ABC Online reported today:
A man charged with causing the death of a cyclist on Hobart's Eastern Shore last year told police the rider seemed to wobble as his vehicle approached her.
So I see the "Blame the Victim" defence is back in style this season. (Then again, did it ever go away?)
In his police interview played in court, 64-year-old Alderton said he'd just been driving normally at the time and that Ms Tamayo had seemed to wobble.
He said he hadn't slowed down to pass her and when asked why he he didn't give Ms Tamayo more room, Alderton said he thought he was alright and that he always just drives straight.
Yeah, he drove straight—and at some speed, by the sound of it:
Witnesses told the Hobart Magistrates Court they saw Ms Tamayo's bicycle wedged behind the bumper of Alderton's vehicle.
What the hell? How hard did he hit her?
Clearly he didn't allow enough room and he was not "alright". There is absolutely nothing "alright" about this.
I didn't know Kate Tamayo but it's obvious that she was not some nervous wobbler: she was an experienced cyclist and a long time advocate for cycling in Tasmania. She may have swerved to avoid a hazard on the road but it's unlikely that she "wobbled" at random.
Regardless the driver was too damn close. Like any other vehicle, a bicycle is entitled to the whole lane. There is absolutely no excuse for trying to squeeze past a cyclist in the same lane. And it's all the more lamentable that there are two lanes in each direction on the East Derwent Highway where this collision occurred.
Isn't it possible that Kate Tamayo died because Edward Alderton was too bloody lazy to slow down, change lanes and overtake safely?
Every cyclist's nightmare. He was doing about 80km/h at the time of the impact. He saw her, but still managed to drive staight into her on a lightly-trafficked straight clear stretch of road. Astonishing.
She may have wobbled, it's hard to know what one cyclist did in one instant regardless of what they normally do, but the point is he should have allowed her more room.
There was two days of evidence and this was just part of it - much of the rest was very unfavourable to the driver. The magistrate is still yet to make a decision on this one, just because he raises the argument doesn't mean it will be accepted.
It really is speculation about the driver's physical capabilities but I see Chris's point entirely. I don't think it's ever likely to happen but if our society were ever to become mature enough to accept repeat license testing, it should be applied across the board and not only to older drivers.
And the way Dave puts it, it's all the more incomprehensible that this should happen.
It would be remarkable if the magistrate accepted such a pathetic and inadequate explanation.
Comments
Blame the victim never went out of style, it's just that nobody seeks to blame anyone until someone is actually killed. That is a shame because taking pre-emptive action might just prevent it from happening. Somehow I get the feeling (note, it's just a feeling, I don't have any proof), that failing eye-sight and a driver who hasn't been tested in 20 years may have been a tragic combination of factors in this case. It's certainly been a factor in other deaths in the past. It's just a shame that there aren't enough votes in road safety to start re-testing people and solve a lot of these problems.