing flop-flops
    which 'may' have caused her to slip on the pedals. Dr Whittington seems to
    have taken this and run with it, along with some other vague assumptions
    about her being scared of buses (very odd for a cyclist in Oxford!).

  6. Simon Bennett said:

    It seems all the blame is on the cyclist for falling off.

    Eh? Oh, I think I didn't read the article closely enough at first. I
    might have to modify my previous comments. Slightly.

    Quoted message said:

    Since a thud was
    heard, isn't it possible that the bus actually ran her down?

    I initially thought that was the implication of the coroner's comments,
    but now I'm not so sure...

    "I do not think the bike was in an upright position at the time of the
    accident."

    Well, yes... it would be pretty hard for a cyclist to stay upright while
    a bus drives over her.

    Quoted message said:

    The only concrete factor against Emilie was that she was wearing flop-flops
    which 'may' have caused her to slip on the pedals. Dr Whittington seems to
    have taken this and run with it, along with some other vague assumptions
    about her being scared of buses (very odd for a cyclist in Oxford!).

    Vague assumptions seem to be par for the course in this type of incident
    - anything to avoid the possibility of having to blame the motorist.

    To be fair, he does seem to be suggesting that the bus /was/ the cause
    of her fall, whether it was from being physically knocked over or just
    through intimidation.

    d.

  7. davek said:
    Simon Bennett said:

    It seems all the blame is on the cyclist for falling off.

    Eh? Oh, I think I didn't read the article closely enough at first. I
    might have to modify my previous comments. Slightly.

    That's the way I read it -- she fell off and then the bus ran over her.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Since a thud was
    heard, isn't it possible that the bus actually ran her down?

    I initially thought that was the implication of the coroner's
    comments, but now I'm not so sure...

    Cyclists don't make thudding sounds when they fall onto tarmac.

    Quoted message said:

    "I do not think the bike was in an upright position at the time of the
    accident."

    Well, yes... it would be pretty hard for a cyclist to stay upright
    while a bus drives over her.

    PC Moffat could win awards for inexactitude. The number of times he uses /I
    think/ and /might/. They have no place in a court, surely? If there's doubt
    about something, shouldn't an expert be consulted? Nah, too costly.

    Quoted message said:

    To be fair, he does seem to be suggesting that the bus /was/ the cause
    of her fall, whether it was from being physically knocked over or just
    through intimidation.

    "Dr Whittington said [...] For some reason she _had_ lost control of her
    bike." would suggest she came off before being run down.

    "It has been suggested her flip-flops could have been the reason, or she
    panicked
    because she heard the sound of the bus or she might have looked back."

    I don't think he's suggesting that the driver intimidated her. I think it's
    a case of victim blaming. The implication being that timid cyclists are a
    liablity to themselves. In my experience, people don't panic and fall off
    when they hear buses approaching; usually they pull over and stop if they're
    that worried.

    "I do not think the bike was in an upright position at the time of the
    accident."

    Again, lots of convenient 'thinking' going on.

  8. On Wed, 22 Mar 2006 12:05:47 +0000 someone who may be "Just zis Guy,
    you know?" <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

    Quoted message said:

    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,172-2097961,00.html

    Emilie, who was wearing a crash helmet,

    Another helmet that failed to prevent the wearer being killed.

    Quoted message said:

    was wearing flip-flops on the
    day of the incident in May 2004, which may have contributed to her
    falling off the bike, the inquest was told.

    If it wasn't sad it would be amusing. She undoubtedly fell off the
    bike because it was hit by the bus. Why do some find this difficult
    to understand, or are they seeking to blame the victim?

    --
    David Hansen, Edinburgh
    I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
    http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

  9. Simon Bennett said:

    It seems all the blame is on the cyclist for falling off. But the first para
    says she was knocked off becsue the driver was distracted. Since a thud was
    heard, isn't it possible that the bus actually ran her down? Odd that the
    CCTV ends two seconds before impact, and odd that the driver had
    conveniently finshed chatting seconds before the incident.

    The only concrete factor against Emilie was that she was wearing flop-flops
    which 'may' have caused her to slip on the pedals. Dr Whittington seems to
    have taken this and run with it, along with some other vague assumptions
    about her being scared of buses (very odd for a cyclist in Oxford!).


    You need to understand the Law. To convict for Dangerous Driving you
    need to have evidence that the driving has (usually consistantly)fallen
    far below that expected. A moments inattention that causes death is not
    covered. I believe that 'Causing Death by Careless Driving' is a new
    offence proposed in the new Road Safety Bill.

