Viewing 34 posts - 41 through 74 (of 74 total)
  • hypothetical dilemma: if you had to work with someone who'd killed a cyclist….
  • DaveyBoyWonder
    Free Member

    …not feel the need to ask the question on a forum.

    Did the person do it on purpose? Highly unlikely. Shit happens, move on.

    footflaps
    Full Member

    You shouldn’t pass judgement unless you know all circumstances.

    Now where is the fun in that?

    winston_dog
    Free Member

    There are some pompous arseholes on here.

    Accidents happen. People get hurt and killed. All involve human error at some level. The vast majority are just that – “accidents”, it isn’t always appropriate to blame. Some are “genuine” mistakes.

    Not all cyclist deaths are down to a drivers carelessness.

    andyrm
    Free Member

    There are some pompous arseholes on here.

    Accidents happen. People get hurt and killed. All involve human error at some level. The vast majority are just that – “accidents”, it isn’t always appropriate to blame. Some are “genuine” mistakes.

    Not all cyclist deaths are down to a drivers carelessness.

    ^^This.

    dazh
    Full Member

    A friend of mine worked in an office where one of the other cycle commuters had a near-death experience at the hands of some idiot driver. It turned out the idiot driver worked at the same place and they nearly had a fight in the office. Apparently they still have heated arguments about it and they refuse to work together.

    hora
    Free Member

    I had a close miss the other week with a cyclist, It really freaked me out. I know from someone who killed someone on the motorway and did time I think I wouldn’t drive again. At least not for a very very long time.

    winston_dog
    Free Member

    This sounds particularly tragic.

    2 cyclists killed in Berkshire

    Now it seems pretty straight forward that the driver of the BMW is to blame.

    However, if he was being chased by the police at the time are they to blame as well?

    Never straight forward.

    cynic-al
    Free Member

    However, if he was being chased by the police at the time are they to blame as well?

    Not in law, not morally – unless you suggest they dontbother going after criminals.

    DezB
    Free Member

    Accidents happen. People get hurt and killed. All involve human error at some level. The vast majority are just that – “accidents”, it isn’t always appropriate to blame. Some are “genuine” mistakes.

    I await these reponses in the next “Cyclist killed. Driver gets off with a fine” thread.

    MSP
    Full Member

    There are some pompous arseholes on here.

    Exactly what is that in reaction too? It is almost as if you haven’t read the tread and just assumed what others had posted. Ironically rather pompous of you.

    andyrm
    Free Member

    I await these reponses in the next “Cyclist killed. Driver gets off with a fine” thread.

    It’s easy to get sucked into the outrage without knowing all facts.

    Unless you are an expert accident investigator, you are completely unqualified to apportion blame and comment, hence why I stay out of those kind of things.

    I actually had a “cyclist” (ok a man on a bike – does that make him a “cyclist” or a “member of the cycling community”?) cut in front of me the other night, in dark clothes, in poor light and rain with only a poor quality LED rear light that was barely visible. I so nearly took him out with the car despite me being correctly positioned, with lights on, being alert and not tired, not drunk and not on the phone.

    Going on some of the rantings from these “cyclist” types on local news media comment pages, and sometimes on here, if I had hit him, I would be an evil capitalist car owning murderer, despite it being the other guy’s fault.

    Way I see it – if you’re on a bike, you are vulnerable, so don’t ride like a dick, be visible and be aware that a motorist has a lot of potential distractions.

    Just because someone does take a bike out in an accident, doesn’t mean they are at all to blame.

    aracer
    Free Member

    Those which don’t involve the cyclist doing something wrong – what are they down to?

    Of course, and I’m not about to start condemning motorists in cases where the cyclist is obviously at fault. I would however suggest that those are a tiny minority of the cases.

    winston_dog
    Free Member

    Those which don’t involve the cyclist doing something wrong – what are they down to?

    Define “doing something wrong”?

    Now I used to have very 3 very bright rear lights when doing a short commute, 2 on the bike and 1 on my bag. However, if I had just 1 which was to the appropriate spec I wouldn’t have “felt safe”. Personally, I think anyone who ventures on the roads with just basic lights is foolish.

