Only in America
Comments
-
I'm willing to claim that I've never run over a cyclist.
The highway code states very clearly that you should never drive beyond the visibility you have, and I presume driving codes are much the same in other countries. Just because people frequently ignore the code does not mean that it somehow becomes invalid.
Yes the youths were irresponsible. But she was clearly culpable, even without the apparently strong suspicions that Officer Hubby may not have reported the incident with total thoroughness.
@dennis:
IF YOU CAN'T SEE THEM IN TIME TO STOP THEN YOU ARE DRIVING TOO FAST. That is all.0 -
Have you ever driven too fast per this definition?bompington wrote:I'm willing to claim that I've never run over a cyclist.
The highway code states very clearly that you should never drive beyond the visibility you have, and I presume driving codes are much the same in other countries. Just because people frequently ignore the code does not mean that it somehow becomes invalid.
Yes the youths were irresponsible. But she was clearly culpable, even without the apparently strong suspicions that Officer Hubby may not have reported the incident with total thoroughness.
@dennis:
IF YOU CAN'T SEE THEM IN TIME TO STOP THEN YOU ARE DRIVING TOO FAST. That is all.
That rule is an aspiration not a definable quantity in the real world as you have interpreted it. If you don't know what it is you're trying to see then how fast should you drive? Say someone dresses a baby all in black and lies them down in the middle of the road. I know it's a horrific thought but let's just consider what you're saying here. If I don't see that baby and stop in time, it's my fault. "That is all." No, I don't think it is.
You should be driving at a speed that allows you to stop in the time between something becoming visible and you arriving at that location on the assumption that you can in fact see it. You must allow for the impact of darkness, dazzle from oncoming traffic or sun in your eyes, fog, snow, etc on your vision and you must allow for the impact of wet or icy roads, etc on your braking distance. You cannot be reasonably expected to allow for all possible levels of visibility of a cyclist, pedestrian or whatever potential obstacle. The law is an ass. It has to be.
If you chose to simplify to a point where you're essentially saying "Look I can make the rules indicate that you're the bad guy" then what you're really doing is pretending you're different and protecting yourself from the idea that it could be you.0 -
That's the first time I've ever heard the Highway Code called an "aspiration".
I'm intrigued by your level of emotional commitment here. Have you run someone over at some time in your life?0 -
Joeblack wrote:Bottom line is if she wasn't speeding she might not have killed someone.
No, the bottom line is that someones dead. No matter whose fault it was(his, hers, the darkness) this person is gone. Sad part is that very few people will learn anything from this. Kids will still ride their bikes at night with little concern, or awareness, for the consequences.
Sort of like my weiner dog Oscar, who decided he just had to chase that rabbit across the street. He wasn't capable of thinking about the consequences. I'm pretty sure kids brains work(or don't work) along the same lines.
Now, I'm not justifying speeding. If in fact the driver was speeding. But you, me, us, them, have ALL gone over the speed limit more than a few times and have we ever learned not to speed? Probably not.
So, quite possibly the only people who will learn anything from this are the driver and the two surviving kids.0 -
bompington wrote:
Yes the youths were irresponsible. But she was clearly culpable, ......
"Irresponsible" can very often lead to bad things happening.0 -
Apologies, I was editing my post while you replied but I don't think anything pertinent has been changed.bompington wrote:That's the first time I've ever heard the Highway Code called an "aspiration".
I'm intrigued by your level of emotional commitment here. Have you run someone over at some time in your life?
It may be the first time you've heard it but do you disagree? If so can you tell me how it could be otherwise?
If you read my previous post you'll see I've never caused any accident of any sort despite years of fairly high volume driving. However, again as I've said in my earlier post, I am aware that at times I have made mistakes and under coincidental and unfortunate circumstances they could have caused an accident. If you drive, will you admit the same? I am quite certain there is no driver that can honestly claim otherwise. That does not mean drivers are bad people or laws are insufficient. Human beings are not physically or psychologically capable of being perfect drivers. There will be accidents. They can and should be minimised. Assigning unfair blame and supporting zero tolerance may seem like the solution but is in my opinion completely counter-productive.0 -
Precisely.dennisn wrote:Joeblack wrote:Bottom line is if she wasn't speeding she might not have killed someone.
No, the bottom line is that someones dead. No matter whose fault it was(his, hers, the darkness) this person is gone. Sad part is that very few people will learn anything from this. Kids will still ride their bikes at night with little concern, or awareness, for the consequences.
Sort of like my weiner dog Oscar, who decided he just had to chase that rabbit across the street. He wasn't capable of thinking about the consequences. I'm pretty sure kids brains work(or don't work) along the same lines.
Now, I'm not justifying speeding. If in fact the driver was speeding. But you, me, us, them, have ALL gone over the speed limit more than a few times and have we ever learned not to speed? Probably not.
So, quite possibly the only people who will learn anything from this are the driver and the two surviving kids.
