Driver of HGV that killed Sebastian Lukomski found guilty & sentenced

Buffalo Bill vaguely muttered something like ...

At 0855 on 23rd February 2004, Fallows, driving Scania 32 tonne
Large Goods Vehicle reg mark X418 NHJ, stopped at a red light (she called
it 'an automatic traffic signal') westbound on Upper Thames Street, at the
junction with Queen Street Place. He was signalling left, and continued
to signal left up all the way through his subsequent left turn.

Sounds fine to me.

Shortly after this, Sebastian filtered up on the left, and stopped behind
the
stop line, on the left of the truck, with his right hand resting on the
lorry.

Oh dear .. Maybe he was not being observant enough and didn't see the
lorries indicators, but which every other witness appears to agree were on
throughout the duration of events. Or maybe the cyclist did see the Lorry
was turning left yet still cycled into the well-known blind spot.

Against that, he said, 'the cyclist contributed to the accident by cycling
up inside of vehicle signalling left, and continued straight on.'

Precisely.

They obviously didn't
think that not looking in the mirrors is all that serious.

But you just said that he did look in his mirrors. The cyclist not being
visible in the mirrors is an entirely different thing.

What will it take to get them to look in their mirrors?

But you said he did look in his mirrors. What will it take to stop cyclists
filtering when lorries are already signalling to turn left?

Sincere Condolences to the family of the deceased, but it seems to me that
the Lorry Driver acted quite responsibly, stopping as soon as he knew
something was wrong. Unfortunately, the cyclist didn't act responsibly. To
continue filtering then stopping next to the lorry waiting to turn sounds
incredibly stupid and naive, or simply foolhardy, to me. The cyclist
unfortunately paid the ultimate price for his lack of judgment, or
recklessness.

--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules !!!
"A tosser is a tosser, no matter what mode of transport they're using."

Buffalo Bill wrote:

Credit where credit is due: the CPS handled the case competently, and
PC
Sudbury's handling of the blind spot claim (the defence had been
preparing
an expert witness backed defence that there was a blind spot - this
has
worked before in the RMC/Barlow case) with the cctv evidence led
directly to
the defence changing its plea 10 minutes before the case was heard.

What will it take to get them to look in their mirrors?


Maybe a mirror that actually covers that area?

http://www.dobli.com/talen/english.html

--

Geoff

On 23 Nov 2004 03:45:22 -0800, (Buffalo
Bill) wrote:

What will it take to get them to look in their mirrors?

Overly simplistic. Have you ever driven a goods vehicle? The
restricted visibility of goods vehicles is no secret, and the possible
outcome of riding up the inside of goods vehicles - turning or not -
is also well documented.

There is also this: if you cannot make eye contact with the driver
then the driver cannot see you. A bike messenger should be doubly
aware of this. NEVER stop alongside a goods vehicle, and NEVER ride
up the inside of one unless you are absolutely certain you can get out
in front before it starts moving. And even then don't. In fact, just
don't even think about it.

As to leaning on the side of a left-turning truck - well, words fail
me. This sounds like a clipped-in fixie rider not wanting to stop and
put a foot down, using the truck as a leaning post. If that is not
the case then I apologise to his memory, but if it was the case the
coroner should have recorded a verdict of suicide.

Guy
--
May contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting.
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

88% of helmet statistics are made up, 65% of them at Washington University

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:27:43 -0000 someone who may be "Paul - xxx"
wrote this:-

Or maybe the cyclist did see the Lorry
was turning left yet still cycled into the well-known blind spot.

While not wishing to defend the reported behaviour of the cyclist,
the lorry industry made a lot of noise about "close proximity
mirrors" some years ago. Were these fitted to the lorry? If they
were did the driver use them?


--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
I will always explain revoked keys, unless the UK government
prevents me by using the RIP Act 2000.

David Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:27:43 -0000 someone who may be "Paul - xxx"
wrote this:-


Or maybe the cyclist did see the Lorry
was turning left yet still cycled into the well-known blind spot.


While not wishing to defend the reported behaviour of the cyclist,
the lorry industry made a lot of noise about "close proximity
mirrors" some years ago. Were these fitted to the lorry? If they
were did the driver use them?

Most HGVs are fitted with three mirrors, I'm not sure what the
legislation is regarding additional mirrors. One is long distance, one
is close and one points downwards from the door. Even with these three
there is reportedly a blind spot. The father of a woman killed in a
similar case to the above made a film as part of his campaign to have
HGVs barred from central London. I think the film is available on some
website (and was probably mentioned here a year or two ago.)

Colin

David Hansen wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:27:43 -0000 someone who may be "Paul - xxx"
wrote this:-


Or maybe the cyclist did see the Lorry
was turning left yet still cycled into the well-known blind spot.