    The other night, in foul weather, I was driving along a very busy B road at about 5.30pm. The road has numerous potholes that have appeared recently on the side of the road. I was behind a bike waiting for one of the few overtaking places, now he was jumping all over the place, obviously avoiding the holes. He wasn’t doing anything “wrong” but from a risk assessment point of view, I wouldn’t have been on that stretch of a road, on a bike, in that weather and at that time.

    aracer
    Free Member

    I was thinking along the lines of breaking the law or the HC, not simply doing something idiot car drivers don’t expect as in your examples. I’d also not include riding towards a low sun as doing something wrong.

    Are you suggesting that drivers running down and killing cyclists because they only have a legal standard of lighting or are avoiding potholes at the side of the road aren’t down to driver’s carelessness? 😯

    amedias
    Free Member

    The other night, in foul weather, I was driving along a very busy B road at about 5.30pm. The road has numerous potholes that have appeared recently on the side of the road. I was behind a bike waiting for one of the few overtaking places, now he was jumping all over the place, obviously avoiding the holes. He wasn’t doing anything “wrong” but from a risk assessment point of view, I wouldn’t have been on that stretch of a road, on a bike, in that weather and at that time

    That’s hardly fair, what’s he supposed to do instead?

    I’ve ridden into work on glorious sunshine before only to then be confronted with wind and hail and driving rain on the way home, sometimes starting mid ride, what’s the alternative, jump into the hedges and wait hoping the weather improves?

    The danger to him was not really the weather or the potholes, he’s perfectly capable of riding around them, the danger was from car drivers not giving him enough room to safely negotiate the hazards on the road.

    The potholes thing really winds me up, there are loads at this time of year and it’s not like people don’t know they are there, so why do they act all surprised when you have to avoid them? it’s simple lack of attention or consideration for other road users.

    aracer
    Free Member

    This, this and this. Being run down in such circumstances is not an “accident” or a “genuine mistake”, it’s a driver placing insufficient value on a cyclist’s life compared to their need to get to work (or the back of the next traffic queue) 20s earlier. Unfortunately it seems that to most members of a jury, a competent and careful driver also deems that 20s to be more important. This is WHAT MUST CHANGE

    bazzer
    Free Member

    PeterPoddy do you live in Dorset by any chance ?

    D0NK
    Full Member

    Shit happens, move on.

    appears to be the countries’ attitude to road deaths in general, not one I share.

    If someone has done time for doing something really really stupid/dangerous (nowadays you only seem to get jail if you’ve gone on a 3 day drink and drug binge and subsequently done 200mph down pall mall, even then if you get Helen “I can’t help it if a cyclist falls over” Measure’s lawyer you may still get off with it) then it’s probably not entirely unreasonable to hold a grudge against them.

    If they killed someone carelessly and walked away from court, as is common, I’m not sure us blaming our crap legal system on the driver and considering them as having gotten away with “murder” is a good stance to take.

    Depends on the circumstances of the incident and their attitude to it and behaviour since I guess. ie if they aren’t bothered about it and still drive like a tool I probably wouldn’t be very friendly with them.

    winston_dog
    Free Member

    Are you suggesting that drivers running down and killing cyclists because they only have a legal standard of lighting or are avoiding potholes at the side of the road aren’t down to driver’s carelessness?

    No. Not at all.

    I was giving 2 examples of a higher risk environments. Personally I wouldn’t of ridden that stretch of road at that time.

    Everyone makes mistakes, it doesn’t make them idiots or incompetent. Have you ever made a mistake in your job? Why did you make that mistake?

    Even the most highly trained people make mistakes, for a wide variety of reasons. There has been a lot of time and money spent trying to improve accident investigation. Before you get the pitchforks out, I suggest you take sometime to read up. A couple of good places to start.

    Types of error

    Accident investigation

    We could reduce road fatalities by 99% by restricting all vehicles to a top speed of 15mph. That is nonsensical and will never happen. So, as a society we accept a level of risk when we travel.

