This drives me mad
Discussion
billy939 said:
The girl who hit the cyclist came round a corner to have glaring sun in her eyes, in was summer evening so the sun was low. When I passed her going in the other direction she was pulling her visor down to help block the sun, she already had sunglasses on. But in those few seconds between the corner and pulling down the visor she drove straight through the cyclist. The first she noticed the cyclist was there was when his body hit her windscreen.
Rule 126 of the Highway Code:Stopping Distances. Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear.
Why if you cannot see, do people blindly carry on? If she had reduced her speed a little, maybe the cyclist wouldn't have been left with devastating injuries. Would people run into a room full of knives blindfolded? So why do it in the car? What if the cyclist had been a tractor, a stationary car... People just don't think, removed from the noise and weather, safe in their own protected box, far removed from the world outside till something like that happens. Then it came out of nowhere and there was nothing they could do...
Bradley1500 said:
It should be handled on a case by case basis.
I remember watching a Police, Camera, Action type program where a young women hit a cyclist on an unlit A road. The cyclist was in dark clothing with no reflectives or lights. The women thought she had hit an animal or similar so didn't stop, it was only when her father saw the damage and thought it would be a good idea to report the incident to the Police they found out she had hit and killed the cyclist. A very sad mistake but one which could of been avoided if the cyclist had taken the appropriate precautions to make himself visible!
I was just about to post this example an intresting case horrible for the woman though iirc she was sick when she found out.I remember watching a Police, Camera, Action type program where a young women hit a cyclist on an unlit A road. The cyclist was in dark clothing with no reflectives or lights. The women thought she had hit an animal or similar so didn't stop, it was only when her father saw the damage and thought it would be a good idea to report the incident to the Police they found out she had hit and killed the cyclist. A very sad mistake but one which could of been avoided if the cyclist had taken the appropriate precautions to make himself visible!
Made me laugh yesterday on the radio they had a cyclist on and somone anti cyclist and the cyclist was trying to justify running reds simply as he THINKS he only puts himself in danger vs a car running a red.So pedestrians don't exsist? cars that might swerve to avoid you don't exsist? what a cock he was finding it hard to justify
Edited by petrolsniffer on Tuesday 22 July 12:18
thetrash said:
Laser Sag said:
Strange response, on a road approximately 8m wide there is a large difference between fitting 2 cars at 2m wide each and a bike at 0.5m wide and 3 cars at 2m wide
Maybe the motorist in the clip should have slowed but by the same mark when I learnt to ride motorbikes I was taught to ride defensively and not to put myself in a situation where I could become the very vulnerable party in an accident.
As for from 3 seconds in the cyclist is accelerating, why?, the cynic would say to put himself in harms way so he can make a point which he then does. Why does self preservation not take over in this obviously highly intelligent individuals brain and suggest to him to slow slightly to avoid any possible accident. he could still have remonstrated with the driver if he wanted to make a point but would then have been less likely to have been involved in an accident where he would loose out.
The vast majority of drivers are numpties, so why do you come on a motoring web site where the vast majority will be numpties?
He's accelerating because it's a downhill section! There was no danger until the car came round the bend and committed to passing the parked car. The cyclists self preservation works because he does brake when the danger presents itself. Maybe the motorist in the clip should have slowed but by the same mark when I learnt to ride motorbikes I was taught to ride defensively and not to put myself in a situation where I could become the very vulnerable party in an accident.
As for from 3 seconds in the cyclist is accelerating, why?, the cynic would say to put himself in harms way so he can make a point which he then does. Why does self preservation not take over in this obviously highly intelligent individuals brain and suggest to him to slow slightly to avoid any possible accident. he could still have remonstrated with the driver if he wanted to make a point but would then have been less likely to have been involved in an accident where he would loose out.
The vast majority of drivers are numpties, so why do you come on a motoring web site where the vast majority will be numpties?
I don't understand why you are questioning of the cyclist when it's obvious that the oncoming car is in the wrong?
I am on this website because I like cars, there are many threads on here about numpty drivers. So I don't think I'm alone here on that point.
