Journalism and cycling

Hurrache

Large bottle small glass wrote: »

As an aside I recently had a file in front of me with a vehicle on its roof which was travelling on a straight road. GPS data showed it was doing 35mph . A lot of people in this thread would of course have concluded driver error as they wouldn't have had GPS data or a metallurgist report on suspension member.

So the driver lost control of the car, correct?

TheChizler wrote: »

Saying the driver lost control does make it sound like the incident was their fault, maybe it was or wasn't but it's speculation. It's entirely possible that they flipped the car trying to avoid a collision that was somehow unavoidable. It's possible to correct the language without bringing it to the other extreme.

But what you just described is a driver losing control of their car.

I think people are reading too much into this phrase.

Tombo2001

At a higher level than this - it should not be acceptable that a driver hits a child on a bike in any circumstances.

For example - if the average driver was going a long a regional road, and they saw sheep or lambs walking on the road 100 yards down - you can be 1000% sure they would slow right down so as not to hit the animals.

I would ask the question, would they afford a child cycling the same duty of care.

I think that most drivers would not.

Cyclists are not afforded due care by drivers.

Moreover, the driver solution to this issue is demonize cyclists and try to make out that the cyclists are the problem.

So you have this conflicting narrative that I hear time and time again (i) cyclists are taking the law into their own hands and (ii) I wouldn't cycle on the roads because its far too dangerous.......so i drive instead.

But its only too dangerous because of drivers.

This should not be acceptable, but its the state of play at present.

Large bottle small glass

Hurrache wrote: »

So the driver lost control of the car, correct?

The driver lost control of the car most likely due a failure of corroded wishbone which garage had charged for replacing at previous service would be closer to correct and fair.

Doesn't fairness and due procedure interest you?

If your brother/sister/wife was driving car which resulted in passenger in that car dying are you ok with just "the driver lost control of the car"?

Hurrache

It does, but saying that a driver lost control of their car does not imply they're guilty of anything. It's factual (except of course when it's done purposely). Nobody has said anything about "the driver lost control" and leaving it at that.

They don't seem to have an issue in highly litigious America, here's a story from today
https://abc7chicago.com/car-goes-into-jackson-park-outer-harbor-after-driver-loses-control/5265475/

CHICAGO (WLS) -- A driver lost control of his car which plunged into Jackson Park Outer Harbor Monday night, but he was able to escape.

Fire officials said the driver was able to jump out of the car before it went into the water near South 66th Street and Lake Shore Drive.

The driver was taken to University of Chicago Hospital in good condition and is expected to be okay. It was not immediately known what caused him to lose control of the car and drive into the harbor.

And another
https://abc7news.com/video-out-of-control-car-nearly-hits-2-young-kids-in-california/5254204/

NAPA, Calif. -- Two young children and a woman are lucky to be alive after a driver lost control and slammed into the outside dining area of Villa Corona restaurant in Napa's Bel Air Plaza on Monday.

Here's one from Ireland recently
https://www.thesun.ie/news/4001841/man-62-dies-crash-clare/

A MAN has died following a single-vehicle crash in Co Clare.

It’s understood the 62-year-old driver lost control of his vehicle which left the road and overturned.

Lumen

Tombo2001 wrote: »

Compared to where?

I am not making a relative judgement between jurisdictions.

Tombo2001 wrote: »

The issue is that its subjective. How do you know someone is speeding unless they are timed and clocked.

Read my post again. I'm not talking about breaking an arbitrary speed limit, I'm talking about going so fast round a blind bend (for instance) that you cannot stop when confronted by an obstruction that you did not anticipate.

There is no subjectivity required. If you hit someone or something, it should be your fault unless you can prove otherwise.

jjpep

If the phrase then 'the driver lost control' is so contentious why is the oft used phrase in reporting 'the cyclist collided with the car' considered acceptable?

Large bottle small glass

Hurrache wrote: »

It does, but saying that a driver lost control of their car does not imply they're guilty of anything. It's factual (except of course when it's done purposely).

The bits you ignored.


Doesn't fairness and due procedure interest you?

If your brother/sister/wife was driving car which resulted in passenger in that car dying are you ok with just "the driver lost control of the car"?

