Time triallist 20% to blame for accident

[thirdcrank]

In general, our legal system hasn't much room for opinion, especially in criminal trials. Expert opinion, particularly in civil cases, is used within quite narrow parameters. Most obviously it's not subjective. On the contrary, the witness must have relevant qualifications and experience. I can think of various examples where the membership of a cycling forum would be expect to see this type of evidence used and might be understandably annoyed if it were to be excluded. Eg driver fails to stop after a crash and is not traced for several hours. His blood alcohol level when traced will inevitably be different from what it was at the time of the crash. A suitably qualified expert could do the maths and their evidence of their opinion of the blood level at the time of the crash would support a conviction (or clear them, of course.)

None of this is to say that experts are infallible and there have been spectacular blunders, but that doesn't vitiate the entire system. A lot of the most serious cases, particularly homicide in its different forms, involve the evidence of expert opinion. Body found, no witness of moment of death, autopsy hopefully will reveal evidence through things like temperature of body when found, and other evidence about the condition of the body, relative to things like the location. Experts differ and there's an obvious likelihood that the defence in criminal trials and both sides in civil trials will be selective about which expert witness they retain. I suggest that a traffic crash, particularly with witnesses of the general circumstances like this one is OK for expert analysis which is largely a matter of physics, providing answers in a range and most important, where the calculations are open to review by the other side's expert, which would form the basis of cross-examination. In an earlier post I used the expression "school-of-thought." What I meant there was that there might be quite different ideas within a profession eg medicine, as to how something should be done, so in a medical negligence case, two expert witnesses might start from quite separate values. There was only one Sir Isaac Newton.

[Ellieb]

In the light of this discussion I did a little experiment while out and about: I can tell you that staring at the tarmac 6 inches in front of your front wheel for a continuous 4 seconds is distinctly unnerving and it made me realize how often I check on what is going on ahead of me. If that is what the cyclist here actually did, then in my mind there is no doubt that, in terms of compensation, he has some liability for the injuries he suffered.

[kwackers]

In the light of this discussion I did a little experiment while out and about: I can tell you that staring at the tarmac 6 inches in front of your front wheel for a continuous 4 seconds is distinctly unnerving and it made me realize how often I check on what is going on ahead of me. If that is what the cyclist here actually did, then in my mind there is no doubt that, in terms of compensation, he has some liability for the injuries he suffered.

Yep, but you were consciously doing that - and it is unnerving. But you can do it pretty easily if you're not thinking about it. Looking at a garmin for example and "quickly" doing some maths, or giving it your all whilst staring at the front wheel, wondering whats for tea and thinking about how you're doing.

When you're preoccupied, losing 4 seconds is very easy - as evidenced by numerous accidents involving everyone from pedestrians to HGV drivers.

[reohn2]

In the light of this discussion I did a little experiment while out and about: I can tell you that staring at the tarmac 6 inches in front of your front wheel for a continuous 4 seconds is distinctly unnerving and it made me realize how often I check on what is going on ahead of me. If that is what the cyclist here actually did, then in my mind there is no doubt that, in terms of compensation, he has some liability for the injuries he suffered.

As you so rightly say IF.........

[thirdcrank]

And before we get too far down this cul-de-sac, the judge was careful to say that he wasn't making an assumption about this, rather ruling that a "reasonable" rider would have braked in the time available. It was this point that had me raising the competition factor because I could easily imagine that somebody in a time trial might take a different course of action to what they might do if they were out for a ride (rather than "on a ride" so to speak.)

[The utility cyclist]

In the light of this discussion I did a little experiment while out and about: I can tell you that staring at the tarmac 6 inches in front of your front wheel for a continuous 4 seconds is distinctly unnerving and it made me realize how often I check on what is going on ahead of me. If that is what the cyclist here actually did, then in my mind there is no doubt that, in terms of compensation, he has some liability for the injuries he suffered.

Yep, but you were consciously doing that - and it is unnerving. But you can do it pretty easily if you're not thinking about it. Looking at a garmin for example and "quickly" doing some maths, or giving it your all whilst staring at the front wheel, wondering whats for tea and thinking about how you're doing.

When you're preoccupied, losing 4 seconds is very easy - as evidenced by numerous accidents involving everyone from pedestrians to HGV drivers.

You and other keep mentioning 4 seconds, it isn't.
As I stated before you have 1.5seconds reaction time to take off that for starters, the 0.3s mechanical action time, the theoretically possible over the shoulder check time. The 'experts' theorised and induced possibilities, coroners throw out utterly unsubstantiated/zero evidence based theories as to crashes (see the recent case in Hull were the coroner made a wild assumption re headphones) so we can indeed include theories here.
Basically it's just over a second of not acting to hit the brakes but deciding to steer around the problem. it certainly is not 4 seconds of staring down at the tarmac, you've just made that up.

