Video: Sussex Police use CCTV footage of motorist knocking 12-year-old girl off bike in safety campaign

Incident in Chichester in 2012 left youngster with cuts and bruises

by Simon_MacMichael   April 30, 2014  

Motorist hits 12-year-old cyclist (Sussex Police YouTube still)

Sussex Police are using CCTV footage showing a 12-year-old cyclist being hit by a car as she waits at a junction as part of a new road safety campaign urging drivers to watch out for people on bikes and cyclists to take care around pedestrians.

The footage was taken in 2012 on the A259 in Chichester at the junction with Bognor Road. Luckily, the girl on the bike escaped with nothing more than bumps and bruises.

The motorist, a 41-year-old man, was convicted of driving without due care and attention and was given three points on his licence and ordered to pay £85 costs, an £85 fine and a £20 victim surcharge.

Sergeant Carl Knapp of Sussex Police said: "Fortunately in this case the cyclist escaped with bumps and bruises but it could have been a lot worse.

"Despite being just a few yards away, the car driver completely failed to look for the cyclist.

"It shows how dangerous any one of us can be if we fail to spot and take on board all of the other road users near us.

"This footage shows a car driver to blame but there have equally been incidents where cyclists have been knocked down after pulling in front of vehicles without looking.

"My message to all road users is look once, look twice and then look a third time if you have to - whatever you need to do to make sure you keep yourself and other people safe.

"70% of collisions where cyclists suffer serious harm or are killed happen at junctions.

"I would urge all road users to reflect on this and to take that opportunity to double check their view at junctions before passing through.

"Whether you have right of way or not, by getting a good understanding of the other road users and their position and speed, you are better placed to anticipate and take avoiding action where necessary."

Sussex Police say that four cyclists were killed in East and West Sussex last year, with 145 seriously injured.

The police force has also issued safety advice for both drivers and cyclists:

Safety tips for drivers:

- Look out for cyclists, especially when turning - make eye contact if possible so they know you've seen them

- Use your indicators and signal your intentions so that cyclists can react

- Give cyclists plenty of space when overtaking them, leaving as much room as you would give a car. If there isn't sufficient space to pass, hold back. Remember that cyclists may need to manoeuvre suddenly if the road is poor, it's windy or if a car door is opened

- Always check for cyclists when you open your car door

- Advanced stop lines allow cyclists to get to the front and increase their visibility. You must stop at the first white line reached if the lights are amber or red and allow cyclists time and space to move off when the green signal shows.

Safety tips for cyclists:

- Ride positively, decisively and well clear of the kerb - look and signal to show drivers what you plan to do and make eye contact where possible so you know drivers have seen you

- Avoid riding up the inside of large vehicles, like lorries or buses, where you might not be seen

- Always use lights after dark or when visibility is poor

- Wearing light coloured or reflective clothing during the day and reflective clothing and/or accessories in the dark increases your visibility

- Wear a correctly fitted cycle helmet that is securely fastened and conforms to current regulations.

70 user comments

Latest 30 commentsNewest firstBest ratedAll

@Allez Neg: how about taking it as what it was obviously meant as: an example of how victim blaming of cyclists for their maiming or death is standard practice amongst Police forces? And how it would be seen as callous / utterly unacceptable to use the same phraseology in relation to other crimes which have relatively recently moved into the sphere of being taken seriously. I do not seek to juxtapose the harm caused by sexual assault vs that caused by a 2,000kg vehicle moving at speed. I want neither to happen to anyone, and want both taken seriously by Police/CPS.

I was told there would be Cake. Luckily there's http://TestValleyCC.org.uk

KiwiMike's picture

posted by KiwiMike [544 posts]
1st May 2014 - 11:06

18 Likes

Kiwi - yes, I know the context of your post. I didn't see any victim blaming in what plod was quoted as saying in the article - just commonsense stuff. If, say, there were a spate of burglaries in the area, along with hoping plod would make efforts to catch the bad guys, I wouldn't see any problem or take offence if plod also issued general security advice to householders - I see no difference here.

