Viewing 33 posts - 81 through 113 (of 113 total)
  • “accidental death”
  • aracer
    Free Member

    But back in the real world you can’t legislate against accidents.

    So the HSE are wasting their time and should pack up shop now?

    5thElefant
    Free Member

    5thElefant – you said “I don’t accept cycling as a practical mode of transport.” The context of the quote you were replying to makes it clear that you didn’t consider it practical for anybody, not just you. Are you retreating from that position?

    Not particularly. I was conceding that was my personal opinion, as someone suggested that was the case (although I hadn’t said so), but it has nothing to do with my view on risk and accidents. I do ride on the road, whether it’s for recreation or travel is irrelevant. It’s the same risk.

    If you think cycling is viable transport I’m not going to tell you it isn’t. I don’t think it is though.

    barney
    Free Member

    If you think cycling is viable transport I’m not going to tell you it isn’t. I don’t think it is though.

    Beautifully contradictory couple of sentences, that man!

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middlin...
    Latest Singletrack Videos
    5thElefant
    Free Member

    It’s not contradictory. I have an opinion but I’m happy for you to have an opposing one.

    trailbreak-martin
    Free Member

    Fine sentiments I’m sure. But back in the real world you can’t legislate against accidents. Which is entirely my point.

    And my point is that your point is too simplistic and dismissive. True, blameless “accidents” are actually incredibly rare. You seem to be under the impression that any incident that did not come about intentionally is an accident that couldn’t have been avoided and that’s clearly not the case. The chain of events that leads to most “accidents” can be traced to positive action, decision or omission in most cases. Maybe you can’t legislate against those rare true “accidents”, but you can legislate against carelessness and negligence; in fact they have. The last time I looked driving without due care and attention was an offense punishable by law. And by a combination of legislation, education and persuasion, you can change things. You can change attitudes and behaviour patterns for the better. It takes time and persistence but it can be done. In fact it is being done in a million different ways all the time all over the world.

    Which is why the father of the Anthony Maynard (and let’s not forget that this debate started with a cyclist who died while apparently doing nothing wrong) is absolutely right to question the decision not to prosecute. Because frankly, I don’t want to be stuck in your version of the “real world” where we should all just quietly accept whatever sh!t gets thrown at us.

    miketually
    Free Member

    If you think cycling is viable transport I’m not going to tell you it isn’t. I don’t think it is though.

    You don’t think it’s viable for you, or you don’t think it’s viable for anybody?

    5thElefant
    Free Member

    I’ll re-phrase then. You can legislate but all that will do is enable you to exact revenge.

    The chances of being involved in an accident are so remote that people won’t modify their behaviour to reduce that incredibly small chance of an accident happening. Even if the revenge they face is extreme. So legislation can’t have an impact.

    This leaves you with changing the environment to reduce the risk.

    The only viable solution is to ban cycles from the road and restrict them to cycle lanes. I wouldn’t be surprised to see it happen, but I wouldn’t want it. I’d rather make my mind up about whether the risk is acceptable.

    miketually
    Free Member

    The only viable solution is to ban cycles from the road and restrict them to cycle lanes.

    Viable for you or for everyone?

    5thElefant
    Free Member

    Viable for you or for everyone?

    It wouldn’t just reduce accidents for me, so I guess that would be everyone. It’s easy if you think about it.

    miketually
    Free Member

    It wouldn’t just reduce accidents for me, so I guess that would be everyone. It’s easy if you think about it.

    It’s not viable for me, because there isn’t a continuous route from my house to everywhere that I go by bike which I can use without going on the road at some point.

    As cycle lanes are on the road, how do you ban bikes from the roads while making them use cycle lanes?

    acjim
    Free Member

    Having moved out of a city recently I can see how a country fella would regard bicycles as a non viable transport mode if he had never lived in an urban area. They certainly are possibly the most usable mode in the city, being cheap (virtually free), fast and relatively safe compared to motorbikes.

    In the rural setting they lose some of that practability for adults, but for children they are really the only option available for independant transport.

    5thElefant
    Free Member

    Obviously you’d have to invest heavily in cycle lane provision.
    We can remove the risk but the cost and inconvenience would be high.

