A cyclist has been found not guilty after crashing into a pedestrian who died days later.

Cornelius De Bruin was cycling in Wilmslow Road when he crashed into Ian Roland Gunn, who was crossing the road after shopping at Tesco Express. Sadly, Mr Gunn's health 'deteriorated' due to the injuries he suffered and he died eight days later.

Following his death, Mr De Bruin was arrested and charged with causing bodily harm by 'wanton or reckless driving'. However, following a three-day trial at Bolton Crown Court, a jury found the 23-year-old property manager not guilty after almost two hours in deliberation.

The trial had heard how Mr De Bruin had crashed into Mr Gunn during a busy Saturday afternoon in Didsbury, with the court shown an eight-minute CCTV video of Mr De Bruin riding his bike in the moments beforehand through Barlow Moor Road and Wilmslow Road.

The footage showed Mr De Bruin running a red light at the junction of Barlow Moor Road and Palatine Road, before eventually turning into Wilmslow Road.. It also showed Mr Gunn entering and exiting a Tesco Express in the area before crossing Wilmslow Road, where he was struck by Mr De Bruin.

Witnesses told the trial how Mr De Bruin, 23, was seen riding his bicycle at a 'fast' pace. Peter Clare, who was driving his Land Rover when he was undertaken by Mr De Bruin in the lead-up to the crash, estimated he was going at least '20 mph' and described how he was sat up on the bike while peddling (sic) and 'was going very fast.'

Mr Clare told the court that he could 'remember thinking if any one steps out' they would collide with Mr De Bruin, and said 'before I could even finish my thought, he had already hit the chap.'

A separate witness, Carolina Orzsic, had been driving a Nissan Micra that was directly in front of Mr De Bruin and was driving towards Mr Gunn as he crossed Wilmslow Road.

She told the court that she noticed how Mr Gunn had been walking ‘slowly and unsteady’ in the middle of the road and that he was looking 'ahead and not left or right' when he was crossing the road.

The court heard how Ms Orzsic told her daughter, who was in the passenger seat, that she would have to ‘slow down’ and the court heard how she steered her car to the right so she didn’t hit him. During an interview with police, Ms Orzsic said that it was difficult to blame either of the men regarding the collision and added that: “They just saw each other at the last second.”

Pedestrians described how members of the public rushed to Mr Gunn’s aid following the accident. He was seen going in and out of consciousness several times while Mr De Bruin, who was dressed in ‘cycling gear’, was on his feet quite ‘quickly’ and was unharmed..

During the second day of the trial, the jury watched on as Mr De Bruin was called to the stand under cross examination. The court heard how he had been questioned by police if his speed - which prosecutors estimated was 23mph - was appropriate on the road with a 30mph limit.

Mr De Bruin, of Fallowfield, was recorded as saying: “Yeah, I think it was appropriate. If cars can go 30 miles an hour why can’t cyclists go 30 miles an hour? Not that I advise to go 30 miles an hour.”

Originally from Holland, Mr De Bruin has lived in the country for five years and described himself as an ‘intermediate’ and experienced bike rider. During an interview with police, he said he had been riding bikes ‘all his life’ as he was Dutch.

He said he had gone out on the bike ride after a day at work, and said it was 'a nice sunny day' and the ride was a 'leisure ride' on the popular Fallowfield loop that he was familiar with. When asked if he was 'on a time trial and didn't care what happened ahead of him?', he said simply replied 'no, I did care.'

Mr De Bruin said ‘he doesn’t’ know why he hadn’t seen Mr Gunn crossing the road and entering the cycle lane. Mr De Bruin also said that he pressed his brakes and ‘tried to swerve to the right’ to avoid Mr Gunn, who had moved ‘backwards and forwards’ in an effort to avoid the oncoming cyclist.

He said he was in ‘shock’ but was uninjured following the crash and remained at the scene until the paramedics took Mr Gunn to hospital. He said he spoke to a paramedic who thought Mr Gunn was going to be ‘alright’.

