Journalism and cycling

randomname2005 · 09-10-2018 11:38am

Rechuchote wrote: »

Not the same.

a) Automated cameras would be a lot cheaper, and would catch a lot more people and therefore cut the speeding rates far more because the word would spread.
b) Before looking for more gardaí we'd need a change in garda culture.
c) The gardaí that we actually need are to investigate things like people creeping around farmyards with lurchers and then creeping off with expensive farm machinery.
d) (not in answer to MB's post) It's not on the M50 that we need automated speed cameras - at least the first to be installed - so much as on urban and suburban junctions.
e) We badly need traffic policing - illegal parking, mobile phone use in cars, speeding to be separated from Garda work and done by a new and separate group who can issue tickets, like the old meter maids; we also need to automate a lot of it - for instance having front and back cameras on buses to automatically issue fines to people illegally driving in bus lanes.
f) We need a cultural change so that all of the above is seen as safety, and as important for individuals and society, rather than a shocking and mean interference in the rights of private citizens to post a funny picture on Instagram while swerving back and forth through traffic and red lights at speed.

I agree with these ideas, but I don't think we, as a country are mature enough to accept these (echoing point f). There will be cries of nanny state, invasion of privacy etc. We have finally gotten to a point (in most of the country) where drink driving is seen as the dangerous activity that it is, but there is no widespread recognition that speeding can be as dangerous, that accelerating when the light goes orange and passing over the line when the light is red is not okay. And I have no idea how this message can be gotten through to Joe and Jane Soap while the gardai are either not there to enforce it, or turn a blind eye to it - if it is not being enforced then it must not be important, right?

meeeeh · 09-10-2018 11:48am

CramCycle wrote: »

On motorways, look at here, facebook, twitter, all you hear are complaints, people saying we should have our motorways like the autobahn (typically people who have never been on an autobahn and don't realise how they operate), no need for a speed limit on our motorways.

I'm not in favour of no speed limit on motorways and a lot of German motorways have it anyway but I don't think higher 130 kph speed limit would be an issue. But can I ask how do autobahns operate? I drove there before and haven't noticed any major difference.

magicbastarder · 09-10-2018 11:56am

autobahns are not necessarily safer.
i know a comparison is probably a little foolish, but they carry 30% of traffic in germany and account for 11% of fatalities.
in the UK, they carry 20% of traffic but account for 6% of fatalities.

plus, not all autobahns are limit-free.

meeeeh · 09-10-2018 12:04pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

autobahns are not necessarily safer.
i know a comparison is probably a little foolish, but they carry 30% of traffic in germany and account for 11% of fatalities.
in the UK, they carry 20% of traffic but account for 6% of fatalities.

plus, not all autobahns are limit-free.

I know that. I just don't there is anything different about them or at least I don't remember them being any different. Frankly driving on a busy autobahn when you are not used driving there constantly is not a picnic, you really need to concentrate. In comparison Irish motorways are very easy to drive on. Best I've driven on though are actually Hungarian because everyone knows very well how to behave on motorways and they are fairly empty.

Macy0161 · 09-10-2018 12:15pm

I really don't see motorways as the focus for speeding, especially in the context of the safety of vulnerable road users like cyclists and pedestrians. Urban and regional road should be the main focus for speeding, and compliance in general. I was in before 7 this morning - the 7-7 bus lanes were ridiculous for the speed that motorists were travelling, and driver behaviour in general.

Snickers Man · 09-10-2018 12:51pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

it completely negates the whole point of them. you shouldn't be given forewarning about the (very limited) specific spots you actually need to adhere to the speed limit on.

What IS "the whole point of them"? To catch a few people and fine them or to improve general road user behaviour and thereby improve safety?

I would suggest the latter but there are clearly some people with a taste for vindictiveness who would prefer the former.

It's analogous to the asinine point of view, forcibly expressed by some on these boards, that "flashing" oncoming motorists to warn them of a speed check should be an offence. It should be rewarded!!

