Another silly accident !!! [update]

Discussion in 'UK and Europe' started by Neil D, Apr 28, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Neil D

    Neil D Guest

    Unfortunately, my access to newsgroups is dire just now, I can't even find my original post.

    It seems my original message led to some misunderstandings. It was sent NOT for any sympathy, which
    I do not want from anyone, but mainly as a warning as to how a short insignificant ride (1.5 miles),
    can end in such a sad ending.

    In no way can I be held responsible. The accident happened between two zebra crossings only 100yds
    apart. The boys ran INTO me, on the MAIN road leading out of a major town. They were very
    apologetic, as was their mother. She was glad it was a bike and not a car and that I'm not pressing
    for compensation. I was glad, a car wasn't directly behind me.

    It seems they came out of a mini supermarket with sweets and drinks, chasing each other. Kids do
    this, only its a pity I have to do the teaching at my cost.

    If it had been my good road bike, who pays? Its more fate I have the problem with, and people who
    love to pass judgement.

    Result: boy1=1 badly broken leg (6 weeks says doc), boy2=a cut arm, boy3=shock me=badly cut arm,cut
    knee, bruised chest, leg.
     
    Tags:


  2. Sabineuk

    Sabineuk Guest

    "Neil D" n**@NOmail.com said:

    [snip]
    >In no way can I be held responsible.

    Sorry, but you have to take at least some of the responsibility for it.

    I'm not saying it was completely or even mostly your fault, and I'm far from trying to pin any
    'blame' on you, but it *was* partly your responsibility.

    What's more, if this is, as you say, your seventh 'unavoidable accident' in what, ten years, then
    maybe you should step back and take a hard look at how you ride, and what you can learn from them.

    Prima facie, I'd suggest that you're not taking enough account of potential hazards around you: it's
    far better to avoid these incidents than to try and apportion blame afterwards.

    >It seems they came out of a mini supermarket with sweets and drinks, chasing each other.
    >Kids do this,

    Yes, they do.

    >If it had been my good road bike, who pays?

    Probably their parents' household insurance. Most carries third party liability.

    >Its more fate I have the problem with,

    Fate's a funny word for something you can affect so directly.

    >and people who love to pass judgement.

    Well, that's Usenet ...

    >Result: boy1=1 badly broken leg (6 weeks says doc), boy2=a cut arm, boy3=shock me=badly cut arm,cut
    >knee, bruised chest, leg.

    Hope everybody concerned recovers soon. A painful lesson ...

    John
     
  3. In message <[email protected]>, SabineUK <[email protected]> writes
    >"Neil D" n**@NOmail.com said:
    >
    >[snip]
    >>In no way can I be held responsible.
    >
    >Sorry, but you have to take at least some of the responsibility for it.
    >
    >I'm not saying it was completely or even mostly your fault, and I'm far from trying to pin any
    >'blame' on you, but it *was* partly your responsibility.

    In what way was it partly his responsibility?
    --
    Michael MacClancy
     
  4. Neil D wrote: <snip>
    > In no way can I be held responsible.
    <snip>

    Agreed. Ultimately the way I read it is that the kids stepped into the road without looking. Short
    of driving and cycling at 1mph everywhere what are you to do?!

    That still doesn't detract from the fact that it's an awful thing for everyone involved.

    --
    StainlessSteelRat "The report read 'Routine retirement of a Replicant'. That didn't make me feel any
    better about shooting a woman in the back." -- Rick Deckard, Blade Runner
     
  5. John B

    John B Guest

    SabineUK wrote:

    > "Neil D" n**@NOmail.com said:
    >
    > [snip]
    > >In no way can I be held responsible.
    >
    > Sorry, but you have to take at least some of the responsibility for it.
    >
    > I'm not saying it was completely or even mostly your fault, and I'm far from trying to pin any
    > 'blame' on you, but it *was* partly your responsibility.

    If he found it unavoidable, how?

    John B
     
  6. In news:[email protected], John B <[email protected]> typed:
    > SabineUK wrote:
    >> I'm not saying it was completely or even mostly your fault, and I'm far from trying to pin any
    >> 'blame' on you, but it *was* partly your responsibility.
    >
    > If he found it unavoidable, how?
    >
    Because he wasn't able to predict that the children were likely to run out into the road. Assuming
    the shop that they were running from didn't have its entrance unusually close to the road, he could
    have seen children running about.

    I know it's something I consciously monitor behind the wheel of a car, but I might not actually be
    as alert to it when cycling.

    A
     
  7. Sabineuk

    Sabineuk Guest

    Michael MacClancy [email protected] said:

    >In what way was it partly his responsibility?

