Text driver faces jail over cyclist's death

cntl

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hamp ... 222690.stm

and the video:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid ... =1&bbcws=1

cntl

In the video they said the cyclist had ran through a red light :?

Cunobelin

Yep!

This is fairly local, so of interest.

The cyclist did contribute to this and was at fault by jumping the light.

However the Judge felt that had the driver not been speeding and texting then she could have avoided this - her ability to respond was impaired by her actions, thus constituting dangerous driving.

ddraver

thers a similar post in road/campaign

i noted the RLJ factoe as well....hmmm

Drfabulous0

Texting while driving is outrageous and I'm glad to see it being taken seriously, however this guy would still be alive if he hadn't jumped the lights, let this be a lesson to us all.

abbots_mike

it is a serious issue and a terrible accident, but it does remind us of the wonders of wearing a lid.

nwallace

Anyone had a look at the court reports for this, I have seen on another forum that someone had a look reported that witnesses said that the cyclist went into the side of the vehicle. Though they couldn't a quote or link.

However even if that was the case and thus her involvement in the collision incident was negligible, it would be another 3 penalty points which would apparently take her to a ban.

The use of mobile phone while driving evidence is also apparently very sketchy.
phone record showed she had been texting around about the time of the crash. Apparently she lives about 2 minutes from the place of the crash thus there is the possibility that she typed the message, hit send, dropped it on the passenger seat then drove off from her house.

If she T-Boned the cyclist at 45mph then a lid wouldn't do much. If on the other hand the cyclist T-Boned her vehicle one might have helped.

There is also the issue of a cycle farcility being available this doesn't appear to have popped up in any of the reports linked to though.

Interesting one to watch the result as there is significant fault on both sides.

daniel_b

Incredible, he jumped a red light, he shouldn't have been there.

Clearly she wasn't in full control of her car, but the facts are that he shouldn't have gone through a red light, and doing that whilst not wearing a helmet, it was only going to be a matter of time before this happened.

Very strange.

Cunobelin

Daniel B wrote:

Incredible, he jumped a red light, he shouldn't have been there.

Clearly she wasn't in full control of her car, but the facts are that he shouldn't have gone through a red light, and doing that whilst not wearing a helmet, it was only going to be a matter of time before this happened.

Very strange.

So.....

Would it have been any any more acceptable to jump the light or less of a stupid stunt to have jumped the light wearing a helmet?

To me this implies that wearing a helmet would have been a mitigating factor in the offence - it isn't.

Simple - STOP AT RED helmeted or helmetless!!

daniel_b

Cunobelin wrote:

Daniel B wrote:

Incredible, he jumped a red light, he shouldn't have been there.

Clearly she wasn't in full control of her car, but the facts are that he shouldn't have gone through a red light, and doing that whilst not wearing a helmet, it was only going to be a matter of time before this happened.

Very strange.

So.....

Would it have been any any more acceptable to jump the light or less of a stupid stunt to have jumped the light wearing a helmet?

To me this implies that wearing a helmet would have been a mitigating factor in the offence - it isn't.

Simple - STOP AT RED helmeted or helmetless!!

No not at all, all I am saying is that if you do something that is inherently dangerous, like for example speeding in a car, then if you don't take basic safety precautions, such as wearing a helmet on a bike, or wearing a seatbelt in a car (And yes I'm aware one is law, and the other one isn't) then if something does happen, you've already widened the odds that your going to make it out the other side, either intact or alive.

I don't know the details of the above incident so have no idea IF a helmet would have saved him, but equally no one knows if it wouldn't have saved him.

He won't have the chance to know either more importantly.

Cunobelin

No not at all, all I am saying is that if you do something that is inherently dangerous, like for example speeding in a car, then if you don't take basic safety precautions, such as wearing a helmet on a bike, or wearing a seatbelt in a car (And yes I'm aware one is law, and the other one isn't) then if something does happen, you've already widened the odds that your going to make it out the other side, either intact or alive.

Risk compensation theory........

I can do things more that are more dangerous because I have protection... Narrowing the odds is simply a foolish justification.

The answer here is not to take the risks. Helmets in this case are a distraction - the red light jumping is the important thing

ddraver

remember Cun is an ardent anti helmet guy...although we don't have the facts to know how much it would have helped

Cunobelin

remember Cun is an ardent anti helmet guy...although we don't have the facts to know how much it would have helped

News to me!

