Terrible story, unbelievable behaviour from Frank Stubbs.
spindrift
Judith M Smith
<newt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Someone rode up the LHS of a lorry at the traffic lights on a cycle.
The lorry turned left and the cyclist was killed.
Moral of the story: do not ride up the LHS of any vehicle waiting at
traffic lights.
--
Many cyclists are proving the need for registration by their contempt for the Highway Code and laws.
The answer:
All cyclists over 16 to take compulsory test, have compulsory insurance, and be registered.
Registration number to be clearly vizible on the back of mandatory hi-viz vest.
Habitual law breakers' cycles confiscated and crushed.
(With thanks to KeithT for the idea)
JNugent
> spindrift <newt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Someone rode up the LHS of a lorry at the traffic lights on a cycle.
> The lorry turned left and the cyclist was killed.
> Moral of the story: do not ride up the LHS of any vehicle waiting at
> traffic lights.
There's a bit more to it than that.
The story (as posted by the dead man's brother) is harrowing distressing. It
is so distressing that one is forced to project the situation onto one's own
(and family) circumstances. It doesn't bear thinking about, even if some of
the account is obvious - if understandable - surmise rather than direct
knowledge.
There but for the grace...
Peter Grange
<judith...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 06:40:47 -0800 (PST), spindrift
><newt...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>http://www.outdoorsmagic.com/forum/forummessages/mps/UTN/32895/URN/6/dt/1/srchdte/0/cp/1/v/8/sp/354210394236230352300
>
>
>Someone rode up the LHS of a lorry at the traffic lights on a cycle.
>
>The lorry turned left and the cyclist was killed.
>
>Moral of the story: do not ride up the LHS of any vehicle waiting at
>traffic lights.
Thank you for trying to trivialise the death of a human being with a
callous points scoring exercise. To than append your trivial twaddle
about your current trivial rant is just plain despicable.
You are a truly despicable person.
Mr Benn
news:ip0og55dcvipejdfv...@4ax.com...
Go and read the censored group if you don't like this one.
Judith M Smith
Many thanks.
It is a tear jerking story - it is not even all statements of fact.
The death of Princess Diana was also truly awful.
If I want to read tear jerkers I will read an appropriate group - if
such exists.
People here *should* be asking why did this happen - how do you stop
it rather than having a little tear.
Still - if it makes you fell better - keep on doing it.
Happi Monday
Sorry, I agree with bitch Judy on this one > ride up the inner of any
vehicle and you get what you're asking for/deserve.
The solution is clearly some form of cycle test.
Just zis Guy, you know?
wrote:
>Sorry, I agree with bitch Judy on this one > ride up the inner of any
>vehicle and you get what you're asking for/deserve.
>The solution is clearly some form of cycle test.
The driver was convicted of killing the cyclist. The driver then
tried to cover it up, showing that he knew full well what he had done.
The cyclist was in front of the lorry, was banging on the front of the
cab, this was absolutely not the standard riding up the left
collision. All the driver had to do was brake, but he did not. As the
judge said, he showed "callous indifference" and I agree with the
brother that it is a gross failure of the legal system that he is not
now serving life for manslaughter, and he should certainly never be
allowed to drive a goods vehicle again. I simply do not want to share
the roads with the kind of person who will try to dispose of evidence
rather than stop and render aid to someone they have fatally injured.
To use this to further an anti-cyclist agenda, as judith does, is
entirely consistent with the "callous indifference" shown by the
driver, who also tried to blame the cyclist. The court found this to
be specious to the criminal standard of proof: beyond reasonable
doubt.
Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/urc
GPG public key at http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk/pgp-public-key.txt
spindrift
"But instead of reporting the accident, panicking Stubbs is believed
to have pulled over onto a layby, pulled out the wedged, mangled bike
from his lorry and thrown it into some undergrowth on the Ossett
Bypass along with Mr Spink's passport, other documents and two
panniers which the cyclist had been carrying...."
Judge Penelope Belcher said his behaviour after the accident had been
"callous" and he had shown total disregard for Mr Spink and his
family.
"You sought to prevent any proper investigation into the circumstances
of Mr Spink's death," she said. "You pulled the bike out from under
the lorry. It was plainly damaged.
"You must have realised you had collided with a pedal cyclist and that
the cyclist must have suffered serious injury, and given the
circumstances of the bike being lodged under the lorry, you must have
realised that the cyclist might have been killed.
"You plainly knew, or ought to have known, he was there.
"The exact circumstances are a matter of some dispute...(but] Mr Spink
and his bike ended up beneath your lorry."
She said Stubbs' attempts to "undermine the proper investigation" of
the case had added to Mr Spink's family's pain and the two years since
the event in July 2007 had been "worse and more distressing than the
actual funeral" for them.
"All involved in this case have conducted themselves with dignity,"
she told Stubbs. "Instead you continue, despite the weight of the
evidence against you, (to claim] no knowledge of how the bike came to
be in the undergrowth.
"You have shown no remorse at all.
"In the witness box not once did you express any concern for the
deceased and his family.
"Your attitude was 'it was all the cyclist's fault'.
"You showed callous indifference to Mr Spink's death and that was
reflected in how you disposed of the bike and other items in the
layby.
"It was plain you put concern for yourself above any concern for the
cyclist."
