tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-225087846795766487.post7410709864806430649..comments2023-08-12T08:41:01.080+01:00Comments on Green Bristol Blog: It's Blame the Victims TimeChris Hutthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01532451004057748734noreply@blogger.comBlogger79125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-225087846795766487.post-75176775073443782662009-11-06T00:25:49.595+00:002009-11-06T00:25:49.595+00:00Hi Mr Dave. The causes that led to the consequence...Hi Mr Dave. The causes that led to the consequences were deliberate.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17227685430876878223noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-225087846795766487.post-8682608660306908982009-11-04T22:57:48.803+00:002009-11-04T22:57:48.803+00:00Jacko, I ask myself the same question every day.Jacko, I ask myself the same question every day.Chris Hutthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01532451004057748734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-225087846795766487.post-72209676276540384772009-11-04T22:25:56.956+00:002009-11-04T22:25:56.956+00:00If you know so much about all of this, why are you...If you know so much about all of this, why are you a plumber? Jacko AnonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-225087846795766487.post-13301869430751451302009-11-02T13:00:43.060+00:002009-11-02T13:00:43.060+00:00And on what evidence do you say 99% of collisions ...<i>And on what evidence do you say 99% of collisions aren't intentional?</i><br /><br />On the basic assumption that nobody <b>wants</b> to have an collision, with the exception of a few extraordinary cases such as insurance fraud or wilfully using a vehicle/cycle to cause someone actual harm, in which case there should be criminal proceedings.<br /><br />An intent to drive fast does NOT equal an intent to have a collision, no matter how likely a consequence it is (and if you stick to the facts such as TRL studies and reports rather than the propaganda, it's actually a small minority (under 10%) of accidents/collisions that are caused by excess speed - not that likely anyway).<br /><br />If someone drinks a large amount of alcohol in a deliberate act of recklessness in order to get drunk, it is <b>likely</b> that they will vomit, but it's fairly safe to say that was never their <b>intent</b>.Bristol Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13143336218499645984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-225087846795766487.post-56662079325193027702009-11-02T08:49:49.201+00:002009-11-02T08:49:49.201+00:00On the contrary, the word 'accident' presu...On the contrary, the word 'accident' presumes no intent whereas 'incident' leaves the question open.<br /><br />And on what evidence do you say 99% of collisions aren't intentional? My experience is that there is a degree of intent in the majority. <br /><br />Driving (or cycling) too fast for example constitutes intent in that it is a deliberate act of recklessness which can be expected to result in collisions and casualties.Chris Hutthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01532451004057748734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-225087846795766487.post-58128169088449398032009-11-01T18:13:48.875+00:002009-11-01T18:13:48.875+00:00To use the word 'accident' presumes the ou...<i>To use the word 'accident' presumes the outcome of any investigation.</i><br /><br />But surely the use of the word "accident" is mainly to avoid presumption of intent? Nobody wants to have a collision, and when they have one, in 99% of cases it wasn't intentional, so doesn't that therefore mean it was accidental?Bristol Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13143336218499645984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-225087846795766487.post-565958625278383212009-11-01T15:23:46.056+00:002009-11-01T15:23:46.056+00:00Ah terminology is a minefield.