The only way anyone else will learn from it is if they stop distancing themselves from these incidents by pretending there's a bad guy to point a finger at. Blame is a dangerous thing. Much more dangerous than speeding.0 -
So give me the stats - how many people were killed in Canada last year by blame? I don't know how many were killed by speeding, but the total fatalities for Canada is about 2,000: I would be fairly willing to bet more by speeding than blame...Ai_1 wrote:Blame is a dangerous thing. Much more dangerous than speeding.
... or we could just accept that your pithy little aphorism is as meaningless as most such sayings are.0 -
bompington wrote:
So give me the stats - how many people were killed in Canada last year by blame? I don't know how many were killed by speeding, but the total fatalities for Canada is about 2,000: I would be fairly willing to bet more by speeding than blame...Ai_1 wrote:Blame is a dangerous thing. Much more dangerous than speeding.
... or we could just accept that your pithy little aphorism is as meaningless as most such sayings are.
You seem unconcerned with the death aspect of all this. More focused on who to blame. I can assure you that blaming someone, anyone, or everyone is not going to help or bring this kid back. It won't make anyone feel better.
If I blamed someone for a friends death I know for a fact that it wouldn't make me feel better. Dead is dead and blame is not going to help that. Beating the sh*t out of the person "responsible" doesn't help either. Nor does, I assume, watching said person fry in the electric chair.0 -
dennisn wrote:bompington wrote:
So give me the stats - how many people were killed in Canada last year by blame? I don't know how many were killed by speeding, but the total fatalities for Canada is about 2,000: I would be fairly willing to bet more by speeding than blame...Ai_1 wrote:Blame is a dangerous thing. Much more dangerous than speeding.
... or we could just accept that your pithy little aphorism is as meaningless as most such sayings are.
You seem unconcerned with the death aspect of all this. More focused on who to blame. I can assure you that blaming someone, anyone, or everyone is not going to help or bring this kid back. It won't make anyone feel better.
If I blamed someone for a friends death I know for a fact that it wouldn't make me feel better. Dead is dead and blame is not going to help that. Beating the sh*t out of the person "responsible" doesn't help either. Nor does, I assume, watching said person fry in the electric chair.
Evaluating what happened in an objective way to determine who was responsible for the incident and hence where blame lies and then recording the finding and giving an appropriate punishment serves several useful purposes:
creates a record that future drivers and cyclists can learn from,
shows there are consequences for actions.dennisn wrote:Joeblack wrote:Bottom line is if she wasn't speeding she might not have killed someone.
... you, me, us, them, have ALL gone over the speed limit more than a few times and have we ever learned not to speed? Probably not.
So, quite possibly the only people who will learn anything from this are the driver and the two surviving kids.
I got caught speeding once about ten years ago, doing 97 on a motorway on a bright sunny day - I was so embarrassed because I was just going to the beach for a walk and there was no reason in the world to be in a hurry that I significantly changed my driving as a direct result of that.dennisn wrote:cougie wrote:OK - they're idiots for not having lights - but reflectors on an unlit road ? I cant understand how she didn't see them.
If it was on a bend - then she'd have hit them lights or not.
If it wasnt a bend - then the reflectors would have stood out a mile.
I would have to say that even WITH lights, cyclists at night are not all that easy to see. Cycling lights are just not that strong. Maybe if you had a half dozen of them, all flashing wildly.
Lezyne Micro Drive, Moon Shield Comet that's just two examples for the rear and pretty much any one of dozens and dozens of Cree LED based torches for the front - cheap and effective bike lights that no one could ever miss. Bike lights are plenty strong enough if you put any effort at all into deciding what to buy.
PS - The only way the reference to America (or Canada) could be valid is that they seem to be more litigious countries than the UK - the aspect re driving and cycling could have happened here.0 -
It's more than a "pithy little aphorism" but as you are well aware statistical evidence would be rather complex to arrange!bompington wrote:
So give me the stats - how many people were killed in Canada last year by blame? I don't know how many were killed by speeding, but the total fatalities for Canada is about 2,000: I would be fairly willing to bet more by speeding than blame...Ai_1 wrote:Blame is a dangerous thing. Much more dangerous than speeding.
... or we could just accept that your pithy little aphorism is as meaningless as most such sayings are.
I suspect you don't really want to know why I think blame is dangerous but I'm going to tell you anyway. It may seem a little off topic but I don't think it is really - just look at the thread title...
Incidentally when I mention blame being dangerous I'm not talking specifically about road accidents but it does apply there as in all other aspects of life.
There are two main ways I think that blame is highly dangerous:
Firstly, blame is almost entirely a defence against feeling vulnerable. Much more so, in my opinion, than it is about "justice". Unfortunately preventing ourselves feeling vulnerable has the side effect of preventing us from learning because we indulge in hyperbole and labeling taking all context from the lesson and making it something for us to be angry about as either spectators or potential victims not as potential "villains". We change the whole context of the lesson and learn very little as a result.
