Eilidh Cairns inquest- "Road too narrow to overtake"

[mAsTa RiDaH]

If she'd been to the side, she'd have been crushed against the railings.

She wasn't.  She was struck by the middle of the front of the truck.

She wouldn't have, now I've seen the road there is room to be riding down side of the truck without getting crushed - not where you would want to be obviously.

Very tragic, the driver admitted guilt but seeing as there was no malice or intent involved this could have been the reasoning for the sentance that was given.

[clarion]

Intent is not, by its very nature, the test of careless driving

[Ham]

If she'd been to the side, she'd have been crushed against the railings.

She wasn't.  She was struck by the middle of the front of the truck.

She wouldn't have, now I've seen the road there is room to be riding down side of the truck without getting crushed - not where you would want to be obviously.

Very tragic, the driver admitted guilt but seeing as there was no malice or intent involved this could have been the reasoning for the sentance that was given.

There were roadworks at the time so the entire width was down to 2.5m.

[Regulator]

Just a rant.

London Cycling Campaign - Cyclists demonstrate against CPS and driver apathy

London Cycling Campaign - Appeal for witnesses to cyclist fatality

London Cycling Campaign - Lorry safety petition dismissed by government ministers

http://www.roadpeace.org/resources/HGV_Cycle_Guide.pdf

Thank you ................... and does anybody know about the CTC?

The CTC's logo is on that RoadPeace/LCC/CTC document.
They're not doing nothing.

True....

...but there does seem to be some reluctance by National Office to put the collective CTC head above the parapet and comment on outrageous cases like this.

National Office doesn't want to bite the hand that feeds the CTC Trust*.   Perhaps once the government funding disappears in the forthcoming cuts, CTC will suddenly find it has some cojones.



*I was basically told as much by certain staff when I raised the issue with them.

[Julian]

Why don't you organise something then Greg?  You're on the council; you've got the capacity to do something unlike the rest of us. 

[Regulator]

Why don't you organise something then Greg?  You're on the council; you've got the capacity to do something unlike the rest of us. 

A number of us are trying to do just that.  But support from members for action, telling  National Office and Council what they expect them to do for members, would be helpful.  When you ask members why they joined CTC, they invariably mention CTC's past advocacy and campaigning. 

Unfortunately those aspects of CTC's work are taking a back seat to managing projects through the CTC Trust.

I have said a number of times, both in Council and in other meetings, that I would like to see CTC taking a far more proactive and (if need be) more robust approach to such issues.  Other councillors have echoed those sentiments.  Unfortunately, we are then told that we can't upset Government as the Trust might lose funding.

If the membership start actually telling Councillors and National Office what they want to see being done, and copying sympathetic councillors in, then perhaps we might get the leverage we need to change things.

[clarion]

Trust's going to be losing funding very soon anyway, the way things are going.  Council & the exec had better start listening to members.

You can tell them that from me, if you like

[Regulator]

Trust's going to be losing funding very soon anyway, the way things are going. 

Too true.  But who thought it would be a good idea to start the budgeting and business planning cycle before we knew the outcome of teh Comprehensive Spending Review? 

I have a feeling that the Trust will be coming cap in hand to the members for yet more funding.  We're looking at a £750k 'subvention' already for this year...

...and if they lose funding then basically they'll need all the money from membership fees to keep afloat.

Council & the exec had better start listening to members.

You can tell them that from me, if you like

I shall.  Perhaps you should come along to the Council meeting on 23 October and tell them yourself... 

Council meetings are open to members (although an artificial limit of 6 'observers' has been imposed by the Chair).

[Domestique]

I wouldn’t mind if they (ctc) said sweet fa about other issues. But for instance, went and stuck their oar in about posties bikes, something imo that has nothing to do with the ctc.
Yet when it comes to something that is a regular problem on the roads the silence is deafening.
Sorry if that’s ott, but its opinion and how I feel at this moment. I know a lot of people work very, very hard at the ctc but It’s very disappointing.

[SlowCoach]

But support from members for action, telling  National Office and Council what they expect them to do for members, would be helpful.  When you ask members why they joined CTC, they invariably mention CTC's past advocacy and campaigning.

OK - I will. Who's the best person to write to - Kevin Mayne?

[Vernon]

Unfortunately, we are then told that we can't upset Government as the Trust might lose funding.

This is just plain wrong! Can't we just tell the trust to fuck off and reclaim our club so it represents the members?

[matthew]

Email sent to the campaigns department. Greg / Helen do you want a copy of it? or should I send a copy to the chair of the council?

Dear Sir / Madam

As a CTC member I am disappointed by the apparent lack of comment regarding
the recent inquest and prosecution outcome of the Eilidh Cairns case.