RobbieMD

Hurrache wrote: »

Yes, but you argued in the context that a solicitor would have something to say about the phrase in defence of their client when it came up in court.

I think you’ve mixed me up with someone else.

Tombo2001

Lumen wrote: »

I am not making a relative judgement between jurisdictions.



Read my post again. I'm not talking about breaking an arbitrary speed limit, I'm talking about going so fast round a blind bend (for instance) that you cannot stop when confronted by an obstruction that you did not anticipate.

There is no subjectivity required. If you hit someone or something, it should be your fault unless you can prove otherwise.

Thats different. In that case speed isnt the offence.

You are saying here - if a driver hits any road vehicle in front of them its an offence.

Which to be fair, it already is.

The issue here is that it could be claimed the cyclist was not in front of them, but that the cyclist swerved, and that the driver could not avoid the collision.

magicbastarder

Large bottle small glass wrote: »

The driver lost control of the car most likely due a failure of corroded wishbone which garage had charged for replacing at previous service would be closer to correct and fair.

Doesn't fairness and due procedure interest you?

If your brother/sister/wife was driving car which resulted in passenger in that car dying are you ok with just "the driver lost control of the car"?

i'm failing to understand your point. there's no argument that the driver has lost control of the car if the car is travelling on its roof. whether this has happened through driver error or equipment failure - the driver has lost control of the car. it is travelling in a way that the driver can no longer control.

you are assuming that saying 'the driver lost control of the car' implies blame. it does not.

else you are arguing that the driver did *not* lose control of the car.

Lumen

RobbieMD wrote: »

I would say the last thing the Road Traffic Acts need is another amendment. It should be consolidated alright. What you’re describing is covered under Section 51(a) 52 and 53 of the act, and if the judge feels the evidence merits it, he/she can convict you of the lesser or more serious charge.

Do you know of any cases of a careless or dangerous driving conviction arising from a failure to drive at a safe speed below the posted limit?

magicbastarder

i had better be careful about using phrases like 'the poor chap, he lost his wife several years ago' lest people think i'm accusing him of murder.

mr spuckler

magicbastarder wrote: »

i had better be careful about using phrases like 'the poor chap, he lost his wife several years ago' lest people think i'm accusing him of murder.

or that he carelessly misplaced her.

jjpep

Large bottle small glass wrote: »

The bits you ignored.


Doesn't fairness and due procedure interest you?

If your brother/sister/wife was driving car which resulted in passenger in that car dying are you ok with just "the driver lost control of the car"?

Would you prefer the assumption that they were in 100% control of the car the whole time during the incident instead?

Hurrache

Large bottle small glass wrote: »

The bits you ignored.

I ignored nothing, look at the first two words of my reply to you which you just quoted and replied to.

Hurrache wrote: »

It does

But saying a driver lost control of their car does not ignore due process or anything of the sort.

RobbieMD

Lumen wrote: »

Do you know of any cases of a careless or dangerous driving conviction arising from a failure to drive at a safe speed below the posted limit?

I’ve prosecuted exactly what you’re saying several times including cyclists being knocked down

RobbieMD

magicbastarder wrote: »

i had better be careful about using phrases like 'the poor chap, he lost his wife several years ago' lest people think i'm accusing him of murder.

And yet several times I’ve seen AndrewJRenko remind people of the use of collision in place of accident. There’s nothing wrong with using precise language especially if it’s in the national media

Lumen

RobbieMD wrote: »

I’ve prosecuted exactly what you’re saying several times including cyclists being knocked down

Interesting. These are under-reported.

jjpep

RobbieMD wrote: »

I’ve prosecuted exactly what you’re saying several times including cyclists being knocked down

It's a little bit reassuring to know that that actually happens then. Would you have any links to any media reports about them? The case's that seem to attract the most attention (understandably I think) are the cases where someone appears to get away with excuses like they were blinded by the sun or the cyclist came out of nowhere etc.

Duckjob

jjpep wrote: »

If the phrase then 'the driver lost control' is so contentious why is the oft used phrase in reporting 'the cyclist collided with the car' considered acceptable?

Yeah that would be my issue also, not so much the language used, but the one-sidedness of it.