Personally I find that one of the most effective ways of encouraging me to take my foot off the gas is the use of flashing electronic speedometers linked to speed limit signs at the side of the road which tell you your speed when it is approaching or exceeding the local limit. It's a great way of reminding you that you may have strayed into dangerous driving territory.

Of course such signs don't discourage those who are tempted to speed regardless. No sympathy for THEM when they are caught. But they do act as a good spur (if that is the right analogy!) to those who may have absentmindedly failed to realise that they are in a lower speed limit area or that they have not noticed their speed has picked up. They/we tend to adjust accordingly and do so without the burden of a fine and points.

That's a good thing, as far as I am concerned. But it won't please the "Hang 'em and flog 'em!" brigade.

Snickers Man · 09-10-2018 12:58pm

meeeeh wrote: »

But can I ask how do autobahns operate? I drove there before and haven't noticed any major difference.

I know nobody hitch hikes any more but in my dim and distant youth (1980s) while hitchhiking in Europe, you would absolutely know the difference between an Autobahn in Germany and, say, a French Autoroute.

While hitching at a service area (hitchhiking on Autobahnen themselves is Strengst Verboten) the noise of the cars in Germany was quantitatively different from elsewhere.

In most countries cars sound like cars; on an Autobahn they sound like jet fighters on an airport runway. Yeeoowww!!!

randomname2005 · 09-10-2018 1:02pm

Snickers Man wrote: »

What IS "the whole point of them"? To catch a few people and fine them or to improve general road user behaviour and thereby improve safety?

Are the two mutually exclusive? As I see it, there is no catching and fining for a lot of offences (such as breaking red lights, using phones, driving in bus lanes during operation hours). If a few (or many) are caught then the general road user behaviour improves, as does road safety.

magicbastarder · 09-10-2018 1:12pm

Snickers Man wrote: »

It's analogous to the asinine point of view, forcibly expressed by some on these boards, that "flashing" oncoming motorists to warn them of a speed check should be an offence. It should be rewarded!!

**** 'em - if they're speeding, let them get caught. might cool their jets a bit.

Snickers Man · 09-10-2018 1:24pm

randomname2005 wrote: »

Are the two mutually exclusive?

No but they're not synonymous or symbiotic either and the latter is more important.

Internet Friend · 09-10-2018 1:52pm

Budget related: Funding (unspecified figure) is being allocated to planning and completing greenways, nothing more really said about it but we'll find out more at some stage.

Felexicon · 09-10-2018 2:20pm

Internet Friend wrote: »

Budget related: Funding (unspecified figure) is being allocated to planning and completing greenways, nothing more really said about it but we'll find out more at some stage.

€10m for Greenways I thought.

Internet Friend · 09-10-2018 2:22pm

Felexicon wrote: »

€10m for Greenways I thought.

Ah, must have missed that.

Macy0161 · 09-10-2018 3:15pm

Snickers Man wrote:

What IS "the whole point of them"? To catch a few people and fine them or to improve general road user behaviour and thereby improve safety?

I think the point is, if they were more of them, more randomly placed, there'd be more overall compliance. Rather than the compliance being just in the short runs that people know they are frequently. Even the whole restriction of private cameras to black spots is a sop to the social acceptance of speeding.

RobbieMD · 09-10-2018 3:19pm

Rechuchote wrote: »

Not the same.

a) Automated cameras would be a lot cheaper, and would catch a lot more people and therefore cut the speeding rates far more because the word would spread.
b) Before looking for more gardaí we'd need a change in garda culture.
c) The gardaí that we actually need are to investigate things like people creeping around farmyards with lurchers and then creeping off with expensive farm machinery.
d) (not in answer to MB's post) It's not on the M50 that we need automated speed cameras - at least the first to be installed - so much as on urban and suburban junctions.
e) We badly need traffic policing - illegal parking, mobile phone use in cars, speeding to be separated from Garda work and done by a new and separate group who can issue tickets, like the old meter maids; we also need to automate a lot of it - for instance having front and back cameras on buses to automatically issue fines to people illegally driving in bus lanes.
f) We need a cultural change so that all of the above is seen as safety, and as important for individuals and society, rather than a shocking and mean interference in the rights of private citizens to post a funny picture on Instagram while swerving back and forth through traffic and red lights at speed.

