Accidental, my a*se!!!

[cmsapms]

Click to raise your blood pressure!

How can the coroner's verdict possibly bear any relation to the BiB's report or the witness' evidence? Surely 'accidental' is completely the wrong word to use in describing this death!

Apparently it is now morally acceptable to pull out without bothering to check what's coming!

I also note there's no mention of speed in this article, a biker's crime that was automatically assumed in previous articles about this accident.

I'm not a biker, but have been told by several biker friends that my (dark green) Westfield is even less noticeable than a bike, so what chance have I against the blind drivers of big-d*ck w*nk-mobiles?

Yours despairingly

Paul


>>> Edited by cmsapms on Thursday 22 July 11:31

[V8 Archie]

I've not seen anything about this one before (althought there was a similar one a few days ago which explicity said that the biker wasn't speeding.

It would seem that people are losing the ability to look down the road, but you can tell that just by driving around.

On the other hand, I would say that the verdict is spot on. She might be a numpty, but I seriously doubt that she intended to pull out in front of the bike. Ergo it was an accident. I presume that the verdict does not mean that she will escape conviction for DWDC or some such.

On another note, I'm amazed that a wk-tank like that tipped over under the impact. It doen't see surprising that the poor biker was killed under those circumstances.

[gh0st]

NUMPTIES

"Sorry mate I didnt see ya"

WELL LOOK PROPERLY THEN YOU BLINK


Ive had had 2 accidents on my bike where cars have blindly pulled out in front of me. Too close for me to do anything about it. Always full daylight conditions, always with me wearing flourescent clothing, always with dipped beam headlights on as per police recommendation.

I am far from a violent person but the last time it happened it was a doddery idiot. When i picked myself up and he said "sorry mate i didnt see you" I dont actually remember what happened next but I do remember lying on the floor with 5 people struggling to hold me down........ apprently I totally went for him and it took all of them to hold me back.

I consider myself very lucky. My heartfelt sorrow goes out to the family who have lost a father and husband. My heartfelt hatred goes out to little miss 4x4...

Same goes for the stupid bint that pulled out on my bike on a roundabout this morning then gave the stubborn "im not looking at you" look when I politely pulled up alongside to "calmly" point out the error of her ways....

[ohopkins]

Give your westfield a bright yellow nosecone.

[cmsapms]

V8 Archie said:

I've not seen anything about this one before (althought there was a similar one a few days ago which explicity said that the biker wasn't speeding.

There were a couple of stories a few weeks back, just after the accident which strongly implied that he must have been speeding because the (unstable, top heavy) softroader had fallen over.

V8 Archie said:

On the other hand, I would say that the verdict is spot on. She might be a numpty, but I seriously doubt that she intended to pull out in front of the bike. Ergo it was an accident.

My beef is with the word(s) used by the coroner. I know it's traditional, but they read (to the public) in such a way as to imply no fault.

Some online dictionary or other said:

Accidental=Occurring unexpectedly, unintentionally, or by chance.

I agree that she probably didn't intentionally have a crash, but I do think that as with a growing number of drivers, she intended to pull out unless something caught her eye. I'm not sure if it is a Stop or Give Way junction, but either way, the onus on her was to proceed only if clear to do so. There is a not so subtle distinction between those two attitudes, and the article (and generally observed recent behaviour) leads me to believe that the former was more likely.

I also don't think that there's anything unexpected or by chance about an accident being likely if a driver doesn't look carefully before pulling out of a junction.

So based on a dictionary definition, I think the coroner should have used a different description. Death by Misadventure perhaps? although I'm not clear what that term really means.

Cheers

Paul

[blademan]

gh0st said:

Same goes for the stupid bint that pulled out on my bike on a roundabout this morning then gave the stubborn "im not looking at you" look when I politely pulled up alongside to "calmly" point out the error of her ways....