As noted, they seem to go to the ends of the earth not to say anything that could imply blame on the part of the driver. At the same time, many times i've read phrases like "The cyclist, who was not wearing hi-vis when the collision occurred.." used. Why is it acceptable to cast aspersions on the victim in that way?

RobbieMD

Lumen wrote: »

Interesting. These are under-reported.

They’re mostly district court level. Sure a judge could have 50 cases before him/her and only the interesting contested ones generally are reported on. The guilty pleas are facts only whereas the contested cases have a full examination of the evidence and tend to have the journalists attention

Large bottle small glass

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm failing to understand your point. there's no argument that the driver has lost control of the car if the car is travelling on its roof. whether this has happened through driver error or equipment failure - the driver has lost control of the car. it is travelling in a way that the driver can no longer control.

you are assuming that saying 'the driver lost control of the car' implies blame. it does not.

else you are arguing that the driver did *not* lose control of the car.

I'm arguing a reasonable person could infer that the driver was at fault from reading that phrase.

The car went out of control and doesn't prejudice driver

The driver is entitled to due process and not loose language which is not precise.

So for the 3rd time you'd be ok with that phrase being used where your loved one was driving?

Chips Lovell

It's worth noting that a lot of media reports lift language directly from Garda press releases about incidents, presumably the logic being that staying as close to official statements as possible lowers the risk of prejudicing any prosecution. The phrase "lost control of their car" is frequently used in Garda releases.

Hurrache

Large bottle small glass wrote: »

The driver is entitled to due process and not loose language which is not precise.

But this is the thing, it's an absolute, it's completely precise. Only you are claiming that they are not being offered due process.

And I'm choosing to ignore your attempt at being emotive as it's irrelevant. I answered the first part of your two part question at first asking.

amcalester

It's mad, the car ended up on its side across 2 lanes of traffic having hit a tree and 2 children and people are arguing that newspapers can't print that the driver lost control of the car.

magicbastarder

Large bottle small glass wrote: »

So for the 3rd time you'd be ok with that phrase being used where your loved one was driving?

yes, i would.

Hurrache

amcalester wrote: »

It's mad, the car ended up on its side across 2 lanes of traffic having hit a tree and 2 children and people are arguing that newspapers can't print that the driver lost control of the car.

Lumen

RobbieMD wrote: »

They’re mostly district court level. Sure a judge could have 50 cases before him/her and only the interesting contested ones generally are reported on. The guilty pleas are facts only whereas the contested cases have a full examination of the evidence and tend to have the journalists attention

Ah, OK. So because the defendant pleads guilty (which they'd presumably have to or else it'd be in the Circuit Court), there's isn't enough coming out in court to form interesting reportage unless the journalist interviews the victims, and maybe then they wouldn't be able to report those details as they wouldn't be facts established or evidence presented in court. Is that right?

But surely any death by dangerous driving offences have to be taken to the Circuit Court or else it would be impossible to get more than a year in jail?

magicbastarder

Large bottle small glass wrote: »

So for the 3rd time you'd be ok with that phrase being used where your loved one was driving?

also, it's not a journalist's job to avoid hurting people's feelings.
if my father murdered my mother, i'd prefer not have to open a newspaper and read about it, but that does not mean i think murders should not be reported.

RobbieMD

Lumen wrote: »

Ah, OK. So because the defendant pleads guilty (which they'd presumably have to or else it'd be in the Circuit Court), there's isn't enough coming out in court to form interesting reportage unless the journalist interviews the victims, and maybe then they wouldn't be able to report those details as they wouldn't be facts established or evidence presented in court. Is that right?

But surely any death by dangerous driving offences have to be taken to the Circuit Court or else it would be impossible to get more than a year in jail?

The vast majority of road traffic prosecutions are in the district court, some are trial on indictment in the circuit but as you say it’s for the higher end of the scale.
Just because you plead not guilty in a district court though doesn’t mean you’ll go to the circuit. More than likely it’ll be a hearing of all the prosecution evidence just before a judge and not a judge and jury.
If you plead guilty in the district court, only the facts necessary to support the charge/summons are given by the prosecution. This tends to be fairly generic and doesn’t grab the court reporters attention. If you plead guilty then the victim/witnesses aren’t even required to attend court as the evidence is entered by the prosecution on their behalf.