Emma Foa's death- verdict announced

[marc]

[email protected] wrote:
> 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.

Bollocks, if you were trained properly you were told to look in both
mirrors before moving off.In fact I can remember being told to look in
both in turn , then do the Hendon shuffle then look in turn again.
Of course you could be one of those semi trained motocylcists that I see
daily that pull away with one of both feet trailing advertising their
lack of expertise?
>
> Many years before that I sat the driving test and
> I can recall no related training or examination
> there either.

Short memory? Does the phrase MIRROR- SIGNAL- MANOUVEUR jog your memory?
When moving forward MIRROR, then no SIGNAL is required, then MANOUVEUR
by paulling away.
>
> 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.
How about ....
"211

It is often difficult to see motorcyclists and cyclists, especially when
they are coming up from behind, coming out of junctions, at roundabouts,
overtaking you or filtering through traffic. Always look out for them
before you emerge from a junction; they could be approaching faster than
you think. When turning right across a line of slow-moving or stationary
traffic, look out for cyclists or motorcyclists on the inside of the
traffic you are crossing. Be especially careful when turning, and when
changing direction or lane. Be sure to check mirrors and blind spots
carefully."
>
> As I recall it is quite the reverse - the responsibility is
> quite firmly on the overtaker.
I suggest you read the HC again then you may discover such gems as

"151

In slow-moving traffic. You should


* be aware of cyclists and motorcyclists who may be passing on
either side"
>
> 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.
>
>

 

[Tony Raven]

In article <[email protected]>, Bod43
@hotmail.co.uk says...
>
> 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.
>

You clearly can't remember the mantra drilled into all learner drivers
of Mirror, Signal, Maneuver. Perhaps its time for you to retake your
test. This is from the Driver and Vehicle Testing Agencies website on
the ten main reasons for failing a driving test:

"Moving away

Remember always to use your mirrors, and signal if necessary. Just
before moving away, check that it is safe by looking round for traffic
and pedestrians in your blind spots. Move off in a controlled way
making balanced use of accelerator, clutch and brakes, and steer
safely...."

Don't forget that in the case in point there was clear video footage of
the accident and as the prosecution said in the trial "She was alongside
for 37 seconds and would have been visible." If the driver fails to
check his mirrors for that length of time before turning left at traffic
light then there is no excuse. Of course its not surprising that he
didn't because, as came out at the trial, he was busy searching for and
reading papers in his cab both while waiting for the lights to change
and moving off. But hey, it was only a cyclist he killed with his
carelessness and rates a much lower punishment than if he had walked
over someone's Lamborghini.

There is no dilemma; pay attention to the road and check your mirrors.
Simple really and it could save a life.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

 

[JNugent]

Tony Raven wrote:

> 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.

And that, of course, as the PP may or may not have known, is actually
the typical extremist ukrc response. It sums to: "I'm going to do
exactly as I like, without regard for anyone or anything (including my
own safety) and everyone else had better watch out for me; and by the
way, if they don't - or can't - they'd better hand in their driving
licence".

> 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.

And there goes even more of it.

It absolutely clear that you did not read (or at least, did not
understand) the very reasonable points made by the PP.

 

[Danny Colyer]

On 29/09/2007 01:28, [email protected] wrote:
> Many years before that I sat the driving test and
> I can recall no related training or examination
> there either.

Checking for bikes coming up on the inside when turning left came up in
my driving test, 17 years ago.

--
Danny Colyer <http://www.redpedals.co.uk>
Reply address is valid, but that on my website is checked more often
"The plural of anecdote is not data" - Frank Kotsonis

 

[Tony Raven]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> > 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.
>
> And that, of course, as the PP may or may not have known, is actually
> the typical extremist ukrc response. It sums to: "I'm going to do
> exactly as I like, without regard for anyone or anything (including my
> own safety) and everyone else had better watch out for me; and by the
> way, if they don't - or can't - they'd better hand in their driving
> licence".

You clearly should have failed your driving test too (see my PP for a
top ten reason people fail their test)

>
> It absolutely clear that you did not read (or at least, did not
> understand) the very reasonable points made by the PP.
>

What? That he's incapable of carrying out the standard checks that
every driver has to master to pass their test?

But back to the case in point - do you think that a cyclist that was in
a position clearly visible to the driver if he had looked and was there
for 37 seconds while he was rummaging for his papers was "Doing exactly
as they liked without regard for anyone or anything" and that the driver
was not responsible for looking out for her?

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

 

[JNugent]

Tony Raven wrote:

> [email protected] says...

>>>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.

>>And that, of course, as the PP may or may not have known, is actually
>>the typical extremist ukrc response. It sums to: "I'm going to do
>>exactly as I like, without regard for anyone or anything (including my
>>own safety) and everyone else had better watch out for me; and by the
>>way, if they don't - or can't - they'd better hand in their driving
>>licence".

