driver kills cyclist in NSW, again

I *think* this is the 5th cyclist fatality in NSW this year.

Views: 3497

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

I dont disagree that defensive riding is prudent but for the implied statements written in the SMH article it doesn't take much for an unsympathetic reader (and there are many around)  to pretty say rider was somehow or even totally at fault, whatever the court findings are.

You also have to wonder if the judge thought that way with the feather on the wrist sentencing.

 

I was initially very critical of the lack of real punishment, but then read the SMH story with the victims partners statement and it changed my mind a bit.
I must be getting soft.

' when a single lapse of concentration cleft his life and many others'

'One minute he was rounding the corner from Mona Vale Road into Woodlands Avenue in Pymble, then there was a loud bang, and the next moment he was outside his car and hysterical.  

"I didn't see her," he cried.

But Dr Formaz-Preston's partner Christopher Vanneste said there were no winners from the proceedings, with his own life as well as that of Fageer left in ruin

"I don't think there's any sentence that could compensate for the death of anyone, especially someone as great as Ann was."

But he said she would have approved of the community service sentence handed to Fageer.

"We're not the only victims. He's suffered a tragic event as well," he said.

"This is one step in the process but there's still a lot more to go through for myself, for Ann's family and his family."

According to court documents, the accident occurred about 10am on December 18, 2016,

She had been wearing a red and white shirt and black pants, described by a witness as dark colours, and did not have a light on her bike.

Yes, it's hard not to read the article and come away feeling how an innocent SMIDSY mistake was an accident which made the victim out of the driver as he didn't see the dark clothed unlit cyclist

Notice there was no emphasis on the 10am lighting conditions, although, I'm absolutely certain if it was  overcast or it was raining or the sun was in his eyes it would have been mentioned and maybe add rational to an even lighter sentencing 

Taking aware the narrative from the actual incident. distilled straight down, this means 'SMIDSY' = accident = valid excuse to end my life and apparently deserve sympathy for the guilty 'ruined' life from the judge and the public

A part of me wonders how many percent of this is because the driver and judge isn't a cyclist-aware driver (as in they themselves are not cyclists and don't have loved ones that cycle)  

I understand that the cyclist partner and loved ones want to move one with their lives and heal, and want to leave behind a lasting forgiving, magnanimous image of the victim (I'm referring to the cyclist here)

There's no other way to put it, I'm extremely bitter and probably not wise for me to continue on this, but I'll say it now, if this happens to me or my loved ones because a driver couldn't be arsed to look out for cyclists, I'll definitely not forgive how these proceedings went.

I feel our safety and lives are worth far, far more than this

SMIDSY is an instant admission of guilt - Sorry Mate I Didn't .....

The problem these days is that judges seem to be going easy on anybody with an excuse - almost any excuse.

 "A part of me wonders how many percent of this is because the driver and judge isn't a cyclist-aware driver "

Yes. The driver centric mindset goes all the way to the top for sure.

We need learner drivers to spend the first 3 months or 6 months on bicycles. That would force learn awareness and care for vulnerable road users into them. 

its a judgement full of the standard excuses.  Honestly the old first mistake fallacy.  Drivers (and riders) have collisions because they are making the same mistakes over and over again until one time they do it when it matters.

I want to know if the motorist has his lights on? Was his car dark or light in colour? Why should the vulnerable road users have higher safety standards than motorists?

The cyclist can not be faulted at all in this instance - other riders may have not hit the car, who knows... I thought I would never get doored with my "cat like" reflexes but it turns out they are not very cat like and doors come at you fast.

The only thing I was thinking the judge might pick up on was the type of bicycle. Tri bikes are fast in a straight line, it is not the bike you would choose to quickly avoid a motorist with, or even pull up fast on. That said I still feel that the victim in this instance did nothing wrong.

JM

From memory (pictures included in the original report) she was on a road bike, not a tri-bike.

But point made.

Even on my roadie I sometimes have my hands somewhere not optimal to brake (tops or top of the hoods). Even in the drops can get a little hairy.

There was no mention of the other riders - who know where they were in relation to the car, or if they had lights on? It may have made no difference at all if there were 50 riders coming down the road all in flouro with lights blazing. 

But then maybe the guy wouldn't have got community service. Maybe.

Have a read of the SMH online article in relation to the truck "accident" in Dee Why here:

SMH Online today

Hilarious. Release that man! Only 6 people seriously injured and to quote the article:

'But Mr Nisan, who didn't own the truck, argued the brakes weren't roadworthy and were vulnerable to failure or fading.'

Professional truck driver drives truck knowing brakes don't work very well - why should he be held to account? This was appeal judges letting him go... he will probably now sue for time spent in prison.

I might try this if I ever hit someone on my bicycle - it's all good mate the brakes are not working very well.

JM

RSS

© 2019   Created by DamianM.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service