Secondly, blame is dangerous because it has a tendency to incite anger and a self righteous wish for "justice". In reality "justice" in this context is indistinguishable from revenge. It's the spark that again and again causes discrimination, violence and injustice far in excess of that which triggered it. Can you name a war, oppressive political regime or religious fanatical movement that has not either been sparked by blame of others for some wrongdoing or at the very least used such blame as an excuse?
Blame is a dangerous thing because we think it keeps our hands clean when we do, say or accept some pretty horrible things. It's an illusion. It doesn't fix anything, ever.0 -
bompington wrote:
So give me the stats - how many people were killed in Canada last year by blame? I don't know how many were killed by speeding, but the total fatalities for Canada is about 2,000: I would be fairly willing to bet more by speeding than blame...Ai_1 wrote:Blame is a dangerous thing. Much more dangerous than speeding.
... or we could just accept that your pithy little aphorism is as meaningless as most such sayings are.
at the risk of applying godwin's law...
essentially blame was the reason that the Nazi's got away with so much, they falsely laid blame at groups of people through their propaganda so the majority didn't stop them when they were persecuted.www.conjunctivitis.com - a site for sore eyes0 -
Are you perhaps forgetting to distinguishing between
a) blame which is justified i.e. justified because the blamed did actually do the thing they were blamed for and
b)unfair/ill considered/subjective blame where the blamed did not do the thing they were blamed for
when citing Nazi propaganda and/or revenge? if not then do you think all systems of criminal investigation and punishment are wrong? Are you anarchists? is it just semantics around the word blame?
At the Nuremberg trials would you not say the Nazi Doctor's were blamed and punished with justification?0 -
In this case I think you can be forgiven reference to Nazis. It's a relevant and appropriate illustration of exactly what acceptance of a blame culture leads to.Chris Bass wrote:bompington wrote:
So give me the stats - how many people were killed in Canada last year by blame? I don't know how many were killed by speeding, but the total fatalities for Canada is about 2,000: I would be fairly willing to bet more by speeding than blame...Ai_1 wrote:Blame is a dangerous thing. Much more dangerous than speeding.
... or we could just accept that your pithy little aphorism is as meaningless as most such sayings are.
at the risk of applying godwin's law...
essentially blame was the reason that the Nazi's got away with so much, they falsely laid blame at groups of people through their propaganda so the majority didn't stop them when they were persecuted.0 -
wishitwasallflat wrote:Lezyne Micro Drive, Moon Shield Comet that's just two examples for the rear and pretty much any one of dozens and dozens of Cree LED based torches for the front - cheap and effective bike lights that no one could ever miss. Bike lights are plenty strong enough if you put any effort at all into deciding what to buy.
All I can say is that I have come up on cyclist's with lights, at night, and generally marvelled at how inefficient they were at warning anyone. Simply not strong enough. Add in the fact that cars are going faster than bikes and you find yourself coming up on them a lot quicker than you would catch up to another car.
As for Leyzne Micro Drive and others I have my doubts that "kids" have any interest in mounting these things on their bikes. Why would they need a light. After all the cars have lights and they will see us.
And there-in is the problem. Cyclist's THINK people can see them and maybe they can and maybe they can't. Thing is, no one(in their right mind) wants to hit a cyclist or pedestrian or another car or a tree or whatever. In any case I don't see this woman saying to herself "well, he doesn't have lights or reflectors, or light clothing so even though I saw him I'm going to run him over". Had she seen him I'm betting she would have done all in her power to avoid him. Who doesn't try to avoid an accident that they see coming?0 -
Good point but no, I'm intentionally not distinguishing between them. If you allow a you'll also get b.wishitwasallflat wrote:Are you perhaps forgetting to distinguishing between
a) blame which is justified i.e. justified because the blamed did actually do the thing they were blamed for and
b)unfair/ill considered/subjective blame where the blamed did not do the thing they were blamed for......
Yes, I think criminal investigation and punishment is wrong. If the punishment is for punishments sake. The useful result of a "justice" system is prevention of recurrence not revenge. The idea of using punishment as a deterrent may have some merit although I'm uncomfortable with it. Typically people's views on punishment however are driven not by the wish for a deterrent but a wish for revenge. How often do you hear people vent their wishes that a convicted pedophile or rapist will be abused themselves in prison? What does that do to make anything better. Nothing. But people are addicted to the idea of revenge and even more so when they can pretend it's justice.wishitwasallflat wrote:.....if not then do you think all systems of criminal investigation and punishment are wrong? Are you anarchists? is it just semantics around the word blame?
At the Nuremberg trials would you not say the Nazi Doctor's were blamed and punished with justification?