At the end of proceedings and following the not guilty verdict, Judge Timothy Clayson thanked the jury for their assistance in the 'short but obvious serious case' and gave his condolences to the Gunn family.

https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/cyclist-found-not-guilty-after-24954444

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

> A cyclist has been found not guilty after crashing into a pedestrian who died days later.

> https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/cyclist-found-not-guilty-after-24954444

QUOTE
FROM
swldxer1958@gmail.com

Tue, 6 Sep 2022 09:33:49 -0700 (PDT)

“Big mistake - as we have seen many times lately, it's always a good policy
to plead guilty at the first time of asking”

ENDQUOTE

--
Spike

16 min ago

He's not a reckless cyclist. A court has heard all the evidence and the Jury acquitted him.
Drivers will kill five road users today. And tomorrow. Just as they did yesterday, and the day before. Day after endless days.

Think on that before commenting.

During his closing speech, Mark Fireman pointed to Mr De Bruin’s history of no convictions and argued that the cyclist was “well within the speed limit” and that his use of headphones was no different to motorists listening to the radio while driving. He also stated that the cyclist’s running of a red light “800 metres away” had no bearing on the tragic incident.

-----------------------------------

A sensible defence barrister for a change.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote

> A cyclist has been found not guilty after crashing into a pedestrian who died days later.

> Cornelius De Bruin was cycling in Wilmslow Road when he crashed into Ian
> Roland Gunn, who was crossing the road after shopping at Tesco Express.
> Sadly, Mr Gunn's health 'deteriorated' due to the injuries he suffered
> and he died eight days later.

> Following his death, Mr De Bruin was arrested and charged with causing
> bodily harm by 'wanton or reckless driving'. However, following a
> three-day trial at Bolton Crown Court, a jury found the 23-year-old
> property manager not guilty after almost two hours in deliberation.

> https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/cyclist-found-not-guilty-after-24954444

“They just saw each other at the last second.”

So remind me again, because we’ve heard a lot about it, what does the
Highway Code say about a hierarchy of road users? Which of these two should
have been looking out for and deferred to the other?

--
Spike

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

> During his closing speech, Mark Fireman pointed to Mr De Bruin’s history
> of no convictions and argued that the cyclist was “well within the speed
> limit” and that his use of headphones was no different to motorists
> listening to the radio while driving. He also stated that the cyclist’s
> running of a red light “800 metres away” had no bearing on the tragic incident.

> -----------------------------------

> A sensible defence barrister for a change.

Don’t you normally call them ‘Mr Arsehole’?

Why the change?

--
Spike

This is my manor. I cycle that road once a week on the way home from Fletcher Moss parkrun (hush now...) via the Aldi on Wilmslow Road.

23mph. From the accounts given, the collision occurred approximately 60-70 metres north of the Barlow Moor Road/Wilmslow Road junction on or around the northbound murder strip before the left hand turn into Aldi. Someone do the maths on this, but accelerating to 23mph from a slow or standing start in 60-70 metres seems very quick (the left hand turn from Barlow Moor Road is quite sharp and has traffic lights).

The pedestrian would have been approaching from the right, as he had been shopping in the Tesco Express on the east hand side of the road. The Nissan Micra in front of De Bruin driven by Ms Orzsic had had to swerve to avoid Mr Gunn, and it would seem that Mr De Bruin's view of Mr Gunn was obscured and only visible at the last moment.

My sympathies for Mr Gunn's family, but if he's going to walk "‘slowly and unsteady’ in the middle of the road and that he was looking 'ahead and not left or right' when he was crossing the road", it would seem unjust to paint someone else as the author of his demise when he was only been visible to the cyclist immediately prior to the collision.

Fortunately, the jury for saw through the prosecutor's attempts to appeal to anti-cycling prejudice (headphones, powerful racing bike, on a time trial), and justice was done.