    Unfortunately, as a cyclist, due to the nature of your vehicle, you are much more vulnerable than a car driver. So you must accept a higher level of risk. This level of risk can be reduced by the way you ride, what you wear etc. etc. It can also be reduced by educating car drivers and separating bikes from cars.

    At the end of the day, people will always make mistakes and some of these will be “genuine mistakes”. Unfortunately for us, if it involves a car driver and a bike then the chance of a serious injury or death is high.

    Personally, I would love to see the cycle paths running alongside the A roads just like they have in Holland and Belgian.

    Even if the driver was driving drunk and causes an accident, should he be imprisoned? What if the driver has had a history of child abuse, neglect, has been failed by Social Services and is an alcoholic through no real fault of their own? Would you still insist on sending him to prison?

    The point I’m trying to make, is that it is impossible to lay blame on someone from a few lines on the BBC website.

    MoreCashThanDash
    Full Member

    If the guy has gone through any legal process and doesn’t break any misconduct rules bragging about it, you have to work with him, same as any other convicted criminal.

    Very few drivers kill us deliberately. The Tesco lorry driver who pulled out in front of me this morning looked horrified as I slammed on the brakes to avoid his 38 ton truck. He gave a very apologetic wave and said “sorry”. Every little helps, eh?

    aracer
    Free Member

    You were giving 2 examples of situations where motorists (and law courts) tend to excuse their lack of consideration to vulnerable road users as “unavoidable”. The issue I have is with drivers not following the HC guidelines on the required distance to pass a cyclist and then thinking it isn’t their fault that they hit the cyclist. The even bigger issue I have is with our legal system agreeing with the motorist on this issue. The vast majority of deaths of cyclists on our roads do involve some level of culpability on the part of the driver. Yes I do make mistakes when driving, but I tend to be careful around cyclists and give them enough space that I have plenty of margin for error – if everybody drove like that then there would be far fewer deaths on our roads, and it is perfectly reasonable IMHO for somebody to be prosecuted for not giving sufficient margin for error.

    If making mistakes in my job resulted in me killing somebody I suspect the HSE would be on the case pretty quickly if I wasn’t allowing sufficient margin for error in the way which is normalised on our roads. Looking at your HSE docs, the issue is that an awful lot of “accidents” on the road involve “routine non-compliance”, in a way which the HSE would crack down hard on if they occurred in the workplace.

    toby1
    Full Member

    or one of the “he doesn’t pay road tax so it’s OK to run him down” types.

    Does any such person exist as a lot of people on here claim most drivers to be like this but I’ve never witnessed such people.

    The driver of a white transit towing a caravan (make your own assumptions), saw me, made eye contact with me, ranted to the closed window of his van, went through a width restriction on the other side of the road to me, then tried to side swipe me and 2 other cyclists because we were on ‘his’ road at the end of the Cambridge 50 last year. They do exist, they are dangerous and in this case he also had friends in a Vauxhall Insignia behind who made the comments about ‘road tax’.

    After reading the BMW vs 2 cyclists story on the BBC today I don’t think my road bike is any closer to seeing the light of day!

    D0NK
    Full Member

    Would you still insist on sending him to prison?

    having issues, getting pissed and endangering yourself gets you sympathy, getting pissed and running people over? no sorry my sympathy doesn’t stretch that far.

    The point I’m trying to make, is that it is impossible to lay blame on someone from a few lines on the BBC website.

    agreed as i hinted at above but in the Helen “I can’t help it if a cyclist falls over” Measure* case it’s very very difficult to see how she was found not guilty other than the entire process being heavily weighted in car drivers favour. There are other similarly incredulous cases.

    quick summary for those who don’t know HM was on wrong side of road overtaking on a corner and hit a cyclist who was on the correct side of the road, she was charged with careless (not dangerous) driving.

    *this may get repetitive but I don’t care

    amedias
    Free Member

    I was giving 2 examples of a higher risk environments. Personally I wouldn’t of ridden that stretch of road at that time.

    but the question is why wouldn’t you have ridden there?

