Cyclist killed in crash was retrieving cap, inquest told

Dorset Echo: Cyclist killed in crash was retrieving cap, inquest told Cyclist killed in crash was retrieving cap, inquest told

A cyclist aged 78, who was killed in a crash, may have been trying to retrieve his baseball cap, an inquest was told.

James Edwards’ hat was blown off seconds before the impact which left him with fatal head and spinal injuries, Dorset Coroner Sheriff Payne Sheriff Payne heard.

A Bournemouth inquest heard that the 4x4 vehicle which was in collision with Mr Edwards had numerous faults at the time.

But investigators could not say whether the collision would have been avoided if the Mitsubishi Shogun had been in better condition.

Mr Payne heard Mr Edwards, a keen cyclist, of Old Furzebrook Road, Wareham, was travelling east on the C80 near Bovington when witnesses saw his hat blow off.

Michael Watkins said Mr Edwards slowed down and his wife, Karen Watkins, said she saw Mr Edwards start to do a U-turn before colliding with the Shogun on January 29.

Both said they assumed he was stopping to collect his hat.

Mitsubishi driver Stuart White and his passenger Callum McGoldrick, both farm assistants, said they were overtaking Mr Edwards when he veered across the road in front of them.

The inquest heard the Shogun’s anti-lock braking system (ABS) was not working, it had faulty lights and the MOT had run out.

Recording a verdict that Mr Edwards died as the result of a road traffic collision, Mr Payne said: “It would appear to me that the fault to the ABS does not make an awful lot of difference to the outcome.

“I think, sadly, Mr Edwards had not perceived the presence of the Mitsubishi.”

Comments (15)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

5:34pm Thu 5 Jun 14

anika says...

Is this an accurate report of the inquest? No difference - oh really/ The Shogun should not have been on the road with no MOT and defective ABS system and lights. Had it been off the road as it should have been, the poor man would still be alive even if he was retrieving his cap. although it wouldn't bring him back, didn't they get any penalty at all? If not it's sending out the wrong message about having no MOT and a defective vehicle. Is Mr Payne qualified to say it wouldn't have made a difference?
Is this an accurate report of the inquest? No difference - oh really/ The Shogun should not have been on the road with no MOT and defective ABS system and lights. Had it been off the road as it should have been, the poor man would still be alive even if he was retrieving his cap. although it wouldn't bring him back, didn't they get any penalty at all? If not it's sending out the wrong message about having no MOT and a defective vehicle. Is Mr Payne qualified to say it wouldn't have made a difference? anika
  • Score: -2

7:18pm Thu 5 Jun 14

JackJohnson says...

anika wrote:
Is this an accurate report of the inquest? No difference - oh really/ The Shogun should not have been on the road with no MOT and defective ABS system and lights. Had it been off the road as it should have been, the poor man would still be alive even if he was retrieving his cap. although it wouldn't bring him back, didn't they get any penalty at all? If not it's sending out the wrong message about having no MOT and a defective vehicle. Is Mr Payne qualified to say it wouldn't have made a difference?
He turned into the path of another vehicle. If it hadn't been the Shogun it could have been any other. I also take it to mean that if the Shogun had an MOT and it's ABS had been working the outcome would not have changed. He would still have turned into the path of the Shogun and not gven the driver sufficient time to react. and avoid the accident.

The Shogun driver will, in all probability, be done for driving an unroadworthy vehicle.

The condition of the vehicle which hit him made no difference to the outcome.
[quote][p][bold]anika[/bold] wrote: Is this an accurate report of the inquest? No difference - oh really/ The Shogun should not have been on the road with no MOT and defective ABS system and lights. Had it been off the road as it should have been, the poor man would still be alive even if he was retrieving his cap. although it wouldn't bring him back, didn't they get any penalty at all? If not it's sending out the wrong message about having no MOT and a defective vehicle. Is Mr Payne qualified to say it wouldn't have made a difference?[/p][/quote]He turned into the path of another vehicle. If it hadn't been the Shogun it could have been any other. I also take it to mean that if the Shogun had an MOT and it's ABS had been working the outcome would not have changed. He would still have turned into the path of the Shogun and not gven the driver sufficient time to react. and avoid the accident. The Shogun driver will, in all probability, be done for driving an unroadworthy vehicle. The condition of the vehicle which hit him made no difference to the outcome. JackJohnson
  • Score: 1

6:57am Fri 6 Jun 14

ronfogg says...

