Magda Tadaj

[Sergeant Pluck]

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/cyclist-magda-tadaj-25-dragged-14-metres-under-lorry-before-driver-drove-off-to-complete-delivery-a3563441.html

Read that, and then read this:

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/lorry-driver-cleared-of-causing-death-of-cyclist-magda-tadaj-25-in-croydon-crash-a3566171.html

Prosecutor Ian McLoughlin told jurors Miss Tadaj had been in the cycle lane until it ran out at a narrowing in the road.
She had just moved in front of the lorry and was about two metres ahead when Anderton began to accelerate, he said.
The lawyer said: "Instead of pulling out to allow Miss Tadaj sufficient space or slowing to allow her to continue ahead, the defendant maintained his course and struck her on the near side of his vehicle just in front of the wheel arch in front of his cab.
"She fell underneath the lorry and underneath its wheels. She was dragged along the road about 14 metres before the lorry passed over her and she was left in the road.

Mr McLoughlin told jurors there were a number of witnesses to the collision as well as CCTV footage from the lorry.

Police tried to telephone Anderton after contacting his employer but were at first unable to reach him as he completed his delivery about half a mile away, the court heard. When he called police later, Anderton said he had been passing when a cyclist had been hit by a car, jurors were told.

And cleared by a jury. How??

[TigaSefi]

This is fucking ridiculous!

[Steph]

How?

Cyclist
Motor vehicle
Jury.

That's how.

[sg37409]

Outrageous
"cleared of causing the death of a cyclist by careless driving"
Witnesses. CCTV.  Evidence.

I fucking despair of our justice system. 

[ian]

I wasn't surprised, it was what I expected. You get hit by a vehicle, here's what will happen. Nothing.

It's a road I use(d). I stopped a while ago, the entire Davidson Road, Lower Addiscombe Road is an awful rat run for people trying to avoid traffic on the other routes into and around Croydon which often snarl during busy hours. Your likelihood of an encounter with an impatient and aggressive driver is 99%. Ironically, piling down busy London Road through Wild West Croydon feels safer.

Lower Addiscombe Road is one of those half-ass painted cycle line things which is mostly fine, but you can guess the paint disappears when you hit the narrowed bridge. The bridge itself has temporary barriers along the pavement (they've been their forever, not sure why), so there's nowhere to get out. Dangerous overtakes are pretty much guaranteed. I can't believe there would ever be a situation where a lorry could safely overtake, it's fucking bridge. This is the London Borough of Croydon, of course, and they hate cyclists, invest nothing in infrastructure or safety.

And then having killed someone, he carried on with his day and went home. It's only a cyclist, after all. We're supposed to be grateful he waited around for a bit and didn't simply drive off.

[Ham]

Not that it excuses anything, but this is worth noting

The standard and just about everyone reports

Anderton, of Acacia Road in Nuneaton, said he had been driving for 30 years and had considered himself a "good driver".

The BBC reports

Mr Anderton said he had been driving for 30 years and had considered himself a "good driver" but now never wants to drive again.

Isn't it easy to make fake news? To be clear this has nothing to do with comment on the outcome, although genuine remorse may have swayed the jury, but it certainly paints the driver in a different light.

[sg37409]

I wasn't surprised, it was what I expected. You get hit by a vehicle, here's what will happen. Nothing.

This is certainly my expectations for https://yacf.co.uk/forum/index.php?topic=103418.0 as well.

[ian]

Not that it excuses anything, but this is worth noting

The standard and just about everyone reports

Anderton, of Acacia Road in Nuneaton, said he had been driving for 30 years and had considered himself a "good driver".

The BBC reports

Mr Anderton said he had been driving for 30 years and had considered himself a "good driver" but now never wants to drive again.

Isn't it easy to make fake news? To be clear this has nothing to do with comment on the outcome, although genuine remorse may have swayed the jury, but it certainly paints the driver in a different light.

