JFKvsNixon Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 She still would have been pilloried by the pro cyclist/anti car brigade There is no need to polarize the argument, what she did was wrong. If she hit a car it would have still been just as wrong. this case i cannot see mitigating circumstances. I see contributing factors, if the cyclist had not ridden through a red light (his fault) and her distraction (her fault) this incident would not have happened It was more than distraction. Driving 45mph through traffic lights, in a 30 mph zone, whilst not paying attention because you are too busy texting is not being distracted. It is a serious criminal negligence. 4 years imprisonment is a fair sentence, as she was at fault but not totally to blame for the accident I agree 4 years is fair, but she was totally to blame for her own actions; that is what she was charged and found guilty of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddeckerslyke Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 She still would have been pilloried by the pro cyclist/anti car brigade. This seems pointlessly antagonistic. Is there really a brigade of people out there who would pillory a driver who went through a green light at or below the speed limit and killed or injured a cyclist who had run a red light? Or have I misunderstood? I'm pro-cycling and not anti-car. Can I have a brigade too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaytsev Posted March 1, 2008 Author Share Posted March 1, 2008 I'm not sure how you draw those conclusion from those stories. ISTM that in both cases a cyclist went for the gap I've described in previous posts. They both made understandable (and apparently commonly) fatal errors of jugment. Whether he went on to the pavement, however much it gets your goat, seems irrelevant. Cyclists should be educated not to go for the gap on the inside and bus/lorry drivers should also be aware of the danger and have properly fitted equipment and use it. Of course this is not restricted to cyclists, pedestrians will also take this short cut. It's a dangerous, often fatal manoeuvre. All parties can do something to improve this situation. Have you read the links I draw my conclusion from this: 'Crash investigator Pc Adrian Cousins told the court the lorry's mirrors adhered to guidelines and the cause of the accident was Mr Donald disobeying the Highway Code by riding up on to the pavement and cutting back too close to the lorry as it was turning.' Pretty conclusive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaytsev Posted March 1, 2008 Author Share Posted March 1, 2008 This seems pointlessly antagonistic. Is there really a brigade of people out there who would pillory a driver who went through a green light at or below the speed limit and killed or injured a cyclist who had run a red light? Or have I misunderstood? I'm pro-cycling and not anti-car. Can I have a brigade too? In a word...YES. LINK and another LINK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KJ_VENOM Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 I agree 4 years is fair, but she was totally to blame for her own actions; that is what she was charged and found guilty of. Not totally to blame, if she was she would have been jailed for longer, if the cyclist had stopped at the red light he would have not been in the position to be hit The only time i've ever come off a cycle while riding around sheffield is when i got my back wheel stuck in a tram track, i understand that some drivers dont give cyclists the room they need but i have seen lots of cyclists totally ignoring the rules of the road puttting their own lives at risk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubydazzler Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 Ahh I understand sorry for the confusion. Maybe useful if Ruby could provide a link to that story. I couldn't I'm afraid, it was an evening news item some months ago. The mother of the unfortunate girl was speaking outside the court, and there was some cctv footage shown. It might even have been that the cyclist was on a cycle lane but obviously wasn't aware that lorries often have to swing out to make a tight turn and had carried on and been crushed against the railings. The driver of the lorry probably was to blame but as cyclists often say, they are in more danger than a driver in a vehicle and to my mind, that should make them more alert and aware of possible dangers, not foolhardily flying about as though they're invincible. They may be in the right but ending up dead or seriously injured doesn't vindicate them, sadly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddeckerslyke Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 In a word...YES. LINK and another LINK From the first article "In other parts of Europe including France, Germany, Belgium and Holland, motorcyclists and car drivers are already assumed to be liable in accidents with pedestrians or cyclists. Compulsory motor insurance includes extra cover for any compensation claims." This seems to be a workable, alternative approach to road safety rather than the pillorying it was intended to illustrate. I'm not sure of the jurisprudential niceties of strict liability but there's blame in the sense that "all car users and motorcyclists are evil sinners and all cyclists and pedestrians are saintly victims" and then there's a practical legal measure of blame/liability employed in the countries referred to in the article. ISTM the two are separate and should not be conflated or confused. The second link is a petition and AFAICS adds nothing to the PoV in the first. BTW I said workable, not better or worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zaytsev Posted March 1, 2008 Author Share Posted March 1, 2008 I found a couple of links above to similar sad stories Ruby, although it seems the drivers were not to blame. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddeckerslyke Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 You said "I have found a few links to similar stories. A common theme seems to be it's the other vehicle driver's fault in all cases despite evidence to the contrary." and then illustrated this with a story containing this quote 'Crash investigator Pc Adrian Cousins told the court the lorry's mirrors adhered to guidelines and the cause of the accident was Mr Donald disobeying the Highway Code by riding up on to the pavement and cutting back too close to the lorry as it was turning.' Like I said I can't see how you draw that conclusion from that article. AISI the whole article contradicts the statement it's intended to support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddeckerslyke Posted March 1, 2008 Share Posted March 1, 2008 they are in more danger than a driver in a vehicle and to my mind, that should make them more alert and aware of possible dangers, not foolhardily flying about as though they're invincible. They may be in the right but ending up dead or seriously injured doesn't vindicate them, sadly. Spot on. As I said above it would also help if bus/lorry drivers were more aware of the problem. Maybe they are but it's just a blind spot. And the bit about invincibility is one of the arguments against cycle helmets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.