I am a pro-informed decisions type of guy which upsets a lot of people.

Search for "Snell" on the forum and skip through the threads for my "anti-helmet" rants..

Unfortunately there is a small cadre that misinterprets anything that doesn't follow the "Helmets solve all ills" claims as as "anti helmet"!...............

As in this case, there is no evidence that a helmet would have made any difference, yet claims are made that this tragedy "reminds us of the wonders of wearing a lid" as opposed to "reminds us of the wonders of actually obeying red lights"

BentMikey

It's simply utter stupidity to claim that lack of helmet wearing is contributory negligence.

The problems with this accident are easy to identify - speeding and texting by the driver, and jumping red lights by the cyclist. The helmet issue is simply a red herring.

cupofteacp

In these sorts of cases when there trying work out contributory factors they’ll look at everything.

I’m surprised they haven’t mentioned reflectors and lights!

dirk_van_gently

The driver SHOULD pay the penalty for dangerous driving, the cyclist has already paid the penalty for dangerous cycling, he's Dead!

Moral of this tale, just because one person is doing something stupid, doesn't mean you have to join in.

TheFoolio888

Dirk Van Gently wrote:

The driver SHOULD pay the penalty for dangerous driving, the cyclist has already paid the penalty for dangerous cycling, he's Dead!

Moral of this tale, just because one person is doing something stupid, doesn't mean you have to join in.

Spot on!

mailmannz

Cunobelin wrote:

Risk compensation theory

Is a DEEPLY flawed THEORY that was not based on cyclists or cycling.

I dont know about you but I dont know of any cyclists who suddenly become 7 foot tall and bullet proof because they were a thin peice of plastic on their head. I think you will find that the vast majority of cyclists are very aware of their own mortality.

Mailman

Kafka\'s Doll

Fortunately, the judge seems to consider the RLJ rather more moot than this forum does. She was speeding and using a phone, and she killed another road user as a result. Should be manslaughter really.

BentMikey

mailmannz wrote:

Cunobelin wrote:

Risk compensation theory

Is a DEEPLY flawed THEORY that was not based on cyclists or cycling.

I dont know about you but I dont know of any cyclists who suddenly become 7 foot tall and bullet proof because they were a thin peice of plastic on their head. I think you will find that the vast majority of cyclists are very aware of their own mortality.

Mailman

Ah yes, the last time we had this debate, you lost. Fair and square, and yet still refused to admit you were wrong.

richardast

The fact that it's only referred to as a theory would suggest that it has not been proved to be correct.

The results of the [Poll]Helmets - Yes or No thread on this very forum would suggest that the debate was not lost by Mailman.

I suppose I'm wrong too.

redddraggon

BentMikey - I wear a helmet because the times I'd need one, would probably occur more often than the times it would.

I'm talking about slowish speed impacts that would possibly be caused by a evading manuourve by myself probably because of some tw@t of a driver. If cars weren't on the road I probably would wear a helmet

In my only high speed impact with a car, I got thrown about 10m over a bonnet, but my head suffered no impact, but if it had I'm not sure how much a helmet would have helped.

prj45

Kafka\'s Doll wrote:

Fortunately, the judge seems to consider the RLJ rather more moot than this forum does. She was speeding and using a phone, and she killed another road user as a result. Should be manslaughter really.

It's totally moot IMO given the road layout. The red light he jumped was a way away, he could've equally been going through a green and just not got to the other side of the junction in time.

Its not like he rode out into oncoming traffic, from what I've read he was preceeding right to left, and she had come up from the bottom right: -

http://maps.google.com/?ie=UTF8&ll=50.9 ... &z=19&om=0

And he was struck when 3/4 of the way across the junction, which suggests to me he was struck sort of from behind.

nwallace

It's a fair distance from each of those stop lines to where the carriageways combine,
TBH now seeing the layout of the junction, i don't think it would matter if she was paying attention to the road or not, she probably didn't bother to check to her right that there was nothing still progressing from the other part of the filter.

So now have to say, shite driving and nothing else.

BentMikey

richardast wrote:

The fact that it's only referred to as a theory would suggest that it has not been proved to be correct.

The results of the [Poll]Helmets - Yes or No thread on this very forum would suggest that the debate was not lost by Mailman.

I suppose I'm wrong too.

The debate was whether mailman was guilty of risk compensation w.r.t. helmets, and the answer is yes, he is. The poll you link to would tend to prove my point really.