    I very strongly suspect that the reason you wouldn’t have ridden there was not because of the danger of the potholes but because of the danger the car drivers would put you in by not giving you enough room.

    The higher risk you speak of is not from the environment it’s from the other users not taking appropriate action for the environment.

    And it leaves a slightly bitter taste in my mouth that you think the appropriate action is that the cyclist shouldn’t have been there (because of how dangerous other people behave around him), rather than addressing the behaviour of those people.

    Unfortunately, as a cyclist, due to the nature of your vehicle, you are much more vulnerable than a car driver. So you must accept a higher level of risk.

    Why must we accept a higher level of risk?

    This is the crux of the matter, the higher level of risk is due to the actions of others. No road user should have to accept a higher level of risk due to the actions and attitudes of others when that risk can be mitigated most easily by the people creating that risk.

    Do you also apply the same logic to people in smaller cars, or on mobility scooters? that if they get bashed about by someone in a bigger wagon that it was partially their own fault for choosing a smaller vehicle?

    Hows about we spin this the other way?

    Unfortunately, as a motorist, due to the nature of your vehicle, you pose a much greater risk to other road users. So you must accept a higher level of responsibility.

    It’s simply a matter of perspective…

    The solution is really quite simple – give other* road users the appropriate room and consideration and most of the risk is reduced or removed, implementing that solution is less simple.

    *ALL other road users whether they be bicycle, tricycle, moped, motorbike, mobility scooter, horse, small car, milkfloat, medium car, large car, bus, lorry…

    winston_dog
    Free Member

    The higher risk you speak of is not from the environment

    I would consider all the traffic as part of the environment.

    Why must we accept a higher level of risk?

    You obviously don’t understand risk.

    Risk = Probability x Impact

    If we assume the likelihood of a car or a bike being involved in an accident is the same. Then the impact of an identical accident on a cyclist is going to be greater than that on a car driver. I drive my car into the back of another at 20mpg and probably no serious injuries for anyone, I get struck from behind by a car at 20mph while on my bike, I would most likely be pretty badly hurt.

    you think the appropriate action is that the cyclist shouldn’t have been there

    At the time I thought “I wouldn’t be on this road if I was you mate”. The main reason being the conditions made the probability of an “undesirable event” quite high and the impact for the cyclist would probably be severe.

    Do you also apply the same logic to people in smaller cars, or on mobility scooters? that if they get bashed about by someone in a bigger wagon that it was partially their own fault for choosing a smaller vehicle?

    To a certain extent yes, but I am not talking about fault or blame. Someone in a 1970’s Mini is at greater risk of injury than someone in a brand new Range Rover. Or do you disagree?

    It’s a shit state of affairs but in my opinion the only way you will significantly reduce accidents is to separate the cars and the cyclists. People will always take short cuts, take chances and make mistakes, it’s human nature, unfortunately for us the outcome for cyclists is normally pretty dire.

    p8ddy
    Free Member

    I think the question is a bit flawed. However…

    I don’t place cyclists in any higher esteem than anyone else. Being a cyclist doesn’t make me (or anyone else) part of a homogenous group. A cursory look through the arguments on here demonstrate that well.

    That all being said – Would I work with someone who killed someone else? It’s a complex question… WOuld I work with a cold hearted murderer? I’d find that difficult. Would I work with someone that made a mistake? Without hesitation.

    People make mistakes. Some are worse than others and are life changing. I genuinely think that it could happen to any of us. And I’m not sure that any of us are well placed to stand in judgement, although we all have to be true to our own values and instincts.

    amedias
    Free Member

    You obviously don’t understand risk.

    I understand risk as in the dictionary definition of the English word:

    risk

    noun – (a) situation involving exposure to danger.

    Risk = Probability x Impact

    If this is to do with risk assesment or health and safety style definitions then perhaps I’m not as well versed in the very specific definitions in that field.

    My point is that the danger in this situation comes not from the weather or potholes but from the other road users.

    The increased probability of an “undesirable event” as you put it is from other road users not behaving appropriately for the conditions.
    If they behave appropriately, slow down, leave room etc. then there is no more* probability of an impact than normal, and if they behaved appropriately in normal conditions as well then there would be little extra danger from choosing a smaller vehicle.