Judith M Smith
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:23:44 +0000, Happi Monday <ha...@munday.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Sorry, I agree with bitch Judy on this one > ride up the inner of any
>>vehicle and you get what you're asking for/deserve.
>>The solution is clearly some form of cycle test.
<snip>
Sorry Sunshine it really is quite clear:
"It is therefore known that our Tony caught the lorry up at the lights
and then proceeded past the lorry to take up a position at the front
of the lights. "
So - he overtook the lorry on the left.
It is dangerous to overtake a lorry on the left when the lorry is
waiting at the lights.
The lorry driver did not see the cyclist.
The cyclists was killed.
Moral of the story : do not "overtake" vehicles on their left -
especially when you are on a cycle.
Please feel free to provide a comprehensive alternative point of view
/disagreement with what I have said.
--
I have never said that I encourage my children to wear helmets.
I would challenge judith to find the place where I said I encourage my children to wear helmets.
I encourage my children to wear helmets. (Guy Chapman)
mileburner
"Judith M Smith" <judith...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
news:65tog5ht977m90m2t...@4ax.com...
> It is dangerous to overtake a lorry on the left when the lorry is
> waiting at the lights.
>
> The lorry driver did not see the cyclist.
>
> The cyclists was killed.
>
> Moral of the story : do not "overtake" vehicles on their left -
> especially when you are on a cycle.
While I have every sympathy for the victim and his family concerning this
shocking incident which led to the poor chaps death. I too must agree with
Judith on this one. Some drivers are careless, some drivers are c**ts, some
drivers are a combination of the two. Combine that attitude with a large
vehicle, and a driver who might be lost, reading his map, munching Yorkie
bars, playing with his laptop or mobile phone, or peeing in a bottle, while
not being able to see what is by the side or in front of him and you have a
dangerous place to be.
So if there is anything to be learned from this awful incident it is:
[1] Don't pass large vehicles unless there is plenty of space to pass
(several metres width), especially on the left and certainly don't be duped
into using a cycle lane at that point.
[2] Don't park up and wait in front of large vehicles (unless it is a long
way in front of them (several car lengths in front of them).
And if you have a large vehicle coming up behind you, it is better that you
are *entirely* in their way (which means the centre of the lane) and visible
or *entirely* out of their way (which means off the road completely).
Just zis Guy, you know?
<mileb...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>[1] Don't pass large vehicles unless there is plenty of space to pass
>(several metres width), especially on the left and certainly don't be duped
>into using a cycle lane at that point.
And how, precisely, do you account for the fact that the cyclist was
*in front* of the lorry and was banging on the *front* of the cab?
No, don't bother, obviously the anti-cyclist troll is right and the
family and the court are wrong.
mileburner
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:gjvpg516b1qti8kt0...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 02:41:26 -0000, "mileburner"
> <mileb...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>
>>[1] Don't pass large vehicles unless there is plenty of space to pass
>>(several metres width), especially on the left and certainly don't be
>>duped
>>into using a cycle lane at that point.
>
> And how, precisely, do you account for the fact that the cyclist was
> *in front* of the lorry and was banging on the *front* of the cab?
Sorry Guy but you have totally lost me there.
In front of the cab (especially too close to be seen by the driver) is not a
very safe place to be. You may feel differently. That's your prerogative.
But for the time being I intend to keep well away from the front and sides
of large vehicles.
> No, don't bother, obviously the anti-cyclist troll is right and the
> family and the court are wrong.
Ugh?
Peter Grange
<judith...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>
>Please feel free to provide a comprehensive alternative point of view
>/disagreement with what I have said.
>
It's not what you say, it is the manner and spirit in which you say
it. You have demonstrated time and time again you have no interest in
offering constructive advice to cyclists. Your "advice" is offered
purely for scoring a debating point or prolonging a thread. To use the
death of a human being at the hands of a callous uncaring driver to
further your petty points scoring game is nothing short of despicable.
Peter Grange
wrote:
You mean you are here because you expect to like everything you read?
Pull the other one.
BTW, is this you?
http://www.octagon-theatre.co.uk/index.jsp?articleid=41648
mileburner
"Just zis Guy, you know?" <guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:gjvpg516b1qti8kt0...@4ax.com...
>
> No, don't bother, obviously the anti-cyclist troll is right and the
> family and the court are wrong.
By this remark I am beginning to understand why Guy seems to generate a
certain degree of dislike.
There seems to be this idea amongst some posters that blame is *the* most
important thing. That cyclists *should* be able to use the roads free of any
threat from other careless (or callous) road users. That is rather
idealistic. The more important thing for cyclists is self-preservation and
that cyclists avoid accidents (even if it would not be their fault).
But when anyone makes a suggestion on this group of how a cyclist could
better protect themselves from careless/stupid drivers they are accused of
"victim blaming". But it is better to avoid an accident, than to be a
blameless victim.
There are a number of manoeuvres I see regularly that cyclists make which
place the cyclist in potential danger. Gutter riding through junctions,
overtaking on the left, riding in the door zone, entering the road without
looking to name a few and then there is the big killer, sitting in the blind
spot by the side of a goods vehicle.
While the driver *should* be aware of cyclists, there will always be drivers
who are not aware, and these are the ones who pose a threat. Frankly, I am
not prepared to put my life in the hands of a driver who *should* know I am
there but might not.