Whilst the LCC has been particularly vocal regarding this incident in London
there has been little or no coverage of any comments from the CTC (the
national cyclist organisation). The perception I have of this case is that the
CPS have treated it as a tragic accident, when will the CTC be prepared to
challenge the CPS that these accidents where there is evidence that the
driving is negligent need to be prosecuted to the fullest extent and that a
£200 fine is insufficient.

I have been a member of the CTC (family and later adult) for approximately 15
years, and in my area can not take advantage of the local rides as they are
all on Sundays. Yet I willingly pay my annual subscription because of the
campaigning work that the CTC undertakes. However it appears that at this
point of time the CTC is unwilling to upset the politicians who fund the
trusts activities promoting cycling to the wider public rather than stand up
for the cyclists who already use the road.

Regards

Matthew

[mattc]

Does CTC have any history of comment on individual cases? If so, has this changed much over time?

What is their history of campaigning for harsher sentencing?

The one case that leaps to mind is the Daniel Cadden(sp?) get-orf-our-road case.
And I vaguely recall some stuff about the various Death/Harm By Dangerous/Silly/Daft Driving type offences.

I must say, I quite like the idea of not reflexively rushing into print on any issue that involves a cyclist.

[Regulator]

But support from members for action, telling  National Office and Council what they expect them to do for members, would be helpful.  When you ask members why they joined CTC, they invariably mention CTC's past advocacy and campaigning.

OK - I will. Who's the best person to write to - Kevin Mayne?

Best person to write to is the Chair, David Robinson, and to ask that the letter/email be copied to all other members of Council.  Otherwise, things tend to disappear into a black hole...

[Regulator]

Does CTC have any history of comment on individual cases? If so, has this changed much over time?

What is their history of campaigning for harsher sentencing?

The one case that leaps to mind is the Daniel Cadden(sp?) get-orf-our-road case.
And I vaguely recall some stuff about the various Death/Harm By Dangerous/Silly/Daft Driving type offences.

I must say, I quite like the idea of not reflexively rushing into print on any issue that involves a cyclist.

CTC used to campaign heavily on road safety issues.  It also has a history of involving itself in individual cases, more recently through the Cyclists Defence Fund.  It was born of the fight to secure and defend the rights of cyclists.

I've suggested that we should be doing more on the high profile cases.  But have been told we "must not rock the boat".  Frankly, with the appalling manner in which cyclists' deaths and injuries are regularly dealt with by the police and courts, we shouldn't should just be rocking the boat - we should be capsizing it.

If the Club's monet wasn't so tied up propping up the Trust (those infamous 'subventions') then we'd have the money to actually challenge some of these cases and attitudes in the courts.  And there are some good solicitors and counsel out there who would happily help.

[mattc]

I've contributed to the CDF, and 'persuaded' an errant motorist to do likewise.

I've suggested that we should be doing more on the high profile cases.  But have been told we "must not rock the boat".  Frankly, with the appalling manner in which cyclists' deaths and injuries are regularly dealt with by the police and courts, we shouldn't should just be rocking the boat - we should be capsizing it.

I can imagine there are tricky issues around which cases to get involved in, and how many. But if the only thing holding CTC back is "not rocking the boat", I'm not pleased.

[nobby]

I wouldn’t mind if they (ctc) said sweet fa about other issues. But for instance, went and stuck their oar in about posties bikes, something imo that has nothing to do with the ctc.
Yet when it comes to something that is a regular problem on the roads the silence is deafening.
Sorry if that’s ott, but its opinion and how I feel at this moment. I know a lot of people work very, very hard at the ctc but It’s very disappointing.

I've felt this for awhile. It sometimes seems that CTC is over interested in soundbites but that is probably a wrong impression.

[spindrift]

Interesting comment's appeared below the article:

It's a shame that any potential witnesses to this accident were turned away by the police, without anyone's details being taken - no wonder the family and prosecutor still don't know how the accident took place. My colleague and I work in a shop outside of which the accident took place, and although we didn't witness the accident, we did witness the police handling of the matter and the way all motorists behind the truck were told to u-turn immediately. The police didn't come back to look for witnesses until 2 weeks later, by which time - of course - there weren't any!

I'm a cyclist myself and it sickens me to think that a human life is worth so little to our justice system. You get a worse penalty for theft. Why does a diamond robber get 10 years in jail and on the same day a tuck driver who kills a cyclist gets only a £200 fine? What kind of a society values possessions/protects business over human life?

- D Turner, London, 14/10/2010 11:08

Dead cyclist's family angered by £200 fine for lorry driver | News

[mAsTa RiDaH]

Interesting comment's appeared below the article:

It's a shame that any potential witnesses to this accident were turned away by the police, without anyone's details being taken - no wonder the family and prosecutor still don't know how the accident took place. My colleague and I work in a shop outside of which the accident took place, and although we didn't witness the accident, we did witness the police handling of the matter and the way all motorists behind the truck were told to u-turn immediately. The police didn't come back to look for witnesses until 2 weeks later, by which time - of course - there weren't any!