    *at least vastly less

    At the time I thought “I wouldn’t be on this road if I was you mate”. The main reason being the conditions made the probability of an “undesirable event” quite high and the impact for the cyclist would probably be severe.

    The point I’m trying to make which you do not seem to be grasping is that I do not believe the correct solution to this situation is to remove the cyclist from the danger, but to remove the danger from the situation, ie: if other road users behaved appropriately then there is very little danger from potholes or bad weather.

    Someone in a 1970’s Mini is at greater risk of injury than someone in a brand new Range Rover. Or do you disagree?

    I agree with the physical principle that in a collision the smaller vehicle is more vulnerable and therefore the chance of occupant injury higher, but I do not agree with the principle that this is a choice to accept greater risk on the part of the cyclist or smaller car driver, the greater risk is forced upon us by the actions of others hence my comments about perspective and reversing the way you look at it.

    People operating vehicles that pose a greater risk of injury have an increased level of responsibility.

    Cyclists do not expose themselves to greater danger, cycling is not a dangerous activity, but motor vehicle operators introduce an greater level of danger when they do not act with consideration and attention.

    In the same way we do not say that pedestrians using shared use paths accept a greater level of risk by walking there, we place the responsibility on the bigger faster moving vehicles, in this case bicycles, to not hit the smaller more vulnerable ones.

    It’s a shit state of affairs

    on this I agree

    but in my opinion the only way you will significantly reduce accidents is to separate the cars and the cyclists.

    That will ultimately reduce collisions between cyclists and motor vehicles yes, and segregation where appropriate is a good thing, but it won’t address the problem in places where separate infrastructure is not possible or appropriate, and does nothing to change the attitude that the car is king of the road and somehow has priority.

    aracer
    Free Member

    You obviously don’t understand risk.[/quote]

    No – you don’t understand the point. The emphasis is on “must accept”. Not a must as there are alternatives.

    andyrm
    Free Member

    I’d disagree with this point:

    People operating vehicles that pose a greater risk of injury have an increased level of responsibility.

    Cyclists do not expose themselves to greater danger, cycling is not a dangerous activity, but motor vehicle operators introduce an greater level of danger when they do not act with consideration and attention.

    A cyclist DOES expose himself to greater danger.

    Statistical odds of collision between road vehicles = X%

    If one road user is more likely to have a worse outcome than another (eg a bike vs a lorry), then the exposure risk is far greater based on statistical probability of an accident happening.

    But that’s an aside – I know there are routes I could legally ride but don’t because they are too dangerous for whatever reason (lighting/road conditions/visibility/speed of other traffic). I don’t give a flying f*ck about the morals of whether I should or shouldn’t be able to go on it. What I care about is staying alive and uninjured – if that means taking a different, safer route to achieve this aim, so be it.

    Control the things you can.

    D0NK
    Full Member

    People make mistakes.

    there’s mistakes and mistakes, if you stop on a crowded street to tie your shoelaces and someone falls over your bag that you set down beside you, hits their head and dies, that’s a minor mistake with terrible consequences. If your concentration starts wandering while you’re driving along in your potentially very dangerous car and you kill someone (doesn’t matter what form of transport the other was using) that’s not quite the same level of mistake is it. There’s “mistakes” involving acting irresponsibly around vulnerable road users aswell.

    Seems to me a lot of road deaths are caused by selfishness, someone considers their journey/punctuality/phonecall/convenience of driving home from the pub as more important than their fellow road users safety. Unfortunately this is deemed acceptable by jurors (aswell as other people) as Bails pointed out on’t other thread

    D0NK
    Full Member

    I don’t give a flying f*ck about the morals of whether I should or shouldn’t be able to go on it. What I care about is staying alive and uninjured – if that means taking a different, safer route to achieve this aim, so be it.

    that’s good for personal survival but for society, accepting the situation and then saying “well that was a bloody stupid idea to ride there” (others do say this even if you don’t) it’s pretty shit.

