A sad day yesterday ... another cyclist killed on our roads

[CharleyFarley]

A young 29-year old died, here, yesterday, in Washington, D.C. He loved cycling and hated being in cars. Had a bright future. A Kia was passing him when a Honda smashed into the Kia and him, then smashed into two other cars in an intersection.

Hit and runs are a big problem in Florida because 40% of the drivers have no insurance and are likely illegals. And many of those that get caught, have already been banned from driving.

What can be done to stop it? The only things I know is to get all drunks off the road, and everyone who uses a phone or other device while driving. In other words, nothing! Cops have crackdowns on drivers, but then people get angry and say it's becoming a police state. Last year, in Tampa, cops cracked down on drug couriers on bikes with no lights at night. The result was, the cops were accused of racial profiling and ordered to stop it.

I'm thankful that here in Florida we can ride on the sidewalks; if we couldn't hundreds would be killed every year.

 

[tinywheels]

I am led to believe the law in Spain,automatically holds the drivers of vehicles responsible for collisions. This and suitable penalties would go some way to focus drivers minds.
every cyclist death is heartbreakingly painful.

 

[Johnno260]

As with most road safety issues in the UK, it seems the only wsy to force it is to die in greater numbers...
RIP.

Pretty much.

I spoke with the local council as I had a near miss while in my car.

Clown overtook 2 cars and came into my lane forcing me onto a grass verge and caused damage, it was that or a potential head on, reply from the council as I was speaking about that incident and the anti social driving in general was unless we have deaths and many highways won’t do anything.

 

[Slick]

Road/weather conditions were horrendous. Helen set out in sunshine and posted a video on fb just a few minutes before the accident happened showing how the weather had deteriorated and what the conditions were like. The A710 is a dangerous road at the best of times and not one I choose to cycle on regularly. The section at Southwick is particularly dangerous. the road narrows, the surface is bad, the road bends and there is also a junction. We don't know the full story yet.

Helen was a very active and popular member of Dumfries CC. As a fellow club member I knew her and had ridden with her on a couple of occasions. She was very enthusiastic and was particularly keen on raising money for charity by doing long and challenging bike rides. She was training for an unsupported 100 miles/day LEJOG at the time of the accident. A tragic death and a sad loss.

(edited 11.00am 14/04/21)

The weather really was terrible on Sunday and reminded me of a friend years ago killed in a totally different type accident but the result was the same. When it came to mind, I knew that the same conditions would likely bring trouble for someone. I know its still very early, but had there been any updates as to what happened?

 

[Pale Rider]

Truly, truly tragic, RIP Helen Renton.


Indeed, and guidance went out to Police forces a long, long time ago now (I can't be sure of exact date but around early 2000s if I recall correctly?) that officers were to cease using Road Traffic Accident for precisely that reason, i.e. that in almost all collisions, there was someone at fault. The adopted phrase was then "Road Traffic Incident" or RTI, which quite soon after became "Road Traffic Collision" or RTC. As far as I know "collision" and "in collision with" are the correct terms. I'm surprised to see "crash" used throughout the appeal verbiage but I've not been in that line of work for a while now so it could have come back into use.

The intention of the police - and press - report is to avoid apportioning blame, which the likes of 'in collision with' will tend to achieve.

As you say, 'accident' went the journey in policespeak not long after we started to criminally prosecute drivers involved in fatal collisions, not least because you can't be criminally responsible for an 'accident'.

Like you, I was a little surprised to see the Scots copper use 'crash', but 'collision' and 'incident' are such a dull words, and he is trying to interest the public enough to come forward with information.

At least 'crash' is suitably non-judgmental if used carefully.

"A car crashed into a cyclist', or the other way around, would be a big no-no, which is why the copper used 'involved in a crash with'.

Incidentally, 'accident' hasn't entirely disappeared from policespeak.

In Durham, a collision involving a police car is still called a 'polac' - police accident.

Although some forces have changed to using 'polcol' - police collision.

 

[Drago]

I agree, but it's not going to change without persuasion.

Carrot never works. It needs judicious amounts of stick.

 

[matticus]

not least because you can't be criminally responsible for an 'accident'.

Is that 100% the case? I think you can still be criminally negligent (e.g. for an "industrial accident")

 

[glasgowcyclist]

The intention of the police - and press - report is to avoid apportioning blame, which the likes of 'in collision with' will tend to achieve.

I've seen many examples where they quite clearly avoid neutrality and go for full blame, usually when it involves a cyclist doing the damage...

 

[matticus]

I'm sure it was in the public interest, just doing their job as upstanding journalists ...

 

[C R]

I'm sure it was in the public interest, just doing their job as upstanding journalists ...

I think The Sun and journalism are only related to each other in the most general of senses.

 

[Pale Rider]

I've seen many examples where they quite clearly avoid neutrality and go for full blame, usually when it involves a cyclist doing the damage...

View attachment 584042

Yes, I could have added unless the circumstances are nailed on.

In the OP's case, it's an appeal for information, so fault is yet to be determined.

Is that 100% the case? I think you can still be criminally negligent (e.g. for an "industrial accident")

Negligence can be criminal, so it's the term industrial 'accident' which is inaccurate when criminal negligence is involved.

If an employer fails to maintain a machine and an employee is injured, it's more 'an accident waiting to happen' than an accident.

Lots of people will use the latter term, which is fine for general use.

The Health and Safety Executive investigates many incidents of employee injury, but not all are prosecuted.

Thus some are deemed to be accidents, but the ones that are prosecuted are not deemed to be accidents, they are deemed to have been preventable if proper procedures had been followed.

There are also incidents in which the employee has been reckless/negligent, or ignored the safety training he has received.

It is not generally regarded to be in the public interest to prosecute the injured employee in those cases.

 

[matticus]

... it's more 'an accident waiting to happen' than an accident.

Lots of people will use the latter term, which is fine for general use.

Well OK, we agree on at least one thing then!

I'm quite happy to climb out of this rabbit hole now.

 

[Drago]

I am led to believe the law in Spain,automatically holds the drivers of vehicles responsible for collisions. This and suitable penalties would go some way to focus drivers minds.

Presumed liability is common throughout most if the EU. Sadly, over the long term there is no evidence that it contributes to a reduction in casualties, and is a very moot point if the victim is too dead to spend the compo. Its also pointless if the driver is uninsured, or the driver does a runner.

 

[matticus]

Presumed liability is common throughout most if the EU. Sadly, over the long term there is no evidence that it contributes to a reduction in casualties, and is a very moot point if the victim is too dead to spend the compo. Its also pointless if the driver is uninsured, or the driver does a runner.

For @tinywheels benefit: it's purely financial liability - the driver isn't presumed at fault.

I happen to be a big fan of PL, however Drago's right that there's no proof of accident/injury reduction. It seems feasible that "Presumed GUILT" would make a measurable difference, but there is Jack-All chance of getting that in the UK; PL still seems decades away with the current licking-up-to motorists attitude of our politicians ...

 

[Johnno260]

I've seen many examples where they quite clearly avoid neutrality and go for full blame, usually when it involves a cyclist doing the damage...

View attachment 584042

Yes interesting that when for example a cyclist is involved they're demonized.

Yet the 100's of "accidents" involving cars are different.

It's trash reporting like that which creates issues.