Peter Grange
<mileb...@btinternet.com> wrote:
>While the driver *should* be aware of cyclists, there will always be drivers
>who are not aware, and these are the ones who pose a threat. Frankly, I am
>not prepared to put my life in the hands of a driver who *should* know I am
>there but might not.
>
I agree we should not put ourselves in harm's way. There are no hard
and fast rules, each situation presents its own set of circumstances
to analyse. In general however, if there is not an ASL I would think
long & hard before venturing up the inside of the vehicle nearest the
lights, regardless of whether it be a car or HGV, or up the inside of
any HGV unless I can be quite sure I can get well clear to the front
of it. Before going up the inside of any traffic stream it's also
worth thinking ahead about what the situation is going to be on the
far side of the lights if/when the traffic stream is going to come
past again.
--
Pete
Keitht
jms has prior use of 'dethpicable', so much so that jms has an alter ego
known as 'Daffy Duck'.
HTH
--
Its never too late to reinvent the bicycle
Peter Parry
<guy.c...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>No, don't bother, obviously the anti-cyclist troll is right and the
>family and the court are wrong.
The family are obviously not in a position to look at this case
dispassionately but do feel the court got it wrong as they wanted a
life sentence for manslaughter. However, as you say, the court
appears to have got it right. Of the collision itself the Judge said
"The exact circumstances are a matter of some dispute". He was
cleared of a charge of dangerous driving but convicted on an
alternative charge of careless driving on a majority (10:2) verdict.
He was banned from driving for three years. As the offence occurred in
2007 a conviction for careless driving could not carry a custodial
sentence.
He plead guilty to charges of failing to stop after an accident,
failing to report an accident and driving more than the legal limit of
4.5 hours without a break.
He was also convicted of perverting the course of justice, for which
he received a custodial sentence of two years. Apparently he drove 6
miles with the bike under his vehicle, stopped and put it in his lorry
and then drove 30 miles off route to dump it.
Judith M Smith
<snip>
>jms has prior use of 'dethpicable', so much so that jms has an alter ego
>known as 'Daffy Duck'.
>
>HTH
Hello Keith - still hanging on to my every word I see.
Did I thank you for your ideas?
Señor Chris
>
> It is dangerous to overtake a lorry on the left when the lorry is
> waiting at the lights.
>
> The lorry driver did not see the cyclist.
>
> The cyclists was killed.
>
> Moral of the story : do not "overtake" vehicles on their left -
> especially when you are on a cycle.
>
Moral of the story : do not "overtake" *lorries* on their left -
overtaking cars on their left is perfectly safe.
Alex Potter
> Moral of the story : do not "overtake" *lorries* on their left -
> overtaking cars on their left is perfectly safe.
That's not invariably the case...
--
Regards
Alex
thirty-six
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:29:45 -0000, "mileburner"
>
Unless a HGV is clearly in another lane, there isn't space for a
cyclist and HGV to pass a junction together. They may leave a space
on the left or right and this is to enable them to negotiate their
vehicle through the junction, not themselves and a bicycle. If there
is a gap, they need it. Stay back unless you can see that you can
safely pass on the right of any HGV or bus.
mileburner
"Se�or Chris" <us...@domain.invalid> wrote in message
news:zodPm.28511$xt1...@newsfe14.ams2...
I cannot accept that *anything* undertaken where road traffic is involved is
"perfectly safe".
You may not have noticed that drivers sometimes stop to allow passengers to
alight, invariably the passenger will have little or no thought for an
undertaking cyclist and will throw the door open into them or their path.
Pedestrians cross the road between stationary vehicles too, they do not look
for cyclists undertaking. Oncoming traffic turns right into roads, drives
etc. they also do not look for undertaking cyclists.
On top of that, there is normally not enough space to overtake on the left
as drivers tend to only leave less than a metre from the kerb.
Overtaking (or filtering) on the right does have its hazards too, but on
balance, is probably safer (although possible scarier) and should not be
considered "safe" by any means.
Squashme
> "Señor Chris" <u...@domain.invalid> wrote in message
Do we know that he undertook the lorry on the left? Perhaps he
overtook on the right. He ended up in front of the lorry. Usually left
undertakers don't end up hit by the front of the lorry, do they?
"just one witness who saw him in front of the lorry only"
Right or left overtaking would not appear to have made any difference
at all. The driver was totally unaware of the cyclist. This did not
stop him from behaving appallingly in court:-
"He showed anger and he displayed vitriol in court towards our Tony.
It was unbelievable to hear. Our Tony was blamed as being suicidal,
stupid, a risk taker, reckless and someone who disobeyed the rule of
the road."
And he will be driving again soon, despite:-
"The driver continued with the bicycle still jammed under the lorry
for a further 6 miles. He then pulled over into a lay-by, pulled the
bicycle out from under the cab and threw it, together with 2 surviving
panniers, camping equipment, passport and other personal effects over
a barrier." And then denied it.
There is no mention of a psychiatric report. I guess that his complete
lack of remorse is acceptable behaviour in our society. So it goes.
mileburner
>
> Do we know that he undertook the lorry on the left? Perhaps he
> overtook on the right. He ended up in front of the lorry. Usually left
> undertakers don't end up hit by the front of the lorry, do they?
We do not know which side he passed. What we do know is that he ended up in
a position which resulted in his death.
