"I can't help it if a cyclist falls over"

[snorri]

In the UK you get what you are given.

That was not my impression, it's maybe different south of the border.
(but I won't argue, 'cos I really have no expertise in the field)

 

[mcshroom]

More details on the case here: -
http://www.henleystandard.co.uk/news/news.php?id=1354657

This quite from the judge defense lawyer is infuriating me: -

Summing up, Mr Fielding said: “Ben Pontin said it was a stupid decision to overtake. It was nowhere near as stupid as Mr Pontin’s decision to put Denisa Perinova on that bike in the first place.

“He ought not to have been so reckless with the life of his young girlfriend and he failed with terrible consequences.”

So cycling on a country lane is now more stupid than overtaking on the wrong side of the road in a car!!!

 

[deptfordmarmoset]

More details on the case here: -
http://www.henleystandard.co.uk/news/news.php?id=1354657

This quite from the judge is infuriating me: -


So cycling on a country lane is now more stupid than overtaking on the wrong side of the road in a car!!!

It wasn't the judge, Fielding was the gobshite for the defence.

 

[mcshroom]

Good point - still infuriating though

 

[400bhp]

It's a particularly nasty thing to say too.

Her boyfriend must be feeling the guilt anyway and that language rubs it in.

 

[Boris Bajic]

Those are very unhelpful words from the defence counsel and quite heartless in the circumstances.

There is a point to be made, but not in that place and not at that time.

The motorist is wholly culpable in that it was her overtaking manoevre in the face of oncoming cyclists that brought about contact between car and cyclist (if contact there was - it seems in doubt).

Nevertheless, there are ways to shield a novice and places to ride with a novice. Another reason I rode behind my children rather than in front was so that I could watch them and they could hear my instructions and advice. If the victim was a novice (as press coverage suggests she was) then riding immediately to her front on a fast section of road may not have been the best decision.

At the same time, all motorists really must start allowing for the pesence of novice cyclists out there. That was something that made me pretty nervous about taking my own children onto the fast A-Roads of the Three Counties when they were still very young. Before they ventured out into the traffic, we'd spent hours and hours on basketball courts and car parks learning the basics of control. Grabbing a handful of brake, missing obstructions, signalling and just being comfortable and being able to throw the bike around and react are all skills that need to be grasped before the fast roads are joined. That the motorist made the ovrtaking manoevre having failed to see the oncoming riders is troubling and wrong. As I've said before on this thread, no blame rests with the victim of her boyfriend.

Not victim blaming - she was not culpable in her own demise and nor was the boyfriend... the motorist was.

 

[Archie_tect]

Mr Fielding, pile on the guilt why don't you... insensitive prat-faced buffoon.

[Edit: Just TMN'd myself!]

 

[Archie_tect]

One can only hope that the car driver will not be the heartless person she portrays herself to be and be riddled with remorse when, in her quietest moments, she's trying to come to terms with what she's done. With time it may make her a better person.... let's hope.

 

[Pale Rider]

The defence they were running was the dead cyclist was the architect of her own misfortune by losing control of the bike and 'falling over' in front of the motorist.

One possibility we ought to consider is the motorist's account is true.

The jury, who heard lots of evidence, apparently believed it.

At the very least they were not satisfied the driving by the motorist was careless.

Her story could be true, she was only overtaking a cyclist, not a vehicle, so there should have been plenty of room for cyclist-car-cyclist across the width of the road.

What if the cyclist did swerve out in front of her?

 

[mcshroom]

The defence they were running was the dead cyclist was the architect of her own misfortune by losing control of the bike and 'falling over' in front of the motorist.

One possibility we ought to consider is the motorist's account is true.

The jury, who heard lots of evidence, apparently believed it.

At the very least they were not satisfied the driving by the motorist was careless.

Her story could be true, she was only overtaking a cyclist, not a vehicle, so there should have been plenty of room for cyclist-car-cyclist across the width of the road.

What if the cyclist did swerve out in front of her?

But that's not what he said. He referred to the victim's boyfriend as being 'reckless with the life of his young girlfriend'.

I don't know where to start.

Perhaps with the sexism, where a woman can't make a decision to ride a bike (her boyfriend must make it for her and thus be deemed responsible), or with the idea that riding a bicycle along a rural road is somehow reckless? If there hadn't been a car bearing down on them at 50mph (which the driver admitted to driving on the other side of the road to overtake other cyclists without being able to see if the road was clear, and admitted to not slowing down when she did notice the cyclists coming the other way) would the same incident have occurred?

 

[Spinney]

And where are you supposed to get experience of riding a bike on the roads other than riding a bike on the roads?

 

[mcshroom]

You're not - you're supposed to grow up and drive a car! - I mean, they don't even pay road tax!!

 

[400bhp]

The defence they were running was the dead cyclist was the architect of her own misfortune by losing control of the bike and 'falling over' in front of the motorist.

One possibility we ought to consider is the motorist's account is true.

The jury, who heard lots of evidence, apparently believed it.

At the very least they were not satisfied the driving by the motorist was careless.

Her story could be true, she was only overtaking a cyclist, not a vehicle, so there should have been plenty of room for cyclist-car-cyclist across the width of the road.

What if the cyclist did swerve out in front of her?

Remove the [supposed 2 abreast cyclists] with a car.

Is that an acceptable overtake by the woman when she collides with the car?

 

[Archie_tect]

There is something twisted about the prosecution and the way the whole case has proceeded.... what a pity the Lord Chief Justice can't intervene and call a mis-trial to right some 'indescretions' on the part of the defence, Judge and prosecution. Their combined ineffectiveness has caused more harm than good, and must have devastated the boyfriend... I can't start to imagine his ordeal and mind-set.

 

[Boris Bajic]

And where are you supposed to get experience of riding a bike on the roads other than riding a bike on the roads?

I, my siblings, my own children, my nephews and neices all learned in our own gardens, on school playgrounds, in supermarket car parks, on sports fields...

I was thrust out onto the roads to ride at a young age, but traffic density in those days was the square root of sod all. I did the same to my children and was roundly condemned for it by family friends who take a more cautious approach.

Nonetheless, none of ours went onto the road before they'd had hours and hours of stopping, turning, high-fiving other siblings, going in and out of slaloms made of jumpers... There is a case to be made for really teaching as much as can be taught before heading onto the highway.

I do not know the true detail of this case or what persuaded the jury to go NG, but if a relative lack of competence was thought (or shown) to have had a contributary effect, then the verdict is no surprise. For all that, the driving of the motorist sounds incautious and wrong.