JackJohnson wrote:
anika wrote:
Is this an accurate report of the inquest? No difference - oh really/ The Shogun should not have been on the road with no MOT and defective ABS system and lights. Had it been off the road as it should have been, the poor man would still be alive even if he was retrieving his cap. although it wouldn't bring him back, didn't they get any penalty at all? If not it's sending out the wrong message about having no MOT and a defective vehicle. Is Mr Payne qualified to say it wouldn't have made a difference?
He turned into the path of another vehicle. If it hadn't been the Shogun it could have been any other. I also take it to mean that if the Shogun had an MOT and it's ABS had been working the outcome would not have changed. He would still have turned into the path of the Shogun and not gven the driver sufficient time to react. and avoid the accident.

The Shogun driver will, in all probability, be done for driving an unroadworthy vehicle.

The condition of the vehicle which hit him made no difference to the outcome.
I think you're missing the point, which was that the Shogun without an MOT would not have hit the cyclist had it been off the road like it should have been.

Your argument seems to be rather like saying: I hit the child while doing 50 in a 30 limit but if I hadn't hit him someone else doing 50 would.
[quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]anika[/bold] wrote: Is this an accurate report of the inquest? No difference - oh really/ The Shogun should not have been on the road with no MOT and defective ABS system and lights. Had it been off the road as it should have been, the poor man would still be alive even if he was retrieving his cap. although it wouldn't bring him back, didn't they get any penalty at all? If not it's sending out the wrong message about having no MOT and a defective vehicle. Is Mr Payne qualified to say it wouldn't have made a difference?[/p][/quote]He turned into the path of another vehicle. If it hadn't been the Shogun it could have been any other. I also take it to mean that if the Shogun had an MOT and it's ABS had been working the outcome would not have changed. He would still have turned into the path of the Shogun and not gven the driver sufficient time to react. and avoid the accident. The Shogun driver will, in all probability, be done for driving an unroadworthy vehicle. The condition of the vehicle which hit him made no difference to the outcome.[/p][/quote]I think you're missing the point, which was that the Shogun without an MOT would not have hit the cyclist had it been off the road like it should have been. Your argument seems to be rather like saying: I hit the child while doing 50 in a 30 limit but if I hadn't hit him someone else doing 50 would. ronfogg
  • Score: -4

10:12am Fri 6 Jun 14

JackJohnson says...

ronfogg wrote:
JackJohnson wrote:
anika wrote:
Is this an accurate report of the inquest? No difference - oh really/ The Shogun should not have been on the road with no MOT and defective ABS system and lights. Had it been off the road as it should have been, the poor man would still be alive even if he was retrieving his cap. although it wouldn't bring him back, didn't they get any penalty at all? If not it's sending out the wrong message about having no MOT and a defective vehicle. Is Mr Payne qualified to say it wouldn't have made a difference?
He turned into the path of another vehicle. If it hadn't been the Shogun it could have been any other. I also take it to mean that if the Shogun had an MOT and it's ABS had been working the outcome would not have changed. He would still have turned into the path of the Shogun and not gven the driver sufficient time to react. and avoid the accident.

The Shogun driver will, in all probability, be done for driving an unroadworthy vehicle.

The condition of the vehicle which hit him made no difference to the outcome.
I think you're missing the point, which was that the Shogun without an MOT would not have hit the cyclist had it been off the road like it should have been.