As a observation I'm finding the generalised near hysterical tone in many posts and the general witch hunt of cars and other road users on this site a bit tedious, frankly.

posted by allez neg [4 posts]
1st May 2014 - 11:18

21 Likes

KiwiMike wrote:
In other news from Kent Police:

The assailant, a 41-year-old man, was convicted of attempted sexual violation and ordered to pay £85 costs, an £85 fine and a £20 victim surcharge.

Sergeant Carl Knapp of Sussex Police said: "Fortunately in this case the woman escaped with bumps and bruises but it could have been a lot worse.

"Despite being perfectly sober, the male completely failed to respect the woman's right to not be assaulted.

"It shows how dangerous any one of us can be if we fail to spot and take on board all of the other potential assailants near us.

"This footage shows a man to blame but there have equally been incidents where women have been assaulted after wearing provocative clothing and drinking heavily.

"My message to all women is don't dress sluttishly, don't drink and keep a vial of pepper spray in your hand at all times - whatever you need to do to make sure you keep yourself and other people safe.

"70% of assaults where women suffer serious harm or are killed happen after drinking whilst dressed inappropriately.

"I would urge all women to reflect on this and to take that opportunity to double check their clothing before going out.

"Whether you have a right to not be raped or not, by getting a good understanding of the predatory people and their tactics, you are better placed to anticipate and take avoiding action where necessary."

I know this has already been said - but this is a disgusting trivialisation of sexual assault. Please don't use something as horrific as rape to make a point.

Intent is really important - negligence is very different from actively seeking to harm another person.

posted by hoski [68 posts]
1st May 2014 - 11:39

11 Likes

allez neg wrote:
Kiwi - yes, I know the context of your post. I didn't see any victim blaming in what plod was quoted as saying in the article - just commonsense stuff. If, say, there were a spate of burglaries in the area, along with hoping plod would make efforts to catch the bad guys, I wouldn't see any problem or take offence if plod also issued general security advice to householders - I see no difference here.

As a observation I'm finding the generalised near hysterical tone in many posts and the general witch hunt of cars and other road users on this site a bit tedious, frankly.

None of us want these accidents to happen but sadly they do down to a whole host of issues from simple distraction to an inability to accept we're not upto it anymore.
I've both been the victim and culprit on both bicycle and car thankfully in my case, they havent yet resulted accidents more near misses! Sadly none of use are perfect no matter how much we may try to convince ourselves we are.

As far as i can, the driver made a mistake, accepted his punishment (albeit weak) and now the police are using this example to make a point to other drivers and also serve to remind cyclist that it's best otmake yourself as visibile as possible.

posted by SB76 [81 posts]
1st May 2014 - 11:48

14 Likes

allez neg wrote:
Cranky Acid wrote:
Oh they've started down that road now too:

htps://twitter.com/kent_police/status/461379517400223744

Why is it the Police feel it is appropriate to call for high viz and helmets yet never infrastructure and space for cycling?

Perhaps for similar reasons that rather than address the root cause of acquisitive crime first regardless of cost (poverty, inequality of wealth, drug addiction, a general feeling of disenfranchisement with wider society, nihilistic thrill seeking etc etc..) plod will recommend that to reduce the risk of being burgled you should maybe lock your doors, get a dog or some security lighting etc.

How about punishing the crimes appropriately so that there is a disincentive to do them? In the driving case: Automatic ban for ANY driving offence with the duration dependent on the severity of the offence. Need for retest in any situation that resulted in injury. Confiscation and crushing of vehicles if un-licensed, uninsured, convicted of dangerous driving or death caused.

posted by paulrbarnard [136 posts]
1st May 2014 - 11:59

13 Likes

birzzles wrote:
A few weeks ago I saw a middle aged woman drive along a straight a road in day light into a big sign saying road closed. I saw the whole thing from a side junction.

Quite often there is a lot going on for the motorist to contend with, unfamiliar roads and traffic, and pedestrians, so it can be hard to see everything.

It can be hard to see everything. But that's the responsibility you take on when you drive - you accept that what you are doing could seriously harm others, and that you should put yourself in a position that allows you not to do that unless someone else does something that supersedes it (like running out in front of you). If you don't have time to take everything in, slow down. It's not that hard.

In this instance it simply sounds like she was distracted. It is her responsibility to manage that distraction, either by ignoring it or stopping. Lucky for her she didn't do any real damage, by the sound of it.

birzzles wrote:
Yesterday I saw a guy get out of a car shaking so badly he could hardly stand. I think he had some sort of disease.