How would the bus camera differentiate between someone blatantly being in the bus lane, and someone entering the lane to turn left at a junction? Or would someone have to review 1000s hrs of bus footage to issue whatever the fine is... Seems mad to me.

randomname2005 · 09-10-2018 4:25pm

Snickers Man wrote: »

No but they're not synonymous or symbiotic either and the latter is more important.

If I may presume that the benefits of the symbiotic relationship would be the reduction in the number of fines and points on one side and the increase in driving standards on the other, then it won't happen because there will always be people who value five minutes of their time over the safety of others.

cdaly_ · 09-10-2018 5:12pm

RobbieMD wrote: »

How would the bus camera differentiate between someone blatantly being in the bus lane, and someone entering the lane to turn left at a junction? Or would someone have to review 1000s hrs of bus footage to issue whatever the fine is... Seems mad to me.

Presumably if they're within the dashed line area at the junction they're ok, otherwise they get points and fine. It wouldn't be hard to either have dashed line recognition or gps-based location recognition.

CramCycle · 09-10-2018 5:36pm

meeeeh wrote: »

I'm not in favour of no speed limit on motorways and a lot of German motorways have it anyway but I don't think higher 130 kph speed limit would be an issue. But can I ask how do autobahns operate? I drove there before and haven't noticed any major difference.

I suppose the point is that our lanes are only rated to safely drive at 120kmph. There is a specific minimum width that a lane must be to accomodate the almost unnoticed drifting that increases with a vehicle, directly related to its speed. Parts of the M50 are not 100kmph for the fun of it, they are like that because it has been assessed that the lanes are not suitable for higher speed limits. We won't ever see those limits increase IMO, no matter how people feel about how safe it is.

magicbastarder wrote: »

autobahns are not necessarily safer.
i know a comparison is probably a little foolish, but they carry 30% of traffic in germany and account for 11% of fatalities.
in the UK, they carry 20% of traffic but account for 6% of fatalities.

plus, not all autobahns are limit-free.

They are not, which alot of people don't realise, the speed limit often changes on them depending on other things going on.

cdaly_ wrote: »

Presumably if they're within the dashed line area at the junction they're ok, otherwise they get points and fine. It wouldn't be hard to either have dashed line recognition or gps-based location recognition.

Put a decent margin of error in there and your sorted

Lumen · 09-10-2018 5:44pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

autobahns are not necessarily safer.
i know a comparison is probably a little foolish, but they carry 30% of traffic in germany and account for 11% of fatalities.
in the UK, they carry 20% of traffic but account for 6% of fatalities.

plus, not all autobahns are limit-free.

From what I read, almost no autobahns are limit free. I think I've seen 4% quoted. And many of those are dual carriageways.

RobbieMD · 09-10-2018 5:49pm

cdaly_ wrote: »

Presumably if they're within the dashed line area at the junction they're ok, otherwise they get points and fine. It wouldn't be hard to either have dashed line recognition or gps-based location recognition.

And how much would these cameras cost? An absolute fortune. Cost prohibitive I'd say. Dublin bus and other bus services would have to be onboard with this. And then who pays to run it? How would the data be stored? If the prosecution is in the name of AGS, then how do they account for the custody of the evidence? Ie the hard drive or whatever. In theory it's a fine idea, but in practice, to prosecute it criminally would be a nightmare

cdaly_ · 09-10-2018 6:26pm

RobbieMD wrote: »

And how much would these cameras cost? An absolute fortune. Cost prohibitive I'd say.

