Minibus driver cleared of causing death of Wimborne cyclist David Irving in Southampton

Bournemouth Echo: David Irving David Irving

A MINIBUS driver has been cleared of causing the death of a cyclist on a busy dual carriageway.

Father-of-two David Irving, 48, from Wimborne, died at the scene of the accident on Mountbatten Way in Southampton on the morning of December 17, 2012.

Driver Steven Petterson claimed bright sunlight causing a glare on the wet road meant he did not see the cyclist.

A jury found the 38-year-old driver, from Waterhouse Lane in Southampton, not guilty of causing death by careless driving after an eight-day trial at Southampton Crown Court.

One of Mr Irving’s sisters sobbed in the public gallery as their verdict was read out.

Outside the court, his older brother Nick, 56, said: “David was a healthy and active person.

“He was a loved and dedicated father to two teenage daughters.

“He was a very keen cyclist and was very sporty, competent and fit and is missed by all the family.”

The IT consultant fell from his red Giant bike after he was in collision with the youth worker’s white Ford Transit minibus.

Moments later he was run over by a Mercedes and died at the scene from multiple head and body injuries.

Mr Petterson claimed bright sunlight prevented him from seeing the rider – who was wearing a high visibility jacket, an LED anklet and lights on his bike.

Barrister Mark Florida-James, for Mr Petterson, said outside court: “This case is very tragic.

“There are no winners or losers.

“Mr Petterson is very sorry for what has happened and it just shows how hazardous driving is.”

The driver – who was on his way to pick up his step-daughter and take her to school – heard a bang after joining the carriageway from Waterhouse Lane.

His wing mirror snapped against the side of his vehicle and he pulled into a layby.

He recalled seeing a flash of red, assumed he had hit a bus stop post and called his father, who lives nearby, to investigate.

He made a panic-stricken 999 call after realising there had been an accident, admitting he had hit someone.

After being arrested, he told police he was driving within the speed limit but had been blinded by the low sun, despite wearing prescription sunglasses and having his sun visor down.

Mr Irving had driven from his home to Totton, before continuing to Southampton city centre by bike.

Complex and detailed investigation

Senior investigating officer Sergeant Rob Heard, of Hampshire Constabulary, said it had been a “complex, extremely thorough and detailed investigation”.

He added: “The case highlights that motorists need to be aware of the possible presence of cyclists on our roads and ensure they pass them giving plenty of room.

“This case focussed on the low winter sun on the morning of the collision and how at times it had made the view ahead difficult to see for some depending on where you were on the road leading up to the collision location.

“David Irving was cycling legally on the road and was there to be seen. He had been seen by numerous motorists that day.

“The case rested on the jury identifying why the driver failed to see Mr Irving and by failing to see him if this was careless or not.”

Comments (36)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

2:16pm Wed 29 Jan 14

mikey2gorgeous says...

This excuse of 'not seeing' due to 'being blinded' is used more and more. Was the blinding for a second or 2? If it was then the cyclist should have been visible outside of that. If it was for longer, why the hell was he driving where he couldn't see?
This excuse of 'not seeing' due to 'being blinded' is used more and more. Was the blinding for a second or 2? If it was then the cyclist should have been visible outside of that. If it was for longer, why the hell was he driving where he couldn't see? mikey2gorgeous
  • Score: 11

2:31pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Hessenford says...

mikey2gorgeous wrote:
This excuse of 'not seeing' due to 'being blinded' is used more and more. Was the blinding for a second or 2? If it was then the cyclist should have been visible outside of that. If it was for longer, why the hell was he driving where he couldn't see?
I would have thought the court was made aware of the question you ask, perhaps it wasn't so simple as you imply, without reading all of the evidence in this case it is impossible to judge the outcome, even though you may not like it.
[quote][p][bold]mikey2gorgeous[/bold] wrote: This excuse of 'not seeing' due to 'being blinded' is used more and more. Was the blinding for a second or 2? If it was then the cyclist should have been visible outside of that. If it was for longer, why the hell was he driving where he couldn't see?[/p][/quote]I would have thought the court was made aware of the question you ask, perhaps it wasn't so simple as you imply, without reading all of the evidence in this case it is impossible to judge the outcome, even though you may not like it. Hessenford
  • Score: 19

2:46pm Wed 29 Jan 14

muscliffman says...

Whilst not wishing to question the specific verdict, I do just hope all those concerned did a simple double check of exactly where the vision impairing 'low sun' would have been at the time and location of this accident.

From personal experience I recall a disputed RTA insurance claim where a detailed site investigation found that the 'blinding rising sun in the driver's eyes' would in fact have been rising completely behind the party who was offering that explanation.
Whilst not wishing to question the specific verdict, I do just hope all those concerned did a simple double check of exactly where the vision impairing 'low sun' would have been at the time and location of this accident. From personal experience I recall a disputed RTA insurance claim where a detailed site investigation found that the 'blinding rising sun in the driver's eyes' would in fact have been rising completely behind the party who was offering that explanation. muscliffman
  • Score: 12

3:02pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Hessenford says...

muscliffman wrote:
Whilst not wishing to question the specific verdict, I do just hope all those concerned did a simple double check of exactly where the vision impairing 'low sun' would have been at the time and location of this accident.

From personal experience I recall a disputed RTA insurance claim where a detailed site investigation found that the 'blinding rising sun in the driver's eyes' would in fact have been rising completely behind the party who was offering that explanation.
Fact is he was judged by a jury which took 8 hours to reach their conclusion and while I would not be accused of putting the cyclist to any blame they found him innocent of the charge against him, like it or not that's the verdict, the jury were privy to more information than you or I so they must have had good reason to clear him.
There are some who will be very annoyed at this verdict because it was a cyclist but they will have to live with that I'm afraid.
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: Whilst not wishing to question the specific verdict, I do just hope all those concerned did a simple double check of exactly where the vision impairing 'low sun' would have been at the time and location of this accident. From personal experience I recall a disputed RTA insurance claim where a detailed site investigation found that the 'blinding rising sun in the driver's eyes' would in fact have been rising completely behind the party who was offering that explanation.[/p][/quote]Fact is he was judged by a jury which took 8 hours to reach their conclusion and while I would not be accused of putting the cyclist to any blame they found him innocent of the charge against him, like it or not that's the verdict, the jury were privy to more information than you or I so they must have had good reason to clear him. There are some who will be very annoyed at this verdict because it was a cyclist but they will have to live with that I'm afraid. Hessenford
  • Score: 3

3:07pm Wed 29 Jan 14

SeafaringMan says...

He was acquitted after due process of law and by due deliberation by a jury of his peers. I don't think there is any cause for anyone here to dispute the verdict.
He was acquitted after due process of law and by due deliberation by a jury of his peers. I don't think there is any cause for anyone here to dispute the verdict. SeafaringMan
  • Score: 5

3:11pm Wed 29 Jan 14

mikey2gorgeous says...

Hessenford wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
Whilst not wishing to question the specific verdict, I do just hope all those concerned did a simple double check of exactly where the vision impairing 'low sun' would have been at the time and location of this accident.

