Colin Rosenstiel wrote:
In article ,
(tim \(in sweden\)) wrote:
The problem with what you are saying is that you are
using it to claim that the vehicle is unfit to be on the road.
IMHO this is ridiculous, using this measure t to decide that
the driver is culpable is one thing, using it to decide that the
designer of the vehicle (or the licensing authority) is also
culpable is quite another.
The drivers involved (AIUI) and you are claiming the couldn't see
the cyclists, as well as that they didn't see them. "Couldn't"
implies a system failure. A vehicle that is inherently dangerous to
other road users should not be on the roads.
Unless you have the transcript of an inquest or court proceedings, it's
pointless continuing this discussion on the basis of a 5-word quote from
the driver. The fact that the driver "couldn't see the cyclist" might
be because:
- he didn't look very carefully
- he looked after he started to turn
- the cyclist was difficult to see (e.g. no lights at night)
- the mirror was dirty
- the mirror was badly adjusted
To deduce, despite all these alternative possibilities, that the vehicle
is inherently dangerous is false logic. Since the driver should have
checked his mirror *before* starting to turn, he should have had a clear
view down the side of the vehicle. Where is the "inherent" danger in
the vehicle design?
--
Richard J.
(to e-mail me, swap uk and yon in address)