Forum menu
Good post, Bez. Kind of what we were saying at the beginning of the thread in fewer words. Until some numpties decided we didn't know what we were talking about.
Bez, I think I think it's naive of you to imply that any debate around issues other than those you consider solely relevant is a waste of time. Odd, you are usually pretty reasonable.
DO you know there will be no civil claim or criminal prosecution to follow?
Oh brilliant, another discussion that's polluted to hell by the two usual suspects arguing and whining like my two-year-old. Jesus, children, get a room and a pair of handbags.
It is not an accident - someone made an error.
Surely there has to be more education for drivers and more policeing of the highways.
On my short drive into work this morning two cars jumped a red light,one of these was when i had already stopped at the light and the other driver carried on through, and then theres the f*** wits texting.
No police prescence anywhere.
If people think they wont get caught they break the laws on the road which sadly leads to serious accidents.
Perhaps everybody who takes a driving test should have to spend a day cycling on our roads.
"[i]I think I think it's naive of you to imply that any debate around issues other than those you consider solely relevant is a waste of time.[/i]"
Maybe. I just think the point here is not really the coroner's verdict in terms of the label. It's the comments made by the inquest, including those made by the coroner in delivering that verdict, and the fact that the coroner's process appears to have served to oil the wheels of a cultural view that is fully tolerant of the sort of driving that kills people in this totally avoidable way.
"[i]DO you know there will be no civil claim or criminal prosecution to follow? [/i]"
I don't, no, I was leaping to conclusions to be fair. If someone can enlighten us as to the process and how the inquest would influence it then it would be good. I'm no legalician.
very well said Bez [edit: previous post, not the one above, which is still fine]
is it possible we could keep this on topic rather than turning into a 'debate' on helmets. I've put 'debate' in '' as TJ is involved.
[s]Bez, this is kind of what I've been implying all along, seems relevant to me, but you won't engage? Mu point is about understanding the system that exists. Just saying "it's rubbish" won't change things IMO...
[/s]cynic-al - Member
Bez, I think I think it's naive of you to imply that any debate around issues other than those you consider solely relevant is a waste of time. Odd, you are usually pretty reasonable.DO you know there will be no civil claim or criminal prosecution to follow?
Seen your post above. Fair enough - both points relevant. Normal service resumed!
TBF I've not read the entire thread but I don't think TJ started the efficicay of helmets argument here.
EDIT, oh dear, it seems he did.
"[i]Bez, this is kind of what I've been implying all along, seems relevant to me, but you won't engage? Mu point is about understanding the system that exists. Just saying "it's rubbish" won't change things IMO...[/i]"
I concur, though I suspect the system is not the majority of the problem. This case, it seems to me, demonstrates not that the system is rotten but that the people who play key roles in its process suffer from the endemic view that you can do what you like in a car.
I'll just point out it was not me who started on about helmets, I corrected an erroneous statement made by Zokes and put
Irrelevant to the point in question here tho which is that someone was knocked off their bike by a car and died
With an inquest veredict of Accidental death it will be almost impossible to get either a civil claim or a criminal prosecution. the coroner could have recorded unlawfull killing which would have allowed both.
what about your post here TJ?
I'd still like to know about my misunderstanding please.
If someone can enlighten us as to the process and how the inquest would influence it then it would be good.
[url= http://www.surreycoroner.info/workofcoroners.html#whatabout ]Coroners - How they work[/url]
I can't help but wonder if those who seem to think we shouldn't be discussing this issue, or aren't qualified to do so, feel the same level of disgust (and fear?) about how unprotected we are as cyclists on the roads. Or do they feel all is fine and dandy and all motorists are taking just the right amount of care, and that we don't need to be protected from the likes of Mr. Strong?
Ah sorry the thread is now about who can argue the best out of TJ and cynic-al. I'll leave you to it.
Bez - I think the issue is that people can sympathise with the car driver " there but for the grace of god go I" but not with the cyclist as they have no experience of cycling but they do have of driving
Dez - I ain't answering him - I accept your point about this and willnot sidetrack the debate
Dez I don't think anyone is happy with the state of affairs, but some want to look into the coroners inquests etc and see what the verdict really means rather than just say "isn't this awful".
TandemJeremy - MemberI'll just point out it was not me who started on about helmets
OH FFS!!! I think it's better for all concerned if I just go back to seeing:
TandemJeremy - MemberTandemJeremy said something stupid.
Which is a pity, seeing as quite frequently he doesn't, but it saves these sorts of thread degenerations if I leave the filter there.
I only asked a question, easy to give an answer, rather than ignore!
Cheers for the Coroners link thegreatape.
From that article:
Where a person has been charged with .. causing death by reckless driving .. the inquest is postponed until the person's trial is over.
So it looks like there are definitely no official charges being brought. Though there may still be a civil case if his family or friends have the money, time and energy to pursue one.
Also:
WILL THE INQUEST DECIDE WHO IS TO BLAME?11. No. An inquest is not a trial. It is an inquiry into the facts surrounding a death. It is not the job of the coroner to blame anyone for the death, as a trial would do, and there are no speeches. However, the Coroner does have the power to investigate not just the main cause of death, but also "any acts or omissions which directly led to the cause of death".
If it is not his job to "blame anyone" then why is it his job to say that no one caused the accident?
And how is it that attempting to pass someone at a pinch point and junction (in breach of multiple highway code rules), colliding with the traffic island then losing control of the vehicle do not seem to be considered [i]"acts or omissions which directly led to the cause of death"[/i]?
What can I do?
Its clear people do not want to go over old ground about helmets which is reasonable, its clear they do not want to see me bicker with people. How do I respond to the two posts above by zokes and cynic al? dammed if I do and dammed if I don't. 🙁
Easy TJ, just answer or fess up! I won't go on if you do.
The death was caused by an accident (in that I think we can assume that the driver did not intend to clip him). Accidental death is therefore the likely verdict.
So if I go into town and wave my shotgun around, randomly firing it, given that I didn't intend to kill anybody, if somebody just happens to get in the way of one of my shots would accidental death also be the likely verdict?
How do I respond to the two posts above by zokes and cynic al? dammed if I do and dammed if I don't.
Ignore them - just like everybody else on this thread is. The only people who care if you don't respond are you, zokes and cynic-al - can you live with that?
TJ: just try to rise above their pointless baiting.
"there but for the grace of god go I"
That's the crux of it. That's the problem right there. People think it's not wholly under their control. And it is.
People these days seem very reluctant to accept responsibility. And a lot of people drive as negligently as Mr Strong. By blaming him they would be damning their own approach to driving, and they are disinclined to do that.
The acceptance of poor standards of care and attention is the whole of the problem. The crucial aspect of this case is how clearly it demonstrates that it is so pandemic as to now totally undermine any legal protection that vulnerable users should (and technically probably do) have.
My problem with all of this is the comparison with other situations where negligence of one person results or is the main contributory factor in another person’s death. In almost every such case you would expect to have the book thrown at you if you were the perpetrator. However, introduce a car and bike to the scenario and the mindset of the legal system and media completely changes - IMHO this is wrong.
Get on a bike and from a legal perspective, the value of your life evaporates.
aracer your shotgun analogy isn't the same. I'd explain but you've said you're ignoring me 😛
The collision happened in November and no charges have been brought - I think we can safely say that the motorist has got off scot free.
To those suggesting the CTC should be doing more, what exactly do you suggest they should be doing that they're not already? Hardly like this is an isolated incident...
http://www.stop-smidsy.org.uk/case-studies
"there but for the grace of god go I"That's the crux of it
...introduce a car and bike to the scenario and the mindset of the legal system and media completely changes
Yep, I think you're right Bez and Papa.
The [url= http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2009/11/cycling-against-car-culture.html ]Cycling Silk article[/url] mentioned earlier shows how common this is in legal circles. In fact his entire blog reports it with depressing regularity.
TJ - Its not an accident, someone made an error
TJ - you need to buy yourself a dictionary. The word accident doesn't mean there was no error involved. Here is the thefreedictionary.com definition:
n.
1.
a. An unexpected and undesirable event, especially one resulting in damage or harm: car accidents on icy roads.
b. An unforeseen incident: A series of happy accidents led to his promotion.
c. An instance of involuntary urination or defecation in one's clothing.
2. Lack of intention; chance: ran into an old friend by accident.
3. Logic A circumstance or attribute that is not essential to the nature of something.
TandemJeremy - Member
With an inquest veredict of Accidental death it will be almost impossible to get either a civil claim or a criminal prosecution. the coroner could have recorded unlawfull killing which would have allowed both.
I don't believe this is the case at all. Normally Coroners wait until after any criminal prosecution so as not to prejudice the findings but it is not essential for them to do so; and civil proceedings with a lower burden of proof are less likely to be influenced in any case.
Although I agree with other comments that a lack of paint wasn't the route cause - I would say my experience is inconsiderately parked cars cause me more problems on the road than drivers overtaking in the wrong place - and it would certainly be wrong to ignore that part of the problem.
