Police officer tells inquest that cyclist hit from behind at 60mph would not have been visible to driver

bigbiker101 wrote:

It is so sad this guy got hit and died and yes the driver has to be taken to account for this in some way.  I am also saddened to read the comments on here, it appears that when we get on our bikes we somehow remove all sense of self preversation and that it is everybody elses job to avoid and miss us, there is never an excuse for running into another road user, but there are mitigating circumstances and we have to accept that we must also do our part, it is not down soley to everybody else.

The problem is the mitigating circumstances always seem to be weighted very heavily in favour of the motorist.

bigbiker101 wrote:

It is so sad this guy got hit and died and yes the driver has to be taken to account for this in some way.  I am also saddened to read the comments on here, it appears that when we get on our bikes we somehow remove all sense of self preversation and that it is everybody elses job to avoid and miss us, there is never an excuse for running into another road user, but there are mitigating circumstances and we have to accept that we must also do our part, it is not down soley to everybody else.

The guy was moderately drunk, had evidence of historical drug use, and potentially failed to switch his lights on. 

No evidence of being out of control, swerving into paths etc., the only contributing factor was the potential lack of lights. That is indeed a mitigating circumstance, but, it should not simply be carte blanche for a motorist to mow down anyone on a dark highway who isn't lit up like a christmas tree. 

If a devout christian care worker with no history of drug or alcohol use had been walking on that road that night, they'd be equally dead. 

And thats the point. Its not defending cyclists no matter what, its about calling bullshit on teh pitifally low standard of driving accepted by society and the court system.

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

bigbiker101 wrote:

It is so sad this guy got hit and died and yes the driver has to be taken to account for this in some way.  I am also saddened to read the comments on here, it appears that when we get on our bikes we somehow remove all sense of self preversation and that it is everybody elses job to avoid and miss us, there is never an excuse for running into another road user, but there are mitigating circumstances and we have to accept that we must also do our part, it is not down soley to everybody else.

 

The guy was moderately drunk, had evidence of historical drug use, and potentially failed to switch his lights on. 

No evidence of being out of control, swerving into paths etc., the only contributing factor was the potential lack of lights. That is indeed a mitigating circumstance, but, it should not simply be carte blanche for a motorist to mow down anyone on a dark highway who isn't lit up like a christmas tree. 

If a devout christian care worker with no history of drug or alcohol use had been walking on that road that night, they'd be equally dead. 

And thats the point. Its not defending cyclists no matter what, its about calling bullshit on teh pitifally low standard of driving accepted by society and the court system.

The article started with... "Chelmsford Coroner’s Court also heard that a post mortem found that Declan Shea, aged 31, was almost twice over the limit for drink-driving and also had a mixture of prescription and illegal drugs in his system"... if a car driver had ventured onto the road almost twice the legal limit and hurt somebody they would rightly of had the book thrown at them... but a cyclist... well that's OK then.... "there is no evidevnce that he was out of control", the fact he was almost twice the limit suggest he would not be in full control, sorry but you are not really reading the facts here.

bigbiker101 wrote:

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

bigbiker101 wrote:

It is so sad this guy got hit and died and yes the driver has to be taken to account for this in some way.  I am also saddened to read the comments on here, it appears that when we get on our bikes we somehow remove all sense of self preversation and that it is everybody elses job to avoid and miss us, there is never an excuse for running into another road user, but there are mitigating circumstances and we have to accept that we must also do our part, it is not down soley to everybody else.

 

The guy was moderately drunk, had evidence of historical drug use, and potentially failed to switch his lights on. 

No evidence of being out of control, swerving into paths etc., the only contributing factor was the potential lack of lights. That is indeed a mitigating circumstance, but, it should not simply be carte blanche for a motorist to mow down anyone on a dark highway who isn't lit up like a christmas tree. 

If a devout christian care worker with no history of drug or alcohol use had been walking on that road that night, they'd be equally dead. 

And thats the point. Its not defending cyclists no matter what, its about calling bullshit on teh pitifally low standard of driving accepted by society and the court system.

The article started with... "Chelmsford Coroner’s Court also heard that a post mortem found that Declan Shea, aged 31, was almost twice over the limit for drink-driving and also had a mixture of prescription and illegal drugs in his system"... if a car driver had ventured onto the road almost twice the legal limit and hurt somebody they would rightly of had the book thrown at them... but a cyclist... well that's OK then.... "there is no evidevnce that he was out of control", the fact he was almost twice the limit suggest he would not be in full control, sorry but you are not really reading the facts here.

No one's saying its Ok, that's never been said... what is being said is that the points you are keen to focus on, are being used to entirely excuse speeding, and knowlingly driving at a speed beyond what you can effectively see what is in the road ahead. 

