[Mungecrundle]

Anyone else see this on the BBC website today?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-40776331

 

 

I’m a bit puzzled on how to interpret this story beyond commiserating with Mr Toon with regard to his life changing injuries and wishing him as complete a recovery as is possible.

The events are somewhat unclear from the BBC report “..when his back wheel started to skid”, does this mean he lost traction which would indicate excessive speed for the conditions, poor motorcycle control or failure to read road hazards e.g spilled diesel, loose surface etc. Or did his motorcycle suffer a mechanical failure in that the rear wheel suddenly came loose or the tyre suffered a blowout? If the former, then being the operator of the vehicle, why should he be applauded for not wiping out other innocent road users as part of his accident? If the later then with due respect, and some experience of riding motorycles, I’m not sure just how much of a say he had in the matter of where his motorcycle ended up.

I also resent the implication that the cyclists were an additional inconvenient hazard to the extent that Mr Toon felt he had to sacrifice himself because of their presence. You just know that there are people reading about this and winding themselves up into an indignant rage about “Bloody cyclists, all over the roads, causing a nuisance, danger to themselves and others”. Would his actions have been as heroic had it been a combine harvester coming round the corner that he decided to avoid crashing into? Perhaps I’m being overly sensitive? Then again, “Motoryclist who almost caused multiple fatality tragedy, seeks money for a wheelchair” probably wouldn’t be the best strapline for a charity fund raising exercise.

M

 

Topic

[wycombewheeler]

reliablemeatloaf wrote:

reliablemeatloaf wrote:

He could have just hit them, and then in the aftermath, said “oh well, I made a mistake” and others would have suffered. This happens a lot today, no?

Instead, he chose NOT to have others suffer because of his mistakes, and took his chances.

In the split second he had, he thought of others.

True wasn’t there a story in the last week of a private plane crashing on a beach killing two while the plane occupants were unhurt.

[srchar]

I feel sorry for the bloke

I feel sorry for the bloke having to deal with life-changing injuries, but I would have thought that would be obvious without explicitly stating it in my post, given that we’re all human beings. That doesn’t alter the fact that my first reaction to the story was similar to the OP’s.

Of course, none of us can be sure what happened as we weren’t there and there’s no video.

[alansmurphy]

Not sure why I’m snoozing,
Not sure why I’m snoozing, that was an “I”

[alansmurphy]

I think everyone will have a
I think everyone will have a degree of empathy, we (or I) just believe his publicist is doing a great job to get these donations up. From your experience of ice or oil do you feel you were much other than a helpless passenger at these points. From the sound of this story he chose to take a path through hell to save man, woman, child and cute kittens…

[whobiggs]

Sorry but I expected all the

Sorry but I expected all the two wheeled riders to have a bit more empathy. Surely virtually everyone who rides on two wheels has had a moment or come off on an unseen hazard? Recently I have reported several diesel spills and seen riders with and without engines crash or slip on them. Next day it is barely visible and the first hint of rain will bring it back to life and yes it is vsometimes ery easy to make a desiscion as to where you are going to dump it! Has nobody fell off on ice? Ah that is your own fault for not anticipating the hazard huh? My sympaties are with the guy either way, no one wants another person to end up like that.

[davel]

brooksby wrote:

But if the company is saying that they’ll actually programme their driverless cars from the outset to choose occupants over bystanders then that’s a whole different ball game…

It is.

But I can’t imagine a dystopia where a car manufacturer (particularly a teutonic one of vehicles associated with grey-haired middle-laners and fatcats) programs its AI to target the squishies, without roadside hackers responding by steering them into walls and off bridges.

[brooksby]

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

brooksby wrote:

DaveE128 wrote:

If nothing else, perhaps the news story will help others to think about their responsibilities when driving a motor vehicle, and that should they make an error and be in a position of choosing what to crash into, crashing into a hard inanimate object or a vehicle with crumple zones is preferable to crashing into more vulnerable road users. For example, road positioning when overtaking should reflect this.

