3 ms·
Because it shouldn't be a defence of a driver to say "Sorry mate, I didn't see you". And if that is a defence, then isn't it a form of victim blaming? And what
by buro9 12y ago
Because it shouldn't be a defence of a driver to say "Sorry mate, I didn't see you". And if that is a defence, then isn't it a form of victim blaming? And what measure would be enough to allow the cyclist to ever prove that the driver must have seen the cyclist? Surely lights would be enough, but enough London cases about cycle deaths would appear to show this isn't enough... cyclists with lights are still killed.
- baddox 12y agoI don't get your argument. Just because the lack of X does not excuse behavior Y doesn't mean that the presence of X isn't advisable. For instance, if you collide your automobile into another automobile because you didn't have a rear view mirror, that obviously is not an excuse. And yet, it is still reasonable to advise (and indeed require) that automobiles have rear view mirrors.
- buro9 12y agoA cyclist in London died. I can't recall the guys name but probably can find the information for you if you insist. He had a Flare rear light, reflective jacket, and even during the court case witnesses testified to the brightness of the light and it's effectiveness. The weather and conditions were good. The driver still used the SMIDSY defence, still walked free with little more than a fine. At what point do we stop and say that perhaps it isn't enough to be dressed as a clown and lit with everything possible... perhaps the responsibility to not hit a cyclist should be with the driver to drive with care and attention?
- baddox 12y agoThere's no contradiction here. I think that the case as you described it is ludicrous, and I still think it's prudent for cyclists to take measures to increase their visibility.