It is a dangerous world out there and bikers are esp. vulnerable. Had someone pull across me yesterday, but the training Iv'e had ( thanks BiB made me anticipate and all ended well.
I think that Paul from Safespeed is spot on when he says that over a period of time car drivers have learnt to only check over a certain angle and distance before they pull out and bikers don't get seen.
How can that women not have seen the biker referred to in the original post, dressed as he was and with lights on. I feel so sorry for his family and so angry for thr women. Did she have phone in hand I wonder?

[jacko lah]

The bloke that taught me Risk Assessments at work said he did not believe in accidents.

He said that all the 'accidents' he knew of were avoidable, with a little care from someone.

I must say that all the crashes I ever had were accidents but also totally avoidable. Either I or the third party let something slip and then crash.

And I have had a few near misses which were totally my fault.

In order to arrive safe you have to assume that every one has failed vision, no brakes and dodgy indicators.

[alicrozier]

I don't know what other options there are but the accidental verdict seems wrong to me. OK she didn't indent to pull out on the guy but surely it's her duty to check properly. Negligence?

If you're operating a bungee jump and forget to tie the bloke's feet to the rope is that worthy of an accidental verdict?

[blademan]

jacko lah said:

In order to arrive safe you have to assume that every one has failed vision, no brakes and dodgy indicators.

I agree .........thats the way I ride as well

[mad jock]

There was a study done some 20 years ago that showed that a 750cc motorcycle travelling at 30 mph could tip a Mini on its side. The details of this particular incident don't surprise me at all.
I agree with the verdict in that she didn't pull out in front of an oncoming vehicle deliberately, but she should have been done for a more obvious traffic offence at least.
Irrespective of fault, if you want to live a long life as a biker, the onus is on you to allow for numpty drivers. So what if the driver was wrong? You're dead and they're not.

[Mon Ami Mate]

See also

www.pistonheads.com/gassing/topic.asp?f=23&h=&t=112999

[V8 Archie]

Before I start on this post, might I reiterate that I agree that standards of observation on the are generally pretty abysmal at the moment and that is not something I am happy with. I don't ride a bike, but I am very aware that they are on the roads and always look carefully before pulling out. I'll also reiterate that it sounds to me that this women was totally in the wrong and that I hope sh got slapped with DWDC or whatever would be appropriate.

Now then:

cmsapms said:

My beef is with the word(s) used by the coroner. I know it's traditional, but they read (to the public) in such a way as to imply no fault.

The words in the report are simply the name of the verdict that was returned.

alicrozier said:

I don't know what other options there are but the accidental verdict seems wrong to me. OK she didn't indent to pull out on the guy but surely it's her duty to check properly. Negligence?

I didn't know what the options were, but a quick google produced:
Cornwall County Council

CCC said:

Inquests do not determine blame and the verdict must not identify someone as having criminal or civil liability. Possible verdicts include: natural causes, accident, suicide, unlawful or lawful killing, industrial disease, and open verdicts (where there is insufficient evidence for any other verdict). The Coroner may also report the death to any appropriate person or authority, if action is needed to prevent more deaths in similar circumstances.

The Compassionate Friends Support for bereaved parents and their families

The Compassionate Friends said:

What verdicts are open to the Coroner? What do they mean? When all the evidence has been heard, the Coroner (and jury) will deliver the verdict, which will be one of the following: natural causes unlawful killing suicide accidental death, or death by misadventure. (Either can be used, and the former imputation of part-responsibility in 'misadventure' no longer applies.) from an industrial disease an open verdict, when the Coroner decides that the evidence given at the inquest is insufficient to deliver one of the specific verdicts above; however, if new evidence becomes available at any time which varies the verdict, the inquest can be re-opened.