> "just one witness who saw him in front of the lorry only"
>
> Right or left overtaking would not appear to have made any difference
> at all. The driver was totally unaware of the cyclist. This did not
> stop him from behaving appallingly in court:-
> "He showed anger and he displayed vitriol in court towards our Tony.
> It was unbelievable to hear. Our Tony was blamed as being suicidal,
> stupid, a risk taker, reckless and someone who disobeyed the rule of
> the road."
>
> And he will be driving again soon, despite:-
> "The driver continued with the bicycle still jammed under the lorry
> for a further 6 miles. He then pulled over into a lay-by, pulled the
> bicycle out from under the cab and threw it, together with 2 surviving
> panniers, camping equipment, passport and other personal effects over
> a barrier." And then denied it.
The driver was a c**t, if he was so stupid as to not realise what was
happenning as he was killing the cyclist, he really should have done the
decent thing when he realised what he had done.
But a driver killing a cyclist is a fairly regular occurence. Although I
suspect that even in the cases where the driver wanted to just "knock the
cyclist off" or "clip them on the way past" there is not the intention of
killing. That does not make it acceptable, it just means that cyclists need
to be acutely aware there are some very very very stupid, careless,
thoughtless, inconsiderate drivers out there who may kill them if they are
not very careful.
Squashme
> Squashme wrote:
>
> > Do we know that he undertook the lorry on the left? Perhaps he
> > overtook on the right. He ended up in front of the lorry. Usually left
> > undertakers don't end up hit by the front of the lorry, do they?
>
> We do not know which side he passed. What we do know is that he ended up in
> a position which resulted in his death.
>
A position in front of a lorry. Not unusual.
> But a driver killing a cyclist is a fairly regular occurence. Although I
> suspect that even in the cases where the driver wanted to just "knock the
> cyclist off" or "clip them on the way past" there is not the intention of
> killing. That does not make it acceptable, it just means that cyclists need
> to be acutely aware there are some very very very stupid, careless,
> thoughtless, inconsiderate drivers out there who may kill them if they are
> not very careful.
>
I just don't know how I can avoid being in front of a lorry at some
time while cycling, or indeed walking. Should I fire flares at regular
intervals to help get the driver's attention and keep him focussed?
mileburner
"Squashme" <squa...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dc1223e8-2c5e-4488...@d21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
It might help. But I must say that I find that being in front of a lorry is
one of the least comfortable places to be. WTF anyone would go out of their
way to get to that position amazes me.
If they approach you from behind they are very likely to see you. If you
overtake them there is a fair possibility that they wont.
Squashme
Comment on the lorry-driver by the victim's sister in the Yorkshire
Post:-
"She said on the night of the accident, unaware of the circumstances,
one of the first things the family had done was ask police how the
driver was.
"We showed compassion for him and we never got it in return," she
said."
chris French
<mileb...@btinternet.com> writes
Being directly in front I don't have a great problem with really. (as in
right in front in the middle of him, not in front but over by the kerb).
I'll likely be away and across the junction well before them.
However, from reading the account (and from the judges comments, it
seems the precise details aren't clear) it says that as Tony Spink
arrived at the front the lorry started to turn. Which would imply he was
only just in front and on the kerb side when the lorry moved off.
Unbelievably awful behaviour from the lorry driver though
--
Chris French
Peter Grange
Sorry, obviously that was posted as a reply to/comment on my post, but
I can't see why I would be going through the junction together with an
HGV if I am "well to the front". (Plus as I said each situation
presents its own set of circimstances). I can see where the HGV might
be passing _after_ the junction but I mentioned that.
--
Pete
thirty-six
Do you really think so, guilty conscience?
> but
> I can't see why I would be going through the junction together with an
> HGV if I am "well to the front".
Because your not, and you slow down because of the need to give way
and get swept up by the truck.
> (Plus as I said each situation
> presents its own set of circimstances).
Surprises can still occur, no matter how good you estimate of
intentions and road surface.
> I can see where the HGV might
> be passing _after_ the junction but I mentioned that.
if you stay behind, you have one less thing to worry about so you dont
get taken by surprise and dont end up under 40" wheel.s.
Peter Grange
I understand that even less I'm afraid.
>
>> but
>> I can't see why I would be going through the junction together with an
>> HGV if I am "well to the front".
>
>Because your not, and you slow down because of the need to give way
>and get swept up by the truck.
If I slow down to give way, so does the truck. If I'm well in front of
a large truck, and my acceleration is better than his over a short
distance, where do I get swept up? If I'm only just in front that's
different, but that's not what I said.
>
>> (Plus as I said each situation
>> presents its own set of circimstances).
>
>Surprises can still occur, no matter how good you estimate of
>intentions and road surface.
>
>> I can see where the HGV might
>> be passing _after_ the junction but I mentioned that.
>
>if you stay behind, you have one less thing to worry about so you dont
>get taken by surprise and dont end up under 40" wheel.s.
But I still have the traffic behind anyway. I choose where to be,
behind or in front of this theoretical truck, based on my judgement of
the situation at the time, like I said at the beginning.
thirty-six
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 02:19:15 -0800 (PST), thirty-six
> >> Sorry, obviously that was posted as a reply to/comment on my post,
>
> >Do you really think so, guilty conscience?
>
> I understand that even less I'm afraid.