While not wishing to defend the reported behaviour of the cyclist,
the lorry industry made a lot of noise about "close proximity
mirrors" some years ago. Were these fitted to the lorry? If they
were did the driver use them?


To ask that last question you seem to be considering the possibility
that the driver saw the cyclist and still drove over him, which is going
further than anyone else so far in trying to suggest it was the driver's
fault.

I am not aware of any amount of mirrors that can give the driver of a
HGV a comprehensive view of all areas around the vehicle. Even if extra
mirrors were fitted, they would be there to assist the driver, not to
provide an excuse for a cyclist to try getting through any gap close by
the lorry's left side, while the lorry indicated a left turn. As these
events show, that is an extremely dangerous manoeuvre.

I'm surprised to find that on this occasion I find it difficult to see
why the court was as hard as it was on the driver. Perhaps the CCTV,
which apparently persuaded the driver to plead guilty, gave a different
perspective to the one conveyed by the write-up posted here.

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap

David Hansen vaguely muttered something like ...
On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:27:43 -0000 someone who may be "Paul - xxx"
wrote this:-

Or maybe the cyclist did see the Lorry
was turning left yet still cycled into the well-known blind spot.

While not wishing to defend the reported behaviour of the cyclist,
the lorry industry made a lot of noise about "close proximity
mirrors" some years ago. Were these fitted to the lorry? If they
were did the driver use them?

What would be any different if the lorry had them?

There are still blind spots on a lorry no matter what they're fitted with.
If it was fitted with them it is still highly likely that the driver, as was
reported, could have checked the mirrors and still wouldn't have been able
to see a cyclist 'hanging on' to the side of the lorry.

--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules !!!
"A tosser is a tosser, no matter what mode of transport they're using."

JLB wrote:
David Hansen wrote:

On Tue, 23 Nov 2004 13:27:43 -0000 someone who may be "Paul - xxx"
wrote this:-


Or maybe the cyclist did see the Lorry was turning left yet still
cycled into the well-known blind spot.



While not wishing to defend the reported behaviour of the cyclist,
the lorry industry made a lot of noise about "close proximity
mirrors" some years ago. Were these fitted to the lorry? If they
were did the driver use them?


To ask that last question you seem to be considering the possibility
that the driver saw the cyclist and still drove over him, which is going
further than anyone else so far in trying to suggest it was the driver's
fault.

I am not aware of any amount of mirrors that can give the driver of a
HGV a comprehensive view of all areas around the vehicle. Even if extra
mirrors were fitted, they would be there to assist the driver, not to
provide an excuse for a cyclist to try getting through any gap close by
the lorry's left side, while the lorry indicated a left turn. As these
events show, that is an extremely dangerous manoeuvre.

I'm surprised to find that on this occasion I find it difficult to see
why the court was as hard as it was on the driver. Perhaps the CCTV,
which apparently persuaded the driver to plead guilty, gave a different
perspective to the one conveyed by the write-up posted here.


I think I'd have to agree with those who say the cyclist seems to have
brought this very much upon himself (sad indeed).

However, the CCTV may have shown the driver did not look properly in his
mirrors, and thus whether he would have seen the cyclist or not is a
moot point - and as such, the driver may have decided since he did not
quite do absolutely everything in his power to ensure there wasn't a
cyclist beside him when he started making the turn, that he should plead
guilty.

It may just be that the driver, instead of being the stereotypical tw*t
behind the wheel, is utterly guilt-ridden that if only he had looked
*better* in his mirrors, *perhaps* he would have seen the cyclist - even
if in actual fact the cyclist was slap bang in a blind spot.

There are some people who will always question whether they did
everything they could have in such a situation, and will put their hands
up and say they should have done it differently, instead of insisting
they did everything and being blind to the fact that they didn't do enough.

--


Velvet

"Just zis Guy, you know?" wrote in message . ..


As to leaning on the side of a left-turning truck - well, words fail
me. This sounds like a clipped-in fixie rider not wanting to stop and
put a foot down, using the truck as a leaning post. If that is not
the case then I apologise to his memory, but if it was the case the
coroner should have recorded a verdict of suicide.

Guy

Seb rode a freewheel. The coroner will open the inquest tomorrow.

"Clive George" wrote in message ...
...
What will it take to get them to look in their mirrors?

What will it take to get the message across to even experienced cyclists
that the inside of a left turning lorry is a lethal place to be?

If the events as detailed by the Crown are accurate, then Sebastian was a
complete and utter ****wit.


Cheers. I'll make sure to pass that on to his family.

I agree that lorries kill which is why we (the London Bicycle
Messenger Assoc.) have been trying to raise awareness of the danger
from lorries.