And, most clearly Sheffield City Council

SCC said:

The Coroner's decision must be set out in a formal record of the case called the 'Inquisition' stating his findings as regards:- the identity of the deceased the medical cause of death the time place and circumstances at or in which the injury was sustained the conclusion as to the death In answer to the latter point that the Coroner will reach a decision (often referred to as the verdict) stating whether the death was suicide, accidental, natural causes or whatever. There are several peculiarities about the verdicts open to the Coroner and they are sometimes misunderstood - there is sometimes controversy over the use of 'accidental death' in traffic cases where relatives think (wrongly) that the Coroner is finding that no blame attaches to the death. Suicide or unlawful killing must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. An 'open verdict' means that the evidence does not sufficiently disclose the full circumstances of the death, often because the intentions of the deceased remain unclear. A verdict used increasingly in recent years and that often achieves wide publicity is 'neglect'. This is either a verdict on it's own or added to another verdict such as 'accidental death contributed to by neglect'. Neglect in this sense is quite different to the duty of care referred to in negligence proceedings. In the Coroner's Court it has a very specific and narrow definition, that there was a gross failure to provide someone in a dependent position with adequate food, shelter or basic medical attention and that this led to the death.

It would appear that the verdict was the correct one and carries no suggestion that no-one should be punished.

[cmsapms]

V8 Archie said:

Lot's of info about why the coroner's verdict was what it was.

Thanks Archie, the coroner obviously did come to the correct verdict.

I'm still left wondering what impression the average reader of that article will come away with. IMHO the article says that you won't be blamed if you couldn't be ad to keep your eyes on the road and a biker is killed as a result.

It will be interesting to see if the local rag bothers to report what if any prosecution stems from this. Not much of a headline though is it? "numpty kills biker". Now if it was "Biker kills numpty", questions would be asked in the House!



Paul

[V8 Archie]

cmsapms said:

I'm still left wondering what impression the average reader of that article will come away with. IMHO the article says that you won't be blamed if you couldn't be ad to keep your eyes on the road and a biker is killed as a result.

I wish I could tell you that you'll be the only one forming that impression, but I don't believe that unfortunately.

I do find it a little bizarre that the only person who can be explicitly blamed is the dead person (in the case of "suicide" .

[streaky]

Observation suggests that there are a growing number of motorists who:

a) pull out without looking;

b) pull out with a cursory look only;

c) pull out after looking but assume you will slow down to let them out;

d) pull out after looking but assume your brakes are equivalent to those fitted to a F1 car ... and your reaction time is that of a F1 driver;

e) pull out after looking once, but not twice or long enough to estimate your approach speed (a varient of (b), and may also fall into (c) or (d));

f) pull out after looking long enough to estimate your speed, but not giving a fk anyway (may fall into (c) or (d), but probably a separate category for drivers of certain marques ... you know the ones );

and

g) pull out after looking but not seeing, because turning one's head is a mechanical activity performed automatically with no, or at best, belated, cognitive engagement.

Streaky

[Nightmare]

you cannot have an accident once you're in control of a one ton vehicle capable of doing 100mph. It is simply a weapon with a different primary objective.

Im sorry bu I cannot undertand the 'Im sure she didnt mean to kill someone' argument....couldnt give a f**k eprsonally....she DID, and thourgh her own inadequacies.

Not arguing with verdict (having read all posts), but hope she gets done for manlaughter myself.

[Fat Audi 80]

My heart felt condolances to the family after this appalling "incident"

The car Driver is ALWAYS unltimately responsible when pulling out onto a fast moving road.

When pulling out I have made a habit of looking at first for cars (first look left and right) then another closer inspection left and right for bikes, pedestrians, scateboards, kids, dogs etc. You can never pull out with just one glance.....

[Mr Whippy]

The whole point of looking at a junction is not to look for cars, but to look for ANY traffic or obstruction hazard etc.

I think she should at least get done for driving without due care and attention.
How sad for the family that she can just get back in her new car and presume she's safe and not at fault, and do just the same kind of thing again to someone else!

Seya

Dave

[V8 Archie]

Mr Whippy said:

How sad for the family that she can just get back in her new car and presume she's safe and not at fault, and do just the same kind of thing again to someone else!

Dave, might I refer you to my long and boring post above.

[Balmoral Green]

And to think that meanwhile on another thread there are t***ts posting about how to get away with tinted windows that are over the legal limit.