It was not a post in response to your comments.
>
> >> but
> >> I can't see why I would be going through the junction together with an
> >> HGV if I am "well to the front".
>
> >Because your not, and you slow down because of the need to give way
> >and get swept up by the truck.
>
> If I slow down to give way, so does the truck. If I'm well in front of
> a large truck, and my acceleration is better than his over a short
> distance, where do I get swept up? If I'm only just in front that's
> different, but that's not what I said.
No. The truck does not necessarily slow down. If you dont give a
slowing down signal the driver would possibly run into the back of you
before he stood on the brakes and unshifted his load. Do you make
sure that the following drivers can see your signal to slow down and
have time to react and effect braking or do you just yank on the brake
levers?
>
> >> (Plus as I said each situation
> >> presents its own set of circimstances).
>
> >Surprises can still occur, no matter how good you estimate of
> >intentions and road surface.
>
> >> I can see where the HGV might
> >> be passing _after_ the junction but I mentioned that.
>
> >if you stay behind, you have one less thing to worry about so you dont
> >get taken by surprise and dont end up under 40" wheel.s.
>
> But I still have the traffic behind anyway. I choose where to be,
> behind or in front of this theoretical truck, based on my judgement of
> the situation at the time, like I said at the beginning.
Do you give slowing down signals for an appropriate period so that a
truck driver may see them, act upon them and effect a reasonable
retardation of his vehicle?
Peter Grange
<thirt...@live.co.uk> wrote:
>On 26 Nov, 10:54, Peter Grange <pe...@plgrange.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 02:19:15 -0800 (PST), thirty-six
>
>> >> Sorry, obviously that was posted as a reply to/comment on my post,
>>
>> >Do you really think so, guilty conscience?
>>
>> I understand that even less I'm afraid.
>It was not a post in response to your comments.
OK, but you could have made it easier for me by posting as a response
to whom it was supposed to be a response.
Judith M Smith
<phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
>Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> considered Wed, 25 Nov 2009 13:27:31
>He was also known to have continued driving when Tony was hanging onto
>his windscreen wipers and banging on the front of the cab pleading for
>it to stop. This shows clear intent to kill, and he should have been
>charged with, and convicted of, murder.
>Because that's exactly what it was.
>
>This was a gross miscarriage of justice.
woof woof
Judith M Smith
<phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
<snip>
>
>We know that the J troll is scum.
Why thank you Wanker.
Here are some of your little gems (again) - keep them coming
FACT that the Office of Nation Statistics gives the
number of pedestrian deaths from trips & slips for 2007 (over 3,000)
as being higher than the number killed in all incidents involving
vehicles.
(Anchor Lee)
If you find 2 abreast cyclists more obstructive than single file ones,
you must have been intending to pass dangerously close anyway.
(Anchor Lee)
If you claim to be held up by a cyclist, you are admitting to
dangerous driving, since the only way you could be held up is if your
intention was to pass dangerously close.
(Anchor Lee)
Commenting on a legal gate in a public park: I'd think it comes under
the heading of "causing an obstruction",
and should be investigated by the police as such.
(Anchor Lee)
If Traffic Lights are not working, then you can telephone the police
for permission to procede.
IF this is not forthcoming, then you can reports it as "unlawful
detention".
(Anchor Lee)
The police have clearly not been persuaded by the Law Lords, and still
try to treat the procession as unlawful. In this they are now equally
clearly in contempt of court. (Anchor Lee)
It could usefilly <sic> be pointed out to motorists that if they are
within range of a swung D lock, they are too close, and could be held
liable for any collision (including with the D lock).
thirty-six
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 03:22:40 -0800 (PST), thirty-six
> >It was not a post in response to your comments.
>
> OK, but you could have made it easier for me by posting as a response
> to whom it was supposed to be a response.
Sorry,Ii found it a convenient place to tag in my comment. That is
all.
thirty-six
> Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> considered Fri, 27 Nov 2009 23:09:02
> +0000 the perfect time to write:
>
> ><phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
>
> >>He was also known to have continued driving when Tony was hanging onto
> >>his windscreen wipers and banging on the front of the cab pleading for
> >>it to stop.
>
> >knowledge of all the witness statements we could argue forever, but it
> >remains that a jury did not convict him of dangerous driving and the
> >prosecutors didn't even bother to try for a higher charge of
> >manslaughter far less murder. It would appear the evidence was not as
> >unequivocal as some have reported or chosen to believe.
>
> That is what is broken about the legal system - the jury were never
> even given the option of murder or manslaughter, despite that evidence
> (from independent witnesses).
>
> I'm calling him an unconvicted murderer - he can sue me if he dares.
> I'm also calling the CPS accomplices after the fact.
> They are just as much criminals for failing to enforce the law.
The jury is asked to return a verdict on a specific charge. The jury
may return any verdict they wish, whether or not it has been raised.
This is rare and the judge may not accept the desicision if he
disagrees. The jurors would then likely be asked to reconsider and
return with a decision for which a defendant has been charged. They
can return whatever verdict they like. I dont know whether the threat
of detention by the court generally has bearing of the jurors
complying with the request or that it is possibly to dismiss the
jurors. I think this is unlikely and the threat of being charged with
contempt usually brings an errant jury into line.