So I think punishment, when it's really revenge, is wrong and no, I'm not an anarchist. Quite the opposite. I simply have a tendency to keep asking questions even after I've got an answer I like. Often when you keep looking, that nice tidy answer starts looking much less acceptable. Seeing blame as a solution just obscures the problems or moves them around. It doesn't solve them.
You are right that the word blame could cause confusion here. So let me try and clarify my interpretation as follows.
If an investigation ascertains that the actions of a specific person, organisation, etc caused a thing to happen then blame is what you assign them when you stop and say "It's your fault, you made it happen" and you decide that the solution to the problem is to punish them. I think that is the wrong place to stop. Surely we should be saying "This happened through your actions, what caused your actions?" and continuing until a root cause can be found that is not about finding someone to hate. That's the only way anything can be solved in the long term.
So, when you speak of doctors in the Nuremberg trials and whether I think they were blamed and punished with justification, I will firstly say that I don't know enough about the specifics to say whether the blame and punishment were justified but based on what I've said above I presume my position is obvious? Taking revenge on them is pointless and wrong. The only way punishment would be justified is if it serves to prevent something similar from happening again. So, did the specific punishments doled out serve this purpose or were they revenge?0 -
Ai_1
I completely agree with your comments regarding revenge - for example I am very uncomfortable with seemingly new and increasingly populist notions that victims should be involved in determining punishments or sentences. That's why I would always look for objectivity and equity in justice systems - I believe that is why lady justice is blindfolded to ensure that her subjective view is not part of the system nor her judgements.
dennisn
No I don't really think that this driver would not have avoided these cyclist if she could have - unless she was one of the more unusual and sociopathic type of personality. Sadly there are some humans who would not have avoided them and may have felt hitting them was somehow justified. I don't know anything about this woman though so would assume she made a mistake.
Also I too have seen many many cyclists with inadequate lights and I agree that younger riders would not be as likely to think about this or invest much time, thought or money in lights. That's where parents/guardians/role models/schools/clubs etc come into it; basically anyone or any organisation with any contact with younger riders should be educating them. Personally I would be very happy to see laws around cycle lights tightened up, clearly defined and enforced. I am comfortable I am doing all I can to maximise my own and my children's chances but I fear for others and I fear unless it's regulated certain cyclists won't take it seriously (young and old) and incidents like this happening again are more likley.
PS - My interest in this thread wasn't to have a go at, or try to correct anyone rather it's because it held a dialogue/discussion about if we, I general, on this forum instinctively always blame drivers, under any and all circumstances - and if we do that, why do we do it? I think many on here do - why? - well I would speculate that it's lazy, it's easy and it's simplistic subjective bias to do that rather than find out the facts, think it through and reach balanced conclusions. Heh this is the internet though ...0 -
wishitwasallflat wrote:No I don't really think that this driver would not have avoided these cyclist if she could have.... I don't know anything about this woman though so would assume she made a mistake.
Not sure about your wording. How is it that "...she made a mistake."?
I'm assuming that IF she saw them she would have tried to avoid them. If she didn't see them I don't how that is a mistake on her part. You seem to be saying that her mistake was driving a car at night.0 -
dennisn wrote:wishitwasallflat wrote:No I don't really think that this driver would not have avoided these cyclist if she could have.... I don't know anything about this woman though so would assume she made a mistake.
Not sure about your wording. How is it that "...she made a mistake."?
I'm assuming that IF she saw them she would have tried to avoid them. If she didn't see them I don't how that is a mistake on her part. You seem to be saying that her mistake was driving a car at night.
Her mistake was not seeing them ... I would say that was a mistake as when one drives one always has the responsibility to drive slowly enough to be able to stop, within the distance you can see ahead, under all circumstances, without exception. How big a mistake she made depends on several things, was she fit to drive for example but also on what they were doing; ie to what extent they showed contributory negligence (if at all). All that is for a court, not I to decide following an objective assessment of the evidence.
No matter the outcome of that court examination of the facts, for me, this driver made a mistake - she hit someone with her car - maybe they made it very hard for her to see them or sprang out in front of her with no warning. If that's true her mistake was small and understandable, but given that it seems there were three of them I find it hard to imagine how they could all have suddenly appeared in front of her with no warning as a unit.0 -
wishitwasallflat wrote:dennisn wrote:wishitwasallflat wrote:No I don't really think that this driver would not have avoided these cyclist if she could have.... I don't know anything about this woman though so would assume she made a mistake.
Not sure about your wording. How is it that "...she made a mistake."?
I'm assuming that IF she saw them she would have tried to avoid them. If she didn't see them I don't how that is a mistake on her part. You seem to be saying that her mistake was driving a car at night.
No matter the outcome of that court examination of the facts, for me, this driver made a mistake - she hit someone with her car - maybe they made it very hard for her to see them or sprang out in front of her with no warning. If that's true her mistake was small and understandable, but given that it seems there were three of them I find it hard to imagine how they could all have suddenly appeared in front of her with no warning as a unit.