(((APPLAUSE)))

Has anyone else managed to piece together what actually happened? It reads as though a car had overtaken the cyclist, and the driver steered right to avoid the - apparently confused - pedestrian who was finishing crossing from the driver's right, leaving the cyclist nowhere to go when the pedestrian suddenly appeared in view? That must have been horrible.

I hit a pedestrian in Otley once who just walked out into the road. I shouted, which was my only mistake. Had I kept quiet and allowed him to carry on walking I could have avoided him, but in his alarm he did the "am-I-going-left-or-right?" dance and I couldn't stop in time. Luckily nobody hurt on that occasion but cranium doesn't need to hit tarmac that hard to do serious damage so it could have been catastrophic.

I don't understand the headphones thing? Is there a suggestion that the cyclist ignored a warning?

I also don't understand from the report why the prosecution was brought at all? If you're driving a car inside the speed limit and someone walks onto your bonnet, I imagine her majesty's finest offer you counselling rather than a spell at her pleasure?

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> Has anyone else managed to piece together what actually happened? It
> reads as though a car had overtaken the cyclist, and the driver steered
> right to avoid the - apparently confused - pedestrian who was finishing
> crossing from the driver's right, leaving the cyclist nowhere to go when
> the pedestrian suddenly appeared in view? That must have been horrible.

The cars were driving responsibly.

The lunatic cyclist - riding faster than the cars- killed him.

>
> I hit a pedestrian in Otley once who just walked out into the road. I
> shouted, which was my only mistake. Had I kept quiet and allowed him to
> carry on walking I could have avoided him, but in his alarm he did the
> "am-I-going-left-or-right?" dance and I couldn't stop in time. Luckily
> nobody hurt on that occasion but cranium doesn't need to hit tarmac that
> hard to do serious damage so it could have been catastrophic.
>
> I don't understand the headphones thing? Is there a suggestion that the
> cyclist ignored a warning?
>
> I also don't understand from the report why the prosecution was brought
> at all? If you're driving a car inside the speed limit and someone walks
> onto your bonnet, I imagine her majesty's finest offer you counselling
> rather than a spell at her pleasure?
>
>

You shouted?

You do know bikes are REQUIRED to have an audible means to warn of approach
- eg a bell. Shouting does not qualify.

Do you have brakes?

You do know it is illegal to drive a vehicle with headphones* yet cyclists
ride with them frequently.

* one is permitted.

You sound like a menace on the road.

One thing I find particularly disturbing is the matter of his wearing "cycling gear" being brought up. Most of the other bits of diatribe I can understand - it's the prosecution's job to cast the accused as being reckless. The fact that wearing cycling gear plays into that perception is my concern. I wonder whether it was brought in to distance the popular perception of a Dutch person riding a bicycle.

Its a 30mph road. He was doing 23mph. We don't know how fast the car was going but:

1. I doubt the car was going less than 23mph so not sure why the cyclist should be held to a higher standard;

2. If it had been a motorist going at 23mph in a 30 and hit the motorist, there's absolutely no way in hell this would have even seen the inside of a court room - that this was prosecuted is symptomatic of the prejudice faced by cyclists.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

> Its a 30mph road. He was doing 23mph. We don't know how fast the car was going but:

> 1. I doubt the car was going less than 23mph so not sure why the cyclist
> should be held to a higher standard;

> 2. If it had been a motorist going at 23mph in a 30 and hit the motorist,
> there's absolutely no way in hell this would have even seen the inside of
> a court room - that this was prosecuted is symptomatic of the prejudice faced by cyclists.

Ask yourself these questions:

What proportion of the maximum speed of the car is 30mph?

What proportion of the maximum speed of the cyclist is 23mph?

Which of these was travelling nearest its limit?

--
Spike

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

and it would seem that Mr De Bruin's view of Mr Gunn was obscured and only
visible at the last moment.

> (((APPLAUSE)))

So what’s being said here is that the cyclist was belting along with
obscured vision.

What does the Highway Code say about this?

