Emma Foa's death- verdict announced



S

spindrift

Guest
A lorry driver who ran over and killed a cyclist who was a writer and
jewellery designer was today fined £300 after admitting careless
driving.

Emma Foa, 56 died as she cycled from her home in Hampstead Heath to
work in Clerkenwell in December. She was killed instantly after being
crushed between the cement mixer's rear wheels and roadside railings.

At Westminster Magistrates Court today Michael Thorn, 52 of Headley
Down, Surrey was allowed to keep his driver's licence and was ordered
to pay £100 costs.

The court had been told that Thorn had been looking for some papers in
his cabin when the bike was beside him and also when his vehicle began
to turn left and the fatal crash occured.

The family of Ms Foa - the daughter of typewriter magnate Adriano
Ollivetti said she was wearing a luminious reflector jacket and a
helmet when she was crushed by the two tonne lorry.

District Judge Anthony Evans said:

"I accept in cases of this sort it's distressing for all concerned,
the family of the disceased and the driver whose inadvertance has
resulted in a fatality."


Prosecutor Graham Parkinson told the court the incident happened at
9.10am in Camley Street, Kings Cross.

"Emma was riding her bike and reached the traffic lights. She went
along the nearside and waited for the lights to change," he said.

"She was alongside for 37 seconds and would have been visible. He
moved off and turned left causing her to be pushed to the ground and
killed instantly. He had been looking for some paperwork in his truck...
He felt a bump, saw a bike and jumped out to find her."


Karen Dempsey, defending, said that Thorn was "shocked and distressed"
and that the incident "would live with him for the rest of his life".
She added that witnesses had said he was not driving aggressively.

I am not sure what I am most shocked by. I am not shocked that,
despite the fact that Mr Thorn's criminal negligence has resulted in
the unlawful killing of Ms Foa, the court is allowing him to continue
to drive.

I am not shocked that, despite being found guilty of road crime, the
driver has been fined £300.

The sentence is entirely in keeping with the tariff for road killing.
The driver who killed London bicycle messenger Sebastian Lukomski
received a 6 point endorsement and a £1000 fine.

Yet again, the old adage 'if you want to get away with murder, get
behind the wheel of a lorry' is proven true. OK, it's not murder, it's
manslaughter but someone is dead because someone else was in charge of
dangerous machinery, and failed to their job properly.



I am shocked that the judge has chosen the word "inadvertence" to
describe the actions of the driver. Making a left turn whilst fumbling
for papers in a HGV? That's not inadvertence - that's just f***ing
stupid.


I am shocked that the defending barrister said that the driver was not
driving aggressively.
As if a lack of aggression excuses somehow a negligent act which has
led to an avoidable death. The dead woman's only mistake was to be
riding her bicycle and assuming that "a luminous reflective jacket"
and a helmet would protect her.

She stopped at the lights, and she wasn't in the "blind spot". But
the driver didn't see her, because he wasn't looking. And she was
crushed to death because he was too busy checking his pay-sheet to
make sure he had got his overtime to pay attention to what his two-
tonne machine might be rolling over.


This is the reality of cycling in London. No matter how many
campaigns, no matter how much lobbying, no matter how many pro-cycling
articles the fact remains that any stupid, lazy, feckless waster of an
idiot of a driver can kill with virtual impunity- the fine equivelent
to less than the cost of the bike.

Beyond belief.
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
> A lorry driver who ran over and killed a cyclist who was a writer and
> jewellery designer was today fined £300 after admitting careless
> driving.
>


If he'd been a crane operator on site and had dropped a girder on
someone who had walked underneath because he was rummaging through some
papers at the time all hell would break loose with the HSE but because
he's driving for work, no-one really seems to be bothered with what he
did.

Another one happened last week in Cambridge
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/huntingdon/2007/09/17/a540dea3-
68e3-4e41-bea0-6409ef73de6c.lpf

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell
 
spindrift wrote:
> A lorry driver who ran over and killed a cyclist who was a writer and
> jewellery designer was today fined £300 after admitting careless
> driving.


> District Judge Anthony Evans said:
>
> "I accept in cases of this sort it's distressing for all concerned,
> the family of the disceased and the driver whose inadvertance has
> resulted in a fatality."


This is the current mindset. Roads are dangerous places and it's sad
but unavoidable that "fatalities" will occur. There's no need to do
anyhing about it because nothing can be done. C'est la vie...

> Beyond belief.


No, on current form, entirely believable.