    At the simplest, because he'd chosen to ride his bike in that place at that time in that manner.
    Remove any of those elements, and you don't have the incident in its current form.

    Saying 'it was unavoidable, it was the kids' fault, I could do nothing' is the easy way out. Sure,
    they shouldn't have run out and I'm sure a court would hold them liable, but there are a fair number
    of questions I'd ask of myself if I'd been involved in this sort of incident.

    They include things like was the speed appropriate (probably), was the road positioning appropriate
    (maybe, maybe not) and was the hazard awareness and observation up to scratch (hmmm).

    John
     
  8. SabineUK wrote:
    >>> it *was* partly your responsibility.
    >>
    >> If he found it unavoidable, how?
    >
    > Maybe he could have been riding so he didn't find it unavoidable ...

    Maybe the kids should have been walking in a way that didn't put them in the road (and I'm not a
    child hater).

    Lots of maybes...

    --
    StainlessSteelRat "Okay, somebody explain the whole 'he will suck the world into Hell' thing,
    because that's the part I'm not loving." -- Willow
     
  9. In message <[email protected]>, SabineUK <[email protected]> writes
    >Michael MacClancy [email protected] said:
    >
    >>In what way was it partly his responsibility?
    >
    >At the simplest, because he'd chosen to ride his bike in that place at that time in that manner.

    This is the crux of this ridiculous debate. Unless you want to apply bans and curfews on cycling you
    have to admit that he had every right to ride his bike in that place at that time. The only element
    up for discussion is whether he was right to be riding 'in that manner'. Actually, apart from
    mentioning a series of incidents the OP hasn't said anything about the manner in which he was riding
    that provides any foundation for the vitriol being poured upon him. The only thing we know he was
    doing was riding his bike. Why not ban bikes, being as they're such dangerous machines?

    Unfortunately the kids did something stupid, why not leave it at that?

    --
    Michael MacClancy
     
  10. Sabineuk

    Sabineuk Guest

    Michael MacClancy [email protected] said:

    >Actually, apart from mentioning a series of incidents the OP hasn't said anything about the manner
    >in which he was riding that provides any foundation for the vitriol being poured upon him.

    Well, he was riding it in a manner that led to him flattening three kids ...

    I don;t know that vitriol has been poured on him; there's certainly been some robust criticism, but
    what the hell did he expect posting here?

    You may see it as a 'ridiculous debate,' but to be honest I think it's important to challenge the
    assumptions that road crashes are 'accidents' and 'unavoidable.' They're the outcome of a series of
    decisions by the parties involved, and while one or both may be legally blameless they should both
    take moral responsibility for their decisions and, as importantly, for the outcome of those
    decisions.

    >Unfortunately the kids did something stupid, why not leave it at that?

    Because kids do do stupid things. They always have, they always will. And once you've hit them you
    can either sit back and say 'Not my fault, it was completely unavoidable,' or you can try to work
    through the chain of causation and work out how you could have influenced it, just in case you ever
    meet a similar situation again.

    John

    And to my mind, it's better to avoid hitting them, or once you have hit them to determine how to
    avoid hitting them when the situation recurs.
     
  11. John B

    John B Guest

    SabineUK wrote:

    > John B [email protected] said:
    >
    > >> it *was* partly your responsibility.
    > >
    > >If he found it unavoidable, how?
    >
    > Maybe he could have been riding so he didn't find it unavoidable ...

    So how may that be?

    John B
     
  12. SabineUK wrote:
    >> Unfortunately the kids did something stupid, why not leave it at that?
    >
    > Because kids do do stupid things.
    <snip>

    Adults do stupid things also (some of us are only human!). As long as anyone makes mistakes there
    will be incidents like this.

    Sure we could all drive/cycle slower, be more observant, not step into roads without looking (!),
    but unless they wall off pavements from the roads, ban roads etc. things like this will continue to
    happen in one form or another as people make mistakes. It's unfair and unhelpful to try and suggest
    that with hindsight the person or persons should have done something differently. The only
    constructive thing is for others to learn from it.

    I've recently had a family member killed in a car crash, and I had a friend killed (as a pedestrian)
    in a car crash a few years back. In the former the guy was doing nothing wrong, in the latter a
    misjudgement lead to his death but the car driver who hit him was doing nothing wrong legally. Do
    any of them feel any better about it due to that? No.

    I agree that accident is a misused term, because it has several contrary definitions (in the context
    of a collision or crash).

    --
    StainlessSteelRat "Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance." -- George
    Bernard Shaw
     
  13. James Annan

    James Annan Guest

    John B wrote:
    > SabineUK wrote:
    >
    >
    >>
    >>Maybe he could have been riding so he didn't find it unavoidable ...
    >
    >
    > So how may that be?

    While it is possible that the OP was entirely innocent on this occasion, I'd say that 7 serious
    crashes in 10 years is strong evidence that he is not very competent.

    James
     
  14. Mads Hilberg

    Mads Hilberg Guest

    > At the simplest, because he'd chosen to ride his bike in that place at that time in that manner.
    > Remove any of those elements, and you don't have the incident in its current form.

    Well now that's just a ridiculous. If you extend the argument only slightly imagine a scenario
    where you are sitting in your back garden and are hit by a meteorite. Following your logic it would
    thus be partly your own fault for sitting in your garden at that time and in that manner. It's
    plainly absurd.

    The OP clearly stated that they ran into him. I presume he means they ran into the side of him and
    that he did not cycle into them. I fail to see how he could have prevented that.

    You accusations against this cyclist are completely out of place and uncalled for. You were not
    there, you did not see the incident, you haven't talked to other witnesses. All you have to go on is
    the description from the OP.

    I agree that accidents should not be just dismissed as inevitable all the time and that people need
    to be educated, but this sort of illogical argument and judging the OP because he admits to having
    had 7 accidents in 10 year is clearly not reasonable. How do you know that he hasn't cycled 7 times
    as much as someone else who has had 1 accident in those 10 years (I have had 3, but fortunately
    noone other than myself was ever hurt)?

    My point is that your information about the event is extremely limited and that your argument quoted
    above is severely lacking and does nothing to promote better road safety whatsoever.

    Regards,

    Mads Hilberg
     
  15. Michael MacClancy <[email protected]> writes:

    >In message <[email protected]>, SabineUK <[email protected]> writes
    >>"Neil D" n**@NOmail.com said:
    >>
    >>[snip]
    >>>In no way can I be held responsible.
    >>
    >>Sorry, but you have to take at least some of the responsibility for it.
    >>
    >>I'm not saying it was completely or even mostly your fault, and I'm far from trying to pin any
    >>'blame' on you, but it *was* partly your responsibility.

    >In what way was it partly his responsibility?

    In these accident fault discussions one very important source of confusion and dispute is what is
    meant by "fault", "responsibility", etc.. It is possible for the accident to be entirely the other
    person's fault, in the sense that they did something clearly stupid, contrary to the Highway Code,
    illegal, etc., yet at the same time it is possible that the innocent cyclist might have been able to
    avoid the incident by bearing in mind the possibility of such silly behaviour on the part of the
    other. By "not my fault" many people mean "I was doing nothing wrong, contrary to Highway Code,
    accepted good practice, etc.", and by "it was your fault" others mean "But you could have
    anticipated the possibility and avoided it".

    It is generally accepted that it is foolish to cycle (or drive) so fast that you couldn't stop in
    the distance you can see to be clear. There is also the possibility that something might intrude
    into the distance you can see to be clear, which you couldn't stop in time for, or swerve to avoid,
    such as something coming in from a side road. Therefore one slows down even further to take account
    of that extra hazard.

    I would like to suggest the following general rule. It is foolish to cycle (or drive) at such a
    speed that you could not stop or avoid any possible intrusion into the space ahead you see to be
    clear. For example, since the doors of parked cars can swing open, you can travel faster if you keep
    out of their range. If there are pedestrians on a pavement beside the road, one might dash into the
    road. But no pedestrian can disobey the laws of physics. It will take a certain amount of time for a
    pedestrian you can see, or one concealed behind some obstacle, to accelerate into your path. If the
    road is wide, and you are travellling down the middle of it, that clear width gives you more time
    than if you were travelling near the kerb, so the width of your clear path increases the speed at
    which you can safely travel down it.

    Clearly, if you followed this rule scrupulously, you avoid almost all common accidents, and remain
    at risk from things like people jumping out of windows. You can observe some cyclists/drivers
    following this rule: a characteristic is that when the road is clear, they will move about it a lot,
    minimising their exposure to hazard, and thus increasing their safe speed, by taking advantage of
    all lanes, when clear, including sometimes moving to the wrong side of the road to pass some special
    hazard on the left, such as a blind side road.

    Of course, if you considered all possible scenarios, including people jumping red lights at 70mph in
    built-up areas, progress would become very difficult. But you can avoid a lot of the more common
    hazards without losing much total journey speed. You simply have to lose righteous indignation at
    being slowed down by other people's possible folly.