I'd bet a large sum of money that he is still driving though. He could have easily simply waited behind her and overtaken after the bridge. The cost of a few seconds for the price of a life.

And regardless of how he considered himself, I think this is ample evidence he wasn't a 'good driver.'

[essexian]

Based only upon what I read here: I was not in the Court or Jury room so can only guess what was said, but  this is a shameful decision for all involved.

Indeed, I wonder what would have happened if one of the friends/family of the victim had stood up and abused the Judge and Jury after the verdict? My guess is that they would have been arrested and would have spent some time in custody.  Swear at a Judge: do some time/ receive a fine/get told to apologise : kill some one...walk away a free man.

There is something rotten in UK justice*



* And I don't mean me: I don't do criminal law!

[Ham]

I'd bet a large sum of money that he is still driving though.

Why would that be? Like it or not, incidents of this nature can and do happen to any and all of us. And, while we might like to think we would be more responsible, that the responsibility of driving a large vehicle means a higher standard in any event, shit happens. It doesn't make the driver an evil person, his behaviour after the events appears bizarre at best, but doesn't stop him from having real feelings.

In any case, my point was, what a fundamentally different story is told by the two versions. The commonly used one - which is, after all, accurate - has him saying, I'm a good driver, don't know what happened. The second - more accurate - has him saying I thought I was a good driver but clearly I wasn't.

He could have easily simply waited behind her and overtaken after the bridge. The cost of a few seconds for the price of a life.

And regardless of how he considered himself, I think this is ample evidence he wasn't a 'good driver.'

FTR I don't disagree with any of that in the slightest

[Jaded]

Shit happens, yes.

However it happens more often if you only think about it after it has happened.

Currently almost all drivers only think about shit after it has happened.

[ian]

I don't think he's evil. I don't think he intended this. But I also doubt courtroom sincerity persists into real life.

It doesn't matter though. She's dead, he's not. It's no longer even careless to run over a cyclist.

[Sergeant Pluck]

It's no longer even careless to run over a cyclist.

That’s the upshot of it.

There is little to go as to how the jury came to that conclusion, but I am guessing that he simply had to say that he didn’t see her, and that’s all a jury needs.

She had just moved in front of the lorry and was about two metres ahead when Anderton began to accelerate

2m is within the blind spot directly in front of an HGV, assuming the driver is resting back against his seat. We all know that he must surely have - or should have - seem her on the cycle lane and he should have predicted that she was then going to go on to the road.

I think he drove off because during the 8 minutes that he waited, he concocted the imaginary car story.

[ian]

From what I can deduce from the frankly shitty reporting.

He drove over her. She wasn't hit by a car. I presume he was acquitted because he claimed couldn't see her as she was in his blind spot (perhaps he could, perhaps he couldn't). He's already overtaken her at least once (and probably twice) so should have been aware of her existence and should be aware that his vehicle has blind spots. The incident is erroneously reported as being on St John's Road, but it wasn't, it was on the bridge of the tracks to East Croydon station on Lower Addiscombe Road. This is where Lower Addiscombe Road narrows and the magic painted cycle lane disappears. You can see the scene in the Evening Standard story, on the brow of the bridge. This was the area cordoned off when I tried to cycle through the area later in the day.

There's an alternative narrative that he simply tried to overtake and saw a vehicle coming over the bridge the other way and moved back in. The bridge is both long (eight or so train tracks) and high at the brow and it is impossible to see traffic approaching from the other direction until you're on top of the bridge. As someone who has used the bridge a lot, it's sadly common behaviour. Also, I mentioned the barriers that line the edge of the pavement. I don't know why they are there, but it means there's nowhere to go (they've been moved in the picture, they lined the entire length of the bridge).

Then having killed someone he left the scene and continued his day.

[rr]

Solid white centre line as well.

[Sergeant Pluck]

A poster on LFGSS with access to the court report wrote that the driver’s barrister commented that (quoting Charlie_L) there was no evidence of anything other than a driver doing his job properly.