    winston_dog
    Free Member

    cycling is not a dangerous activity,

    Very subjective. Compared to what? Nearly every injury I have sustained in my life that involved A&E was connected to cycling. May just be a reflection on my skill level though. 🙂

    but to remove the danger from the situation

    Good luck with that.
    The vast majority of road users have no idea what it feels like when a vehicle passes you too close when on a bike.
    They are completely ignorant. They also act like **** when I’m in a car.
    I don’t think you will ever change attitudes to cyclists until we get proper infrastructure. The main reason that the Flemish have such a good relationship with cycling is that they have separation in most places.

    The terrible stretch of B road I used as an example, is busy, undulating and twisting for about 3 miles. When I get behind a cyclist, I wait until it is appropriate to overtake safely, this frequently means a long queue of traffic at an average of 10mph until it widens. I have witnessed several near misses when people have overtaken a cyclist an an unsuitable point when they have obviously got frustrated. It’s a similar problem to the caravan problem up in Scotland, where the Caravan Club have recommended that towing vehicles should pull over from time to time to allow traffic to pass.

    I am not saying he should not be there and that a slow stretch of 3 miles is nothing compared to someone getting hurt or killed but the vast majority of people do not think like that.

    The problem is a lot of our infrastructure cannot support the mix and density of traffic. This causes a lot of tension and the aggression towards people cycling.

    The only way things will get better is more separation.

    I await my flaming from many!

    andyrm
    Free Member

    Good luck with that.
    The vast majority of road users have no idea what it feels like when a vehicle passes you too close when on a bike.
    They are completely ignorant. They also act like **** when I’m in a car.
    I don’t think you will ever change attitudes to cyclists until we get proper infrastructure. The main reason that the Flemish have such a good relationship with cycling is that they have separation in most places.

    The terrible stretch of B road I used as an example, is busy, undulating and twisting for about 3 miles. When I get behind a cyclist, I wait until it is appropriate to overtake safely, this frequently means a long queue of traffic at an average of 10mph until it widens. I have witnessed several near misses when people have overtaken a cyclist an an unsuitable point when they have obviously got frustrated. It’s a similar problem to the caravan problem up in Scotland, where the Caravan Club have recommended that towing vehicles should pull over from time to time to allow traffic to pass.

    I am not saying he should not be there and that a slow stretch of 3 miles is nothing compared to someone getting hurt or killed but the vast majority of people do not think like that.

    The problem is a lot of our infrastructure cannot support the mix and density of traffic. This causes a lot of tension and the aggression towards people cycling.

    The only way things will get better is more separation.

    I await my flaming from many!

    I fully agree with you. Remove the number of external factors wherever possible – don’t rely on human nature.

    crazy-legs
    Full Member

    I used to work with a guy who had had a very serious one-vehicle crash. He broke a lot of bones, spent a long time in hospital and subsequently got done for dangerous driving. Massive fine and a year’s ban.

    He was known for being a **** on the roads; on this occasion he was doing about 70 in a 50 zone up a hill in horrendous weather, tried to overtake another car, lost control of his car, spun it, went through a dry stone wall, rolled his car into a field. Pure luck that he didn’t take out anyone else. Cut free from the wreckage, he’d said something about not thinking it would happen cos he had 4 wheel drive… 🙄

    Showed no remorse – to him it was the fault of everything else. The other drivers, the rain, the road surface… So not the fact he’d been driving like a dickhead as every witness said. In fact, another work colleague wasn’t far behind and she testified that he’d overtaken her dangerously fast. Funniest thing was he bought a top end Lexus as soon as he was out of hospital. Then he got banned. 🙂

    I was just rude and sarcastic to him after that. I’d seen enough of his driving to know that he deserved it and, had he done it 10 minutes earlier, he’d probably have been on the road at the same time as me on my bike.

    People took the piss put of him for a good few months afterwards.

Viewing 34 posts - 41 through 74 (of 74 total)

The topic ‘hypothetical dilemma: if you had to work with someone who'd killed a cyclist….’ is closed to new replies.