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.
71 thoughts on “Video: Sussex Police use CCTV footage of motorist knocking 12-year-old girl off bike in safety campaign”
I know it’s probably been
I know it’s probably been discussed on here many times, but I always have issues with the police issuing guidance on reflective clothing and helmets. It can’t help but put people off. Why don’t they give the same advice to pedestrians?
Also, why is that person still driving? That’s such a terrible bit of driving that I can’t even begin to imagine why they didn’t just have their license removed.
7thGalaxy wrote:I know it’s
I have no problem with them advising that you should try to be as visible as possible and that might include you considering what you wear. That’s good advice.
Helmets provide almost no benefit to road safety whatsoever. Advocating their use is based on voodoo science. They have though become some kind of four leaf clover or rabbits’ foot for the superstitious. Religious trinkets like a St Christopher medals are perhaps less popular than they were. I had one as kid and my mum was always there to give me a spalsh of Holy Water on my way out of the house. A double splash for races single splash for ordinary cycling and club runs.
These oldy worldy superstitions have now been replaced by the wearing of a helmet. They even have their own set of blessed miracles to report.
The more life changes, the more it stays the same.
7thGalaxy wrote:I know it’s
Actually, it seems that they are now doing just that. Only this morning Kent Police issued Twitter advice to pedestrians to wear bright or reflective clothing under the hashtag #playyourpart. They have been given a right beasting about it too.
Oh they’ve started down that
Oh they’ve started down that road now too:
Why is it the Police feel it is appropriate to call for high viz and helmets yet never infrastructure and space for cycling?
Cranky Acid wrote:Oh they’ve
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.
allez neg wrote:Cranky Acid
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.— Cranky Acid
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.
That’s a nasty
That’s a nasty collision.
Still, pleasing to see mostly good advice for once. Looking multiple times is critical. About time we had a campaign to get education about saccadic masking into driver training and testing.
Obviously the two usual red herrings make an appearance – it seems there’s no chance of research overturning the tide of opinion there.
As mentioned its amazing how
As mentioned its amazing how hard it is to get your license revoked, have half a beer more and lose it, hit a cyclist and get three points and pass part of the blame onto the cyclist.
[[[[[ Absolutely outrageous
[[[[[ Absolutely outrageous comments from Sargeant Carl Naff…
Just who, and who alone, should he should be lecturing here?
P.R.
PhilRuss wrote:[[[[[
What on earth are you talking about? His comments are entirely appropriate and reasonable. He’s not lecturing anyone.
jellysticks wrote:PhilRuss
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?
Ush wrote:jellysticks
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?— PhilRuss
[[[[[ 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 wrote:Ush
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?— jellysticks
[[[[[ 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
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.
jellysticks wrote:
Goodness
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.
I remember being 12 years old
I remember being 12 years old riding home from school on the path, one day a policeman saw me and I got a telling off and he told me to ride on the road! It was a 40mph dual carriageway! I wouldn’t let my kids ride on busy roads in this country, which is a shame.
Again the CPS show their
Again the CPS show their unwillingness to come up with a more serious charge. The youngster was in the refuge filter lane waiting to turn into the side street. Directly in front of the driver exiting. How could he fail to have seen her. Also ‘glad’ the judge opted for the minimum possible sentence. Didn’t even bother with the discretionary disqualification. ~X(
giff77 wrote:Again the CPS
Ok I’ll play. Which is a more serious charge that would fit an offence profile in this case?
The offence of driving without due care and attention (careless driving) under section 3 of the RTA 1988 is committed when the defendants driving falls below the standard expected of a competent and careful driver – section 3ZA(2) of the RTA 1988.
So that a fit.
Let’s try the next one up the scale that’s Dangerous Driving.
It has the same criteria as this one of a standard of driving falling below etc but it adds an additional criteria of deliberation and/or persistence.
here’s the charging guideline for the Dangerousness element.
The test for “dangerousness” is an objective one: persistent disregard of, say, traffic directions (be they “stop”, “give way” or traffic lights) may be evidence that the manner of the driving has fallen far below the standard required, thus making a charge of dangerous driving appropriate.
There’s the video. It looks to me like a single instance of inattention and lack of due care. I do not see persistence or deliberate dangerous driving.
