Coroner blames headphones

[reohn2]

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.

I totally agree.

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!

We only know what was reported,so we don't know why the HGV driver didn't see the cyclist in question,she could've entered the r/about by the HGV's side from behind another vehicle waiting to enter the r/about,on it's inside because it was in the right hand lane,or the HGV driver could've mistaken her for a pedestrian or some other equally valid reason.We simply don't know,we only know that he said didn't see her and that no contact was made between his vehicle and her(s).

[wearwell]

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"?

Of course.
It's a basic fact of life - who or whatever the fault it's also the duty of the potential victim to mitigate the damage.
You should always drive as thought there is a lunatic approaching around the next bend, a cyclist with earphones, a breakdown, a herd of sheep, or anything - so that you can safely stop within the distance you can see before you

[Postboxer]

I thought someone mentioned witnesses not having seen a collision, not seeing that there was no collision, which are of course different things. If this is true it leaves open the possibility that there was a collision, just no-one else witnessed it.

[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"?

Of course.
It's a basic fact of life - who or whatever the fault it's also the duty of the potential victim to mitigate the damage.
You should always drive as thought there is a lunatic approaching around the next bend, a cyclist with earphones, a breakdown, a herd of sheep, or anything - so that you can safely stop within the distance you can see before you

How much 'duty' should those presenting no danger mitigate against those that present death 6 times every single day, that cause thousands of crashes every day, that act in a criminal manner by the millions every month, hi-vis and plastic hats huh you fall into the trap of so many before, mitigating rarely if ever works, look at how hi-vis & helmets have been an utter disaster!
it allows, nay encourages those presenting the danger to carry on as before, if not worse with ever more intrusive illogical interventions on those doing no harm, and when presented with situations where there is an injured party part of the blame gets pushed upon those that did absolutely nothing wrong, and in some sick countries you are criminalised yourself, it's perverse in the extreme .

[wearwell]

.....look at how hi-vis & helmets have been an utter disaster!.....

Have they? In what way?
Personally I make a point of high viz (on busy roads at least) and wear my yellow top most of the time. Sometimes you can feel the difference - the sense of people slowing down and passing wider.

[Bez]

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'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!

Sorry, my mistake, I phrased it unclearly. I sometimes get to the end of something and then haphazardly rewrite bits without paying enough attention*. I should have written this:

So while it's perfectly reasonable argue that a sound can be a cognitive distraction, I don't think you can argue that not hearing something can be a cognitive distraction, even if the reason for not hearing it was that it was drowned out by a louder sound that was a distraction.

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.

Not an unreasonable point but there's a difference, which is that kids are still learning how to deal with traffic visually, let alone aurally. Plus pretty much every parent is paranoid about their own kids and will normally take reasonable measures to reduce risk to them as a general policy, and frankly it's not humanly possible to look up research into the realities of every perceived risk. That's why "common sense" is quite acceptable for personal decisions, it just doesn't justify population policy decisions.

Also, encouraging someone to do something is not the same as questioning whether it's beneficial to ban them from doing it


* can't remember if I was listening to music at the time

[Bez]

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.

I think the arguments have been more along the lines that there's no decent evidence that headphones increase risk, and that the media froth about it is just another thing that is high on opinions and low on facts, and—especially since none of the editorial discusses similar theories in the context of driving—is little more than an opportunity to get some anti-cycling views in print.

Sure, there's been plenty of dispute of the logic behind the assertion that headphones do increase risk, but I don't think anyone's made any categorical claims as to the actual net effect on risk.

And, despite having argued the above, I've already said that I feel uncomfortable using headphones. But heaven forfend that my personal experiences and resulting opinions should dictate the laws that you have to live by. I'd hope you'd like the laws that restrict your freedoms to be based on more robust evidence than that.

[reohn2]

....... I'd hope you'd like the laws that restrict your freedoms to be based on more robust evidence than that.

I agree and I for one wouldn't like to see a law banning the use of headphones wen cycling,that,like h*lm*ts should remain a personal choice.
That said,I wish some of the pedestrians and joggers I approach from behind on shared use paths would be more aware of their surroundings.
TBH I rarely come across cyclists wearing head phones,which probably says more about my pace than anything as I rarely overtake any other cyclists these days .

[Bez]

That said,I wish some of the pedestrians and joggers I approach from behind on shared use paths would be more aware of their surroundings.

Can't help but link to this, noting the last paragraph

http://beyondthekerb.org.uk/wordpress/w ... rticle.png

[thirdcrank]

If you start from the premise that safety is measured by casualty reduction, then inquests are investigating the most dangerous incidents since at least one fatality is involved. It's inevitable that vulnerable road users will be overrepresented in the casualties, since events which kill or maim a pedestrian or a cyclist may cause nothing worse than minor damage, if any, to a motor vehicle, especially a large one.

