Discussion in 'General Cycling Discussions' started by PK99, 21 May 2015.
My view is much as yours, but the feeding frenzy wrt cyclist/car accidents is real.
Ah, you got me there. I've been found out as a pavement cycling kiddy murderer. As bad as Savile, perhaps?
This world seems to be going crazy if you ask me. People can no longer accept that accidents are going to happen. Oh no we must play the blame game instead and rant on about how much of a hooligan some guy is riding home. Its like you've never made a mistake in your life. It must feel great to sit on top of the world knowing how perfect you are and how every split decision you make is always going to be the right one. Well sadly that isn't true so as much as the guy in this scenario made a bad decision I'm afraid he won't be the only one. It's called life, we're all moving around trying to get places and sometimes human nature causes us to take our eye off the ball and yes if two people do it at the same time they may just bump into each other. Some people must think they can walk on water if they don't think they're ever going to make a mistake
Could not agree more!
Ericsson had just such a system, 15 years ago. Never caught on for some reason.
The world hasn't gone crazy, you've just stayed sane.
Please remember all those who want a public lynching of this chap or for him to be "torn apart limb to limb" the Daily Mail has history and a massive anti-cycling agenda
The Mail (and other media outlets, including local news) are very selective with how much or how little information they attach to a "news" story.
Which is the same attitude that lets drivers kill cyclists and get away with it.
The guy was riding fast on a pavement without keeping a proper lookout. He is going to be charged for sure. Pointless delving into semantics and throwing in Jimmy Saville in is not going to change anything. These are all irrelevant and steers the argument away from where it should be.
Whether he ran away, his father picked him up or he stood there apologising is best left to the Police to figure out.
I ride on pavement when there is a need. However if I hit a pedestrian let alone a child, shame on me. I certainly not going to tell the parents that accidents will happen. If I did, you have my approval to call me a moron and sock it to me.
In a national publication, then worldwide coverage. Proportionality?
[QUOTE="Hitchington, post: 3720151, member: 23944 the Daily Mail has history and a massive anti-cycling agenda.[/QUOTE]
Seriously? That's a tad melodramatic, isn't it?
No it wasn't.......
... and there are pedestrians on motorways
These two show the dangers faced by workers (also pedestrian) on motorways
... and how much of that pedestrian activity was in areas where vehicles are not allowed...... these also need to be excluded surely?
After all the distance travelled by this group is in parks, footpaths and pedestrian areas where pedestrian / vehicle collisions are impossible.
Why are you not correcting for this factor?
This disagreement about "accident" and "blame" is the tip of a philosophical debate which has been going on for decades (at least). A couple of quick points worth touching on:
Blame does not have to add up to 100% - it depends on the perspective of the "blamer". E.g. from our perspective as cyclists on a cycle forum it may be appropriate for us to apportion all of the blame to the cyclist as he apparently did something stupid, illegal and reckless and we can adjust our own behavior accordingly to everyone's future benefit. But, if I were the parent of the toddler and I had discussed with her nanny the danger of allowing my daughter onto the path unsupervised because of reckless idiots on bikes and she allowed the situation to unfold as it did I might apportion some blame to the nanny, some to the cyclist and some to myself (for employing a careless nanny). I might even shuffle some of the "blame" in the direction of my daughter if I had warned her of the dangers, harsh though it sounds, if I thought that she was at the stage where it was appropriate for her to start taking some responsibility for her actions. This apportioning of "blame" (it is a bad word really) does not have to add up to 100%. From the perspective of the toddler she might blame her mother mostly, figuring that the world is full of dangers and it is her responsibility to protect her from them. Others might blame the designers of the shared cycle path. Chomsky might blame American right wing Republicans (he would find some sort of credible sounding argument).
You can define an accident as being an unknown unknown, an unknown or a known..... etc. In this instance it could be argued that the cyclist was on shakier moral ground (given that he should have been aware of the risks but didn't seem to give a damn as though toddlers running on pavements were nothing more than insects) than someone who went out deliberately to run someone over (who would have at least acknowledged the humanity of his/her victim). This is not my stance but is a respectable position in philosophy circles.
Anyway, in short, there is some truth in what most people are posting on here but as usual the views have become entrenched and seemingly polar opposite.
Separate names with a comma.