Cyclist ignores red light, gets hit, driver is prosecuted...

Cyclist ignores red light, gets hit, driver is prosecuted...

Author
Discussion

Murph7355

37,750 posts

257 months

Friday 17th February 2017
quotequote all
Pachydermus said:
people are so blinded by their hatred of cyclists that they don't even realise that they're not even following the same highway code that they're moaning about cyclists not following and why doing so might actually be a good thing for THEM regardless of some idiots on bikes.
The video of the truck above is exactly what I'm talking about. It doesn't take much of a search to find lots of other examples.
Aren't most people saying there are idiots in both camps? I don't think it's hatred of cyclists...just a dislike of people who won't accept responsibility for their own actions, and the way that the law is going giving the impression of absolving one set of road users (cyclists) of responsibility.

Looking at the link in the opening post, the cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet and jumped a red light. The driver seems to have admitted to DWDC but the details on the ins and outs of that are missing.

The truck video would no doubt receive an equal amount of consternation from most (a more relevant example might be the threads discussing the bin lorry that killed people here).

DoubleD

22,154 posts

109 months

Friday 17th February 2017
quotequote all
heebeegeetee said:
DoubleD said:
I know that red means stop.
I think this thread is evidence is that most drivers don't know what green means, so I'm not asking about red.

It a typically hypocritical thread, the norm nowadays. A bunch of drivers are criticising another group over the interpretation of traffic lights when they clearly themselves have got it wrong also.

When cyclists get it wrong they predominantly harm themselves. It doesn't seem to bother drivers one jot that when they get it wrong they predominantly harm others. That seems to be considered acceptable.
Maybe some road users dont know what green means. But all know what red means. Of course not all road users follow that and thats when problems happen.

TheGreatSoprendo

5,286 posts

250 months

Friday 17th February 2017
quotequote all
Moonhawk said:
I already gave an example. The "die in" was staged and the implication behind it was that the drivers of motorised vehicles were to blame
Could that be because in the majority of cases they are?

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/a...

heebeegeetee

28,775 posts

249 months

Friday 17th February 2017
quotequote all
DoubleD said:
Maybe some road users dont know what green means. But all know what red means. Of course not all road users follow that and thats when problems happen.
I agree, everybody knows what red means but there's a willful disregard over what the other two colours mean.

DoubleD

22,154 posts

109 months

Friday 17th February 2017
quotequote all
heebeegeetee said:
DoubleD said:
Maybe some road users dont know what green means. But all know what red means. Of course not all road users follow that and thats when problems happen.
I agree, everybody knows what red means but there's a willful disregard over what the other two colours mean.
Well if everyone stopped on a red then the meaning of the other two wouldnt be such an issue.

heebeegeetee

28,775 posts

249 months

Friday 17th February 2017
quotequote all
DoubleD said:
Well if everyone stopped on a red then the meaning of the other two wouldnt be such an issue.
Just imagine how easy our motoring lives would be if we obeyed all the rules, but we don't, probably very, very few of us here choose to do so.

Given that it's us who are likely to harm others whereas cyclists are only likely to harm themselves - where the hell do drivers get off with just such incredible diatribe against others?

Hackney

6,850 posts

209 months

Friday 17th February 2017
quotequote all
I agree with some of the comments on the die-ins the implication is that the driver is always to blame and the cyclist is always innocent. Suggest differently, or that the cyclist could have been responsible or just taken more responsibility for their actions and the die-iners equate the cyclist with the rape victim and go on about "victim blaming".

Sometimes the victim (in a cycling accident / death) is to blame

Murph7355

37,750 posts

257 months

Friday 17th February 2017
quotequote all
heebeegeetee said:
Just imagine how easy our motoring lives would be if we obeyed all the rules, but we don't, probably very, very few of us here choose to do so.

Given that it's us who are likely to harm others whereas cyclists are only likely to harm themselves - where the hell do drivers get off with just such incredible diatribe against others?
Who is likely to come off worse in an altercation is irrelevant.

If the cyclist causes it, then he's at fault and rightly criticised.

If the motorist causes it, ditto.

There's no need for a "them and us". Each case on its merits.

On the case posted, the cyclist wasn't wearing a helmet and jumped a red light. Sympathy at zero.

If Adams had jumped the red light and been hit by a truck, suffering brain injuries in the process, have a guess where the sympathy meter would be smile

heebeegeetee

28,775 posts

249 months

Friday 17th February 2017
quotequote all
Hackney said:
I agree with some of the comments on the die-ins the implication is that the driver is always to blame and the cyclist is always innocent. Suggest differently, or that the cyclist could have been responsible or just taken more responsibility for their actions and the die-iners equate the cyclist with the rape victim and go on about "victim blaming".

Sometimes the victim (in a cycling accident / death) is to blame
And obviously, the same applies to everyone unfortunate enough to be harmed in a road traffic incident. What I almost never see is the same near-desperate attempts to victim blame applied to anyone other than cyclists.





Murph7355

37,750 posts

257 months

Friday 17th February 2017
quotequote all
heebeegeetee said:
And obviously, the same applies to everyone unfortunate enough to be harmed in a road traffic incident. What I almost never see is the same near-desperate attempts to victim blame applied to anyone other than cyclists.
The cyclist in the opening post was a victim only of his own stupidity. No?

As I said, I pretty much guarantee that if you posted a link of a driver jumping a red light, not wearing his seatbelt and getting injured you'd get people calling him an idiot too.

I'm not sure said driver would have a need for "closure", but who knows these days smile

Pachydermus

974 posts

113 months

Friday 17th February 2017
quotequote all
Murph7355 said:
I'm not sure said driver would have a need for "closure", but who knows these days smile
the update says the rider was fined for going through an amber light but as he has no memory of the incident perhaps he just wants to understand what he did wrong because he may not have been in the habit of jumping amber (or red) lights.

heebeegeetee

28,775 posts

249 months

Friday 17th February 2017
quotequote all
Murph7355 said:
The cyclist in the opening post was a victim only of his own stupidity. No?
Well, clearly no, otherwise the driver wouldn't have been prosecuted.

Hackney

6,850 posts

209 months

Friday 17th February 2017
quotequote all
heebeegeetee said:
Murph7355 said:
The cyclist in the opening post was a victim only of his own stupidity. No?
Well, clearly no, otherwise the driver wouldn't have been prosecuted.
Well this was a classic when idiots meet.
Driver took green as GO!, not proceed if safe to do so.
Cyclist should've stopped but didn't.

If the cyclist hadn't been so stupid the accident would not have happened.
Albeit the same goes for the driver. If the cyclist had looked after himself then the accident would not have happened and the driver would not have been guilty of an offence.
If the driver had been more responsible, the cyclist would still have committed an offence.

Murph7355

37,750 posts

257 months

Friday 17th February 2017
quotequote all
heebeegeetee said:
Well, clearly no, otherwise the driver wouldn't have been prosecuted.
It'll be interesting to see how that pans out and what the actual facts were - if the cyclist went through an amber then that changes things a lot (despite still being silly).

heebeegeetee

28,775 posts

249 months

Friday 17th February 2017
quotequote all
Hackney said:
Well this was a classic when idiots meet.
Driver took green as GO!, not proceed if safe to do so.
Cyclist should've stopped but didn't.
Exactly. There is nothing to see here. What is the issue?

Murph7355

37,750 posts

257 months

Friday 17th February 2017
quotequote all
heebeegeetee said:
Exactly. There is nothing to see here. What is the issue?
And to the rest of the post you trimmed....? smile

Moonhawk

10,730 posts

220 months

Friday 17th February 2017
quotequote all
TheGreatSoprendo said:
Could that be because in the majority of cases they are?

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/public/cyclesafety/a...
So cyclists are to blame in almost 1/3rd of all cases (32% to be exact).

I didn't see them accepting 1/3rd of the culpability in the "die in". The blame seem to be being levelled 100% on the motorist.

TheGreatSoprendo

5,286 posts

250 months

Friday 17th February 2017
quotequote all
Moonhawk said:
I didn't see them accepting 1/3rd of the culpability in the "die in". The blame seem to be being levelled 100% on the motorist.
I couldn't comment, I have no idea what this "die in" thing is that you're referring to.

heebeegeetee

28,775 posts

249 months

Friday 17th February 2017
quotequote all
Murph7355 said:
heebeegeetee said:
Exactly. There is nothing to see here. What is the issue?
And to the rest of the post you trimmed....? smile
Er, it was a bit of repetition, wasn't it?

Digby

8,242 posts

247 months

Friday 17th February 2017
quotequote all
Hackney said:
Well this was a classic when idiots meet.
Driver took green as GO!, not proceed if safe to do so.
Cyclist should've stopped but didn't.

If the cyclist hadn't been so stupid the accident would not have happened.
Albeit the same goes for the driver. If the cyclist had looked after himself then the accident would not have happened and the driver would not have been guilty of an offence.
If the driver had been more responsible, the cyclist would still have committed an offence.
I think we just have to accept that there are varying degrees of stupidity.

Are you more stupid for going on a green in a protective metal box, or more stupid for going through a red exposed to absolutely everything?