> You clearly should have failed your driving test too (see my PP for a
> top ten reason people fail their test)

But I never failed. I passed first time (it was a long time ago, in a
busy part of London).

And you're at it again, aren't you?

>>It absolutely clear that you did not read (or at least, did not
>>understand) the very reasonable points made by the PP.

> What? That he's incapable of carrying out the standard checks that
> every driver has to master to pass their test?

No - he said he cannot look everywhere at once. Perhaps you think that
no-one without eyes in the back and sides of their head should "hand
in their driving licence".

> But back to the case in point - do you think that a cyclist that was in
> a position clearly visible to the driver if he had looked and was there
> for 37 seconds while he was rummaging for his papers was "Doing exactly
> as they liked without regard for anyone or anything" and that the driver
> was not responsible for looking out for her?

IIRC, you were referring to was a tragic case where a cyclist
unfortunately pulled up on the nearside of a lorry that was waiting to
turn left. A lorry is a large vehicle and the driver's position is
high up. As far as I'm aware (it's a long time since I was in the cab
of a lorry), there are no mirrors on a lorry aimed at the carriageway
adjacent to the nearside cab door or nearside front wheel. That spot
is shielded from the driver's gaze and will always be so until lorries
are made of Perspex. It's just one reason why overtaking on the left
in such a situation is, as the PP said, daft.

Whatever the "standard checks" may be, they cannot include any check
that requires the ability to see through solid steel.

But obviously, any lorry driver not blessed with X-Ray vision should
"hand in their driving licence".

Would you not agree even a little with HC advice not to overtake on
the left?

 

[p.k.]

Tony Raven wrote:
>> Don't forget that in the case in point there was clear video footage
> of the accident and as the prosecution said in the trial "She was
> alongside for 37 seconds and would have been visible." If the
> driver fails to check his mirrors for that length of time before
> turning left at traffic light then there is no excuse. Of course its
> not surprising that he didn't because, as came out at the trial, he
> was busy searching for and reading papers in his cab both while
> waiting for the lights to change and moving off. .
>


all that is true, but if she had followed the guidance of cyclecraft - of
lauded here or its sensible guidance - she would not have put herself in
that position.

She was in the right - but dead right is still dead.

pk

 

[Tony Raven]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> No - he said he cannot look everywhere at once. Perhaps you think that
> no-one without eyes in the back and sides of their head should "hand
> in their driving licence".

So when they require you on your driving test to "Just before moving
away, check that it is safe by looking round for traffic and
pedestrians in your blind spots." they are asking the impossible?
You should try that one on the examiner when you retake your test.

But how about looking everywhere in 37 seconds? Is that asking too much
or is checking they've got the overtime right on your payslip more
important than a cyclist's life?

>
> > But back to the case in point - do you think that a cyclist that was in
> > a position clearly visible to the driver if he had looked and was there
> > for 37 seconds while he was rummaging for his papers was "Doing exactly
> > as they liked without regard for anyone or anything" and that the driver
> > was not responsible for looking out for her?
>
> IIRC, you were referring to was a tragic case where a cyclist
> unfortunately pulled up on the nearside of a lorry that was waiting to
> turn left. A lorry is a large vehicle and the driver's position is
> high up. As far as I'm aware (it's a long time since I was in the cab
> of a lorry), there are no mirrors on a lorry aimed at the carriageway
> adjacent to the nearside cab door or nearside front wheel. That spot
> is shielded from the driver's gaze and will always be so until lorries
> are made of Perspex. It's just one reason why overtaking on the left
> in such a situation is, as the PP said, daft.

Yes, I'm referring to the subject of this thread. And it seems you
think they were wrong when the Court was told "?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.?

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell

 

[JNugent]

Tony Raven wrote:

> [email protected] says...

>>No - he said he cannot look everywhere at once. Perhaps you think that
>>no-one without eyes in the back and sides of their head should "hand
>>in their driving licence".

> So when they require you on your driving test to "Just before moving
> away, check that it is safe by looking round for traffic and
> pedestrians in your blind spots." they are asking the impossible?
> You should try that one on the examiner when you retake your test.

Looking at places you can't see is unproductive.

I don't need to retake my test. I never drive down the gutter to try
to undertake lorries turning left.

> But how about looking everywhere in 37 seconds? Is that asking too much
> or is checking they've got the overtime right on your payslip more
> important than a cyclist's life?

No-one can see a spot where there is a solid obstruction between them
and that spot. Mirrors help, but there are only so many of them.

>>>But back to the case in point - do you think that a cyclist that was in
>>>a position clearly visible to the driver if he had looked and was there
>>>for 37 seconds while he was rummaging for his papers was "Doing exactly
>>>as they liked without regard for anyone or anything" and that the driver
>>>was not responsible for looking out for her?