The term 'road...Ah terminology is a minefield.<br /><br />The term 'road' is generally used to mean the 'carriageway' as opposed to the 'footway' (pavement), both of which are parts of the 'highway'. But pedestrians have a fundamental right to freely use highways including the carriageway. <br /><br />The right of pedestrians to use the carriageway is no less than any others' right and arguably greater. Even traffic light signals can only advise pedestrians not to cross on the 'red man' and cannot legally require such a thing.<br /><br />I think motorway regulations are the only case where the right of passage on foot on a highway is prohibited.Chris Hutthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01532451004057748734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-225087846795766487.post-33124831664198555632009-11-01T14:51:54.851+00:002009-11-01T14:51:54.851+00:00Hi Chris,
Maybe I’m a little behind on my termino...Hi Chris,<br /><br />Maybe I’m a little behind on my terminology. People still use ‘I was involved in an accident today’ or ‘I had an accident today’ so that is why I probably still use it.<br /><br />I class motorists and cyclists as road users since that is where they spend the majority of their time. I know pedestrians have to cross the road etc… but I don’t think that qualifies as them as road users, maybe ‘pavement users’? Again, could be behind on my terminology.Paulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-225087846795766487.post-35831996113032317962009-11-01T14:34:17.300+00:002009-11-01T14:34:17.300+00:00Paul, we now use the words 'incident' or &...Paul, we now use the words 'incident' or 'collision' for the reasons you state, namely it is not known initially if the event was an 'accident' or not. To use the word 'accident' presumes the outcome of any investigation.<br /><br />As for "the cyclist has the lowest amount of kinetic energy of any road user", not so. The pedestrian will always be the lowest since kinetic energy is a function of the square of velocity. I explained that in relation to the ped/cyclist collision scenario you described. <br /><br />It is the pedestrian who gets the 'get out of jail free card' and quite right too.Chris Hutthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01532451004057748734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-225087846795766487.post-82180611830723733452009-11-01T14:07:45.709+00:002009-11-01T14:07:45.709+00:00Paul, you too are using prejudicial language to su...Paul, you too are using prejudicial language to support your point of view.<br />- I have never claimed that I am not. I am just trying to put a non-cyclist view across. <br /><br />For example you still refer to 'accidents' when even the police now accept the appropriate terminology is 'incidents' or 'collisions'. The word 'accident' implies that there is no blame but there is always some blame and often it is such that the term 'accident' cannot reasonably be used.<br />- The reason I use accident is that I don’t know who is to blame and neither does anyone, until all the factors I originally mentioned are investigated and taken into account, only then can the blame be attributed to a party. I do not believe that blame can be attributed to kinetic energy alone. Kinetic energy greatly affects the result of the accident, but is not the sole cause as you would seem to argue.<br /><br /><br />You do not seem to appreciate that what I am suggesting here is a basis for allocating responsibilty for the consequences of a collision rather than for the collision per se.<br />- That does not surprise me at all. Of course you would suggest this as the cyclist has the lowest amount of kinetic energy of any road user. You therefore have nothing to lose in the responsibility stakes. Here, have a free ‘get out of jail’ card on the responsibility front.<br /><br />It may be that a pedestrian and motorist are equally responsible for a particular collision but the responsibilty for the consequences (mainly injuries) will lie almost entirely with the motorist due to the overwhelming force (kinetic energy) that they bring to bear. <br />- Correct. Responsibility and consequences are two separate things. Responsibility is right up to the accident, consequences after that point. Yes pedestrians, have more consequences of being involved in an accident, that is obvious, but that shouldn’t reduce their responsibility of being involved in an accident.<br /><br /><br />You describe a 'road safety industry' whose main objective has been to shift responsibility from motorists and onto vulnerable road users at the behest of corporate interests. They have largely failed to resolve the problem of the danger imposed on vulnerable road users other than by severely inhibiting their freedom of movement.<br />- And there is an example of your prejudice.Paulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-225087846795766487.post-6964920690871904762009-11-01T12:37:41.148+00:002009-11-01T12:37:41.148+00:00Paul, you too are using prejudicial language to su...Paul, you too are using prejudicial language to support your point of view. <br /><br />For example you still refer to 'accidents' when even the police now accept the appropriate terminology is 'incidents' or 'collisions'. The word 'accident' implies that there is no blame but there is always some blame and often it is such that the term 'accident' cannot reasonably be used.