Dan Walker Hit By Car On Sheffield Roundabout

[Guest busdriver1]

29 minutes ago, AndrewC said:

Lord give me strength.

 

 

You do not veer, or move, or whatever you want to call it in to the lane to your left if someone is already in it and doing so would cause a collision.

 

It is true that both the lane that the driver is in and the lane that Dan is in both go 'right' to St Mary's Gate, but the driver cannot move across unless the lane is clear. It wasn't; there was a human being on a bike in it.

Let me try again, he did not "veer" as that to me suggests a sudden change of direction. He did change lanes and that is a valid manoeuvre. What is not valid is that as you correctly point out (and I was not trying to justify) is that he completely failed to take into account another vehicle, of what type is of no relevance,  in that lane. The change of lane would have been a valid move had the lane he moved into been clear.

It was not.

His lane change was not an example of bad practice, his failure in observation WAS bad practice.

47 minutes ago, Cody's Granddad said:

He veered into the middle lane when there was a cyclist in front of him, he should have clearly seen the cyclist before going in as he wasn't exactly in his blind spot was he.

The front of his car hit his rear wheel so doing the right manoeuvre means nothing if he doesn't check what's around him 

And that is exactly what I said wasnt it? apart from the dramatic use of the word veered.

 

Oxford English Dictionary definition: 

[intransitive] + adv./prep. ( especially of a vehicle) to change direction suddenly synonym swerve.

Edited February 27, 2023 by busdriver1

[Guest]

Why argue over what a word means.

The driver was in the wrong and that's how deaths or serious injuries are caused.

There is a move to get people to leave their cars at home and cycle more and things like this don't help.

 

 

[AndrewC]

26 minutes ago, busdriver1 said:

Let me try again, he did not "veer" as that to me suggests a sudden change of direction

 

Oxford English Dictionary definition: 

[intransitive] + adv./prep. ( especially of a vehicle) to change direction suddenly synonym swerve.

All of this is semantics.

 

I refer to what I said in one of my earlier posts; the hoops that people will jump through, the mental gymnastics in order to defend a car driver and admonish a cyclist are truly astonishing sometimes.

 

 

If Dan was in a small car and this accident had happened (and it often does happen, car-on-car collision in a roundabout), then we wouldn't be seeing anything like the victim-blaming and excuses that we're seeing now. "Oh, he should have had his lights on, he shouldn't have been driving a black car, why didn't he use London Road?" etc. or, "the other car was making a perfectly legal lane-change, he just didn't see Dan's car" etc.

 

Let's face it, a driver screwed up, hit a cyclist, and there are certain types of people who will do everything they can to make it the fault of the cyclist. Tale as old as time.

[Guest busdriver1]

2 hours ago, AndrewC said:

All of this is semantics.

 

I refer to what I said in one of my earlier posts; the hoops that people will jump through, the mental gymnastics in order to defend a car driver and admonish a cyclist are truly astonishing sometimes.

 

 

If Dan was in a small car and this accident had happened (and it often does happen, car-on-car collision in a roundabout), then we wouldn't be seeing anything like the victim-blaming and excuses that we're seeing now. "Oh, he should have had his lights on, he shouldn't have been driving a black car, why didn't he use London Road?" etc. or, "the other car was making a perfectly legal lane-change, he just didn't see Dan's car" etc.

 

Let's face it, a driver screwed up, hit a cyclist, and there are certain types of people who will do everything they can to make it the fault of the cyclist. Tale as old as time.

Well I for one have not tried to blame anyone other than the car driver. I just hate when people use incorrect terms and exaggerate for effect. 

[ECCOnoob]

7 hours ago, Organgrinder said:

Why argue over what a word means.

The driver was in the wrong and that's how deaths or serious injuries are caused.

There is a move to get people to leave their cars at home and cycle more and things like this don't help.

 

 

I'm sure it doesn't.

 

But there is also vast public expenditure making purpose built safer measures for cyclists such as cycle lanes, widened pavements, road narrowing, crossovers and subways .....   

 

Now, if a cyclist CHOOSES not to use them, that's their freedom but ultimately, they are then putting themselves at additional risk and become their own maker of their own fortune.

 

Even if the driver was in the wrong, it does not detract that Walker was a contributor to his own risk when there was clear alternatives available.  Nobody said drivers are 100% perfect. But let's be completely frank, neither are all cyclists.

Edited February 28, 2023 by ECCOnoob

[ECCOnoob]

4 hours ago, AndrewC said:

 

If Dan was in a small car and this accident had happened (and it often does happen, car-on-car collision in a roundabout), then we wouldn't be seeing anything like the victim-blaming and excuses that we're seeing now. "Oh, he should have had his lights on, he shouldn't have been driving a black car, why didn't he use London Road?" etc. or, "the other car was making a perfectly legal lane-change, he just didn't see Dan's car" etc.

Actually I disagree. Depending on the severity of the accident, there would be investigations. There would be blaming and excuses.  There would be questions raised over mechanism of the accident or liability or credibility or extent of damage.  There would be insurance claims with more investigations and more dispute as to the conduct of both parties.

 

Let's not make out this is cyclists victimisation.  

 

The fact is Walker cannot remember a thing. The police are saying nothing about the incident. There are seeming various versions of the video footage which has discrepancies depending on which paper is portraying which side of the story.

 

Ultimately, nobody is gonna know definitively We can speculate all we want but unless you were there actually witnessing it first hand, nobody on this forum is going to have a clue other than their own opinion. Myself included.

 

So can we stop stating things as if it's proven fact.

Edited February 27, 2023 by ECCOnoob

[geared]

9 hours ago, Bargepole23 said:

Any how, he wasn't in the lane you've marked, he was in the next one ove

 

Yes I know, when I said the car that hit him was in that lane.  I think I've been clear enough with this, I've said it several times over and you have not listened.  

 

Please read the posts you are quoting, and stop contradicting yourself.

[AndrewC]

15 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

I'm sure it doesn't.

 

But there is also vast public expenditure making purpose built safer measures for cyclists such as cycle lanes, widened pavements, road narrowing, crossovers and subways .....   

 

Now, if a cyclist CHOOSES not to use them, that's their freedom but ultimately, they are then putting themselves at additional risk and become their own maker of their own fortune.

 

Even if the driver was in the wrong, it does not detract that Walker was a contributor to his own risk when there was clear alternatives available.  Nobody said drivers are 100% perfect. But let's be completely frank, neither are all cyclists.

Until some of the more recent, respectable efforts, Councils in this country have spent peanuts on pretty dreadful, unusable, unsuitable cycling infrastructure. It's no surprise at all that many people choose to cycle on the road, and indeed no surprise that most people choose not to bother cycling at all, much to the detriment of society given the issues we have with air pollution, congestion, etc.

[alchresearch]

 

The route people are telling cyclist to use - Flooded:

 

 

 

[HeHasRisen]

Is that a recent picture? Its barely rained for weeks, and certainly nothing heavy.