    I’ll take the risk over inconvenience personally. But I have limits. Which is B-roads.

    miketually
    Free Member

    Obviously you’d have to invest heavily in cycle lane provision.

    Cycle lanes are on the road. How would they help?

    5thElefant
    Free Member

    Cycle lanes are on the road. How would they help?

    Not if they’re on the pavement. The ones on the road are bloody pointless.

    miketually
    Free Member

    Those would be cycle paths, and they’re bloody pointless. You have to give way at every side street, pedestrians walk on them, they’re not gritted in winter. I could go on.

    Segregated cycle lanes (Danish-style) along with high-quality bike paths which are more direct than going on the road and with traffic calming and 20mph limits in urban areas are a viable solution. Making people ride on cluttered red pavements is not.

    owenfackrell
    Free Member

    I’ll re-phrase then. You can legislate but all that will do is enable you to exact revenge.

    The chances of being involved in an accident are so remote that people won’t modify their behaviour to reduce that incredibly small chance of an accident happening. Even if the revenge they face is extreme. So legislation can’t have an impact.

    By that argument there is no point in paying for insurance as the chances of a accident is so remote, so i take it you don’t pay yours?
    They will modify there behaviour even less if we don’t have means of punisment set out by the community in which we live.

    miketually
    Free Member

    The chances of being involved in an accident are so remote that people won’t modify their behaviour to reduce that incredibly small chance of an accident happening.

    You’ve modified your behaviour…

    aracer
    Free Member

    Only viable solution? So improving driving standards via a combination of better training, more rigorous testing, retesting and real penalties for making serious mistakes isn’t a viable solution? It really is a problem that at the moment killing somebody with a car is seen as being trivial enough not to warrant a prosecution – that certainly helps engender an attitude of not being bothered about driving standards, whatever you seem to think.

    Meanwhile, I’m quite stunned that you think cycling isn’t a viable form of transport for anybody given the vast amount of evidence to the contrary just on this thread. Personally there’s probably not any journey I make by bicycle which wouldn’t be just as fast and convenient by car, but I did at one point live in London 🙁 and by far the quickest way to work was by bicycle – yet cycling wasn’t a viable form of transport?

    coffeeking
    Free Member

    I think this is blown out of all proportion and coming from the wrong angle, personally. While I agree cars should be more careful around bikes, and by god I’ve nearly been had numerous times, I dont think the law changing to automatically incriminate car drivers is the answer. I also dont think cases where people are “let off” are quite as simple as you think, the law states there must be enough evidence to prove it one way or another, otherwise its dropped. To assume someone is guilty until proven innocent is a slippery slope not worth starting down.

    coffeeking
    Free Member

    100

    aracer
    Free Member

    I reckon posting twice in a row to get 100 should be against forum rules!

    I dont think the law changing to automatically incriminate car drivers is the answer.

    That’s not actually the case on the continent, nor what TJ and I was suggesting should be the case here. The suggestion is that the driver should be liable from a civil perspective unless he can prove otherwise.

    Cases where people are let off aren’t simple. The CPS often make the correct decision based on their criteria. It’s just that the reason for this is nothing to do with being insufficient evidence (there would be plenty if it was any other sort of crime) but that juries won’t convict, and that’s what is wrong.

    100 when the mods delete your second post for breaking my new forum rule.

    MrAgreeable
    Full Member

    I think there was more going on here than just the usual “reasonable doubt”. I’ve heard plenty of people, some of whom should know better, express the opinion that if cyclists are unfortuante enough to be killed using a dual carriageway they deserve what they get. (Examples here if you want to depress yourself.)

    5thElefant’s comments may have taken this thread in a slightly humourous direction, but they’re not untypical of the sort of thing you hear from people who reckon that you shouldn’t be doing something which is both legal and not necessarily any less safe than using any other road.

    anagallis_arvensis
    Full Member

    5thElefant you yreally do appear to be the thicknest type of selfish **** I’ve had the misfortune to read comments from recently. Anyone who rides a bike yet thinks that bikes shouldnt be used as transport or on bigger roads and that attempts to imporove their safety are pointless because roads are not really for bikes is either a moron or on a wind up. And quite frankly I’m in an easily wound up mood.

    trailbreak-martin
    Free Member

    anagallis_arvensis – I’ve said all I want to in the name of ‘debate’ here, I realise I’m not going to change any minds, but I would like to offer my sympathy over the loss of your friend. I’m in Reading too, and while I didn’t know him, I’ve met people who’d ridden with him and the club, and spoke highly of him. You’ve every right to feel p!ssed off today.