From personal experience I recall a disputed RTA insurance claim where a detailed site investigation found that the 'blinding rising sun in the driver's eyes' would in fact have been rising completely behind the party who was offering that explanation.
Fact is he was judged by a jury which took 8 hours to reach their conclusion and while I would not be accused of putting the cyclist to any blame they found him innocent of the charge against him, like it or not that's the verdict, the jury were privy to more information than you or I so they must have had good reason to clear him.
There are some who will be very annoyed at this verdict because it was a cyclist but they will have to live with that I'm afraid.
Whatever the whys and wherefores of this case - it does prove that it is simply not safe to mix cyclists and 40mph motor traffic.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: Whilst not wishing to question the specific verdict, I do just hope all those concerned did a simple double check of exactly where the vision impairing 'low sun' would have been at the time and location of this accident. From personal experience I recall a disputed RTA insurance claim where a detailed site investigation found that the 'blinding rising sun in the driver's eyes' would in fact have been rising completely behind the party who was offering that explanation.[/p][/quote]Fact is he was judged by a jury which took 8 hours to reach their conclusion and while I would not be accused of putting the cyclist to any blame they found him innocent of the charge against him, like it or not that's the verdict, the jury were privy to more information than you or I so they must have had good reason to clear him. There are some who will be very annoyed at this verdict because it was a cyclist but they will have to live with that I'm afraid.[/p][/quote]Whatever the whys and wherefores of this case - it does prove that it is simply not safe to mix cyclists and 40mph motor traffic. mikey2gorgeous
  • Score: 29

3:17pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Hessenford says...

mikey2gorgeous wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
muscliffman wrote:
Whilst not wishing to question the specific verdict, I do just hope all those concerned did a simple double check of exactly where the vision impairing 'low sun' would have been at the time and location of this accident.

From personal experience I recall a disputed RTA insurance claim where a detailed site investigation found that the 'blinding rising sun in the driver's eyes' would in fact have been rising completely behind the party who was offering that explanation.
Fact is he was judged by a jury which took 8 hours to reach their conclusion and while I would not be accused of putting the cyclist to any blame they found him innocent of the charge against him, like it or not that's the verdict, the jury were privy to more information than you or I so they must have had good reason to clear him.
There are some who will be very annoyed at this verdict because it was a cyclist but they will have to live with that I'm afraid.
Whatever the whys and wherefores of this case - it does prove that it is simply not safe to mix cyclists and 40mph motor traffic.
On that we are in agreement.
[quote][p][bold]mikey2gorgeous[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: Whilst not wishing to question the specific verdict, I do just hope all those concerned did a simple double check of exactly where the vision impairing 'low sun' would have been at the time and location of this accident. From personal experience I recall a disputed RTA insurance claim where a detailed site investigation found that the 'blinding rising sun in the driver's eyes' would in fact have been rising completely behind the party who was offering that explanation.[/p][/quote]Fact is he was judged by a jury which took 8 hours to reach their conclusion and while I would not be accused of putting the cyclist to any blame they found him innocent of the charge against him, like it or not that's the verdict, the jury were privy to more information than you or I so they must have had good reason to clear him. There are some who will be very annoyed at this verdict because it was a cyclist but they will have to live with that I'm afraid.[/p][/quote]Whatever the whys and wherefores of this case - it does prove that it is simply not safe to mix cyclists and 40mph motor traffic.[/p][/quote]On that we are in agreement. Hessenford
  • Score: 13

3:18pm Wed 29 Jan 14

suzigirl says...

I got blinded by the sun many years ago when driving my Ford Capri and hit a milk float which was parked on the road! The milk float hardly moved...........It also happened to be my milk man!
I got blinded by the sun many years ago when driving my Ford Capri and hit a milk float which was parked on the road! The milk float hardly moved...........It also happened to be my milk man! suzigirl
  • Score: 2

3:49pm Wed 29 Jan 14

downfader says...

SeafaringMan wrote:
He was acquitted after due process of law and by due deliberation by a jury of his peers. I don't think there is any cause for anyone here to dispute the verdict.
Well actually there might be.

- if none of the jury have any experience of modern cycling (this leads to the same kinds of psychological bias we see in race/sex related trials)
- if the Police/CPS hadnt been properly prepared (we know they struggled under cross examination and didnt have the answers)

We also have to understand that little was made of the driver leaving the scene.

As a Southampton rider myself I know this road well. I'm doubtful Mr Irving will have known the alternative routes as they are so poorly signposted and advertised. They also harbour risks of their own and are under risk from being removed in favour of HGV traffic.
[quote][p][bold]SeafaringMan[/bold] wrote: He was acquitted after due process of law and by due deliberation by a jury of his peers. I don't think there is any cause for anyone here to dispute the verdict.[/p][/quote]Well actually there might be. - if none of the jury have any experience of modern cycling (this leads to the same kinds of psychological bias we see in race/sex related trials) - if the Police/CPS hadnt been properly prepared (we know they struggled under cross examination and didnt have the answers) We also have to understand that little was made of the driver leaving the scene. As a Southampton rider myself I know this road well. I'm doubtful Mr Irving will have known the alternative routes as they are so poorly signposted and advertised. They also harbour risks of their own and are under risk from being removed in favour of HGV traffic. downfader
  • Score: 21

3:55pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Hessenford says...

downfader wrote:
SeafaringMan wrote:
He was acquitted after due process of law and by due deliberation by a jury of his peers. I don't think there is any cause for anyone here to dispute the verdict.
Well actually there might be.

- if none of the jury have any experience of modern cycling (this leads to the same kinds of psychological bias we see in race/sex related trials)
- if the Police/CPS hadnt been properly prepared (we know they struggled under cross examination and didnt have the answers)

We also have to understand that little was made of the driver leaving the scene.

As a Southampton rider myself I know this road well. I'm doubtful Mr Irving will have known the alternative routes as they are so poorly signposted and advertised. They also harbour risks of their own and are under risk from being removed in favour of HGV traffic.
Members of the jury do not have any experience of modern murderers but they still judge them and reach a verdict, your reasoning for the outcome is pure nonsense.
[quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SeafaringMan[/bold] wrote: He was acquitted after due process of law and by due deliberation by a jury of his peers. I don't think there is any cause for anyone here to dispute the verdict.[/p][/quote]Well actually there might be. - if none of the jury have any experience of modern cycling (this leads to the same kinds of psychological bias we see in race/sex related trials) - if the Police/CPS hadnt been properly prepared (we know they struggled under cross examination and didnt have the answers) We also have to understand that little was made of the driver leaving the scene. As a Southampton rider myself I know this road well. I'm doubtful Mr Irving will have known the alternative routes as they are so poorly signposted and advertised. They also harbour risks of their own and are under risk from being removed in favour of HGV traffic.[/p][/quote]Members of the jury do not have any experience of modern murderers but they still judge them and reach a verdict, your reasoning for the outcome is pure nonsense. Hessenford
  • Score: 1

4:01pm Wed 29 Jan 14

downfader says...

Hessenford wrote:
downfader wrote:
SeafaringMan wrote:
He was acquitted after due process of law and by due deliberation by a jury of his peers. I don't think there is any cause for anyone here to dispute the verdict.
Well actually there might be.

- if none of the jury have any experience of modern cycling (this leads to the same kinds of psychological bias we see in race/sex related trials)
- if the Police/CPS hadnt been properly prepared (we know they struggled under cross examination and didnt have the answers)

We also have to understand that little was made of the driver leaving the scene.

As a Southampton rider myself I know this road well. I'm doubtful Mr Irving will have known the alternative routes as they are so poorly signposted and advertised. They also harbour risks of their own and are under risk from being removed in favour of HGV traffic.
Members of the jury do not have any experience of modern murderers but they still judge them and reach a verdict, your reasoning for the outcome is pure nonsense.
You're confusing the outcome with the activities that lead to it. Therefore you have failed in your own reasoning. Most murders are committed by sane people forced into irrational circumstance.

You should also note that when trial commence over any RTI the Police and CPS are supposed to have a grounding of road safety knowledge. I am saying the Jury should also be as prepared to understand all the numbers
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SeafaringMan[/bold] wrote: He was acquitted after due process of law and by due deliberation by a jury of his peers. I don't think there is any cause for anyone here to dispute the verdict.[/p][/quote]Well actually there might be. - if none of the jury have any experience of modern cycling (this leads to the same kinds of psychological bias we see in race/sex related trials) - if the Police/CPS hadnt been properly prepared (we know they struggled under cross examination and didnt have the answers) We also have to understand that little was made of the driver leaving the scene. As a Southampton rider myself I know this road well. I'm doubtful Mr Irving will have known the alternative routes as they are so poorly signposted and advertised. They also harbour risks of their own and are under risk from being removed in favour of HGV traffic.[/p][/quote]Members of the jury do not have any experience of modern murderers but they still judge them and reach a verdict, your reasoning for the outcome is pure nonsense.[/p][/quote]You're confusing the outcome with the activities that lead to it. Therefore you have failed in your own reasoning. Most murders are committed by sane people forced into irrational circumstance. You should also note that when trial commence over any RTI the Police and CPS are supposed to have a grounding of road safety knowledge. I am saying the Jury should also be as prepared to understand all the numbers downfader
  • Score: 4

4:34pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Hessenford says...

downfader wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
downfader wrote:
SeafaringMan wrote:
He was acquitted after due process of law and by due deliberation by a jury of his peers. I don't think there is any cause for anyone here to dispute the verdict.
Well actually there might be.

- if none of the jury have any experience of modern cycling (this leads to the same kinds of psychological bias we see in race/sex related trials)
- if the Police/CPS hadnt been properly prepared (we know they struggled under cross examination and didnt have the answers)

We also have to understand that little was made of the driver leaving the scene.

As a Southampton rider myself I know this road well. I'm doubtful Mr Irving will have known the alternative routes as they are so poorly signposted and advertised. They also harbour risks of their own and are under risk from being removed in favour of HGV traffic.
Members of the jury do not have any experience of modern murderers but they still judge them and reach a verdict, your reasoning for the outcome is pure nonsense.
You're confusing the outcome with the activities that lead to it. Therefore you have failed in your own reasoning. Most murders are committed by sane people forced into irrational circumstance.

You should also note that when trial commence over any RTI the Police and CPS are supposed to have a grounding of road safety knowledge. I am saying the Jury should also be as prepared to understand all the numbers
Are you saying that because you are a cyclist you don't agree with the verdict then. How do you know that some of the jurors were not cyclists themselves.
[quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SeafaringMan[/bold] wrote: He was acquitted after due process of law and by due deliberation by a jury of his peers. I don't think there is any cause for anyone here to dispute the verdict.[/p][/quote]Well actually there might be. - if none of the jury have any experience of modern cycling (this leads to the same kinds of psychological bias we see in race/sex related trials) - if the Police/CPS hadnt been properly prepared (we know they struggled under cross examination and didnt have the answers) We also have to understand that little was made of the driver leaving the scene. As a Southampton rider myself I know this road well. I'm doubtful Mr Irving will have known the alternative routes as they are so poorly signposted and advertised. They also harbour risks of their own and are under risk from being removed in favour of HGV traffic.[/p][/quote]Members of the jury do not have any experience of modern murderers but they still judge them and reach a verdict, your reasoning for the outcome is pure nonsense.[/p][/quote]You're confusing the outcome with the activities that lead to it. Therefore you have failed in your own reasoning. Most murders are committed by sane people forced into irrational circumstance. You should also note that when trial commence over any RTI the Police and CPS are supposed to have a grounding of road safety knowledge. I am saying the Jury should also be as prepared to understand all the numbers[/p][/quote]Are you saying that because you are a cyclist you don't agree with the verdict then. How do you know that some of the jurors were not cyclists themselves. Hessenford
  • Score: 3

4:38pm Wed 29 Jan 14

pete woodley says...

The jury were given the full facts .say no more.
The jury were given the full facts .say no more. pete woodley
  • Score: -2

4:42pm Wed 29 Jan 14

downfader says...

Hessenford wrote:
downfader wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
downfader wrote:
SeafaringMan wrote:
He was acquitted after due process of law and by due deliberation by a jury of his peers. I don't think there is any cause for anyone here to dispute the verdict.
Well actually there might be.

- if none of the jury have any experience of modern cycling (this leads to the same kinds of psychological bias we see in race/sex related trials)
- if the Police/CPS hadnt been properly prepared (we know they struggled under cross examination and didnt have the answers)

We also have to understand that little was made of the driver leaving the scene.

As a Southampton rider myself I know this road well. I'm doubtful Mr Irving will have known the alternative routes as they are so poorly signposted and advertised. They also harbour risks of their own and are under risk from being removed in favour of HGV traffic.
Members of the jury do not have any experience of modern murderers but they still judge them and reach a verdict, your reasoning for the outcome is pure nonsense.
You're confusing the outcome with the activities that lead to it. Therefore you have failed in your own reasoning. Most murders are committed by sane people forced into irrational circumstance.

You should also note that when trial commence over any RTI the Police and CPS are supposed to have a grounding of road safety knowledge. I am saying the Jury should also be as prepared to understand all the numbers
Are you saying that because you are a cyclist you don't agree with the verdict then. How do you know that some of the jurors were not cyclists themselves.
Not because I am a cyclist, because I want to prevent another death. This was avoidable in every sense (sunglasses, visor, slowing down, stopping at the scene - he had to rely on 2 other motorists - who DID see him, to stop and call emergency services)
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SeafaringMan[/bold] wrote: He was acquitted after due process of law and by due deliberation by a jury of his peers. I don't think there is any cause for anyone here to dispute the verdict.[/p][/quote]Well actually there might be. - if none of the jury have any experience of modern cycling (this leads to the same kinds of psychological bias we see in race/sex related trials) - if the Police/CPS hadnt been properly prepared (we know they struggled under cross examination and didnt have the answers) We also have to understand that little was made of the driver leaving the scene. As a Southampton rider myself I know this road well. I'm doubtful Mr Irving will have known the alternative routes as they are so poorly signposted and advertised. They also harbour risks of their own and are under risk from being removed in favour of HGV traffic.[/p][/quote]Members of the jury do not have any experience of modern murderers but they still judge them and reach a verdict, your reasoning for the outcome is pure nonsense.[/p][/quote]You're confusing the outcome with the activities that lead to it. Therefore you have failed in your own reasoning. Most murders are committed by sane people forced into irrational circumstance. You should also note that when trial commence over any RTI the Police and CPS are supposed to have a grounding of road safety knowledge. I am saying the Jury should also be as prepared to understand all the numbers[/p][/quote]Are you saying that because you are a cyclist you don't agree with the verdict then. How do you know that some of the jurors were not cyclists themselves.[/p][/quote]Not because I am a cyclist, because I want to prevent another death. This was avoidable in every sense (sunglasses, visor, slowing down, stopping at the scene - he had to rely on 2 other motorists - who DID see him, to stop and call emergency services) downfader
  • Score: 9

4:50pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Hessenford says...

downfader wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
downfader wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
downfader wrote:
SeafaringMan wrote:
He was acquitted after due process of law and by due deliberation by a jury of his peers. I don't think there is any cause for anyone here to dispute the verdict.
Well actually there might be.

- if none of the jury have any experience of modern cycling (this leads to the same kinds of psychological bias we see in race/sex related trials)
- if the Police/CPS hadnt been properly prepared (we know they struggled under cross examination and didnt have the answers)

We also have to understand that little was made of the driver leaving the scene.

As a Southampton rider myself I know this road well. I'm doubtful Mr Irving will have known the alternative routes as they are so poorly signposted and advertised. They also harbour risks of their own and are under risk from being removed in favour of HGV traffic.
Members of the jury do not have any experience of modern murderers but they still judge them and reach a verdict, your reasoning for the outcome is pure nonsense.
You're confusing the outcome with the activities that lead to it. Therefore you have failed in your own reasoning. Most murders are committed by sane people forced into irrational circumstance.

You should also note that when trial commence over any RTI the Police and CPS are supposed to have a grounding of road safety knowledge. I am saying the Jury should also be as prepared to understand all the numbers
Are you saying that because you are a cyclist you don't agree with the verdict then. How do you know that some of the jurors were not cyclists themselves.
Not because I am a cyclist, because I want to prevent another death. This was avoidable in every sense (sunglasses, visor, slowing down, stopping at the scene - he had to rely on 2 other motorists - who DID see him, to stop and call emergency services)
Finding a driver guilty when he is proved innocent will not prevent another death, the only way that will happen is if cyclists and motorists follow the rules of the road.
[quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SeafaringMan[/bold] wrote: He was acquitted after due process of law and by due deliberation by a jury of his peers. I don't think there is any cause for anyone here to dispute the verdict.[/p][/quote]Well actually there might be. - if none of the jury have any experience of modern cycling (this leads to the same kinds of psychological bias we see in race/sex related trials) - if the Police/CPS hadnt been properly prepared (we know they struggled under cross examination and didnt have the answers) We also have to understand that little was made of the driver leaving the scene. As a Southampton rider myself I know this road well. I'm doubtful Mr Irving will have known the alternative routes as they are so poorly signposted and advertised. They also harbour risks of their own and are under risk from being removed in favour of HGV traffic.[/p][/quote]Members of the jury do not have any experience of modern murderers but they still judge them and reach a verdict, your reasoning for the outcome is pure nonsense.[/p][/quote]You're confusing the outcome with the activities that lead to it. Therefore you have failed in your own reasoning. Most murders are committed by sane people forced into irrational circumstance. You should also note that when trial commence over any RTI the Police and CPS are supposed to have a grounding of road safety knowledge. I am saying the Jury should also be as prepared to understand all the numbers[/p][/quote]Are you saying that because you are a cyclist you don't agree with the verdict then. How do you know that some of the jurors were not cyclists themselves.[/p][/quote]Not because I am a cyclist, because I want to prevent another death. This was avoidable in every sense (sunglasses, visor, slowing down, stopping at the scene - he had to rely on 2 other motorists - who DID see him, to stop and call emergency services)[/p][/quote]Finding a driver guilty when he is proved innocent will not prevent another death, the only way that will happen is if cyclists and motorists follow the rules of the road. Hessenford
  • Score: -1

5:08pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Drhysted says...

Hessenford wrote:
downfader wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
downfader wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
downfader wrote:
SeafaringMan wrote:
He was acquitted after due process of law and by due deliberation by a jury of his peers. I don't think there is any cause for anyone here to dispute the verdict.
Well actually there might be.

- if none of the jury have any experience of modern cycling (this leads to the same kinds of psychological bias we see in race/sex related trials)
- if the Police/CPS hadnt been properly prepared (we know they struggled under cross examination and didnt have the answers)

We also have to understand that little was made of the driver leaving the scene.

As a Southampton rider myself I know this road well. I'm doubtful Mr Irving will have known the alternative routes as they are so poorly signposted and advertised. They also harbour risks of their own and are under risk from being removed in favour of HGV traffic.
Members of the jury do not have any experience of modern murderers but they still judge them and reach a verdict, your reasoning for the outcome is pure nonsense.
You're confusing the outcome with the activities that lead to it. Therefore you have failed in your own reasoning. Most murders are committed by sane people forced into irrational circumstance.

You should also note that when trial commence over any RTI the Police and CPS are supposed to have a grounding of road safety knowledge. I am saying the Jury should also be as prepared to understand all the numbers
Are you saying that because you are a cyclist you don't agree with the verdict then. How do you know that some of the jurors were not cyclists themselves.
Not because I am a cyclist, because I want to prevent another death. This was avoidable in every sense (sunglasses, visor, slowing down, stopping at the scene - he had to rely on 2 other motorists - who DID see him, to stop and call emergency services)
Finding a driver guilty when he is proved innocent will not prevent another death, the only way that will happen is if cyclists and motorists follow the rules of the road.
The cyclist had followed the rules of the road. The driver did not.
The cyclist died.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SeafaringMan[/bold] wrote: He was acquitted after due process of law and by due deliberation by a jury of his peers. I don't think there is any cause for anyone here to dispute the verdict.[/p][/quote]Well actually there might be. - if none of the jury have any experience of modern cycling (this leads to the same kinds of psychological bias we see in race/sex related trials) - if the Police/CPS hadnt been properly prepared (we know they struggled under cross examination and didnt have the answers) We also have to understand that little was made of the driver leaving the scene. As a Southampton rider myself I know this road well. I'm doubtful Mr Irving will have known the alternative routes as they are so poorly signposted and advertised. They also harbour risks of their own and are under risk from being removed in favour of HGV traffic.[/p][/quote]Members of the jury do not have any experience of modern murderers but they still judge them and reach a verdict, your reasoning for the outcome is pure nonsense.[/p][/quote]You're confusing the outcome with the activities that lead to it. Therefore you have failed in your own reasoning. Most murders are committed by sane people forced into irrational circumstance. You should also note that when trial commence over any RTI the Police and CPS are supposed to have a grounding of road safety knowledge. I am saying the Jury should also be as prepared to understand all the numbers[/p][/quote]Are you saying that because you are a cyclist you don't agree with the verdict then. How do you know that some of the jurors were not cyclists themselves.[/p][/quote]Not because I am a cyclist, because I want to prevent another death. This was avoidable in every sense (sunglasses, visor, slowing down, stopping at the scene - he had to rely on 2 other motorists - who DID see him, to stop and call emergency services)[/p][/quote]Finding a driver guilty when he is proved innocent will not prevent another death, the only way that will happen is if cyclists and motorists follow the rules of the road.[/p][/quote]The cyclist had followed the rules of the road. The driver did not. The cyclist died. Drhysted
  • Score: 14

5:14pm Wed 29 Jan 14

downfader says...

Hessenford wrote:
downfader wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
downfader wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
downfader wrote:
SeafaringMan wrote:
He was acquitted after due process of law and by due deliberation by a jury of his peers. I don't think there is any cause for anyone here to dispute the verdict.
Well actually there might be.

- if none of the jury have any experience of modern cycling (this leads to the same kinds of psychological bias we see in race/sex related trials)
- if the Police/CPS hadnt been properly prepared (we know they struggled under cross examination and didnt have the answers)

We also have to understand that little was made of the driver leaving the scene.

As a Southampton rider myself I know this road well. I'm doubtful Mr Irving will have known the alternative routes as they are so poorly signposted and advertised. They also harbour risks of their own and are under risk from being removed in favour of HGV traffic.
Members of the jury do not have any experience of modern murderers but they still judge them and reach a verdict, your reasoning for the outcome is pure nonsense.
You're confusing the outcome with the activities that lead to it. Therefore you have failed in your own reasoning. Most murders are committed by sane people forced into irrational circumstance.

You should also note that when trial commence over any RTI the Police and CPS are supposed to have a grounding of road safety knowledge. I am saying the Jury should also be as prepared to understand all the numbers
Are you saying that because you are a cyclist you don't agree with the verdict then. How do you know that some of the jurors were not cyclists themselves.
Not because I am a cyclist, because I want to prevent another death. This was avoidable in every sense (sunglasses, visor, slowing down, stopping at the scene - he had to rely on 2 other motorists - who DID see him, to stop and call emergency services)
Finding a driver guilty when he is proved innocent will not prevent another death, the only way that will happen is if cyclists and motorists follow the rules of the road.
The cyclist followed the rules, he also followed social conjecture over hiviz and helmets. It didnt prevent his death.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SeafaringMan[/bold] wrote: He was acquitted after due process of law and by due deliberation by a jury of his peers. I don't think there is any cause for anyone here to dispute the verdict.[/p][/quote]Well actually there might be. - if none of the jury have any experience of modern cycling (this leads to the same kinds of psychological bias we see in race/sex related trials) - if the Police/CPS hadnt been properly prepared (we know they struggled under cross examination and didnt have the answers) We also have to understand that little was made of the driver leaving the scene. As a Southampton rider myself I know this road well. I'm doubtful Mr Irving will have known the alternative routes as they are so poorly signposted and advertised. They also harbour risks of their own and are under risk from being removed in favour of HGV traffic.[/p][/quote]Members of the jury do not have any experience of modern murderers but they still judge them and reach a verdict, your reasoning for the outcome is pure nonsense.[/p][/quote]You're confusing the outcome with the activities that lead to it. Therefore you have failed in your own reasoning. Most murders are committed by sane people forced into irrational circumstance. You should also note that when trial commence over any RTI the Police and CPS are supposed to have a grounding of road safety knowledge. I am saying the Jury should also be as prepared to understand all the numbers[/p][/quote]Are you saying that because you are a cyclist you don't agree with the verdict then. How do you know that some of the jurors were not cyclists themselves.[/p][/quote]Not because I am a cyclist, because I want to prevent another death. This was avoidable in every sense (sunglasses, visor, slowing down, stopping at the scene - he had to rely on 2 other motorists - who DID see him, to stop and call emergency services)[/p][/quote]Finding a driver guilty when he is proved innocent will not prevent another death, the only way that will happen is if cyclists and motorists follow the rules of the road.[/p][/quote]The cyclist followed the rules, he also followed social conjecture over hiviz and helmets. It didnt prevent his death. downfader
  • Score: 24

5:20pm Wed 29 Jan 14

StuartMc1 says...

Pathetic, once again someone not paying attention is cleared of killing someone.
There is no excuse, no circumstances that mitigate this, someone driving 2 tonnes of vehicle contacted a vulnerable road user resulting in their death.
All this verdict does is highlight the faults with the courts not being able to punish road users for the result of their actions
.
The problem is a 'minor' mistake from a car/van/lorry can and did result in something much more serious for a cyclist, motorcyclist and pedestrian, the courts currently cannot punish this correctly.
Pathetic, once again someone not paying attention is cleared of killing someone. There is no excuse, no circumstances that mitigate this, someone driving 2 tonnes of vehicle contacted a vulnerable road user resulting in their death. All this verdict does is highlight the faults with the courts not being able to punish road users for the result of their actions . The problem is a 'minor' mistake from a car/van/lorry can and did result in something much more serious for a cyclist, motorcyclist and pedestrian, the courts currently cannot punish this correctly. StuartMc1
  • Score: 14

5:30pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Hessenford says...

downfader wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
downfader wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
downfader wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
downfader wrote:
SeafaringMan wrote:
He was acquitted after due process of law and by due deliberation by a jury of his peers. I don't think there is any cause for anyone here to dispute the verdict.
Well actually there might be.

- if none of the jury have any experience of modern cycling (this leads to the same kinds of psychological bias we see in race/sex related trials)
- if the Police/CPS hadnt been properly prepared (we know they struggled under cross examination and didnt have the answers)

We also have to understand that little was made of the driver leaving the scene.

As a Southampton rider myself I know this road well. I'm doubtful Mr Irving will have known the alternative routes as they are so poorly signposted and advertised. They also harbour risks of their own and are under risk from being removed in favour of HGV traffic.
Members of the jury do not have any experience of modern murderers but they still judge them and reach a verdict, your reasoning for the outcome is pure nonsense.
You're confusing the outcome with the activities that lead to it. Therefore you have failed in your own reasoning. Most murders are committed by sane people forced into irrational circumstance.

You should also note that when trial commence over any RTI the Police and CPS are supposed to have a grounding of road safety knowledge. I am saying the Jury should also be as prepared to understand all the numbers
Are you saying that because you are a cyclist you don't agree with the verdict then. How do you know that some of the jurors were not cyclists themselves.
Not because I am a cyclist, because I want to prevent another death. This was avoidable in every sense (sunglasses, visor, slowing down, stopping at the scene - he had to rely on 2 other motorists - who DID see him, to stop and call emergency services)
Finding a driver guilty when he is proved innocent will not prevent another death, the only way that will happen is if cyclists and motorists follow the rules of the road.
The cyclist followed the rules, he also followed social conjecture over hiviz and helmets. It didnt prevent his death.
Please elaborate on that statement, in what way did the driver not follow the rules of the road, the jury seems to disagree with you and there is no mention in the reporting that the driver did anything wrong.
I believe that you are clinging to straws, what ever you may think about the driver he has been through the court system and been cleared by a jury who had no reason to put the blame at his feet, that's the way the judicial system works unless you know of a better way to have a fair trial, sour grapes on your part I think.
[quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SeafaringMan[/bold] wrote: He was acquitted after due process of law and by due deliberation by a jury of his peers. I don't think there is any cause for anyone here to dispute the verdict.[/p][/quote]Well actually there might be. - if none of the jury have any experience of modern cycling (this leads to the same kinds of psychological bias we see in race/sex related trials) - if the Police/CPS hadnt been properly prepared (we know they struggled under cross examination and didnt have the answers) We also have to understand that little was made of the driver leaving the scene. As a Southampton rider myself I know this road well. I'm doubtful Mr Irving will have known the alternative routes as they are so poorly signposted and advertised. They also harbour risks of their own and are under risk from being removed in favour of HGV traffic.[/p][/quote]Members of the jury do not have any experience of modern murderers but they still judge them and reach a verdict, your reasoning for the outcome is pure nonsense.[/p][/quote]You're confusing the outcome with the activities that lead to it. Therefore you have failed in your own reasoning. Most murders are committed by sane people forced into irrational circumstance. You should also note that when trial commence over any RTI the Police and CPS are supposed to have a grounding of road safety knowledge. I am saying the Jury should also be as prepared to understand all the numbers[/p][/quote]Are you saying that because you are a cyclist you don't agree with the verdict then. How do you know that some of the jurors were not cyclists themselves.[/p][/quote]Not because I am a cyclist, because I want to prevent another death. This was avoidable in every sense (sunglasses, visor, slowing down, stopping at the scene - he had to rely on 2 other motorists - who DID see him, to stop and call emergency services)[/p][/quote]Finding a driver guilty when he is proved innocent will not prevent another death, the only way that will happen is if cyclists and motorists follow the rules of the road.[/p][/quote]The cyclist followed the rules, he also followed social conjecture over hiviz and helmets. It didnt prevent his death.[/p][/quote]Please elaborate on that statement, in what way did the driver not follow the rules of the road, the jury seems to disagree with you and there is no mention in the reporting that the driver did anything wrong. I believe that you are clinging to straws, what ever you may think about the driver he has been through the court system and been cleared by a jury who had no reason to put the blame at his feet, that's the way the judicial system works unless you know of a better way to have a fair trial, sour grapes on your part I think. Hessenford
  • Score: -3

5:39pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Holes Bay Curve says...

If you can't see where you are going then SLOW DOWN.
If you can't see where you are going then SLOW DOWN. Holes Bay Curve
  • Score: 27

5:40pm Wed 29 Jan 14

downfader says...

Hessenford wrote:
downfader wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
downfader wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
downfader wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
downfader wrote:
SeafaringMan wrote:
He was acquitted after due process of law and by due deliberation by a jury of his peers. I don't think there is any cause for anyone here to dispute the verdict.
Well actually there might be.

- if none of the jury have any experience of modern cycling (this leads to the same kinds of psychological bias we see in race/sex related trials)
- if the Police/CPS hadnt been properly prepared (we know they struggled under cross examination and didnt have the answers)

We also have to understand that little was made of the driver leaving the scene.

As a Southampton rider myself I know this road well. I'm doubtful Mr Irving will have known the alternative routes as they are so poorly signposted and advertised. They also harbour risks of their own and are under risk from being removed in favour of HGV traffic.
Members of the jury do not have any experience of modern murderers but they still judge them and reach a verdict, your reasoning for the outcome is pure nonsense.
You're confusing the outcome with the activities that lead to it. Therefore you have failed in your own reasoning. Most murders are committed by sane people forced into irrational circumstance.

You should also note that when trial commence over any RTI the Police and CPS are supposed to have a grounding of road safety knowledge. I am saying the Jury should also be as prepared to understand all the numbers
Are you saying that because you are a cyclist you don't agree with the verdict then. How do you know that some of the jurors were not cyclists themselves.
Not because I am a cyclist, because I want to prevent another death. This was avoidable in every sense (sunglasses, visor, slowing down, stopping at the scene - he had to rely on 2 other motorists - who DID see him, to stop and call emergency services)
Finding a driver guilty when he is proved innocent will not prevent another death, the only way that will happen is if cyclists and motorists follow the rules of the road.
The cyclist followed the rules, he also followed social conjecture over hiviz and helmets. It didnt prevent his death.
Please elaborate on that statement, in what way did the driver not follow the rules of the road, the jury seems to disagree with you and there is no mention in the reporting that the driver did anything wrong.
I believe that you are clinging to straws, what ever you may think about the driver he has been through the court system and been cleared by a jury who had no reason to put the blame at his feet, that's the way the judicial system works unless you know of a better way to have a fair trial, sour grapes on your part I think.
Sour grapes?

I repeat: 2 other drivers saw the victim despite the low sun.
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SeafaringMan[/bold] wrote: He was acquitted after due process of law and by due deliberation by a jury of his peers. I don't think there is any cause for anyone here to dispute the verdict.[/p][/quote]Well actually there might be. - if none of the jury have any experience of modern cycling (this leads to the same kinds of psychological bias we see in race/sex related trials) - if the Police/CPS hadnt been properly prepared (we know they struggled under cross examination and didnt have the answers) We also have to understand that little was made of the driver leaving the scene. As a Southampton rider myself I know this road well. I'm doubtful Mr Irving will have known the alternative routes as they are so poorly signposted and advertised. They also harbour risks of their own and are under risk from being removed in favour of HGV traffic.[/p][/quote]Members of the jury do not have any experience of modern murderers but they still judge them and reach a verdict, your reasoning for the outcome is pure nonsense.[/p][/quote]You're confusing the outcome with the activities that lead to it. Therefore you have failed in your own reasoning. Most murders are committed by sane people forced into irrational circumstance. You should also note that when trial commence over any RTI the Police and CPS are supposed to have a grounding of road safety knowledge. I am saying the Jury should also be as prepared to understand all the numbers[/p][/quote]Are you saying that because you are a cyclist you don't agree with the verdict then. How do you know that some of the jurors were not cyclists themselves.[/p][/quote]Not because I am a cyclist, because I want to prevent another death. This was avoidable in every sense (sunglasses, visor, slowing down, stopping at the scene - he had to rely on 2 other motorists - who DID see him, to stop and call emergency services)[/p][/quote]Finding a driver guilty when he is proved innocent will not prevent another death, the only way that will happen is if cyclists and motorists follow the rules of the road.[/p][/quote]The cyclist followed the rules, he also followed social conjecture over hiviz and helmets. It didnt prevent his death.[/p][/quote]Please elaborate on that statement, in what way did the driver not follow the rules of the road, the jury seems to disagree with you and there is no mention in the reporting that the driver did anything wrong. I believe that you are clinging to straws, what ever you may think about the driver he has been through the court system and been cleared by a jury who had no reason to put the blame at his feet, that's the way the judicial system works unless you know of a better way to have a fair trial, sour grapes on your part I think.[/p][/quote]Sour grapes? I repeat: 2 other drivers saw the victim despite the low sun. downfader
  • Score: 22

6:27pm Wed 29 Jan 14

thisloginprocessisdaft says...

Other road users were able to see him so why wasn't he? Doesn't smell right to me. My experience of that road in a car is unpleasant, people as usual rushing about, lane swapping with no indication or looking where they are going, drivers on their phones, steamed up windows and driving like idiots. That could be a typical day in Bournemouth.

Just because a jury came to a decision doesn't mean it was the right one. If he didn't see him where was he looking? He thought he hit a bus signpost? Aren't they on the pavement? if you think you've hit something your first reaction is to look in your mirrors and go "****, what was that"

I bet he was on his phone and his van veered to the left and hit the cyclist. He drove off and panicked, he was shaking and had to stop feeling physically sick because he knew what he had done. If you've been cleared of killing someone would you not show some emotion? That'll be where he's thinking not to show arrogance but also try not to look guilty.

If he did do it he has to live with that for the rest of his life, his barrister will have to do the same if he knows he did it, generally they do.

For you anti cyclists here in Bournemouth, David Irving is one of those people that has been killed by someone driving something that does not have right of way on our roads. You often wish that cyclist who is ahead of you was knocked off, your wish has come true, again and there is one less cyclist getting somewhere cheaper and in some cases quicker than you, I'm talking to those who deliberately veer to the right at lights, junctions and in traffic. The very thing you wouldn't dare do to the mountain of a man on his motorbike.
Other road users were able to see him so why wasn't he? Doesn't smell right to me. My experience of that road in a car is unpleasant, people as usual rushing about, lane swapping with no indication or looking where they are going, drivers on their phones, steamed up windows and driving like idiots. That could be a typical day in Bournemouth. Just because a jury came to a decision doesn't mean it was the right one. If he didn't see him where was he looking? He thought he hit a bus signpost? Aren't they on the pavement? if you think you've hit something your first reaction is to look in your mirrors and go "****, what was that" I bet he was on his phone and his van veered to the left and hit the cyclist. He drove off and panicked, he was shaking and had to stop feeling physically sick because he knew what he had done. If you've been cleared of killing someone would you not show some emotion? That'll be where he's thinking not to show arrogance but also try not to look guilty. If he did do it he has to live with that for the rest of his life, his barrister will have to do the same if he knows he did it, generally they do. For you anti cyclists here in Bournemouth, David Irving is one of those people that has been killed by someone driving something that does not have right of way on our roads. You often wish that cyclist who is ahead of you was knocked off, your wish has come true, again and there is one less cyclist getting somewhere cheaper and in some cases quicker than you, I'm talking to those who deliberately veer to the right at lights, junctions and in traffic. The very thing you wouldn't dare do to the mountain of a man on his motorbike. thisloginprocessisdaft
  • Score: 16

6:42pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Arthur Maureen says...

