"Never mind the speeding, it was the cyclists fault!"
- Thread starter downfader
- Start date
Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.
Matthames
Über Member
- Location
- East Sussex
Most modern hearing aids do not have numbers on the volume control and would automatically turn on to a default value which has been set by an audiologist. All digital hearing aids are programmed by the audiologist to the exact requirements of a persons hearing. So using hearing aid settings to determine level of deafness is wrong.
Hearing is not as important as sight when it comes to using the road. Deaf people learn to look more when using the road and this compensate for the loss of hearing.
I use my hearing aids all the time when riding as I would not be able to hear the traffic. Although I have had occasions where I rode without them, such as in rain and when the batteries died. However, using observation skills and forward planning, you can negate the need to use hearing in most traffic situations.
campbellab
Senior Member
- Location
- Swindon
Victim blaming? If someone stepped out in front of you whilst driving I'd consider you a victim too.
OP
OP
downfader
extimus uero philosophus
- Location
- 'ampsheeeer
Perhaps you'd do well to read the article first and then comment. Its not as simple as just stepping out, its a misunderstood set of events.
Deaf people generally pay more visual attention to their environmnet.
A sighted, hearing i-pod wearer MAY be distracted but IS more isolated from their environment
from the coroner is a simple statement of fact
OP
OP
downfader
extimus uero philosophus
- Location
- 'ampsheeeer
No. A coroner expresses a statement of educated opinion. That opinion can sometime be wrong (and has been proven wrong a few times in the past - IRA bomb victims for example)
campbellab
Senior Member
- Location
- Swindon
I have read the article. The truck driver may have been speeding, but he is still a victim if you believe the bloke just walked out infront of him. The death may or may not have been changed by speeding, it may or may not have changed by having the ipod on, but it definitely would have been changed had the bloke not stepped out.
They both victims at the end of the day.
2Loose
Guru
- Location
- Loughborough, Leicestershire.
While driving AND riding, people have stepped out in front of me. Some have even been wearing iPod's.
At no point have I ever blamed their jackets, trousers, hats or iPod's. Much like I scream when i hear that another cyclist has bitten the dust but wasn't wearing hiViz or a helmet - as if that was going them getting into that situation in the first place.
If people can't hear they tend to emphasize the feedback given from their other senses, rather like a deaf or blind person can read a lot more about their surrounding environment than people ever give them credit for.
Fact is, it wasn't the iPod that killed the ped. It was EITHER them stepping out into road without looking, or the driver going too fast for the conditions. Maybe even a combination of the two.
At no point was a piece of electronics to blame, in just the same way that it wasn't the car who hit someone, it was a person in each case. That person chooses to use a music player or not, their actions at the time of the incident determine fault, not what habits they have.
Mitigation is a legal red herring imho.
OP
OP
downfader
extimus uero philosophus
- Location
- 'ampsheeeer
stowie
Legendary Member
I find this story really disturbing. The details are scant, but it would appear that the cyclist wasn't cycling but pushing the bike on foot (so a pedestrian). He may or may not have been using an IPOD, certainly it seems quite speculative - after all I see plenty of people with IPOD headphones around their neck whilst they aren't listening to it.
What is certain is that the truck was going 56mph in a 40mph. This is 40% faster than the speed limit. Surely this excessive speed might be a bigger factor in the pedestrian misjudging the speed of the truck than the fact he may have been listening to music?
It is really worrying that such flaky factors can be used as mitigation. Of course no-one will know for sure what caused the accident, but the onus seems to be so much on the vulnerable party as to be laughable if it wasn't so tragic.
campbellab
Senior Member
- Location
- Swindon
Yes, he was definitely pedestrian not a cyclist.
The ipod is a non factor for me. He either grossly misjudged the speed of the lorry because it was way above the speedlimit or he wasn't paying due care and attention and would have stepped out infront of it whether it was doing the limit or not.
We don't know either way. Neither ped or driver deserved it, hence both victims.
That said I'm suprised the driver got away with going over the speed limit and not be convicted for something.
The ipod is a non factor for me. He either grossly misjudged the speed of the lorry because it was way above the speedlimit or he wasn't paying due care and attention and would have stepped out infront of it whether it was doing the limit or not.
We don't know either way. Neither ped or driver deserved it, hence both victims.
That said I'm suprised the driver got away with going over the speed limit and not be convicted for something.
Contributory factors?
It is undeniable that if the vehicle is slower the injuries are less.
By speeding you choose to exacerbate injuries if you hit someone.
Contributory factors?
It is undeniable that if the vehicle is slower the injuries are less.
By speeding you choose to exacerbate injuries if you hit someone.
monkeypony
Active Member
If you step out into the path of a lorry you are a prat.
It makes no difference if the lorry was doing 10 mph or 100.
It makes no difference if the lorry was doing 10 mph or 100.
That's a bit of a stupid statement isn't it!? At 10mph your travelling at 4.4 metres per second (m/s) but at 100mph you are covering 44m/s. I think the issue here is the greater the speed the harder it is to judge crossing a road. If traffic is moving at 100mph (for arguments sake) it is quite conceivable that the road looks clear when you start to cross but as it takes at least a few seconds to cross a vechile could be on you half way through crossing. Surely speed is a factor when you consider pedestrian's movement? I think an extra 16mph (as someone pointed out 40% more speed) is significant enough to have been major factor here.
Similar threads