There was a film several years back which showed an assassination from different view points and on each one you changed your mind as to who was responsible.
I will stick with my view that from what I see there was enough room for the cyclist without him having a problem but that like a small minority he wanted to make a point. The good thing about this site is that numpty drivers, which I presume from your earlier statement you think I am, have the ability to discuss their points of view.
Fugazi said:
Rule 126 of the Highway Code:
Stopping Distances. Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear.
Why if you cannot see, do people blindly carry on? If she had reduced her speed a little, maybe the cyclist wouldn't have been left with devastating injuries. Would people run into a room full of knives blindfolded? So why do it in the car? What if the cyclist had been a tractor, a stationary car... People just don't think, removed from the noise and weather, safe in their own protected box, far removed from the world outside till something like that happens. Then it came out of nowhere and there was nothing they could do...
Do you not think cyclist also need to look at their own actions as well? I can fully admit that there are some very bad and dangerous drivers.. It seems that a few cyclist can never admit that they are ever in the wrong.Stopping Distances. Drive at a speed that will allow you to stop well within the distance you can see to be clear.
Why if you cannot see, do people blindly carry on? If she had reduced her speed a little, maybe the cyclist wouldn't have been left with devastating injuries. Would people run into a room full of knives blindfolded? So why do it in the car? What if the cyclist had been a tractor, a stationary car... People just don't think, removed from the noise and weather, safe in their own protected box, far removed from the world outside till something like that happens. Then it came out of nowhere and there was nothing they could do...
Is there anything in the Highway Code about cyclist needing to be visible?
I am rabidly pro-cyclist but I think that is a stretch.
There are some real ninjas out there.
I am sure there are plenty of examples where judges have assigned some contributory negligence to cyclists who got hit without lights at night.
Indeed the CTC says, "If you are involved in a night-time accident however, any slight illegality with respect to your lights or reflectors may be regarded as contributory negligence."
There are some real ninjas out there.
I am sure there are plenty of examples where judges have assigned some contributory negligence to cyclists who got hit without lights at night.
Indeed the CTC says, "If you are involved in a night-time accident however, any slight illegality with respect to your lights or reflectors may be regarded as contributory negligence."
Mr Gear said:
Cyclists are ALWAYS visible. You just have to look.
It's impossible to argue otherwise, even if they have no lights, you can still them if you look.
Unlit road, unlit cycle, dark clothing and your always visible cyclist becomes INVISIBLE.It's impossible to argue otherwise, even if they have no lights, you can still them if you look.
Some amount of common sense is required, obviously for some people looking good in their latest outfit is more important than being safe though.
Mr Gear said:
Cyclists are ALWAYS visible. You just have to look.
It's impossible to argue otherwise, even if they have no lights, you can still them if you look.
Honestly, what do you hope to achieve by posting stuff like this?It's impossible to argue otherwise, even if they have no lights, you can still them if you look.
An argument? A chance to vent your obvious rage?
This https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GEEvvTiiQk demonstrates that the human brain does not work like you think it does and people can easily miss something that is in plain view through to fault of their own.
Every driver and cyclists would rather everyone else managed to get home safely so doing your bit, being more observant or more observable is a small ask.
You would appear to be in, what my Dad explained to me on the day I passed my driving test was "being in the right but being dead" category.
jimbop1 said:
Do you not think cyclist also need to look at their own actions as well? I can fully admit that there are some very bad and dangerous drivers.. It seems that a few cyclist can never admit that they are ever in the wrong.
Is there anything in the Highway Code about cyclist needing to be visible?
So a cyclist was taken out by a car from behind in broad daylight because 'the sun was in her eyes'. Whose fault is that? What if she slammed into the back of your car in stationary traffic, would it be your fault because you don't have a yellow car?Is there anything in the Highway Code about cyclist needing to be visible?
It's plainly obvious that if a cyclist rides around at night with no lights wearing dark clothes they are an idiot. That doesn't require a rule in the Highway Code, but like the minority of cyclists, there is a portion of drivers who fail to modify their behaviour with the change in conditions.