It’s pointless dwelling on it.

RIP Magda.

[Mr Larrington]

I recall seeing a piece on that anbaric distascope that they have now, with Laid Back Rich otp riding over a similar(or possibly the same) bridge demonstrating how overtakes by motons got more and motonic the closer to the top of the bridge.  Culminating in a phenomenal avoidance by some berk in a Golf trying to pass when he clearly had no idea of whether there was anything coming the other way.

[Steph]

I didn't realise exactly where that was, until Ian described it. I know that bridge, as I attend a support group meeting nearby every so often. It is indeed a place of sod-all visibility and traffic that likes to make enthusiastic progress. I avoid it on a bike.

[Jaded]

There are similarities with "the kid just ran out, I had no chance".

The thought that a driver might consider there are predictable unpredictabilities seems to be beyond this country.

[hubner]

Like it or not, incidents of this nature can and do happen to any and all of us. And, while we might like to think we would be more responsible, that the responsibility of driving a large vehicle means a higher standard in any event, shit happens. It doesn't make the driver an evil person, his behaviour after the events appears bizarre at best, but doesn't stop him from having real feelings.

I suppose that's what everyone in the jury thought: he didn't see her therefore it's not his fault, therefore not guilty of causing death by careless driving.

If he was a good driver, he should have seen the road narrowing ahead and not overtake the cyclist if there isn't enough space to do so safely.

I have the misfortune of commuting through Croydon, east to west, and drivers there drive like complete dickheads. In fact South London seem to full of dangerous motons who wouldn't give a toss if they ran you over; it's a little better nearer the centre but the further out you go the worst it gets. They seem to think as long as they don't actually knock you down, they're a "good Driver".

I've ridden over that bridge a few times but each time the traffic was almost at a standstill, but Davidson Road (mentioned upthread) is a typical rat run where drivers will overtake very close at high speed. Of course they're good drivers because they can carry out such a dangerous overtake without actually running you over.

What is considered "normal" driving is actually very dangerous, and gives no margin of error.

I think cycling campaigners need to look at cycle lanes that suddenly end where the road  narrows and puts the cyclist into the path of vehicles from behind.

[ian]

I finally found a picture here.

Apparently a jury of drivers think that's an OK place to overtake a cyclist. I'm not convinced it was anything other than an attempt to overtake thwarted by oncoming traffic, but to be honest drivers don't need any further excuse than 'I didn't see them' these days, so it doesn't really matter. No matter how wide you ride over that bridge, vehicles will try to overtake even though they can't possibly know what's coming over the bridge from the other side.

(as a correction, this might be St James Rd, I think it it turns from Lower Addiscombe to St James on the bridge.)

[Gattopardo]

For any traffic offence I get caught I will use the didn't see it part of life and should get off.

[Gattopardo]

I'd bet a large sum of money that he is still driving though.

Why would that be? Like it or not, incidents of this nature can and do happen to any and all of us. And, while we might like to think we would be more responsible, that the responsibility of driving a large vehicle means a higher standard in any event, shit happens. It doesn't make the driver an evil person, his behaviour after the events appears bizarre at best, but doesn't stop him from having real feelings.

In any case, my point was, what a fundamentally different story is told by the two versions. The commonly used one - which is, after all, accurate - has him saying, I'm a good driver, don't know what happened. The second - more accurate - has him saying I thought I was a good driver but clearly I wasn't.

He could have easily simply waited behind her and overtaken after the bridge. The cost of a few seconds for the price of a life.

And regardless of how he considered himself, I think this is ample evidence he wasn't a 'good driver.'

FTR I don't disagree with any of that in the slightest

What makes the driver evil is worrying about a delivery not a person life.

Imagine how crap driving he did in 30 years.

[Sergeant Pluck]

I am sure he’ll be out and about in his lorry: