Too close to home for my liking.m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-23462725
And yet again another lorry driver is arrested at the scene.
if he was driving a car and someone died then he would of been arrested just the same as he was for driving a truck, it is correct procedure for any fatal accident.
I don’t understand why people get wound up about the fact, it is done purely for investigation and collecting evidence in case there is a court case, otherwise it would not be permissible for anything that is gathered to be put before the court.
he will be a quickly de-arrested if there is no criminal act to be prosecuted over 
wildfire:
if he was driving a car and someone died then he would of been arrested just the same as he was for driving a truck, it is correct procedure for any fatal accident.
I don’t understand why people get wound up about the fact, it is done purely for investigation and collecting evidence in case there is a court case, otherwise it would not be permissible for anything that is gathered to be put before the court.
he will be a quickly de-arrested if there is no criminal act to be prosecuted over
If that’s right then it would be impossible to arrest the driver on suspicion of a foregone charge because at that point there’s insufficient evidence for such a charge.It would just be the driver has been arrested pending investigation as to possible charges.It doesn’t take a genius to realise that drivers and the weak transport unions are allowing themselves to be victimised because of a politically driven agenda which favours cyclists regardless of how stupid and suicidal the majority of cyclists are behaving on the roads around trucks.As for the unions there’s not much point in having them at all if they are too stupid to want to get involved in defending truck drivers against this ongoing and obviously ever increasing issue.Hopefully before yet more of those drivers end up at the wrong end,of what is an obvious foregone charging and enforcement regime,which is making drivers the scapegoats for what is a flawed and dangerous cyclist/motor traffic road sharing agenda.
I think the bit some people don’t see is “suspicion”. Someone has died therefore the police will try to find out how & who. In this case it “might” be the driver. They are arrested on “suspicion” of causing death by dangerous driving as they are the party left alive. He has been bailed pending further investigation. That is normal practice. If some wish to believe its because the police think someone’s killed a cyclist, we had better charge the trucker because we are run by a loony left government, and we are all together in wanting to rid the roads of trucks & replace them with bikes then feel free. If, one day, a cyclist runs into a truck and kills the driver, and is not injured in any way, they will also be charged. After all, just because I’m paranoid etc.
Off topic but on the same page as the link: bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-ma … r-23478679
High Peak indeed…a little too high!
Carryfast:
wildfire:
if he was driving a car and someone died then he would of been arrested just the same as he was for driving a truck, it is correct procedure for any fatal accident.
I don’t understand why people get wound up about the fact, it is done purely for investigation and collecting evidence in case there is a court case, otherwise it would not be permissible for anything that is gathered to be put before the court.
he will be a quickly de-arrested if there is no criminal act to be prosecuted overIf that’s right then it would be impossible to arrest the driver on suspicion of a foregone charge because at that point there’s insufficient evidence for such a charge.It would just be the driver has been arrested pending investigation as to possible charges.It doesn’t take a genius to realise that drivers and the weak transport unions are allowing themselves to be victimised because of a politically driven agenda which favours cyclists regardless of how stupid and suicidal the majority of cyclists are behaving on the roads around trucks.As for the unions there’s not much point in having them at all if they are too stupid to want to get involved in defending truck drivers against this ongoing and obviously ever increasing issue.Hopefully before yet more of those drivers end up at the wrong end,of what is an obvious foregone charging and enforcement regime,which is making drivers the scapegoats for what is a flawed and dangerous cyclist/motor traffic road sharing agenda.
Sorry but all drivers get arrested car/van and lorry drivers, they all get arrested if there is a death at a scene of an accident and might be cleared of any wrong doing in the near future.
I cannot see what the fuss is. I cannot also see who is being “victimised”
Slackbladder:
I think the bit some people don’t see is “suspicion”. Someone has died therefore the police will try to find out how & who. In this case it “might” be the driver. They are arrested on “suspicion” of causing death by dangerous driving as they are the party left alive. He has been bailed pending further investigation. That is normal practice. If some wish to believe its because the police think someone’s killed a cyclist, we had better charge the trucker because we are run by a loony left government, and we are all together in wanting to rid the roads of trucks & replace them with bikes then feel free. If, one day, a cyclist runs into a truck and kills the driver, and is not injured in any way, they will also be charged. After all, just because I’m paranoid etc.
How can there even be any suspicion that a truck driver has ‘caused’ the death of a cyclist through ‘dangerous driving’ before evidence has been found to charge the driver of that particular offence.IE there’s nothing wrong with arresting and bailing the driver pending a ‘possible’ ‘charge’ or ‘charges’ but it’s wrong to actually identify the particular charge of ‘causing’ death by ‘dangerous driving’ until it’s been established that evidence has been found of dangerous driving having caused the death in question rather than the cyclists actions having resulted in the inevitable collision.
It’s obvious that under a regime in which a truck driver will be even under ‘suspicion’ of having ‘caused’ the death of a cyclist,just by colliding with the cyclist in question,then the law will obviously be trying to build such a case from the start and thereby possibly try to make the so called ‘evidence’ fit the intended charge and prosecution which has already
obviously been identified as a foregone conclusion.
The fact is in most cases the charge of ‘causing’ the death of a cyclist by ‘dangerous or careless driving’ doesn’t seem to fit the circumstances of a collision between a cyclist and a truck assuming the vehicle wasn’t being driven in a dangerous or careless manner.Nor in the case for example that a cyclist has managed to put a cycle into a dangerous place relative to a truck,such as riding alongside the nearside of a truck which then turns or moves to the left and especially assuming that there’s an off road alternative at the point in question and especially if the cyclist in question has been instructed by road markings and signs to move into that offroad alternative but has chosen not to.Or for that matter assuming that a cyclist has applied typical double standards in the case of undertaking a truck with very little clearance while then expecting the truck driver to miraculousy increase that same clearance by a mssive amount afterwards while continuing ahead into a pinch point or a turn.
mickyblue:
Carryfast:
wildfire:
if he was driving a car and someone died then he would of been arrested just the same as he was for driving a truck, it is correct procedure for any fatal accident.
I don’t understand why people get wound up about the fact, it is done purely for investigation and collecting evidence in case there is a court case, otherwise it would not be permissible for anything that is gathered to be put before the court.
he will be a quickly de-arrested if there is no criminal act to be prosecuted overIf that’s right then it would be impossible to arrest the driver on suspicion of a foregone charge because at that point there’s insufficient evidence for such a charge.It would just be the driver has been arrested pending investigation as to possible charges.It doesn’t take a genius to realise that drivers and the weak transport unions are allowing themselves to be victimised because of a politically driven agenda which favours cyclists regardless of how stupid and suicidal the majority of cyclists are behaving on the roads around trucks.As for the unions there’s not much point in having them at all if they are too stupid to want to get involved in defending truck drivers against this ongoing and obviously ever increasing issue.Hopefully before yet more of those drivers end up at the wrong end,of what is an obvious foregone charging and enforcement regime,which is making drivers the scapegoats for what is a flawed and dangerous cyclist/motor traffic road sharing agenda.
Sorry but all drivers get arrested car/van and lorry drivers, they all get arrested if there is a death at a scene of an accident and might be cleared of any wrong doing in the near future.
I cannot see what the fuss is. I cannot also see who is being “victimised”
So you’re saying that if a cyclist rides a bike into the back of a stationary truck or hits an obstacle in the road and gets thrown into the path of a vehicle or in fact if two cyclists collide with each other resulting in a fatality of any of said cyclists then in the first two types of cases then the drivers involved would be arrested on suspicion of causing the death of the cyclist and in the third type of case the surviving cyclist would then be arrested on suspicion of a manslaughter charge.You’re having a laugh just like the law.Yes victimisation of drivers just as I said.
How can there even be any suspicion that a truck driver has ‘caused’ the death of a cyclist through ‘dangerous driving’ before evidence has been found to charge the driver of that particular offence.IE there’s nothing wrong with arresting and bailing the driver pending a ‘possible’ ‘charge’ or ‘charges’ but it’s wrong to actually identify the particular charge of ‘causing’ death by ‘dangerous driving’ until it’s been established that evidence has been found of dangerous driving having caused the death in question rather than the cyclists actions having resulted in the inevitable collision.
Example,
Curryfart drives down road and hits a cyclist and kills him. Only you and the cyclist are involved. Police turn up and ask you questions and you give your side of your story. For it to be proper documented, and the police to be able to gain evidence, you are then arrested on scene and taken to a police station to be bailed.
You are then interviewed under caution where you then give your side of events. after that you might be bailed so the police are able to gain more evidence, or you end up being kept there.
police will not know what has happened until they have spoken to you at length about it and gained evidence from any witness’s or any CCTV in the area which can back your story up.
From my understanding you disagree with how things are done?
mickyblue:
How can there even be any suspicion that a truck driver has ‘caused’ the death of a cyclist through ‘dangerous driving’ before evidence has been found to charge the driver of that particular offence.IE there’s nothing wrong with arresting and bailing the driver pending a ‘possible’ ‘charge’ or ‘charges’ but it’s wrong to actually identify the particular charge of ‘causing’ death by ‘dangerous driving’ until it’s been established that evidence has been found of dangerous driving having caused the death in question rather than the cyclists actions having resulted in the inevitable collision.
Example,
Curryfart drives down road and hits a cyclist and kills him. Only you and the cyclist are involved. Police turn up and ask you questions and you give your side of your story. For it to be proper documented, and the police to be able to gain evidence, you are then arrested on scene and taken to a police station to be bailed.
You are then interviewed under caution where you then give your side of events. after that you might be bailed so the police are able to gain more evidence, or you end up being kept there.
police will not know what has happened until they have spoken to you at length about it and gained evidence from any witness’s or any CCTV in the area which can back your story up.
From my understanding you disagree with how things are done?
Your understanding is correct.The clue is in your first sentence describing ‘hits’ and ‘kills’ and any decent defence brief ‘should’ be able to get the case dismissed on the grounds that the case was being investigated as a foregone conclusion from the start and therefore any prosecution evidence against the driver from that point on is therefore unreliable.IE just colliding with a cyclist resulting in that cyclists death isn’t in itself evidence of that collision and fatality being the result of the driver’s actual standard of driving in that being undertaken by a cyclist with little clearance and then turning in on said cyclist isn’t evidence of careless or dangerous driving.Although as things stand that is exactly the type of evidence which the police are using to investigate such accidents and then bring such charges against drivers.All obviously based on a political agenda.
The thing is, if someone gets killed by a train, the driver (as far as I know) never gets arrested.
People are saying the driver needs to be arrested in order for a proper investigation to be carried out, but people are questioned under caution evey single day for all manner of things, they’re not necessarily arrested. What can the same questions not be given to the driver under caution?
The seems to be an assumption that the driver will have been responsible for running over the cyclist; why is there never an assumption that the cyclist may have caused the accident?
People are saying, well the arrest can be lifted. Arrested means being taken to the police station, DNA tested, placed in cell with no shoes like some common or garden scumbag, and obviously you can’t just leave when you want to. A single phone call I believe. Very stressful I should imagine, on top of the trauma of seeing a dead person under your vehicle. I understand when under caution you can leave the cop shop when you like.
Also an arrest will show on an enhanced CRB I believe, even if you are not charged. If you work with young or vulnerable people, (Scouts, foster carer with wife etc etc) this could cause you a lot of problems I would imagine.
Just seems silly it can’t be dealt with another way.
(All of the above assumes you are innocent by the way 
)
tbh carryfast in your past posts on other topic its been noted you have, dare I say a hatered of the police so nothing really that is said in this thread will make any difference to what you think. in your eyes the police have it in for every truck driver on the road, driven by some imaginary political agenda that is deep set in your mind 
wildfire:
tbh carryfast in your past posts on other topic its been noted you have, dare I say a hatered of the police so nothing really that is said in this thread will make any difference to what you think. in your eyes the police have it in for every truck driver on the road, driven by some imaginary political agenda that is deep set in your mind
+1
You have just realised 
bazza123:
The thing is, if someone gets killed by a train, the driver (as far as I know) never gets arrested.People are saying the driver bees to be arrested in order for a proper investigation t be carried out, but people are questioned under caution evey single day for all manner of things, they’re not necessarily arrested. What can the same questions not be given to the driver under caution?
The seems to be an assumption that the driver will have been responsible for running over the cyclist; why is there never an assumption that the cyclist may have caused the accident?
^ This
bazza123:
The thing is, if someone gets killed by a train, the driver (as far as I know) never gets arrested.People are saying the driver bees to be arrested in order for a proper investigation t be carried out, but people are questioned under caution evey single day for all manner of things, they’re not necessarily arrested. What can the same questions not be given to the driver under caution?