Clearly, if his disease impairs his ability to drive safely, he shouldn't drive. That may make his life even more difficult, yes, but having a difficult life is not a reason to allow someone to put others in danger.

birzzles wrote:
If you don't take all the precautions you can, you can only blame yourself.

I full disagree. If you don't take the precautions you reasonably should, you may reasonably be partly to blame. Anything stronger than that is just making excuses for other's poor behavior. Would I knowingly put myself in significant (but faultless) danger to prove a point? No. But that doesn't mean that the danger (or it's consequences) is my fault in the first place.

Why is it so hard for people to accept that significant responsibilities can still arise from everyday tasks? It seems that it's a good excuse to say 'I am willingly doing something potentially dangerous to others, but I do it all the time so I don't need to take a lot of care when I do it'. I can't help but think that a strict/presumed liability regime is required to change that attitude.

posted by step-hent [695 posts]
1st May 2014 - 12:10

19 Likes

@Hoski - The internet really is crap for mistaking intent, isn't it?

I am not trivialising anything. I am highlighting how odious it is to have an officer of the law *trivialise* what could have very easily been the death of a child by using it as an excuse to trot out victim-blaming tropes. Clearly others saw nothing wrong with what the officer said, or their use of this video in this way. Others agree with me that he was totally out of order. You read it as trivialising something that obviously is not. I'm a husband and father of two girls. Do you seriously expect me to think like that?

A mechanism people frequently use when challenging statements from people in positions of authority is to replace the word 'cyclist' (or another minority) with the word 'Jew' or 'Black' or 'Woman' to highlight the minority-bashing, victim-blaming culture embedded in our institutions. Specifically, NOT to trivialise individual or historic wrongs, but to highlight how society now finds such trivialisation or victim blaming of other groups abhorrent, but not those on two wheels. By holding a mirror to and challenging these statements or phraseologies we begin to educate others, and hopefully to change the culture.

It is with no small surprise that I read posts from 'fellow cyclists' that see nothing wrong with current Police approaches. But as has been said, 'cycling is a broad church'.

I was told there would be Cake. Luckily there's http://TestValleyCC.org.uk

KiwiMike's picture

posted by KiwiMike [544 posts]
1st May 2014 - 12:28

17 Likes

SB76 wrote:
allez neg wrote:

I've both been the victim and culprit on both bicycle and car thankfully in my case, they havent yet resulted accidents more near misses! Sadly none of us are perfect no matter how much we may try to convince ourselves we are.

How bloody refreshing! That's where I come from as well.

Cycling is like a church - many attend, but few understand.

posted by oozaveared [673 posts]
1st May 2014 - 13:37

13 Likes

KiwiMike wrote:
@Hoski - The internet really is crap for mistaking intent, isn't it?

I am not trivialising anything. I am highlighting how odious it is to have an officer of the law *trivialise* what could have very easily been the death of a child by using it as an excuse to trot out victim-blaming tropes. Clearly others saw nothing wrong with what the officer said, or their use of this video in this way. Others agree with me that he was totally out of order. You read it as trivialising something that obviously is not. I'm a husband and father of two girls. Do you seriously expect me to think like that?

A mechanism people frequently use when challenging statements from people in positions of authority is to replace the word 'cyclist' (or another minority) with the word 'Jew' or 'Black' or 'Woman' to highlight the minority-bashing, victim-blaming culture embedded in our institutions. Specifically, NOT to trivialise individual or historic wrongs, but to highlight how society now finds such trivialisation or victim blaming of other groups abhorrent, but not those on two wheels. By holding a mirror to and challenging these statements or phraseologies we begin to educate others, and hopefully to change the culture.

It is with no small surprise that I read posts from 'fellow cyclists' that see nothing wrong with current Police approaches. But as has been said, 'cycling is a broad church'.

Victim blaming?

The driver was prosecuted by the police. Convicted by the court and sentenced at the upper end of the sentence guideline for the circumstances of this incident.

Seems to me the right person was not only blamed but punished.

Who blamed the victim again ?

Cycling is like a church - many attend, but few understand.

posted by oozaveared [673 posts]
1st May 2014 - 14:26

17 Likes

oozaveared wrote:

Who blamed the victim again ?

