The term accident just means “did not mean to do it” not “no one is at fault”

technically yes, but colloquially it seems to be used by people trying to wriggle themselves or their friends/peers out of any blame.

Unforeseen accidents are few and far between, accidentally causing grief/harm while knowingly doing something risky/dangerous is much more common and conflating the two is arguably not a good thing.

Edit see also Bez’s low sun articles

If you drive into a space you can’t see, there’s a limit to how surprised you can be to find out that it’s not empty.

IMO that’s not an accident, seems to be treated that way by the courts tho.

Unless I am very much mistaken, does the Coroners verdict of death by misadventure not indicate that the pedestrian wilfully put himself in a risky/dangerous situation, rather than a verdict of accidental death, where he would have been absolved of any blame.

The Highway Code comments could well apply to him, not the cyclist – it’s not clear from the reporting.

colloquially it seems to be used by people trying to wriggle themselves or their friends/peers out of any blame.

They are trying to reduce the blame.. it works for kids so people who don’t grow up try the same trick.

I’ve not read the report as frankly it seems a little pointless doing so.

Not being charged is if I’m not mistaken very different to not at fault. I’m of the (likely mistaken impression) nor being charged means little chance of conviction, otherwise it would be no case answer.

On the face of it for the same reason i’d.like to see drivers hauled up every time I’d like to see it go to court, if only to establish his innocence but doing so isn’t practical if only because of cost.

The pedestrian had every right to be on the road, at least as much as the cyclist. There is no onus on him by law to not wear dark clothes or camouflage nor to carry a light and not should there be. Much the same is true of the cyclist but there is legal obligation on the cyclist to have a forward facing and functional light fixed to his bicycle (not his helmet) when on a public road. I wouldn’t advocate mandatory high viz for either party, it’s not my (or anyone else’s) responsibility to mitigate the inability of others to control their vehicle by making my self more visible. If purple drove/rode within the limits of their ability to cope with a situation in the first instance this and 90+% of rta would never have happened.

One thing which I am personally amazed by with the article is it says that the incident wasn’t reported for three days. Given the scale of the collision to leave the victim in that state I personally would have been on the phone to the police as soon as I’d called the ambulance, or is it expecting too much of most people (mode of transport aside) to feel they should be doing that?

Unless I am very much mistaken, does the Coroners verdict of death by misadventure not indicate that the pedestrian wilfully put himself in a risky/dangerous situation

I live in a village which is impossible to enter or leave without using one of four country lanes, some not only winding but with large dips and peaks.
All these country lanes have houses on them, and it is not uncommon to see a kid walking along carrying a loaf of bread or shopping bag where obviously there mum has sent them down the shops.

Blaming a man for putting himself in danger for not using a pavement that does not exist where he lives.
Should he not go out his front door or maybe we should blame the council for not widening and installing pavements to all country lanes.

The pedestrian had a duty of care to himself, and he failed so he paid the price. The cyclist on the other hand took how many days to hand himself in – in my book that makes him a pretty lame excuse for a decent human being.
It’s all irrelevant anyway. The old guy is dead, much wringing of hands take place in the cyclists household (unlikely) and a few singletrack judges pronounce that everyone is guilty.
Learn from it – the world is full of injustice and winging about it on here will make sod all difference

Is the full coroner’s report not available online? In Scotland, Fatal Accident Inquiries are available online, although these are done by a Sheriff, not sure if they are the Scottish equivalent but it certainly sounds like the same sort of report.

dangeourbrain – Member

Good post.

There is a interesting way the media reports the event in that they do not list the pedestrian as not wearing hi viz e.t.c Not saying they should but is an example that had the victim been a cyclist it would be all over the article.

winging about it on here will make sod all difference

What an astonishingly stupid thing to say during a discussion on a discussion board.