Your argument seems to be rather like saying: I hit the child while doing 50 in a 30 limit but if I hadn't hit him someone else doing 50 would.
I think you're missing the point. The cyclist turned into the path of a moving vehicle without checking, and without giving the driver (any driver) any opportunity to react. It would have made no difference whether the Shogun had an MOT or not. The Shogun driver was not responsible for the accident. The Shogun driver was not the cause of the accident. The Shogun driver was only responsible for driving a vehicle which was not roadworthy. Functional ABS only works if you've got time to use the brakes and happen to lock at least one wheel. Non-functional ABS, in this accident, is irrelevant if the driver didn't have time to time to brake.

Are you proposing to close any road to motor vehicles that happens to have a cyclist on it? Rhetorical question.

Cause and effect - the cause of the accident was the U-turn that the cyclist tried to make, not the irresponsible actions of the Shogun driver. The cyclist and the motorist were both in the wrong place at the wrong time - both were wrong, but for different reasons. The cyclist paid with his life, the Shogun driver will probably (correctly) be penalised for using an unroadworthy vehicle but not for his unfortunate involvement in the accident. Driving an unroadworthy vehicle did not cause this accident any more than the recent flooding was caused by allowing gay marriage.
[quote][p][bold]ronfogg[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]JackJohnson[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]anika[/bold] wrote: Is this an accurate report of the inquest? No difference - oh really/ The Shogun should not have been on the road with no MOT and defective ABS system and lights. Had it been off the road as it should have been, the poor man would still be alive even if he was retrieving his cap. although it wouldn't bring him back, didn't they get any penalty at all? If not it's sending out the wrong message about having no MOT and a defective vehicle. Is Mr Payne qualified to say it wouldn't have made a difference?[/p][/quote]He turned into the path of another vehicle. If it hadn't been the Shogun it could have been any other. I also take it to mean that if the Shogun had an MOT and it's ABS had been working the outcome would not have changed. He would still have turned into the path of the Shogun and not gven the driver sufficient time to react. and avoid the accident. The Shogun driver will, in all probability, be done for driving an unroadworthy vehicle. The condition of the vehicle which hit him made no difference to the outcome.[/p][/quote]I think you're missing the point, which was that the Shogun without an MOT would not have hit the cyclist had it been off the road like it should have been. Your argument seems to be rather like saying: I hit the child while doing 50 in a 30 limit but if I hadn't hit him someone else doing 50 would.[/p][/quote]I think you're missing the point. The cyclist turned into the path of a moving vehicle without checking, and without giving the driver (any driver) any opportunity to react. It would have made no difference whether the Shogun had an MOT or not. The Shogun driver was not responsible for the accident. The Shogun driver was not the cause of the accident. The Shogun driver was only responsible for driving a vehicle which was not roadworthy. Functional ABS only works if you've got time to use the brakes and happen to lock at least one wheel. Non-functional ABS, in this accident, is irrelevant if the driver didn't have time to time to brake. Are you proposing to close any road to motor vehicles that happens to have a cyclist on it? Rhetorical question. Cause and effect - the cause of the accident was the U-turn that the cyclist tried to make, not the irresponsible actions of the Shogun driver. The cyclist and the motorist were both in the wrong place at the wrong time - both were wrong, but for different reasons. The cyclist paid with his life, the Shogun driver will probably (correctly) be penalised for using an unroadworthy vehicle but not for his unfortunate involvement in the accident. Driving an unroadworthy vehicle did not cause this accident any more than the recent flooding was caused by allowing gay marriage. JackJohnson
  • Score: 3

11:49am Fri 6 Jun 14

ronfogg says...