--
Spike

Let's be clear - the 23mph thing is conjecture on the part of a witness. Given that drivers/witnesses routinely over-estimate the speed of 'speeding' cyclists, we shouldn't take it seriously.

I'm regularly told that cyclists exceed 30mph on the canal towpath near us....!

Reminds me of the meeting SGlos council had to discuss the chicanes they had put on the Bristol/Bath path, where one guy stood up and said cyclists were doing 60mph along it.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> One thing I find particularly disturbing is the matter of his wearing
> "cycling gear" being brought up. Most of the other bits of diatribe I can
> understand - it's the prosecution's job to cast the accused as being
> reckless. The fact that wearing cycling gear plays into that perception
> is my concern. I wonder whether it was brought in to distance the popular
> perception of a Dutch person riding a bicycle.
>

Dutch cyclists tend to wear ordinary clothes. As do Danes.

The French like lyca but ride sensibly, avoiding the middle of the road,
obeying traffic lights etc.

Perhaps he was trying to fit in with the UK lycra lunatics in the area. You
did say it was your patch.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> Let's be clear - the 23mph thing is conjecture on the part of a
> witness. Given that drivers/witnesses routinely over-estimate the speed
> of 'speeding' cyclists, we shouldn't take it seriously.
>

>

He admitted he always rode like that.

He should have been jailed for life.

Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
> swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Its a 30mph road. He was doing 23mph. We don't know how fast the car was going but:
>
>> 1. I doubt the car was going less than 23mph so not sure why the cyclist
>> should be held to a higher standard;
>
>> 2. If it had been a motorist going at 23mph in a 30 and hit the motorist,
>> there's absolutely no way in hell this would have even seen the inside of
>> a court room - that this was prosecuted is symptomatic of the prejudice faced by cyclists.
>
> Ask yourself these questions:
>
> What proportion of the maximum speed of the car is 30mph?
>
> What proportion of the maximum speed of the cyclist is 23mph?

> Which of these was travelling nearest its limit?

…and therefore required the greatest care, such as travelling at a speed
such that he could stop (stop!) in half the distance he could see to be
clear - which might be difficult as the cyclist admitted in court that
he hadn’t been paying attention.

Can you imagine the outcry from the cycling world had a car driver having
killed a cyclist and got away with it in court after admitting ‘he hadn’t
been paying attention’?

--
Spike

Rich_cb to take your argument to it's logical conclusion.... I presume you agree that any road where pedestrians are likely to be crossing should have a speed limit of below 30.

The facts of the case show that the cyclist was riding NW on the road, the pedestrian crossed the road from the cyclists right, so across a cycle lane and two live lanes of traffic before the collision.

If this had been the motorist in front of the cyclist (remember they had to take evasive action to avoid the collsion) who collided with the pedestrian as opposed to the cyclist. Would this have even went to court?

And if a motorist collided with a pedestrian in exactly the same circumstances, and the motorist was keeping up with the other traffic.... would you have a witness saying "the car in front was going very fast, and was going at least 20 mph"

The fact that another vehicle had to take evasive action to avoid this pedestrian seems to indicate this was an unusual circumstance.

A court has considered the evidence and found them not guilty of being reckless.

Whilst you do have a responsibility to ride to the conditions, there are limits. Certainly I would have considered the pedestrian I nearly hit when doing 30mph 100% to blame had I not been able to stop in time. I was doing 30mph in a 30 limit, they are lucky I had good brakes and quick reactions. I felt very annoyed with them afterwards, as their inattention had put me at risk.

On 08/09/2022 10:52, Spike wrote:
>
> Can you imagine the outcry from the cycling world had a car driver having
> killed a cyclist and got away with it in court after admitting ‘he hadn’t
> been paying attention’?

As I understand the working of a court it is a requirement for witnesses
and defendants to tell the truth.

If a direct question was asked "were you paying attention?" I believe
the requirement for a truthful answer is the same. It is very difficult
to say "yes" with complete certainty so the only alternative can be "I
believe so". Even then, I suspect the court would want to delve further
into that.