Judith M Smith
<phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
>Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk> considered Fri, 27 Nov 2009 23:09:02
>+0000 the perfect time to write:
>
>>On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 01:44:47 +0000, Phil W Lee
>><phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
>>
>>>He was also known to have continued driving when Tony was hanging onto
>>>his windscreen wipers and banging on the front of the cab pleading for
>>>it to stop.
>>
>>Apparently not, or at least not enough to convince a jury. Without
>>knowledge of all the witness statements we could argue forever, but it
>>remains that a jury did not convict him of dangerous driving and the
>>prosecutors didn't even bother to try for a higher charge of
>>manslaughter far less murder. It would appear the evidence was not as
>>unequivocal as some have reported or chosen to believe.
>
>That is what is broken about the legal system - the jury were never
>even given the option of murder or manslaughter, despite that evidence
>(from independent witnesses).
>
>I'm calling him an unconvicted murderer - he can sue me if he dares.
>I'm also calling the CPS accomplices after the fact.
>They are just as much criminals for failing to enforce the law.
Indeed they are Anchor - why don't you take them to court.
Judith M Smith
wrote:
>On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 01:44:47 +0000, Phil W Lee
><phil(at)lee-family(dot)me(dot)uk> wrote:
>
>>He was also known to have continued driving when Tony was hanging onto
>>his windscreen wipers and banging on the front of the cab pleading for
>>it to stop.
>
>Apparently not, or at least not enough to convince a jury. Without
>knowledge of all the witness statements we could argue forever, but it
>remains that a jury did not convict him of dangerous driving and the
>prosecutors didn't even bother to try for a higher charge of
>manslaughter far less murder. It would appear the evidence was not as
>unequivocal as some have reported or chosen to believe.
They will also not have had the Anchor Lee expertise with matters
legal.
Doug
> Judith M Smith wrote:
> > spindrift <newty...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>http://www.outdoorsmagic.com/forum/forummessages/mps/UTN/32895/URN/6/...
> > Someone rode up the LHS of a lorry at the traffic lights on a cycle.
> > The lorry turned left and the cyclist was killed.
> > Moral of the story: do not ride up the LHS of any vehicle waiting at
> > traffic lights.
>
> There's a bit more to it than that.
>
> The story (as posted by the dead man's brother) is harrowing distressing. It
> is so distressing that one is forced to project the situation onto one's own
> (and family) circumstances. It doesn't bear thinking about, even if some of
> the account is obvious - if understandable - surmise rather than direct
> knowledge.
>
> There but for the grace...
>
It says, "It is therefore known that our Tony caught the lorry up at
the lights and then proceeded past the lorry to take up a position at
the front of the lights. Witnesses say the lorry was stationary at
the lights. As our Tony arrived at the front, the lorry, began a left
turn and turned his cab into him. It struck his rear wheel. One
witness at the other side of the junction, heard our Tony shout “woah,
woah” in an attempt to get the driver to stop. He didn’t. Another
witness at another part of the junction saw our Tony on his bike in
front of the lorry banging with his fist on the panel below the
windscreen to alert the driver to stop. The driver continued. The
same witness then saw our Tony try to jump at the windscreen wipers in
an attempt to hold on but he couldn't and the witness saw him dragged
under the wheels. The driver continued his left turn and, with the
bicycle and our Tony still underneath his lorry, dragged him for 150
metres further before his body was ejected at a roundabout.
The driver continued with the bicycle still jammed under the lorry for
a further 6 miles. He then pulled over into a lay-by, pulled the
bicycle out from under the cab and threw it, together with 2 surviving
panniers, camping equipment, passport and other personal effects over
a barrier."
>
Charming! And they wonder why cyclists sometimes choose to cycle on
pavements regardless of the law as the safest option. Then they have
the barefaced cheek to suggest that cyclists are responsible for their
own deaths and should get some training.
--
UK Radical Campaigns
www.zing.icom43.net
A driving licence is a licence to kill.
JNugent
> JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
>> Judith M Smith wrote:
>>> spindrift <newty...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> http://www.outdoorsmagic.com/forum/forummessages/mps/UTN/32895/URN/6/....
>>> Someone rode up the LHS of a lorry at the traffic lights on a cycle.
>>> The lorry turned left and the cyclist was killed.
>>> Moral of the story: do not ride up the LHS of any vehicle waiting at
>>> traffic lights.
>> There's a bit more to it than that.
>> The story (as posted by the dead man's brother) is harrowing distressing. It
>> is so distressing that one is forced to project the situation onto one's own
>> (and family) circumstances. It doesn't bear thinking about, even if some of
>> the account is obvious - if understandable - surmise rather than direct
>> knowledge.
>> There but for the grace...
> It says, "It is therefore known that our Tony caught the lorry up at
> the lights and then proceeded past the lorry to take up a position at
> the front of the lights. Witnesses say the lorry was stationary at
> the lights. As our Tony arrived at the front, the lorry, began a left
> turn and turned his cab into him. It struck his rear wheel. One
> witness at the other side of the junction, heard our Tony shout �woah,
> woah� in an attempt to get the driver to stop. He didn�t. Another
> witness at another part of the junction saw our Tony on his bike in
> front of the lorry banging with his fist on the panel below the
> windscreen to alert the driver to stop. The driver continued. The
> same witness then saw our Tony try to jump at the windscreen wipers in
> an attempt to hold on but he couldn't and the witness saw him dragged
> under the wheels. The driver continued his left turn and, with the
> bicycle and our Tony still underneath his lorry, dragged him for 150
> metres further before his body was ejected at a roundabout.
