It's news coverage and police 'comments' like this that boil my p*ss

[ComedyPilot]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-34495508

Not cycling related, but that is irrelevant, it's about vulnerable road users and motorists perceived not at fault status I find very hard to stomach.

 

[alicat]

You are putting two and two together and getting five. It was dark and the report doesn't say exactly what happened. It is possible the driver did not realise they had hit a person. Have you considered there may be an alternative explanation ie they may giving the driver an opportunity to do the right thing and come forward so they can get to the truth of what happened.

 

[shouldbeinbed]

Agreed, but having been in the car as a kid when my dad ran over a dog, the noise and sensation of having hit something was palpable. A human, being larger & lying inert in the road (as it sounds from the report) even taking a glancing blow would likely have registered something through steering/suspension feedback to the driver that something odd had happened.

As to it being dark, not even BMW have tried making headlights an optional extra yet.

 

[swee'pea99]

Does sound more than a bit iffy. "Our investigations have shown that it is possible that the driver of the vehicle may not have been immediately aware they had struck a person." Can't help wondering what 'investigations' could have revealed such a possibility.

 

[Drago]

Depends on the vehicle. You can crash a car into the rear of a laden 40 tonne artic and the driver eating his yorkie in the front may not know about it.

What vehicle do they suspect hit the poor fellow?

 

[TVC]

The article doesn't suggest that the driver might have been unaware that he hit anything. Dogs, foxes and badgers can be big lumps, and the driver could easily have got home shaken and angry at the damage to his bumper without even considering the possibility of it being a person laid out in the road.

But I speculate.

 

[Dan B]

Depends on the vehicle. You can crash a car into the rear of a laden 40 tonne artic and the driver eating his yorkie in the front may not know about it.

What vehicle do they suspect hit the poor fellow?

According to the report, "a small dark coloured vehicle". Probably not a laden artic then

 

[buggi]

I agree, it's bollox to say you don't know when you hit something, but some people don't stop for animals and if he thought he'd hit a badger or deer that was already lying in the road he may just thought it was dead already. I suppose though that there is always the chance the person hadn't fallen but then maybe that is the police playing it that way in order to get the person to come forward

 

[mr messy]

Kind of ties in with what i believe to now be the accepted form of driving...do not deviate or slow down or take defensive action. Plough on regardless. Used to be you'd try to avoid the likes of potholes and other dangers on the road. The "volvo mentality" makes it more dangerous for all road users.

 

[Accy cyclist]

Was the pedestrian wearing high viz? If not then....

 

[Andy_R]

Anyone who doesn't know the difference between a speed hump and a body shouldn't be driving.

 

[Levo-Lon]

From some off the driving i see from time to time,some people are oblivious to Everything unless its in the front windscreen view, and if the dash is full of cudley toys a sat nav and some nice dark tint so its as ilegal as poss who knows...music on and busy with the important phone call??

or maybe they were drunk or drugged ,or no insurance etc so just did a runner..
happens all the time.

If i hit a sparrow in my van or a big bumble bee i know i hit something...

 

[snorri]

The words hit and struck are use to describe the coming together of vehicle and victim, there is no suggestion that the car had been driven over the victim. Anyway, we are reading the press interpretation of the Police statement, plenty of scope for error and confusion there.

 

[ClichéGuevara]

Many moons ago, I was on a motorbike when a car turned right across me and I ploughed into the side of him and somersaulted into the air. Another car chased the car that hit me, but let him go as the car was still pulling away when he had reached 60mph on a narrow street. The driver that gave chase said he assumed I would be dead, and had reported it to the Police within seconds of the crash.

The Police were at the drivers house within minutes. I think they got to him before the ambulance got to me. They got him out of bed, breathalysed him, and he failed.

His punishment? 3 points on his licence for driving with undue care and attention and a fine less than the witness driver had received a few months earlier for doing 39 mph on a 30 mph dual carriageway at 2 am.

He said he didn't know he'd hit me. He thought it was just tools moving about in his boot. (I believe his car was written off). His mother testified that he'd ran into the house, gulped down the whiskey she always left for him, and ran to bed. The judge accepted this version.

 

[MontyVeda]

[QUOTE 3948024, member: 76"]... But if the road had hump after hump, and they slowed appropriately to deal with another dark hump in the road, I can see it happening.

... So, in the dark, unknown stretch of road, dark object after dark object...[/QUOTE]

headlights???