By the same token shouldn't the kids share at least equally, if not more in the negligence area? They should have been lit up. Dressed in lighter clothes, etc. As for "no warning" I've come up on pedestrians and cyclists that only at the last minute did I see them. Luckily I've never hit one, but on an occasion or two the miss was by inches or so it seemed.
I still go back to the idea that she hit one of them but wouldn't have done it if she could have avoided it. Maybe she did see them, but too late. Sad story, that I'm sure all the participants would like to have replayed again, but with changes for all.0 -
The kids involved could definitely have contributed as you say by not wearing white clothes (white is best at night or in low light I believe) and not being well lit. I have three rear and two front lights on my bike if riding in low light and two rears at all times, both my kids run front and rears even though they would never be out alone or in the dark.
As to regret yes of course the vast majority of people would regret this type of incident, sadly though there is a few whose regret would be because they didn't get away with it! Based on my experiences there also seem to be a fair few drivers who drive aggressively around cyclists and appear to believe if they hit us we would deserve it. I expect though that even that type of driver would regret it if they killed someone as their behaviour, attitude and driving is probably based upon their not thinking through the consequences of their actions. That form of lazy thinking - driving around grumpily and aggressively with a FU attitude - is all too common and the realisation of what it can lead to only comes with the denouement and being faced with the consequences. This is of course equally true of cyclist who choose to ride around in black with no lights! There is a crucial difference though in the normal speeds and weight of the two vehicles and hence the momentum and consequences of any collisions are very different. Cars are way more dangerous than bikes and so, while I would not absolve cyclists of taking responsibility for their own safety and behaviours the consequence and weight of responsibility lies heavier on drivers.
PS Very interesting discussion making me think through things in a way I wouldn't have otherwise.0 -
wishitwasallflat wrote:Her mistake was not seeing them ... I would say that was a mistake as when one drives one always has the responsibility to drive slowly enough to be able to stop, within the distance you can see ahead, under all circumstances, without exception.
And I bet that neither you nor anyone else does this. The cyclist has to take some responsibility. If they choose to camouflage themselves then they can hardly expect the chances of an unpleasant consequence not to increase. As far as we know, this isn't particularly road related (eg I don't think there is any mention of going fast round a blind corner) - if this is so then the cyclists would have been visible had they chosen to make themselves visible. If I hit someone who'd done that, I'd feel pretty pee'd off with them whether or not they were still alive - their actions would have stuffed up my life and, tbh, I'm more bothered about my life than that of an idiot with a death wish.
I nearly pulled out on a cyclist on a roundabout once (when I was on my bike) - it was dawn and raining and there was artificial lighting and lots of cars about. The cyclist wore black and had no lights - they were genuinely invisible intil the last moment. Following your reasoning I'd have had to wait an hour for more light or for the rain to stop before I could pull out as there was simply no way to know that there weren't an infinite number more other riders, equally invisible, circling the roundabout. It's not reasonable to expect drivers to have a maximum speed of 20mph or less at all times on all roads at night just because there's a chance that if they don't they'll hit an idiot.
Not that this particular example is an ideal one for this discussion given the somewhat unfortunate details that keep emerging to cloud the issue.Faster than a tent.......0 -
Rolf F wrote:wishitwasallflat wrote:Her mistake was not seeing them ... I would say that was a mistake as when one drives one always has the responsibility to drive slowly enough to be able to stop, within the distance you can see ahead, under all circumstances, without exception.
And I bet that neither you nor anyone else does this. The cyclist has to take some responsibility. If they choose to camouflage themselves then they can hardly expect the chances of an unpleasant consequence not to increase. As far as we know, this isn't particularly road related (eg I don't think there is any mention of going fast round a blind corner) - if this is so then the cyclists would have been visible had they chosen to make themselves visible. If I hit someone who'd done that, I'd feel pretty pee'd off with them whether or not they were still alive - their actions would have stuffed up my life and, tbh, I'm more bothered about my life than that of an idiot with a death wish.
I nearly pulled out on a cyclist on a roundabout once (when I was on my bike) - it was dawn and raining and there was artificial lighting and lots of cars about. The cyclist wore black and had no lights - they were genuinely invisible intil the last moment. Following your reasoning I'd have had to wait an hour for more light or for the rain to stop before I could pull out as there was simply no way to know that there weren't an infinite number more other riders, equally invisible, circling the roundabout. It's not reasonable to expect drivers to have a maximum speed of 20mph or less at all times on all roads at night just because there's a chance that if they don't they'll hit an idiot.
Not that this particular example is an ideal one for this discussion given the somewhat unfortunate details that keep emerging to cloud the issue.