Had the CPS charged this fellow with Dangerous Driving he would have been acquitted.
I think you’re right on this
I think you’re right on this one, unfortunately. I’d love to see something along the lines of ‘if you hurt or damage someone/something by driving in such a way that you would fail your test, you have to retake it before being allowed to drive solo again.’
It’s not perfect, but it’d make people (including myself.. I’m careful around cyclists, but I suspect I’ve got some bad habits) think twice about checking their mirrors.
oozaveared wrote:giff77
Thanks for coming out to play 🙂 and giving me a bit more clarification. I somehow thought there was a charge somewhere between the dangerous and undue care. I am surprised at the 3 points though. Unless that brings him right up to the limit. Who knows.
giff77 wrote:Again the CPS
I believe this is the junction of the video if you want to see the road layout.
( https://goo.gl/maps/k1YmL )
Having been along here I can’t think of any distractions or obstructions.
I couldn’t agree more. 7th
I couldn’t agree more. 7th Galaxy (great name!!) is right. Why should we have to wear hi-viz? I wear it, but only because I have poor dress sense. Surely it’s not needed to recommend wearing it. Why not pedestrians? Because they aren’t on the road and travelling at speed? Then let’s have ALL vehicles in hi-viz colours. It’s just an excuse for inattentive drivers.
The only case a driver can claim mitigating circumstances IMHO is if a cyclist is dressed in black, on a black bike at night on an unlit road when the moon is not out. Even then it’s only MITIGATING!
I have a simple policy of how to treat a cyclist as a car driver –
Treat them as if it’s your own child.
Yeah, the duty to not drive
Yeah, the duty to not drive into something is entirely in the hands of the driver, and if they can’t be sure of seeing everything, they should slow down.
Offtopic: It comes from a Chick Corea fusion tune ‘Hymn to the Seventh Galaxy’. It was the first thing which I saw when I needed to pick a username for Call of Duty back in 2002, and it’s stuck thereafter!
Yeah, the duty to not drive
Yeah, the duty to not drive into something is entirely in the hands of the driver, and if they can’t be sure of seeing everything, they should slow down.
Before someone jumps on this – I’d class pulling out dangerously as driving into something – and this should apply to cyclists as much as it does to drivers.
Offtopic: It comes from a Chick Corea fusion tune ‘Hymn to the Seventh Galaxy’. It was the first thing which I saw when I needed to pick a username for Call of Duty back in 2002, and it’s stuck thereafter!
Kinky aggro wrote:
The only
[quote=Kinky aggro]
The only case a driver can claim mitigating circumstances IMHO is if a cyclist is dressed in black, on a black bike at night on an unlit road when the moon is not out. Even then it’s only MITIGATING!
Better make sure that bike’s still fitted with the reflectors it was supplied with, then . . . . . . . 😕
Pigs in being patronising
Pigs in being patronising shocker…again.
I’m happy the advice to
I’m happy the advice to cyclists started off with solid advice on where on the road and how to ride, at least we can point the Daily Fail readers to that snippet.
Won’t work, but at least it proves ‘authority’ says it’s a very good idea.
Police sergeant wrote:there
Given human inattentiveness is more likely when we’re putting others in danger, not ourselves, I very much doubt this “equally” thing.
Sergeant Carl Knapp of Sussex
Sergeant Carl Knapp of Sussex Police said:
Actually motorists, just looking out of your windscreen directly in front of you might help?
I’m very wary of waiting in the centre of the road near the white line to turn right, so only if there is a filter will I not take primary position, although that wouldn’t really have helped in this case. The driver just wasn’t looking. It almost looks deliberate as though the driver was punishing the cyclist for blocking the way.
In any case if I’m signalling to turn right, there’s usually someone on a scooter coming towards me overtaking cars and will lop my arm off if it is anywhere near the white line, so I make sure my hand is on my side of the centreline, which puts me nicely in primary position so that cars can’t try to squeeze by on the inside and knock me off that way. This used to cause a lot of aggravation but people seem to have calmed down a bit recently.
“It shows how dangerous any
“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.”
At least it acknowledges the responsibility that comes with simply USING a car. So that’s good.
This tweet (twitter.com/kent_police/status/461379517400223744, as mentioned earlier, is not good. Although that’s Kent, not Sussex.
