81 yr old MX5 driver ploughs into cyclists on A-road.

[DaveReading]

I don't see anything in the posts that you are taking exception to that constitutes victim blaming.

The accident was primarily caused by the driver being far too close

Fine.

I've had the (mis)fortune to spend my entire career in an industry where there is a clear and universally understood difference between "cause", "responsibility" and "blame" in an accident investigation (in fact the latter term is never used).

If you want to use those terms interchangeably, then of course you are perfectly at liberty to do so.

 

[Slick]

The collision was caused solely by the driver driving straight into a group of riders who were doing nothing wrong.
It was nobody's fault but his.

And thank god the riders had cameras fitted or this may well have been yet another "the cyclist swerved in front of me" scenario where a driver would not have had to answer for his crime.

I haven't bothered with cameras now for some time as I was just enjoying being on the bike. Both are back on charge ready for the weekend ride.

 

[simongt]

Apparently a few years back, the legendary Stirling Moss gave up veteran racing at the age of eighty something saying 'Speed was beginning to scare me.'

 

[Drago]

Stirling Toss? Met him once. I was on duty at Silverstone for the Grand Prix when he wandered over to me at the entrance to the Paddock, camel hair coat over his shoulders, obsequious entourage close in tow.

"Tell such and such I'm here to see him", he barked. No good afternoon, no please, no would you mind awfully. I looked him up and down disdainfully for a moment before replying, "certainly sir, and who should I say is asking?" His face was priceless.

And a few years later he fell down a lift shaft, though that was nothing to do with me.

 

[Origamist]

Yep I agree with what you put is absolute bollocks, I suggest you rewatch, yes the driver was too close, yes he should never have tried to overtake, yes it wasn't safe, but the cause of the accident was the rider moving of line which he had full rights to do, had he not done that there would have been no accident, if would have just been a VERY unsafe pass. BUT more importantly if the driver hadn't been there there would have been no accident.

There are 4 riders in the group. The rider at the rear is the first to be hit. His line does not alter. It is here that the driver loses his wing mirror. The rider in position number three, escapes being hit, he is riding a few inches closer to the hedge and the car is now lacking a wing mirror. The rider in position number two is riding further out and moves slightly to her right and is hit by the car. The rider at the front of the group is not hit by the driver, but is taken out by the projectile bike of rider number two. That is my understanding of the mechanics of this multiple collision.

It's terrible driving and disappointing that the more serious charge of 'Causing Serious Injury by Dangerous Driving' was not pursued.

 

[mjr]

... but the cause of the accident was the rider moving of line which he had full rights to do,

Never mind "full rights" bikes never travel dead straight and that one doesn't vary by more than the standard dynamic envelope of a bike (I think that's specified in DfT LTN2/08 but it might be DMRB IAN 195/16) so it's extremely unreasonable to call that expected within-standard variation a cause, isn't it? You may as well call gravity the cause of the injuries because without it, all concerned would have floated off into space!

 

[Deleted member 26715]

Never mind "full rights" bikes never travel dead straight and that one doesn't vary by more than the standard dynamic envelope of a bike (I think that's specified in DfT LTN2/08 but it might be DMRB IAN 195/16) so it's extremely unreasonable to call that expected within-standard variation a cause, isn't it? You may as well call gravity the cause of the injuries because without it, all concerned would have floated off into space!

You seem to be arguing with yourself.

 

[jefmcg]

You seem to be arguing with yourself

No, he's arguing with you as you insist on being the lone voice blaming the victim in a collision that was 100% the driver's fault.

 

[DaveReading]

You may as well call gravity the cause of the injuries because without it, all concerned would have floated off into space!

You might want to have another think about that. In zero gravity, objects are weightless, not massless. Newton's Laws still apply.

 

[mjr]

You might want to have another think about that. In zero gravity, objects are weightless, not massless. Newton's Laws still apply.

The impacts were with the bikes first and without gravity it would probably have knocked things flying rather than riders into the ground and things on the ground. Or alternatively, none of the vehicles would have traction after hitting the first bump in the road anyway and wouldn't have collided in that manner.

Prove me wrong if you like: reenact that crash in a zero gravity environment. I'll gladly admit my mistake then and anyway, it would be interesting to see

 

[Drago]

You might want to have another think about that. In zero gravity, objects are weightless, not massless. Newton's Laws still apply.

Although it all gets a bit fuzzy arou d massively dense objects where Einsteinian physics takes over.

 

[classic33]

In a Zero G enviroment, they'd not have had any contact with the road surface.

 

[Pale Rider]

There are 4 riders in the group. The rider at the rear is the first to be hit. His line does not alter. It is here that the driver loses his wing mirror. The rider in position number three, escapes being hit, he is riding a few inches closer to the hedge and the car is now lacking a wing mirror. The rider in position number two is riding further out and moves slightly to her right and is hit by the car. The rider at the front of the group is not hit by the driver, but is taken out by the projectile bike of rider number two. That is my understanding of the mechanics of this multiple collision.

It's terrible driving and disappointing that the more serious charge of 'Causing Serious Injury by Dangerous Driving' was not pursued.

I agree with your analysis, but 'causing serious injury by dangerous driving' was always going to be a struggle.

The CPS guidelines say serious injury for this purpose must be the same as 'causing grievous bodily harm' (GBH) in a non-motoring context.

The worst injury seems to be cracked ribs, which probably doesn't amount to GBH.

It does amount to the lesser offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, but Parliament has said that is not sufficient for the purpose of a serious injury by dangerous driving charge.

Put another way, if someone caused those injuries in a pub fight, they would expect to be charged with actual bodily harm, not GBH.

 

[Origamist]

I agree with your analysis, but 'causing serious injury by dangerous driving' was always going to be a struggle.

The CPS guidelines say serious injury for this purpose must be the same as 'causing grievous bodily harm' (GBH) in a non-motoring context.

The worst injury seems to be cracked ribs, which probably doesn't amount to GBH.

It does amount to the lesser offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm, but Parliament has said that is not sufficient for the purpose of a serious injury by dangerous driving charge.

Put another way, if someone caused those injuries in a pub fight, they would expect to be charged with actual bodily harm, not GBH.

I understood that rib fractures were categorised as GBH?

 

[Pale Rider]

I understood that rib fractures were categorised as GBH?

I think it's a matter of legal - and medical - judgment, so there's no absolute answer.

Some rib fractures are presumably more serious than others - isn't it possible to fracture a rib by coughing?

The serious injury charge was made, so someone thought it was a possibility.

Horse trading then comes into it.

The defence offer to plead to simple dangerous if the prosecution drop the serious charge.

The prosecution, probably thinking the serious injury charge is marginal, take the 'bird in the hand' approach.

It may also be the prosecution was not confident of getting simple dangerous past a jury.

Rightly or wrongly, juries have been known to accept the 'it was just an accident' defence by a car driver.