You did read what the policeman said, right?

"This footage shows a car driver to blame but there have equally been incidents where cyclists have been knocked down after pulling in front of vehicles without looking.

>>> see the huge 'but' in there? Ever tried apologising whilst using the word 'but'? doesn't go down too well does it?

"My message to all road users is look once, look twice and then look a third time if you have to - whatever you need to do to make sure you keep yourself and other people safe.

>>> How would looking have helped this girl at all? Is the inference that she didn't look?

"I would urge all road users to reflect on this and to take that opportunity to double check their view at junctions before passing through.

>>> 'all road users' - except there's only one group of road users who kill/maim others. And again, in this context, no amount of 'checking' would have helped her.

...and 4 out of 5 of the 'Safety tips for cyclists' required the cyclist to do something to hopefully influence the motorist's behaviour.

I accept that some will not read the above as 'victim blaming', more as common sense / general advice. Problem is, that's pretty much *all* the Police ever say. On average 1999/2000ths of road deaths are caused by motorists. The fact that cyclists are almost always lumped into the collectively responsible 'road users' bracket when it comes to Keeping Others Safe is massively misleading. It infers that shit happens, and when it happens to cyclists, well, you're a 'road user' and it's just one of those things. Also frequently gets used as ammo against cyclists, inferring a lawbreaking cyclist is Just As Bad as a lawbreaking motorist. We all know how it works: When it comes to queueing or red lights you have the same obligations dammit, breaking the law engenders the same Daily-Mail-esque hysteria, but you don't have the same rights 'cos you don't pay Road Tax. All of this when you pose an infinitesimally small danger to other 'road users'.

I was told there would be Cake. Luckily there's http://TestValleyCC.org.uk

KiwiMike's picture

posted by KiwiMike [544 posts]
1st May 2014 - 15:36

23 Likes

Sadly some live in their little worlds where they dont have their perceived view of the world and they of course are always right. It is a shame they dont actually bother to come up with the modern world or indeed the laws of the world.
We need to ensure we also follow the rules, most do but some dont.

The tax thing is just moronic and shows a lack of awareness, same can be said for peoples views of cyclist positioning (something that isnt aided by sheer number of cars on the road) but it doesnt help when cyclists jump red lights, needlessly cycle unhelpfully.....

The problem with the road at the end of the day isnt motorists, cyclists or even pedestrains but simply W**kers! People who think they own the road and have a devine right ot be where you are, truthfully it doesnt matter to these guys what your mode of transport is, they just hate everyone on the road.

Shit does happen on roads and that will never change but it's the w**kers that needlessly crank up the heat and make it worse.

posted by SB76 [81 posts]
1st May 2014 - 15:46

15 Likes

KiwiMike wrote:
oozaveared wrote:

Who blamed the victim again ?

You did read what the policeman said, right?

"This footage shows a car driver to blame but there have equally been incidents where cyclists have been knocked down after pulling in front of vehicles without looking.

>>> see the huge 'but' in there? Ever tried apologising whilst using the word 'but'? doesn't go down too well does it?

"My message to all road users is look once, look twice and then look a third time if you have to - whatever you need to do to make sure you keep yourself and other people safe.

>>> How would looking have helped this girl at all? Is the inference that she didn't look?

"I would urge all road users to reflect on this and to take that opportunity to double check their view at junctions before passing through.

>>> 'all road users' - except there's only one group of road users who kill/maim others. And again, in this context, no amount of 'checking' would have helped her.

...and 4 out of 5 of the 'Safety tips for cyclists' required the cyclist to do something to hopefully influence the motorist's behaviour.

I accept that some will not read the above as 'victim blaming', more as common sense / general advice. Problem is, that's pretty much *all* the Police ever say. On average 1999/2000ths of road deaths are caused by motorists. The fact that cyclists are almost always lumped into the collectively responsible 'road users' bracket when it comes to Keeping Others Safe is massively misleading. It infers that shit happens, and when it happens to cyclists, well, you're a 'road user' and it's just one of those things. Also frequently gets used as ammo against cyclists, inferring a lawbreaking cyclist is Just As Bad as a lawbreaking motorist. We all know how it works: When it comes to queueing or red lights you have the same obligations dammit, breaking the law engenders the same Daily-Mail-esque hysteria, but you don't have the same rights 'cos you don't pay Road Tax. All of this when you pose an infinitesimally small danger to other 'road users'.

