Viewing 29 posts - 41 through 69 (of 69 total)
  • So, it's ok to kill cyclists if the sun's in your eyes?
  • taxi25
    Free Member

    it’s not tripping over a paving slab you fricking mong.

    Did I mention the haters ?
    At least another twelve “fricking mongs out there tracknicko”. Is that how you speak to people in general ? would you call me that if we were having this conversation in the pub, or are just another tiny minded key board warrior 🙁

    theotherjonv
    Full Member

    I don’t accept that accidents just happen. Everything is avoidable, if you take sufficient measures to prevent it. The trouble is that most of us (at times I’m sure me included, I’ll admit it) aren’t prepared to take those measures; we might take some to bring the risk down to what we perceive to be ‘acceptable’ levels but as is all too often seen, it doesn’t remove the risk entirely.

    In the OP case, the driver clearly didn’t, if by his own admission he couldn’t stop in the distance he could see. He should have been travelling more slowly; if that meant walking pace or even slower until he could see again, so be it.

    in the case of captaincarbon, you can argue that by travelling as fast as the other car was, they contributed at least in part if not significantly to the crash. I have far more sympathy in that case even though he still has to take (a portion of) the blame, but two cyclists riding on a road being hit by a bus from behind them – other than taking the mitigating decision to not even be there on a day like that I can’t see what else they could have done.

    pdw
    Free Member

    I think most people are just worried that justice isn’t often served in bicycle vs car cases since its far more likely people in the jury are “motorists” than “cyclists”,

    I think there may be a bit of this, although it’s certainly not just motorists vs cyclists. I read recently of a case where a driver had driven straight into the back of a vehicle that was stationary waiting to turn right, seriously injuring the occupants. The driver was either texting or on the phone (I forget which), yet was somehow acquitted of dangerous driving.

    and many people drive with the same level of concentration as they’d devote to walking i.e. not enough. They thus assume this is a normal state of affairs and don’t find people guilty when maybe they should, in a sort of “he can’t be guilty because i drive like that all the time” kind of a way.

    I think this is the real issue. In return for the convenience of having the majority of our population allowed to drive with relatively little training, we expect and tolerate a very low standard of driving.

    Fresh Goods Friday 696: The Middling Edition

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

    LOL.

    “Someone who’s suddenly lost their forward visibility perhaps.”

    Superficial
    Free Member

    I can see how the driver’s version of events would easily happen. It’s incredibly unfortunate for the cyclists, but sometimes accidents do happen. I hope everyone involved / families / the bus driver etc can go on with their lives now that a jury has agreed on this.

    faz083
    Free Member

    Sounds like an accident to me. I’m sure the driver feels absolutely awful, and the jury decided that it was just an accident, that’s the end of it.

    paulrockliffe
    Free Member

    I knew both Christian and Niggy and I know the road very well. I’m not sure I can believe that the driver lost his vision only a few seconds before the accident and without opportunity to stop, but I don’t think there’s a lot to gain from going over it all here. I can’t imagine how those that knew them better than me and their families are feeling right now.

    As well as the sportive that’s run the last couple of years, some friends are doing this at the weekend, also to raise money for Road Peace:

    http://www.london2newcastle.com/

    It’s a proper challenge and well worthy of support. If you want to make a donation, click here:

    http://www.justgiving.com/london2newcastle24

    hjghg5
    Free Member

    I’ve been knocked off my bike by a driver who was blinded by the sun. And even though I was the one who went over the car, part of me was still thinking that I could have done the same thing as a driver. I’ve driven that bit of road enough to see it from both sides. So I can understand how a jury might come to a not guilty verdict in that situation. That doesn’t mean it’s right (and in my case the insurers accepted liability very quickly so there is certainly “fault” on the driver’s part). And I’ll go another way next time there’s low sun. It’s not worth being right and dead.

    captaincarbon
    Free Member

    Tracknicko, I don’t believe I have ever tried to avoid blame for the accident, but an accident it was. There was no intent, no warning, no avoidance of consequenses on my part.

    DezB
    Free Member

    I am totally amazed by the apologists. The FIRST and MOST IMPORTANT thing to be considered when driving is safety. It isn’t and its wrong that it isn’t. Its not excusable to KILL someone with your vehicle just because you lost concentration, lost sight, scratched your nuts or anything at all. Whether the person you kill is riding a bike, walking, skating or is lying in a buggy pushed by its mother – that person should have the right to be alive and if you kill them with your vehicle you should be punished.
    That is my view and you won’t persuade me otherwise, but argue all you want.

    Northwind
    Full Member

    “Its not excusable to KILL someone with your vehicle”

    Which is why he was taken to court- but was found innocent. It is very sad but sometimes, people die. I don’t see any “apologists”- just an alternative to the hanging judges.

    faz083
    Free Member

    I am totally amazed by the apologists. The FIRST and MOST IMPORTANT thing to be considered when driving is safety. It isn’t and its wrong that it isn’t. Its not excusable to KILL someone with your vehicle just because you lost concentration, lost sight, scratched your nuts or anything at all. Whether the person you kill is riding a bike, walking, skating or is lying in a buggy pushed by its mother – that person should have the right to be alive and if you kill them with your vehicle you should be punished.
    That is my view and you won’t persuade me otherwise, but argue all you want.

    eh? I can think of n+1 situations where you could kill someone with a vehicle and it is in no way your fault. Why should someone be punished for something out of their control?

    corroded
    Free Member

    I’ve certainly changed my riding habits as a result of cases like these..

