bovlomov wrote:Wanlock Dod wrote: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.
+1
And that's because any fule kno that riding bicycles on the road is a stoopid thing to do,riding one at night is insane and he deserved to die