Dan Walker Hit By Car On Sheffield Roundabout

[AndrewC]

15 hours ago, ECCOnoob said:

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.  

I'm not talking about the processes of the police investigation and the law courts, I'm talking about the online reaction, the trial by social media, the comments sections, the internet forum threads like this one you're in right now - all of this 'debate' away from the official organisations involved, that we're all guilty of being part of, but only exists because one of those involved in the incident because they dared to be on a bike.

Do you really think the internet would be so awash with blame for Dan Walker if he'd have been in a car? We're not talking about him drink-driving, or speeding; just a normal collision between two cars because one wasn't watching where they were going. It wouldn't have even been a news story. There would have been no trending hashtags on twitter, no articles on every outlet online and in print.

 

And there would have been nothing like 10% of the blame that people have attempted to lay at Dan's door for this accident given the information at hand. And to be clear - if miraculously it is shown that Dan was in the wrong and veered out of his lane, that's still not the point; it's that demonisation of cycling that leads to so much more disproportionate blame and anger being thrown at them.

[spilldig]

I often wonder what happens if say, it is a none clearcut accident and one driver has been drinking?  I mean most people are quick to jump on drink driver but obviously its possible to be in an accident where the driver is over the limit but the accident wasn't the drink driver's fault.  Is it a similar issue in a case like this to automatically blane the car driver? 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, alchresearch said:

 

The route people are telling cyclist to use - Flooded:

 

 

 

That's a very good point.

[geared]

51 minutes ago, spilldig said:

I often wonder what happens if say, it is a none clearcut accident and one driver has been drinking?  I mean most people are quick to jump on drink driver but obviously its possible to be in an accident where the driver is over the limit but the accident wasn't the drink driver's fault.  Is it a similar issue in a case like this to automatically blane the car driver? 

 

If the drink driver wasn't on the road in the first place, would there have been an accident?

[Guest]

57 minutes ago, spilldig said:

I often wonder what happens if say, it is a none clearcut accident and one driver has been drinking?  I mean most people are quick to jump on drink driver but obviously its possible to be in an accident where the driver is over the limit but the accident wasn't the drink driver's fault.  Is it a similar issue in a case like this to automatically blane the car driver? 

Why muddy the waters even further?

We are not discussing drink drivers but, in any case, most people would say "Throw the book at them regardless"

 

 

[WarPig]

Even if the cycle route was flooded, I would still not cycle around that roundabout. I'd get off and push my bike on the pavement, cross over one of the roads that exit the roundabout and walk my way back to the carriageway I wanted to be on, then carry on cycling.

 

 I cycle to work most days but there are some roads and junctions in Sheffield that would I never cycle if there are other cars around. Instead I either take a different route or I dismount and push my bike to avoid that particular road or junction. I shouldn't have to, and I don't have to, but to stay safe I choose to. If I cycled that roundabout that Dan did, the I'd expect sooner or later I'd be involved in a collision. Why risk it?

Edited February 28, 2023 by WarPig

[redruby]

2 hours ago, HeHasRisen said:

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

That was my thought too.  I’ve certainly seen it flooded before only after prolonged heavy rain. 
 

Anyway, I would prefer to take my chances weaving around any bits of broken glass or even getting wet rather than taking my chances on a busy 4 lane roundabout on a bike. It’s not great but at the end of the day I’d rather deal with a puncture or soaking wet feet than getting flattened cycling on that roundabout.  

[ECCOnoob]

6 hours ago, AndrewC said:

I'm not talking about the processes of the police investigation and the law courts, I'm talking about the online reaction, the trial by social media, the comments sections, the internet forum threads like this one you're in right now - all of this 'debate' away from the official organisations involved, that we're all guilty of being part of, but only exists because one of those involved in the incident because they dared to be on a bike.

Do you really think the internet would be so awash with blame for Dan Walker if he'd have been in a car? We're not talking about him drink-driving, or speeding; just a normal collision between two cars because one wasn't watching where they were going. It wouldn't have even been a news story. There would have been no trending hashtags on twitter, no articles on every outlet online and in print.

 

And there would have been nothing like 10% of the blame that people have attempted to lay at Dan's door for this accident given the information at hand. And to be clear - if miraculously it is shown that Dan was in the wrong and veered out of his lane, that's still not the point; it's that demonisation of cycling that leads to so much more disproportionate blame and anger being thrown at them.

Yes. As soon as one chooses to go public with something, it's going to create speculation positive and negative.  Even if they don't go public there's still plenty of uncorroborated opinions or accusations getting thrown around regarding whose to blame for any kind of accident.  There are even entire YouTube channels dedicated to showing bad, clumsy, reckless driving errors. There are plenty of articles and memes and clips showing hazardous or completely ridiculous parking failures.  

 

Once again, this is not some cyclist victimisation.

 

Let's also not ignore that there wouldn't have been a news story or online backlash or speculative debate or public opinion at all if Dan Walker hadn't CHOSEN to do some self publicising by taking woe is me photo ops in the back of an ambulance.

 

Again, another reason why Mr. Walker is a contributor to his own circumstances.  If he didn't want lots of attention and backlash and speculation and debate shouldn't have publicised it then.  Seems like skipping the purpose built cycle path wasn't the only bad choice Walker made that day.

 

I am not saying that the car driver wasn't at fault. We don't know that. However, there is no doubt that choosing to use the roundabout put the cyclist at increased risk which was their own decision.  

 

I'm not saying that the victim deserves the backlash and speculation. But choosing to make it very public and high profile invites such response. That again was a choice made by the cyclist.  

 

 

Edited February 28, 2023 by ECCOnoob

[ECCOnoob]

6 hours ago, redruby said:

That was my thought too.  I’ve certainly seen it flooded before only after prolonged heavy rain. 

I am sure it does. But that is clearly exception rather than the rule.  

 

Bit of clutching at straws by the earlier poster me thinks.   No one is going to tell me the cycle lane and subways is like that on a daily basis. Even roads sometimes flood but it doesn't mean we just ignore them completely.

Edited February 28, 2023 by ECCOnoob

[redruby]

And the fact Mr Walker drew a lot of attention to himself making a lot of noise about his helmet saving him.  So basically saying ‘I cycled in dark clothing in poor light on a busy 4 lane roundabout, rather than using the cycle path subway but I’m super sensible cos I wore a cycle helmet’.  Yes, he’s allowed to use the roundabout and yes, drivers should pay attention to vulnerable road users.  I also think the car driver was at fault hitting him. But was cycling on that roundabout sensible? I would say not.  I use that underpass regularly and don’t see huge amounts of broken glass that would preclude cycling there.  It floods occasionally but generally it wouldn’t cause a cyclist to get any more wet than cycling through puddles on roads.  It’s created a fuss because he’s drawn attention to himself virtue signalling about cycling and his helmet when he’s actually done something foolhardy. To be very polite.