Decisions, decisions. Which bogeyman should get the blame here?

**Ixion** · 28th April 2006, 17:27

From the Harold

..
Text message blamed for road accident

28.04.06 1.00pm

A message on a driver's cellphone has been blamed for an accident which left a 76-year-old woman with punctured lungs and a smashed pelvis on a pedestrian crossing after his van skidded into her.

Masterton farm worker Benjamin Riddiford's cellphone, which was lying on the passenger's seat as he drove along Chapel Street, beeped a message as he was driving, a court heard yesterday.

Riddiford, 18, was convicted by Judge Tom Broadmore of careless driving causing injury and fined $1000 and disqualified for six months. Half the fine was to be paid to the victim.

Police prosecutor Sergeant Garry Wilson said that about 8am on Sunday, January 15, this year, Riddiford was driving north on Chapel Street in his Mitsubishi van. As he approached the pedestrian crossing at the intersection Chapel and Jackson streets, his cellphone beeped on the passenger's seat.

He said the defendant looked over at the phone and when he looked back at the road, he saw an elderly woman on the crossing.

He braked heavily, which caused the wheels to lock and skid, but could not avoid the victim, who was struck with the left front of the van, sustaining multiple injuries.

So, the text message was to blame for this nasty accident. Convincing evidence of how wicked they are. We need a new law.

Am I the only one who see's something wrong with this?

Here was Mr Riddiford driving along, his phone beeped, and he glanced over at it. When he looked back (presumably only a second later), lo and behold, a pedestrian had appeared out a space warp in front of him. And he could not help hitting her.

Now it is possible that Mr Riddiford is lying ,and that he did not merely glance over at the phone on the seat. That he was actually texting. But I think the police would have followed that idea up fairly hard and his tale does have the ring of truth to it.

So, the text message was to blame for the crash. See, like every one says, cell phones should be banned in vehicles (not enough to ban USING them , cos he wasn't)

Um , and , uh, of course, it's nothing to do with the fact that he was not keeping a proper lookout BEFORE the messgae beep? Cos old ladies don't usually make an Olympic sprint from out-of-sight to the crossing . One can usually see them tottering up to it well before they get there.

And, nothing to do with the fact that he was , manifestly, goiing too fast. What's the speed on approaching a pedestrian crossing?

Or with the fact that he coudn't drive for shit ." He braked heavily, which caused the wheels to lock and skid, but could not avoid the victim". So how fast was he going , then? And did no-one teach him that locked wheels are not a good way to stop.

Nor the fact that , careless as he may have been, the old duck was foolish to step out in front of a speeding car that was showing no signs of stopping. Pedestrians do have responsibilitiues too.

So, I wonder how this gets entered into the statistics Chalk it up to the new bogeyman on the block, using a cellphone? Or to the good old bogeyman, "excessive speed"? Gotta keep it simple . That's the trouble with real life, it's never as simple as it sounds.

And , extrapolating from that, how much reliance may we place in the "speed is a factor in xxx% of accidents" .

**Qkkid** · 28th April 2006, 17:44

kinda sucks. Old lady hurt and young fella probably hasnt learnt his lesson

**Hitcher** · 28th April 2006, 17:51

Sigh. Mr Riddiford offered the text message defence as a mitigating factor. An excuse, if you will. The judge was unmoved by this and convicted him of the crime he was charged with: hitting and injuring a pedestrian on a marked crossing, not reading a text message while driving.

**madboy** · 28th April 2006, 17:51

The only thing I am confident of in this case is that there will be three sides to the story.

His side
Her side
The truth

And none of those three sides will necessarily bear any resemblance to that news article quoted.

**Ixion** · 28th April 2006, 18:01

Originally Posted by Hitcher

Sigh. Mr Riddiford offered the text message defence as a mitigating factor. An excuse, if you will. The judge was unmoved by this and convicted him of the crime he was charged with: hitting and injuring a pedestrian on a marked crossing, not reading a text message while driving.

He was charged with careless driving, and thus convicted. There is no law specifically aginst hitting and injuring a pedestrian on a marked crossing. (Though such is certainly illegal) .

But the Harold has seen fit to assign blame to the text message. The bit I highlighted.

In the court of public opinion both Mr Riddiford and text messages ahve been convicted.

**Hitcher** · 28th April 2006, 18:05

Sigh. Too tired to explain the obvious. Friday evening. Sense of humour nearly run dry.