I disagree with you in that you say that "the cause of the accident was the U-turn that the cyclist tried to make, not the irresponsible actions of the Shogun driver" whereas I would say that "the cause of the accident was the U-turn that the cyclist tried to make combined with the presence of an unroadworthy Shogun". Whether the Shogun driver could have avoided the accident by braking is a secondary point. Would your view be the same if the Shogun driver had been driving at 120 mph? Logically it should be since in neither case would braking have saved the cyclist. Using your argument the cyclist is still at fault whereas the driver doing 120 mph is simply committing a speeding offence.
I disagree with you in that you say that "the cause of the accident was the U-turn that the cyclist tried to make, not the irresponsible actions of the Shogun driver" whereas I would say that "the cause of the accident was the U-turn that the cyclist tried to make combined with the presence of an unroadworthy Shogun". Whether the Shogun driver could have avoided the accident by braking is a secondary point. Would your view be the same if the Shogun driver had been driving at 120 mph? Logically it should be since in neither case would braking have saved the cyclist. Using your argument the cyclist is still at fault whereas the driver doing 120 mph is simply committing a speeding offence. ronfogg
  • Score: -2

12:47pm Fri 6 Jun 14

JackJohnson says...

ronfogg wrote:
I disagree with you in that you say that "the cause of the accident was the U-turn that the cyclist tried to make, not the irresponsible actions of the Shogun driver" whereas I would say that "the cause of the accident was the U-turn that the cyclist tried to make combined with the presence of an unroadworthy Shogun". Whether the Shogun driver could have avoided the accident by braking is a secondary point. Would your view be the same if the Shogun driver had been driving at 120 mph? Logically it should be since in neither case would braking have saved the cyclist. Using your argument the cyclist is still at fault whereas the driver doing 120 mph is simply committing a speeding offence.
If the Shogun driver did not have sufficient time to apply the brakes it becomes irrelevant that the ABS system was not working. It was not a contributory factor in the accident. There would appear to be nothing about the faults that, had they been repaired, would have enabled the Shogun driver to avoid this particular incident, or be able to slow down enough before the collision to enable the cyclist to survive (other than not be on the road in the first place). Had the Shogun not been in the wrong place at the wrong time the accident may, or may not, have happened with another vehicle. Nobody knows. Life (and death) is full of these little chance events that might/might not happen.

Granted, the Shogun should not have been on the roads that day, but that is the Shogun driver's only contribution to this accident.

There is nothing in the story to suggest the Shogun driver was speeding, however if he'd been travelling any faster (or, indeed, slower) than he was he would not have been at the same place at the exact moment the cyclist made his U-turn. If he'd set out earlier, or later, the same is true.

Your argument that a motorist doing 120mph 'would simply have been committing a speeding offence' is a remarkably foolish one. A car travelling at 120mph will take substantially more time and distance to stop than one travelling within the speed limit (whatever it is on that road) and almost certainly kill any cyclist it hits. There is a much better chance of the cyclist surviving if the car is travelling within the speed limit. Excessive speed is, therefore, a contributory factor in any collision between a cyclist and a car.
[quote][p][bold]ronfogg[/bold] wrote: I disagree with you in that you say that "the cause of the accident was the U-turn that the cyclist tried to make, not the irresponsible actions of the Shogun driver" whereas I would say that "the cause of the accident was the U-turn that the cyclist tried to make combined with the presence of an unroadworthy Shogun". Whether the Shogun driver could have avoided the accident by braking is a secondary point. Would your view be the same if the Shogun driver had been driving at 120 mph? Logically it should be since in neither case would braking have saved the cyclist. Using your argument the cyclist is still at fault whereas the driver doing 120 mph is simply committing a speeding offence.[/p][/quote]If the Shogun driver did not have sufficient time to apply the brakes it becomes irrelevant that the ABS system was not working. It was not a contributory factor in the accident. There would appear to be nothing about the faults that, had they been repaired, would have enabled the Shogun driver to avoid this particular incident, or be able to slow down enough before the collision to enable the cyclist to survive (other than not be on the road in the first place). Had the Shogun not been in the wrong place at the wrong time the accident may, or may not, have happened with another vehicle. Nobody knows. Life (and death) is full of these little chance events that might/might not happen. Granted, the Shogun should not have been on the roads that day, but that is the Shogun driver's only contribution to this accident. There is nothing in the story to suggest the Shogun driver was speeding, however if he'd been travelling any faster (or, indeed, slower) than he was he would not have been at the same place at the exact moment the cyclist made his U-turn. If he'd set out earlier, or later, the same is true. Your argument that a motorist doing 120mph 'would simply have been committing a speeding offence' is a remarkably foolish one. A car travelling at 120mph will take substantially more time and distance to stop than one travelling within the speed limit (whatever it is on that road) and almost certainly kill any cyclist it hits. There is a much better chance of the cyclist surviving if the car is travelling within the speed limit. Excessive speed is, therefore, a contributory factor in any collision between a cyclist and a car. JackJohnson
  • Score: 2

