Why the silence following a major biking accident?

[il padrone]

However in the case of cycling it seems that many times there is an information void. Furthermore the cause and blame is often obvious.

I would not agree that this is the always case. Even if it is obvious say, 70% of the time, the 30% doubtful cause cases make a bit of discretion valuable.

Amongst the rockclimbers discussions are enthusiastic whenever incidents occur. Because of a tight knit community information normally comes out. Also there is often MORE to discuss as almost always it is user error.

THIS being the main reason for a different information flow. Usually there is no-one likely to face up to criminal charges or legal claims.

[wellington_street]

SO maybe see what the coroner says?

Coroners are experts in establishing cause of death but do not necessarily have any understanding of road safety, cycling safety etc. A lot of the recommendations coming from coronial inquests into road deaths are about as useful as saying "the victim would not be deceased if he had been wrapped up in a 1m thick ball of cotton wool"

[il padrone]

Coroners are experts in establishing cause of death but do not necessarily have any understanding of road safety, cycling safety etc.

A furphy.

They are not experts in weapons safety, air traffic control, medical practice etc, etc either. They do not need to be. In all situations they take expert opinion and testimony to establish what is what. That is the role and function of the coroner's inquest.

[TimW]

All Coroners offices in NSW have a Sgt Assisting. The SGT assisting is the officer that makes sure the Police brief is spot on and contains the necessary info/expert opinions etc. If thing are missing the SGT assisting is the person who chases it up through the investigating officer. You never put at request from the coroner in the "to do" tray, they are generally attended to pronto

[twizzle]

Same basic issue as discussing mandatory helmets, it degenerates quickly into "drivers should avoid cyclists at all time", the cyclist can do no wrong even when they are (hypothetically) a drunk ninja at night riding out in front of a car while balancing a slab on the bars. Hard to have an open discussion when there is a vocal minority wanting to avoid evidence-based discussion at all cost as it doesn't match their beliefs.

[sogood]

Same basic issue as discussing mandatory helmets, it degenerates quickly into "drivers should avoid cyclists at all time", the cyclist can do no wrong even when they are (hypothetically) a drunk ninja at night riding out in front of a car while balancing a slab on the bars. Hard to have an open discussion when there is a vocal minority wanting to avoid evidence-based discussion at all cost as it doesn't match their beliefs.

I think evidence based and productive discussions can be had given the right forum. I think BNA is one of the better ones on opinion guidance and one that may be able to achieve this objective. Irrespective, factual information relating to the circumstances of the accident can be useful to many readers, even when mixed within all the subjective voices.

[il padrone]

Same basic issue as discussing mandatory helmets, it degenerates quickly into "drivers should avoid cyclists at all time", the cyclist can do no wrong even when they are (hypothetically) a drunk ninja at night riding out in front of a car while balancing a slab on the bars. Hard to have an open discussion when there is a vocal minority wanting to avoid evidence-based discussion at all cost as it doesn't match their beliefs.

Not quite sure which thread you're reading ??? Anyway.....

"drivers should avoid cyclists at all time"

Not a bad basic principle for good road safety. It's the basic principle behind most European nations' traffic law - a starting point that gives drivers enough of a nudge to give a damn.

[Sydguy]

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/driver-who-ca ... 2emul.html

Any thoughts on this case? Accelerator jammed and he did not try the brakes. Other Lexus drivers reported having the same issue, wonder if they have been recalled?

I don't know the full story obviously but this guy seems lucky in this terrible scenario - even the title of the article 'escapes jail'...

JM

[twizzle]

I seem to recall that witnesses had seen him driving like an idiot prior to the accident. He's received the benefit of doubt. Unlike his victims - no doubts about their outcome.


Sent from my iThingy...

[sogood]

Any thoughts on this case?

Legal issue. No bikes involved.

[twizzle]

I seem to recall that witnesses had seen him driving like an idiot prior to the accident. He's received the benefit of doubt. Unlike his victims - no doubts about their outcome.

Sent from my iThingy...

"... read to the court Wayland had seven previous speeding offences, three of which were serious, as well as a "burn out" offence, and was penalised in relation to an incident involving number plates."

[Sydguy]

This case is all over the papers today. I feel for the victim who lost everything.

I have ever faith in NSW Police but it sounds a bit odd, the whole case. Why do the drivers parents talk in court about how proud they are of their son?