>>IIRC, you were referring to was a tragic case where a cyclist
>>unfortunately pulled up on the nearside of a lorry that was waiting to
>>turn left. A lorry is a large vehicle and the driver's position is
>>high up. As far as I'm aware (it's a long time since I was in the cab
>>of a lorry), there are no mirrors on a lorry aimed at the carriageway
>> adjacent to the nearside cab door or nearside front wheel. That spot
>>is shielded from the driver's gaze and will always be so until lorries
>>are made of Perspex. It's just one reason why overtaking on the left
>>in such a situation is, as the PP said, daft.

> Yes, I'm referring to the subject of this thread. And it seems you
> think they were wrong when the Court was told "?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.?

The fact that a court was "told" something is neither here nor there.
The mind boggles, for instance, at what David Icke - or perhaps your
good self - might "tell" a court.

What does "would have been visible" mean when the cyclist was in a
spot simply not visible from the driver's seat? That's what the PP was
pointing out to you.

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>, p.k.
[email protected] says...

> all that is true, but if she had followed the guidance of cyclecraft - of
> lauded here or its sensible guidance - she would not have put herself in
> that position.
>
Tony was only addressing some idiot who thinks it's OK to move his
vehicle when he's not fully aware of his surroundings - we already know
that filtering down the inside can be dangerous when there are numpties
around.

 

[Roger Merriman]

Danny Colyer <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 29/09/2007 01:28, [email protected] wrote:
> > Many years before that I sat the driving test and
> > I can recall no related training or examination
> > there either.
>
> Checking for bikes coming up on the inside when turning left came up in
> my driving test, 17 years ago.

i have to say it didn't come up that i rember in my test, but then since
bikes are so rarely used nr my folks place....

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

 

[Roger Merriman]

Danny Colyer <[email protected]> wrote:

> On 29/09/2007 01:28, [email protected] wrote:
> > Many years before that I sat the driving test and
> > I can recall no related training or examination
> > there either.
>
> Checking for bikes coming up on the inside when turning left came up in
> my driving test, 17 years ago.

i have to say it didn't come up that i rember in my test, but then since
bikes are so rarely used nr my folks place....

roger
--
www.rogermerriman.com

 

[Terry]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Rob Morley) wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, p.k.
> [email protected] says...
>
> > all that is true, but if she had followed the guidance of
> > cyclecraft - of lauded here or its sensible guidance - she would
> > not have put herself in that position.
> >
> Tony was only addressing some idiot who thinks it's OK to move his
> vehicle when he's not fully aware of his surroundings - we already
> know that filtering down the inside can be dangerous when there are
> numpties around.
>

I'm not fmiliar with the word numpties but assuming it means fools it's
worth noting that ordinary sensible people make mistakes too. We can be
forgetful, momentarily distracted, pre-occupied, etc.

When I achieve perfection I'll expect the same of others. Until then
I'll expect the unexpected and try to leave myself room for manoeuvre.

 

[p.k.]

Terry wrote:
>> I'm not fmiliar with the word numpties but assuming it means fools
> it's worth noting that ordinary sensible people make mistakes too. We
> can be forgetful, momentarily distracted, pre-occupied, etc.
>
> When I achieve perfection I'll expect the same of others. Until then
> I'll expect the unexpected and try to leave myself room for manoeuvre.

A very sensible approach!

Anyone who cycles up beside a stationary lorry at traffic lights is a
candidate for a Darwin Award.

Cyclecraft:

"From a cycist's point of view, the greates hazard is not being seen by
other drivers. with thei concentration already attractd by the signals
themselves, a cyclist can be overlooked, so it is necessary to makyourself
as conspicuous as possible by positioning.

.......occupy the primary position...... do not allow any other vehicle to
share the same lane to the side of you.

..... it is unusually foolish to creep up the inside of queues at signals, as
you will not easily be seen by other drivers. Never pass a bus or long
vehicle in the same lane near the head of a signal queue"


pk

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>, Terry
[email protected] says...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Rob Morley) wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>, p.k.
> > [email protected] says...
> >
> > > all that is true, but if she had followed the guidance of
> > > cyclecraft - of lauded here or its sensible guidance - she would
> > > not have put herself in that position.
> > >
> > Tony was only addressing some idiot who thinks it's OK to move his
> > vehicle when he's not fully aware of his surroundings - we already
> > know that filtering down the inside can be dangerous when there are
> > numpties around.
> >
>
> I'm not fmiliar with the word numpties but assuming it means fools it's
> worth noting that ordinary sensible people make mistakes too. We can be
> forgetful, momentarily distracted, pre-occupied, etc.

