View previous topic | View next topic

Sentencing and its worth.

Page 3 of 14
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 12, 13, 14  Next

dr.bob
1325430.  Thu Jun 27, 2019 10:11 am Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
2) "who were crossing the road despite the traffic signals showing green for cars and bicycles"
This would suggest that the traffic was stationary at the time although the light was green - I can't think of another reason why a group of people would all step out in front of moving traffic.


Another explanation might be that there was no traffic on the road at that time, so people started to cross. Then the cyclist arrived, but people continued to cross since they weren't as scared of a single cyclist as an oncoming vehicle.

That's speculation, of course, and your scenario of stationary traffic would also explain the incident. Those are the only two situations I can think of, though it'd be interesting to hear if anyone else has another idea.

barbados wrote:
This is not so, a green light does not permit any vehicle to run over a pedestrian, and the understanding is that a green light means nothing more than proceed with caution rather than go, this is worded with a little more finesse in the highway code, where a green light permits you to go on if the way is clear. Taking special care if you intend to turn left or right and give way to pedestrians who are crossing.


This is a good point, though it does rather beg the question of why the judge found partially against the pedestrian. Maybe there's something else about this that we don't know.

 
barbados
1325431.  Thu Jun 27, 2019 11:23 am Reply with quote

Quote:
Another explanation might be that there was no traffic on the road at that time, so people started to cross. Then the cyclist arrived, but people continued to cross since they weren't as scared of a single cyclist as an oncoming vehicle.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that if the location of "Central" London is correct, I would offer my house in return of a £1 stake that isn't the case.
It's a bit of an appeal for authority argument, but....... Having spent a number of years driving public transport through day and night I can say with all sincerity I have never experienced that particular scenario. bearing in mind I stopped doing that some 20 odd years ago, and since Mr Khan has become mayor congestion has become more prevalent it is at the very most highly unlikely.

 
suze
1325437.  Thu Jun 27, 2019 11:47 am Reply with quote

According to Cycling Weekly, the incident took place on King William Street, which is in the City.

Now, the City is the one part of Central London which can be eerily quiet on weekends. But this incident took place at 5 pm on a working Monday - and at 5 pm on a working Monday, the City is really quite busy.

So I shall agree with barbados, and not take that wager.

 
PDR
1325469.  Thu Jun 27, 2019 11:32 pm Reply with quote

dr.bob wrote:

Now your impressive doublethink has me deeply confused. First you say that the only "Facts" in this case are that someone sued, a judge gave a judgement in which she awarded some damages, and the judge made two vague statements. Now you seem to be saying that the other details in the article, about the traffic signals, the horn, and the collision were "in all the coverage of the case to date."

Are they facts or not? Either they are, and your first statement was pointless nonsense. Or they're not, in which case why were they in all the coverage of the case to date?


The question Tets asked (as I understood it, and he has not said otherwise) was around why the judge had found in favour of the pedestrian rather than the cyclist. The only facts we know about her reasons for her decision are the two things she actually said:

PDR wrote:
The only "Facts" in this case are that someone sued, a judge gave a judgement in which she awarded some damages, and the judge made two vague statements which provided little clarity on her reasons.


She may have have based her decision on many of the features of the events, including (but not limited to) those reported in the press.

Quote:

So all the details in the article, about the state of the traffic signals, the sounding of the horn, the circumstances of the collision, are these all speculative commentary from journalists?


These reports are certainly "facts", but to say that they were included in the reasons for her decision is a speculation. We may think it is logical to assume they are, and we may have confidence in believing that, but we cannot know because the judge hasn't actually said so. Thus to say that these facts were included in the reasons is not a factual statement.

In logic terms this would be one of those cases where we can prove A and B are both true, but we cannot prove A implies B. That's why I was careful to phrase the parts of my answer which suggested that A implied B as "the speculation".

Thus this was not "doublethink", but merely taking pains to segregate what is know from what is believed. Apologies if this was not immediately clear.

PDR

 
barbados
1325471.  Fri Jun 28, 2019 1:09 am Reply with quote

dr.bob wrote:

Now your impressive doublethink has me deeply confused. First you say that the only "Facts" in this case are that someone sued, a judge gave a judgement in which she awarded some damages, and the judge made two vague statements. Now you seem to be saying that the other details in the article, about the traffic signals, the horn, and the collision were "in all the coverage of the case to date."

Are they facts or not? Either they are, and your first statement was pointless nonsense. Or they're not, in which case why were they in all the coverage of the case to date?

The first statement is one of verifiable fact, when a judge makes a statement in court it is recorded verbatim. So all we need to do is check the court records. The second statement however, the details in the article, is not so cut and dried. That is because it was reported from witness statements of an event 4 years ago. It is said you could ask 100 people to witness an event, then describe what happened straight after, and you would receive 100 differing accounts on what happened, and those differences would include material information such as the height and hair colour of those involved - so how would you confirm accuracy 4 years later?

