Judge rules cyclist’s lack of helmet “of no relevance” as taxi driver fined €1,000 for breaking rider’s leg in roundabout crash – after police noted cyclist’s dark clothes and earphones
Judge rules cyclist’s lack of helmet “of no relevance” as taxi driver fined €1,000 for breaking rider’s leg in roundabout crash – after police noted cyclist’s dark clothes and earphones
The judge concluded that the motorist’s actions, which saw him strike the cyclist from behind, were “at the lower end of carelessness” after his vision was “significantly obstructed” approaching the roundabout
The dildo of consequences rarely arrives lubed.
I'm really not a fan of the cops arguing that the cyclist was partly to blame, though, and a €1000 fine is pretty damn low for breaking someone's leg and wrecking a good six months of their life.
You're viewing a single thread.
The article lists four things about the cyclist.
- "not wearing a helmet"
Admittedly a no-go for me. There a lots of options for anyone.
- "was wearing “relatively” dark clothing"
"Relatively" already gives the impression that we aren't talking black, just that it wasn't a signal or hi-vis color.
- "using an earphone"
This wording makes me think the cyclist used one earbud and not both or full headphones. So he could hear his surroundings well.
- "his front light may not have been working"
Not even a fact, but a possibility.
To summarize, he was a traffic participant in a non-signal color, listening to music. That's it.
Of course cyclist are more vulnerable than cars, but anyone who sees fault in the cyclist behavior is often overlooking similar or worse behavior in drivers.
Nobody ever asks the owner of a black car if they have a death wish or ask someone to turn of the radio, because they can't hear the traffic as well.
I wish people would hold all traffic participants to the same standards.
More importantly the driver hit the cyclist from behind. The front light, helmet and earphones are all irrelevant to the accident. It doesn't matter if you hear that a car is behind you or not, if the car just slams into you. If you cycle somewhere except extremely rural areas you will hear cars all the time and you can't turn around to look at every car approaching form behing
What would be relevant instead are back lights and reflectors. The article mentions that the police had found a back light, which indicates it was broken off the bike by the hit.
areas you will hear cars all the time and you can't turn around to look at every car approaching form behing
I do that and cars significantly slow down because they think I will turn left.
In true carbrain fashion, not only they ignore the existence of turn lights, they also ignore the existence of turn signals.
"His front light may not have been working". Officer might as well have written "Cyclist might possibly be a pedophile".
For me, riding on the road without lights would be a good point for placing blame on the cyclist. I don't care what vehicle you are, you're on the road at night, you need lights.
But would need to be proven, of course. "May not have been working" means literally nothing, could be from the drivers testimony "I didn't see no lights" kind of thing