Cameras already on board, just a data stream problem.

Dublin bus and other bus services would have to be onboard with this.

BusConnects...

And then who pays to run it?

See my first point + your taxes.

How would the data be stored?

Who knows.

If the prosecution is in the name of AGS, then how do they account for the custody of the evidence?

Some clever method I don't doubt, just like they do with privately operated speed camera vans.

Ie the hard drive or whatever. In theory it's a fine idea, but in practice, to prosecute it criminally would be a nightmare

Just like with privately operated speed camera vans.

magicbastarder · 09-10-2018 6:35pm

is the data not already stored? it's mainly a jurisdictional issue i suspect.
if the traffic corps can act on footage sent in from joe soap in pursuing a complaint, how would scaling up such a system work?

RobbieMD · 09-10-2018 6:44pm

cdaly_ wrote: »

Cameras already on board, just a data stream problem.
BusConnects...
See my first point + your taxes.
Who knows.
Some clever method I don't doubt, just like they do with privately operated speed camera vans.
Just like with privately operated speed camera vans.

Running it is way more than just the cost of the cameras, there are serious issues to deal with regarding compliance with data protection laws. And I would have serious doubts about the quality of the cameras on the buses. Fine inside, but how about the quality on a dark rainy night? Good quality ANPR cameras are quite expensive.

Th GoSafe operators are required to give evidence if one of their prosecutions, in the name of AGS, is contested. Who would give evidence in the case of the bus camera?

Again the data storage is a big issue. I know most buses are already equipped with CCTV however, I imagine there would be issues around data storage for use in prosecutions by AGS. Who would be responsible for the issuing of the FCPNs?

Possibly stupid question but what are BusConnects?

I'm not against ththe idea of using technology to assist in offence detection, however if it's a criminal prosecution, the burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt, just slapping a camera on a bus and posting tickets out sounds fine but in reality wouldn't get past the first fought case in court.

RobbieMD · 09-10-2018 7:01pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

is the data not already stored? it's mainly a jurisdictional issue i suspect.
if the traffic corps can act on footage sent in from joe soap in pursuing a complaint, how would scaling up such a system work?

The difference is that if it's necessary for a hearing in court, whatever member took your complaint would witness summons you to give evidence. This would cover the various elements in the definition for whatever offence is being prosecuted. So say for holding a mobile phone, the member would put you in the witness box, and then ask you where it happened. This is to cover the public place part of the offence. You would give evidence of the car registration etc. How you knew it was a phone, phone colour, what ear it was held up to, description of the driver etc. You would also give evidence about the CCTV. There is some specific questions about the downloading of the footage that is also asked, and you must retain the original recording. The member would also cover chain of evidence regarding the recording. Of course that only comes into play if the defendant pleads not guilty.

meeeeh · 09-10-2018 8:34pm

CramCycle wrote: »

I suppose the point is that our lanes are only rated to safely drive at 120kmph. There is a specific minimum width that a lane must be to accomodate the almost unnoticed drifting that increases with a vehicle, directly related to its speed. Parts of the M50 are not 100kmph for the fun of it, they are like that because it has been assessed that the lanes are not suitable for higher speed limits. We won't ever see those limits increase IMO, no matter how people feel about how safe it is.

Yeah but M50 is glorified bypass and most of it completely inappropriate for 120kph. I'm not sure why speed signs in Ireland are not adjusted to the road. For example it wouldn't be unusual to see a 90kph road that is signposted 60kph before the junction and once you pass the junction you know that road reverts back to 90kph (no sign, you have to rely on your knowledge of the rules). Autobahns you mentioned do exactly that. There is no speed limit except when it is signposted as whatever speed is deemed safe. Similarly if anyone drove in Italy there are plenty of parts which are signposted as lower than 130kph. In normal weather parts of Europe would assume that the signposted speed limit is the one you are supposed to adhere to. Someone doing 40 on 90 road would be considered danger on the road and could be stopped for traffic infringement. You will be also fined if you are caught doing 130 on a road that has temporarily speed limit of
80 because of weather. Anyway it's a myth that there is no speed limit on autobahns, there are plenty.

magicbastarder · 09-10-2018 9:36pm

meeeeh wrote: »

Yeah but M50 is glorified bypass and most of it completely inappropriate for 120kph.

i think the m50 is only 120 south of leopardstown?