--
Brian G
www.wetwo.co.uk
 
On Sep 21, 8:12 am, spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
> A lorry driver who ran over and killed a cyclist who was a writer and
> jewellery designer was today fined £300 after admitting careless
> driving.
>
> Emma Foa, 56 died as she cycled from her home in Hampstead Heath to
> work in Clerkenwell in December. She was killed instantly after being
> crushed between the cement mixer's rear wheels and roadside railings.


........

> Beyond belief.


Unfortunately not, but I know what you mean.

Coincidentaly, I got a letter from the police this week detailing the
final outcome of an incident I was involved in a few months back. I
was knocked off my bike by a driver coming the other way that decided
to turn right. One cracked rib, six stitches in a head wound, very
sore left thumb that made using Campag shifters difficult for a few
weeks, road rash and £350 worth of damage to my bike.

The driver stopped, very apologetic, admitted fault straight away,
plenty of witnesses including an off-duty fire service paramedic who
patched me up until the ambulance arrived. Surrey police were
excellent, helped by the fact that the guy who took my statement in
A&E was a cyclist.

I got a letter informing me that the driver had been given the option
of going on a driver awareness course in leiu of prosecution, which
seemed like a good idea to me. However for whatever reason she didn't
go on it and pleaded guilty to driving without due care. £300 fine,
28 day ban & licence endorsed. Which sound like more than this guy
got for killing the poor woman.

Dave
 
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 00:12:50 -0700, spindrift <[email protected]>
wrote:

>The dead woman's only mistake was to be
>riding her bicycle and assuming that "a luminous reflective jacket"
>and a helmet would protect her.


Getting into the habit of jumping red lights might have given her even
more protection.
 
spindrift wrote:
> A lorry driver who ran over and killed a cyclist who was a writer and
> to less than the cost of the bike.
>
> Beyond belief.
>


2 tonne lorry? What world are they living in, we've got car that weighs
more than that - im fairly sure a cement mixer would trump that!

Unbelievable, it really is.
 
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 02:29:24 -0700, [email protected] wrote:

> On Sep 21, 8:12 am, spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
>> A lorry driver who ran over and killed a cyclist who was a writer and
>> jewellery designer was today fined £300 after admitting careless
>> driving.
>>
>> Emma Foa, 56 died as she cycled from her home in Hampstead Heath to
>> work in Clerkenwell in December. She was killed instantly after being
>> crushed between the cement mixer's rear wheels and roadside railings.

>
> .......
>
>> Beyond belief.

>
> Unfortunately not, but I know what you mean.
>
> Coincidentaly, I got a letter from the police this week detailing the
> final outcome of an incident I was involved in a few months back. I
> was knocked off my bike by a driver coming the other way that decided
> to turn right. One cracked rib, six stitches in a head wound, very
> sore left thumb that made using Campag shifters difficult for a few
> weeks, road rash and £350 worth of damage to my bike.
>
> The driver stopped, very apologetic, admitted fault straight away,
> plenty of witnesses including an off-duty fire service paramedic who
> patched me up until the ambulance arrived. Surrey police were
> excellent, helped by the fact that the guy who took my statement in
> A&E was a cyclist.
>
> I got a letter informing me that the driver had been given the option
> of going on a driver awareness course in leiu of prosecution, which
> seemed like a good idea to me. However for whatever reason she didn't
> go on it and pleaded guilty to driving without due care. £300 fine,
> 28 day ban & licence endorsed. Which sound like more than this guy
> got for killing the poor woman.
>


Dave, it is your duty to write a letter to the Times giving the same
account (and drawing the same comparison). Let us know if you do, and if
they publish it.
 
In article <[email protected]>, Coyoteboy
[email protected] says...

> 2 tonne lorry? What world are they living in, we've got car that weighs
> more than that - im fairly sure a cement mixer would trump that!
>

One of those Minimix things? They're just a LDV-type chassis cab with a
drum on the back, so probably not very heavy unladen.
 
"Thorn had been looking for some papers in his cabin when the bike was
beside him and also when his vehicle began to turn left and the fatal
crash occured."

A person in control of 20t or so of stationary metal and cement should
not move this vehicle without a thorough check that there is nothing
in its path and, if he can't be sure whether he's about to squash
someone or not, stay still until he can be sure.

To behave otherwise is dangerous driving, which in this case caused
death.

And as for the ridiculous £300 fine - this bugger should have been
locked up for a few years and banned from driving for life, since he's
obviously incompetent as a driver and should not be allowed charge of
heavy machinery.
 
Emma's husband and his daughters had turned up at court a few weeks
ago to be told that the case would be heard on October 3.

http://www.thecnj.co.uk/camden/09200...092007_04.html

"We made emotional space for that date, but I received a call this
morning from a police officer telling me the case was settled," he
said.