I wonder if anyone checked
I wonder if anyone checked his eyesight.
Shouldn’t be on the road. What a muppet.
People can get distracted at
People can get distracted at nothing sadly. We’ve all managed it, some worse than others!!
It’s a case of hands up, accept hopefully the right punishment. At least he got out of his car and didn’t try to blame the cyclist!!
Still, poor punishment. Doesn’t serve as a warning shot to less pleasant drivers though does it!!
Compelling evidence to
Compelling evidence to introduce presumed liability: road users capable of greater harm have greater responsibility.
The fine is appalling: the driver should have been given 6 months community service securing the roads for use by child (!) cyclists.
noether wrote:The fine is
I absolutely agree that the sentence was inadequately severe. However I confess to being astonished that the police actually bothered with a prosecution, which they normally wouldn’t, even with video evidence (well, not unless the victim is killed). The cops usually don’t care about cyclists.
What caused the willingness to investigate and prosecute? Was it the overwhelming, plain to see, incontrovertible evidence? Or was it because the victim was a child?
severs1966 wrote:noether
At the risk of repetition. I want to say again that the penalties for offences only really have a very small margin of interpretation. Having posted yesterday that the charge was the correct one according to the law and charging guidelines. I’ll add today that the sentence was correct as well.
Conviction for driving without due care and attention
3 points on his licence
£85 fine
£85 costs,
£20 victim surcharge.
Here’s the guideline sentence that a magistrate or judge needs to follow: They are asked to identify the characteristics of the offence and then look for the appropriate staring point.
The one that applies here is the lowest one
Momentary lapse of concentration or misjudgement at low speed.
The starting point for sentence is based on a fiirst time offender pleading not guilty
Starting point. Band A Fine + 3 – 4 points
Factors indicating greater degree of harm
1. Injury to others
2. Damage to other vehicles or property
3. High level of traffic or pedestrians in vicinity
4. Location e.g. near school when children are likely to be
present
Then consider a reduced sentence for guilty plea.
The Standard Band “A” fine is currently £50 The sentence in this case was £85. This approaches but does not reach the standard Band “B” fine of £100. It’s about as high as a magistrate could go without breaking the guidelines.
I mention this because there seems to be an idea that magistrates and judges can just make the sentence as they go along. But they can’t and if they go too far from the guidelines the sentences can be appealed. The magistrate also has to set down his /her reasons for adding on for aggravating and reducing for mitigating circumstances.
The issue is far more fundamental than getting annoyed with the CPS and the Judiciary or calling for higher sentences.
In most cases the road safety issue is not that sentences are too light but that there is almost no prospect of minor cases of careless or dangerous driving being dealt with at all.
Take speeding for example. It’s happening all the time continuously and it’s ignored. If believed that if they were speeding there would be a good chance that they would be caught they wouldn’t do it. You wouldn’t have to inctrease the sentence at all. It would be pretty clear that if you stood a good chance of being caught everytime you did it that if you carried on doing it you wouldn’t have a licence by the end of the week.
We don’t need higher sentences as such (though I am not against some increases) what we need is for the roads to be policed in a way that people know that their driving is being watched and monitored and that the police are minded to act.
The opposite is the case now. Most drivers believe that their driving is not monitored and that the police are not minded to prosecute minor offences.
A question, should the
A question, should the sentence be worse because it was a cyclist? No doubting the consequences of hitting a cyclist are potentially far worse and more dangerous but would anyone be calling for a harsher sentence if it was car on car??
I’m not defending the sentence but I don’t know if the law views car/bikes or pedestrians differently??
SB76 wrote:A question, should
If it had been car on car, there would almost certainly have been no injuries, no police called, no offence recorded, just another piece of shit driving the cost of which adds to everyone elses insurance.
One in 6 people claim on their car insurance each year. The massive majority for accident damage. Obviously barely any resulted in any driving offence charges. I think the law changed in about 1965 that all knocks had to be notified to the police. Personally I’d revoke that, increase the number of traffic cops tenfold and fund them from the roughly 5 million fines that would be issued from crashes alone.
“This footage shows a car
NO. NOT “EQUALLY”. NOT EQUAL AT ALL.