Why is previous driving record not more firmly in the mix? I wonder if the Lexus was modified and fully sick? Why does the drivers medical condition also get factored in to reducing the severity of the sentence.

He was found guilty of a charge carrying 9 years maximum - but got 50ish hours of community service. I don't think he should get life behind bars but surely this sends yet another message to the community that this is a tragic accident, accidents happen - oh gee, gosh darn it. Life goes on (for everyone except the broken people).

JM

[InTheWoods]

Why does the drivers medical condition also get factored in to reducing the severity of the sentence.

I've got the same medical condition as the driver and was wondering the same thing... About the only thing I could think of was being in a rush to get to a toilet but the article didn't mention that and it would still be no excuse...

[wellington_street]

Why does the drivers medical condition also get factored in to reducing the severity of the sentence.

I'm completely in agreement with you.

If you can't drive a vehicle safely then you should not be on the road. If you can't drive a vehicle safely and you injure someone else you should be punished - regardless of whether a medical condition contributed to it or not. It's nobody's responsibility but your own to make sure that lethal weapon you're in charge of doesn't kill or injure someone.

This case is another one that just really boils my blood. This <language> should be in jail for a very long time. There's no excuse for ever falling asleep behind the wheel!
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/scores-of-lon ... 2dk0f.html

[Sydguy]

@Sogood - we need to look outside cycling, if we can align some of our goals to more mainstream concerns we might stand a chance. Cyclists are too easy to dismiss and will remain that way until we increase in numbers. In the meantime we will remain targets.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/ ... 2epdq.html

Warning this article is not cycling related - however it mentions a viewpoint on making faster more certain but less severe puncishment for crimes. It is interesting, and I don't normally like Gittins.

If you are charged and convicted of negligent driving, no matter the outcome, death, injured, bent street sign you get 3 years inside the dog house. Would that help?? The flipside would be you can basically murder someone (bunch of people) and only get 3 years...

Cyclists should advocate on non cycling issues where the outcome will assist our cause. Otherwise it is just us and Clover

JM

[Summernight]

@Sogood - we need to look outside cycling, if we can align some of our goals to more mainstream concerns we might stand a chance. Cyclists are too easy to dismiss and will remain that way until we increase in numbers. In the meantime we will remain targets.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/ ... 2epdq.html

Warning this article is not cycling related - however it mentions a viewpoint on making faster more certain but less severe puncishment for crimes. It is interesting, and I don't normally like Gittins.

If you are charged and convicted of negligent driving, no matter the outcome, death, injured, bent street sign you get 3 years inside the dog house. Would that help?? The flipside would be you can basically murder someone (bunch of people) and only get 3 years...

Cyclists should advocate on non cycling issues where the outcome will assist our cause. Otherwise it is just us and Clover

JM

But then the government would have to spend more money increasing the number of prisoner beds in prisons - there is apparently already significant overcrowding in prisons... (At least in Victoria)

I'm not sure prison is effective as a deterrent - education is more effective. I mean, if you don't know that you will go to prison if you hit a street sign then you're not going to be extra careful when going around street signs if you don't think there are any severe consequences if you hit one.

But that is off topic to your point regarding advocating issues outside of just cycling, which I do agree with.

[sogood]

I'm not sure prison is effective as a deterrent - education is more effective...

Agreed. Prisons cost all tax payers and turn those places into ghettos. And for some, prisons aren't scary any more. I think there should be variable options in terms of punishments, ones dished out on the basis of perceived pains by the individual, and in proportion of their wealthy and fame. Percentage of total asset would be a good starting point.

[simonn]

If you are charged and convicted of negligent driving, no matter the outcome, death, injured, bent street sign you get 3 years inside the dog house. Would that help?? The flipside would be you can basically murder someone (bunch of people) and only get 3 years...

Not if you are also charged with murder. You can be charged with more than one offence at the same time.

[AUbicycles]

A late entry for this thread, in the case of this forum a thread will be closed mostly because of respect for family and friends as public discussion often doesn't help. Sometimes I am asked by family or friends to close or in rare cases remove a thread.

Many members here play fair, show their respects and leave it at that. For discussion of accident prevention I therefor prefer to see a new thread that allows active discussion without upsetting families.

Christopher