    MoreCashThanDash
    Full Member

    There is a big difference between civil negligence in causing an accident, and a criminal act. The CPS will have all the avilable facts, if there wasn’t enough evidence to run the case with a likelihood of success, I’d rather they didn’t spend my taxes on the off chance.

    Automatically penalising the driver would just be a nightmare – some cyclists are complete lunatics, and giving them the opportunity to get away with it would only make them worse and encourage others to do the same.

    anagallis_arvensis
    Full Member

    swadey, your talking bollocks in the second paragraph how would you be giving them the opportunity to get away with trying to injure or kill themselves..

    jonb
    Free Member

    anagallis_arvensis, just read it and that’s terrible.

    They should be prosecuting. The law acts in several ways, one of them is a deterent to others. Now I read articles too often about cyclists being killed. It seems that the risk of killing someone by driving like a tw@ isn’t enough to make people behave. The next best thing might be to remove there licence and let them do some time so that everyone else is a little more focused on the road.

    anagallis_arvensis
    Full Member

    To be honest I’m not sure they should be prosecuting but yesterdays inquest declaring “accidental death” seems so far removed from reality its bizare. They said the cyclist were riding correctly and doing nothing wrong but now one is dead to me thats not as simple as an accident.

    szegerely
    Free Member

    I have seen all the evidence in the case of Anthony Maynard, who was killed, and Dave Ivory who was seriously injured.
    They were cycling along the a 4130, a dual carriageway, out of Henley going up a hill.
    A van driven at a speed in excess of the speed limit moved from the outside lane to the inside lane without noticing the 2 cyclists. The statement made by the driver of the van at the inquest proved that for approximately 600 meters prior to the collision he had good visibility, but a moment before the collision and just after he changed lanes he was dazzled by low sun, and then hit the cyclists (He actually hit Anthony, and Dave was knocked off his bike by Anthony)
    The driver of a following car (the one the van driver overtook) saw Anthony’s bike in the road and stopped. A lorry driver following the car saw it too and stopped. The fact that the van driver didn’t notice them before he hit them indicates he wasn’t paying attention.
    The driver was by his own admission not being careful enough to see that the road was clear. But the Crown Prosecution Service chose not to prosecute him. He has apart from his own guilt got away scot free.
    In addition, ( and this wasn’t covered at the inquest) the driver was speeding. He had been delayed on the M4 and turned off to go through Henley where he was further delayed by regatta traffic. This was his first opportunity to put his foot down, and he left a 40 mph zone and accelerated up the hill to a speed in excess of 60 mph (the limit for a van on this road).
    Anthony and Dave were less than 1 meter from the edge of the carriageway.
    That the CPS chose to not prosecute the driver is scandalous.
    This has deeply affected his many friends and family.

    Drac
    Full Member

    If all what you have put there is indeed right, I’m not doubting you, then the CPS really have ballsed up on his occasion.

    miketually
    Free Member

    Shows how daft trial by jury can be, when the twelve members of the jury all feel like it could easily be them in the defendant’s position so are very unlikely to find guilty. Sadly, I bet a cyclist would be excluded from the jury if this did go to court, because they would be biased.

    MrAgreeable
    Full Member

    Mike, I heard that used to be the case with trials for motoring offences. However it’s a common misconception that a jury can still come to their own verdict, a la “12 Angry Men” etc. I think these days they’re pretty much told what to decide by the judge.

    szegerely
    Free Member

    Did you know more people ride a bike as a physical activity than anything else? So it would be hard put to find a jury that didn’t have somebody who rides or had ridden a bike at some stage in their life, so how do we define a cyclist?
    But surely better to go before jury and see our justice system go to work rather than let a civil servant decide on guilt.

Viewing 33 posts - 81 through 113 (of 113 total)

The topic ‘“accidental death”’ is closed to new replies.