If I recall correctly, Mailman stated that he wouldn't regularly ride without a helmet. That makes him guilty of risk compensation - he's using safety equipment to make what he perceives as a dangerous activity safe enough for him to be comfortable doing that activity. Of course we're all guilty of risk compensation to some degree, including me, and it's no bad thing.

It's about perception of risk and perceived effectiveness of safety gear rather than the reality. The reality is that cycling is incredibly safe, but yet many cyclists focus on helmets instead of roadcraft. Improvements in roadcraft will have many times more effect on your safety than any safety gear possibly could.

dirk_van_gently

Risk compensation is a fact.
Reverse the idea a bit, and instead of trying to make something safer, make it un-safer (if there is such a word).
Instead of an air bag in a car, put a steel spike on the steering wheel, would people drive more cautiously, you bet they would !
I once challenged a friends driving, he was driving at stupid speeds in the wet, his comment was "It's alright I have ABS". He was compensating for the perceived safety advantage of ABS.
I DO wear a helmet, I once t-boned a telegraph pole with my head, I was not at the time wearing a helmet, and to this day I still suffer with the consequences of the injury. For me wearing a helmet is "potential injury reduction".
That's my 2p on the subject, which is now in my opinion closed.

Cunobelin

Dirk Van Gently wrote:

Risk compensation is a fact.
Reverse the idea a bit, and instead of trying to make something safer, make it un-safer (if there is such a word).
Instead of an air bag in a car, put a steel spike on the steering wheel, would people drive more cautiously, you bet they would !
I once challenged a friends driving, he was driving at stupid speeds in the wet, his comment was "It's alright I have ABS". He was compensating for the perceived safety advantage of ABS.
I DO wear a helmet, I once t-boned a telegraph pole with my head, I was not at the time wearing a helmet, and to this day I still suffer with the consequences of the injury. For me wearing a helmet is "potential injury reduction".
That's my 2p on the subject, which is now in my opinion closed.

Braking is a classic example....

We have a situation where braking is now more efficient than at any time in the history of the motor vehicle - yet.........................

We still need to install special surfaces at junctions and traffixc lights as traffic "can't" stop in time!

richardast

I do believe that risk compensation exists and may apply to some people in some situations, but not to everybody, because we're all different.

Until the age of about 32 I had never worn a cycle helmet. I now wear one almost every time I ride. I used to be a bit of an occasional risk taker. Now I consider myself to be pretty safe - always anticipating what risks may lie in my path, assessing them and managing them.
Whether or not I'm wearing a helmet is not a factor.

When I worked in a steelworks I used to wear steel toe-capped boots. It didn't make me less worried about dropping heavy items on my feet and therefore take more risks. Wearing them just acknowledged that there was a risk of injury if the unforeseen did occur and reduced that risk.

My patio doors are glazed with toughened safety glass. I am almost never tempted to run headlong into them, safe in the knowledge that I won't suffer any cuts from the broken glass.

When you're wearing sunglasses do you feel the urge to keep taking sneaky glances at the midday sun?
I don't think so.

It's flawed to apply it to every person in every situation and it's flawed to apply it to every cyclist who wears a helmet.

P.S. I can probably come up with more examples if you would like.

Drfabulous0

Oh great, helmets again Is it risk compensation if I wear a helmet when I participate in either of these sports?



Of course it is, because there is a risk I might hit my head. Truth be told I am crap at downhill racing and am only still pretty thanks to a good full face lid, so by extension why shouldn't I wear one on the ride to work.?. In fact the only serious head injury I have ever had was a broken skull from a collision with a car when a wasn't wearing a helmet. I'm not for compulsion but why do some people on this forum seem to have a problem with those of us who choose to wear one, yes cycling is pretty safe but there are risks involved, and the one place I don't want damaged is my head, plus it's somewhere I can mount another light.

cjw

Cunobelin wrote:

We still need to install special surfaces at junctions and traffixc lights as traffic "can't" stop in time!

That is already in place and used extensively. If you note as driving or riding along you will notice differing textures / colours / sounds on the road surface. These are not because the tarmac contractor 'ran out' of the proper stuff They are speciually designed surfaces to increase stopping efficiency (but more expensive) at high risk areas such as approaches to junctions and roundabouts. You'll usually find 2 or 3 differnt grades of surface as you come up to a junction.