The seems to be an assumption that the driver will have been responsible for running over the cyclist; why is there never an assumption that the cyclist may have caused the accident?
People are saying, well the arrest can be lifted. Arrested means being taken to the police station, DNA tested, placed in cell with no shoes like some common or garden scumbag, and obviously you can’t just leave when you want to. A single phone call I believe. Very stressful I should imagine, on top of the trauma of seeing a dead person under your vehicle. I understand when under caution you can leave the cop shop when you like.
Also an arrest will show on an enhanced CRB I believe, even if you are not charged. If you work with young or vulnerable people, (Scouts, foster carer with wife etc etc) this could cause you a lot of problems I would imagine.
Just seems silly it can’t be dealt with another way.
(All of the ave assumes oh are innocent by the way
if a train driver causes the death of someone by his action ie speeding and the train derails then yes he would be arrested, otherwise no, totally different laws govern the railways, so not a good comparison.
as for this driver there would of been questions asked at the scene and witness statements taken before a formal arrest, non of us know what happened we weren’t there. The police have a job to do and that’s to gain evidence and to put that before the cps to see if charges can be brought or not. Oh and yes I have been arrested before and spent over 24hrs in the cells, but I don’t hold a grudge not even after spending 5 days in crown court and found NOT GUILTY by the way
I’m not against the police, I just don’t understand why there always seems to be a presumption of wrongdoing on the driver. If a train driver does not speed, shuts doors properly etc etc but someone is killed it is just a tragic accident. If a driver does everything right, but someone ends up dead, he is arrested.
Just seems a bit odd really.
mickyblue:
wildfire:
tbh carryfast in your past posts on other topic its been noted you have, dare I say a hatered of the police so nothing really that is said in this thread will make any difference to what you think. in your eyes the police have it in for every truck driver on the road, driven by some imaginary political agenda that is deep set in your mind+1
You have just realised
So exactly which posts might these be.As far as I know my attitudes on here to the police have been ( a lot ) more favourable than some others.In this case it’s nothing to do with the police whatsoever because,as I’ve said,the police are just paid to enforce the political agenda of their masters.In this case that agenda seems to be one of victimising drivers,while mixing two totally incompatible forms of transport on the roads and giving cyclists carte blanche to do as they please.Obviously to make cycling more attractive to the masses in an attempt to lower expectations amongst the working classes thereby justifying a lower ( so called more competitive ) wage structure.Unfortunately truck drivers are just being caught up in all that as pawns.While the longer they continue to be mugs in accepting the situation then the more of them will end up at the wrong end of a causing death by careless or dangerous driving charge when they inevitably end up in conflict with a cyclist on the road at some point.To clarify again I’m not blaming that situation on the police.
bazza123:
I’m not against the police, I just don’t understand why there always seems to be a presumption of wrongdoing on the driver. If a train driver does not speed, shuts doors properly etc etc but someone is killed it is just a tragic accident. If a driver does everything right, but someone ends up dead, he is arrested.Just seems a bit odd really.
Ask yourself why you are assuming any presumption?
Arrest is a procedure that can take place at any stage of an investigation. When anyone is arrested they are informed of their rights - particularly the right to remain silent. In short, it’s like a warning - what you are saying IS being recorded and may be used AGAINST you. Giving the driver that warning early is an asset to the driver.
All fatal road traffic collisions are automatically declared a 'crime scene" and are investigated along those lines.
Arrest and conviction are not the same.
Suspicion is not the same as - I think you are to blame or presumption.
The thing is that not all truckers are arrested at the scene. It all depends on the circumstances of the particular incident and how the relevant constabulary deal with it.
For example:
Fulham cyclist killed after being hit by lorry
A Fulham man was killed after being hit by a lorry on a busy red route through central London.
Everton Smith, 48, of Brookville Road, died in the collision on Saturday morning, at the junction of Vauxhall Bridge Road and Drummond Gate in Westminster.
Police and paramedics were called but Mr Smith was pronounced dead at the scene at around 11.30am.
Traffic officers are now appealing for witnesses to the crash to come forward.
No arrests have been made.
Anyone with information is asked to call the witness appeal line on 020 8285 1574.