Author Topic: "Distracted by an interesting lorry"  (Read 4395 times)

spindrift

"Distracted by an interesting lorry"
« on: 21 June, 2013, 03:49:02 pm »
Quote
A driver who killed one of England's top veteran cyclists when he ploughed into him during a race has been spared jail after a court heard how his brief lapse of concentration led to a devastating accident that "could have happened to anybody".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2013/jun/21/veteran-cyclist-leonard-grayson



That's a new one, we've had "distracted by a spider/wasp" but I don't think we've had a lorry so fascinating a driver who sees it is fixated.

Re: "Distracted by an interesting lorry"
« Reply #1 on: 21 June, 2013, 03:58:22 pm »
Terrible article by the guardian

Barraclough pleaded guilty
Quote
He decided not to jail Barraclough immediately, but gave him a five-month prison sentence, suspended for 18 months, and ordered him to do 250 hours of unpaid work.

He also banned him from driving for 18 months.

More details here
http://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/main-topics/general-news/mercy-for-driver-who-killed-veteran-cyclist-1-5789813
<i>Marmite slave</i>

Re: "Distracted by an interesting lorry"
« Reply #2 on: 21 June, 2013, 05:26:09 pm »
What I find frustrating here is that 9 seconds is forever when you are driving. I just can't believe that going for that long without seeing what is in front of you could ever be 'something that could happen to anyone.' To me that is a level of negligence which is crying out for a prison sentence.

Jaded

  • The Codfather
  • Formerly known as Jaded
Re: "Distracted by an interesting lorry"
« Reply #3 on: 21 June, 2013, 05:49:29 pm »
+1
It is simpler than it looks.

Cudzoziemiec

  • Ride adventurously and stop for a brew.
Re: "Distracted by an interesting lorry"
« Reply #4 on: 21 June, 2013, 05:58:43 pm »
What I find frustrating here is that 9 seconds is forever when you are driving. I just can't believe that going for that long without seeing what is in front of you could ever be 'something that could happen to anyone.' To me that is a level of negligence which is crying out for a prison sentence.
I agree, but at the same time I think that isn't - or shouldn't be - relevant. The point is this driver did kill someone and should bear the responsibility, even if their distraction had been only for a microsecond. Responsibility might not be the correct legal term here, but what I mean is, whatever happened, it did so because of this driver's actions - they might not deserve punishment but it is their fault.
Riding a concrete path through the nebulous and chaotic future.

ian

Re: "Distracted by an interesting lorry"
« Reply #5 on: 21 June, 2013, 06:36:57 pm »
People will always get distracted. I get distracted. That's why I think speed limits should be lower and general standards of driving should be better, and why people shouldn't use mobile phones etc. etc. Accidents are going to happen, but it's probably not a great idea to encourage them. Blame aside, there should be an elevated level of responsibility and a duty of care for anyone in charge of a large, fast moving and potentially lethal machine. We allow too much scope for an oops moment. Low sun, trapped nerves, and now interesting lorries. I think I've read every excuse. If you drive a vehicle you should be held to some level of innate responsibility. The onus should be on the you the driver not to make mistakes. Otherwise, it's an environment of excuses rather than responsibility, and it becomes easier to make the former rather than be the latter.

Nine seconds though is a lifetime of inattention in a fast moving vehicle. How can we say that's acceptable or define it as 'careless'? Careless is forgetting to turn the bathroom light off before leaving the house, not killing a man. That it 'could have happened to anyone'? It doesn't happen to anyone. At what point did it become reasonably OK or a bit careless to kill someone provided you weren't speeding or using a mobile phone? I guess it's now OK to run someone over if you do it 'carefully' enough.

Jaded

  • The Codfather
  • Formerly known as Jaded
Re: "Distracted by an interesting lorry"
« Reply #6 on: 21 June, 2013, 06:44:22 pm »
I'd hazard a guess that the judge is a driver. A mediocre driver.
It is simpler than it looks.

Re: "Distracted by an interesting lorry"
« Reply #7 on: 24 June, 2013, 03:50:33 pm »
I'd hazard a guess that the judge is a driver. A mediocre driver.

Like most drivers he will be way above average.

Karla

  • car(e) free
    • Lost Byway - around the world by bike
Re: "Distracted by an interesting lorry"
« Reply #8 on: 24 June, 2013, 04:23:37 pm »
How completely, offensively ridiculous.  "There but for the grace of God go I"?  Exactly: This was the incident.  Some of us were there.  Had our numbers been swapped, it could have been me, Oranj or Climberruss who were victim to Peter Barraclough's 9 second lapse.  This was a long, straight, flat bit of road, not a junction or anything like that; Barraclough just ran into Len Grayson from behind. 

If you want to murder me, do it in a car.  You don't have to construct an elaborate scenario, just mow me down on the open road and claim you weren't looking.  Don't worry, I'm not under the protection of the law, you'll get away with it.  Great  ::-)

Re: "Distracted by an interesting lorry"
« Reply #9 on: 24 June, 2013, 05:00:30 pm »
I started off with a response that maybe the judge meant that anyone can have an accident that turns lives around if they are not careful.

But actually, I'm just sickened by the whole thing.


Karla

  • car(e) free
    • Lost Byway - around the world by bike
Re: "Distracted by an interesting lorry"
« Reply #10 on: 24 June, 2013, 05:07:40 pm »
I think "could have happened to anybody" actually came from the defence, not the judge.  The whole thing is still deeply sickening though.

Karla

  • car(e) free
    • Lost Byway - around the world by bike
Re: "Distracted by an interesting lorry"
« Reply #11 on: 24 June, 2013, 05:53:01 pm »
First draft of a letter to my MP.  Comments please.


Quote
Dear Hugh Bayley,

                            I write regarding the recent conviction of Peter Barraclough for the death of Leonard Grayson last August, of which I am sure you are aware.  If you are not, it has been reported by the BBC, Guardian and Yorkshire Post. 

Len Grayson was killed while competing in a time trial on the A19 near Thirsk, when he was hit from behind by Barraclough, who has now been convicted of careless driving and received a suspended jail sentence, an 18 month driving ban and 250 hours community service.  I am extremely worried by the laxity of this sentence; I was riding in the same event, so know something of the conditions.  Visibility was perfect and the road was straight and flat; there was no excuse for not seeing a cyclist.  Barraclough admitted that he'd seen the “Cycle Event” signs at the start of the course – surely an indicator to watch out for cyclists – and he would have ridden past many fellow competitors, all of whom had high visibility numbers on their behinds, before he hit Grayson.  In short, there were no mitigating circumstances here: Barraclough simply drove into the back of another road user and killed him, because he wasn't looking where he was going. 

As a fellow competitor, I am worried that if I had swapped numbers with Len Grayson prior to starting, I would not be here to write this now.  I am even more concerned that as a cyclist, I am apparently not under the protection of the law.  How is it possible that someone can kill another person through sheer negligence, with no mitigating factors, yet not go to jail?  This is surely completely unjust. 

Police investigators concluded that Barraclough could see Grayson for a period of nine seconds before the collision, yet he claimed he was looking at traffic in the opposite carriageway.  Given this, his standard of driving must surely fall well below that of  'careless', which is that “falls below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver.” to at least that of 'dangerous', which “must fall far below what would be expected … ”.  It has long been a concern among cyclists that in deaths due to traffic collisions, it is almost literally possible to get away with murder.  In this case in particular, that seems far too close to the truth.

I ask that you raise the matter in the house of the guidelines for death by careless and dangerous driving, and the sentencing for these offences.  Can the guidelines be rewritten so that it is impossible for someone to go essentially unpunished for killing a fellow human being in a situation such as this?  I would be most gratified, as it seems to me and my fellow cyclists that under the law as it currently stands, our lives are not worth protecting. 

Yours sincerely
Mr Bunbury

Re: "Distracted by an interesting lorry"
« Reply #12 on: 24 June, 2013, 06:15:36 pm »
I think I would have a paragraph in there to the effect:

While I recognise that the perpetrator may well be genuinely remorseful and should have credit for his guilty plea, it remains a fact that he is guilty and has taken a life of another human being through his inadvertent lapse. It seems wholly inappropriate that a suspended sentence


Fuck me rigid. I was writing the above when I thought to look to find out what I could about what the law says.

That's here: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/causing_death_by_careless_or_inconsiderate_driving/

It's actually the law.

Quote
Nature of offence: Careless or inconsiderate driving arising from momentary inattention with no aggravating factors

Starting Point: Community order (MEDIUM)
Sentencing range: Community order (LOW) - Community order (HIGH)

It's not cyclists penalised - it's anyone who isn't in the holy car.

red marley

Re: "Distracted by an interesting lorry"
« Reply #13 on: 24 June, 2013, 06:19:56 pm »
I think your argument is clear in the letter, but I guess one thing to consider is what precisely you want your MP to do. I realise your final paragraph has some detail on this, but I am not sure what "Can the guidelines be rewritten so that it is impossible for someone to go essentially unpunished for killing a fellow human being in a situation such as this?" actually means in practice.

Personally I'd be wary of calling the sentence "essentially unpunished", but perhaps instead present an argument about consistency and proportionality with other equivalent offences. Is the argument that the sentences for careless driving are too lenient or that careless driving is an inappropriate conviction? Again, being clearer on which of those you mean and what you want your MP to do will mean that they will have to address your specific requests more precisely.