<br /><br />You do not seem to appreciate that what I am suggesting here is a basis for allocating responsibilty for the consequences of a collision rather than for the collision per se. <br /><br />It may be that a pedestrian and motorist are equally responsible for a particular collision but the responsibilty for the consequences (mainly injuries) will lie almost entirely with the motorist due to the overwhelming force (kinetic energy) that they bring to bear. <br /><br />You describe a 'road safety industry' whose main objective has been to shift responsibility from motorists and onto vulnerable road users at the behest of corporate interests. They have largely failed to resolve the problem of the danger imposed on vulnerable road users other than by severely inhibiting their freedom of movement.Chris Hutthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01532451004057748734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-225087846795766487.post-71169440393636557752009-11-01T11:19:27.839+00:002009-11-01T11:19:27.839+00:00Yes, I often use prejudicial language like virtual...Yes, I often use prejudicial language like virtually everyone else with views on these matters. But you seemed to think your language wasn't prejudicial so I was pointing out that it was.<br /><br />Just consider this rewrite of your original example. <br /><br />"A pedestrian is walking across the road at a sensible speed. A car runs out RIGHT into the path of the pedestrian, from a very poorly-chosen place to cross behind a parked van. The pedestrian has no chance to see them or stop, even at the sensible speed (or indeed any speed) they are walking at."<br /><br />That description of the same scenario has at least as much legitimacy as your description but is written from a different perspective, a perspective that you and most motorists refuse to see.Chris Hutthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01532451004057748734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-225087846795766487.post-7137515432582120092009-11-01T10:51:10.408+00:002009-11-01T10:51:10.408+00:00Just look at the prejudicial language you are usin...<i>Just look at the prejudicial language you are using here. The car 'drives sensibly' while the cyclist 'weaves', the 'path' belongs to the motorist, not the cyclist or pedestrian, and it is always the non-motorist who 'causes the collision' in your world.</i><br /><br />No, it is the non-motorist who causes the collision <b>in the particular example</b> I was describing.<br /><br />I was using the "prejudicial language" to clarify that point.<br /><br />I would also struggle to find a post in the entire history of your blog that doesn't use prejudicial language when referring to motorists.Bristol Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13143336218499645984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-225087846795766487.post-38663776986313836482009-10-31T15:00:19.266+00:002009-10-31T15:00:19.266+00:00Chris,
I think you are missing a trick then…
Whi...Chris,<br /><br />I think you are missing a trick then…<br /><br />While the rest of the world (police, insurance companies, local councils etc…) have been forging ahead with, what seems to now be wasted research involving accidents on roads with variables such as road conditions (lighting, view obstructions, recognisability, signs, signals, surface character and dimensions), vehicle conditions (equipment condition, view obstructions, distractions, instruments, signalling devices, control sensation, comfort, automatic controls and devices, weight, performance, dimensions, stability and speed) and human conditions (sensory capabilities, knowledge, judgment, attitude, alertness, health, driving/walking skill, age, customs, habits, weight, strength and freedom of movement) you seem to have solved every accident via your simple equations ignoring the majority of these factors.<br /><br />I think accident investigators will be slightly upset that you have put them out a job though when you can provide the % of responsibility to within 0.1% without even needing to visit the scene of the accident.Paulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-225087846795766487.post-55117163636002558542009-10-31T08:11:23.710+00:002009-10-31T08:11:23.710+00:00Dave - "Like the idea that if a car is drivin...Dave - "Like the idea that if a car is driving sensibly and legally, and an irresponsible cyclist weaves straight in front of its path without any consideration for anybody and causes a collision...."<br /><br />Just look at the prejudicial language you are using here. The car 'drives sensibly' while the cyclist 'weaves', the 'path' belongs to the motorist, not the cyclist or pedestrian, and it is always the non-motorist who 'causes the collision' in your world.Chris Hutthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01532451004057748734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-225087846795766487.post-30849317969790617202009-10-31T00:31:14.707+00:002009-10-31T00:31:14.707+00:00Have I ever claimed any kind of 'authority'...<i>Have I ever claimed any kind of 'authority'?</i><br /><br />Allow me to quote<br /><br /><i>I bear some responsibility for changes in transport thinking in Bristol that emerged in the 1980s and 90s</i><br /><br /><i>I just like to test out new ideas and views.</i><br /><br />Like the idea that if a car is driving sensibly and legally, and an irresponsible cyclist weaves straight in front of its path without any consideration for anybody and causes a collision, the car is entirely at fault because it has a higher kinetic energy? Don't give up the day job.Bristol Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13143336218499645984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-225087846795766487.post-6785575062848586142009-10-30T19:57:03.561+00:002009-10-30T19:57:03.561+00:00Dave "How you can even think of speaking with...Dave "How you can even think of speaking with any kind of authority on the subject...?"