"Never mind the speeding, it was the cyclists fault!"

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

downfader

extimus uero philosophus
Location
'ampsheeeer
Is this really what investigators are trying to put across?

http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/8396474.iPod_use_may_have_led_to_cyclist___s_death/

If he had been using the iPod then I would question the validity of the argument that it makes traffic navigation more hazardous. If the guy simply allowed himself to daydream, to switch off then yes, I would say he was partly to blame. Hard but truthful. However I could see no real evidence presented in the article that the rider had actually been using the iPod when he stepped into the path of the lorry... The lorry driver was found to have been doing 56 in a 40mph zone. Would that have meant a reasonable stopping distance had the driver been under the limit.

The road where it happened has been pointed out by people and residents in the area as pretty bad for speeding lorries. There is an industrial complex somewhere along there so the chances of encountering a HGV or skip truck is pretty likely.

Let the floodgates open...
 

BSRU

A Human Being
Location
Swindon
Strange how much speculation seems to count as evidence, the only fact seems top be the lorry way over the speed limit.
 

wesa

Well-Known Member
Location
Oxfordshire
I don't like wearing earphones when I cycle or run on the road, but I do like listening to music when I am not on the road. I often leave the iPod playing buy take the earphones out and just have them round my neck when I am on the road. Judging by the comments of this investigator then I would be responsible if I were run down by a speeding truck.

What happened to beyond reasonable doubt?
 
1) The bloke was speeding
2) Pedestrians step out all the time we all know that...whether they have a mobile glued to their ear or an mp3 player or not.

3) The speeding thingy...if he had been going slower it would have given the odd second or two extra and in tight situations we all know that,that extra second can make the difference.

4) Should I have punctuated between that and that?:whistle:
 

400bhp

Guru
We don't know the facts - just a newspaper snippet and the fact that an accident investigator was quoted.
 

fossyant

Ride It Like You Stole It!
Location
South Manchester
It's mitigation........................

Hence the 'should have had a helmet' etc................. it sucks, but that is how it is.

You get injured in an accident................. helmets/headphones - first questions..........

TBH I've nearly run into an IPed.............. on my bike - off in another world they are.....what's to say this fella wasn't - speeding truck or not.

Ride a bike, you need to 'mitigate your losses'.............. it sucks.............
 

Crankarm

Guru
Location
Nr Cambridge
It's mitigation........................

Hence the 'should have had a helmet' etc................. it sucks, but that is how it is.

You get injured in an accident................. helmets/headphones - first questions..........

TBH I've nearly run into an IPed.............. on my bike - off in another world they are.....what's to say this fella wasn't - speeding truck or not.

Ride a bike, you need to 'mitigate your losses'.............. it sucks.............

:laugh: .
 
Couldnt HEAR the speeding lorry?

Next week...
"Truck hits deaf man crossing road. Investigators say the it's not the driver's fault that there are spaccas wandering around."
Yes, that would be out of order...but what's the difference? Mitigation my arse.
 
Top Bottom