Porsche driver arrested after cyclist killed in head-on crash in Solihull

DaSy wrote:

Why did we need to know he was driving a Porsche I wonder?

Tells you something about the car, it's handling, visibility and braking ability

hirsute wrote:

DaSy wrote:

Why did we need to know he was driving a Porsche I wonder?

Tells you something about the car, it's handling, visibility and braking ability

Whilst not technically incorrect, it creates a narrative in the reader's mind and a subconscious association with excessive speed being a factor in the incident. This may or may not be true but it is a similar use of language that we get vexed about in news stories which state a cyclist or pedestrian was in collision with a vehicle and there seems to be a suggestion of blame on the victim before the facts are known.

Mungecrundle wrote:

hirsute wrote:

DaSy wrote:

Why did we need to know he was driving a Porsche I wonder?

Tells you something about the car, it's handling, visibility and braking ability

Whilst not technically incorrect, it creates a narrative in the reader's mind and a subconscious association with excessive speed being a factor in the incident. This may or may not be true but it is a similar use of language that we get vexed about in news stories which state a cyclist or pedestrian was in collision with a vehicle and there seems to be a suggestion of blame on the victim before the facts are known.

Exactly, a headline of 'Colnago Rider in Collision with Pedestrian' would make about as much sense. It is playing on preconceptions and stereotypes, the like of which we get up-in-arms about when they are aimed at us.

Mungecrundle wrote:

hirsute wrote:

DaSy wrote:

Why did we need to know he was driving a Porsche I wonder?

Tells you something about the car, it's handling, visibility and braking ability

Whilst not technically incorrect, it creates a narrative in the reader's mind and a subconscious association with excessive speed being a factor in the incident. This may or may not be true but it is a similar use of language that we get vexed about in news stories which state a cyclist or pedestrian was in collision with a vehicle and there seems to be a suggestion of blame on the victim before the facts are known.

But people driving powerful motors, ones that encourage the user to 'give it the beans' are more likely to be involved in a crash, pretty much all crashes have an element of speed involved, despite the enhanced braking, wider tyres, more driving tech, these higher end cars are ending up in the ditch, lampost magnets etc. ergo excessive speed IS involved, even more so than your average motor, as a rate, not outright numbers of course.

So it's not as if there aren't some hard facts to suggest more powerful motors are driven in a certain manner that will end up in a collision.

here's the top 10 of most accident damaged vehicles in the UK as of 2016

Jaguar XKR (2006-2014)
Jaguar XK (2006-2014)
Volkswagen Golf (2003-2008)
Nissan 350 Z (2002-2009)
Renault Megane (2002-2009)
Jaguar XJ (2003-2009)
Subaru Impreza (2000-2007)
BMW M3 Coupe (2000-2006)

On the other hand people on bikes and foot are limited (usually) by their physical attributes, even despite some people being able to hit 30mph on a high street for a few seconds (by velocipede) and of course down hills well exceeding that, even despite more than a few berks riding bikes the chances of one riding a performance bike at speed and killing someone is massively less than a pedestrian being at fault for their own deaths through their own mistake when that collision involves a cyclist.

The phenomenom of a powerful machine and/or one that can attain speed readily (acceleration) and has a higher chance of crashing/harming people is absolutely confined to motorvehicles.

The 'narrative' is actually bang on the money.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

So it's not as if there aren't some hard facts to suggest more powerful motors are driven in a certain manner that will end up in a collision.

here's the top 10 of most accident damaged vehicles in the UK as of 2016

Jaguar XKR (2006-2014)
Jaguar XK (2006-2014)
Volkswagen Golf (2003-2008)
Nissan 350 Z (2002-2009)
Renault Megane (2002-2009)
Jaguar XJ (2003-2009)
Subaru Impreza (2000-2007)
BMW M3 Coupe (2000-2006)

On the other hand people on bikes and foot are limited (usually) by their physical attributes, even despite some

The 'narrative' is actually bang on the money.

Your list of the top ten - beside missing the Ford Fiesta and Maxda MX5 - shows that family cars are just as likely to be in an accident, but you are unlikely to see “Ford Fiesta Driver Kills Cyclist”, it's far more likely to just say car driver. In the same way that it would just be Van Driver rather than Ford Transit Connect Driver, or Lorry Driver rather Scania Driver. 

Also your list that you use to prove your point that the headline stating Porsche Driver is valid, doesn't contain a Porsche, so quite how you arrive at the conclusion that the narrative is 'bang on the money' I'm not sure, as your own data proves it is not.

DaSy wrote:

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

So it's not as if there aren't some hard facts to suggest more powerful motors are driven in a certain manner that will end up in a collision.

here's the top 10 of most accident damaged vehicles in the UK as of 2016

Jaguar XKR (2006-2014)
Jaguar XK (2006-2014)
Volkswagen Golf (2003-2008)
Nissan 350 Z (2002-2009)
Renault Megane (2002-2009)
Jaguar XJ (2003-2009)
Subaru Impreza (2000-2007)
BMW M3 Coupe (2000-2006)

On the other hand people on bikes and foot are limited (usually) by their physical attributes, even despite some

The 'narrative' is actually bang on the money.

Your list of the top ten - beside missing the Ford Fiesta and Maxda MX5 - shows that family cars are just as likely to be in an accident, but you are unlikely to see “Ford Fiesta Driver Kills Cyclist”, it's far more likely to just say car driver. In the same way that it would just be Van Driver rather than Ford Transit Connect Driver, or Lorry Driver rather Scania Driver. 

Also your list that you use to prove your point that the headline stating Porsche Driver is valid, doesn't contain a Porsche, so quite how you arrive at the conclusion that the narrative is 'bang on the money' I'm not sure, as your own data proves it is not.

No it doesn't, of the top 10, 7 are outright sports models or models with well over 200bhp, so that's not 'just as likely' is it? I would like to see the model variants of the Mrgane and Golf , the latter was touted as a 'Hot' hatch in the GTI variant and even the diesel GT versions have silly amounts of power and torque so you can act like a hooligan!

But even without that, as I said, 7 out of 10 ARE not family models in the accepted sense sp your statement isn't accurate.

Double post.

Double post

Double post.

Double post.

DaSy wrote:

Why did we need to know he was driving a Porsche I wonder?

Stupid question! Might as well ask why we need to know it was lunchtime!

Griff500 wrote:

DaSy wrote:

Why did we need to know he was driving a Porsche I wonder?

Stupid question! Might as well ask why we need to know it was lunchtime!

“There are naive questions, tedious questions, ill-phrased questions, questions put after inadequate self-criticism. But every question is a cry to understand the world. There is no such thing as a stupid question.”

DaSy wrote:

Why did we need to know he was driving a Porsche I wonder?

Basic journalism to avoid dull repetition. Just like a story about burgled 'houses' will refer to a 'four bed detached' or a '1930s bugalow'.

With the word 'driver' and any description of him unavailable, journalists need synonyms.

Malaconotus wrote:

DaSy wrote:

Why did we need to know he was driving a Porsche I wonder?

 

Basic journalism to avoid dull repetition. Just like a story about burgled 'houses' will refer to a 'four bed detached' or a '1930s bugalow'.

With the word 'driver' and any description of him unavailable, journalists need synonyms.

But a simple search of this site for 'car driver' shows that nearly every time they refer to a close pass etc, it is just the generic car driver, with the odd exception for Audi driver and now Porsche driver. It just seems like a lazy way to make us draw a conclusion as to the drivers behaviour, without any knowledge of that behaviour as yet. 

I cycle more miles than I drive and am a Bikeability instructor, cycle tour guide and bike mechanic, so I am firmly in the cyclist camp, but do object to furthering the factionalising of motorist and cyclists by making these sort of headlines.

BehindTheBikesheds wrote:

Surprised the police have acted this way, surely if driving a powerful motor anything you smash into at speed is unavoidable? This trope has been reeled out recently by police when describing motorist Chris Harris and an unsuspecting pick up driver. Police absolved Harris despite caning it around a blind bend, police said speed was not a factor! https://forum.cyclinguk.org/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=126484&hilit=sleb

It'll get downgraded to careless, if his brief is good he'll say he momentarily blacked out, that's always a good one to get you off the higher charge, and judges are excellent at throwing in the 'moments inattention' bullshit.

Despite the odds, it still makes you think, that could be me, doing absolutely nothing other than a nice ride out or just going home from work, shops, friends etc and whammo, your life snuffed out or life changing injuries. And what happens, plod, CPS, judges, joe public and the government basically piss all over your grave, again and again and again!

I looked at the Chris Harris story, where he crashed a Porsche into the side of a truck just around a blind bend, and couldn't quite believe what the police said, that speed wasn't a factor.  Anyone who drives around a blind bend, with warning chevrons, so fast that they can't stop is clearly going too fast, so now we know; dangerous driving is not only accepted, it is condoned by the police.  It could so easily have been a cyclist that he hit, not a truck.  Since he was working for the BBC at the time, they should have done a risk assessment, and a proper one would have prevented this collision.

If the police are excusing what is clearly dangerous driving, and employers are not following H&S rules, I'm really scared now.

brooksby wrote:

I'm trying to see how a death caused by a head on collision might not be a result of dangerous driving.... Nope: sorry.

Not sure why you're chipping in right now with no details about the incident. 

If you drove down to the shops now and someone was on wrong side of the road and you were involved in a "head on collision", where does that put you? 

People are routinely arrested following serious incidents, it doesn't mean they're definitely at fault. 

Zee wrote:

brooksby wrote:

I'm trying to see how a death caused by a head on collision might not be a result of dangerous driving.... Nope: sorry.

 

Not sure why you're chipping in right now with no details about the incident. 

If you drove down to the shops now and someone was on wrong side of the road and you were involved in a "head on collision", where does that put you? 

People are routinely arrested following serious incidents, it doesn't mean they're definitely at fault. 

 

Well said, although the fact the driver has been arrested might be a pointer. Whoever was at fault, this is two lives fcuked!

Griff500 wrote:

Zee wrote:

brooksby wrote:

I'm trying to see how a death caused by a head on collision might not be a result of dangerous driving.... Nope: sorry.

 

Not sure why you're chipping in right now with no details about the incident. 

If you drove down to the shops now and someone was on wrong side of the road and you were involved in a "head on collision", where does that put you? 

People are routinely arrested following serious incidents, it doesn't mean they're definitely at fault. 

 

Well said, although the fact the driver has been arrested might be a pointer. Whoever was at fault, this is two lives fcuked!

You might recall the bloke on an electric bike in London who supposedly ran a red light and killed a pedestrian. He was arrested too.
The video footage showed a rather different story.

Zee wrote:

brooksby wrote:

I'm trying to see how a death caused by a head on collision might not be a result of dangerous driving.... Nope: sorry.

 

Not sure why you're chipping in right now with no details about the incident. 

If you drove down to the shops now and someone was on wrong side of the road and you were involved in a "head on collision", where does that put you? 

People are routinely arrested following serious incidents, it doesn't mean they're definitely at fault. 

 

If I was driving down to the shops at lunchtime on a Saturday, I'd hope I wouldn't be driving so fast I couldn't either avoid or failing that stop if someone was riding toward me on the wrong side of the road...

Housecathst wrote:

I bet the thought of 6pts and a £100 fine will ruin the drivers Christmas. 

RIP cyclist. 

I will hold back on my condemnation until I know which side of the road the head on collision ocurred. Only then will I condemn the muppet responsible

EK Spinner wrote:

Housecathst wrote:

I bet the thought of 6pts and a £100 fine will ruin the drivers Christmas. 

RIP cyclist. 

 

I will hold back on my condemnation until I know which side of the road the head on collision ocurred. Only then will I condemn the muppet responsible

Unfortunately by the looks of the damage to the hedge and road sign, it looks like the driver lost control and crossed over to the wrong side and possibly into the path of the cyclist... it would be hard to be the other way around.  What makes this horrifying is we only passed  through there a couple of hours earlier on our bikes.. its a narrow but often fast chicane and on Saturday had lots of standing water due to the torrential rain overnight. Awful