London cyclist may have hit door

[Scruffmonster]

http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-cyclists/

That's required reading. EVERYONE should read it.

Someone copy/paste and make it a sticky thread or add it to n existing one.

Thank you Hawk.

 

[Hawk]

That's required reading. EVERYONE should read it.

Someone copy/paste and make it a sticky thread or add it to n existing one.

Thank you Hawk.

I agree, superb reading for anyone who uses the roads. I think it should be tagged on to the "essential guide for new commuters" maybe?

 

[SportMonkey]

http://www.londoncyclist.co.uk/raf-pilot-teach-cyclists/

You want the original, and then take note of how subjective and biased the original is: http://www.verulamcc.org.uk/Uploads/pdfs/2012/How we see - impact on cyclists.pdf

That's required reading. EVERYONE should read it.

Someone copy/paste and make it a sticky thread or add it to n existing one.

Thank you Hawk.

No, it isn't. If you have to you should just read the original, not the piece about it. It is opinion masquerading as science.


To show you the unscientific opinion from the PDF:

While it is generally understood that a low sun can make it difficult to see, it is probably not generally understood why: driving into sun reduces contrast, especially when vehicles and pedestrians fall into the shadow of larger, up-sun objects. You must beware that even large vehicles, and especially motorbikes, cyclists and pedestrians, can become completely impossible to see under these circumstances, and you must moderate your driving accordingly. This is why fighter pilots attack from out of the sun!

Yes the contrast between objects may have reduced contrast, but against the sun the contrast is massive. Fighter jets don't attack from out of the sun for the light, that doesn't affect the radar which will let you know the aircraft is there, they do to try and avoid long range missile lock: http://www.flightsimbooks.com/jfs/page31.php.

 

[Hawk]

You want the original, and then take note of how subjective and biased the original is: http://www.verulamcc.org.uk/Uploads/pdfs/2012/How we see - impact on cyclists.pdf



No, it isn't. If you have to you should just read the original, not the piece about it. It is opinion masquerading as science.

I did read the original. I'm surprised you found it biased or subjective?

Looking at the "piece about it" it seems to say very much the same stuff, at times word-for-word.

What was any of it biased in favour of? I don't see it at all...

 

[SportMonkey]

I did read the original. I'm surprised you found it biased or subjective?

Looking at the "piece about it" it seems to say very much the same stuff, at times word-for-word.

What was any of it biased in favour of? I don't see it at all...

I was updating the above, and things like the following are meaningless:

"Clinically, you are blind in your peripheral vision."

 

[Hawk]

I was updating the above, and things like the following are meaningless:

Can see what you mean, yeah. Don't think it's biased or subjective, just a bit technically inaccurate in its phrasing...

 

[tonyhalsall]

Clinically you are NOT blind in your peripheral vision and it is your peripheral vision that best detects movement albeit not definition.

 

[Scruffmonster]

I was updating the above, and things like the following are meaningless:

When I read something I don't have to find every single line to be perfectly written to understand the concept. Some parts were wordy, some presumptuous, others I just thought 'That can't possibly be accurate'.

Yet as an insight, to me, there is enough in there to recommend it to others.

 

[mr_cellophane]

He got off - WTF

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-20725496

I hope he at least got some punishment for the blacked out windows.

 

[andytheflyer]

I trust that there are some lawyers on here who can explain how this verdict came about? I'd be most interested to hear it.

 

[Hacienda71]

It does seem a bit odd, although we are not privvy to everything from a press report. Just very sad a cyclist passed away in this manner.

 

[Graham]

I can't believe that no-one is to be held accountable for this guy's death. So he just fell off his bike under a bus for no reason?

See it was a jury decision though, not a judge on his own. Presumably the jury felt that, based on the facts, the legal requirements for a manslaughter conviction were not met.

 

[asterix]

Well I am amazed and disappointed. My own dooring incident was held to be the door opener's fault and I was awarded very significant compensation. Police never found the culrpit, only civil action taken.

I trust the culprit will be pursued by the victim's family in the civil courts at least.

 

[Beebo]

Well I am amazed and disappointed. My own dooring incident was held to be the door opener's fault and I was awarded very significant compensation. Police never found the culrpit, only civil action taken.

I trust the culprit will be pursued by the victim's family in the civil courts at least.

The difference between a criminal and civil case is huge. You need to convict on the basis of beyond reasonable doubt, I am sure that there will be a civil case and insurers will pay out.

as the judge said, no one is a winner in this case. It does seem that Death by dangerous driving or some other similar crime could have been considered.

 

[Buddfox]

The judge is wrong - the accused is a winner, he directly caused the death of another human being by his own (admitted) failure to act in accordance with the law, and is getting away with it. It's so depressing.