“virtually indistinguishable” in the dark

[thirdcrank]

There could be merit in having a trial in the event of a road accident death unless some exceptional circumstances were involved. Currently the CPS more or less decides if to prosecute, this is pre assessing if the case has sufficient merit to go the court. Bypassing the CPS would mean drivers or others involved in the death may have to give evidence and be cross examined. The CPS are advising without the drivers, in most cases, being cross examined in a court. In the event of a driver saying they did not see a cyclist, they would have to explain in detail how this came about and be cross examined on their evidence. This may be better than the CPS effectively deciding which cases go to court, even if it costs more. It may help encourage drivers to take more care.

I think what you are suggesting is to some extent the old rules which required that the inquest into a fatal road accident had to be conducted with a jury, although insisting that a driver must give evidence and face cross examination goes against one of the most fundamental human rights. It used to be the case that somebody could be committed for trial by a coroner's inquest. AFAIK, There is an element of what you are suggesting in what they do in some European countries. It tends to be dismissed by lawyers here eg it's referred to as "inquisitorial" with connotations of Torquemada and chums. They are a powerful lobby group.

[Mick F]

Taking the view that cyclists can do no wrong saves no lives.

Plus One.

It's not victim blaming to tell someone to be carful and make sure they are safe.
Not victim blaming in the slightest.

[Wanlock Dod]

... As a society we usually seem to report people as having been killed by cars (or lorries etc.) rather than their drivers, I wonder what effect that might have had on whether or not we view these types of incidents as personal violence, or indeed violence at all, within our society.

I've stopped commenting on posts where somebody says something along the lines that "the car didn't see me."...

A CYCLIST has been rushed to hospital in a critical condition after being hit by a lorry in Piccadilly Circus
Air ambulance called after crash between cyclist and car near Elstree
Cyclist in hospital after colliding with bus in Maidstone
Regardless of what any of us think we are part of a society that does this rather often, the three examples above all seem to have been from yesterday.

[thirdcrank]

... A CYCLIST has been rushed to hospital in a critical condition after being hit by a lorry in Piccadilly Circus
Air ambulance called after crash between cyclist and car near Elstree
Cyclist in hospital after colliding with bus in MaidstoneRegardless of what any of us think we are part of a society that does this rather often, the three examples above all seem to have been from yesterday.

I'm not sure why you seem to have directed this to me; I don't need any convincing. With regard to the bit of my post you quoted, in and among faffing with cookie preferences, I didn't see anything in your links about cars not seeing drivers, which I posted in support of your post implying that blame was shifted from drivers onto their vehicle.

[LollyKat]

Duty of Care ....
SMIDSY is not reasonable. Riding in the dark in black clothing with a small rear facing red light .....???
Father Ted moment ...I'm afraid.

MH seems pretty visible judging by this video of him the night before: https://youtu.be/PvZpUjEfU74

The police reconstruction was rather different:
"Senior Constable Potts of the AFP created a video using a reconstruction of Mike Hall’s bike to examine how visible Mike Hall would have been. This reconstruction placed the bike off the road to the left, substituted the Dynamo hub with a 6-volt battery, excluded the rear bag and its reflective strip, excluded any person or clothing, excluded any front white light shining on the road, and excluded any human movement of the bike. There was also a Police light stationed near the bike and an oncoming car in the simulation that was admitted into evidence by the AFP. In the submitted video, the reconstructed bike was difficult to see." (from https://cycle.org.au/index.php/articles ... ll-inquest)

[thirdcrank]

... What you are saying here is that no amount of evidence will persuade a jury, magistrate or coroner, if it flies in the face of common sense. ...

I forgot to reply tp this bit in my earlier reply, although I think have touched on it higher up. It's not only common sense, but personal experience. I know from personal experience that some things are easier to see than others. This isn't saying that dark clothing is invisible, just that hi-viz tends to be more prominent.

[bovlomov]

... What you are saying here is that no amount of evidence will persuade a jury, magistrate or coroner, if it flies in the face of common sense. ...

I forgot to reply tp this bit in my earlier reply, although I think have touched on it higher up. It's not only common sense, but personal experience. I know from personal experience that some things are easier to see than others. This isn't saying that dark clothing is invisible, just that hi-viz tends to be more prominent.

I've an open mind about the benefits of hi-vis. But there seems to be mounting evidence that it isn't doing any good.

For evidence based justice: I accept that juries are capricious, and that they don't need to be led by science. Their amateur status is their reason for being. What's less acceptable is amateurishness among professionals. Some coroners seem not only ignorant of research but also resistant to it - as if received wisdom is enough to determine the cause of death. These people are paid by the public. Just as doctors and engineers need to keep up with latest science, so should coroners and police investigators.

[Steady rider]

At one inquest I attended all the evidence was given by the police, the driver who had been involved in a cyclist being killed, did not say one word. If going to a court, the drivers account could be taken first, and then other evidenced considered. If a driver was at fault they may use police evidence to there advantage, emphasising where the police may have a had any doubts. If they made no statement it may indicate that they were not focused on the road situation.

[thirdcrank]

... I've an open mind about the benefits of hi-vis. But there seems to be mounting evidence that it isn't doing any good.

For evidence based justice: I accept that juries are capricious, and that they don't need to be led by science. Their amateur status is their reason for being. What's less acceptable is amateurishness among professionals. Some coroners seem not only ignorant of research but also resistant to it - as if received wisdom is enough to determine the cause of death. These people are paid by the public. Just as doctors and engineers need to keep up with latest science, so should coroners and police investigators.

I hope you appreciate that I'm only trying to give a layman's explanation, rather than defending anything.

I do feel that what I'll term the legal personnel are constrained by the HC. If something is advised in the HC, it's a brave person who takes an alternative line, unless there's a really clear cut reason for not doing so in an individual case. The lower down the feed chain, the less scope for deviation. This cuts both ways: if a SMIDSY merchant tried that excuse with somebody in hi-viz, supporting their case with some version of the hi-viz-is-useless argument, I suspect they would get short shrift.

I've no recent experience of coroners and inquests, but there have been a lot of changes since Michael Mansfield pulled the system to bits at the Di-Dodi inquest. AFAIK, One of those has been to ensure legally-qualified coroners. Perhaps it's ironic that medically qualified coroners date from a time when they did their own research into cause of death. There's also something of a hierarchy, with a chief coroner and a continuation of the system whereby in difficult cases a senior judge can act as coroner. It's not all gloom. We've had threads on here about the higher courts insisting that the alleged benefits of helmet wearing are not taken for granted. Wearing hi-viz doesn't only apply to cyclists, of course, so there's probably a mountain to climb.

[fastpedaller]

Having been a juror a few years ago, one thing that became apparent to myself and others on the jury was the woeful 'evidence gathering' by the Police involved. An amateur sleuth gaining their 'experience' off TV could have done better IMHO. I'm thankful the case was a minor assault one and not a murder or similar, and confident the jury reached a good verdict from the limited evidence - with better evidence the outcome could have swung either way TBH.

[mjr]

Taking the view that cyclists can do no wrong saves no lives.

Plus One.

It's not victim blaming to tell someone to be carful and make sure they are safe.
Not victim blaming in the slightest.

Carful? Maybe that's like careful but not quite and kills hundreds of people walking and cycling every year while ranting about how road cyclists should wear irrelevant special clothes and road runners are dangerous.

[Mick F]

So what are you going to do about it?

You and I don't rule the world .................. we can only try to do our best in the circumstances presented to us.

It's a jungle out there. Be careful and defensive and look after yourself, because you cannot guarantee anyone else will.

[Wanlock Dod]

I'm very glad that I'm not the only one to have noticed that in a discussion about a cyclist who was killed (by a motorist with a car which may not have had road legal lights) whilst cycling at night with a helmet, lights, and reflectives and subsequently found not to have made themselves visible enough, there is a very deep irony in suggesting that people should ensure their safety by ensuring their visibility. Mike Hall did everything he could and it was of no benefit to him, either on the road or in the inquest, he was killed, and it has been decided that it was basically his fault that he wasn't seen.

Be safe, be seen kids...

[bovlomov]

I'm very glad that I'm not the only one to have noticed that in a discussion about a cyclist who was killed (by a motorist with a car which may not have had road legal lights) whilst cycling at night with a helmet, lights, and reflectives and subsequently found not to have made themselves visible enough,

I've been trying to think why this case is more disturbing than dozens of others. I think it's this:

Usually when a cyclist is killed in a collision with a motor vehicle, the first questions are about a helmet. Then, hi-vis. Then, if at night, lights. If any of those things are missing then it is the cyclist's fault. If the cyclist was equipped with all the 'correct' gear, then it becomes a dreadful accident. The hand of fate. The poor driver had no way of knowing. Just a sad fact of life.

The difference here is that the cyclist clearly had done all that was required (by this invisible moral arbiter). Helmet? Check. Lights? Check. Reflective? Check. Riding in a straight line? Check. In a case like this I would expect the media, police, jury or coroner to conclude that it was just one of those sad facts of life. Then we'd all shrug. Instead the police - and some of the reporters - have gone a step further, and made every effort, by insinuation and by omission, to pin the blame on a rider.

Had he been wearing white instead of black, I have no doubt that he would have been blamed for looking like an albino kangaroo. Once Hall was killed, it was always going to be his fault.

[Tiberius]

Out riding the other day I was reminded of this thread……

My riding gear of choice is a lovely, highly breathable, hi-viz jacket. My bike has a dyno-hub and the lights have been switched on since I fitted it, I never switch the lights off.

A lovely sunny day and I was riding along a local road which meanders through some woods. The visibility is variable as the trees sometimes cut out a lot of the sun light, so when you are riding/driving you are regularly having to deal with strong (on this day) sunshine or quite dark shade.

I was riding through a shaded area and I was overtaken by a car…a clean pass, plenty of room, no problem. The car ran on for approximately 300 yards, pulled in and the driver got out and looked towards me. As I approached him he asked me to pull over which I did. Feeling apprehensive, I was genuinely shocked when he shook my hand a congratulated me on my visibility !! He said that he could see me from ‘miles away’ and he wondered why more cyclists didn’t make the same effort?

Just saying like…...