Do trees, walls, parked cars and other road furniture that get driven into on a regular basis also have to take some of the responsibility for being driven into? After all, they have no lights or reflective clothing. I bet they don't even wear helmets!0 -
I am not suggesting people drive at 20mph - as far as I remember its actually in the Highway Code that you must drive at a speed that allows you to stop within the distance you can see. So when driving we all have to make a judgement about what speed that may be, at every moment, adjusting speed as needed from moment to moment. If we get that judgement wrong we have to take, and live with the consequences of our decisions (if we survive that is!).
If I hit a cyclist who was dressed all in black with no lights I would feel sh&t for the rest of my life.
If I hit a cyclist who was dressed in fluoro or white and had really good lights I would feel sh&t for the rest of my life.
If a car hit me while I was dressed all in black with no lights I would be raging angry with them.
If a car hit me while I was dressed in fluoro or white and had really good lights I would be raging angry with them.
Dressed in black with no lights I would share a large proportion of the blame if I had shown due care and attention and the driver had shown due care and attention and was sober and fit to drive. Dressed in fluoro or white and with really good lights I would share a much reduced (possibly negligible) proportion of the blame if I had shown due care and attention and the driver had not shown due care and attention and/or was not sober and/or not fit to drive.
Various other permutations of, clothing, lights, care and attention, sobriety, etc (on both sides driver and cyclist) exist of course but I suspect you get my point.
For me though at least one of the bottom lines here is that car's are always much heavier and generally go faster than bikes so the momentum they bring to any collision is much greater than that of a bike. As a result the weight of responsibility lies heavier on the car driver because they are the one in charge of the (much more likely to prove) lethal weapon in a collision.Rolf F wrote:I nearly pulled out on a cyclist on a roundabout once (when I was on my bike) - it was dawn and raining and there was artificial lighting and lots of cars about. The cyclist wore black and had no lights - they were genuinely invisible intil the last moment.
I completely agree - I have had similar experiences both on my bike and when driving. I can only conclude that there are some people riding bikes who appear to have a death wish* - but - crucial for me in that sentence is the word nearly . I suspect it was nearly because you showed due care and attention and pulled out in a way that allowed you to adjust line and speed and so correct things to avoid hitting the cyclist. I do the same when I am driving or riding and pray to god I never make a mistake.
* Were they also riding one handed on an MTB with a shopping bag on the handlebars by any chance?0 -
Now the word helmets has appeared in this discussion I fear I may have to bow out.
Despite having very much enjoyed the discussion that one is a bridge to far for me to get into again :!:0 -
Are you going to bother to elaborate and actually make your point or is that all you have to say?Marco Panettone wrote:.....Do trees, walls, parked cars and other road furniture that get driven into on a regular basis also have to take some of the responsibility for being driven into? After all, they have no lights or reflective clothing. I bet they don't even wear helmets!
If you're saying cars crash into things and therefore cars are responsible for all crashes which appears to be your implication, then that's just an idiotic suggestion. I've seen people on bikes crash into parked cars too - what conclusion would you draw from that?0 -
This is exactly the point I was making earlier regarding the requirement to be able stop within the distance you can see being "aspirational". It's not black and white. Within the distance you can see what? A tiny piece of debris that could slash your tyre, a rat dashing across the road, a poorly dressed or lit pedestrian or cyclist, a well dressed pedestrian or cyclist, a fallen tree, a car......wishitwasallflat wrote:I am not suggesting people drive at 20mph - as far as I remember its actually in the Highway Code that you must drive at a speed that allows you to stop within the distance you can see. So when driving we all have to make a judgement about what speed that may be, at every moment, adjusting speed as needed from moment to moment. If we get that judgement wrong we have to take, and live with the consequences of our decisions (if we survive that is!).
The code may state the requirement but there is a lot of vagueness about how it can and should be applied.
I think the fact that one participant is a cyclist and one is a motorist in this scenario is skewing things a little. Say, for example, I collide with another car on a roundabout. And let's say that car had been driving at night with his lights off and was going around this roundabout in the wrong direction. Am I responsible, or even partially responsible for the crash because I couldn't stop in time to avoid him? The argument has been made that essentially the motorist is responsible for any accident because they have a responsibility to travel at a speed that allows them avoid any collision, even if that collision is with an unlit, difficult to see moving object under the control of another road user. So does this still apply, without reservation, in the example above?wishitwasallflat wrote:If I hit a cyclist who was dressed all in black with no lights I would feel sh&t for the rest of my life. [I expect I would feel bad and constantly wonder should I have seen them, was I going too fast, was I not paying enough attention. But I'm pretty sure I'd also be very angry at them for putting me in that position]
If I hit a cyclist who was dressed in fluoro or white and had really good lights I would feel sh&t for the rest of my life. [I would horrible and know I should have seen them. Unless there were some other mitigating circumstances, I wouldn't be wondering if I did something wrong, I'd know I had]
If a car hit me while I was dressed all in black with no lights I would be raging angry with them.[You would have no right to be. You were not fit to be on the road and should not be holding others responsible because they did not adequately compensate for your own failures.]