Hurrache · 09-10-2018 9:58pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

i think the m50 is only 120 south of leopardstown?

Yeah, then ends again before Bray.

Hurrache · 09-10-2018 9:59pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

i think the m50 is only 120 south of leopardstown?

Yeah, just after the Sandyford exit southbound then ends again before Bray.

meeeeh · 09-10-2018 10:13pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

i think the m50 is only 120 south of leopardstown?

That's my point and it shouldn't be 120 kph.

Hurrache · 09-10-2018 10:18pm

meeeeh wrote: »

That's my point and it shouldn't be 120 kph.

That section is perfectly fine for such a limit.

meeeeh · 09-10-2018 10:27pm

Hurrache wrote: »

That section is perfectly fine for such a limit.

I meant it shouldn't be 120 all the way. M50 is actually an example where speed limits are set with a bit of sense not just sticking 80 kph on a road without actually making sure it's appropriate for 80 kph.

cdaly_ · 10-10-2018 9:46am

RobbieMD wrote: »

Possibly stupid question but what are BusConnects?

BusConnects is the new traffic plan for Dublin which requires bus lanes to be kept clear for buses. Presumably this means Dublin Bus (and other operators) would be on board with the idea of carrying cameras...

CramCycle · 10-10-2018 9:53am

MOD VOICE: As has been pointed out to me (and I am guilty of it too), this thread has gone way off topic, lets get it back on topic going forward.

mr spuckler · 17-10-2018 1:29pm

oh no.

College Green plans refused by An Bord Pleanála amid bus and traffic concerns
Pedestrian and cycle plaza would have ‘significantly negative impacts’

CramCycle · 17-10-2018 1:33pm

Jebus H Chrimbo,

The council’s plans clashed with the National Transport Authority’s BusConnects proposed redesign of Dublin Bus network. The redesign proposes two-way bus services on Parliament Street. However, under the plaza plans this was to remain a one-way street because of air pollution risks.

How do too essentially government bodies clash at this level, how was there no communication?!?

Seth Brundle · 17-10-2018 1:43pm

CramCycle wrote: »

How do too essentially government bodies clash at this level, how was there no communication?!?

"Old habits die hard"

mr spuckler · 17-10-2018 3:26pm

aaaaggggghhhh, just NO again.

“He told me he saw the cyclist ahead of him. He told me he saw the cyclist turn his head but the cyclist did not alter his position on the road,” Garda Vance said.

Ms Harrington, who was in the front seat, heard a bang and her husband realised the car had collided with the bicycle as they passed.

Mr Carney was not wearing a helmet or high visibility clothing, the court heard.

The jury of three women and three men returned a verdict of accidental death and made a recommendation that all cyclists wear helmets.

Forensic Collision Investigator Garda John Culleton said both the car and the bicycle were travelling in the same direction at a similar speed along Butterfield Park when the collision occurred.

“Both parties were travelling alongside and either could have encroached on the other. One moved towards the other and contact was made.

“I cannot say who made the contact between these vehicles. There was contact between both parties but I can’t say who made the manoeuvre that resulted in contact,” Garda Culleton said.

the whole report makes me really angry. he said he saw the cyclist ahead of him and yet the lack of hi-viz is referenced for some reason. he said the cyclist didn't move off his line and yet they can't say who collided with who. what does it take to create any accountability for killing cyclists?