Sad story all round, RIP from a fellow cyclist, car driver etc.
Sad story all round, RIP from a fellow cyclist, car driver etc. Arthur Maureen
  • Score: 19

6:50pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Hessenford says...

thisloginprocessisda
ft
wrote:
Other road users were able to see him so why wasn't he? Doesn't smell right to me. My experience of that road in a car is unpleasant, people as usual rushing about, lane swapping with no indication or looking where they are going, drivers on their phones, steamed up windows and driving like idiots. That could be a typical day in Bournemouth.

Just because a jury came to a decision doesn't mean it was the right one. If he didn't see him where was he looking? He thought he hit a bus signpost? Aren't they on the pavement? if you think you've hit something your first reaction is to look in your mirrors and go "****, what was that"

I bet he was on his phone and his van veered to the left and hit the cyclist. He drove off and panicked, he was shaking and had to stop feeling physically sick because he knew what he had done. If you've been cleared of killing someone would you not show some emotion? That'll be where he's thinking not to show arrogance but also try not to look guilty.

If he did do it he has to live with that for the rest of his life, his barrister will have to do the same if he knows he did it, generally they do.

For you anti cyclists here in Bournemouth, David Irving is one of those people that has been killed by someone driving something that does not have right of way on our roads. You often wish that cyclist who is ahead of you was knocked off, your wish has come true, again and there is one less cyclist getting somewhere cheaper and in some cases quicker than you, I'm talking to those who deliberately veer to the right at lights, junctions and in traffic. The very thing you wouldn't dare do to the mountain of a man on his motorbike.
More speculation, more conspiracy theories, more anti motorist clap trap, how do you conclude that a white van does not have a right of way on the road, where do you people come from, get back to your homework or CBBC for goodness sake.
[quote][p][bold]thisloginprocessisda ft[/bold] wrote: Other road users were able to see him so why wasn't he? Doesn't smell right to me. My experience of that road in a car is unpleasant, people as usual rushing about, lane swapping with no indication or looking where they are going, drivers on their phones, steamed up windows and driving like idiots. That could be a typical day in Bournemouth. Just because a jury came to a decision doesn't mean it was the right one. If he didn't see him where was he looking? He thought he hit a bus signpost? Aren't they on the pavement? if you think you've hit something your first reaction is to look in your mirrors and go "****, what was that" I bet he was on his phone and his van veered to the left and hit the cyclist. He drove off and panicked, he was shaking and had to stop feeling physically sick because he knew what he had done. If you've been cleared of killing someone would you not show some emotion? That'll be where he's thinking not to show arrogance but also try not to look guilty. If he did do it he has to live with that for the rest of his life, his barrister will have to do the same if he knows he did it, generally they do. For you anti cyclists here in Bournemouth, David Irving is one of those people that has been killed by someone driving something that does not have right of way on our roads. You often wish that cyclist who is ahead of you was knocked off, your wish has come true, again and there is one less cyclist getting somewhere cheaper and in some cases quicker than you, I'm talking to those who deliberately veer to the right at lights, junctions and in traffic. The very thing you wouldn't dare do to the mountain of a man on his motorbike.[/p][/quote]More speculation, more conspiracy theories, more anti motorist clap trap, how do you conclude that a white van does not have a right of way on the road, where do you people come from, get back to your homework or CBBC for goodness sake. Hessenford
  • Score: -19

7:39pm Wed 29 Jan 14

billy bumble says...

I am finding many of the comments on here very distasteful

Someone has lost his life and another traumatized by a trial

Grow up the lot of you!!!
I am finding many of the comments on here very distasteful Someone has lost his life and another traumatized by a trial Grow up the lot of you!!! billy bumble
  • Score: 6

8:02pm Wed 29 Jan 14

kalebmoledirt says...

Two decent blokes going to work.neither wishing each other any ill will.now one man as tragically lost his his life and the other totally devastated by what as been fairly judged as a traffic accident.Can,t see any value in demonizing the man. And absolutely no sense in drawing the trajety out for sake of self interest
Two decent blokes going to work.neither wishing each other any ill will.now one man as tragically lost his his life and the other totally devastated by what as been fairly judged as a traffic accident.Can,t see any value in demonizing the man. And absolutely no sense in drawing the trajety out for sake of self interest kalebmoledirt
  • Score: 11

8:26pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Dorset Logic says...

honestly. Just look out for other road users. Another tonight.
honestly. Just look out for other road users. Another tonight. Dorset Logic
  • Score: 8

8:58pm Wed 29 Jan 14

Derf says...

It was proved beyond reasonable doubt that this chap is not guilty. We can therefore summise that those that do not agree with the verdict are applying unreasonable doubt.
It was proved beyond reasonable doubt that this chap is not guilty. We can therefore summise that those that do not agree with the verdict are applying unreasonable doubt. Derf
  • Score: -6

10:08pm Wed 29 Jan 14

tim m says...

I can't believe the Echo allowed comments on this topic. I give it a few hours before the other cycle death tragedy fades into a cloud of red light runners and white van men.
I can't believe the Echo allowed comments on this topic. I give it a few hours before the other cycle death tragedy fades into a cloud of red light runners and white van men. tim m
  • Score: 2

6:23am Thu 30 Jan 14

Phixer says...

muscliffman wrote:
Whilst not wishing to question the specific verdict, I do just hope all those concerned did a simple double check of exactly where the vision impairing 'low sun' would have been at the time and location of this accident.

From personal experience I recall a disputed RTA insurance claim where a detailed site investigation found that the 'blinding rising sun in the driver's eyes' would in fact have been rising completely behind the party who was offering that explanation.
You look into your mirror for a cyclist and the rising sun behind you blinds you.
[quote][p][bold]muscliffman[/bold] wrote: Whilst not wishing to question the specific verdict, I do just hope all those concerned did a simple double check of exactly where the vision impairing 'low sun' would have been at the time and location of this accident. From personal experience I recall a disputed RTA insurance claim where a detailed site investigation found that the 'blinding rising sun in the driver's eyes' would in fact have been rising completely behind the party who was offering that explanation.[/p][/quote]You look into your mirror for a cyclist and the rising sun behind you blinds you. Phixer
  • Score: -3

9:31am Thu 30 Jan 14

TheDistrict says...

The same old clap trap arguments between cyclists and motorists. It appears no one cares for the poor person who lost his life, and the family he has left behind. Lets keep ones thoughts to themselves. There are plenty of anti cyclists and anti motorist forums to use to air your greivances. The case is closed, end of story.

Echo, shut this one down please.
The same old clap trap arguments between cyclists and motorists. It appears no one cares for the poor person who lost his life, and the family he has left behind. Lets keep ones thoughts to themselves. There are plenty of anti cyclists and anti motorist forums to use to air your greivances. The case is closed, end of story. Echo, shut this one down please. TheDistrict
  • Score: 2

9:57am Thu 30 Jan 14

suzigirl says...