If a car hit me while I was dressed in fluoro or white and had really good lights I would be raging angry with them. [So would I, again unless there were some other mitigating circumstances]
Dressed in black with no lights I would share a large proportion of the blame if I had shown due care and attention and the driver had shown due care and attention and was sober and fit to drive. [But that's just it. the cyclist by wearing black and having no lights is NOT showing due care and attention and is NOT fit to cycle incidentally why are you only requiring the driver to be sober and fit to drive? Does the same not apply to the cyclist?] Dressed in fluoro or white and with really good lights I would share a much reduced (possibly negligible) proportion of the blame if I had shown due care and attention and the driver had not shown due care and attention and/or was not sober and/or not fit to drive.0 -
Ai_1 wrote:The argument has been made that essentially the motorist is responsible for any accident because they have a responsibility to travel at a speed that allows them avoid any collision, even if that collision is with an unlit, difficult to see moving object under the control of another road user. So does this still apply, without reservation, in the example above?
That's not my argument - everyone has responsibility for their own actions and choices every moment of every day whether they like to acknowledge it or not. How responsible anyone may feel themselves to be, in any given situation is for them to decide for themselves and if there is a case a court may join in as well.
The balance of responsibility depends on the actions and decisions of everyone involved - but - if you drive a car you are in control of a thing which has much more potential to prove to be a lethal weapon than a bike. As a result the burden of responsibility lies heavier on a driver than a cyclist. I remember reading a piece where when cars first became available to the masses an eminent psychologist said that only a very few people would ever have the skill and ability to drive them. I think if you add the word safely to the end of that sentence it's very true.
Your example is of two car drivers and so my argument would not transfer directly.0 -
You see I completely disagree with your interpretation there and for a very simple and logical reason as follows:wishitwasallflat wrote:Ai_1 wrote:The argument has been made that essentially the motorist is responsible for any accident because they have a responsibility to travel at a speed that allows them avoid any collision, even if that collision is with an unlit, difficult to see moving object under the control of another road user. So does this still apply, without reservation, in the example above?
That's not my argument - everyone has responsibility for their own actions and choices every moment of every day whether they like to acknowledge it or not. How responsible anyone may feel themselves to be, in any given situation is for them to decide for themselves and if there is a case a court may join in as well.
The balance of responsibility depends on the actions and decisions of everyone involved - but - if you drive a car you are in control of a thing which has much more potential to prove to be a lethal weapon than a bike. As a result the burden of responsibility lies heavier on a driver than a cyclist. I remember reading a piece where when cars first became available to the masses an eminent psychologist said that only a very few people would ever have the skill and ability to drive them. I think if you add the word safely to the end of that sentence it's very true.
Your example is of two car drivers and so my argument would not transfer directly.
In both cases, I only have influence over my own vehicle. How does my level of responsibility change depending on what I hit. The balance of responsibility may vary depending on the actions of all those involved but the absolute level of responsibility of each participant does not. So if there is a no-exception expectation that a driver must ensure they can avoid a collision with a bike then there is the same expectation with regards cars, buses, pedestrians, etc. You can't come back after an accident and increase the level of competence required of the driver once you've figured out how vulnerable the vehicle they hit may have been.
If I hit a pedestrian standing at the side of the road I would hold some or all the responsibility for the accident. If I hit a mannequin at the side of the road, which I think is a pedestrian, I hold the exact same responsibility for the accident. The consequences in terms of injury and punishment are very different but as a driver my actions, responsibilities and available information were identical either way and logically I should be held equally responsible for hitting a mannequin as a person. Likewise if I'm supposed to drive at a speed and in a manner that allows me to avoid any cyclist regardless of dress, illumination, speed and direction then surely the same expectation applies for any other obstacle, including other cars?
So how is it not transferable?
The same responsible or irresponsible driving is the input to the crash scenario in either case and that is all that the driver can or should be judged on.
If you think the cyclist due to the slower and lighter nature of his vehicle bears a lesser responsibility for ensuring safety then perhaps they will bear a lesser portion of the responsibility but that doesn't make the driver more responsible if you understand my meaning.
Example:
2 crashes
Crash 1 - A collision between two cars - no fatalities. Both are travelling within the speed limit and are fully licensed and sober. A car (A) travelling at 80km/h hits another (B) travelling at 15km/h from behind in the dark on an unlit road. Car B is matt black with it's lights off and no clearly visible reflectors.
Crash 2 - A collision between a car (A) and a cyclist - cyclist killed. Car A is travelling within the speed limit, fully licensed and sober. The car A is travelling at 80km/h when it hits the cyclist travelling at 15km/h from behind in the dark on an unlit road. The bike and rider are darkly coloured with no lights or clearly visible reflectors.
So let's look at the hypothetical responsibility of car A in each case both in terms of absolute responsibility and balance of responsibility.
