Compensation to family of cyclist killed by truck at Bow cut because he jumped red light

mikeprytherch wrote:

Its sad as this poor guy died, but I guess if he had not of run the red light he would still of been alive, so he did contribute and therefore there has to be a reduction, that's the way the law has to work I'm afraid.

May I be the first to say: What a total asshat of a comment.

If he had braked, the lorry would most likely have run him over. The lorry didn't stop, and I doubt very much the lorry ran the red because he saw the cyclist do it.

But then I know as much about the circumstances as you do.

Regardless, the article focuses on how it is the victim of the CRIME that has been effectively punished here. No, 'the law' does not need to work like this. People get compensation for doing all sorts of dumb / illegal things that have unforeseen circumstances, all the time. Where blameless children/spouses are concerned, they should not become financial as well as emotional victims.

The only winner here was the insurance company, and the message sent to the HGV operating community is that your culpability is lessened if you can prove your victim was in the wrong too. What's next - less compensation because you weren't wearing thermonuclear Hi-Viz and a F1 helmet?

If his kids had been in nappies and orphaned by this HGV's illegal actions, I suppose you'd be all for slinging them into a workhouse.

KiwiMike wrote:

If he had braked, the lorry would most likely have run him over.
....
But then I know as much about the circumstances as you do.

Yet you judge the original comment.

To me, what is really disgusting, is the paltry punishment handed down to the track driver.

mikeprytherch wrote:

Its sad as this poor guy died, but I guess if he had not of run the red light he would still of been alive, so he did contribute and therefore there has to be a reduction, that's the way the law has to work I'm afraid.

I guess if you had read the article or had not posted this stupid comment, then you wouldn't look like such a cunt.

Bikebikebike wrote:

mikeprytherch wrote:

Its sad as this poor guy died, but I guess if he had not of run the red light he would still of been alive, so he did contribute and therefore there has to be a reduction, that's the way the law has to work I'm afraid.

I guess if you had read the article or had not posted this stupid comment, then you wouldn't look like such a cunt.

I read the article and at no point it is contested that running the red light was a factor in his death.

In a court, that would not be enough, but here it seems like tacit admission that it was relevant, since if it wasn't - and contributory negligence was still awarded - that would be the first thing to complain about.

Moan about specifics by all means but the tone here seems to be alleging the principle of contributory negligence is wrong, because it worked out badly for them specifically. Sorry, but I disagree, and if that wasn't the intention then it was written poorly.

nuclear coffee wrote:

Bikebikebike wrote:

mikeprytherch wrote:

Its sad as this poor guy died, but I guess if he had not of run the red light he would still of been alive, so he did contribute and therefore there has to be a reduction, that's the way the law has to work I'm afraid.

I guess if you had read the article or had not posted this stupid comment, then you wouldn't look like such a cunt.

I read the article and at no point it is contested that running the red light was a factor in his death.

Errr...

"Martin Porter QC, representing the family at the inquest, suggested that Mr Dorling had jumped the light to get away from away from the lorry."

I should think that suggesting his running the red light to avoid the lorry is contesting that running the red light was a factor in his death.

As I'm commenting again, I'd like to reiterate: mikeprytherch is a cunt.

mikeprytherch wrote:

Its sad as this poor guy died, but I guess if he had not of run the red light he would still of been alive, so he did contribute and therefore there has to be a reduction, that's the way the law has to work I'm afraid.

Sounds like he would have been run over regardless.

jacknorell wrote:

mikeprytherch wrote:

Its sad as this poor guy died, but I guess if he had not of run the red light he would still of been alive, so he did contribute and therefore there has to be a reduction, that's the way the law has to work I'm afraid.

Sounds like he would have been run over regardless.

Why does it sound like that?

I agree with mikeprytherch, as sad as it is to acknowledge, he contributed to his own death and therefore the payout his family gets is less. Yes, it's extremely sad for his family, but why should he get a higher payout when he contributed to his own death? If he'd stopped at the red light and been runover, I'd be furious if his family weren't getting the full amount awarded.

mikeprytherch wrote:

Its sad as this poor guy died, but I guess if he had not of run the red light he would still of been alive, so he did contribute and therefore there has to be a reduction, that's the way the law has to work I'm afraid.