Edited by Fugazi on Tuesday 22 July 15:01
The Vambo said:
You would appear to be in, what my Dad explained to me on the day I passed my driving test was "being in the right but being dead" category.
Why? I always use lights on my bike. Body good ones at that. Yet I have never failed to see unlit cyclists while driving my car. It's fitted with headlights y'see. The same things that help me spot trees, fences etcMr Gear said:
Do you crash into trees much?
Last time I was on the road at night the trees were in their place tucked up for bed off to the side of the road where they should be.If you are going to make comments at least try to act as if you are old enough to drive in the first place.
Laser Sag said:
Mr Gear said:
Do you crash into trees much?
Last time I was on the road at night the trees were in their place tucked up for bed off to the side of the road where they should be.If you are going to make comments at least try to act as if you are old enough to drive in the first place.
I did see the episode of police camera action with the girl who crashed her Mini into the cyclist on a motorway bridge and dare I say it, would she have been treated differently as a bloke? Yes it's an awful thing to go through, I certainly wouldn't wish it on someone but I don't believe bikes and people really become completely invisible to car headlights - especially modern cars.
Mr Gear said:
Why? I always use lights on my bike. Body good ones at that. Yet I have never failed to see unlit cyclists while driving my car. It's fitted with headlights y'see. The same things that help me spot trees, fences etc
If only everyone was as perfect as you there would never be any accidents ever.Have you ever wondered why they put DRLs on cars now, part of its so when visibility is poor that large car is easier to spot and that's on something with a frontal area 10 times the size of a push bike.
I am pleased that when you are doing your paper round you use good lights hopefully it will reduce the chance of you becoming one of those unfortunate statistics.
will_ said:
If the risk of a lifelong guilty conscience was sufficient deterrent to poor driving there wouldn't be any such "accidents".
Sadly it appears that the thought of killing someone isn't sufficient to ensure that people check their mirrors, don't use their phones, and look before pulling out of side roads. Hopefully well reported examples of drivers being held to account for such "innocent" mistakes will focus others' minds better. It's sad that that is required.
It is not justice for you to make an error, kill someone, and receive no punishment. How does that sit with the rights of the victim or their families? Do you not think they'll go through worse than the driver? And to add insult to injury, there is no punishment for such negligence that ends someone's life?
They must live with the consequences of their actions. When it comes to driving, that includes punishment by way of going to prison. It is not just the error that is punished - the penalty must also reflect the consequences of the error otherwise the scales of justice are not balanced. Exactly the same as if you punch someone and they hit their head on the kerb and die - however unlucky "you" are, that death is still as a result of your action and the punishment must reflect the crime. And you're much luckier than your victim.
You appear to be of the view that prison is only to protect people - it isn't. It's to reflect the harm done and it is a form of retribution. I have little sympathy for someone whose life is wrecked by their own actions which involves killing another person. The fact that this also affects the killer's family should not be held against the victim or their family - it is another foreseeable result from the killer's actions.
Everyone on the road should be well aware that they are responsible for a vehicle which can kill someone. It should be treated as such. If, cocooned in their sealed box, people forget the risk that they pose to others, fail to pay attention and end up killing someone they are not deserving of sympathy and it's bizarre to think that they should be.
This country has a poor record of penalising drivers who kill others - it's easily the least punished form of killing. Drivers already receive significant discounts compared to those who kill in other ways e.g. manslaughter.
I must sadly be in the minority if I feel that the risk of a guilty conscience is enough to prevent me from doing something stupid.Sadly it appears that the thought of killing someone isn't sufficient to ensure that people check their mirrors, don't use their phones, and look before pulling out of side roads. Hopefully well reported examples of drivers being held to account for such "innocent" mistakes will focus others' minds better. It's sad that that is required.
It is not justice for you to make an error, kill someone, and receive no punishment. How does that sit with the rights of the victim or their families? Do you not think they'll go through worse than the driver? And to add insult to injury, there is no punishment for such negligence that ends someone's life?