As explained more eloquently than I could by Martin Porter in my earlier link, a coroner is stuck with the CPS decision and if that's no prosecution, then everybody is legally innocent ie unconvicted.

The initial police investigation of a death such this one is based on suspicion - perhaps in this case initial 999 reports that a lorry has hit a cyclist and has been driven off without stopping. The fuller investigation will reveal information, of which a part will be admissible evidence. Any criminal proceedings must be based only on the admissible evidence and "bad driving charges" are based on current standards of driving, where most collisions are no longer investigated, even less result in what was once almost inevitably "due care." Speaking generally, there is a possibility that investigators will tend to feel that there is no criminal case and not submit it to the CPS for consideration or emphasise material which will result in no prosecution. It seems to me that an understandable policy of not having inquests - which can hear all manner of evidence - deciding somebody is guilty when legally they cannot be guilty, has had the unfortunate result of gravely weakening the role of the coroner in ensuring that the investigation into a death has been completed properly.

It's almost as if inquests might as well be scrapped following fatal crashes, even though this is one of a few types of sudden death considered so important a coroner must sit with a jury (unless that's something else they've changed without letting me know )

As it is, we seem to be left with victim blaming, perhaps when the coroner picks up on things in the police report.

[reohn2]

That said,I wish some of the pedestrians and joggers I approach from behind on shared use paths would be more aware of their surroundings.

Can't help but link to this, noting the last paragraph

http://beyondthekerb.org.uk/wordpress/w ... rticle.png

I'm not of the 'must get past at all costs' or 'couldn't care less about anyone else' or 'it's their problem' attitude,where other people are concerned.
The last thing I want to do is collide with anything or anyone or fall off,as a result I'm careful around hazards of any kind.
But when I have to shout quite loudly to people I'm approaching from behind before they acknowledge my presence and there are some who don't acknowledge me however loud I shout headphones or not,I get concerned for both our safety.
If that lack of response is due to medical hearing impairment there's nothing anyone can do about their position,if it's due to imposed hearing impairment through listening to headphones that can be remedied.
Non of this excludes my duty of care as a cyclist,but such people surely should have some duty of care if only to themselves.

BTW I always slow down for pedestrians on shared use paths,whether they acknowledge me or not.

All of that said I've witnessed some really stupid and dangerous cycling on shared use paths.

[mjr]

.....look at how hi-vis & helmets have been an utter disaster!.....

Have they? In what way?
Personally I make a point of high viz (on busy roads at least) and wear my yellow top most of the time. Sometimes you can feel the difference - the sense of people slowing down and passing wider.

Falling participation, increasing victim-blaming, no improvements to the outcomes for the remaining participants and so on.

I spent a while testing hi-vis among a few other things and my ad-hoc findings on that aspect are roughly in line with published research like Ian Walker's: it makes no difference to passing distance. But your local area may be different, you may be enjoying a placebo effect or something else.

I agree and I for one wouldn't like to see a law banning the use of headphones wen cycling,that,like h*lm*ts should remain a personal choice.

I think greater casualty reduction would arise if h*lm*ts and hi-viz were banned: mainly through removing the potential for them to distract officials from those inflicting the injuries and divert casualty reduction resources to H+H promotion.

TBH I rarely come across cyclists wearing head phones,which probably says more about my pace than anything as I rarely overtake any other cyclists these days .

The wires are run through the headphone ports/conduits now found on some cycling jackets and then the earplug-type phones are under their buffs, which also makes them less likely to fall out while cycling. DAMHIK

[Flinders]

If she had been merely deaf she would at least have not had the distraction of music.

That begs the question of whether music is a distraction. Research found that surgeons who listened to self-selected music had better performance, which rather suggests that it can have quite the opposite effect.

maybe for women, but not for men...see:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-38289080

[wearwell]

[....
Sorry, my mistake, I phrased it unclearly. I sometimes get to the end of something and then haphazardly rewrite bits without paying enough attention*. I should have written this:

So while it's perfectly reasonable argue that a sound can be a cognitive distraction, I don't think you can argue that not hearing something can be a cognitive distraction, even if the reason for not hearing it was that it was drowned out by a louder sound that was a distraction

.Right. That's even clearer

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.

Not an unreasonable point but there's a difference, which is that kids are still learning how to deal with traffic visually, let alone aurally. Plus pretty much every parent is paranoid about their own kids and will normally take reasonable measures to reduce risk to them as a general policy, and frankly it's not humanly possible to look up research into the realities of every perceived risk. That's why "common sense" is quite acceptable for personal decisions, it just doesn't justify population policy decisions.
.........

So that's a no then.

[Bez]

Interesting. Thanks for the link. Couple of notable points spring to mind from reading it: 1. there may be differences between self-selected and directed listening and 2. the victim in this case was a woman (and I *think* this may be true in other cases where I've seen headphones mentioned, but I'd have to check).