1:42pm Fri 6 Jun 14

ronfogg says...

OK. Consider the following. The same situation with the same Shogun in the same place at the same speed but 1) the driver had just drunk 10 pints of beer 2) the driver was banned from driving 3) the driver was an illegal Pakistani immigrant in an unroadworthy vehicle without a licence, insurance, etc. Your view is that in none of these cases would the driver be at any fault in relation to the accident, they would simply have committed various motoring (or immigration) offences. Personally I would take a different view and I suspect the courts would too.

I think the point made by the original poster was simply that in the case in question some fault, however small, must lie with the Shogun driver. Whether that fault is sufficient for the CPS or the courts to take it further is a matter for them.
OK. Consider the following. The same situation with the same Shogun in the same place at the same speed but 1) the driver had just drunk 10 pints of beer 2) the driver was banned from driving 3) the driver was an illegal Pakistani immigrant in an unroadworthy vehicle without a licence, insurance, etc. Your view is that in none of these cases would the driver be at any fault in relation to the accident, they would simply have committed various motoring (or immigration) offences. Personally I would take a different view and I suspect the courts would too. I think the point made by the original poster was simply that in the case in question some fault, however small, must lie with the Shogun driver. Whether that fault is sufficient for the CPS or the courts to take it further is a matter for them. ronfogg
  • Score: -2

3:32pm Fri 6 Jun 14

JackJohnson says...

ronfogg wrote:
OK. Consider the following. The same situation with the same Shogun in the same place at the same speed but 1) the driver had just drunk 10 pints of beer 2) the driver was banned from driving 3) the driver was an illegal Pakistani immigrant in an unroadworthy vehicle without a licence, insurance, etc. Your view is that in none of these cases would the driver be at any fault in relation to the accident, they would simply have committed various motoring (or immigration) offences. Personally I would take a different view and I suspect the courts would too.

I think the point made by the original poster was simply that in the case in question some fault, however small, must lie with the Shogun driver. Whether that fault is sufficient for the CPS or the courts to take it further is a matter for them.
Now you're just being stupid. Simply trying to stretch a non-argument.

The facts, as given by the Echo (and therefore suspect), are that James Edwards' ill-judged maneouvre was the cause of this incident. End of. The only aspect of the incident I would question is whether, or not, the Shogun driver was far enough away while preparing to overtake and while actually overtaking (if he got alongside) to take any avoiding action. There again, nobody anticipates that a cyclist might veer to the right directly in front of them unless there is a right turn ahead that the cyclist may be using. Wobble a bit (especially if going uphill, or to avoid potholes) perhaps.