I love the word 'numpty'. Apparently it will be included in the new
OED.
>
> When I achieve perfection I'll expect the same of others. Until then
> I'll expect the unexpected and try to leave myself room for manoeuvre.
>
I'm also less than perfect, but that's no argument against the
/principle/ of not moving away without making observations in all
directions. The earlier post stated

"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."

This fool apparently thinks that he only needs to look forward, and that
was the concern of the following comments.

 

[Terry]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Rob Morley) wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Terry
> [email protected] says...
> > When I achieve perfection I'll expect the same of others. Until
> > then I'll expect the unexpected and try to leave myself room for
> > manoeuvre.

> I'm also less than perfect, but that's no argument against the
> /principle/ of not moving away without making observations in all
> directions. The earlier post stated

It wasn't intended as, and could never be, an argument against that
principle. It's an argument in favour of taking the world as it is
rather than what it would be if everyone obeyed every rule on every
occasion.

> This fool apparently thinks that he only needs to look forward, and
> that was the concern of the following comments.

On this point, having not had access to the driver's thoughts at the
time, I cannot comment.

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>, Terry
[email protected] says...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Rob Morley) wrote:
>
> > In article <[email protected]>, Terry
> > [email protected] says...
> > > When I achieve perfection I'll expect the same of others. Until
> > > then I'll expect the unexpected and try to leave myself room for
> > > manoeuvre.
>
> > I'm also less than perfect, but that's no argument against the
> > /principle/ of not moving away without making observations in all
> > directions. The earlier post stated
>
> It wasn't intended as, and could never be, an argument against that
> principle. It's an argument in favour of taking the world as it is
> rather than what it would be if everyone obeyed every rule on every
> occasion.

That wasn't the subject of that particular part of the thread - did you
mean to make the comment elsewhere?
>
> > This fool apparently thinks that he only needs to look forward, and
> > that was the concern of the following comments.
>
> On this point, having not had access to the driver's thoughts at the
> time, I cannot comment.
>
I quoted the relevant part of the earlier post - are you being
deliberately obtuse?

 

[Terry]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Rob Morley) wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, Terry
> [email protected] says...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > [email protected] (Rob Morley) wrote:
> >
> > > In article <[email protected]>, Terry
> > > [email protected] says...
> > > > When I achieve perfection I'll expect the same of others. Until
> > > > then I'll expect the unexpected and try to leave myself room
> > > > for manoeuvre. > > > I'm also less than perfect, but that's no
> > > > > > > argument against the /principle/ of not moving away
> > > without making observations in all directions. The earlier post
> > > stated
> >
> > It wasn't intended as, and could never be, an argument against that
> > principle. It's an argument in favour of taking the world as it is
> > rather than what it would be if everyone obeyed every rule on every
> > occasion.
>
> That wasn't the subject of that particular part of the thread - did
> you mean to make the comment elsewhere?

You may be misunderstanding the simplicity of my point. People make
mistakes. Ordinary people, like you & me. When you said, "we already
know that filtering down the inside can be dangerous when there are
numpties around," I would have said, "we already know that filtering
down the inside can be dangerous".

> > > This fool apparently thinks that he only needs to look forward,
> > > and that was the concern of the following comments.
> >
> > On this point, having not had access to the driver's thoughts at
> > the time, I cannot comment.
> >
> I quoted the relevant part of the earlier post - are you being
> deliberately obtuse?

No, I'm simply not interested in joining a wider argument. My point is
simple. Expect the unexpected. Whether other road-users disobey rules
because they are uninformed, distracted, or malicious, may be of use
after the fact, but it's largely irrelevant to the road-user seeking to
avoid accidents.

 

[Rob Morley]

In article <[email protected]>, Terry
[email protected] says...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (Rob Morley) wrote:

> > I quoted the relevant part of the earlier post - are you being
> > deliberately obtuse?
>
> No, I'm simply not interested in joining a wider argument.

Neither are you apparently interested in discussing the same thing as
the other people in this part of the thread. What do you think of -
=#PLONK#=- ?

 

[Tony Raven]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...

> The fact that a court was "told" something is neither here nor there.
> The mind boggles, for instance, at what David Icke - or perhaps your
> good self - might "tell" a court.
>
> What does "would have been visible" mean when the cyclist was in a
> spot simply not visible from the driver's seat? That's what the PP was
> pointing out to you.
>

In this case we are talking about the Crown Prosecution Service not
David Icke. As as to what "would have been visible" means, in this case
it means the police watched the video of the 37 seconds she was
stationary before the accident and then reconstructed her position
relative to the cement truck and sat in the drivers seat to find she was
easily visible in his mirrors. But please be my guest fantasising in
your attempts to avoid the inevitable conclusion that she was clearly
visible if he had bothered to look but instead he was too busy worrying
about whether his pay slip had all his overtime in it.

--
Tony

" I would never die for my beliefs because I might be wrong."
Bertrand Russell