    --
    Chris Malcolm [email protected] +44 (0)131 650 3085 School of Artificial Intelligence, Division of
    Informatics Edinburgh University, 5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK
    [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/daidb/people/homes/cam/ ] DoD #205
     
  16. Neil D

    Neil D Guest

    "James Annan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    > John B wrote:
    > > SabineUK wrote:
    > >
    > >
    > >>
    > >>Maybe he could have been riding so he didn't find it unavoidable ...
    > >
    > >
    > > So how may that be?
    >
    > While it is possible that the OP was entirely innocent on this occasion, I'd say that 7 serious
    > crashes in 10 years is strong evidence that he is not very competent.
    >
    > James
    >

    Without knowing what happened, who the F** are you to comment. I'm very competent and have the
    trophies and races to show for it. I rode against Olympic gold medallists and beat some of them,
    which is more than you'll do. How many world champions are you on first name terms with? Me, 3
     
  17. Frank

    Frank Guest

    "Neil D" <n**@NOmail.com> wrote in message news:eek:%[email protected]...
    > >
    > > While it is possible that the OP was entirely innocent on this occasion, I'd say that 7 serious
    > > crashes in 10 years is strong evidence that he is not very competent.
    > >
    > > James
    > >
    >
    > Without knowing what happened, who the F** are you to comment. I'm very competent and have the
    > trophies and races to show for it. I rode against Olympic gold medallists and beat some of them,
    > which is
    more
    > than you'll do. How many world champions are you on first name terms with? Me, 3
    >

    Its Mr Toad of the bike world!, toot toot out of my way ;o)
     
  18. Neil D

    Neil D Guest

    "Frank" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >
    > "Neil D" <n**@NOmail.com> wrote in message news:eek:%[email protected]...
    > > >
    > > > While it is possible that the OP was entirely innocent on this
    occasion,
    > > > I'd say that 7 serious crashes in 10 years is strong evidence that he
    is
    > > > not very competent.
    > > >
    > > > James
    > > >
    > >
    > > Without knowing what happened, who the F** are you to comment. I'm very competent and have the
    > > trophies and races to show for it. I rode against Olympic gold medallists and beat some of them,
    > > which is
    > more
    > > than you'll do. How many world champions are you on first name terms with? Me, 3
    > >
    >
    > Its Mr Toad of the bike world!, toot toot out of my way ;o)
    >
    >

    God another dick head.
     
  19. Tim Hall

    Tim Hall Guest

    On Wed, 30 Apr 2003 22:12:51 +0100, "Neil D" <n**@NOmail.com> wrote:

    >
    >"James Annan" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    >> John B wrote:
    >> > SabineUK wrote:
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >>
    >> >>Maybe he could have been riding so he didn't find it unavoidable ...
    >> >
    >> >
    >> > So how may that be?
    >>
    >> While it is possible that the OP was entirely innocent on this occasion, I'd say that 7 serious
    >> crashes in 10 years is strong evidence that he is not very competent.
    >>
    >> James
    >>
    >
    >Without knowing what happened, who the F** are you to comment. I'm very competent and have the
    >trophies and races to show for it.

    You're no doubt a very competent racer.

    >I rode against Olympic gold medallists and beat some of them, which is more than you'll do.

    Perhaps riding down city streets as if you were riding against Olympic champions increases
    accident risk.

    >How many world champions are you on first name terms with? Me, 3

    None.

    However my dad is bigger than your dad.

    Tim
    --

    fast and gripping, non pompous, glossy and credible.
     
  20. James Annan

    James Annan Guest

    Neil D wrote:
    > "James Annan" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]...

    >>
    >>While it is possible that the OP was entirely innocent on this occasion, I'd say that 7 serious
    >>crashes in 10 years is strong evidence that he is not very competent.
    >>
    >>James
    >>
    >
    >
    > Without knowing what happened, who the F** are you to comment.

    Someone who has a better grasp of statistics than you.

    > I'm very competent and have the trophies and races to show for it.

    And the road rash too. Congratulations.

    > I rode against Olympic gold medallists and beat some of them, which is more than you'll do. How
    > many world champions are you on first name terms with? Me, 3

    I think this illuatrates your problem pretty clearly. If you treat your riding as race training then
    it is not surprising that you are paying insufficient attention to safety. Being a physically
    talented cyclist, and a safe one on shared roads, are almost entirely unrelated skills.

    I have also made this mistake, on occasion. When it results in a crash (which it did at least once,
    several years ago) I try to make sure I learn the lesson. If you prefer to crash every 18 months,
    that's your prerogative.

    James
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Loading...