Hessenford wrote:
downfader wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
downfader wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
downfader wrote:
Hessenford wrote:
downfader wrote:
SeafaringMan wrote: He was acquitted after due process of law and by due deliberation by a jury of his peers. I don't think there is any cause for anyone here to dispute the verdict.
Well actually there might be. - if none of the jury have any experience of modern cycling (this leads to the same kinds of psychological bias we see in race/sex related trials) - if the Police/CPS hadnt been properly prepared (we know they struggled under cross examination and didnt have the answers) We also have to understand that little was made of the driver leaving the scene. As a Southampton rider myself I know this road well. I'm doubtful Mr Irving will have known the alternative routes as they are so poorly signposted and advertised. They also harbour risks of their own and are under risk from being removed in favour of HGV traffic.
Members of the jury do not have any experience of modern murderers but they still judge them and reach a verdict, your reasoning for the outcome is pure nonsense.
You're confusing the outcome with the activities that lead to it. Therefore you have failed in your own reasoning. Most murders are committed by sane people forced into irrational circumstance. You should also note that when trial commence over any RTI the Police and CPS are supposed to have a grounding of road safety knowledge. I am saying the Jury should also be as prepared to understand all the numbers
Are you saying that because you are a cyclist you don't agree with the verdict then. How do you know that some of the jurors were not cyclists themselves.
Not because I am a cyclist, because I want to prevent another death. This was avoidable in every sense (sunglasses, visor, slowing down, stopping at the scene - he had to rely on 2 other motorists - who DID see him, to stop and call emergency services)
Finding a driver guilty when he is proved innocent will not prevent another death, the only way that will happen is if cyclists and motorists follow the rules of the road.
The cyclist followed the rules, he also followed social conjecture over hiviz and helmets. It didnt prevent his death.
Please elaborate on that statement, in what way did the driver not follow the rules of the road, the jury seems to disagree with you and there is no mention in the reporting that the driver did anything wrong. I believe that you are clinging to straws, what ever you may think about the driver he has been through the court system and been cleared by a jury who had no reason to put the blame at his feet, that's the way the judicial system works unless you know of a better way to have a fair trial, sour grapes on your part I think.
It was an accident - the driver did not deliberately mean to hit the cyclist and he did the right thing by contacting the Police when he realised what had happened - not all drivers do that!!!!
[quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Hessenford[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]downfader[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]SeafaringMan[/bold] wrote: He was acquitted after due process of law and by due deliberation by a jury of his peers. I don't think there is any cause for anyone here to dispute the verdict.[/p][/quote]Well actually there might be. - if none of the jury have any experience of modern cycling (this leads to the same kinds of psychological bias we see in race/sex related trials) - if the Police/CPS hadnt been properly prepared (we know they struggled under cross examination and didnt have the answers) We also have to understand that little was made of the driver leaving the scene. As a Southampton rider myself I know this road well. I'm doubtful Mr Irving will have known the alternative routes as they are so poorly signposted and advertised. They also harbour risks of their own and are under risk from being removed in favour of HGV traffic.[/p][/quote]Members of the jury do not have any experience of modern murderers but they still judge them and reach a verdict, your reasoning for the outcome is pure nonsense.[/p][/quote]You're confusing the outcome with the activities that lead to it. Therefore you have failed in your own reasoning. Most murders are committed by sane people forced into irrational circumstance. You should also note that when trial commence over any RTI the Police and CPS are supposed to have a grounding of road safety knowledge. I am saying the Jury should also be as prepared to understand all the numbers[/p][/quote]Are you saying that because you are a cyclist you don't agree with the verdict then. How do you know that some of the jurors were not cyclists themselves.[/p][/quote]Not because I am a cyclist, because I want to prevent another death. This was avoidable in every sense (sunglasses, visor, slowing down, stopping at the scene - he had to rely on 2 other motorists - who DID see him, to stop and call emergency services)[/p][/quote]Finding a driver guilty when he is proved innocent will not prevent another death, the only way that will happen is if cyclists and motorists follow the rules of the road.[/p][/quote]The cyclist followed the rules, he also followed social conjecture over hiviz and helmets. It didnt prevent his death.[/p][/quote]Please elaborate on that statement, in what way did the driver not follow the rules of the road, the jury seems to disagree with you and there is no mention in the reporting that the driver did anything wrong. I believe that you are clinging to straws, what ever you may think about the driver he has been through the court system and been cleared by a jury who had no reason to put the blame at his feet, that's the way the judicial system works unless you know of a better way to have a fair trial, sour grapes on your part I think.[/p][/quote]It was an accident - the driver did not deliberately mean to hit the cyclist and he did the right thing by contacting the Police when he realised what had happened - not all drivers do that!!!! suzigirl
  • Score: -3

11:08am Thu 30 Jan 14

FNS-man says...

If he was driving on a road where he thought a member of his family was walking or cycling and he couldn't see because of the sun, would he have continued to drive at 40mph+? No way.

I don't think locking up this guy would do any good. However, if he has any decency at all he will never get behind the wheel again. He has killed someone because he didn't slow down when he couldn't see. He is not safe to be on the roads.
If he was driving on a road where he thought a member of his family was walking or cycling and he couldn't see because of the sun, would he have continued to drive at 40mph+? No way. I don't think locking up this guy would do any good. However, if he has any decency at all he will never get behind the wheel again. He has killed someone because he didn't slow down when he couldn't see. He is not safe to be on the roads. FNS-man
  • Score: 5

12:00pm Thu 30 Jan 14

ranger_bob says...

This is an extract from the Highway Code (the document that the anti-cycling lobby like to quote from all the time): "If you are dazzled by bright sunlight, slow down and if necessary, stop".

I'm sure the driver is guilt ridden, but at least he's alive to feel guilt.
This is an extract from the Highway Code (the document that the anti-cycling lobby like to quote from all the time): "If you are dazzled by bright sunlight, slow down and if necessary, stop". I'm sure the driver is guilt ridden, but at least he's alive to feel guilt. ranger_bob
  • Score: 12

1:54pm Thu 30 Jan 14

FNS-man says...

ranger_bob wrote:
This is an extract from the Highway Code (the document that the anti-cycling lobby like to quote from all the time): "If you are dazzled by bright sunlight, slow down and if necessary, stop". I'm sure the driver is guilt ridden, but at least he's alive to feel guilt.
Indeed. Is he guilt-ridden enough to relinquish his licence? Or just guilt-ridden when he's in court?
[quote][p][bold]ranger_bob[/bold] wrote: This is an extract from the Highway Code (the document that the anti-cycling lobby like to quote from all the time): "If you are dazzled by bright sunlight, slow down and if necessary, stop". I'm sure the driver is guilt ridden, but at least he's alive to feel guilt.[/p][/quote]Indeed. Is he guilt-ridden enough to relinquish his licence? Or just guilt-ridden when he's in court? FNS-man
  • Score: 10

9:37pm Thu 30 Jan 14

Repo says...

Maybe he doesn't deserve a criminal record, but if you kill another person whilst driving you should at least have your licence revoked for a set period and have to re-take your test at the end of the ban.
Maybe he doesn't deserve a criminal record, but if you kill another person whilst driving you should at least have your licence revoked for a set period and have to re-take your test at the end of the ban. Repo
  • Score: 5

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree