In aus.bicycle on Fri, 09 May 2008 04:10:53 GMT
TimC <tconnors@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On 2008-05-09, Zebee Johnstone (aka Bruce)
> was almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea:
>> Unless the ones at the head of the pack were really not looking where
>> they were going, and so had some 15-20 seconds of inattention. Which
>> is presumably what the defence will say - that the head-down bum-up
>> riders were only looking at the bit of tarmac in front of them.
>
> Which is pretty damn ****ing easy to prove against. Now, i tmight not
> be obvious to 'bent riders, but head down bum up doesn't mean eyes
> aren't on the road.
Of course it doesn't. But the job of the defence is to raise doubt.
>
> If the leaders of a pack ever had 5 seconds of innattentiveness in the
> city, packs would be going down all over the country every couple of
> hours. When they call for expert evidence, they will call for
> professional cyclists. Who will attest exactly that.
We can hope the prosecution does that, and that the defence is not
skilled enough to raise doubt.
Such as "The road area in question is very wide isn't it? And 3
lanes. Was there much traffic going in the same direction? There
aren't any side roads are there? Do leaders in pack sometimes lose a
bit of concentration in such conditions? Oh come on, they are only
human! "
They have to convince non-cyclists, not cyclists. And they don't even
have to convince them, just have to raise reasonable doubt. Just have
to make people think "well.. maybe it is possible, what he said".
Hence needing someone not involved to say "this is what I saw".
Preferably someone who can testify to what seems to be the two
im****tant things - the behaviour of the car before the driver pulled
over, and the length of time he was stopped before the pack hit.
Zebee
|