I’m a little bit angry about that
I hit a car last year. It was
I hit a car last year. It was my fault entirely. I could plead mitigation by saying that I was trying to make eye contact with the guy in the van to ensure he didn’t pull out in front of me as two roads merged into one (he was thinking about it – you could almost see the cogs turning as he assessed it) but while I was doing that I wasn’t looking at the old dude slowing, indicating and turning into his driveway just ahead of me
Bump!
As the slightly tiresome IAMs might say, I was going at a speed where I couldn’t stop in the distance I could see to be clear, or riding without due care etc but it was a second or two where I was looking to my side, not ahead, that’s all. No longer than a look in a rear view mirror, a look at a cycle computer or a speedo. Or someone cute in something minimalist.
The old boy in the car was mortified and couldn’t have been nicer, but bike and car ok, and just a light scuff on my knuckles and knee. Still, accidents happen, no harm done and no wailing or gnashing of teeth required. It was all appropriately English – apologies all round.
No intent, no grossly negligent conduct, no recriminations, just an………….accident.
Wondering why this footage
Wondering why this footage was needed….willing to bet it was because the motorist denied everything, and likely blamed the cyclist for appearing out of nowhere….especially one of these reckless kids…
Almost as bad as the driver
Almost as bad as the driver responsible for the collision is that the driver of the oncoming red Fiesta just drove past, completely ignoring the fact a young child may have been seriously injured.
Frightening just how uncaring and selfish some people are.
I love how they named this
I love how they named this video ‘Cycling Incident’
‘Driver not frigging looking incident’ might be more accurate.
In other news from Kent
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.”
KiwiMike wrote:In other news
Hmm, where to start – the arguable trivialisation of rape in the above post, or the obvious issue of intent, or lack thereof.
I’ve hit a car as a result of a momentary lapse of attention, but I’ve never accidentally raped or sexually assaulted anyone.
@Allez Neg: how about taking
@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.
KiwiMike wrote:In other news
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.
A few weeks ago I saw a
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.
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.
If you don’t take all the precautions you can, you can only blame yourself.
I once almost hit a runner while cycling. She was in black running down my side of a country lane with headphones on. How in hells name was I to see her? Same thing happened to me with a woman on a horse under dappled sunlight, car almost got her as well, but I swear she was invisible. A horse!
birzzles wrote:
I once almost
I understand where your coming from but.
Cycling to work last week came round a blind corner and face to face with a Cow that had got out of its field. Yes it was daylight, yes i could see the cow, if i had been driving fair chance i would have hit the cow. Likewise last weekend i had a group of 7 or 8 lambs dart across the road in front of the bike.
You simply can’t assume anything. Your the driver your actions do have consequences, you can’t blame the victim because you ****ed up. Just because the speed limit may be 60 doesn’t mean it is safe to drive at 60. Its called driving to the conditions.
birzzles wrote:A few weeks
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.
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.
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.
Kiwi – yes, I know the
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.
allez neg wrote:Kiwi – yes, I
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.
SB76 wrote:allez neg
How bloody refreshing! That’s where I come from as well.
@Hoski – The internet really
@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’.
KiwiMike wrote:@Hoski – The
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 ?
oozaveared wrote:
Who blamed
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’.
Sadly some live in their
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.
KiwiMike wrote:oozaveared
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’.— oozaveared
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.
oozaveared wrote:
And on the
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_cyclist_backs_shocking_campaign/
“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.
KiwiMike wrote:
“It was my
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).
KiwiMike wrote:oozaveared
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.
oozaveared wrote:
Let’s try
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?
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.
The law and the sentencing
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.
Once again highlights the
Once again highlights the need for mandatory application of collision avoidance tech to all new cars.
Looking at the video, I’m not
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.
@700c:
I don’t think I was
@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.
@Kiwimike @Brooksby..
On the
@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..
Oh and new cars come with
Oh and new cars come with running lights now don’t they? So I don’t think there’s an onus only on cyclists..
700c, There is evidence that
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.
Quote:”The video has been
Any other uploads floating around that anyone knows of?
EDIT: Here we go http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rqN3vdGYGaI
Quote:”It was my fault that I
=))
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.
Sad that the driver seemed to
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
Police Safety tips for
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?