    I'm afraid we all make errors. It is much more important to get the
    dangerous and aggressive drivers off the road BEFORE they kill anyone.

    I'm not saying such incidents shouldn't be punished, but the level of
    punishment for Dangerous Drivers needs to be far more severe.

    To get Dangerous Drivers off the road needs the Police to enforce the
    Law and not wait for accidents to happen.

    Jim Chisholm

  10. David Hansen said:

    She undoubtedly fell off the
    bike because it was hit by the bus. Why do some find this difficult
    to understand, or are they seeking to blame the victim?

    Because, if the court accepts that the bus ran down the cyclist, it would
    reflect badly on the driver. If the cyclist is believed to have fallen into
    the path of the bus, then it lessens the driver's responsibility, "There was
    nothing I could do. She came out of nowhere." etc, etc.

  11. J. Chisholm said:

    You need to understand the Law. To convict for Dangerous Driving you
    need to have evidence that the driving has (usually
    consistantly)fallen far below that expected. A moments inattention
    that causes death is not covered. I believe that 'Causing Death by
    Careless Driving' is a new offence proposed in the new Road Safety

    I'm not so concerned with the law. Though it does seem odd that a
    disproportionate amount of effort has been made to exonorate the driver. I'm
    more angry about the blatant victim-blaming in this case.

  12. davek said:
    Guy said:

    This one has me minded to reach for the cluebat:

    I need a new dictionary - the definition mine gives for "dangerous"
    appears to be wrong.

    You need a legal dictionary. The term "dangerous driving" is a legal
    term. It does not mean driving which is dangerous - all driving is
    dangerous to a degree as is all cycle riding and walking - but rather
    driving in a manner that is calclated to be dangerous. IIUC it
    replaced the term reckless driving.
    --
    Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

  13. Phil Cook said:

    You need a legal dictionary.

    Sample entry:
    Black (noun). The achromatic colour of maximum lightness; the colour of
    objects that reflect nearly all light of all visible wavelengths.

    d.

  14. davek said:
    Phil Cook said:

    You need a legal dictionary.

    Sample entry:
    Black (noun). The achromatic colour of maximum lightness; the colour
    of objects that reflect nearly all light of all visible wavelengths.

    So that's where they get their ideas from!

  15. Ouch... flipflops...

    It always makes me cringe when i see people wearing inappropriate clothing
    while riding. The amount of scooters and moped in london with people
    wearing next to nothing or indeed skirt/sandals... <shudders>

    -Kristian

  16. Kristian Davies said:

    Ouch... flipflops...

    It always makes me cringe when i see people wearing inappropriate
    clothing while riding. The amount of scooters and moped in london
    with people wearing next to nothing or indeed skirt/sandals...
    <shudders>

    Would motorcycle leathers be more appropriate on a scooter?

  17. davek said:

    Black (noun). The achromatic colour of maximum lightness; the colour
    of objects that reflect nearly all light of all visible wavelengths.

    Erm, unless I am being totaly thick and missing the point (not unusual),
    surely that should be white
    --
    This post contains no hidden meanings, no implications and certainly no
    hidden agendas so it should be taken at face value. The wrong words
    may be used this is due to my limitations with the English language .

  18. soup said:
    davek said:

    Black (noun). The achromatic colour of maximum lightness; the colour
    of objects that reflect nearly all light of all visible wavelengths.

    Erm, unless I am being totaly thick and missing the point (not
    unusual), surely that should be white

    Any legal dictionary will define black as white if need be.

    It was a pretty good joke, I think.
    --
    Ambrose

  19. soup said:
    davek said:

    Black (noun). The achromatic colour of maximum lightness; the colour
    of objects that reflect nearly all light of all visible wavelengths.

    Erm, unless I am being totaly thick and missing the point (not
    unusual), surely that should be white

    Ah, but this is a /legal/ dictionary. They'll have you believe that black
    is, in fact, white, and vice-versa -- though not always.

  20. Ambrose Nankivell said:
    soup said:
    davek said:

    Black (noun). The achromatic colour of maximum lightness; the colour
    of objects that reflect nearly all light of all visible wavelengths.

    Erm, unless I am being totaly thick and missing the point (not
    unusual), surely that should be white

    Any legal dictionary will define black as white if need be.

    They'll even call it a noun.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.