Because Coroners generally seem to prefer "Unlawful killing" for cases like Murder or Manslaughter where there was some intent to cause harm. Accidental death is different from 'death by misadventure' which would imply that the cyclist had taken some higher than normal risk.antigee
exactly - but the question is why is this unusual? rhetorical - because we as a society on the whole values the use of the car above human life...
I'm no expert on the workings of the english Coroner's court, but from my understanding the Coroner's staff advise you of the process and inform you how you go about being represented etc. before the case is called. The family's comment afterwards (in original news article) suggests they were not dissatisfied with the outcome.cycnic-al - do we know the family had representation and wished this line to be questioned?
My point is - every time a judge says a cyclist's death was not the fault of a motorist the STW (and I believe other cylcing fora) burst into outrage based on the limited information that the press have potentially misreported, claiming that the judge/jury/coroner is clueless and biased - when in fact they have sat through all the evidence in detail, listened to 'arguments' from both sides and made a dispassionate decision. Obviously the Judiciary could save a lot of money if all cases were simply tried on STW.
Poly - on the contrary - if someone has made an error then it is not an accident as it is not in this case. It may be unintentional but it was not an accident. An accident means it was unforeseeable and there was no fault or mistake made hence why the police refer to RTCs not RTAs
I've seen some proper cock end like cycling on the continent as a consequence of this [presumption of guilt of motorist]
Me too, here in Copenhagen and also in Holland where I lived before, but I haven't seen anyone die from cock end like cycling, so I think it's a small price to pay.
Incidentally I see Donk has alerted the Cycling Silk to this case (good job Donk), and Silk has replied:
"If the report is accurate then I am appalled at the way in which the police and the Coroner have been apologists for bad driving. Like so many cyclists I have been subjected to countless near misses through this type of restriction and sadly it is inevitable that, if drivers continue to squeeze past islands like this, tragedies will happen. Blaming everything but the driver is really shocking."
-- http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/another-sentence-for-causing-death-by.html#comment-form
"[i]I would say my experience is inconsiderately parked cars cause me more problems on the road than drivers overtaking in the wrong place[/i]"
Let's try a scientific test of that theory by eliminating the variables.
Test 1: A road with inconsiderately parked cars and no traffic other than you on your bike.
Test 2: A clear road with no parked cars, but with drivers overtaking in the wrong place.
If Test 1 turns out to cause you more problems then Test 2 then, well, SHould Have Gone To Specsavers.
Sorry, but whilst inanimate objects make the environment more awkward than it otherwise might be, they're not causes of problems. If a driver cannot negotiate a bicycle on a road with parked cars without hitting the bicycle then that driver is not fit to be on the road.
what DrJ said.
AND...a change to a European style system of protecting cyclists would not give them carte blanche to ride without care, just make drivers increasingly cautious.
when in fact they have sat through all the evidence in detail, listened to 'arguments' from both sides and made a dispassionate decision
and made a decision that fits societies current norms - in this case have accepted that it is ok for poor driving to kill someone - my understanding is that the coroner could recorded a "narrative verdict" possibly suggesting that the pinch points be removed or that driver training is improved (i'll pass on the helmet)
An instance of involuntary urination or defecation in one's clothing.
at least this made me smile
Because Coroners generally seem to prefer "Unlawful killing" for cases like Murder or Manslaughter where there was some intent to cause harm.
So I'm OK with firing off my shotgun as I mentioned above then, as I have no intent to cause harm?
every time a judge says a cyclist's death was not the fault of a motorist the STW (and I believe other cylcing fora) burst into outrage based on the limited information that the press have potentially misreported, claiming that the judge/jury/coroner is clueless and biased - when in fact they have sat through all the evidence in detail, listened to 'arguments' from both sides and made a dispassionate decision
Well in this particular case, I'd love to know what additional evidence there is which we haven't heard about which could possibly make the motorist totally blameless (as the judge concluded). I'm really, really struggling to think of anything, so I'd appreciate your input here.
Unless of course you think the direct quotes used and facts reported by the press are inaccurate?
aracer, heard of wilful recklessness?
this is why we need the "Driver Presumed Guilty" law.
heard of wilful recklessness?
You're referring to the car driver attempting to overtake through a width restriction?
So the change in page length hasn't got rid of the need for glitchy bump?
AND...a change to a European style system of protecting cyclists would not give them carte blanche to ride without care, just make drivers increasingly cautious
those that oppose this seem to do so mostly on the grounds that it would give cyclists a charter to scratch cars and damage wing mirrors
with impunity - property above life
wilful recklessness?
isn't driving into a small gap with a cyclist already in that said small gap exactly the same?