Crash 1:
Car A is travelling at 80km/h having judged this a safe speed for the conditions. Driver is sober and not using a phone, playing with their sat-nav or radio etc. Comes upon a slow moving, difficult to see car, and collides with it. Lets say police analyse the accident and conclude that car B was only visible 75m before impact and from the skid marks can see that car A applied the brakes as early as could have been expected. However they conclude that at 80km/h there was no way car A could have scrubbed off enough speed to avoid a collision. So 80km/h was too fast to allow car A to avoid collision with an object as hard to see as car B.
Police also conclude that car B was travelling without lights or reflectors and at an unusually slow speed for which hazard lights would have been appropriate.
Let's say we award car A an accident responsibility score of 4 from a possible 10. (car in good order, driver sober etc, within speed limit but going too fast to avoid low visibility obstacle)
And let's award car B an accident responsibility score of 7. (driving without lights or reflectors, driver sober etc)
If you disagree with the scores I've assigned don't worry that's not really the point.
Crash 2:
As before Car A is travelling at 80km/h having judged this a safe speed for the conditions. Driver is sober and not using a phone, playing with their sat-nav or radio etc. Comes upon a slow moving, difficult to see cyclist, and collides with them. Again police analyse the accident and conclude the cyclist was only visible 75m before impact and from the skid marks can see that car A applied the brakes as early as could have been expected. However they conclude that at 80km/h there was no way car A could have scrubbed off enough speed to avoid a collision. So 80km/h was too fast to allow car A to avoid collision with an object as hard to see as the cyclist.
Police also conclude the cyclist was travelling without lights or reflectors and was wearing dark clothing.
As car A has acted identically to crash 1 we must surely award the same accident responsibility score of 4 from a possible 10. (car in good order, driver sober etc, within speed limit but going too fast to avoid low visibility obstacle)
And let's award the cyclist with an accident responsibility score of 3. (riding without lights or reflectors, sober, and reducing score due to it being a vehicle of low danger to others according to wishitwasallflat's reasoning)
Conclusion:
In Crash 1 the balance of responsibility is car A 42%, car B 58%.
In Crash 2 the balance of responsibility is car A 57%, cyclist 43%
However in both cases car A has demonstrated an equal level of competence with an accident responsibility score of 4 from a possible 10. So the identity of the obstacle with which car A collides does not increase the "blameworthiness" of car A only it's relative magnitude compared with the second vehicle.
Even though a death only occured in Crash 2 and car A's proportion of the responsibility is considered higher in crash 2. This is down to chance (identity of the obstacle) and could not be influenced by Car A. Their accident responsibility is equal for both incidents.
that got a bit long-winded but not sure how else to explain it clearly0 -
Ai_1 wrote:
BullAl Kidder wrote:philthy3 wrote:dennisn wrote:TheHound wrote:Has anyone bothered to read the article?
These boys were riding 3 abreast, in the dark with no lights, wearing dark clothes.
The law suit is a counter measure as she is being sued by the family.
On this forum there does seem to be the idea that if a cyclist is killed by a car it's always the cars fault. Never the cyclist.
Yep, there sure does. An unlit road, no lights, reflective or light coloured clothing, 3 abreast and from one account pissing about in the middle of the road. But hell, blame the driver every time.
She hit them from behind? She had headlights, did she not? Her fault. Unless they wandered into her path unpredictably from a side street
If you're unlit and inappropriately dressed a driver will not see you in time to take considered action. There is no way I would assume the driver is automatically in the wrong.
I assume you don't drive or if you do you don't realise your limitations, my guess is the former.
Non-driving cyclists on this forum are typically as ignorant and prejudiced as they accuse drivers of being. Both extremes are idiots. I do both. I've seen dangerous, ignorant and incompetent behaviour by both drivers and cyclists while both driving and cycling. I've done one or two silly things myself while both driving and cycling. Thankfully nothing that's caused more than slight annoyance for others and embarrassment for myself - and I try and learn from the few mistakes I do make instead of blaming others and shirking any and all responsibility.
Cycling on roads in the dark without lights is crazy. Doing it three abreast on unlit roads in dark clothing is an accident waiting to happen.
Headlights do not make drivers omnipotent. A surprising number of cyclists and pedestrians seem to think that if headlights shine in their general direction they've been seen. Nonsense. It's very easy to miss someone, especially if there's headlights coming the other way or you're using your dipped lights and they're in dark clothing. This is not a sign of incompetence by the driver but by the cyclist/pedestrian.
While we're making assumptions, I'll assume that you're a paraplegic who passes his days by posting on cycling forums.
I don't make excuses for inattentive drivers. If you are driving so fast that your headlights are inadequate to let you see anything in your path, then you are speeding.
3 kids out for a ride side by side says it was urban or very close to urban. Boy racers would have been drafting. So she should have been looking out for people on foot or on bikes.
PS I'm trying to decide between a Honda CRZ or a Lotus for my new car, now that my bank account is swollen by a death in the family0
