Time triallist 20% to blame for accident

Commuting, Day rides, Audax, Incidents, etc.
User avatar
Tigerbiten
Posts: 2503
Joined: 29 Jun 2009, 6:49am

Re: Time triallist 20% to blame for accident

Post by Tigerbiten »

horizon wrote: But the principle is wrong.

So are you saying car/van drivers must drive with due care and attention but cyclist can ride without due care and attention because it doesn't matter.

That's the whole point of this case, the cyclist sounds like he was riding without due care and attention.
If he had been paying more care and attention then he may have been able to avoid the van entirely or at least reduced some of his injuries.

Then again he could of been riding with due care and attention and was just unlucky and looked around at the wrong moment so didn't see the van util to late. We'll never know.

What would you say about the cyclist if it had been proven 100% that he had been riding head down when he hit the van ??
User avatar
horizon
Posts: 11275
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Cornwall

Re: Time triallist 20% to blame for accident

Post by horizon »

Tigerbiten wrote:What would you say about the cyclist if it had been proven 100% that he had been riding head down when he hit the van ??


My assumption throughout is that he was riding head down. But as far as I know, the penalty for that is not paralysis from the head down.

Despite the cyclist's error, it was nevertheless in the power of the driver to prevent this tragedy not just had he looked but had he taken into account of the cyclist's possible failure to do so. I cannot see that if we don't take this position, we are in the position of saying that the cyclist deserved what he got, or at least 20% of it. I just don't think we can equalise the liability/fault/blame between the driver and the cyclist because the two parties are not equal in their ability to inflict harm on the other.
When the pestilence strikes from the East, go far and breathe the cold air deeply. Ignore the sage, stay not indoors. Ho Ri Zon 12th Century Chinese philosopher
Ellieb
Posts: 905
Joined: 26 Jul 2008, 7:06pm

Re: Time triallist 20% to blame for accident

Post by Ellieb »

because the two parties are not equal in their ability to inflict harm on the other.
But effectively the law is saying, the injured party had the abilty to avoid that harm being inflicted on themselves but failed to do so because of their own negligence. The prinicpal is: If there is a potential hazard that you ought to be reasonably aware of, then you have a responsibilty to protect yourself from that hazard insofar as it is fair and reasonable to do so. If you fail to take reasonable care, then your negligence leads to a reduction in the compensation you are owed. I don't have a problem with that.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Time triallist 20% to blame for accident

Post by thirdcrank »

horizon

28 February will be the sixteenth anniversary of the Great Heck train crash when a relatively little vehicle caused the crash of two big ones (trains.) Some commentators argued that the sentence for killing ten people (five years imprisonment) was harsh and based on the result of his conduct rather than what he did. Incidentally, much of the evidence in that case was of expert opinion.

I don't think emotive language about death sentences makes your case any stronger. There's a point where heavy emphasis seems like "case weak, shout louder."
User avatar
Tigerbiten
Posts: 2503
Joined: 29 Jun 2009, 6:49am

Re: Time triallist 20% to blame for accident

Post by Tigerbiten »

horizon wrote:
Tigerbiten wrote:What would you say about the cyclist if it had been proven 100% that he had been riding head down when he hit the van ??


My assumption throughout is that he was riding head down. But as far as I know, the penalty for that is not paralysis from the head down.

It is assumed because hit hit he van at full speed without braking, that he was head down at the time of the crash.
If he was then he was riding without due care and attention.
Unfortunately in this case the penalty for riding without due care and attention is paralysis from the head down.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Time triallist 20% to blame for accident

Post by thirdcrank »

In an earlier thread which probably goes back a while, somebody explained that the French system is to have one hearing to establish what happened and then to fix the penalty and award compensation (which apparently tends to be lower than here.) Apart from the obvious simplicity, there's the point that everything is known in one go, rather than excruciating stages.

We begin with the criminal trial, assuming there is one, when the punishment for careless driving would normally be measured in hundreds of pounds. If negotiations fail there's a hearing over liability when the compo may be measured in hundred of thousands of pounds. If contributory negligence is found then a %age award will also be in the same units so it seems that the victim is being somehow punished more than the offender. In a case like this one, when the contributory negligence was settled separately from the amount of compensation, that must seem even worse.

I can see other flaws in our system: if this case had involved a right to a jury trial, I fancy that the slightest suggestion that the rider had not been looking would have resulted in an acquittal.

The biggest lobby for our system is its workforce and now their employment seems secure for the forseeable future.

I don't think anything is achieved by switching (I hesitate to say confusing) the words used for different things. So, if somebody is killed in a crash, it's not the death penalty. Nor is the compensation part of any punishment, even less retribution. We don't insist that the offender's possessions are liquidated to pay the compensation before the insurance picks up the rest of the tab.
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19793
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Time triallist 20% to blame for accident

Post by [XAP]Bob »

horizon wrote:
Tigerbiten wrote:What would you say about the cyclist if it had been proven 100% that he had been riding head down when he hit the van ??


My assumption throughout is that he was riding head down. But as far as I know, the penalty for that is not paralysis from the head down.