> The driver continued with the bicycle still jammed under the lorry for
> a further 6 miles. He then pulled over into a lay-by, pulled the
> bicycle out from under the cab and threw it, together with 2 surviving
> panniers, camping equipment, passport and other personal effects over
> a barrier."
> Charming! And they wonder why cyclists sometimes choose to cycle on
> pavements regardless of the law as the safest option.
It isn't.
You don't need to have witnessed that incident to instinctively grasp the
*fact* that the "safest option" would have been not to overtake the lorry at
all. That can be of little consolation to the bereaved family, but it's true
nevertheless.
JNugent
> On Sat, 28 Nov 2009 22:44:12 +0000, Peter Parry <pe...@wpp.ltd.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Which evidence? The CPS presumably examined all the evidence and
>> found that in totality it was insufficient to justify a charge of
>> anything other than dangerous driving and they even failed to convince
>> a jury that was appropriate.
>
> No, the CPS make choices based on the likely cost and the chances of a
> conviction. They are not allowed to prosecute for several different
> offences (manslaughter and death by dangerous, for example) by their
> rules, so they go for the one they think will yield a conviction. In
> a proper system they would have prosecuted for every possible offence
> up to and including manslaughter and the jury would have been left to
> decide guilt or innocence on each count.
"Prosecute early and often, at least until the verdict you want is obtained;
accept no substitutes", eh?
mileburner
"JNugent" <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote in message
news:CpqdnUQ5xekNE4_W...@pipex.net...
>
>> Charming! And they wonder why cyclists sometimes choose to cycle on
>> pavements regardless of the law as the safest option.
>
> It isn't.
>
> You don't need to have witnessed that incident to instinctively grasp the
> *fact* that the "safest option" would have been not to overtake the lorry
> at all. That can be of little consolation to the bereaved family, but it's
> true nevertheless.
I agree.
However, there does seem to be a little too much of the attitude amongst
cyclists of "get out of my way, I am a vulnerable road user" and "cyclists
should not have to be held up by traffic, so I can pass anything that is
stationary or slow moving".
Unfortunately, this rather cavalier approach can lead to accidents.
What cyclists tend to forget is that sometimes you need to stop, wait and
assess what is going on before proceeding.
This is not victim blaming, it is merely pointing out that if the poor chap
had not passed the HGV, the driver would not have killed him.
Drivers are (in the main) c***s, bear that in mind and it will help you to
stay alive.
BrianW
No, I think he means that a range of possible offences should be
presented to the jury, who could decide which one is most appropriate.
pk
news:heu735$to8$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> Drivers are (in the main) c***s, bear that in mind and it will help you to
> stay alive.
>
incorrect:
Drivers are in the main sensible and reasonable people who do not like
bending their cars by hitting things. Evidence? most cars show no signs of
damage.
All drivers are human and therefore fallible and will sometimes make honest
mistakes: Cycle in anticipation of those mistakes and you will be safer.
Some people are c***s. Some people cycle & some people drive. It follows
that some cyclists and some drivers are c***s.
pk.
pk
news:8561834c-f200-4695...@o10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>>>
I thought juries were there to decide matters of fact - deciding which
offence to charge is a matter of law, for the prosecuting authorities not
the jury???
pk
BrianW
> "BrianW" <brianwhiteh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
No, I don't think he meant the jury should decide which offence to
charge with. I think he meant they should decide which offence to
convict the defendant of, or not, as the case may be.
pk
the jury should not be presented with a menu of possible crimes to convict
against - if that were to happen the crime selected would vary as a function
of the attractiveness of the victim (Blond blue eyed 18 year old vs grubby
vagrant = sympathy vote not law)
Only if the facts are unclear (Dangerous vs careless? = matter of fact)
should the jury be given the options.
pk
Judith M Smith
<mileb...@btinternet.com> wrote:
<snip>
>Drivers are (in the main) c***s, bear that in mind and it will help you to
>stay alive.
>
Yes - very scientific and well thought out.
Doug
> Doug wrote:
> > JNugent <J...@noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:
> >> Judith M Smith wrote:
> >>> spindrift <newty...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>http://www.outdoorsmagic.com/forum/forummessages/mps/UTN/32895/URN/6/....
> >>> Someone rode up the LHS of a lorry at the traffic lights on a cycle.
> >>> The lorry turned left and the cyclist was killed.
> >>> Moral of the story: do not ride up the LHS of any vehicle waiting at
> >>> traffic lights.
> >> There's a bit more to it than that.
> >> The story (as posted by the dead man's brother) is harrowing distressing. It
> >> is so distressing that one is forced to project the situation onto one's own
> >> (and family) circumstances. It doesn't bear thinking about, even if some of
> >> the account is obvious - if understandable - surmise rather than direct
> >> knowledge.
> >> There but for the grace...