One thing I wasn’t aware of until the link from suze, was that the cyclist accelerated towards the people crossing the street. There is no reason to doubt this, as according to the report the cyclist admitted to this again in court and why would you say such a thing if you didn’t? To my mind that would border on “dangerous” riding. I wonder if those cyclists that have donated to his crowd funding were aware of this?
It would also go some way to PDR’s understanding of events regarding the racing position, while there is no confirmation that I have seen to corroborate that, it is a fairly common sensical assumption to make.

 
dr.bob
1325683.  Mon Jul 01, 2019 8:30 am Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
Quote:
Another explanation might be that there was no traffic on the road at that time, so people started to cross. Then the cyclist arrived, but people continued to cross since they weren't as scared of a single cyclist as an oncoming vehicle.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that if the location of "Central" London is correct, I would offer my house in return of a £1 stake that isn't the case.


Here's a picture of the location in question taken from the blog post of the barrister who represented the pedestrian. It seems clear he's taken it from Google Street View:



This is the location the cyclist was coming from. The accident then took place at the junction slightly to the left-of-centre of the picture, the one with the red bus facing us.

This is merely one picture of one moment in time, but you can clearly see that there is no traffic between us and the location of the accident. Since I have a £1 coin in my pocket, I think I'll take you up on your bet.

 
barbados
1325701.  Mon Jul 01, 2019 10:49 am Reply with quote

You can clearly see no traffic?
Notwithstanding the traffic that you can see in the picture, perhaps you could supply a link. perhaps there is another picture facing behind the view given, perhaps we could then see the traffic that would be queued up at the lights that appear to have recently turned green.

 
suze
1325705.  Mon Jul 01, 2019 11:46 am Reply with quote

One weakness of Google Street View is that it doesn't tell us the date and time of the image any more precisely than to the month. Google may not even have that information.

I suspect that the image shown above was taken on a Saturday or Sunday. At 5 pm on a working day there would be more pedestrians in evidence, and many of them would be wearing suits. The older couple probably wouldn't choose a working day to go out in Central London on their bikes, while the group on Boris bikes would be at work. So, probably, would be the fellow on the moped - chances are that he's a would be black cab driver studying for The Knowledge on his free time.

That makes sense, because there's no Congestion Charge on weekends, and I dare say the Google cars prefer to travel around Central London at times when they don't have to pay for it.

 
dr.bob
1325742.  Tue Jul 02, 2019 5:28 am Reply with quote

barbados wrote:
You can clearly see no traffic?


Between this junction and the site of the accident? No. Can you?

To help, I've found the google street view image and blown up the relevant section of road so you can see if there's any traffic there. Here it is:



This image also shows that, although the lights at the junction the Google Street View car is at are on green, people are crossing from the traffic island, just as described in the incident.

barbados wrote:
Notwithstanding the traffic that you can see in the picture


The only traffic I can see in the picture is on other parts of the road. That would have absolutely zero bearing on what I said in post 1325430, which is what you objected to in post 1325431. Please don't say you're going to point to completely irrelevant traffic in the image and say "I told you I was right!" That would be exceptionally tedious trolling, even by your standards.

barbados wrote:
perhaps you could supply a link.


Here you go.

barbados wrote:
perhaps there is another picture facing behind the view given, perhaps we could then see the traffic that would be queued up at the lights that appear to have recently turned green.


Indeed you can. To save you the effort, I've copied it here:



There is certainly traffic behind the view. However, the buses are clearly not moving away as fast as the bicycles. I think it's reasonable to guess that a bicycle, particularly one that was accelerating to 15mph, would reach the pedestrians crossing the road earlier than the buses.

 
dr.bob
1325744.  Tue Jul 02, 2019 5:49 am Reply with quote

suze wrote:
One weakness of Google Street View is that it doesn't tell us the date and time of the image any more precisely than to the month. Google may not even have that information.


That's true, the image was definitely taken on August 2014. Handily we can tell what time of day this image was taken. The large building opposite the junction has a clock on it which I've reproduced here:



So it was taken at 9:30. I'm going out on a limb and saying this was 9:30am since sunset time for August 1st 2014 was 20:48 and by 21:30 it was into civil twilight, so the picture would've been noticeably darker.

suze wrote:
I suspect that the image shown above was taken on a Saturday or Sunday. At 5 pm on a working day there would be more pedestrians in evidence, and many of them would be wearing suits.


That's true of 5pm. 9:30, maybe not so much. A lot of people would already be in work, so maybe this explains it. Also, looking at the link above, panning round to the traffic island to the right shows these people:



The guy is definitely wearing a suit. The women are not, but this may simply be a result of an August day in London being quite hot rather than them not being office workers. Also, notice those tiny people at the top of the picture. If we zoom in on them...