Despite the cyclist's error, it was nevertheless in the power of the driver to prevent this tragedy not just had he looked but had he taken into account of the cyclist's possible failure to do so. I cannot see that if we don't take this position, we are in the position of saying that the cyclist deserved what he got, or at least 20% of it. I just don't think we can equalise the liability/fault/blame between the driver and the cyclist because the two parties are not equal in their ability to inflict harm on the other.


No that's not the penalty. But riding without due care and attention can have that as a consequence (not punishment).
It is possible that he looked up, saw that the van had stopped and assumed that he had therefore been seen, then put his head down to get past the junction, only seeing the van again too late.

But that lack of hazard awareness is not being used to blame him for the accident - that lies entirely with the motorist. However he could, rather easily, have avoided the incident altogether. For that reason he is held 20% liable in terms of compensation, not blame.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
User avatar
horizon
Posts: 11275
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Cornwall

Re: Time triallist 20% to blame for accident

Post by horizon »

Ellieb wrote: If you fail to take reasonable care, then your negligence leads to a reduction in the compensation you are owed. I don't have a problem with that.


Well, in fact it leads to serious injury. But it needn't if the driver allowed for a lack of reasonable care. What many cyclists fear is that while they intend to follow the rules of the road scrupulously, they might have an occasional lapse or distraction and that will be their downfall - the driver will expect them to act at all times with care and attention. To avoid that scenario, the cyclist stays at home or takes the bus. Are we really, really saying that a cyclist who wobbles at the wrong moment is a cyclist who should expect to be hit by a car?

I just want to say a few words about the victim: as far as we know he was up early, punctual, well kitted out, helmet, cycled on the left and on the road, keen, disciplined, bike in good order, a rule follower, an upstanding citizen in every respect. He puts me to shame. But he made a four second mistake. And indeed, as many people have pointed out, it is the rule-following female cyclists in London who have found themselves under the wheels of a tipper truck, not pavement-cycling ninjas.

The counsel of perfection that leads drivers to expect and demand that cyclists are never negligent or distracted or reckless or stupid is what is killing both cyclists and cycling. I have a moral right as a human being, as a cyclist and road user to ask that drivers make allowance for my occasional stupidity. Without that I simply wouldn't (indeed couldn't) take the risk of cycling on the road.

Interestingly, there are now 20 mph speed limits. Why? If cyclists and pedestrians and children followed the rules, looked left and right and didn't cross the path of cars then all would be well. According to the judgement under discussion, there is no need for a 20 mph limit, just a reduction in compensation for a paralysed child.
When the pestilence strikes from the East, go far and breathe the cold air deeply. Ignore the sage, stay not indoors. Ho Ri Zon 12th Century Chinese philosopher
User avatar
[XAP]Bob
Posts: 19793
Joined: 26 Sep 2008, 4:12pm

Re: Time triallist 20% to blame for accident

Post by [XAP]Bob »

The driver didn't expect anything of the cyclist- they failed to see him.

For this situation to have occurred required multiple simultaneous lapses - this isn't a case of wobbling due to wind or a pothole, it is a case where the cyclist drove straight into the side of a van who was crossing the road ahead of him - well ahead of him when he started crossing.
A shortcut has to be a challenge, otherwise it would just be the way. No situation is so dire that panic cannot make it worse.
There are two kinds of people in this world: those can extrapolate from incomplete data.
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Time triallist 20% to blame for accident

Post by Vorpal »

[XAP]Bob wrote:The driver didn't expect anything of the cyclist- they failed to see him.

For this situation to have occurred required multiple simultaneous lapses - this isn't a case of wobbling due to wind or a pothole, it is a case where the cyclist drove straight into the side of a van who was crossing the road ahead of him - well ahead of him when he started crossing.

Actually he didn't ride straight into it. He hit it at angle.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
kwackers
Posts: 15643
Joined: 4 Jun 2008, 9:29pm
Location: Warrington

Re: Time triallist 20% to blame for accident

Post by kwackers »

horizon wrote:Interestingly, there are now 20 mph speed limits. Why? If cyclists and pedestrians and children followed the rules, looked left and right and didn't cross the path of cars then all would be well. According to the judgement under discussion, there is no need for a 20 mph limit, just a reduction in compensation for a paralysed child.

That's a bizarre interpretation.

There are 20mph limits to make places better to live in and to reduce the damage a car does when a mistake does happen and mistakes really do happen.

A reduction in compensation for a paralysed child is unlikely to happen if the child ran out from behind a parked car by virtue of the fact I doubt they'd get any compensation at all, but the 20mph limit would reduce the damage caused.
In contrast if the car was found to be doing 30mph in a 20 then the driver would probably be found guilty of contributory negligence and the child would get something since even though they ran out you can argue the car would have been more likely to stop or at least inflict less damage on the child.

It's exactly the same mechanism in this scenario as we've applied to the cyclist. The judgement awarded 20% on the basis he had 4 seconds to avoid the car.
The child would be awarded some compensation on the basis the accident may have been avoided or at least had less serious consequences.
Same mechanism.
Last edited by kwackers on 25 Feb 2017, 9:05am, edited 1 time in total.
landsurfer
Posts: 5327
Joined: 27 Oct 2012, 9:13pm

Re: Time triallist 20% to blame for accident

Post by landsurfer »

thirdcrank wrote:
I don't think emotive language about death sentences makes your case any stronger. There's a point where heavy emphasis seems like "case weak, shout louder."