Again, no one is denying the fact the driver was driving at the upper end or exceeding the speed limit, around a bend, at night, with dipped head lights. This is accepted as fact... and accepted as totally OK, because...

...the potential drunkeness of the cyclist (remember that cyclists are not restricted by the same alcohol limits as drivers, and twice the alcohol limit is in the land of tiddly not pissed) and drug slur (prescription drugs could be paracetamol after all, although i can't comment on the illegal drugs), seems to have totally trumped the failings of the driver. 

The dude on the bike failed in his responsbilities, no one is denying that, but what is seemingly being denied by the court is the failiure of the motorist to meet his responsbilities... that is my point.

More succinctly... two wrongs do not make a right... unless its a motorist and a cyclist it seems. 

bigbiker101 wrote:

It is so sad this guy got hit and died and yes the driver has to be taken to account for this in some way.  I am also saddened to read the comments on here, it appears that when we get on our bikes we somehow remove all sense of self preversation and that it is everybody elses job to avoid and miss us, there is never an excuse for running into another road user, but there are mitigating circumstances and we have to accept that we must also do our part, it is not down soley to everybody else.

I agree that lack of lights do offer some mitigation for the driver in this case, however it must be remembered that the driver appears to have been over the speed limit and, at best, driving carelessly, as he was driving when he has admitted that he could not see what was in the road. Yet the lack of lights has been taken as full mitigation and the driver absolved of all responsibility.

John Smith wrote:

bigbiker101 wrote:

It is so sad this guy got hit and died and yes the driver has to be taken to account for this in some way.  I am also saddened to read the comments on here, it appears that when we get on our bikes we somehow remove all sense of self preversation and that it is everybody elses job to avoid and miss us, there is never an excuse for running into another road user, but there are mitigating circumstances and we have to accept that we must also do our part, it is not down soley to everybody else.

 

I agree that lack of lights do offer some mitigation for the driver in this case, however it must be remembered that the driver appears to have been over the speed limit and, at best, driving carelessly, as he was driving when he has admitted that he could not see what was in the road. Yet the lack of lights has been taken as full mitigation and the driver absolved of all responsibility.

I have not absolved the driver.... but I am also not laying full blame on him either unlike pretty much everybody else on this forum.... lets not forget... it is illegal not to have lights, it is illegal to be cycling whilst under the influence of alcohol or drugs (it is called cycling under the influence of drink or drugs), but hey... none of that matters, as a cyclist we should be able to do what we like whilst out on the road,  I for one completely disagree with that view point.

No matter what state this guy was in, he should not of been run over and killed, I am not saying he deserved it in anyway, he was foolish and paid the utlimate price, but he has to take some of the blame, and so does the driver, I am after a balanced view on this, but 99% of the posts here think the cyclist did nothing wrong and it was completely the car drivers fault.

bigbiker101 wrote:

I have not absolved the driver.... but I am also not laying full blame on him either unlike pretty much everybody else on this forum.... lets not forget... it is illegal not to have lights, it is illegal to be cycling whilst under the influence of alcohol or drugs (it is called cycling under the influence of drink or drugs), but hey... none of that matters, as a cyclist we should be able to do what we like whilst out on the road,  I for one completely disagree with that view point.

No matter what state this guy was in, he should not of been run over and killed, I am not saying he deserved it in anyway, he was foolish and paid the utlimate price, but he has to take some of the blame, and so does the driver, I am after a balanced view on this, but 99% of the posts here think the cyclist did nothing wrong and it was completely the car drivers fault.

I agree that the cyclist was at fault, over the alcohol limit, with drugs in the system and without lights it is impossible to argue otherwise. He was in danger of being hit by any driver travelling along that road.

The issue I have though is would changes to those issues have any of that made a difference to this driver? If it had been a pedestrian walking along that road (likely as there are no pavements along that road) who has no requirement for lights would the driver have managed to avoid them?

Given they were breaking the speed limit as they were going around a bend, I suspect the answer is no. In which case the driver should be found guilty regardless of the victims circumstances as there is not a scenario where he would have not have been killed.

If I am swinging an axe around, I would not expect mitigating circumstances because the person I hit was not visible to me and drunk so therefore unable to duck in time.

ClubSmed wrote:

The issue I have though is would changes to those issues have any of that made a difference to this driver? If it had been a pedestrian walking along that road (likely as there are no pavements along that road) who has no requirement for lights would the driver have managed to avoid them?

Given they were breaking the speed limit as they were going around a bend, I suspect the answer is no. In which case the driver should be found guilty regardless of the victims circumstances as there is not a scenario where he would have not have been killed.

If I am swinging an axe around, I would not expect mitigating circumstances because the person I hit was not visible to me and drunk so therefore unable to duck in time.

This to me hits the nail on the head. 

The current status quo is seemingly this.... 'if you do absolutely everything right, and by right, I mean taking steps beyond your legal requirements, you may, and I say may, have the right to feel aggrieved should you fall foul of the motorist, anything less, and you did it to yourself'. 

bigbiker101 wrote:

John Smith wrote:

bigbiker101 wrote:

It is so sad this guy got hit and died and yes the driver has to be taken to account for this in some way.  I am also saddened to read the comments on here, it appears that when we get on our bikes we somehow remove all sense of self preversation and that it is everybody elses job to avoid and miss us, there is never an excuse for running into another road user, but there are mitigating circumstances and we have to accept that we must also do our part, it is not down soley to everybody else.

 

I agree that lack of lights do offer some mitigation for the driver in this case, however it must be remembered that the driver appears to have been over the speed limit and, at best, driving carelessly, as he was driving when he has admitted that he could not see what was in the road. Yet the lack of lights has been taken as full mitigation and the driver absolved of all responsibility.

I have not absolved the driver.... but I am also not laying full blame on him either unlike pretty much everybody else on this forum.... lets not forget... it is illegal not to have lights, it is illegal to be cycling whilst under the influence of alcohol or drugs (it is called cycling under the influence of drink or drugs), but hey... none of that matters, as a cyclist we should be able to do what we like whilst out on the road,  I for one completely disagree with that view point.

No matter what state this guy was in, he should not of been run over and killed, I am not saying he deserved it in anyway, he was foolish and paid the utlimate price, but he has to take some of the blame, and so does the driver, I am after a balanced view on this, but 99% of the posts here think the cyclist did nothing wrong and it was completely the car drivers fault.

I was referring to the police/CPS where the driver has not been charged with anything for the death despite the fact that he appears to have been driving too fast.

ktache wrote:

Even slightly defective eyesight is made worse in the dark.  I know of far younger people who don't like driving too much when it goes dark, and are therefore drve far more cautiously, when they have to.

I don't know about my awful eyes, bicycle lights have improved so much , I don't know if I would get so much enjoyment as I do if we still were lighting our way with 1-2W filament bulbs.

I find pedal reflectors to be excellent, I know they are old school refective material but they seem to work very well and says cyclist from a long way away.

The police collision investigator in the Mick Mason case made a ridiculous statement about drivers not being able to react for 5 seconds.  Now that would have made for an interesting video.

Yes, a pity the same investigator wasn't relied upon by Alliston's defence, it's such a crock of shit!...

birzzles wrote:

Invisible cyclist killed by his own stupidity.  Some sympathy for motorist.  It really is possible to be invisible.  Definitely a case of who cares?

Do you genuinely believe that or are you trolling? If the former then please hand in your driving license. If the latter then please go away.

Shades wrote:

What kind of person runs into a human being (enough to hit the windscreen) and then leaves the scene??!!  'Lack of moral compass' is too generous a comment.

This has been covered before on this story. Someone in shock. Nothing to do with moral compass or anything. A 71 year old who has just had the most frightening experience of his life and is in shock. The world is full of stories of the strange things people do (both good and bad) after a terrible shock. It's called displacmement behaviour. He did come back, and take responsibility, which shows some kind of moral compass (and yes I know, it was with his son, in a different car. But clearly his son had a moral compass, which he would have got from somewhere etc etc)

Jimmy Ray Will wrote:

Wow.

I get it. The dude arguably wasn't using lights, was aarguably pissed up. 

The driver was just driving along... within the confines of accepted normal driving behaviour. 

However the reported bullshit that has been spouted to defend that position is worrisome.

I thought the same, and it appears possible that the police decided that the cyclist was a local junkie and expendable, and set out to clear the driver, not to find out the facts, exactly the opposite to the Alliston case.  Our entire society would appear to be grossly biased in favour of drivers and against cyclists, from the laughably called justice system to the media.

Cyclists are the new n*****s.

ClubSmed wrote:

Regardless of what the cyclist did or did not do/have on, the driver was being reckless and dangerous and it is likely that the cyclist would have been hit regardless of any steps taken on the cyclists behalf.

That's what I would like to know.
I've gone round a bend not far from me in my car before but slower than most I observe do, to find an ambulance in attendance and had to stop, to leave myself looking in the rear view mirror for a driver coming round the bend too fast and into me.
At 60-70 could the driver have stopped for anyone, even a stationary vehicle?

Legin wrote:

Welcome to Brexit country where the self entitled do what they like and get away with it. He left the scene lock the bastard up!

This has got fuck all to do with the majority of people wanting to leave a corrupt cabal, this shit has been going on for decades and the actions of police same, covering up criminal actions of motorists and blaming victims!