anyone know this cyclist?

Thomk

Veteran
Location
Warwickshire
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:
  1. 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).
  2. 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.
 
[QUOTE="Hitchington, post: 3720151, member: 23944 the Daily Mail has history and a massive anti-cycling agenda.
Seriously? That's a tad melodramatic, isn't it?[/QUOTE]

They have a long history of printing lies to demonise cyclists. Wyatt is a good example, the paper eventually printed a correction after Wyatt claimed her mum had been attacked twice by cyclists. The Mail also labeled a cyclist as a hit and runner when no running whatsoever took place. They've done that twice. Simon Hoggart also claimed to have been attacked by a rider but offered zero evidence (he claimed the rider was doing thirty mph). It was the Mail that described a rider killed by a driver on the wrong side of the road as a "novice cyclist" when she was nothing of the kind. It was the Mail that allows comments that describe riders as "vermin" and "parasites" and threaten to deliberately run over cyclists. It was Simon Heffer in the Mail who called for cyclist registration, it was the Mail that chucks a few terrorism terms at those who ride their bikes to work, saying among them are ‘extremists’, ‘hard-line militants’ and ‘fundamentalists’.
 
that's re-defining the meaning of an existing word.
There's the over-used "accident waiting to happen" which expresses a considerable degree of blame.

Use of "accident" whether "waiting to happen" or not does not in any way absolve blame.

Just out of interest, in your new meaning of accident which is now reduced I guess to "act of God" accidents only, what word is left to cover a blameworthy accident?
The Police and Emergency services now refer to "Incidents" or Collisions"


If there is a contributory factor then it is not an accident
 

shouldbeinbed

Rollin' along
Location
Manchester way
that's re-defining the meaning of an existing word.
There's the over-used "accident waiting to happen" which expresses a considerable degree of blame.

Use of "accident" whether "waiting to happen" or not does not in any way absolve blame.

Just out of interest, in your new meaning of accident which is now reduced I guess to "act of God" accidents only, what word is left to cover a blameworthy accident?
Accident waiting to happen is in the same colloquial category as talking about road tax though. Its not a formal nor even a correct assertion simply common parlance from a population that doesn't know better.

Official definitions, terminology & used by law enforcement and judiciary have ceased to use accident for @Cunobelin's reasoning.

Here it is absolutely within the bounds of reason to think that houses on clearly residential streets at school chucking out time with 2 schools in very close proximity to that road (google maps it) where a young woman is attending to a car might well have small children somewhere in the vicinity and one should moderate ones speed and hazard awareness accordingly. Notwithstanding that the cyclist speed and hazard awareness for being on a residential pavement would appear to be well out of reasonable boundaries at any time

*EDIT cross post with above*
 
Last edited:

Tin Pot

Guru
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:
  1. 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).
  2. 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.
There are two approaches to take when something untoward has happened;

1. Find someone to blame
2. Figure out how to reduce the probability and impact of it happening again

I have never found approach one to be useful.
 

Lemond

Senior Member
Location
Sunny Suffolk
Seriously? That's a tad melodramatic, isn't it?
They have a long history of printing lies to demonise cyclists. Wyatt is a good example, the paper eventually printed a correction after Wyatt claimed her mum had been attacked twice by cyclists. The Mail also labeled a cyclist as a hit and runner when no running whatsoever took place. They've done that twice. Simon Hoggart also claimed to have been attacked by a rider but offered zero evidence (he claimed the rider was doing thirty mph). It was the Mail that described a rider killed by a driver on the wrong side of the road as a "novice cyclist" when she was nothing of the kind. It was the Mail that allows comments that describe riders as "vermin" and "parasites" and threaten to deliberately run over cyclists. It was Simon Heffer in the Mail who called for cyclist registration, it was the Mail that chucks a few terrorism terms at those who ride their bikes to work, saying among them are ‘extremists’, ‘hard-line militants’ and ‘fundamentalists’.[/QUOTE]

More hysterical nonsense. Why am I not surprised.
 
It was of course the Mail that published the James Martin piece about the hilarity to be had by aiming your car at riders to force them off the road:

Before long, Martin's Wikipedia entry had been hacked, the Daily Mail website had removed the facility to comment on the story so that no one else could call him a moron and cyclists' organisation the CTC had waded in, urging the cyclists terrorised by Martin to contact the organisation's accident line. An inevitable Facebook group was formed, with over 1,000 people signing up to declare I Hate James Martin, and dozens of angry cyclists began to bombard his agent and publisher with emails.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/green-living-blog/2009/sep/15/james-martin-cyclists
 

Thomk

Veteran
Location
Warwickshire
There are two approaches to take when something untoward has happened;

1. Find someone to blame
2. Figure out how to reduce the probability and impact of it happening again

I have never found approach one to be useful.
You will find that both are addressed in the post you quoted and 1 is simply a method of gathering information to achieve 2.
 
OP
P

PK99

Guru
Location
SW19
There are two approaches to take when something untoward has happened;

1. Find someone to blame
2. Figure out how to reduce the probability and impact of it happening again

I have never found approach one to be useful.
Who was to blame in this case? The cyclist for cycling on the pavement at an unreasonable speed

To reduce repeat probability: said cyclist to ride on road not pavement.
 
The more subtle campaign with Martin was with the car company

One of Martin's hobbies was fast cars, and as a result of adverse publicity, Tesla and others refused to allow him vehicles to test drive.
 

Tin Pot

Guru
Who was to blame in this case? The cyclist for cycling on the pavement at an unreasonable speed

To reduce repeat probability: said cyclist to ride on road not pavement.
It really doesn't matter - all you've got to show for it is 23 pages of annoyed people.

For the people involved - they need to learn lessons not blame people.

For society, they need to understand why people choose to ride on roads, what could be done to reduce the risk of this happening again. Blaming a parent or a cyclist will make fark all difference.
 
Top Bottom