It's hard to tell because they're quite fuzzy, but I'd say a lot of them seem to be wearing suits, even though a lot seem to be in shirt sleeves. However that's consistent with a warm August London day.

To try and find some better pedestrians to draw some conclusions from, I span round and looked behind the original picture, and found these people:



Again, it seems to me there are quite a few suits in evidence. Sadly none of this detective work really proves anything conclusively. I'm sure you can find people in suits in central London even at the weekend, just as you can find tourists riding Boris Bikes during the week :-S

suze wrote:
The older couple probably wouldn't choose a working day to go out in Central London on their bikes


Much like you, I thought they were an old couple. However, take a look at the link above and zoom in on them and you'll see the woman doesn't have white hair, instead she's wearing a white crash helmet. It's hard to tell how old she is. Also the man, whilst he definitely has white hair, is riding a Brompton folding bike with a briefcase on the front. Maybe not so much an old couple out for a ride as an older businessman riding to work on his folding bike and an unrelated woman riding alongside wearing a white helmet.

suze wrote:
That makes sense, because there's no Congestion Charge on weekends, and I dare say the Google cars prefer to travel around Central London at times when they don't have to pay for it.


That's plausible. However, given that Google will already be forking out for the cost of the car*, petrol, and the wages of the person driving it around, maybe they simply consider the £11.50 congestion charge a minor extra expense that they're happy to cover.

Sadly I think neither of us can make a truly convincing argument one way or the other.



*Presumably it's owned by them as I can't imagine a rental company would be happy with them bolting a camera to the top. So the "cost" of the car here would be maintenance costs.

 
suze
1325759.  Tue Jul 02, 2019 11:51 am Reply with quote

dr.bob wrote:
Sadly I think neither of us can make a truly convincing argument one way or the other.


Unfortunately not. I'll certainly accept that it's 9.30 am, and there are more suits and work-type shirts to be seen than one might expect on a weekend. It's a warm day and rather few are wearing shorts; again that does hint at a working day.

On the other hand, the handful of men whose fronts can be seen are not wearing ties. Have standards fallen that far in the City?

Husband assures me that when he was a young man, tielessness was absolutely unthinkable in the City. He never worked in the City, but even when he had a summer job doing data entry at an insurance company in that most rock'n'roll of towns, Potters Bar, it was made very plain to him that gentlemen were required to wear ties.

That was 30+ years ago, but even in 2019 a gentleman who teaches at my school is required to wear a tie.

 
crissdee
1325782.  Tue Jul 02, 2019 3:00 pm Reply with quote

In my experience (purely as a spectator of passing office bods, I would eat my own leg before working in an office!) many of the younger element these days choose to remove their neckwear once out of the office, and not don it until they actually enter it.

 
dr.bob
1325811.  Wed Jul 03, 2019 4:13 am Reply with quote

suze wrote:
On the other hand, the handful of men whose fronts can be seen are not wearing ties. Have standards fallen that far in the City?


Ha! Now you sound like a high court judge!

I can imagine your monocle falling into your Darjeeling when you noticed this :-D

 
Awitt
1325852.  Thu Jul 04, 2019 3:43 am Reply with quote

Barbados wrote:
Quote:
The defence suggested was that the light was green, and therefore some responsibility sat with the pedestrian in question. This is not so, a green light does not permit any vehicle to run over a pedestrian, and the understanding is that a green light means nothing more than proceed with caution rather than go, this is worded with a little more finesse in the highway code, where a green light permits you to go on if the way is clear. Taking special care if you intend to turn left or right and give way to pedestrians who are crossing.


Yet this is how the librarian I am replacing in the school was hit by a car. (have been there since February, shows how badly hurt she was)
I have since seen grainy footage shown on our news services as the driver still hasn't come forward. Apparently this driver did stop briefly, look at the librarian (ignoring her two year old crying granddaughter - others nearby had to attend to her) and then got back in her car saying 'you're ok'.

She turned out of the side street, librarian and granddaughter were crossing on a green light. I can't help but wonder if she was distracted by the phone or something else.

She's not ok -broken wrist and shattered kneecap were the initial diagnoses. A month or two into the recovery, we heard via the principal that there are also several fractures.

When crossing at lights near my home, there's a marked zebra crossing for the left turning cars at both ends. More than once I may as well have been invisible, as drivers ignore the crossing, the sign, only watching for a clear road for them to turn - and then more copy the leader.

 
dr.bob
1325856.  Thu Jul 04, 2019 4:01 am Reply with quote

Awitt wrote:
Yet this is how the librarian I am replacing in the school was hit by a car. (have been there since February, shows how badly hurt she was)
I have since seen grainy footage shown on our news services as the driver still hasn't come forward.


That's awful :(

I take it nobody was able to make a note of the licence plate.

 

Page 3 of 14
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 12, 13, 14  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group