I
Ian Walker
Guest
Here's a story that appeared in the local paper yesterday:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R1CD42F63
Basically, a cyclist hit an OAP who stepped out in front of him as he came down a hill. From what
the story says, it looks as if the pedestrian either misjudged the bike's speed or somehow thought
that bikes 'don't count' and that you can cross in front of them. Certaintly, as long as the cyclist
wasn't going over 30, it's hard to see that he really did anything wrong. However, he was convicted
of careless cycling and fined*. This seems odd. I doubt that if a pensioner stepped in front of a
car in the same circumstances the driver would be held responsible. The court would have simply said
something like "everyone knows you don't step in front of cars as they're coming down hills".
One sentence in particular struck me. "After lengthy deliberations, magistrates said Mr Brady was an
experienced cyclist on a high-quality bike and could have avoided the accident." Would they have
said the same to an experienced driver in a high-quality car?
How do you lot read it?
Ian
* although interestingly the fine was of the same piddly magnitude that a driver would get in these
circumstances.
--
Ian Walker, Department of Psychology, University of Bath. Remove the yummy paste in my address to
reply. Homepage: http://www.drianwalker.com
http://makeashorterlink.com/?R1CD42F63
Basically, a cyclist hit an OAP who stepped out in front of him as he came down a hill. From what
the story says, it looks as if the pedestrian either misjudged the bike's speed or somehow thought
that bikes 'don't count' and that you can cross in front of them. Certaintly, as long as the cyclist
wasn't going over 30, it's hard to see that he really did anything wrong. However, he was convicted
of careless cycling and fined*. This seems odd. I doubt that if a pensioner stepped in front of a
car in the same circumstances the driver would be held responsible. The court would have simply said
something like "everyone knows you don't step in front of cars as they're coming down hills".
One sentence in particular struck me. "After lengthy deliberations, magistrates said Mr Brady was an
experienced cyclist on a high-quality bike and could have avoided the accident." Would they have
said the same to an experienced driver in a high-quality car?
How do you lot read it?
Ian
* although interestingly the fine was of the same piddly magnitude that a driver would get in these
circumstances.
--
Ian Walker, Department of Psychology, University of Bath. Remove the yummy paste in my address to
reply. Homepage: http://www.drianwalker.com