I'm a cyclist myself and it sickens me to think that a human life is worth so little to our justice system. You get a worse penalty for theft. Why does a diamond robber get 10 years in jail and on the same day a tuck driver who kills a cyclist gets only a £200 fine? What kind of a society values possessions/protects business over human life?

- D Turner, London, 14/10/2010 11:08

Dead cyclist's family angered by £200 fine for lorry driver | News

Because it was not intentional.

Out of interest what sentence would you have given the driver?

[simonp]

Neither manslaughter or death by dangerous driving require intent.

[spindrift]

Interesting comment's appeared below the article:

It's a shame that any potential witnesses to this accident were turned away by the police, without anyone's details being taken - no wonder the family and prosecutor still don't know how the accident took place. My colleague and I work in a shop outside of which the accident took place, and although we didn't witness the accident, we did witness the police handling of the matter and the way all motorists behind the truck were told to u-turn immediately. The police didn't come back to look for witnesses until 2 weeks later, by which time - of course - there weren't any!

I'm a cyclist myself and it sickens me to think that a human life is worth so little to our justice system. You get a worse penalty for theft. Why does a diamond robber get 10 years in jail and on the same day a tuck driver who kills a cyclist gets only a £200 fine? What kind of a society values possessions/protects business over human life?

T- D Turner, London, 14/10/2010 11:08

Dead cyclist's family angered by £200 fine for lorry driver | News

Because it was not intentional.

Out of interest what sentence would you have given the driver?

The lorry driver with faulty eyesight intentionally took a vehicle on the roads that was too wide for the lane, had faulty mirrors, and ran into and killed a cyclist from behind. He didn't intend to kill anyone, but he drove in a manner and in a vehicle that made accidents more likely.

A life ban from driving for any driver involved in a RTC death where culpability is established is the minimum I would give.

Had the accident occurred on a building site the HSE would have crawled all over the scene. Because it's a cyclist, on the road, they mop up the blood and shrug.

Take Emma Foa, killed by a driver who admitted shuffling paperwork at the wheel as he drove over and killed her. He didn't even get a ban.


"It was an accident" is a weaselly, lame cop-out.

[tonycollinet]

Interesting comment's appeared below the article:

It's a shame that any potential witnesses to this accident were turned away by the police, without anyone's details being taken - no wonder the family and prosecutor still don't know how the accident took place. My colleague and I work in a shop outside of which the accident took place, and although we didn't witness the accident, we did witness the police handling of the matter and the way all motorists behind the truck were told to u-turn immediately. The police didn't come back to look for witnesses until 2 weeks later, by which time - of course - there weren't any!

I'm a cyclist myself and it sickens me to think that a human life is worth so little to our justice system. You get a worse penalty for theft. Why does a diamond robber get 10 years in jail and on the same day a tuck driver who kills a cyclist gets only a £200 fine? What kind of a society values possessions/protects business over human life?

- D Turner, London, 14/10/2010 11:08

Dead cyclist's family angered by £200 fine for lorry driver | News

Because it was not intentional.

Out of interest what sentence would you have given the driver?

If it were your partner killed, what would you give?

[hellymedic]

It strikes me any chance for justice was lost when the police did not take the opportunity to interview witnesses (I ask myself if they wanted to get the road moving more than gather evidence) and when the coroner's verdict was 'accidental death'. Why was this not 'unlawful killing'?

[Jaded]

Interesting comment's appeared below the article:

It's a shame that any potential witnesses to this accident were turned away by the police, without anyone's details being taken - no wonder the family and prosecutor still don't know how the accident took place. My colleague and I work in a shop outside of which the accident took place, and although we didn't witness the accident, we did witness the police handling of the matter and the way all motorists behind the truck were told to u-turn immediately. The police didn't come back to look for witnesses until 2 weeks later, by which time - of course - there weren't any!

I'm a cyclist myself and it sickens me to think that a human life is worth so little to our justice system. You get a worse penalty for theft. Why does a diamond robber get 10 years in jail and on the same day a tuck driver who kills a cyclist gets only a £200 fine? What kind of a society values possessions/protects business over human life?

- D Turner, London, 14/10/2010 11:08

Dead cyclist's family angered by £200 fine for lorry driver | News

Because it was not intentional.

Out of interest what sentence would you have given the driver?

Health and safety prosecutions do not require intent.

[Greenbank]

The lorry driver ... intentionally took a vehicle on the roads that was too wide for the lane

I agree with the rest of your post but this just looks out of place.

You make it sound like this is in itself illegal and akin to driving with defective eyesight, faulty mirrors, etc.

If so I can provide plenty of examples of cars being driven along residential roads where they are too wide to fit in the remains of their lane because of on-street parking. Surely the council should be made aware...