Re: 'Filtering' Accident
Posted: Tue May 10, 2016 8:56 am
It is blaming the rider.
To pick on you, but only so as to avoid calling out other posters:
and even in the above:
Well, whilst that might be good advice for future bikeists, that's still blaming the victim.
I'm fairly sure I know what the intent is here, and that it isn't that. It's that this 'accident' was avoidable, and lessons can be learnt from it, which they probably can. But whilst the rider would undoubtedly benefit from that, there is no requirement or duty of care or any kind of onus on them to be that expert. Not being that highly insightful person doesn't automatically increase blame/responsibility/whatever when someone else wrongs you.
Some things that bear relation, but are not the same as one another:
- avoidability of an outcome
- intent
- test of reasonableness (e.g. man on Clapham omnibus)
- duty of care
- legality
- criminal settlement
- civil/insurance settlement
If we should allow ourselves even the notion of 'inexpert = to blame', then presumably the inverse of that will be held to be true too, and that will be interesting, won't it?
To pick on you, but only so as to avoid calling out other posters:
situation partially created by the rider who then failed to continue to control the situation ... the biker has to take some responsibility for what happened
and even in the above:
She could have been more assertive and moved her bike in front of the car, she could have accelerated faster once the lights were green to outpace him, she could have moved in several other ways - instead she chose a passive route which was perhaps not the best choice in hindsight ... not recognising their own lack of foresight
Well, whilst that might be good advice for future bikeists, that's still blaming the victim.
I'm fairly sure I know what the intent is here, and that it isn't that. It's that this 'accident' was avoidable, and lessons can be learnt from it, which they probably can. But whilst the rider would undoubtedly benefit from that, there is no requirement or duty of care or any kind of onus on them to be that expert. Not being that highly insightful person doesn't automatically increase blame/responsibility/whatever when someone else wrongs you.
Some things that bear relation, but are not the same as one another:
- avoidability of an outcome
- intent
- test of reasonableness (e.g. man on Clapham omnibus)
- duty of care
- legality
- criminal settlement
- civil/insurance settlement
If we should allow ourselves even the notion of 'inexpert = to blame', then presumably the inverse of that will be held to be true too, and that will be interesting, won't it?