I think you'll find that the legal position has already been made clear. An inquest is a legal court of inquiry.
[quote][p][bold]ronfogg[/bold] wrote: OK. Consider the following. The same situation with the same Shogun in the same place at the same speed but 1) the driver had just drunk 10 pints of beer 2) the driver was banned from driving 3) the driver was an illegal Pakistani immigrant in an unroadworthy vehicle without a licence, insurance, etc. Your view is that in none of these cases would the driver be at any fault in relation to the accident, they would simply have committed various motoring (or immigration) offences. Personally I would take a different view and I suspect the courts would too. I think the point made by the original poster was simply that in the case in question some fault, however small, must lie with the Shogun driver. Whether that fault is sufficient for the CPS or the courts to take it further is a matter for them.[/p][/quote]Now you're just being stupid. Simply trying to stretch a non-argument. The facts, as given by the Echo (and therefore suspect), are that James Edwards' ill-judged maneouvre was the cause of this incident. End of. The only aspect of the incident I would question is whether, or not, the Shogun driver was far enough away while preparing to overtake and while actually overtaking (if he got alongside) to take any avoiding action. There again, nobody anticipates that a cyclist might veer to the right directly in front of them unless there is a right turn ahead that the cyclist may be using. Wobble a bit (especially if going uphill, or to avoid potholes) perhaps. I think you'll find that the legal position has already been made clear. An inquest is a legal court of inquiry. JackJohnson
  • Score: 0

4:04pm Fri 6 Jun 14

ronfogg says...

a quote from another forum (BournemouthEcho):

"I think you'll find it is only legal to drive a car without an MOT if you are making your way to an MOT test centre for a pre-booked appointment. The fact is that if the driver had not been driving illegally, the man would still be alive. It would be akin to saying that drunk drivers are fine as long as they don't hit anything. It also sounds as if the driver got away without so much as a fine.

Unbelievable."
a quote from another forum (BournemouthEcho): "I think you'll find it is only legal to drive a car without an MOT if you are making your way to an MOT test centre for a pre-booked appointment. The fact is that if the driver had not been driving illegally, the man would still be alive. It would be akin to saying that drunk drivers are fine as long as they don't hit anything. It also sounds as if the driver got away without so much as a fine. Unbelievable." ronfogg
  • Score: -2

4:43pm Fri 6 Jun 14

JackJohnson says...

ronfogg wrote:
a quote from another forum (BournemouthEcho):

"I think you'll find it is only legal to drive a car without an MOT if you are making your way to an MOT test centre for a pre-booked appointment. The fact is that if the driver had not been driving illegally, the man would still be alive. It would be akin to saying that drunk drivers are fine as long as they don't hit anything. It also sounds as if the driver got away without so much as a fine.

Unbelievable."
Quite correct. The Shogun was not being driven legally and should not have been on the road. However, that does not absolve the cyclist from full responsibility for his ill-judged and very poorly timed U-turn.

This accident did not happen because the Shogun had no MOT or even because its ABS system was faulty. It happened as a direct result of the cyclist's misjudged and unanticipated maneouvre into the path of a motor vehicle. Any motor vehicle. No-one can say whether the accident would, or would not, have happened if the Shogun driver had not used his vehicle that day. Perhaps if he'd veered right a second or two earlier, or later, (or looked back before starting to turn), all would have been well apart from frayed nerves and/or use of a few expletives. We can all play 'but what if'. The reality is that only the facts matter.

As the court of inquiry judged, the Shogun driver was not responsible for the accident or its outcome. The Shogun driver will, most likely, be held accountable for taking an unroadworthy vehicle onto public roads, but not for the accident. At least he had the good grace to actually remain at the scene of the accident. Given the frequency and number of reports of serious hit-and-run accidents that appear in the Echo some might find this surprising.

