Emma Foa's death- verdict announced

[_]

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 11:31:00 +0100, Sara Kirk wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>,
> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Sara Kirk wrote:
>>
>>> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> [snip]
>>
>>>>That is the only way in which
>>>>the "criticism" of the driver for looking at papers whilst stopped...
>>
>>> The report indicated that he was still looking at papers whilst moving.
>>
>> That is terrible if true (even if his looking at papers whilst turning
>> left at a junction somehow seems counter-intuitive), but it isn't what
>> was said in the reports I've seen. The impression I had was that the
>> driver was looking at papers whilst stationary.
>>
>> Actually, with that addition, it becomes easier to understand how he
>> pleaded guilty to DWDCAA. Of course, he still couldn't have seen
>> through the steel body of the cab even if he had not looked at any
>> papers - and this type of collision is far too common for the reading
>> of papers whilst turning left to be the cause of them all, as I'm sure
>> you'll agree.
>
> I think it was appalling that anyone turns without looking where they're
> going - let alone anywhere eles. I'm not sure why you keep trying to
> excuse the driver.
>
> The guy drove off and turned a corner without looking. Someone died.

And surely, as the driver should know that he cannot "see through steel" as
TrollN puts it, he should *not* have taken his eyes away from the scanning
of his exterior. If he is driving a vehicle which has such poor vision, he
must take extra care; to fail to do so is negligence by definition.

 

[spindrift]

On 5 Oct, 11:59, _ <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 11:31:00 +0100, Sara Kirk wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> Sara Kirk wrote:
>
> >>> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >>> [snip]
>
> >>>>That is the only way in which
> >>>>the "criticism" of the driver for looking at papers whilst stopped...
>
> >>> The report indicated that he was still looking at papers whilst moving.
>
> >> That is terrible if true (even if his looking at papers whilst turning
> >> left at a junction somehow seems counter-intuitive), but it isn't what
> >> was said in the reports I've seen. The impression I had was that the
> >> driver was looking at papers whilst stationary.
>
> >> Actually, with that addition, it becomes easier to understand how he
> >> pleaded guilty to DWDCAA. Of course, he still couldn't have seen
> >> through the steel body of the cab even if he had not looked at any
> >> papers - and this type of collision is far too common for the reading
> >> of papers whilst turning left to be the cause of them all, as I'm sure
> >> you'll agree.
>
> > I think it was appalling that anyone turns without looking where they're
> > going - let alone anywhere eles. I'm not sure why you keep trying to
> > excuse the driver.
>
> > The guy drove off and turned a corner without looking. Someone died.
>
> And surely, as the driver should know that he cannot "see through steel" as
> TrollN puts it, he should *not* have taken his eyes away from the scanning
> of his exterior. If he is driving a vehicle which has such poor vision, he
> must take extra care; to fail to do so is negligence by definition.- Hidequoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Cost of mirrors to eliminate a blind spot?

£100


Fine for being a **** driver and crushing a woman to death?

£300


No need to fit mirrors- kill cyclists at a rate of less than one every
three years and you're quids in.

 

[Alan Braggins]

In article <[email protected]>, spindrift wrote:
>Cost of mirrors to eliminate a blind spot?
>£100
>
>Fine for being a **** driver and crushing a woman to death?
>£300
>
>No need to fit mirrors- kill cyclists at a rate of less than one every
>three years and you're quids in.

Only if the cost of mirrors is 100 _a year_. Otherwise you have to keep
it down to only 1/3 of drivers killing a cyclist at all for that to be
the cheaper option for a fleet.

 

[JNugent]

Sara Kirk wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Sara Kirk wrote:
>>
>>
>>> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>[snip]
>>
>>>>That is the only way in which
>>>>the "criticism" of the driver for looking at papers whilst stopped...
>>
>>>The report indicated that he was still looking at papers whilst moving.
>>
>>That is terrible if true (even if his looking at papers whilst turning
>>left at a junction somehow seems counter-intuitive), but it isn't what
>>was said in the reports I've seen. The impression I had was that the
>>driver was looking at papers whilst stationary.
>>
>>Actually, with that addition, it becomes easier to understand how he
>>pleaded guilty to DWDCAA. Of course, he still couldn't have seen
>>through the steel body of the cab even if he had not looked at any
>>papers - and this type of collision is far too common for the reading
>>of papers whilst turning left to be the cause of them all, as I'm sure
>>you'll agree.
>
>
> I think it was appalling that anyone turns without looking where they're
> going - let alone anywhere eles. I'm not sure why you keep trying to
> excuse the driver.

> The guy drove off and turned a corner without looking. Someone died.

It isn't at all clear that he would have been able to see the cyclist,
even if he had directed 150% of his attention to the task at hand.
Rather, the evidence points the other way.

This "excusing" of the driver that you mention is merely a refusal to
condemn him for something he could not help. Had he been responsible
for the death, he'd have been done for "death by dangerous" or "death
by careless". But we know he wasn't - don't we?

But at least, thanks to your sharp-eyed reading of the report, it is
now clear why he pleaded guilty to "careless driving" (something which
I confess had puzzled me). If he was looking at papers whilst on the
move, he would be guilty of that even if there hadn't been another
road-user within a mile.

 

[JNugent]

spindrift wrote:
> On 5 Oct, 11:59, _ <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 11:31:00 +0100, Sara Kirk wrote:
>>
>>>In article <[email protected]>,
>>> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>Sara Kirk wrote:
>>
>>>>> JNugent <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>>>[snip]
>>
>>>>>>That is the only way in which
>>>>>>the "criticism" of the driver for looking at papers whilst stopped...
>>
>>>>>The report indicated that he was still looking at papers whilst moving.
>>
>>>>That is terrible if true (even if his looking at papers whilst turning
>>>>left at a junction somehow seems counter-intuitive), but it isn't what
>>>>was said in the reports I've seen. The impression I had was that the
>>>>driver was looking at papers whilst stationary.
>>
>>>>Actually, with that addition, it becomes easier to understand how he
>>>>pleaded guilty to DWDCAA. Of course, he still couldn't have seen
>>>>through the steel body of the cab even if he had not looked at any
>>>>papers - and this type of collision is far too common for the reading
>>>>of papers whilst turning left to be the cause of them all, as I'm sure
>>>>you'll agree.
>>
>>>I think it was appalling that anyone turns without looking where they're
>>>going - let alone anywhere eles. I'm not sure why you keep trying to
>>>excuse the driver.
>>
>>>The guy drove off and turned a corner without looking. Someone died.
>>
>>And surely, as the driver should know that he cannot "see through steel" as
>>TrollN puts it, he should *not* have taken his eyes away from the scanning
>>of his exterior. If he is driving a vehicle which has such poor vision, he
>>must take extra care; to fail to do so is negligence by definition.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
>
>
> Cost of mirrors to eliminate a blind spot?
>
> £100
>
>
> Fine for being a **** driver and crushing a woman to death?
>
> £300
>
>
> No need to fit mirrors- kill cyclists at a rate of less than one every
> three years and you're quids in.

Have you ever seen a lorry fitted with sufficient mirrors to eliminate
all "blind spots" around the vehicle?

No, neither have I.

It'd be something to see, though. CCTV could probably do it more easily.