Blimey. Do you feel better.

Let's try again.

Who was reported for the crime?
Who was charged?
Who was prosecuted?
Who was convicted?
Who was fined?
Who had 3 points added to their licence?
Whose insurance premium will go up next year and for the next 5 years?
Who had to pay costs?
Who had to pay the victim surcharge?

Who fails to understand that the police were using a pretty run of the mill careless driving incident on video to make a general point about how easy it is to make a stupid mistake if you don't look carefully enough and what the consequences are for other road users (and you) if you do.

And on the flip side how easy it is for people to be careless and not look carefully enough so making the point about doing everything you can to mitigate the chances that their mistake ends up with you getting hurt.

It's on a par with programmes showing people how easy it is for crooks to pick your pocket or nick your bag and what you can do to reduce their chances of nicking your bag or picking your pocket.

No more no less.

Cycling is like a church - many attend, but few understand.

posted by oozaveared [673 posts]
1st May 2014 - 16:31

16 Likes

The law and the sentencing guidelines should be changed so that people who drive like this should be made to re-sit their driving test. The prospect of an extended test would focus the minds of many 'careless' drivers.

The term Careless Driving sounds too much like a little act of occasional oversight. How would poor quality drivers feel if they had a conviction for 'Incompetent Driving'. (Or whatever term you may prefer, within reason). Not one you are likely to tell your friends is it? Again it just needs parliamentary approval.

Lastly the courts should directly inform insurance companies of convictions so that the guilty cannot avoid paying the correct price for cover. That is where the biggest monetary loss for the driver occurs.

Any fool can criticise, condemn and complain - and most fools do. Dale Carnegie. 1936

posted by The Lead Farmer [5 posts]
1st May 2014 - 20:23

19 Likes

Once again highlights the need for mandatory application of collision avoidance tech to all new cars.

posted by Initialised [150 posts]
1st May 2014 - 21:34

11 Likes

Ush wrote:
jellysticks wrote:
PhilRuss wrote:
[[[[[ Absolutely outrageous comments from Sargeant Carl Naff...
Just who, and who alone, should he be lecturing here?
P.R.

What on earth are you talking about? His comments are entirely appropriate and reasonable. He's not lecturing anyone.

I think he's talking about the tosser from the police force who, in the aftermath of another cretinous motorist ploughing into a cyclist, saw fit to open his trap and vomit forth rubbish about helmets and hi-viz.

Would you like anything else obvious explained to you?


[[[[[ Thanx, USH, for clarifying...seems like some folks have difficulty seeing what's in front of their noses, rather like the driver in this video.
P.R.

PhilRuss

posted by PhilRuss [296 posts]
2nd May 2014 - 2:17

14 Likes

oozaveared wrote:

And on the flip side how easy it is for people to be careless and not look carefully enough so making the point about doing everything you can to mitigate the chances that their mistake ends up with you getting hurt.

Please quote the peer-reviewed sciency stuff showing the Hi-Viz reduces collisions. I'm sure a lot of people will want to see it. Particularly the Hi-Viz industry, who - strangely - don't cite any evidence their products improve safety. Rather like the helmet industry, come to think of it...

But I digress. For further proof of the victim-blaming-wrapped-up-as-safety-message bent of this whole thing, look no further than the follow-up article, including comments from the driver himself: http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/11187568.Driver_who_knocked_down_girl_cyc...

"It was my fault that I hit her but she was dressed in all grey on what was a rather grey day.

"It may not have made a difference in this case, but I would urge cyclists to wear bright clothes, or high visibility items."

Spot the two 'buts' in there? This person clearly believes they were not fully responsible. Sure, they have admitted liability - but I bet only because it was on tape.

And I disagree with your comparison that this is akin to taking sensible anti-theft precautions. Theft is a calculated action, minimised by sensible precaution. Road collisions are more often than not the fault of one party, and no amount of precaution or clothing on the part of the other will save you - unless, as requested, you do have that Hi-Viz-works proof. The fact that the Police still bang on about it being an equal responsibility is corrosive. It's victim-blaming.

No more no less.

I was told there would be Cake. Luckily there's http://TestValleyCC.org.uk

KiwiMike's picture

posted by KiwiMike [544 posts]
2nd May 2014 - 9:06

16 Likes

Looking at the video, I'm not sure that hi-viz or anything would really have made a difference to the incident. The girl was waiting almost exactly in front of the car, one carriage-width away, not dressed like a ninja, and yet the driver completely failed to see her.

Dressing up like a highlighter pen and having lights and reflectors that can be seen from space make absolutely no difference if the other parties aren't actually **looking**.

In my experience, trying to perhaps explain the behaviour of some motorists, I think they honestly don't see cyclists because they are only looking for the big metal boxes on four or more wheels. Like that university exercise where nobody notices a gorilla walking across a film of a basketball match, because its so unlikely that it becomes "somebody else's problem" and the viewer edits it out.

I think cyclists are that gorilla, to far too many motorists.

posted by brooksby [171 posts]
2nd May 2014 - 9:52

17 Likes

KiwiMike wrote:

"It was my fault that I hit her but she was dressed in all grey on what was a rather grey day.

"It may not have made a difference in this case, but I would urge cyclists to wear bright clothes, or high visibility items."

And how many cars do you see driving around which are almost exactly the colour of the road or clouds or rain?

Nobody in the safety industry ever goes on record saying that from now on, all cars will only be manufactured in bright and/or hi-viz colours, and yet if hi-viz really made that much difference then it would do so for all modes of transport.

(in the interests of total disclosure - I commute to work by bicycle, and I wear a hi-viz coat if its raining, and a helmet because my wife said she'd kill me otherwise).

posted by brooksby [171 posts]
2nd May 2014 - 9:58

15 Likes

@Kiwimike @Brooksby..
On the subject of 'hi viz'

Do you need a peer reviewed scientific study to believe that making yourself more visible on the road as a cyclist is a good idea?

If you do, then you'll never get it, I don't think -as it's impossible to compare situations where accidents and human error occur with situations where they don't under controlled conditions for the same population

Each to his own, but why would you wilfully ignore common sense?. We all know roads are dangerous, right? May as well do what you can, in my view. Accusations of victim blaming and taking the moral high ground should not happen at the expense of your own safety.

Agreed that nothing can be done about the driver who doesn't look! And punishments should be made far harsher, and don't get me started on infrastructure! But all this notwithstanding..

posted by 700c [567 posts]
2nd May 2014 - 10:25

7 Likes

Oh and new cars come with running lights now don't they? So I don't think there's an onus only on cyclists..

posted by 700c [567 posts]
2nd May 2014 - 10:30

7 Likes

@700c:

I don't think I was making a call for peer-reviewed research.

My point was that hi-viz and/or lighting that can paint a drone strike from space are both useless unless motorists also **pay f-ing attention**.

I agree, maybe they'd help - and, as I said, I wear hi-viz when its not a bright day - but in the case of that particular video, I really don't believe that they would have.

That is all.

posted by brooksby [171 posts]
2nd May 2014 - 10:49

13 Likes

700c, There is evidence that daytime running lights have an adverse effect on the safety of less visible road users. It's harder to make out things that are beside a light in your field of vision. Though, those were when daytime lights on cars tended to be dipped beams - while the DRL on many moderns cars today are a set of lower intensity LEDs.

posted by Paul J [651 posts]
2nd May 2014 - 11:08

7 Likes

oozaveared wrote:

Let's try again.

Who was reported for the crime?
Who was charged?
Who was prosecuted?
Who was convicted?
Who was fined?
Who had 3 points added to their licence?
Whose insurance premium will go up next year and for the next 5 years?
Who had to pay costs?
Who had to pay the victim surcharge?

Who gets to go back on the road?
Who is just one of a significant proportion of road users who will make identical mistakes?
How many road users came away with the impression that cyclists should wear hi-viz?
Who will be injured in similar collisions?
Who will be killed in similar collisions?
How many more motorized vehicles will be on the road in the future?
How will that affect the number of such incidents?
Why are the penalties in law so low for such serious incidents?
Will the victim feel comfortable on the road in the future?

oozaveared wrote:

And on the flip side how easy it is for people to be careless and not look carefully enough so making the point about doing everything you can to mitigate the chances that their mistake ends up with you getting hurt.

There is probably very little you can do to improve your safety in similar circumstances: car drivers run into huge, brightly coloured obvious things all the time.

And I think that's at least part of where the diverging opinions on this come from, there's a desire to believe that we have significant control over events. It helps to think that the victim (which could be me) was not doing something (which I do) and therefore that despite the awful situation it probably won't happen to me.

Inevitably these accidents will happen due to the over use of motorized vehicles. Compounding the injury to the victim with insult is just crass.

posted by Ush [418 posts]
2nd May 2014 - 13:41

9 Likes

KiwiMike wrote:
oozaveared wrote:

And on the flip side how easy it is for people to be careless and not look carefully enough so making the point about doing everything you can to mitigate the chances that their mistake ends up with you getting hurt.

Please quote the peer-reviewed sciency stuff showing the Hi-Viz reduces collisions. I'm sure a lot of people will want to see it. Particularly the Hi-Viz industry, who - strangely - don't cite any evidence their products improve safety. Rather like the helmet industry, come to think of it...

But I digress. For further proof of the victim-blaming-wrapped-up-as-safety-message bent of this whole thing, look no further than the follow-up article, including comments from the driver himself: http://www.theargus.co.uk/news/11187568.Driver_who_knocked_down_girl_cyc...

"It was my fault that I hit her but she was dressed in all grey on what was a rather grey day.

"It may not have made a difference in this case, but I would urge cyclists to wear bright clothes, or high visibility items."

Spot the two 'buts' in there? This person clearly believes they were not fully responsible. Sure, they have admitted liability - but I bet only because it was on tape.

And I disagree with your comparison that this is akin to taking sensible anti-theft precautions. Theft is a calculated action, minimised by sensible precaution. Road collisions are more often than not the fault of one party, and no amount of precaution or clothing on the part of the other will save you - unless, as requested, you do have that Hi-Viz-works proof. The fact that the Police still bang on about it being an equal responsibility is corrosive. It's victim-blaming.

No more no less.

You first. Tell me where I say you have to wear high viz clothing. Or was that a Blue Peter response you prepared earlier.

Queensland Uni have done some work but that is dusk and low light based.

TRL have also done some work on it. The conclusion is that it is not hi viz per se but the level of contrast against a background that aids visibility such that white and/or black may work very well in certain circumstances. Hi viz is Hi viz because it uses colours that are likely to contrast with most backgrounds.

Increasing your visibility not necessaily by Hi viz clothing is a good idea. I use lights even in the day. I even do that when I am driving. Positioning is also a means of increasing your visibility. Likewise having a sensible idea of what drivers can see and what they are focusing on at the time is helpful. Cycling makes me a better driver and driving makes me a better cyclist.

Don't be so obessesed with one or the other. In my view on an open road wearing clothes using lights that aid your visibility from a distance is not a matter of being seen or not being seen. It's more a matter of being seen and being "noticed" a little bit earlier. You may want to explore the concept of seeing without noticing. The brain is hierachical. We see huge amounts. We notice much less.

In advanced driving we have a mantra that has the acronym TTR. Time To React. In most cases we mean by providing that time for yourself, but you should also provide it for others. If you help yourself to be noticed a bit earlier a driver may well start thinking about passing you a bit earlier. They may make a better job of it. Some won't bother but some may. And people with poor vision shouldn't be driving but they are. Likewise people with poor reactions. Of course they'll see you without the hi viz. But they may notice you earlier. TTR aids road safety al round.

I have been riding properly since my early teens joining a club in 1973. I've been a driver since I was 17 in 1979. I have driven professionally all over the world. I don't wear a helmet but I do use day time lights and I think about what I wear.

BTW "Victim blaming" is such a crass phrase. It's philosophically dishonest. It's based on a false dichotomy. see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma

The victim of a collision is not automatically absolved of blame just because some people think the term "Victim blaming" is a form of check mate in an argument. It's a logical fallacy. Saves you having to think too much is all and tidies everything into a lazy binary choice.

Why don't you stop using it and deal with the more complex realities of these matters.

Cycling is like a church - many attend, but few understand.

posted by oozaveared [673 posts]
2nd May 2014 - 13:51

6 Likes

Quote:
"The video has been removed as a violation of YouTube's policy on shocking and disgusting content."

Any other uploads floating around that anyone knows of?

EDIT: Here we go http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqN3vdGYGaI

seven's picture

posted by seven [116 posts]
2nd May 2014 - 19:08

8 Likes

Quote:
"It was my fault that I hit her but she was dressed in all grey on what was a rather grey day.

"It may not have made a difference in this case, but I would urge cyclists to wear bright clothes, or high visibility items."

Rolling On The Floor

Funny how I can see her fine on the grainy CCTV footage from thirty odd yards away ya crackpot.

It beggars belief how some people can glibly equivocate almost killing someone just because they're behind the wheel.

seven's picture

posted by seven [116 posts]
2nd May 2014 - 19:22

11 Likes

PhilRuss wrote:
Ush wrote:
jellysticks wrote:
PhilRuss wrote:
[[[[[ Absolutely outrageous comments from Sargeant Carl Naff...
Just who, and who alone, should he be lecturing here?
P.R.

What on earth are you talking about? His comments are entirely appropriate and reasonable. He's not lecturing anyone.

I think he's talking about the tosser from the police force who, in the aftermath of another cretinous motorist ploughing into a cyclist, saw fit to open his trap and vomit forth rubbish about helmets and hi-viz.

Would you like anything else obvious explained to you?


[[[[[ Thanx, USH, for clarifying...seems like some folks have difficulty seeing what's in front of their noses, rather like the driver in this video.
P.R.

Goodness me. I think that the police officer in question is making some general observations, addressed to 'all road users' encouraging everybody to be alert and aware of others around them, followed by the police force's (i.e. his employer's) guidance for both drivers AND cyclists on how one can take steps to reduce the chance of road accidents. The guidance (and it is guidance) given to all parties seems reasonable. I don't see anything 'outrageous' resembling 'vomit' or 'rubbish' coming from a 'tosser' in any of that. But then I'm not either of you, and I probably have lower blood pressure. Enjoy your ranting and stay safe on the roads - I'm giving up getting involved in this kind of shite again, sticking to the technical articles and bike reviews from now on.

posted by jellysticks [83 posts]
2nd May 2014 - 22:48

10 Likes

jellysticks wrote:

Goodness me. I think that the police officer in question is making some general observations, addressed to 'all road users' encouraging everybody to be alert and aware of others around them, followed by the police force's (i.e. his employer's) guidance for both drivers AND cyclists on how one can take steps to reduce the chance of road accidents.

Lawks a' mercy, but I do believe that the policeman was a' addressing o' the cyclists. Or do you be under the folksy impression that he was telling motorists to wear helmets and day-glo tabards?

You could have knocked me down with a motor car.

posted by Ush [418 posts]
3rd May 2014 - 2:07

8 Likes

Sad that the driver seemed to fail to recognise that needed to change how he observed at junctions to avoid a similar collision in the future

I wear high viz when riding some roads and I'm not sure if really makes any difference to being seen by drivers who don't look and observe properly but I'm happy that might mean that I won't get blamed when a driver pulls out without registering a cyclist approaching (and yes I'm out in primary passing junctions/brakes covered/watching for wheel movement/making eye contact*)

Fortunate that the young rider wasn't badly hurt and I hope starts to ride again - I got knocked off in a similar accident in my early twenties, thrown across 2 lanes, saw what was coming and lifted my leg out of the way of the car and luckily nothing coming the other way - the axle in my bottom bracket cracked with the force of the impact - very bruised, cut up and shaken didn't ride a bike on the road for something like 10years after the collision - now that's a lot longer than any driving ban that gets handed out

*live in Melbourne Aus' and window tinting+bright sun means eye contact can be impossible - ho hum

antigee's picture

posted by antigee [166 posts]
4th May 2014 - 9:39

8 Likes

Police Safety tips for cyclists: Wear light coloured or reflective clothing during the day.

How will that help when drivers dont bloody well look? If you cant see someone right in front of you a few feet ahead should you really be driving at all?

Dark_Wolf's picture

posted by Dark_Wolf [35 posts]
8th May 2014 - 0:59

5 Likes