Typical really, isn't it. Wouldn't want upset and grieving relatives
messing up a routine points and fine outcome, would we? Best they
aren't in attendance. Might hold up the rest of the day's proceedings.
Give them a quick call after the event.

£300 and five points for a driver's inattention causing death is a
disgrace.

To suggest the cyclist was at fault is irrelevant. They were both
stationary at a junction, ffs. The lorry driver didn't check it was
safe to turn before manoevering.
 
spindrift wrote:
> Emma's husband and his daughters had turned up at court a few weeks
> ago to be told that the case would be heard on October 3.
>
> http://www.thecnj.co.uk/camden/09200...092007_04.html
>
> "We made emotional space for that date, but I received a call this
> morning from a police officer telling me the case was settled," he
> said.
>
> Typical really, isn't it. Wouldn't want upset and grieving relatives
> messing up a routine points and fine outcome, would we? Best they
> aren't in attendance. Might hold up the rest of the day's proceedings.
> Give them a quick call after the event.


Looks like the CPS 'did a deal' - probably something in mitigation that may
or may not exist....

A couple of years back the CPS stitched up [sic] my mate (stabbing victim,
in the side of the head) by charging the attacker with assault rather than
GBH.... he got away with community service pleading 'suicide, life ruined'
etc.
 
Marc Brett wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 00:12:50 -0700, spindrift <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> The dead woman's only mistake was to be
>> riding her bicycle and assuming that "a luminous reflective jacket"
>> and a helmet would protect her.

>
> Getting into the habit of jumping red lights might have given her even
> more protection.


Not stopping by the side of a lorry might also have worked, or if she
arrived first, stopping in the primary position such that the lorry could
not come up alongside. See paras 2-5 page 84 of Cycle craft.

pk
 
On 2007-09-21, p.k. <[email protected]> wrote:
> Not stopping by the side of a lorry might also have worked, or if she
> arrived first, stopping in the primary position such that the lorry could
> not come up alongside. See paras 2-5 page 84 of Cycle craft.


This is why I never, ever pass stopped traffic on the nearside. Even if
you're in the right doing it, being "dead right" would suck. If traffic
is stopped for a short while, I wait in the queue with everyone else, in
about the position the offside wheel of cars run (to make me very
visible to the driver in front and behind, and also discourage foolish
overtaking when I can maintain traffic speed "driver principle Cyclists
Must Be Overtaken Now"). If I do need to pass traffic, I do so with
extreme caution and in the same way a motorcyclist would - i.e. be in
the place a driver would expect overtaking traffic.

Going up the nearside is also just begging to have a car door opened on
you. A passenger being given a lift, who decides to walk the rest of the
way, simply won't be expecting the car they are in to be overtaken by a
vehicle travelling in the gutter. The passenger may be wrong in not
checking it's clear first, but if you're on a bike, it's you who will be
in hospital if a door is opened into your path.

--
Yes, the Reply-To email address is valid.
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
 
Dylan Smith <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 2007-09-21, p.k. <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Not stopping by the side of a lorry might also have worked, or if she
> > arrived first, stopping in the primary position such that the lorry could
> > not come up alongside. See paras 2-5 page 84 of Cycle craft.

>
> This is why I never, ever pass stopped traffic on the nearside. Even if
> you're in the right doing it, being "dead right" would suck. If traffic
> is stopped for a short while, I wait in the queue with everyone else, in
> about the position the offside wheel of cars run (to make me very
> visible to the driver in front and behind, and also discourage foolish
> overtaking when I can maintain traffic speed "driver principle Cyclists
> Must Be Overtaken Now"). If I do need to pass traffic, I do so with
> extreme caution and in the same way a motorcyclist would - i.e. be in
> the place a driver would expect overtaking traffic.
>

yup i tend to do that, filtering is a risk as your passing within the
blind zones of car, in heavy traffic cars etc maybe not beable to see
filtering bikes. so being where they might expect it seems wise.

and on some roads such as the 308 between kingston and hampton court,
they have a wide enought middle to allow much better visablity than
cutter hugging in the bike lane.

> Going up the nearside is also just begging to have a car door opened on
> you. A passenger being given a lift, who decides to walk the rest of the
> way, simply won't be expecting the car they are in to be overtaken by a
> vehicle travelling in the gutter. The passenger may be wrong in not
> checking it's clear first, but if you're on a bike, it's you who will be
> in hospital if a door is opened into your path.


quite

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com
 
On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 09:09:34 +0100 someone who may be Brian G
<[email protected]> wrote this:-

>This is the current mindset. Roads are dangerous places and it's sad
>but unavoidable that "fatalities" will occur. There's no need to do
>anyhing about it because nothing can be done. C'est la vie...