Hurrache · 17-10-2018 3:28pm

Read that today, you'd have to wonder how much more highvis could help at 8am at the end of June.

On a lighter note, this is genius.

https://twitter.com/lennartnout/status/1052537577855700997

Felexicon · 17-10-2018 3:56pm

Why did I look in the comments section on The Journal.

I must secretly hate myself.

randomname2005 · 17-10-2018 4:03pm

Hurrache wrote: »

Read that today, you'd have to wonder how much more highvis could help at 8am at the end of June.

On a lighter note, this is genius.

https://twitter.com/lennartnout/status/1052537577855700997

Great idea, but could you imagine the uproar in this country if they did that.

buffalo · 17-10-2018 4:24pm

mr spuckler wrote: »

the whole report makes me really angry. he said he saw the cyclist ahead of him and yet the lack of hi-viz is referenced for some reason. he said the cyclist didn't move off his line and yet they can't say who collided with who. what does it take to create any accountability for killing cyclists?

They are some bizarre statements. "He told me he saw the cyclist ahead of him. He told me he saw the cyclist turn his head but the cyclist did not alter his position on the road"... surely that can only be interpreted as, "he knew I was coming, but didn't get out of my way" ?

I'd like to see a full transcript of the inquest, they seem to be complete jokes sometimes.

CramCycle · 17-10-2018 4:24pm

That poor guy, the driver admits the bloody crime, how in hell's name does this not result in a conviction, loss of license and car seizure. It is disgusting.

Fian · 17-10-2018 4:34pm

This makes my blood boil. If I see a car ahead of me, rear end it or go to overtake it and collide with it nobody would be in any doubt as to who was at fault. Much less if i explicitly stated that the car in front didn't alter its position on the road.

magicbastarder · 17-10-2018 4:38pm

CramCycle wrote: »

That poor guy, the driver admits the bloody crime, how in hell's name does this not result in a conviction, loss of license and car seizure. It is disgusting.

i am guessing that it boils down to an inability to prove whether the cyclist swerved into the car, or the car swerved into the cyclist (according to the gardai).
even though, as pointed out, the driver statement was that the cyclist did not alter his position.

and a certain amount of 'poor man, hasn't he suffered enough' for the driver.

can an inquest recommend a prosecution? or is that purely a matter for the DPP; and if so, can the DPP proceed even if the inquest rules accidental death?

Seth Brundle · 17-10-2018 4:47pm

buffalo wrote: »

They are some bizarre statements. "He told me he saw the cyclist ahead of him. He told me he saw the cyclist turn his head but the cyclist did not alter his position on the road"... surely that can only be interpreted as, "he knew I was coming, but didn't get out of my way" ?

I'd like to see a full transcript of the inquest, they seem to be complete jokes sometimes.

I was wondering that too.
The cyclist didn't move position on the road (so travelling in a straight line)
The driver saw the cyclist.
The car overtook the cyclist.
The car and cyclist somehow met.
Given the above facts, there is no doubt that the driver is completely at fault and the coroner's court failed to assign blame for whatever reason.
If the car went to overtake and the cyclist didn't move line, then the car was too close, despite seeing the cyclist. It was a dangerous overtaking manouvre: full stop.
Then the court proceeds to pont towards the cyclists clothing despite the driver confirming that they saw the cyclist.
It may be possible that the cyclist would be alive had he been wearing a helmet but this doesn't remove the blame (IMO) from the driver - the driver should not have attempted the overtaking manouvre given the facts and outcome.

Muahahaha · 17-10-2018 4:51pm

Supreme Court Judge Peter Charlston (in his Tribunal report) took at broadside at the lack of Garda visibility on the streets and included cycle lanes as part of it

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/judge-criticises-extraordinarily-rare-presence-of-gardaí-on-the-streets-1.3660270

The failure of gardaí to police cycle lanes is indicative of their lack of visibility on the streets, Disclosures tribunal chair Mr Justice Peter Charleton has said.