[Tigerbiten]

In the light of this discussion I did a little experiment while out and about: I can tell you that staring at the tarmac 6 inches in front of your front wheel for a continuous 4 seconds is distinctly unnerving and it made me realize how often I check on what is going on ahead of me. If that is what the cyclist here actually did, then in my mind there is no doubt that, in terms of compensation, he has some liability for the injuries he suffered.

As a teenager, I've ridden into the back of a parked car with enough force so that the extra bend in the front forks ment the front wheel only just missed the down tube.
I don't know how long I was looking for when it happened, but it's easily done when you're trying to go fast on a DF bike.

[Bonefishblues]

In the light of this discussion I did a little experiment while out and about: I can tell you that staring at the tarmac 6 inches in front of your front wheel for a continuous 4 seconds is distinctly unnerving and it made me realize how often I check on what is going on ahead of me. If that is what the cyclist here actually did, then in my mind there is no doubt that, in terms of compensation, he has some liability for the injuries he suffered.

Yep, but you were consciously doing that - and it is unnerving. But you can do it pretty easily if you're not thinking about it. Looking at a garmin for example and "quickly" doing some maths, or giving it your all whilst staring at the front wheel, wondering whats for tea and thinking about how you're doing.

When you're preoccupied, losing 4 seconds is very easy - as evidenced by numerous accidents involving everyone from pedestrians to HGV drivers.

You and other keep mentioning 4 seconds, it isn't.
As I stated before you have 1.5seconds reaction time to take off that for starters, the 0.3s mechanical action time, the theoretically possible over the shoulder check time. The 'experts' theorised and induced possibilities, coroners throw out utterly unsubstantiated/zero evidence based theories as to crashes (see the recent case in Hull were the coroner made a wild assumption re headphones) so we can indeed include theories here.
Basically it's just over a second of not acting to hit the brakes but deciding to steer around the problem. it certainly is not 4 seconds of staring down at the tarmac, you've just made that up.

With any retardation from the cyclist, no matter how late, the collision would not have taken place. The van would have passed across.

[reohn2]

With any retardation from the cyclist, no matter how late, the collision would not have taken place. The van would have passed across.

Tell how that works and I'll tell you with slightly different timing it doesn't.
There are assumptions being made without proof.

[Postboxer]

Like the motorcycle witness stating they saw the cycle, after the collision, moving towards the rear of the van from just behind the passenger door, suggesting the collision was further forward.

Also, how did the motorcycle witness hear the collision, it doesn't add up, he'd be too far away.

[Vorpal]

Re the bit I've highlighted, what form would that investigation take? I understand what evidence you think is missing but I can't see how it might be obtained. It seems to me that if either party had a way of obtaining the evidence they would have produced it. I suspect that if eg, the police investigation had identified an eye witness of the impact, that would have resolved things much sooner, one way or the other.

What you seem to be implying is that civil cases should be decided to the criminal standard. In the light of your last sentence, what would be your view of a case where the emerging vehicle was a pedal cycle, hit by a van driver? Would a similar calculation that they could have avoided the crash be insufficient? I appreciate there are those on here who think that such a calculation should be unnecessary as the driver would be responsible, no matter what the circumstances.

I think there are several relatively simple things that could have been done, and weren't

1) obtain acceleration data (probably from the manufacturer) for the make & model of vehicle involved
2) drive the vehicle, or the same make & engine across the actual junction a few times and see how long it takes
3) ask other people who knew the driver what his driving style was like (e.g. to determine if crossing slowly was in character, for example)
4) get a dealer or the manufacturer to download the data from the engine control module and see what *actually* happened (this is possible for most vehicles made since 2000, and for some older vehicles)

I don't think that civil cases should be decided on a criminal standard. However, if the accident is *not* going to be examined in that kind of minute detail, then the benefit of the doubt must be given to the victim.

Does anyone honestly believe that someone, expert or not, without that kind of detail, or a video of the accident, can determine whether the van took 2.5, 3.2, or 3.9 seconds to cross? I can walk across 7 metres and two lanes in 4 seconds. Why didn't the van get across?

Let's engage in a little speculation... the van actually took 3.2 seconds to cross. And a tired cyclist who was resting on his tri bars had slightly slowed reaction times. The cyclist tried to swerve around the van, but the van driver slowed as he reached the other side. Witnesses' estimates of the van speed varied considerably. Also, many people cannot estimate speed accurately, or distinguish slight slowing in speed. At least one of the witnesses also failed to see the cyclist. (as an aside, it seems odd to me that people who compeltely failed to see several cyclists on the road are taken as trustworthy witnesses in other matters )

If on the other hand (this is what if, instead of speculation), the van was stuttering, or something and took 6 seconds to cross, or witnesses had noticed that the cyclist was head down, and never swerved, I would have no difficulty with the judgement as the law stands.

Under the circumstances, given that the van driver was prosecuted, and completely failed to see the cyclists or the motorcyclist on the road, something more definitive should be required, even for the balance of probabilities. IMO, they have demonstrated that the cyclist *may* not have been riding with due care and attention, but the judgement is as if he *probably* wasn't riding with due care and attention.

Regarding the situations reversed, I put little faith in a similar calculation made the way the experts made it. It's obviously harder to obtain confirmatory data about cyclist crossing times than van crossing times, but it still would be possible to obtain information about the operation of the van, and things like whether the driver was using his phone at the time.

My job is making estimates. It's something I do every day. And when I need to make estimates based on uncertain situations, I find other ways, preferably multiple ways, to confirm my estimates. Otherwise, I submit my estimates in the form of a range, or qualify it with my uncertainty. And that's what I think should have been done here, lacking any other data or confirmation.

Again, it's possible that if I had access to everything that the judge did, I might change my mind.

[kwackers]

You and other keep mentioning 4 seconds, it isn't.

Last time I checked 4 seconds was actually 4 seconds. Coincidentally it's also the number the report gives and hence the number I'm using.

You can keep trying to whittle it down to demonstrate it's impossible to avoid something if you've only 4 seconds to stop but the truth is you'd have to be on a 1930's butchers bike at full tilt downhill on cobbles to not be able to.

According to you all over the country motorists are being unfairly penalised for jumping red lights when they've only got 3 seconds warning.

Oh, and just for the record here's how it *should* have played out.

The van was at the junction, he saw it and covered his brakes, then when the van starts moving forward he would automatically apply them - no thinking time required just reaction time.
Reaction time plus braking time only eats into half the distance he had, what did he do with the other half?

Also he had far longer than 4 seconds. The instant he hits the brakes the time he had increases non-linearly. That's why we can expect someone to stop at traffic lights with only 3 seconds warning at 60mph, because they actually have far longer than 3 seconds.

[thirdcrank]

Vorpal

If I can pick on one point from your last post, which you mentioned earlier: the technical data for the van, in particular its acceleration capabilities. Without looking back through a long thread, I think I made the point that the experts' calculations were not done on the back of a fag packet. Of course, I don't know the detail of either witness's evidence because it's not shown in the report of the judgment. You said something based on what you would do "as an engineer." I wonder on what basis you conclude that nobody else might have thought of it. Here we have two experts, who might both be suspected of partiality in favour of their own client which might encourage either to emphasise or play down different aspects of the data. In this case, both sides might have something to gain from knowing the van's performance, one to show it could go like a rocket, the other that it was slow off the mark. I find it hard to believe that neither would look at this if they thought it would be probative, even less that they would both be too dumb to appreciate the possibility.

By "stuttering" I presume you mean something like "kangarooing" or not accelerating smoothly from the start. The witnesses of the van emerging would surely have noticed and remarked on something like that. As it is, the consensus of their evidence seems to be that the van emerged quite slowly and, apart from the fact that the driver did not give way to the rider on the main road, was driven "normally" in the sense that there was nothing unusual they remembered. Some of the witnesses have estimated mph speeds which can hardly be really accurate, especially for an accelerating vehicle and would have been poor evidence but IMO their collective impression is persuasive.

[Bonefishblues]

Vorpal

If I can pick on one point from your last post, which you mentioned earlier: the technical data for the van, in particular its acceleration capabilities. Without looking back through a long thread, I think I made the point that the experts' calculations were not done on the back of a fag packet. Of course, I don't know the detail of either witness's evidence because it's not shown in the report of the judgment. You said something based on what you would do "as an engineer." I wonder on what basis you conclude that nobody else might have thought of it. Here we have two experts, who might both be suspected of partiality in favour of their own client which might encourage either to emphasise or play down different aspects of the data. In this case, both sides might have something to gain from knowing the van's performance, one to show it could go like a rocket, the other that it was slow off the mark. I find it hard to believe that neither would look at this if they thought it would be probative, even less that they would both be too dumb to appreciate the possibility.

By "stuttering" I presume you mean something like "kangarooing" or not accelerating smoothly from the start. The witnesses of the van emerging would surely have noticed and remarked on something like that. As it is, the consensus of their evidence seems to be that the van emerged quite slowly and, apart from the fact that the driver did not give way to the rider on the main road, was driven "normally" in the sense that there was nothing unusual they remembered. Some of the witnesses have estimated mph speeds which can hardly be really accurate, especially for an accelerating vehicle and would have been poor evidence but IMO their collective impression is persuasive.

I'd agree with that summary.

[Vorpal]

I never thought that the calculations were done on the back of a fag packet.

If one applies the principles of basic physics, however, the calculations can be duplicated. My point about that wasn't that they were done on the back of a fag packet, but that acceleration curves of vehicles are nonlinear, and no amount of calculation using a basic physics approach can tell us anything about the movement of the vehicle.

p.s. the things about'stuttering' was a 'what if' for the sake of discussion; nothing to do directly with the case.