<br /><br />Have I ever claimed any kind of 'authority'? I say what I think, that's all, same as you do on your blog. I'm not looking for 'respect' any more than you are. I just like to test out new ideas and views.Chris Hutthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01532451004057748734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-225087846795766487.post-29118022743547371352009-10-30T19:15:46.143+00:002009-10-30T19:15:46.143+00:00I think Paul's suggestion is too simplistic an...I think Paul's suggestion is too simplistic and inconsistent. Clearly it would be wrong to treat a cyclist more favourably purely for being a cyclist as he suggests. <br /><br />Comparison of kinetic energy allows us to assign blame in proportion to kinetic energy, so vehicle A with a KE of 50 kJ colliding with vehicle B with a KE of 100 kJ could be held to be one third responsible for the consequences of the collision.<br /><br />Applying that logic to my earlier examples, in the case of the 1 tonne, 20 mph car (50 kJ) and the 80 kg, 4 mph pedestrian (0.16 kJ) the car would be 312.5 times as responsible, or 99.7% which is near enough all the responsibility as I said.<br /><br />In the cyclist v pedestrian example we have 1.25 kJ v 0.16 kJ so the cyclist is about 89% responsible, which is not quite all the responsibility so I said 'most'. <br /><br />So you see the system has been applied consistently and gives results that broadly put the responsibility where it should be.Chris Hutthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01532451004057748734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-225087846795766487.post-51698435445171561972009-10-30T16:02:55.973+00:002009-10-30T16:02:55.973+00:00I see. So we can basically attribute all blame by ...I see. So we can basically attribute all blame by the following statement.<br /><br />If <br />Kinetic Energy of Vehicle A ><br />Kinetic Energy of Vehicle B = Vehicle A to blame<br /><br />Kinetic Energy of Vehicle B > Kinetic Energy of Vehicle A = Vehicle B to blame<br /><br />Else If<br /><br />Vehicle is a Bicycle<br /><br />Then <br /><br />Reduce Blame by 50-100%Paulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-225087846795766487.post-40319506296613794932009-10-30T15:02:36.970+00:002009-10-30T15:02:36.970+00:00Why only mostly? Where is the remaining danger com...<i>Why only mostly? Where is the remaining danger coming from?</i><br /><br />Well, the pedestrian, of course.<br /><br />Except, in Chris's eyes, if it's a collision involving a vehicle, in which case they're completely blameless. He's nice and balanced like that, you see.Bristol Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13143336218499645984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-225087846795766487.post-56575748038124789492009-10-30T15:00:25.493+00:002009-10-30T15:00:25.493+00:00Absolutely hilarious.
So in a collision involving...Absolutely hilarious.<br /><br />So in a collision involving a vehicle and a pedestrian/bike, no matter what the circumstances, what happened, who did what, who's fault morally or legally it was, the vehicle is solely to blame and has to take all the responsibility, because it had more kinetic energy.<br /><br />Nice objective viewpoint you've got there, Chris.<br /><br />Thank God you're not in charge of our legal system.Bristol Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13143336218499645984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-225087846795766487.post-65540719693899670122009-10-30T14:10:24.849+00:002009-10-30T14:10:24.849+00:00Says it all really. Same scenario, different forms...Says it all really. Same scenario, different forms of transport and 2 different responses.<br /><br />Motorist – Very much to blame. No questions asked. Motorist is creating the danger.<br /><br />Cyclist – Mostly to blame. Only creating some of the danger, not all.<br /><br />Why only mostly? Where is the remaining danger coming from?Paulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-225087846795766487.post-21474735581684900872009-10-30T13:53:08.730+00:002009-10-30T13:53:08.730+00:00That's easy. The cyclist is mostly responsible...That's easy. The cyclist is mostly responsible because he is mostly creating the danger. <br /><br />If both parties were travelling at walking pace the consequences of any collision would be trivial and both would apologise and go their seperate ways.<br /><br />But as the cyclist travels faster so his kinetic energy and potential to cause damage increases to in proportion to the square of the velocity to become many times that of the pedestrian.<br /><br />For example an 80 kg pedestrian walking at 2 metres per second (4 mph) has 160 Joules of kinetic energy whereas a 100 kg cyclist and bike travelling at just 5 mps has 1,250 Joules, about 8 times as much kinetic energy.<br /><br />If the cyclist was doing around 10 mps that's 5,000 Joules so beginning to be quite dangerous, though still only a tenth of a 1 tonne car at the same speed.Chris Hutthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01532451004057748734noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-225087846795766487.post-5597318304757738982009-10-30T12:10:08.305+00:002009-10-30T12:10:08.305+00:00Paul:
Exactly. I'm interested to see Chris&#...Paul:<br /><br />Exactly. I'm interested to see Chris's response to your scenario.Bristol Davehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13143336218499645984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-225087846795766487.post-33729762552662729122009-10-30T12:00:50.205+00:002009-10-30T12:00:50.205+00:00Hi Chris,
And this one....
A bicycle is cycling ...Hi Chris,<br /><br />And this one....<br /><br />A bicycle is cycling down the road at a sensible speed, within the limit. A pedestrian runs out RIGHT into the path of the bicycle, from a very poorly-chosen place to cross behind a parked van. The cyclist has no chance to see them or stop, even at the sensible speed (or indeed any speed) they are driving at.<br /><br />This occurrence has happened countless times.<br /><br />Who has created the danger? Who is responsible?Paulnoreply@blogger.com