The judge concluded that Ireland has a “real problem due to the invisibility of our police force”.

In a personal aside in the tribunal report, Mr Justice Charleton said he had only seen a garda once in the hundreds of journeys he had made between the Four Courts and Dublin Castle during the course of his investigations into a smear campaign against Sergeant Maurice McCabe.

He said it was “extraordinary” how much time gardaí spend isolated in Garda stations and in patrol cars.

“It is extraordinarily rare that gardaí are seen in uniform on the streets,” the judge observed in his tribunal report, “in contrast to other major cities, such as Rome and London and Athens, where police are visible at intersections, at junctions and in public plazas.”

The judge also observed that gardaí routinely fail to keep cycle lanes free for vulnerable road users even if the transgressions occur near Garda stations.

“Cars block cycle lanes, intrude on them and endanger cyclists. That happens repeatedly within a minute’s walk of Garda stations. So, where are the gardaí?”

Mr Justice Charleton said some people may see the failure of gardaí to police cycle lanes as a “small example” but “the consequences of serious injury, for even one person, is a tragedy”.

He concluded: “If it is said that the gardaí are too busy to be out on foot or on bicycles, the tribunal begs to doubt that. Everyone serving in the police should give a portion of the day to foot and bicycle patrols.”

Being visible was one of seven obligations that gardaí should have, he suggested. He recommended that gardaí shouldn’t moan, but a garda should “ask himself or herself what he or she has done on any particular day for the taxpayer”.

He is not wrong.

Fian · 17-10-2018 5:02pm

Seth Brundle wrote: »

I was wondering that too.
The cyclist didn't move position on the road (so travelling in a straight line)
The driver saw the cyclist.
The car overtook the cyclist.
The car and cyclist somehow met.
Given the above facts, there is no doubt that the driver is completely at fault and the coroner's court failed to assign blame for whatever reason.
If the car went to overtake and the cyclist didn't move line, then the car was too close, despite seeing the cyclist. It was a dangerous overtaking manouvre: full stop.
Then the court proceeds to pont towards the cyclists clothing despite the driver confirming that they saw the cyclist.
It may be possible that the cyclist would be alive had he been wearing a helmet but this doesn't remove the blame (IMO) from the driver - the driver should not have attempted the overtaking manouvre given the facts and outcome.

Well the verdict is correct. It was an accident, I don't for an instant imagine it was a deliberate act. Regardless of where fault lay.

Seth Brundle · 17-10-2018 5:09pm

Fian wrote: »

Well the verdict is correct. It was an accident, I don't for an instant imagine it was a deliberate act. Regardless of where fault lay.

No that's not good enough.
From the article we don't see that the driver has been banned so what punishment, if any, has there been for a dangerous manouvre that resulted in a death?
The driver came up behind the cyclist. He may not have intended to hit him; but he did hit him, causing death. The driver did not overtake safely.
If it was a child on their bike, would the man have given more space and if not why not?
It wasn't an accident. It was a completely avoidable incident.

ED E · 17-10-2018 5:42pm

Seth Brundle wrote: »

No that's not good enough.
From the article we don't see that the driver has been banned so what punishment, if any, has there been for a dangerous manouvre that resulted in a death?
The driver came up behind the cyclist. He may not have intended to hit him; but he did hit him, causing death. The driver did not overtake safely.
If it was a child on their bike, would the man have given more space and if not why not?
It wasn't an accident. It was a completely avoidable incident.

No punishment, wasn't prosecuted.

Again I find the need to trot this out:

magicbastarder · 17-10-2018 5:45pm

Fian wrote: »

Well the verdict is correct. It was an accident, I don't for an instant imagine it was a deliberate act. Regardless of where fault lay.

well, if by 'accident', you mean 'not wilfully intentional', you are correct.

however, there are many offences which don't need wilful intent to prosecute.

Journalism and cycling

Comments