Should punishment be increased for honesty?

Look swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

> The fact that another vehicle had to take evasive action to avoid this
> pedestrian seems to indicate this was an unusual circumstance.

> A court has considered the evidence and found them not guilty of being reckless.

> Whilst you do have a responsibility to ride to the conditions, there are
> limits. Certainly I would have considered the pedestrian I nearly hit
> when doing 30mph 100% to blame had I not been able to stop in time. I was
> doing 30mph in a 30 limit, they are lucky I had good brakes and quick
> reactions. I felt very annoyed with them afterwards, as their inattention
> had put me at risk.

“Certainly I would have considered the pedestrian I nearly hit when doing
30mph 100% to blame had I not been able to stop in time. I was doing 30mph
in a 30 limit, they are lucky I had good brakes and quick reactions. I felt
very annoyed with them afterwards, as their inattention had put me at
risk.”

Selfish prat. The Highway Code lists a hierarchy of vulnerability, and
cyclists ARE NOT top of that list.

You might like to brush up on the subject of road vulnerabilities.

Should you ever find yourself in court as a driver under those
circumstances, see how well that runs as a defence, always remembering the
advice to plead guilty right up front.

--
Spike

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:
> Rich_cb to take your argument to it's logical conclusion.... I presume
> you agree that any road where pedestrians are likely to be crossing
> should have a speed limit of below 30.
>
> The facts of the case show that the cyclist was riding NW on the road,
> the pedestrian crossed the road from the cyclists right, so across a
> cycle lane and two live lanes of traffic before the collision.
>
> If this had been the motorist in front of the cyclist (remember they had
> to take evasive action to avoid the collsion) who collided with the
> pedestrian as opposed to the cyclist. Would this have even went to court?
>
> And if a motorist collided with a pedestrian in exactly the same
> circumstances, and the motorist was keeping up with the other traffic....
> would you have a witness saying "the car in front was going very fast,
> and was going at least 20 mph"

Unfortunately, the cyclist in this case, according to evidence mentioned in
court, only saw the pedestrian he killed at the last moment.

Either he was going too fast for the distance he could see to be clear, or
he was cycling without due care and attention.

Slam dunk.
--
Spike

TMS320 <dr6092@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 08/09/2022 10:52, Spike wrote:
>>
>> Can you imagine the outcry from the cycling world had a car driver having
>> killed a cyclist and got away with it in court after admitting ‘he hadn’t
>> been paying attention’?
>
> As I understand the working of a court it is a requirement for witnesses
> and defendants to tell the truth.
>
> If a direct question was asked "were you paying attention?" I believe
> the requirement for a truthful answer is the same. It is very difficult
> to say "yes" with complete certainty so the only alternative can be "I
> believe so". Even then, I suspect the court would want to delve further
> into that.

> Should punishment be increased for honesty?

It depends on one’s moral compass - something that seems to be somewhat
lacking in cycling circles.

--
Spike

Well below the posted speed limit. Headphones perfectly legal and would make no difference anyway unless you believe that a cyclist can hear a pedestrian's footsteps. Why are you so desperate to try and find the cyclist in the wrong when the evidence - and the verdict of the jury - clearly point to a tragic accident caused by pedestrian error?

NOT GUILTY.

swldx...@gmail.com <swldxer1958@gmail.com> wrote:

> Well below the posted speed limit. Headphones perfectly legal and would
> make no difference anyway unless you believe that a cyclist can hear a
> pedestrian's footsteps. Why are you so desperate to try and find the
> cyclist in the wrong when the evidence - and the verdict of the jury -
> clearly point to a tragic accident caused by pedestrian error?

> NOT GUILTY.

Unfortunately, the cyclist in this case, according to evidence mentioned in
court, only saw the pedestrian he killed at the last moment.

Either he was going too fast for the distance he could see to be clear, or
he was cycling without due care and attention.

SLAM DUNK

--
Spike