[HoarseMann]

I’ve been watching the BBC Crash Detectives program and this particular episode surprised me. Whilst the victim was riding an illegal e-scooter, in reality, they were no less visible than a cyclist coasting down the hill would have been. Yet the police seemed to be really trying to find excuses for the driver.

The particularly grating one, was their opinion that the reflective jacket was so bright that it overpowered the light of the scooter, making the rider difficult to see.

To make matters worse, this wasn’t actually the exact jacket the rider was wearing!

All these opinions were based on static photos of the scene reconstruction, rather than a video reconstruction. They also didn’t consider that this was the driver’s regular commute, so they would have been very familiar with the existing road signage and street furniture. I was slightly gobsmacked. As the rider in the photo looks very visible to me 🤷🏻‍♂️.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m002m46h/the-crash-detectives-series-5-6-fair-to-all-parties

(about 15mins in)

Topic

[chrisonabike]

HoarseMann wrote:

HoarseMann wrote:

But they look like the flipping moon is coming towards you, so how on earth you can fail to notice it is beyond me.

Simple case of “the moon was in my eyes”!

And of course the remedy for that is accepted as “proceed until you can see clearly again”…

[mitsky]

Holy crap that clip shows the

Holy crap that clip shows the investigators doing some heavy duty victim blaming/driver exonerating.

It doesn’t matter if the driver had experience of that road.
They should be driving safely based on what is happening THEN not what has happened BEFORE.

[HoarseMann]

I’ve just gone back and

I’ve just gone back and looked at the CCTV footage they showed of the car approaching the turning. They look to be going quite fast for a 30mph limit and my rough calculations put their speed just before the collision to be around 42mph. If this is correct, then their excessive speed no doubt played a part in them failing to notice the scooter rider and also the severity of her injuries.

[HoarseMann]

They did plead guilty to that

They did plead guilty to that offence – still, not much deterrent:

”The driver blamed a momentary lapse in concentration. He admitted driving without due care and attention and was fined £360. Perceiving what was in front of him would have been very difficult.”

Now, I have previously commented that these highly reflective jackets don’t immediately scream ‘vulnerable road user’ in the same way a flashing light or biomechnical movement (shoe/pedal reflectors) would. But they look like the flipping moon is coming towards you, so how on earth you can fail to notice it is beyond me.

[Hirsute]

This make no sense.

This make no sense.

There was a clear reflection, so if it was dismissed as not a person, that leaves a sign or a static object in the road (eg skip), so how was this anything other than ‘without due care and attention’ ?

[HLaB]

Thanks for saving us from

Thanks for saving us from watching what sounds like tripe, his light wasn’t visible because his jacket was too visible 

[thax1]

See also: Holding up traffic

See also: Holding up traffic and cycling dangerously fast; Silent killers and making too much noise.

[HoarseMann]

Yep, here’s a screengrab.

Yep, here’s a screengrab. Dazzle camouflage it is not ?.

[the little onion]

Schrodingers high-vis! If you

Schrodingers high-vis! If you aren’t wearing high-vis, you should have been. If you were, it was too high vis! 

 

I’ve been told by police that my lights were too bright and would blend in with the lights of the car behind, and on another occasion told by police that they weren’t bright enough for road users to see me. They were the same lights.

Institutionally anti-cyclist.

[Author]

Replies