1w ago

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 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.

59 comments

To be fair, I also fail to see how wearing a helmet would've prevented his leg from being broken as well
- Yeah, the helmet is a bit much.
  Not wearing appropriate clothing and headphones while on the road is a fair point though.
  
  What's clothing that allows me to not be at fault for being run over?
  I thought traffic laws are only about having two breaks, lights at night etc
  
  No its not. The driver is at fault.
  Do not blame the victim.
  The driver was at fault.
  
  Not wearing appropriate clothing and headphones while on the road is a fair point though.
  I've nearly been hit several times (like tires screaching to a halt) while wearing high-viz clothing with the right of way.
  It makes no difference when the driver isn't paying attention.
  
  You can wear whatever clothes you like if you’re on a bike. Just like you don’t have to paint your car a specific colour to be allowed to drive.
  And drivers are allowed to blast music so cyclists should as well. All the safety shouldn’t fall on cyclist double standards.
  
  I guess drivers with black cars, gray cars, ... Should also be partially blamed for the accidents with other vehicles when "not guilty", because they aren't visible enough...
  
  I've had drivers not see me and pull out in front of me in broad daylight when I've been wearing a luminous orange top, while riding a bike with a bright flashing front light. What more should I have done to not make it my fault? Set off fireworks?
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.
- 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
- "His front light may not have been working". Officer might as well have written "Cyclist might possibly be a pedophile".
the taxi driver’s view may have been blocked by traffic signs.
Quick quiz, what do you do when you cannot see if it is safe to proceed on entering a roundabout?
- Floor it!
It's a broken leg, not head injury. That should've been the end of that argument.
- helmets provide a flat +5 armor value, if you wear 10 helmets you are impervious to most forms of damage.
  
  But you still take full fall damage.
  
  But if you enter Quill form, your helmet gets melded. On the plus side, the car will be struck by the quills.
There's always an excuse for drivers.
If a driver isn't paying attention, it doesn't matter what colour a cyclist's clothing are, or that they had a helmet on, or insanely bright lights.
And if excuses are being shifted onto cyclists, what about pedestrians and buildings that drivers smash into on a regular basis? What excuse do you have then?
- As someone living in Sweden, I have seen pedestrians and bicyclists wearing dark coloured clothing during autumn nights, they just disappear in the background and VASTLY reduce the distance I can see them at, they just pops out from the background only when you are close to them.
  This is not a simple driver issue, these are people who seems to deliberately dress in camo, and then complain that drivers don't pay enough attention.
  I am not asking everyone to wear a high-viz vest all the time, but please get a reflector and show that you have some self preservation instinct
  
  Riders should wear adequate gear to protect themselves, but drivers also must drive safely. If you aren't able to avoid dark object, you're driving above the safe limit for current visibility. What if there was a fallen tree on the road? Those don't wear hi-vis
  
  Of course, I've experienced this myself (pedestrians wearing all back on trails at night).
  But the responsibility still rests with the driver.
  In this case, it was argued that their view was obstructed, which should have meant they slowed down and paid attention even more. Nobody should be driving blindly.
  The cyclist here did have a rear light, and was rear ended.
  
  In Sweden, it's illegal for bicyclists to not have lights and reflectors (both front and back) and the law is at least enforced to some degree by police.
- I'm a cyclist and I also drive a car. Let us be honest, yes the driver should have been more careful but, with dark clothes cyclists are often almost non visible on the road. I have myself been surprised more than a dozen times finding myself almost rear ending a cyclist because I didn't see them cause of their dark clothes.
  That's why I have always worn a hivis jacket, even More now that I have a driver's licence. It's better to be lit like a christmas tree than invisible to other road users.
  
  Literally. I bike and drive and wouldn’t blame the cyclist at all, but I would hardly be surprised if I was hit while cycling at night in dark colors with even one headphone in.
  Obviously, I would love to live in a utopia where cyclist can travel just as carefree as most car drivers, But we’re on two wheels and completely unprotected, so there is a certain level of additional caution that goes into traveling by bike. I just wish more people, cyclist and driver alike, used their common sense.
  Speedy recovery to the victim.
No one is commenting on the fact the driver was a taxi driver, around my area taxi drivers are some of the worst drivers I've ever seen.
anyone have that meme where the view of a driver of a cyclist with and without hi-viz and both are just the driver's cell phone?
You never hear what colour was the car, whether driver had windows rolled up or down, wearing seatbelt, listening to music, or headlights on. But when the cyclist is the victim, suddenly everything can be used to blame them 🤔
I’m not really familiar with the laws over there. After this criminal ruling, does the cyclist now have grounds for a civil suit?
Man, after reading the article i feels like it's no good ending for everyone involved. The driver is at fault for not taking a glance, the city is at fault to have a road sign obstructing view, and the cyclist, while not at fault, but would totally turn out different if he wear a hi-vis vest.
At least the cyclist isn't fined.
In my criminal justice system we break the judge and the police's legs and give them 1k. We keep doing that until they take these crimes seriously. Then we break the legs of the town planners until they build sustainable transport solutions. Imagine how quickly people would learn the benefits. We would be living in paradise in no time.
- To those downvoting this comment, heads up it's parody and I feel it's a disservice trying to hide it. And you know what's crazy? I have multiple friends IRL who have had both of their legs simultaneously broken by cars plowing into them from behind while they were waiting at a red light. I also had a roommate who spent over a year in recovery after he was right-hooked by a van in a crosswalk and dragged underneath for half a block at 35MPH as the asphalt grated off his clothes and skin leaving his spine and skull visible. Is that too much violence for you? Too graphic? I have a downvote button too, if you'd like others to not be bothered by hearing of all this suffering.

59 comments