On Thursday, September 25, a 25-year-old man from Sliedrecht had to answer to the court in Alkmaar because on September 5, 2023, he hit a cyclist with his truck in Oterleek, resulting in the cyclists death.
Two charges were brought against him: that a deadly traffic accident had occurred due to his fault (Article 6 of the Road Traffic Act) and if this could not be proven, that he had behaved dangerously on the road by not paying enough attention (Article 5 of the Road Traffic Act). The public prosecutor requested acquittal for the first charge during the trial and found that the second charge could be proven. For this, he demanded a fine of €350 and a conditional driving ban of two months, with a probation period of two years.
What happened that day
The man was driving a truck and missed an exit. He then drove backward to turn around into Dorpstraat. He stopped, then accelerated to turn right onto Huygendijk. In doing so, he overlooked the cyclist who was standing next to his truck. The man died as a result of the collision.
Blind Spot Camera Off
The defendant stated in court that his truck had been on the handbrake since the road sloped up the dike. The blind spot camera turns off when the truck is on the handbrake. At the moment the handbrake is released, the image does not appear immediately. Because the man was driving a heavy tank truck, he could not remain stationary on the clutch and left before the blind spot camera could provide a view. As a result, he overlooked the cyclist. He had looked well in his mirrors. Based on the file and witness statements, it could be established that the cyclist was difficult to see.
Acquittal for Article 6 of the Road Traffic Act
The public prosecutor found, based on the file and after hearing this statement, that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the driver had been significantly careless, and therefore the violation of Article 6 of the Road Traffic Act could not be proven. That the defendant might have seen the victim is insufficient to speak of the required “significant fault.” Not every traffic error with serious consequences constitutes a violation of the crime of Article 6 of the Road Traffic Act.
Sentencing for Violating Article 5 of the Road Traffic Act
However, the public prosecutor was of the opinion that the driver had made a traffic error. He should have waited until his camera provided a view again; by not doing so, he took what is legally termed ‘insufficient visibility’: he could not see whether there were other road users he needed to consider. In doing so, he exhibited dangerous driving behavior.
The public prosecutor took into account in the sentencing that the man is a young driver who never wanted this accident and will always carry the consequences with him. Mediation has also taken place with the next of kin.
The court will issue its ruling in two weeks