Which leads us back to questions about the algorithms which will be used in ‘true’ driverless cars…

Mercedes already have admitted they’ll send their cars into squashy things rather than hard things, that should be illegal. Discussed here briefly on the CUK forum https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=109838&hilit=Mercedes

Definitely.  If a human is driving then ultimately it all comes down to a split-second (and, maybe, a wrong) decision.  But if the company is saying that they’ll actually programme their driverless cars from the outset to choose occupants over bystanders then that’s a whole different ball game…

[Anonymous]

brooksby wrote:

DaveE128 wrote:

If nothing else, perhaps the news story will help others to think about their responsibilities when driving a motor vehicle, and that should they make an error and be in a position of choosing what to crash into, crashing into a hard inanimate object or a vehicle with crumple zones is preferable to crashing into more vulnerable road users. For example, road positioning when overtaking should reflect this.

Which leads us back to questions about the algorithms which will be used in ‘true’ driverless cars…

Mercedes already have admitted they’ll send their cars into squashy things rather than hard things, that should be illegal. Discussed here briefly on the CUK forum https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=109838&hilit=Mercedes

[Jimmy Ray Will]

I have to say I feel pretty

I have to say I feel pretty cynical about this… He pushed too hard, got it wrong and is now, very regretably paying the price. 

However, I also have to acknowledge that the chap may have been in a position to choose cyclists or hedge, and for whatever reason chose the hedge, saving others from injury.

Personally speaking, the choice he took was the  only one he could and should have done, to have chosen to plough into the cyclists would have been unbelieveably callous. 

It is a real shame that he suffered the injuries he did, and I hope for the best result possible. 

[brooksby]

DaveE128 wrote:

If nothing else, perhaps the news story will help others to think about their responsibilities when driving a motor vehicle, and that should they make an error and be in a position of choosing what to crash into, crashing into a hard inanimate object or a vehicle with crumple zones is preferable to crashing into more vulnerable road users. For example, road positioning when overtaking should reflect this.

Which leads us back to questions about the algorithms which will be used in ‘true’ driverless cars…

[Anonymous]

It’s just the luck of the

It’s just the luck of the draw sometimes. As I’ve said I’ve binned a bike twice and once was a head-on into a car where I went up into the air and managed to land on a elevated grass bank by a church, so I never did the coming back down with bang bit. Got away with a bad ankle spain. Another bend and maybe I’d be in a wheelchair. 

I think people are perhaps disputing the choice element that’s being portrayed here. Most of the time when things go wrong you’re just a passenger on a ride, your input into the situation has failed and is probably what go you there in the first place. 

It’s sad that this guy ends up like this when insured bike thieves seem bullet proof but stories like this are why I gave up biking when I became a parent. The temptation to throttle it is too strong and if you can crash on a track on which you know every bend, you can crash on a road on which you know none of the bends. I hope as science advances we’ll be able to tackle stuff like this so maybe the story doesn’t have to end this way. 

[DaveE128]

While what happened may have

While what happened may have been his own fault (we don’t know all the facts so I feel that it’s a bit mean that so many people are willing to judge, especially given the consequences for the guy), I think it is entirely possible that he made the right call once he was already on the wrong side of the road, and I think it was fine for the cyclists to thank him for making the right call at that stage. Agree with the above about the general lack of charity and goodwill!

If nothing else, perhaps the news story will help others to think about their responsibilities when driving a motor vehicle, and that should they make an error and be in a position of choosing what to crash into, crashing into a hard inanimate object or a vehicle with crumple zones is preferable to crashing into more vulnerable road users. For example, road positioning when overtaking should reflect this.

Really hope the guy makes great progress in rehabilitation, whether or not it was his own error that lead to the situation.

[Huw Watkins]

Give the man a break. 

Give the man a break. 

Most of us have ridden / driven faster than we should at some point in our lives.

No, he isn’t a hero but he is paralysed and I wouldn’t wish that on anyone.

I’m happy to celebrate any form of charity and goodwill  in today’s world; there’s precious little of either about.  This forum included.

 

[Boombang]

Glad it wasn’t just me
Glad it wasn’t just me thinking this OP.

[brooksby]

I think you’re all being a

(edited – decided my sarcasm was misplaced )

[Author]

Replies