Coroner blames headphones

[Vorpal]

All true. Accidents are often the product of a series of mistakes / misdeeds. And there is good reason to apportion more blame to the person in charge of the bigger vehicle, since they are in a position of greater responsibility. But a coroner should be looking for all the mistakes that contributed to a death, including any made by the person who died. It is part of the explanation for the death. Or, in this case, a possible part of the explanation. The media don't always deal with these things very well, but those of us with an ounce of common sense can accept that the "victim" may have made a mistake, without necessarily being the major contributor to the accident. The primary cause of the accident could have been something else.

In places where proportional liability is assigned, this is exactly the sort of weighting they do, both by insurance companies, and in the civil courts. However, in most of those, a child (usually under 16) CANNOT be assigend any liability whatsoever simply because they are a child.

[pwa]

All true. Accidents are often the product of a series of mistakes / misdeeds. And there is good reason to apportion more blame to the person in charge of the bigger vehicle, since they are in a position of greater responsibility. But a coroner should be looking for all the mistakes that contributed to a death, including any made by the person who died. It is part of the explanation for the death. Or, in this case, a possible part of the explanation. The media don't always deal with these things very well, but those of us with an ounce of common sense can accept that the "victim" may have made a mistake, without necessarily being the major contributor to the accident. The primary cause of the accident could have been something else.

In places where proportional liability is assigned, this is exactly the sort of weighting they do, both by insurance companies, and in the civil courts. However, in most of those, a child (usually under 16) CANNOT be assigend any liability whatsoever simply because they are a child.

I'm not really thinking of liability, in the legal sense. I'm just thinking of contributory factors. So, for example, if a child were wearing headphones and stepped into the path of a vehicle it might be appropriate for a coroner to cite the wearing of the headphones as one of the probable factors that made the accident. Just a statement of what probably happened, not blame. That need not preclude the driver of the vehicle being found at fault if their driving did not show reasonable care.

[Bez]

All true. Accidents are often the product of a series of mistakes / misdeeds. And there is good reason to apportion more blame to the person in charge of the bigger vehicle, since they are in a position of greater responsibility. But a coroner should be looking for all the mistakes that contributed to a death, including any made by the person who died. It is part of the explanation for the death. Or, in this case, a possible part of the explanation. The media don't always deal with these things very well, but those of us with an ounce of common sense can accept that the "victim" may have made a mistake, without necessarily being the major contributor to the accident. The primary cause of the accident could have been something else.
…
I'm not really thinking of liability, in the legal sense. I'm just thinking of contributory factors. So, for example, if a child were wearing headphones and stepped into the path of a vehicle it might be appropriate for a coroner to cite the wearing of the headphones as one of the probable factors that made the accident. Just a statement of what probably happened, not blame. That need not preclude the driver of the vehicle being found at fault if their driving did not show reasonable care.

All of that is pretty sound. But there is one thing which I'm not entirely certain is overlooked by what you say or is implied by it, but it's worth mentioning explicitly anyway, which is this:

Whilst there is the concept of a standard of driving "expected of a competent and careful driver", the law would do well to make some sort of clear link between that and the concept of driving in such a way that human error or—perhaps more importantly—physical or mental disability on the part of people not armed with a car should not result in them being hit. Too often the problem is one of people leaving no "margin for error", a phrase which I place in quotes only because it's not just error that warrants the margin: disabilities, unforeseen events, wind, road surfaces, you name it: all normal, conceivable things which are not even up for debate as whether they are culpable errors or not, but things which occur even when people are being perfectly diligent and correct. By allowing for these, as we all should, we also allow for errors. Shouldn't that be one of the things "expected of a competent and careful driver"?

[pwa]

All true. Accidents are often the product of a series of mistakes / misdeeds. And there is good reason to apportion more blame to the person in charge of the bigger vehicle, since they are in a position of greater responsibility. But a coroner should be looking for all the mistakes that contributed to a death, including any made by the person who died. It is part of the explanation for the death. Or, in this case, a possible part of the explanation. The media don't always deal with these things very well, but those of us with an ounce of common sense can accept that the "victim" may have made a mistake, without necessarily being the major contributor to the accident. The primary cause of the accident could have been something else.
…
I'm not really thinking of liability, in the legal sense. I'm just thinking of contributory factors. So, for example, if a child were wearing headphones and stepped into the path of a vehicle it might be appropriate for a coroner to cite the wearing of the headphones as one of the probable factors that made the accident. Just a statement of what probably happened, not blame. That need not preclude the driver of the vehicle being found at fault if their driving did not show reasonable care.

All of that is pretty sound. But there is one thing which I'm not entirely certain is overlooked by what you say or is implied by it, but it's worth mentioning explicitly anyway, which is this:

Whilst there is the concept of a standard of driving "expected of a competent and careful driver", the law would do well to make some sort of clear link between that and the concept of driving in such a way that human error or—perhaps more importantly—physical or mental disability on the part of people not armed with a car should not result in them being hit. Too often the problem is one of people leaving no "margin for error", a phrase which I place in quotes only because it's not just error that warrants the margin: disabilities, unforeseen events, wind, road surfaces, you name it: all normal, conceivable things which are not even up for debate as whether they are culpable errors or not, but things which occur even when people are being perfectly diligent and correct. By allowing for these, as we all should, we also allow for errors. Shouldn't that be one of the things "expected of a competent and careful driver"?

When I learned how to drive I was taught to allow for the fact that a child walking on the pavement might not stay on the pavement. I assume learner drivers are still taught that. I think that is the sort of thing you are thinking of. And I believe most drivers accept that we should be allowing for other people's errors. I would not go all the way and say that a careful driver will never run over a cyclist or pedestrian who has made a mistake, but a driver who is allowing for the mistakes of others will greatly reduce the chance of harm.

[reohn2]

I see that again we're starting to muddy the two issues of lack of hearing vs distraction.

Can it not be a possibility that a lack of hearing could could be a distraction?

I don't see how it can, no. A cognitive distraction is something which causes the mind to be diverted from a task, and a failure to hear something is by definition a non-event.

Let's consider an example: you're driving amongst fast-moving traffic and you hear sirens but cannot immediately see the corresponding emergency vehicle vehicle; your mind is diverted to the need to assess where the sound has come from: it's been distracted from its cognitive process of assessing potential events unfolding ahead (and this likely becomes visual distraction when you start to look for it). Whereas if you happen not to hear it, your mind is not diverted because there is no stimulus to do so. You might fail to hear it because your hypothetical car is extremely well insulated from sound, or you might fail to hear it because you're listening to thrash metal with the volume turned up to 11, it doesn't matter: in neither case is the absence of the sound of the siren able to cause cognitive distraction.

You could argue that failing to hear the sirens is "worse" driving, and that'd probably be a fair argument for most people's definition of "worse". You could argue that failing to hear the sirens causes a higher risk of a collision (where failure to detect the fast-moving emergency vehicle may present a risk of colliding with it) than the risk caused by hearing the siren (where the distraction may contribute to a collision with traffic ahead), and that wouldn't be unreasonable but I don't think it's as simple a matter as it may initially appear.

So while it's perfectly reasonable argue that a sound that causes you not to hear something can be a cognitive distraction, I don't think you can argue that not hearing something can be a cognitive distraction. It doesn't make any logical sense. The two things are quite different.

But we're discussing the possibility of not hearing due to distraction by music of other traffic,and thereby being unaware of it or part of it,whilst negotiating that traffic.
In this case one of the most dangerous obstacles for a cyclist,a roundabout,on a very vulnerable form of transport,which is slower,smaller and more unstable than almost all other traffic.
Other traffic that sometimes isn't being driven optimally,and bicycles being regarded by some of that other traffic as a nuisance and not as a vulnerable human being on a bike.
That's why I've posted up thread that I for one need all my senses when riding in traffic,granted things should be better than they are but I'm forced to live in the real world and so I don't wish to leave anything to chance.

[reohn2]

When I learned how to drive I was taught to allow for the fact that a child walking on the pavement might not stay on the pavement. I assume learner drivers are still taught that. I think that is the sort of thing you are thinking of. And I believe most drivers accept that we should be allowing for other people's errors. I would not go all the way and say that a careful driver will never run over a cyclist or pedestrian who has made a mistake, but a driver who is allowing for the mistakes of others will greatly reduce the chance of harm.

Which was the point I was making in reply to Vorpal about the young girl killed by a speeding motorist whilst wearing headphones.
If the motorist was driving competently and safely the chances of collision are lessened and even in the event of a collision with a vulnerable road user injury will be minimised,which also brings the close overtake scenario into mind.
In the case of the OP there was no collision and we don't even know if there was a close overtake,but there was a possibility of lessened awareness on the part of the cyclist due to the possibility of her listening to music thereby possibly impairing one of her senses.

As vulnerable road users we have to accept that due to inadequate policing among other things,driving standards and consideration for others by a significant number of drivers are reducing,and traffic is heavier than ever,so a cyclist simply can't take any chances.

[Bez]

But we're discussing the possibility of not hearing due to distraction by music of other traffic,and thereby being unaware of it or part of it,whilst negotiating that traffic.

If you're unaware of something it can't distract you.

The fact that you can't hear something may be a problem, but it's not the problem of distraction.

If I can hear everything around me just fine I can be distracted by sounds, but deaf people aren't constantly distracted every moment of every day.

The two issues are different. And the implications of each in terms of interacting with people and vehicles around you are different.

[reohn2]

But we're discussing the possibility of not hearing due to distraction by music of other traffic,and thereby being unaware of it or part of it,whilst negotiating that traffic.

If you're unaware of something it can't distract you.

The fact that you can't hear something may be a problem, but it's not the problem of distraction.

If I can hear everything around me just fine I can be distracted by sounds, but deaf people aren't constantly distracted every moment of every day.

The two issues are different. And the implications of each in terms of interacting with people and vehicles around you are different.

Ok point taken.
If I'm distracted by listening to music,etc through headphones,I'm more at risk when riding in traffic because there's a possibility I may miss vital and potentially harmful information from that other traffic.

[wearwell]

......

So while it's perfectly reasonable argue that a sound that causes you not to hear something can be a cognitive distraction, I don't think you can argue that not hearing something can be a cognitive distraction. It doesn't make any logical sense. The two things are quite different.

"it's perfectly reasonable argue that a sound that causes you not to hear something can be a cognitive distraction"
"I don't think you can argue that not hearing something can be a cognitive distraction"

Make your mind up they can't both be true!

I notice that nobody has answered my question about whether or not they would encourage their kids to wear ear-phones in the road.
I guess this is because everybody agrees that ear phones are dangerous in traffic.

[landsurfer]

I notice that nobody has answered my question about whether or not they would encourage their kids to wear ear-phones in the road.
I guess this is because everybody agrees that ear phones are dangerous in traffic.

I would not encourage my kids or grandkids to wear ear-phones in the road. This is because i believe they are dangerous in traffic.

[rfryer]

It seems to me that those that don't think that headphones increase risk are speaking from their own experience of how they cope when in that position. What they are not doing is considering why others take a different view, and possibly concluding that those people have a different personal response to wearing headphones, where isolation from the environment is increased and along with it the potential for accidents. Just because you, personally, are immune from this phenomenon, it doesn't mean that others aren't, and that therefore it might be a contributory factor towards an accident.

Speaking from my experience, both when cycling and driving, I do recognize when having something to listen to can contribute to "putting you into autopilot", where you might suddenly realize that you can't remember the details of what's just been happening in the real world. This isn't exclusive to listening to radio/music, it can happen anyway - so I wouldn't conclude that this is a reason for banning music. However, it can lead to a mental state where you feel you are traveling along in your safe little bubble, relying on reactions to stay safe, and not engaging the higher-function parts of the brain to worry about predicting possible interactions with non-immediate hazards.

[If you don't recognize the above characterization, then bully for you - you're either perfect, or lacking self-awareness. Either way, recognizing that it is an issue for others might allow you to take a more nuanced view of their views on the subject.]

In terms of personal safety, this is more of an issue on a bike than in a car; positioning a bike safely on busy, car-centric road layouts requires consideration and judgement. Audible cues (such as a revving engine or the hiss of HGV air brakes) can be a useful prompt to snap out of an internal reverie and start attending. Removing or reducing those cues by wearing headphone is not going to enhance safety for such people.

[Vorpal]

It seems to me that those that don't think that headphones increase risk are speaking from their own experience of how they cope when in that position. What they are not doing is considering why others take a different view, and possibly concluding that those people have a different personal response to wearing headphones, where isolation from the environment is increased and along with it the potential for accidents. Just because you, personally, are immune from this phenomenon, it doesn't mean that others aren't, and that therefore it might be a contributory factor towards an accident.

Nobody said that they don't increase risk. Personally, I think it's quite likely that they do. It's just that for some people the increase is acceptable overall, and for some it isn't. As with all such things, a few people feel quite strongly about it.

[thirdcrank]

An issue I've mentioned before is a subconscious feeling among some that because cycling is associated with children, cyclists must be childish. I've experienced this when for example, "on official business" complete with black braid round the neb when somebody was complaining about on-street parking outside his house which was near a recreation ground and at certain times, lots of cars were parked. He was hanging on my every word until I mentioned being a cyclist and he switched to full on patronising mode: "I hope you're not one of those cyclists who ...." Although I'm an approachable sort of a chap, I've had colleagues who were much younger, with significantly less service and of more junior rank talk to me when I've been arriving or leaving work on my bike talking to me as though I were an errant teenager.

[reohn2]

An issue I've mentioned before is a subconscious feeling among some that because cycling is associated with children, cyclists must be childish. I've experienced this when for example, "on official business" complete with black braid round the neb when somebody was complaining about on-street parking outside his house which was near a recreation ground and at certain times, lots of cars were parked. He was hanging on my every word until I mentioned being a cyclist and he switched to full on patronising mode: "I hope you're not one of those cyclists who ...." Although I'm an approachable sort of a chap, I've had colleagues who were much younger, with significantly less service and of more junior rank talk to me when I've been arriving or leaving work on my bike talking to me as though I were an errant teenager.

I'm trying to figure out your underlying message,could you clarify.

[The utility cyclist]

Whilst there is the concept of a standard of driving "expected of a competent and careful driver", the law would do well to make some sort of clear link between that and the concept of driving in such a way that human error or—perhaps more importantly—physical or mental disability on the part of people not armed with a car should not result in them being hit. Too often the problem is one of people leaving no "margin for error", a phrase which I place in quotes only because it's not just error that warrants the margin: disabilities, unforeseen events, wind, road surfaces, you name it: all normal, conceivable things which are not even up for debate as whether they are culpable errors or not, but things which occur even when people are being perfectly diligent and correct. By allowing for these, as we all should, we also allow for errors. Shouldn't that be one of the things "expected of a competent and careful driver"?

Bang on the money, it's why driving around with other road users whatever mode that is needs clear, logical and unselfish thought behind it, one that you would expect having being trained to pass a test to allow you in charge of a motorised vehicle in the first place you would immediately know why doing X is the best and safest option and be mindful of and be able to repeat that process multiple times on every journey. Except that rarely happens, people in cars are selfish, they are constantly distracted and the mindset of most is not one of a competent and careful driver.

It's pretty basic stuff, 3-4pm, parked cars, near a school equals slow down to a speed below the speed limit because obviously a limit is the very maximum safe speed if the road is completely clear of hazards, be attentive and prepared for kids to be scooting out. Far too often it's a case reported by police and coronor as 'unavoidable accident' instead of motorist didn't take note of the environment and other people in the vicinity that are known to make decisions that most adults wouldn't.

There is no mention of the HGV driver aside from that he didn't even know the cyclist was there, why no speculation on what he was or was not doing as to why he did not see her approach on what is an open roundabout with excellent sight lines. Entering onto and going through an open roundabout in a large vehicle should mean that you are very much aware of everything as you have to give way and be aware of people exiting in front of you, again this is basic stuff that should apply to all competent and careful drivers, erring on the side of caution when in control of that that we know from experience causes all sorts of untold carnage should mean that those driving need to be extra vigilent, they are 'professional' drivers aren't they? Why didn't the coroner speculate as to why he didn't see her, again, why did he not speculate the driver was distracted and that that could have contributed to what happened, (his mere presence was a contributing factor afterall) it's as plausible as the 'could' the coroner used on so many occasions whence guessing about the effects of wearing headphones right, given the same amount of actual evidence for the latter being zero!