> > It says, "It is therefore known that our Tony caught the lorry up at
> > the lights and then proceeded past the lorry to take up a position at
> > the front of the lights. Witnesses say the lorry was stationary at
> > the lights. As our Tony arrived at the front, the lorry, began a left
> > turn and turned his cab into him. It struck his rear wheel. One
> > woah” in an attempt to get the driver to stop. He didn’t. Another
> > witness at another part of the junction saw our Tony on his bike in
> > front of the lorry banging with his fist on the panel below the
> > windscreen to alert the driver to stop. The driver continued. The
> > same witness then saw our Tony try to jump at the windscreen wipers in
> > an attempt to hold on but he couldn't and the witness saw him dragged
> > under the wheels. The driver continued his left turn and, with the
> > bicycle and our Tony still underneath his lorry, dragged him for 150
> > metres further before his body was ejected at a roundabout.
> > The driver continued with the bicycle still jammed under the lorry for
> > a further 6 miles. He then pulled over into a lay-by, pulled the
> > bicycle out from under the cab and threw it, together with 2 surviving
> > panniers, camping equipment, passport and other personal effects over
> > a barrier."
> > Charming! And they wonder why cyclists sometimes choose to cycle on
> > pavements regardless of the law as the safest option.
>
> It isn't.
>
> You don't need to have witnessed that incident to instinctively grasp the
> *fact* that the "safest option" would have been not to overtake the lorry at
> all. That can be of little consolation to the bereaved family, but it's true
> nevertheless.
>
and preferably don't go out and stay at home, or failing that cycle
only on pavements.
Maybe the answer is to make our roads much safer than they are at
present, especially for vulnerable road users, by restricting their
killers in various ways, as is done at present only more so.
mileburner
> If you are maximising the safest option then it is not to cycle at all
> and preferably don't go out and stay at home, or failing that cycle
> only on pavements.
Can you provide any evidence that pavements are a safer place to cycle? ISTM
pavements are more dangerous.
JNugent
> wrote:
>
>> On the contrary, it appears they have done just that and charged with
>> the most serious offence the evidence supported which was dangerous
>> driving. Even then they couldn't convince a jury of their case.
>
> For values of "supported" which are in the context of juries which
> have historically refused to treat motor manslaughter as anything
> other than an "accident". Hence the need to come up with new offences
> for killers whose weapon of choice is the motor car.
>
> Guy
Doug?
Why are you posting as "Guy"?
BrianW
Either Doug has got a number of sock puppets, including Guy,
mileburner and Phil W Lee, or Gollumitis is spreading rapidly through
the URC community.
mileburner
>
> Either Doug has got a number of sock puppets, including Guy,
> mileburner and Phil W Lee, or Gollumitis is spreading rapidly through
> the URC community.
But BrianW also wrote:
The cause was clearly the presence of the car. People tend not to die if
they run across an empty road.
Doug meet BrianW, BrianW meet Doug.
BrianW
<chuckle>
OK, fine. I suspect that most people are thinking it's *you* who is
the GollumClone, but I'm happy for you to think it's me.
BTW, you still haven't explained what you mean by "cause" in the
context you are using it.
Terra Nova
issuing the following warnings and advice to victims of crime, in the
hope they learn from their stupidity and avoid themselves being the
subject of more crime. These are taken from actual cases,, the
stupidiyt of victims is the overwhelmin factor:
A small child gets mauled to death by a pit bull terrier… moral of the
story is don’t leave your kid in the same room as a pit bull. Verdict
on dog-owner: NOT GUILTY.
Woman gets raped by man after drink spike by rohypnol in a night club…
moral of the story is, don’t wear sexy, feminine clothes and talk to
men in night clubs and don’t take your eyes off your drink. Verdict
on rapist: NOT GUILTY.
Young man intervenes to break up youths beating a man to death, gets
stabbed to death by one of the fighters… moral of the story, don’t
intervene with someone who is already known to be violent. Verdict on
murderer: NOT GUILTY.
Man leaves Christmas presents on back seat of car, youth breaks in and
steals them. Moral of the story, don’t leave goods on display in
car. Verdict on thief: NOT GUILTY.
Old lady leaves house with £1,000 cash she had stashed under her
mattress to pay it into bank, gets robbed. Moral of the story, don’t;
carry such sums of cash on you without a security escort. Verdict on
robber: NOT GUILTY.
Man cycles past lorry to get to front of traffic lights. Driver of
lorry overtakes cyclist 30 seconds earlier, forgets cyclist, never
checks mirrors, doesn’t pay attention, ignores shouts, banging,
scraping, thudding, bumping, traffic horns, drives on and dumps
bicycle. Moral of the story, don’t cycle on roads, and don’t cycle
anywhere near lorry drivers. Verdict on driver: NOT GUILTY.
Man walks home from work, walks into demonstration, gets truncheoned
to the floor by police in unprovoked attack, sustains injuries. Moral
of the story, don’t walk down the street just in case there are police
and/or demonstrators present. Verdict on assailant: NOT GUILTY.
Woman allows salesman into home, agrees to have house re-wired under
pretence it is faulty when it isn’t, pays £3,000 to have work done,
work done under pretence. Moral of the story: don’t be stupid enough
not to get a second opinion and part with cash. Verdict on con-
merchant: NOT GUILTY.
Chemical company’s factory explodes pouring out toxic gas causing
debilitating illnesses in local population for decades. Moral of the
story, don’t buy a house near a chemical works. Verdict on chemical
company: NOT GUILTY.
Welcome to the world of JUSTICE JUDITH SMITH.