I generally agree, but there are exceptions. A motorist is currently
on trial for murder after he crashed into a pedestrian in Edinburgh
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1551842007


--
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
 
On 21 Sep, 12:32, spindrift <[email protected]> wrote:
> "Thorn had been looking for some papers in his cabin when the bike was
> beside him and also when his vehicle began to turn left and the fatal
> crash occured."
>
> A person in control of 20t or so of stationary metal and cement should
> not move this vehicle without a thorough check that there is nothing
> in its path and, if he can't be sure whether he's about to squash
> someone or not, stay still until he can be sure.
>
> To behave otherwise is dangerous driving, which in this case caused
> death.
>
> And as for the ridiculous £300 fine - this bugger should have been
> locked up for a few years and banned from driving for life, since he's
> obviously incompetent as a driver and should not be allowed charge of
> heavy machinery.


OH dear - LONG.

In general I have great sympathy with the view that cyclists are
badly treated by motorists. I have for example given up cycling on the
road in central London due to the agressive nature of the driving.

I do not see however how I as a driver could meet the requirements
stated here. I don't think I have enough eyes. I am not discussing
by the way the particular death mentioned since I have
absolutely no knowledge of the case. Say the driver must
check to the left, behind to the left, and ahead. What order
is he to do this in? How much time must be given over to each
direction. After how much time has elapsed must the
checks be repeated? Requiring that drivers of possibly
large vehicles that are turning left take account of any possible
incursion
by an overtaking cyclist is just not in my view possible
while maintaing safe passage ahead.

Clearly the law could be changed and we could have a
platoon of drivers on large vehicles each watching a small
enough field of view such that they could cover it in a
concentrated manner. Not even a mouse could be at risk of
being inadvertently crushed. However, who is then in charge?
Who says stop, who says go? Who is to pay for it?

The key question is I feel:-

"Where should the driver be looking when he lets the clutch bite"

I think that have a responsibility to be looking forwards, I don't
see
how I can simultaniously be looking anywhere else.

When I was cycling on the road I took the view of another poster
here and would never consider going alongside a large
vehicle in any way that could result in me being trapped
as it turned or otherwise moved off. I am just not in that
much of a hurry.

The highway code recommends that motorists do not
overtake at junctions - I have no idea if that includes other
road users - and when I cycle I apply that as required.

It appears to me that in some cases (NOT in ANY
sense referring to the case that started this thread)
cavalier behaviour by cyclists is the result of
a lack of imagination. This could be changed by
training I would guess.

I think however that the most urgent training need on the
roads is that of motorists.

As I say, I just don't see that the suggeted standard of control
is practical. I would be delighted for it to be demonstrated
otherwise and of course there will be various technical
solutions around the corner.

Finally, I AM NOT including in this the cases where drivers
half overtake cyclists and - turn left, pull in at the bus stop
or manoeuvre in any other way. I am strictly refering to
cases where cyclists overtake other vehicles, stationary or
otherwise.

I do think that drivers treat cyclists attrociously, however
these left turn from stationary cases seem to me to
be the result of daft cycling. I am sure that if I wanted to pay
attention I could find for myself, every day, examples of cyclists
going alonside, and even stopping beside, large stationary
vehicles between a rigid steel fence and the side of the truck
right at the the lights where the truck may or may not be
turning left.

Simply daft.
 
in message <[email protected]>, David Hansen
('[email protected]') wrote:

> On Fri, 21 Sep 2007 09:09:34 +0100 someone who may be Brian G
> <[email protected]> wrote this:-
>
>>This is the current mindset. Roads are dangerous places and it's sad
>>but unavoidable that "fatalities" will occur. There's no need to do
>>anyhing about it because nothing can be done. C'est la vie...

>
> I generally agree, but there are exceptions. A motorist is currently
> on trial for murder after he crashed into a pedestrian in Edinburgh
> http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1551842007


I find that very, very encouraging - it marks a definite change of policy
by the Edinburgh Fiscal, and I look forward to the verdict with interest.

--
[email protected] (Simon Brooke) http://www.jasmine.org.uk/~simon/
;; Our modern industrial economy takes a mountain covered with trees,
;; lakes, running streams and transforms it into a mountain of junk,
;; garbage, slime pits, and debris. -- Edward Abbey
 
In article <[email protected]>, Bod43
@hotmail.co.uk says...