Are you one of those people who thinks cyclists should never be held accountable, or responsible, for their own actions?
[quote][p][bold]ronfogg[/bold] wrote: a quote from another forum (BournemouthEcho): "I think you'll find it is only legal to drive a car without an MOT if you are making your way to an MOT test centre for a pre-booked appointment. The fact is that if the driver had not been driving illegally, the man would still be alive. It would be akin to saying that drunk drivers are fine as long as they don't hit anything. It also sounds as if the driver got away without so much as a fine. Unbelievable."[/p][/quote]Quite correct. The Shogun was not being driven legally and should not have been on the road. However, that does not absolve the cyclist from full responsibility for his ill-judged and very poorly timed U-turn. This accident did not happen because the Shogun had no MOT or even because its ABS system was faulty. It happened as a direct result of the cyclist's misjudged and unanticipated maneouvre into the path of a motor vehicle. Any motor vehicle. No-one can say whether the accident would, or would not, have happened if the Shogun driver had not used his vehicle that day. Perhaps if he'd veered right a second or two earlier, or later, (or looked back before starting to turn), all would have been well apart from frayed nerves and/or use of a few expletives. We can all play 'but what if'. The reality is that only the facts matter. As the court of inquiry judged, the Shogun driver was not responsible for the accident or its outcome. The Shogun driver will, most likely, be held accountable for taking an unroadworthy vehicle onto public roads, but not for the accident. At least he had the good grace to actually remain at the scene of the accident. Given the frequency and number of reports of serious hit-and-run accidents that appear in the Echo some might find this surprising. Are you one of those people who thinks cyclists should never be held accountable, or responsible, for their own actions? JackJohnson
  • Score: 1

5:03pm Fri 6 Jun 14

ronfogg says...

No. I'm just one of those people who reluctant to accept absolute statements like "X is 100% at fault".

I notice that you haven't replied to my remarks about the situation in which the driver had been over the limit. Presumably you're still of the view that the cyclist would be 100% at fault and the driver 0% at fault.
No. I'm just one of those people who reluctant to accept absolute statements like "X is 100% at fault". I notice that you haven't replied to my remarks about the situation in which the driver had been over the limit. Presumably you're still of the view that the cyclist would be 100% at fault and the driver 0% at fault. ronfogg
  • Score: -1

5:39pm Fri 6 Jun 14

JackJohnson says...

ronfogg wrote:
No. I'm just one of those people who reluctant to accept absolute statements like "X is 100% at fault".

I notice that you haven't replied to my remarks about the situation in which the driver had been over the limit. Presumably you're still of the view that the cyclist would be 100% at fault and the driver 0% at fault.
Not at all. My opinion of drink-driving is that it should be zero-tolerance.

Again, though, a foolish 'what if'. The driver's reaction times would have been impaired, and thus overall stopping distance increased. Even so, it's actually quite possible for a drunk driver to be involved in an accident that is, in no way, his fault. The correct decision would then be to hold him accountable for dui, but not for causing the accident. The insurance company would probably refuse to pay out, but that's for financial reasons - not legal ones.

In this case, reaction times will have been of significant importance and it's very likely he would have been held accountable.

I repeat. If there was not enough time to brake before the cyclist was hit a faulty ABS system could not have contributed to causing the accident, or its outcome. Had the fault been 'worn brake-linings' or some other braking-related fault that would have been a different matter, but a car can brake perfectly well with a faulty ABS system as long as all other braking components are in reasonable condition. The ABS system only comes into play if at least one wheel locks. If a driver is aware that the ABS system requires attention there's nothing to stop him using cadence braking if he brakes too harshly for the road conditions. ABS is a useful luxury - not a necessity.
[quote][p][bold]ronfogg[/bold] wrote: No. I'm just one of those people who reluctant to accept absolute statements like "X is 100% at fault". I notice that you haven't replied to my remarks about the situation in which the driver had been over the limit. Presumably you're still of the view that the cyclist would be 100% at fault and the driver 0% at fault.[/p][/quote]Not at all. My opinion of drink-driving is that it should be zero-tolerance. Again, though, a foolish 'what if'. The driver's reaction times would have been impaired, and thus overall stopping distance increased. Even so, it's actually quite possible for a drunk driver to be involved in an accident that is, in no way, his fault. The correct decision would then be to hold him accountable for dui, but not for causing the accident. The insurance company would probably refuse to pay out, but that's for financial reasons - not legal ones. In this case, reaction times will have been of significant importance and it's very likely he would have been held accountable. I repeat. If there was not enough time to brake before the cyclist was hit a faulty ABS system could not have contributed to causing the accident, or its outcome. Had the fault been 'worn brake-linings' or some other braking-related fault that would have been a different matter, but a car can brake perfectly well with a faulty ABS system as long as all other braking components are in reasonable condition. The ABS system only comes into play if at least one wheel locks. If a driver is aware that the ABS system requires attention there's nothing to stop him using cadence braking if he brakes too harshly for the road conditions. ABS is a useful luxury - not a necessity. JackJohnson
  • Score: 0

10:15pm Fri 6 Jun 14

ronfogg says...