+1
“Quiet, calm deliberation disentangles every knot.”
Be more Mike.
The road goes on forever.
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: Time triallist 20% to blame for accident

Post by thirdcrank »

For anybody interested in the reality of the matter of contributory negligence, I found this interesting and up-to-date (2016.)

As the title indicates, it's particularly about how this affects children but the first part forms what I found to be a clearly written introduction to the subject as a whole. The further you read, the deeper it gets, and it also reviews the approach taken in other common law jurisdictions. (I speak as somebody with some knowledge of criminal law but not civil law.)

http://www.stjohnschambers.co.uk/dashbo ... bility.pdf
User avatar
The utility cyclist
Posts: 3607
Joined: 22 Aug 2016, 12:28pm
Location: The first garden city

Re: Time triallist 20% to blame for accident

Post by The utility cyclist »

horizon wrote:
Ellieb wrote: If you fail to take reasonable care, then your negligence leads to a reduction in the compensation you are owed. I don't have a problem with that.


Well, in fact it leads to serious injury. But it needn't if the driver allowed for a lack of reasonable care. What many cyclists fear is that while they intend to follow the rules of the road scrupulously, they might have an occasional lapse or distraction and that will be their downfall - the driver will expect them to act at all times with care and attention. To avoid that scenario, the cyclist stays at home or takes the bus. Are we really, really saying that a cyclist who wobbles at the wrong moment is a cyclist who should expect to be hit by a car?

I just want to say a few words about the victim: as far as we know he was up early, punctual, well kitted out, helmet, cycled on the left and on the road, keen, disciplined, bike in good order, a rule follower, an upstanding citizen in every respect. He puts me to shame. But he made a four second mistake. And indeed, as many people have pointed out, it is the rule-following female cyclists in London who have found themselves under the wheels of a tipper truck, not pavement-cycling ninjas.

The counsel of perfection that leads drivers to expect and demand that cyclists are never negligent or distracted or reckless or stupid is what is killing both cyclists and cycling. I have a moral right as a human being, as a cyclist and road user to ask that drivers make allowance for my occasional stupidity. Without that I simply wouldn't (indeed couldn't) take the risk of cycling on the road.

Interestingly, there are now 20 mph speed limits. Why? If cyclists and pedestrians and children followed the rules, looked left and right and didn't cross the path of cars then all would be well. According to the judgement under discussion, there is no need for a 20 mph limit, just a reduction in compensation for a paralysed child.

it wasn't a 4 second mistake though, far less in fact.

We are told that the van could have been in view for 4 seconds as they are theorising we should theorise that the cyclist did an over the shoulder safety check as the van was just entering the carriageway, we then have a possible 3 second window.

Now we come to reaction time, in a perfect world we'd be able to react like a 100m sprinter but we can't, we assume that he saw the van at the side of the road, theorised that he could have shoulder checked at the precise moment the van started entering the carriageway but then it's not a 100% expectation that it will emerge right in front of you the last time you looked. Especially since it's a wide dual carriageway and the huge margin they (the driver) has to pull away/stay in the outer lane, accelerate and be clear, you don't dismiss it but it's not the same consideration as a vehicle coming from your left/nearside. So we knock off another 1.5 seconds for reaction time (the std time given by investigators), then we have 'Brake Engagement Distance', taken to be 0.3 seconds, we include this as it's part of the summary as to avoiding the collision completely as an absolute (which is nonsense IMHO).
That's even if the cyclist thought braking was the best solution (you know braking on a dual/fast traffic behind is not always the greatest of options) and thought steering around was best as it seems apparent he did.
We also have this, read not just the paragraph below but the whole article. http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/reactiontime.html
"Stimulus-Response Compatibility

Humans have some highly built-in connections between percepts and responses. Pairings with high "stimulus-response compatibility" tend to be made very fast, with little need for thinking and with low error. Low stimulus-response incompatibility usually means slow response and high likelihood of error.

One source of many accidents is the human tendency to respond in the direction away from a negative stimulus, such as an obstacle on a collision course. If a driver sees a car approach from the right, for example, the overwhelming tendency will be to steer left, often resulting in the driver steering right into the path of the oncoming vehicle. The stimulus-response capability overrides and the driver simply cannot take the time to observe the oncoming car's trajectory and to mentally calculate it's future position. In short, the driver must respond to where the car is now, not where it will be at some point in the future."

1.2 seconds, 20% blame for a near one seconds moment of inattention in a high stress situation, utter bulldust :twisted:
Ellieb
Posts: 905
Joined: 26 Jul 2008, 7:06pm

Re: Time triallist 20% to blame for accident

Post by Ellieb »

I'm sorry, but you are just making it up. It may be the case that he didn't have 4 seconds. On the balance of probablities the court decided that this was the figure they were going to use, with I suspect, a much more rigourous examination of the situation than anyone can achieve sitting behind a keyboard.
Post Reply