**Motu** · 28th April 2006, 18:11

I've noticed the last few years that pedsetrians are more pushy on their right to be on the crossing.Used to be you waited until the cars cleared a bit,then stepped out when someone stopped,or you gave suficient space for the car to stop in time.Now they will just step out forcing you to stop.I hate that when there are no cars behind me.Girls usualy.

So he glanced at his phone,he could of been looking in his mirror,down a side street,one of the countless things we do in control of a car.Similar to my other thread - there is possibly blame on both sides,one side may be totaly innocent....but the law will only find one party at fault.

**Winston001** · 28th April 2006, 19:37

Ixion - that's just a media beatup. Journalists need a hook for each story to make it interesting. This leads to appalling reporting at times because a bias/slant is required in order to bring the "interesting" element to the top.

I hates it I hates it I hates it.

**Ixion** · 28th April 2006, 20:41

Yes, I realise that. What I was getting at, is that such "beat ups" become the (unwarrented) expression of "public opinion"

The press publish a story "Sweet old lady horribly injured by motorist - text message to blame". Stan and Ethel and Krystal and all the rest of take their news and opinions in sound bites go "Ohh how horrible - text message to blame. Ohh another horrible accident caused by drivers using cell phones". Syd and Mabel (or was it Stan and Ethel? they're all interchangeable ) and Kylie then go off quite certain that there is incontrovertable evidence of cell phones causing accidents. Rinse , lather, repeat.

Then some politician looking for a barrow to push commssions a public survey

"Do you think cell phones cause accidents ?" - Oooohh yes, says Mabel, I remember one just the other day, poor old lady hurt

"Do you think there should be a new law to ban them"? Oh yes says Syd. (Bit hard to say no, given his previous answer - or was that Ethel's - oh well, they're all interchangeable)

And , poof, out of his magic bag the poiltician pulls yet more restrictions.

Now, maybe cell phones when driving ARE dangerous. Maybe not. What IS certain is that such media beatups make it much harder to establish an objective assessment.

You don't care, cos you ride a bike, and can't use a cellphone so they should be banned? Fairy muff. But what if the next press beat up is "Those noisy motorcycles" ? Complete with stories of how they caused a poor young mother to miscarry? And lots of stuff about how grief stricken she is. Tough new laws about exhausts required, eh?

Which is partly why the vaunted freedom of the press is a crock of shit, because 9 times out of 10 it is but freedom to mislead. And illustrates that the fourth estate is as corrupt as the other three.

Nationalise the lot of them!

**bobsmith** · 29th April 2006, 00:03

Ixion has a point... Next story might be a motorist who looked away at an intersaction to marvel at a noisy bike behind him and ended up hitting a pedestrian. Is the bike to blame? (To be honest, I must confess that I occationally lose my attention while driving, looking at bikes on/off road).

Freedom of press is indeed a crock of shit, however supression of press would be a crime... Bloody problem with having complete idiots and scum sucking bastards with no intelligence or morals write the stories. (oh and having worse idiots run the country and bloody idiotic majority of population believing in this two groups of scum sucking bastards, if you follow)

**scumdog** · 29th April 2006, 04:50

His 'glance' may have included reading a lengthy txt message...

**dawnrazor** · 29th April 2006, 08:03

all drivers hands should be clamped to the wheel at all times, all entertainments should be removed and the windows left open at all times, that might focus them on the road rather then picking lint from their arseholes.

**Lou Girardin** · 29th April 2006, 10:19

In days past, people were perceptive enough to read between the lines. Now, in the age of the sound bite, stuff like this forms public opinion. You see it time and again, a prime example being the boy racer laws.
Having said that, I too want cellphone use in cars banned, I've seen too much stupid driving while they're being used.

**Pixie** · 29th April 2006, 11:21

Originally Posted by Hitcher

Sigh. Too tired to explain the obvious. Friday evening. Sense of humour nearly run dry.

I'll do it for you.
He gave a feeble excuse and was rightly convicted of careless driving

**Lou Girardin** · 29th April 2006, 11:53

Originally Posted by madboy

The only thing I am confident of in this case is that there will be three sides to the story.

His side
Her side
The truth

And none of those three sides will necessarily bear any resemblance to that news article quoted.

What's her side? "I was on the crossing and was hit by a car"?