You say "Even so, it's actually quite possible for a drunk driver to be involved in an accident that is, in no way, his fault. The correct decision would then be to hold him accountable for dui, but not for causing the accident."

This where we disagree since my view is that the driver shouldn't have been on the road and hence is partly at fault. Admittedly a drunk driver is more at fault than a someone without an MOT, but, in my view, there is some fault in both cases.
You say "Even so, it's actually quite possible for a drunk driver to be involved in an accident that is, in no way, his fault. The correct decision would then be to hold him accountable for dui, but not for causing the accident." This where we disagree since my view is that the driver shouldn't have been on the road and hence is partly at fault. Admittedly a drunk driver is more at fault than a someone without an MOT, but, in my view, there is some fault in both cases. ronfogg
  • Score: 0

11:33am Sat 7 Jun 14

Mrjon1 says...

ronfogg wrote:
a quote from another forum (BournemouthEcho):

"I think you'll find it is only legal to drive a car without an MOT if you are making your way to an MOT test centre for a pre-booked appointment. The fact is that if the driver had not been driving illegally, the man would still be alive. It would be akin to saying that drunk drivers are fine as long as they don't hit anything. It also sounds as if the driver got away without so much as a fine.

Unbelievable."
If it was not the shogun then it would of been another car. So even if it was off the road, which it should of been, another car would of hit the cyclist as he didn't seem to pay attention.
[quote][p][bold]ronfogg[/bold] wrote: a quote from another forum (BournemouthEcho): "I think you'll find it is only legal to drive a car without an MOT if you are making your way to an MOT test centre for a pre-booked appointment. The fact is that if the driver had not been driving illegally, the man would still be alive. It would be akin to saying that drunk drivers are fine as long as they don't hit anything. It also sounds as if the driver got away without so much as a fine. Unbelievable."[/p][/quote]If it was not the shogun then it would of been another car. So even if it was off the road, which it should of been, another car would of hit the cyclist as he didn't seem to pay attention. Mrjon1
  • Score: 0

10:02am Mon 9 Jun 14

ronfogg says...

Mrjon1 wrote:
ronfogg wrote:
a quote from another forum (BournemouthEcho):

"I think you'll find it is only legal to drive a car without an MOT if you are making your way to an MOT test centre for a pre-booked appointment. The fact is that if the driver had not been driving illegally, the man would still be alive. It would be akin to saying that drunk drivers are fine as long as they don't hit anything. It also sounds as if the driver got away without so much as a fine.

Unbelievable."
If it was not the shogun then it would of been another car. So even if it was off the road, which it should of been, another car would of hit the cyclist as he didn't seem to pay attention.
Honestly, a silly point.
[quote][p][bold]Mrjon1[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]ronfogg[/bold] wrote: a quote from another forum (BournemouthEcho): "I think you'll find it is only legal to drive a car without an MOT if you are making your way to an MOT test centre for a pre-booked appointment. The fact is that if the driver had not been driving illegally, the man would still be alive. It would be akin to saying that drunk drivers are fine as long as they don't hit anything. It also sounds as if the driver got away without so much as a fine. Unbelievable."[/p][/quote]If it was not the shogun then it would of been another car. So even if it was off the road, which it should of been, another car would of hit the cyclist as he didn't seem to pay attention.[/p][/quote]Honestly, a silly point. ronfogg
  • Score: 0

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree