Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by MARK FERGUSON (SPARTACUS) on May 5, 2012 at 12:42

Not to mention an infamous case here in SA but I won't mention Eugene McGee. 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tim on May 5, 2012 at 18:13

If you look at the second link there are a couple of quotes which are all to familiar as an excuse to exonerate a driver.

Accident investigator PC Christopher Thorne said the truck driver was in breach of the Highway Code in using his phone and failing to indicate but had not broken the law.

I do understand that the Highway Code and Road Traffic Act are different things, but I thought that failure to indicate was covered under the Road Traffic Act. Anyway breach of the Highway Code is regularly used in UK court proceedings to determine blame and liability.

“Nobody is to blame… I think it’s very important that cyclists are constantly reminded of the great danger the vehicles pose - the positions where they are very vulnerable and which they should avoid at all costs.”

So nobody is the blame, although the truck turned left without indicating and drove straight over the victim who was in front and to the left of the truck and not aware of the driver's intentions. Of course the cyclist as the victim should have known better - cycling across an intersection in front of a truck with the driver on the phone and turning left without indicating is, I guess, just asking for it.

And then the magistrate feels fit to mention that the cyclist wasn't wearing bright clothes:-

Dr Radcliffe said the collision was “inevitable” and said Ms Tereschenko, who was not wearing bright clothes but had lights on her bike, seemed “to be oblivious” to the truck.

Wasn't the truck driver oblivious to the cyclist and didn't this result in a very dangerous situation? Seems like the outcome is a pointless death with no recommendations on how to avoid a repeat.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by heather on May 5, 2012 at 21:35

Oh dear. How does one educate police (who take no action) and magistrates (who have no idea)?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Sophia MacRae on May 5, 2012 at 21:46

When more magistrates ride bikes to work, and when more police officers ride bikes to work, then there will be outcomes that are more just.

Because these decision-makers and enforcers feel that they are part of "the majority", they are not aware of the implicit "privileging" that discriminates against "the other". The dominant group feel that their world view is "the normal" worldview, and that "the other" is the deviant view, which must be disciplined or regulated to fall into line with the privileged dominant group.

Just a bit a sociology for you, I think uni must be going to my head.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by heather on May 5, 2012 at 22:30

Sophia, I realise that the authorities are fitting in with the majority who are drivers and cyclist-unaware.

I recall an old view that had become unpopular, and a judge got flak through the media for expressing it in his judgement. Something along the lines that the rape did not matter because the woman was unconscious at the time! Also the judge had forgotten a legal definition that a woman must give informed consent, which is impossible when unconscious. Otherwise knock the intended victim out and escape on lesser charge. At the time there was a call for judges to undergo some on-going training. Do not remember if this occurred.

Sexual harassment protection for mainly women in employment (does include all genders and many situations) was very unpopular by some when introduced. Required the law and then the David Jones' case where a substantial monetary penalty, to get some businesses to take it seriously. Now see advertising to attend courses to not repeat the large financial lesson of DJs.

How can we utilise the above to get better outcomes for cyclists? Cyclists might be the minority but not a minority when it comes to discrimination laws. Police who ignore ARR when bicycle-vehicle incidents, and magistrates who make such judgements, need strong reminders now to do their jobs properly.

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page