SMIDSY on a dual carriageway

[Inertia]

Now this is 3rd hand but thought I would share as I was shocked. Someone I know of was hit on a dual carriageway by a HGV, it didn't see him, luckily he bounced on his head and fell away from the HGV and survived with a few scrapes.

One of the questions the police asked him was why he wasn't on the cycle path, which to my mind is irrelevant. He answered and said its because its full of glass and you have to cross pavements etc. Should this even be asked though?

 

[BentMikey]

There's always some stupid 'ker that will ask a question like that. It's a bit like "Shouldn't your friend have left 5 minutes later, then he wouldn't have been hit by the lorry." It's victim blaming bullsh1t, and I'd immediately complain about being treated like that.

 

[benb]

Grim. Please keep us updated with this. If I was him, I'd be writing to the police management at that question.

 

[lit]

The police have no business asking him that question, they aren't compulsory and i'd be asking them, why is that relevant.

What's relevant and their duty to investigate is poor driving and possible attitude from the HGV "Driver".

 

[ohnovino]

Depends how the question was asked.

If a non-cyling copper didn't understand why a cyclist would choose the road instead of the cyclepath, asked the question (without ever suggesting the cyclist shouldn't have been on the road) and now understands, then I don't see a problem.

If the policeman was implying the cyclist brought it on himself by being on the road then he's out of order.

 

[davefb]

bah, why wasnt the hgv on a motorway?

fwiw, there is a local dual carraigeway which (rather than spend $$$ upgrading) they banned cyclists AND reduced mph from 70 to 50.. I see the odd one being suicidal, but most avoid it... no cyclepath, you have to take other generally parallel routes...

 

[Recycler]

Depends how the question was asked.

If a non-cyling copper didn't understand why a cyclist would choose the road instead of the cyclepath, asked the question (without ever suggesting the cyclist shouldn't have been on the road) and now understands, then I don't see a problem.

If the policeman was implying the cyclist brought it on himself by being on the road then he's out of order.

I totally agree with that. If plod was simply seeking information (and they do need to investigate accidents) then he was doing his job. If he was blaming the victim then he should be shot.
Without more information it's unfair to criticise the police on this one.

 

[Ian Cooper]

I'd be tempted to ask "Why would I use a cycle path when there's a perfectly good road right next to it?"

 

[Inertia]

I don't know the guy but will try to keep up to date on it. I think I have to give the benefit of the doubt but think its still a stupid question, he shouldn't have to justify being on the road.

Id like to think I would have queried the question if i was in that situation but can imagine having just had the scare of my life, I would be too shook up to argue.

 

[slowfen]

Its totally irrelevant

Do a search on Dainel Cadden.

Something similar was attempted on him, but was totally exonerated on appeal