- This topic has 31 replies, 16 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 11 months ago by
brooksby.
-
CreatorTopic
-
June 26, 2024 at 4:36 pm #32897
OldRidgeback
If a cyclist had been involved in so many deaths, you can bet there would’ve been howls throughout the right wing press. But this….
-
CreatorTopic
-
AuthorReplies
-
wtjs wrote:I wonder what the Sainsbury’s driver would have said as he zoomed off without looking ‘thought it was just a dog/ cyclist/ schoolchild’?(these are frequently seen on this narrow pavement)
Or a sack of potatoes. Never forget the mythical sack of potatoes
Rendel Harris
ROOTminus1 wrote:
ROOTminus1 wrote:To be fair Touareg was chosen for the connotations of the namesake nomadic tribe of the Sahal region; the ability to travel freely across inhospitable terrain. Not exactly safety minded I’ll admit, but it was certainly chosen before the tribe declared allegiance to religious extremist groups.Tuareg people have also been renowned for more than 1000 years as some of the hardest and most skilful warriors in the Saharan region, notorious for banditry on the many trade routes across the area and also, in more recent times, putting up incredible, if ultimately unsuccessful, resistance against French colonialism. Maybe Volkswagen did choose the name for the reasons you mention but if they were unaware of the warrior connotations of it then somebody in the publicity department certainly skimped on their research!
ROOTminus1
Rendel Harris wrote:
Rendel Harris wrote:Hirsute wrote:Raptor : Bird of prey. Just the mindset required when driving on UK roads.See also Warrior, Grenadier, Touareg, Defender, Renegade…even names like Macan (Porsche, means tiger) and Kodiaq (Skoda, largest brown bear) have fairly unsubtle “I’m the biggest beast in the jungle and can rip you up if I want” connotations.
To be fair Touareg was chosen for the connotations of the namesake nomadic tribe of the Sahal region; the ability to travel freely across inhospitable terrain.
Not exactly safety minded I’ll admit, but it was certainly chosen before the tribe declared allegiance to religious extremist groups.
hawkinspeter
NotNigel wrote:‘How can we prevent this sort of incident happening again? More stringent and frequent medical tests for people who hold a driving license? Try and change the trend in people wanting bigge, vulgar vehicles? No no, wait I’ve got it…..more robust fences around every school in the land’Can’t we just get schoolkids to wear bike helmets whilst at school?
wtjs
I wonder what the sentence was?
That could easily have been me- I wonder what the Sainsbury’s driver would have said as he zoomed off without looking ‘thought it was just a dog/ cyclist/ schoolchild’?(these are frequently seen on this narrow pavement)
https://upride.cc/incident/yn67mvj_sainsburys44tonner_closepass/
What I do know is that the police would have been immediately looking for excuses for the driver- the helmet dodge would have been tricky, but they could have condemned it as not being ‘MIPS’ or whatever, or noted that I wasn’t wearing Hi-Viz at 8:30 BST on 17th June, or decided that I’d brought it on myself by failing to provide protection for myself in the shape of a 2 tonne panzer. We have recently seen them deploying the helmet/ Hi-Viz dodges when the doctor charged out from a junction in front of yet another ‘our thoughts and prayers are with the family of the’ deceased cyclist, and they would have been overjoyed at the effect of this ‘sudden onset epilepsy’ claim. Needless to say, they did not respond in any way to the video evidence of this Sainsbury’s driver offence.
NotNigel
‘How can we prevent this sort
‘How can we prevent this sort of incident happening again? More stringent and frequent medical tests for people who hold a driving license? Try and change the trend in people wanting bigge, vulgar vehicles? No no, wait I’ve got it…..more robust fences around every school in the land’
Met police to review
Met police to review investigation of deadly car crash at Wimbledon school
Hirsute
Spokesperson
I hope the coroner’s inquest
I hope the coroner’s inquest will make this clearer. Having seen some of the results of court cases in the past two weeks, I have absolutely no confidence that if a driver crashed into me and killed me, the law would be there to give me justice. “Just didn’t see them” came up twice – sorry no, three times. No, four times. Only one person ended up with a proper penalty. And that was a £240 fine for killing another human being.