    Me too. I gave up road riding. I just felt too vulnerable. There are too many vehicles being driven too carelessly on roads that are too narrow.

    What a sad case, all round.

    michaelmcc
    Free Member

    If only he was driving wearing sunglases, or the coach washers where working properley, or the cyclists where some place else.

    + 1 on the sunglasses.

    Northwind
    Full Member

    But again, he says- and the court seems to accept- that it was a sudden change in driving conditions which caused the accident. Would he have been wearing sunglasses for the conditions preceeding it?

    nedoverendsmole
    Free Member

    🙁

    Klunk
    Free Member

    he’d be doing time right now if he’d use the same excuse and it was two kids on a zebra crossing. We are considered fair game I’m afraid.

    globalti
    Free Member

    When I was a kid my dad killed an old boy who cycled straight out in front of him, he had no brakes, no lights, he was deaf and drunk and had been warned by his family numerous times not to cycle. Police came and filled in a massive questionnaire about the condition of the car, which they found to be in perfect condition. They told my Dad that if they had found a single fault, which could have contributed to the accident he would have been charged with Manslaughter.

    So what has changed in the law since then?

    (This is the reason why I am almost anally obsessed with keeping my car in top working order)

    monkeyboyjc
    Full Member

    he’d be doing time right now if he’d use the same excuse and it was two kids on a zebra crossing.

    pointless agument – zebra crossings are generally in built up areas where his driving would be different.

    They told my Dad that if they had found a single fault, which could have contributed to the accident he would have been charged with Manslaughter.

    still aplies – hense the driver going to court in this case (a friend of mine was also told this when a kid ran out in front of her).

    singletrackmind
    Full Member

    Mentioned this before , still relevant though .
    Colleagues Dad involved in a fatal motorcycle accident recently.
    The road is notorious for excess speed. The crash was eventually blamed on the setting sun . It was 2.30pm in summer and the sun was high in the sky and probably 45′ from direction of travel.

    Drivers texting , or on Facebook on a smartphone ,who crash can now blame the sun if they are driving west in the afternoon.

    Not acceptable.

    Klunk
    Free Member

    pointless agument – zebra crossings are generally in built up areas where his driving would be different.

    how he should have been driving in this case perhaps ?

    GrahamS
    Full Member

    Drivers texting , or on Facebook on a smartphone ,who crash can now blame the sun if they are driving west in the afternoon.

    It does seem to be a remarkably common cause of fatal accidents doesn’t it? 😕

    MrSmith
    Free Member

    Cylist’s light dim

    isn’t the legal standard something like a 2w incandescent bulb (like those old eveready lights with the big batteries) how can having lights of a legal standard or possibly brighter than the legal standard be part of the blame?

    Northwind
    Full Member

    singletrackmind – Member

    Drivers texting , or on Facebook on a smartphone ,who crash can now blame the sun if they are driving west in the afternoon.

    Is it not still routine to check phone use logs? Mate of mine lost his licence for exactly that- hit a car while using phone, claimed otherwise, one check of phone company records and he was done. The fanny.

    tracknicko
    Free Member

    seems to be a significant amount of confusion about accident and blame.

    yes it was an accident. a tragic accident. im sure the driver never meant to do it.

    that said, he did do it. it was him driving when he couldn’t see/wasn’t looking.

    in my opinion (and evidently not the court’s) he drove into them, and thus was at fault. to say otherwise would be to excuse anyone from ever hitting anything when there vision is momentarily impared.

    tragic accident, farcical court response.

    Woody
    Free Member

    In the OP case, the driver clearly didn’t, if by his own admission he couldn’t stop in the distance he could see. He should have been travelling more slowly; if that meant walking pace or even slower until he could see again, so be it.

    Anyone who doesn’t understand or agree with this statement really shouldn’t be allowed to drive a vehicle.

    What I don’t understand about this judgment is that the driver is free to carry on driving without any penalty and can drive a bus with no re-test or re-training. He was driving too fast for the conditions/visibility and has escaped with less penalty than if he was caught doing a few miles an hour over the speed limit. He even tried (by his claim to not know who was at fault) to apportion some of the blame to the cyclists, simply for being on the road, a statement which I find utterly despicable.

    He will have to live with what he has done for the rest of his life but that is nothing compared to what the family and friends of the victims will go through.

    cynic-al
    Free Member

    tracknicko – Member
    in my opinion (and evidently not the court’s) he drove into them, and thus was at fault.

    TBF it was the jury that decided…

    CaptJon
    Free Member

    Presumably the bus driver normally took his prescription sun glasses to work with him because when the sun is low it get into your eyes (particularly when it has been snowing). Given it was a bus route, it is very likely he, or his colleagues, have also been blinded by a low sun at the same point at some point in the past.

    It sounds like a failure of the bus company’s risk assessment, at the very least.

    Junkyard
    Free Member

    What DezB said

Viewing 29 posts - 41 through 69 (of 69 total)

The topic ‘So, it's ok to kill cyclists if the sun's in your eyes?’ is closed to new replies.