You did read the article? What a poorly thought through comment. This tragic case would still have happened regardless of stopping for the red or not. The driver appears to have been fully intent on jumping the light. The only protection would have been a bunny hop onto the footpath. I find it totally offensive that the insurance company has obviously pushed for contributory negligence and the judge has been swayed by their influence.

Edit: and how many of us have made the decision to jump a light and breath a sigh of relief as a vehicle roars past. And even if the lorry was turning to the left, the driver still would have noticed a cyclist ahead of him before he even hit the lights. And also if the light had turned red as the lorry went through, there had been ample time to stop due to the amber.

giff77 wrote:

mikeprytherch wrote:

Its sad as this poor guy died, but I guess if he had not of run the red light he would still of been alive, so he did contribute and therefore there has to be a reduction, that's the way the law has to work I'm afraid.

What a poorly thought through comment.

You expect a thought through comment from someone who has trouble distinguishing between "of" and "have"?

userfriendly wrote:

giff77 wrote:

mikeprytherch wrote:

Its sad as this poor guy died, but I guess if he had not of run the red light he would still of been alive, so he did contribute and therefore there has to be a reduction, that's the way the law has to work I'm afraid.

What a poorly thought through comment.

You expect a thought through comment from someone who has trouble distinguishing between "of" and "have"?

Especially as they have no idea what Bow Roundabout is actually like:

http://youtu.be/CWbHw28AthQ
http://youtu.be/oT15kYXHxXI

giff77 wrote:

Edit: and how many of us have made the decision to jump a light and breath a sigh of relief as a vehicle roars past. ..

I don't know the details of the accident and I don't pretend to.

But as for your comment : As far as I can remember, I have never made a decision to jump a light. Are you saying that it is frequently a good idea? If that is the case, are you also saying that there is never a downside - i.e a vehicle roaring past your front or rear wheel, or even t-boning you? I don't really understand your point.

edster99 wrote:

But as for your comment : As far as I can remember, I have never made a decision to jump a light. Are you saying that it is frequently a good idea? If that is the case, are you also saying that there is never a downside - i.e a vehicle roaring past your front or rear wheel, or even t-boning you? I don't really understand your point.

Sometimes you have a situation where t-boning is not one of the things that can happen. It depends on timing of the lights, the road layout, and other factors. In such cases it may be actually safer to get going before the light turns green, or not stop if it just turned red.

This has nothing to do with impatience, or deliberately flaunting the rules for the heck of it, but with safety when faced with a system that is tailored for motorised traffic only and ignores the needs of cyclists (sometimes fatally).

The default position of following the rules is perfectly fine. But don't do it at the cost of safety.

userfriendly wrote:

edster99 wrote:

But as for your comment : As far as I can remember, I have never made a decision to jump a light. Are you saying that it is frequently a good idea? If that is the case, are you also saying that there is never a downside - i.e a vehicle roaring past your front or rear wheel, or even t-boning you? I don't really understand your point.

Sometimes you have a situation where t-boning is not one of the things that can happen. It depends on timing of the lights, the road layout, and other factors. In such cases it may be actually safer to get going before the light turns green, or not stop if it just turned red.

This has nothing to do with impatience, or deliberately flaunting the rules for the heck of it, but with safety when faced with a system that is tailored for motorised traffic only and ignores the needs of cyclists (sometimes fatally).

The default position of following the rules is perfectly fine. But don't do it at the cost of safety.

Well, i'll take your word for that and I can kind of see the argument on an individual basis if you think something is coming up behind you and isn't going to stop - but that is for getting out of the way (if possible), not for going across a junction. I can't see it for starting off on a red light before it goes green - you don't know how soon its going to change.

My concern is that at a population level, this contributes to the normalising the jumping of red lights. I'm not putting the blame for that solely at the feet of cyclists,BTW. The long term effect is my concern, in the sense that the more that people do it, the more everyone else (cyclists, pedestrians, drivers, etc) will think it is OK, without taking into account the circumstances, even when it is justified. People doing it when it is not justified, which we've all seen, still has the same effect of 'normalising' the act of ignoring traffic signals. Considering the quality of driving (and some riding) we already see, that's the last thing we need. I guess it comes back to infrastructure nudging people into making bad choices.