One driver has been banned from driving for five years, but I have put a marker in my diary, for the day she comes back to court to protest at that severity and asks for it to be removed.
One of the cases was so ludicrous that it was clear the rozzers started at the point “How can we make sure this poor lady walks free from court?”, and brought in victim-blaming (no helmet, no hi-vis on a sunny day) and claiming bushes and other obstructions where there were none as we saw photos of the crash scene.
Hirsute wrote:Although it is important to note Mark Hodson’s comment“Drivers medical report at the Coroners Inquest should be interesting , as will be the evidence from the examining physician.”
I think following bin lorry man in scotland, people are a little sceptical.
I have a friend who has epilepsy. She doesn’t drive.
giff77 wrote:The other day a Ford Raptor was parked up beside me. The bonnet came nearly half way up my windows. The tyres pretty much up to my bonnet. I walked past and it was frightening that if the driver lost control or was distracted and hit a human or vehicle everyone was dead bar the driver of the beast. The driver himself was well dressed and his vehicle was all shiny so obviously not being used for work of any description.A neighbour has one and it is enormous. I’ve given 40ton capacity off-highway construction trucks with better forward visibility, and they now have CCTV cameras at the back too.
BikingBud
Rendel Harris wrote:BikingBud wrote:I am more concerned about the provision of a new blanket claim for drivers to add to thier list of excuses:- Had an eplieptic seizure
Having an epileptic seizure is not something somebody can simply claim as an excuse in the same way as the other things you mention, it is a provable condition and sadly some people who were not aware they had the condition will suffer their first seizure when driving. As I said on another thread, some form of medical episode always seemed the most likely explanation once the possibility that the woman was on drink or drugs or was deliberately acting maliciously were ruled out. I’m afraid I find it a bit disappointing the way some people have automatically gone for the “she must be lying” line, it does happen and sadly in this case it has had appalling consequences but that does not mean it’s not the truth. In such a high-profile case with such a tragic outcome the CPS will have undoubtedly carried out a very thorough investigation and they would not refuse to charge the driver unless they were convinced the mitigation is genuine.
It is interesting to see what may or may not be claimed by people involved in catstrophic incidents:
giff77 wrote:You forgot the “have no recollection”Sorry I thought that only applied to politicians, when being asked about anything non-trivial for which they might be considered accountable, (Iraq inquiry) or high grade staff of Post Office/Fujitsu or thier supporting vast realm of legal “professionals” when being asked to explain thier (in)action in prosecutions.
Silly me
Having an epileptic seizure
Having an epileptic seizure is not something somebody can simply claim as an excuse…
Oh yes they can! Not that I’m saying she did, because we don’t have the information, but you can just claim to have had a first fit, especially if there are no reliable witnesses. The ‘patient’ then goes through the usual EEG and MR brain imaging. Of course it could turn out that there is a convincing ‘focus’ on EEG or a convincing ‘lesion’ on MR and that would be the end of any dispute about it being a tragic unforeseeable accident, but it could also be that there’s just a load of waffle in the reports, such as ‘non-specific delta waves in the temporal region’ or ‘focal brain abormalities of unknown significance’ which many of us would display if we went off for a scan. The doctors are not in the business of saying she didn’t have a seizure, because they weren’t there and it can’t be excluded after the event, and I suspect ‘confidentiality’ may be enlisted to limit the details given at the inquest. It could all just go through ‘on the nod’ because proving she didn’t have a fit would be impossible. If there’s a lot of deployment of ‘confidentiality’, many of us would be suspicious
Hirsute wrote:Although it is important to note Mark Hodson’s comment“Drivers medical report at the Coroners Inquest should be interesting , as will be the evidence from the examining physician.”
I think following bin lorry man in scotland, people are a little sceptical.
Indeed, I said elsewhere that’s where we’ll see the reasoning behind the CPS decision. Of course there’s a chance that she knew about a condition and didn’t report it, and if that’s the case she should have had the book thrown at her, but a number of commenters on here and elsewhere have gone straight for the “she’s obviously making it up” accusation, which seems wrong to me.
-
AuthorReplies
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.