They must live with the consequences of their actions. When it comes to driving, that includes punishment by way of going to prison. It is not just the error that is punished - the penalty must also reflect the consequences of the error otherwise the scales of justice are not balanced. Exactly the same as if you punch someone and they hit their head on the kerb and die - however unlucky "you" are, that death is still as a result of your action and the punishment must reflect the crime. And you're much luckier than your victim.
You appear to be of the view that prison is only to protect people - it isn't. It's to reflect the harm done and it is a form of retribution. I have little sympathy for someone whose life is wrecked by their own actions which involves killing another person. The fact that this also affects the killer's family should not be held against the victim or their family - it is another foreseeable result from the killer's actions.
Everyone on the road should be well aware that they are responsible for a vehicle which can kill someone. It should be treated as such. If, cocooned in their sealed box, people forget the risk that they pose to others, fail to pay attention and end up killing someone they are not deserving of sympathy and it's bizarre to think that they should be.
This country has a poor record of penalising drivers who kill others - it's easily the least punished form of killing. Drivers already receive significant discounts compared to those who kill in other ways e.g. manslaughter.
You make a bunch of good points there.
will_ said:
You call a mistake that takes a life "innocent" - that shows an extraordinary mindset. It is so far from innocent.
I must have an extremely controversial mindset if I believe in giving people second chances and giving them the benefit of doubt.The problem here is I think a large proportion of us are cynical. We're pessimistic by nature.
This leads to a view where "someone is always to blame".
I find it surprising that you consider a mistake that takes a life is not innocent.
Let me give you an example. A while ago now, there was a ferry that sunk because the operator of the door made the mistake of just falling asleep. Now it's quite possible that this mistake has been made by many ferry door operators the world over, but just this once, many lives were lost as a result.
What you are suggesting, by saying that, is that the man deliberately fell asleep in order to take lives.
Is that what you think?
Edited by TheInsanity1234 on Tuesday 22 July 15:57
aka_kerrly said:
He does have a point, if you are looking at the road ahead there is almost certainly a chance that some part of the bike for example the rims, possibly chrome look brakes, pedals, or other metal components will reflect light.
I did see the episode of police camera action with the girl who crashed her Mini into the cyclist on a motorway bridge and dare I say it, would she have been treated differently as a bloke? Yes it's an awful thing to go through, I certainly wouldn't wish it on someone but I don't believe bikes and people really become completely invisible to car headlights - especially modern cars.
Have you ever really thought of how much distance you cover in a few seconds when you come round a slight bend in a country road at night and what can happen.Potentially the trees have obscured the view of the left side of the road as they have cut out the light from your modern headlights but you have picked up on the wheelie bin on the right which is perhaps taking too much of your attention along with the kids screaming in the back and then there is a dark shape that's about to hit your bonnet.I did see the episode of police camera action with the girl who crashed her Mini into the cyclist on a motorway bridge and dare I say it, would she have been treated differently as a bloke? Yes it's an awful thing to go through, I certainly wouldn't wish it on someone but I don't believe bikes and people really become completely invisible to car headlights - especially modern cars.
I'm not saying they become completely invisible but as much as we all like to think we are driving carefully we all make mistakes, mostly they only end up with a raised heart rate, occasionally a bit of damage to the car but very rarely something much worse.
The cyclist with good lights and reflective clothing will help themselves to avoid becoming one of those statistics, that is just pure logic.
TheInsanity1234 said:
What you are suggesting, by saying that, is that the man deliberately fell asleep in order to take lives.
You don't understand the difference between negligence and intending to kill.Perhaps that's why you are going mad.
You need to understand the slightly nuanced difference between manslaughter and murder.
walm said:
TheInsanity1234 said:
What you are suggesting, by saying that, is that the man deliberately fell asleep in order to take lives.
You don't understand the difference between negligence and intending to kill.Perhaps that's why you are going mad.
You need to understand the slightly nuanced difference between manslaughter and murder.
Murder would be planned taking of life.
What I'm saying is, it is possible to make a honest mistake and end up killing someone as a result.
Negligence can be a honest mistake.
I was responding to someone who said that a mistake that takes a life is not innocent.
I was showing him it is possible to make an innocent mistake, and cause a loss of life as a result.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff