Coroner blames headphones

[tykeboy2003]

Are coroners not supposed to mention things that might have contributed to a death? I did think that was part of what they were supposed to do.

Fair point, it's the media reporting that's really to blame (see my earlier post about Eddie Mair) - but could the coroner have anticipated that and worded it better?

[reohn2]

Are coroners not supposed to mention things that might have contributed to a death? I did think that was part of what they were supposed to do.

I agree,they're supposed to look at all the evidence before them and draw conclusions from that,that's not to say they can get it wrong,but reading the coroner's wording it isn't damning of headphone wearing by cyclists,just sighted as a possibility of distraction of surroundings.

[reohn2]

Are coroners not supposed to mention things that might have contributed to a death? I did think that was part of what they were supposed to do.

Fair point, it's the media reporting that's really to blame (see my earlier post about Eddie Mair) - but could the coroner have anticipated that and worded it better?

Could the media not be more responsible in their reporting?
No need to answer that as we all know they won't be because it doesn't sell 'news'papers.

Any coroner would have a difficult job trying to guess what the media will make of anything s/he said,such is the ability for them to twist the meaning of anything they report on especially the extremes of some media outlets.

[tykeboy2003]

Any coroner would have a difficult job trying to guess what the media will make of anything s/he said,such is the ability for them to twist the meaning of anything they report on especially the extremes of some media outlets.

He could have said

"There is no evidence that the wearing of headphones caused this accident, however, it is open to speculation that it may have been a minor contributory factor".

It would be hard for any media outlet - no matter how rabid - to make much out of that.

[landsurfer]

Are coroners not supposed to mention things that might have contributed to a death? I did think that was part of what they were supposed to do.

I think that is the bottom line for this post.
I had always believed the whole point of a coroner is to provide an objective view, not subjective.
Fact, not hearsay or if's, but's and maybe's.

[reohn2]

Any coroner would have a difficult job trying to guess what the media will make of anything s/he said,such is the ability for them to twist the meaning of anything they report on especially the extremes of some media outlets.

He could have said

"There is no evidence that the wearing of headphones caused this accident, however, it is open to speculation that it may have been a minor contributory factor".

It would be hard for any media outlet - no matter how rabid - to make much out of that.

Except that in his consideration there was a chance that wearing headphones could've been a contributory factor,which is a different thing than 'having no evidence' of it.

IMHO the media has all the freedom but with non of the responsibility.
That is the problem here,not the coroner's statements and as a result it's the media who should be made to report news accurately,but the problem goes higher than that to the owners of the media.

[wearwell]

He could have said

"There is no evidence that the wearing of headphones caused this accident, however, it is open to speculation that it may have been a minor contributory factor".
...

Which is more or less what he said - though he made no mention of it being "minor contributory factor". It could have been the main cause for all we know.
Both the press and the pro earphones lobby got it wrong - press saying it was the cause, the others saying it was not.

[thirdcrank]

For the benefit of anybody who's not seen it before, this is Martin Porter QC with an interesting piece on Coroners and Cyclists - do they mix? from a couple of years ago. It explains how the restriction on coroners accusing anybody of causing the death can lead to an appearance of victim blaming (my words, not his.)

http://thecyclingsilk.blogspot.co.uk/20 ... y-mix.html

[The utility cyclist]

And as we know, speculation from someone with a heck of a lot of weight behind them and said in the way it has (& all too often is) is then taken as being an actuality. The evidence for this is absurdly abundant and I think it's irresponsible of the coroner personally

Totally agree mate, the coroner has done a huge disservice to the cycling community and given ignorant motorists another reason to criticise and abuse cyclists. Is there a professional body that reviews such things and can rebuke coroners?

Are coroners not supposed to mention things that might have contributed to a death? I did think that was part of what they were supposed to do.

But when speculation is made by someone that carries the weight that a coroner does and that speculation has no basis in fact, no evidence whatsoever and even in past cases that were speculated themselves upon again with no facts you have a situation where that speculation then becomes much more than that. It becomes a 'fact' in many peoples eyes and coroners and others should recognise that as being detrimental to mention it in the way it was done if to mention it at all when as I've said there is no proof, not a single scrap of evidence to prove it would/could have happened.
At best it's unhelpful, at worst it sets a dangerous precedent of blame, there's a whole section on this very forum which highlights/replicates exactly this.
It's looking for something that just isn't there, it might seem 'obvious', it might eem to be 'common sense' and a whole raft of other phrases used to describe things that many take as read to explain stuff, but simply there are vast numbers of situations in life that don't 'add up' to those that do not have training or understaning/knowledge of what happens when X occurs. They, like the coroner make wild speculations which for an average joe mmakes not a jot of difference, when you have a large % of a population joe's stating the same on the back of what an important/respected person says then that has a massive effect on the back of someone guessing.

How can you not see that wild guesswork by a coroner with no basis in fact behind those words especially with respect to people on bikes in the current climate is not damaging?

[wearwell]

Can't see what the fuss is about.
If the coroner's speculations actually deter anybody from wearing earphones whilst they cycle then that is a good thing.
It wasn't wild guesswork at all - he's looking for causes and that she didn't hear the approaching vehicle could well be one of them, for simple and obvious reasons.
But we shall never know.

Would you send your kids out in the road wearing earphones? If not why not - you don't have proof in hand that it's a hazard?

For it to be acceptable we would need proof that it's not a hazard - until then common sense has to rule - and there is some evidence coming from the hard of hearing of the difficulties involved.

[Bez]

Can't see what the fuss is about.
If the coroner's speculations actually deter anybody from wearing earphones whilst they cycle then that is a good thing.

Independently of that, if the media reports resulting from the speculation exacerbate the view that some people hold of "cyclists" as reckless idiots who deserve their own demise, and of cycling as something which has no place in the road system, then that's a bad thing.

Vaguely related point, contacting rude words: https://twitter.com/beztweets/status/623462765383036928

[thirdcrank]

Although I hesitate to mention the word, there's something of a parallel with helmets. Indeed, it's remarkable that given the cause of death seems to have been head injury and the deceased apparently being a habitual helmet wearer wasn't wearing one on this occasion, the coroner seems to have kept off that subject altogether.

Now, I have a vague recollection that there's been a court case, possibly in Scotland, where the judge (sheriff?) made some common sense comments on the subject and was subsequently criticised in a higher court for taking as fact, something which was unproven and controversial.

Perhaps we should be grateful we've been spared some ill-informed advice in that quarter.

[reohn2]

.......How can you not see that wild guesswork by a coroner with no basis in fact behind those words especially with respect to people on bikes in the current climate is not damaging?

Because the coroner examined all the evidence and came to the conclusion that wearing headphones could've have been a contributory factor factor to the incident of this person's death.
Not that it definitely was but that it could've been.
IMO as I posted before it's the media who've twisted could've into to meaning it was and not the coroner's for suggesting it could've.

[mjr]

Although I hesitate to mention the word, there's something of a parallel with helmets. Indeed, it's remarkable that given the cause of death seems to have been head injury and the deceased apparently being a habitual helmet wearer wasn't wearing one on this occasion, the coroner seems to have kept off that subject altogether.

Not completely, but his comments may have been somewhat muted because there was a spinal fracture as well that was sufficiently fatal and a helmet probably wouldn't have lessened that.

Also, did they have only the brother's word on the helmet use? He may have felt social pressure to claim it, or she may have been afraid to tell her family if she no longer believed in the magic hats.

[The utility cyclist]

.......How can you not see that wild guesswork by a coroner with no basis in fact behind those words especially with respect to people on bikes in the current climate is not damaging?

Because the coroner examined all the evidence and came to the conclusion that wearing headphones could've have been a contributory factor factor to the incident of this person's death.
Not that it definitely was but that it could've been.
IMO as I posted before it's the media who've twisted could've into to meaning it was and not the coroner's for suggesting it could've.

But there simply is no evidence to support this conclusion otherwise there would be massive amounts of incidents involving people with headphones on bikes and indeed anyone whom has hearing defiencies, it's a wild unsupported assumption based on nothing more than other peoples mutterings.
How can one said 'could have' when all the evidence we do have so far suggests that's complete and utter gonads.