It Was Just One Of Those Things
“I didn’t see him.”
It’s the most common excuse negligent drivers make after colliding with a cyclist. And it makes no difference whether the cyclist is wearing bright colors or "lit up like a Christmas tree"—negligent drivers will still utter these four words after hitting the cyclist. Except, of course, in the Netherlands, where the presumption of liability encourages drivers to be more careful about seeing cyclists.
In a recent case in the United Kingdom, a driver accused in the death of a cyclist offered “I didn’t see him” as her defense. “He came out of nowhere,”19 year-old Katie Hart explained.
On May 3 of 2009, Hart was driving on the A1 carriageway. A 25 mile time trial was underway that day; British Army Major Gareth Rhys-Evans was riding in the time trial, when Hart hit him from behind. Upon impact, Rhys-Evans was thrown up over and behind Hart’s car. Despite the best efforts of his fellow competitors and paramedics, Rhys-Evans died at the scene of he crash. 38 years old, Rhys-Evans left behind a wife and two young children.
Another cyclist, Clare Lee, who had been passed by Hart moments before, described what happened:
“[Hart’s car] passed so close to me that it took my breath away, about a foot away."
Lee said that her “heart sank” shortly afterward, when she arrived at the crash scene and realized that the same car that had brushed so closely by her had just hit a cyclist.
At trial, Hart had no recollection of passing Lee, and told the Crown Court that she did not see Rhys-Evans until after the impact, when she looked in her rear-view mirror and saw that she had hit a cyclist.
In the immediate aftermath, Hart was described by witnesses as “hysterical.”
“It was just one of those things,” she explained to police at the scene.
It was just one of those things.
On January 27, 2010, Hart was found guilty of causing death by dangerous driving, and will be sentenced on February 15.
My understanding of traffic law is that drivers are required to be alert and aware of road conditions and the traffic around them at all times; unless the driver's view is actually obstructed in some way, I don't see how it is possible to fulfill that obligation and yet still fail to see someone on the road right in front of you.
I've argued several times on my blog for the need to pass a comprehensive bike safety law in California (see "Change the law. Change the World." at the top of the page). And one of the most important of these reforms is to permanently ban "I just didn't see him" as a mitigating factor in any collision.
As far as I'm concerned, if a driver says he or she didn't see a cyclist or pedestrian or any other road user, for that matter it should be considered a confession, not an excuse.
It's the same mindset that drives uninformed law enforcement to try and remove lawful cyclists from road. They've mixed up cause and effect. It's not the presence of the cyclist that's the safety problem, it's the behavior of the motorists.
That these excuses were put forward as "defenses" at all was down right silly. I agree with bikinginla that "I didn't see him" should be a confession, not a defense.
While I realize there are scofflaw cyclists who think traffic laws don't apply to them, I know of too many cases where witnesses said the cyclist or pedestrian was doing everything correctly only to have an inattentive driver plow him or her over. I have 3-4 working headlights on my bike at all times, a flashing taillight and two more red reflectors on the back, reflective ankle straps, reflective tape on the jacket, backpack and helmet, etc., but I've still had cases where I could move my hand a couple of inches to feel cars or trucks as they pass by. We also have more people doing the distracted driving thing, with cellphones, smokes, food, squirrely kids in the back seat, and once I even saw a driver reading a book on his commute. Driving is a full-time job. Hang up the cellphone, put both hands on the steering wheel and drive.
Had he signaled properly this accident may never have occurred.
Why turning signals are not a requirement for all bikes, I'll never understand.
I purchased mine at safetybikesignals.com.
http://bicycling.com/blogs/roadrights/2009/10/05/t...
@richard, I'm not sure that bicycle turn signals would help much, though I could be wrong. For one, I think the novelty of it would confuse people, at least until such equipment becomes universal on bikes; John Q. Driver is more likely to initially think, "What the heck is that flashy thing on that bicycle?" than he is to think, "Gee, that bicycle is going to turn left." I think that the best solution is to use a rear view mirror, to signal a turn with the ipsilateral arm long enough for all nearby vehicles to see, and to scrutinize all adjacent vehicles before going through with a turn...if there's a vehicle that is moving at a pretty good clip and looks like he might cross your path as you turn (whether he has the right of way or not), it's usually better just to wait. Signalling a turn is done more as a courtesy to others on the road, and should not guarantee that a turn or lane change can be done safely (anyone who has ever driven/ridden in Chicago can testify to this).