On 13 Dec, 12:12, stigy <
[email protected]> wrote:
> It's nearly a year since my friend Emma Foa was senselessly killed by
> the driver of a cement mixer lorry in kings Cross, London. Wake up all
> you cyclists who have been critical of other cyclists killed in road
> traffic accidents. But particularly shocking in this case is that if
> the driver had not broken the law by fumbling around for papers in his
> cab instead of paying due care and attention to the road, Emma would
> certainly not have been killed. He broke the law and thanks, in part,
> to the unacceptable summing up by the Judge, he got away with it.
> There is nothing "inadvertent" about an action that is unlawful when
> it has resulted in someone being killed. Emma, you are badly missed
> and the world is so much poorer without you in it.
>
> Jonathan
More on the court's attitude, sorry for length:
The majority of cycle fatalities in London involve left turning
vehicles and the majority also involve lorries: in central London the
majority of cyclist fatalities caused by left-turning lorries while in
the rest of London this collision type is 'only' about a quarter of
cyclist fatalities. In 2000 a cement lorry on London Wall overtook a
20 year female cycling westwards then turned left immediately
afterwards, crushing her to death. After the driver claimed in court
not to have seen her and was only fined £250, the girl's mother
decided to take action into her own hands after finding out how many
similar so-called accidents there had been. She bought shares in the
cement company, heckled the directors at their AGM and forced them to
fit extra safety mirrors to their lorries. Unfortunately before the
mirrors were fitted the same lorry (but a different driver) killed a
19 year old cyclist while turning left into Primrose Street from
Bishopsgate in 2001. Sadly these inexpensive mirrors which remove the
blind spot are still not compulsory.
Correction from Cynthia Barlow, the mother in question: "Incidentally,
I read further down your website and the mention of my daughter is not
strictly correct - reality is rather worse than that I'm afraid. The
driver of the lorry in my daughter's case was acquitted, not fined, so
nothing happened to him at all. The same lorry, with a different
driver, was in the following year involved in another incident in
which the cyclist, Sue Coll, was not in fact killed but suffered
catastrophic injuries. The same driver as was involved in this second
case was also involved in a third case in which another cyclist
received disabling injuries. The prosecution of the driver in the
second case involving Sue Coll was an exact repetition of my case -
same barrister, same expert witness, same tactics, same everything,
and same outcome, the driver was again acquitted. So I have carried on
campaigning, not just with RMC, but also on the subject of failings in
the criminal justice system."
I spoke to Sue Coll after her trial and was absolutely sickened by the
similarities, same lies, same strategy of arrogant defence barrister
attacking and humiliating the main prosecution witness (a van driver),
etc. The driver's defence even cited one of the initiatives that had
come about as a result of my involvement with RMC as evidence that he
was a conscientious driver, knowing that the truth would not come out
because the prosecution had already agreed not to mention either the
previous incident involving the same lorry, or the other previous
incident involving the same driver, so as not to prejudice the
driver's chance of a fair trial. A fair trial for the victim would be
nice. On the final day of the trial, it was obvious that the driver
was going to be acquitted so Sue's family came to court to support
her. When the driver arrived, the police ushered him into a private
back room "so that he wouldn't be upset at seeing her family".
Really.
http://www.citycyclists.org.uk/