>
> The key question is I feel:-
>
> "Where should the driver be looking when he lets the clutch bite"
>
> I think that have a responsibility to be looking forwards, I don't
> see


You seem to be under the misapprehension that cyclists suddenly appear
magically at a location in a split second. They do not. They occur
over several seconds at least. If you do not have the capability to
check all round in the period of time it takes for a situation like this
to develop then I suggest you hand in your license. Of course if you
are too busy shuffling through and reading papers to have the time to
undertake even rudimentary checks then I see your point in which case
your license should be removed from you. YMMV.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell
 
Simon Brooke <[email protected]> writes:
> in message <[email protected]>, David Hansen
> ('[email protected]') wrote:
>

....
>> I generally agree, but there are exceptions. A motorist is currently
>> on trial for murder after he crashed into a pedestrian in Edinburgh
>> http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=1551842007

>
> I find that very, very encouraging - it marks a definite change of policy
> by the Edinburgh Fiscal, and I look forward to the verdict with interest.


There's much to this than appears in the report in the link above.
This incident received a huge amount of coverage in the local press
when in originally happened. It seems that the car which killed the
boy had earlier been the subject of a police pursuit. After knocking
the boy down, the 3 occupants of the car dumped it and disappeared.
There was then a search for them which lasted several weeks (amid
reports that they were "travellers" who'd been involved in a sequence
of bogus workman incidents) until they were eventually arrested in
England. If you want to know more, the Scotsman website has close to
100 items.

(See http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh.cfm?id=1480762006,
http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh.cfm?id=1495072006,
http://news.scotsman.com/edinburgh.cfm?id=1488792006
for example)

So this isn't your standard motorist-knocks-down-pedestrian story;
presumably the press are taking a subdued approach because the trial
is currently is progress.

KM
 
On 28 Sep, 21:44, Tony Raven <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, Bod43
> @hotmail.co.uk says...
>
>
>
> > The key question is I feel:-

>
> > "Where should the driver be looking when he lets the clutch bite"

>
> > I think that have a responsibility to be looking forwards, I don't
> > see

>
> You seem to be under the misapprehension that cyclists suddenly appear
> magically at a location in a split second. They do not. They occur
> over several seconds at least. If you do not have the capability to
> check all round in the period of time it takes for a situation like this
> to develop then I suggest you hand in your license. Of course if you
> are too busy shuffling through and reading papers to have the time to
> undertake even rudimentary checks then I see your point in which case
> your license should be removed from you. YMMV.



Whether I am a fit person to drive or not is one
thing, however this is not the problem.

The problem is that the previous discussion
has one view on how motorists ought to behave
and the highway code and driving test has another.

A few years ago I sat my motorbike test. At no time
during the training or in my preparatory reading
or during the test was it mentioned, examined, or
required, to check for overtaking traffic of ANY kind
before moving off from a stationary position
at traffic lights.

Many years before that I sat the driving test and
I can recall no related training or examination
there either.

It may be that you would like it that drivers
take particular care to avoid collisions caused by
reckless overtaking by
cyclists but as far as I am aware there is no such
mention in the highway code or anywhere else.

As I recall it is quite the reverse - the responsibility is
quite firmly on the overtaker.

I would be prepared to accept such changes but
I am not interested in putting my health in the care of
such concepts unless supported by the law and the
practise of motorists. As I mentioned I think that
it is an onerous task to reliably detect such cyclists.

You mention several seconds. Perhaps you would
like to put some hard numbers on that,

The vehicle mentioned in this sad thread was stated to be
about 2 tons. Lets say 20 ft long.

Are you saying that drivers need to look our for
overtaking cyclists that are travelling at less that
5 feet per second (3 mph) and that other cyclists
are responsible for their own fate?

How might that be judged?

As I stated I am far from happy with the
way that drivers threaten cyclists with death
every day with complete impunity. I do however feel that
this particular issue is not one that has any
satisfactory conclusion in prospect.

Perhaps you would suggest that the highway code
should be amended to indicate that overtaking
trucks between the truck and a railing on the nearside
is safe and recommended as long as the cycle speed is
kept to less that 5 ft per sec? In that case it is the
truck drivers responsibility to check for several seconds
that there is no cyclist caressing the wheels, however
if the cyclist goes too fast then the driver has no
responsibilty since there will not be the required
several second detection window.

That is daft too.

The reason that I am writing this is that I
have concerns that a few contributors have
incorrect and unrealistic expectaions. I have no axe
to grind at all. I have not driven a car for 3 years
either, I just dont have to. On that day I drove 5 miles and
2 years before that I drove 400 miles on one day.

I just worry about the health of some that I
observe on the road.
 

Similar threads

C
Replies
5
Views
768
D
D
Replies
45
Views
1K
UK and Europe
Just zis Guy, you know?
J