I wonder too if there is benefit from linking to CTC's Road Justice campaign, or at least using it to provide some evidence of a systematic failure to take the pursuit and conviction of such road behaviour seriously.

mattc

  • n.b. have grown beard since photo taken
    • Didcot Audaxes
Re: "Distracted by an interesting lorry"
« Reply #14 on: 24 June, 2013, 06:36:37 pm »
+1 to Jo.

Also,it might be good to make the opening sentence/paragraph more direct. Mention your aim (to get more sensible sentences) as early as possible.
Has never ridden RAAM
---------
No.11  Because of the great host of those who dislike the least appearance of "swank " when they travel the roads and lanes. - From Kuklos' 39 Articles

spindrift

Re: "Distracted by an interesting lorry"
« Reply #15 on: 24 June, 2013, 06:43:44 pm »
Leave out the stuff about murder perhaps?

mattc

  • n.b. have grown beard since photo taken
    • Didcot Audaxes
Re: "Distracted by an interesting lorry"
« Reply #16 on: 24 June, 2013, 06:48:51 pm »
...

I was writing the above when I thought to look to find out what I could about what the law says.

That's here: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/causing_death_by_careless_or_inconsiderate_driving/

It's actually the law.

Quote
Nature of offence: Careless or inconsiderate driving arising from momentary inattention with no aggravating factors

Starting Point: Community order (MEDIUM)
Sentencing range: Community order (LOW) - Community order (HIGH)

It's not cyclists penalised - it's anyone who isn't in the holy car.
IMHO 9 seconds is far from "momentary" inattention.
Has never ridden RAAM
---------
No.11  Because of the great host of those who dislike the least appearance of "swank " when they travel the roads and lanes. - From Kuklos' 39 Articles

Re: "Distracted by an interesting lorry"
« Reply #17 on: 24 June, 2013, 11:21:15 pm »

IMHO 9 seconds is far from "momentary" inattention.

The length of two football pitches at 50mph.

9 secs * 50 / 3600  = 0.125 miles (one eighth of a mile)
Cars! In my bike lane.

Karla

  • car(e) free
    • Lost Byway - around the world by bike
Re: "Distracted by an interesting lorry"
« Reply #18 on: 25 June, 2013, 11:15:41 am »
Thanks all, there are some good points that will go into draft 2.

Cudzoziemiec

  • Ride adventurously and stop for a brew.
Re: "Distracted by an interesting lorry"
« Reply #19 on: 25 June, 2013, 01:13:35 pm »
Just a tiny point, I would say "high visibility numbers on their backs" rather than "behinds". But whatever words you use, that you're writing at all is good. Thank you.
Riding a concrete path through the nebulous and chaotic future.

Re: "Distracted by an interesting lorry"
« Reply #20 on: 25 June, 2013, 01:25:36 pm »
Just a tiny point, I would say "high visibility numbers on their backs" rather than "behinds".
"Behinds" is a more accurate description of the correct placement of the numbers.  I have struggled to find an alternative and simple description, maybe "lower backs".  "On their backs" is likely to be taken as much higher up which is where people from triathlon backgrounds tend to place them.  I regularly have to point this out to such riders at local events.

mcshroom

  • Mushroom
Re: "Distracted by an interesting lorry"
« Reply #21 on: 25 June, 2013, 01:26:55 pm »
'On their clothing - clearly visible from behind'?
Climbs like a sprinter, sprints like a climber!

mattc

  • n.b. have grown beard since photo taken
    • Didcot Audaxes
Re: "Distracted by an interesting lorry"
« Reply #22 on: 25 June, 2013, 01:28:12 pm »
Sorry, but what on earth is wrong with MrB's choice of wording?!?
Has never ridden RAAM
---------
No.11  Because of the great host of those who dislike the least appearance of "swank " when they travel the roads and lanes. - From Kuklos' 39 Articles

Re: "Distracted by an interesting lorry"
« Reply #23 on: 25 June, 2013, 01:36:23 pm »
'murder' is wrong, 'manslaughter' is more accurate.
<i>Marmite slave</i>

Karla

  • car(e) free
    • Lost Byway - around the world by bike
Re: "Distracted by an interesting lorry"
« Reply #24 on: 26 June, 2013, 04:37:01 pm »
Just a tiny point, I would say "high visibility numbers on their backs" rather than "behinds".
"Behinds" is a more accurate description of the correct placement of the numbers.  I have struggled to find an alternative and simple description, maybe "lower backs".  "On their backs" is likely to be taken as much higher up which is where people from triathlon backgrounds tend to place them.  I regularly have to point this out to such riders at local events.

Ditto.  I recently mounted a bit of an educational campaign on the club forum.  What makes people think that numbers pinned high on the back are any good whatsoever?

Sorry, but what on earth is wrong with MrB's choice of wording?!?

It's a bit tittilation-inducing.  Talking about someone's bottom is inherently funny, as is the word 'moist'.  Mcshroom's phrase is possibly the best so far.